Think I'll stick with pine needle tea, zinc, quercetin, melatonin, oregano oil, iodine, selenium, and vitamins C, D, and B-complex. Haven't had a cold since 2010 and am untested, unmasked, unjabbed, and unafraid.
Apr 19, 2022·edited Apr 19, 2022Liked by Jessica Rose
This is a great article! Very many important details. I did NOT know that it was so hepatotoxic.
Another interesting aspect of Paxlovid is that it was tested on UNVACCINATED people. It was not trialed on vaccinated people.
Without spamming links, I may mention that myself and Brian Mowrey wrote Substack articles that discussed one interesting aspect of Paxlovid: it seems to be more of a five-days biomolecular PAUSE button, simply pausing replication for five days.
At around day 10, numerous people (mostly vaccinated) report resurgence of the virus and reappearance of symptoms.
Brian Mowrey looked at this and also came up with a biological mechanism of how this resurgence would happen. Take a look at our posts and see discussion in comments also, especially in comments to Brian's articles.
I believe that Paxlovid is much less efficaceous than Pfizer wants us to believe, which should not surprise us too much given Pfizer's history.
Maybe the three of us can bring attention to the problems of Paxlovid, some of which you outlined but also the post-treatment resurgence, and save some lives by highlighting that Paxlovid is not as good as advertised.
Apr 19, 2022·edited Apr 19, 2022Liked by Jessica Rose
Pfizer’s PI is considerably safer than Merk’s NRTI. As a class of drugs PI’s seem to be wildly superior to NRTI’s. PI’s have made HIV manageable and yes heptotixicity is an issue when taken for a chronic condition. The risk is likely significantly diminished when taken over a 5 day course. The bigger issue is the novel PI does not have any long term safety data. And using low risk Covid patients as human Guinea pigs for this molecule is arguably unethical. Given the choice between Merk’s pill and Pfizer’s, I’m gonna take the PI every time. But given the choice between a novel PI and other established therapeutics, I’m surely taking ivm etc. Pfizer’s pill is probably a good option for high risk patients in conjunction with other therapeutics. Merk’s pill should be thrown in the garbage.
Oh and I’m not a dr, this ain’t medical advice. I’m probably just a dog typing on the internet.
Besides being hepatotoxic, in the USA it costs $800 a prescription? Not exactly cheap. As mentioned, when we have a few repurposed drugs with long safety data, why aren’t we using them? I am patiently waiting for the day these repurposed drugs are sold otc like in Mexico and India 💖💖. Federal judge over rules the cdc, fda, Biden cabal and rules against mask mandates on planes and trains. I can tell you the radical left are really po’d about this. They wanted to stay masked, lockdown and jabbed forever. I get the sense the tide is turning. Otc repurposed drugs coming soon? I hope so.
What is Paxlovid? Overpriced & Unacceptable, Jessica.
Call me old-fashioned, but when there's a time-tested, in decades, and Nobel prize-winning, effective repurposed drug (available), no fly-by-night anything, especially from Pfizer, will hold a candle, in my opinion.
There’s simultaneously a huge increase in hepatitis in children, I recently read (not sure where). Coincidence? Or side effect of giving kids a liver-injurious drug without doctor supervision? Is the dose different for kids? Have the authorities put two-and-two together here, or should they be alerted? Do they care?
Any ideas or analysis so far? It’s really concerning. They’re relating this hepatitis to adenoviruses gone rogue. Are these the same adenoviruses present in Astrazeneca, J&J, Sputnik and other vaccines?
Yahoo! Get your New and Improved Pfizer Snake Oil with a fine array of side effects that your liver will love!! Its going fast! Yahoo! Pfizer a name you can trust! Thank you Jessica
Thanks for sharing your PhD! Wonderful stuff. I think I first read about system dynamics modeling of Hiv in the popular book Infinite Power by Steven Strogatz.
'Interestingly antivirals such as AZT are also highly oxidising, causing more abnormalities in the RNA sequences/‘genome’. This explains why ‘viral load’ seems to decrease, or become non-detectable in patients treated with these drugs. The PCR primers are no longer picking up these new ‘variants’ of RNA sequences'. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-intellectual-freedom?s=w
'Finally no relationship between CD4 cell count/ ‘viral load’ and clinical outcomes has ever been shown- so either the RNA detected is not ‘HIV’ and there isn’t a viral cause of AIDS or it is ‘HIV’- but it doesn’t cause AIDS.'
AZT was introduced in 1987 and by 1990 gay men realised that it's alleged benefits are not backed up by hard data, and not sufficient to compensate for the drugs known toxicities.
Recovery from AIDS will come by strengthening the body, not by poisoning it". In fact it was its toxicities that led John Lauritsen to invent the epithet "Poison by Prescription". Clinical data show that AZT is detrimental to patients.359, 367, 370-373 This is recognised by the HIV experts and their supporters, such as the AIDSTruth Team members, who described AZT toxicities including deaths, as “bumps in the early years of treatment”.319, 374 Recovery from AIDS will come by strengthening the body, not by poisoning it".367-369 In fact it was its toxicities that led John Lauritsen to invent the epithet "Poison by Prescription". Clinical data show that AZT is detrimental to patients.359, 367, 370-373 This is recognised by the HIV experts and their supporters, such as the AIDSTruth Team members, who described AZT toxicities including deaths, as “bumps in the early years of treatment”.319, 374
The pharma line is that antivirals were helping and the death rate was lower after introduction. In fact numbers of AIDS deaths was already declining before 'therapy' introduced. The criteria for AIDS diagnosis was significantly broadened several times to include mild and moderate disease, people with a T4 cell count below 200 though clinically healthy and negative HIV test, people with symptoms eg weight loss etc in the absence of HIV testing, those with symptoms not caused by HIV or immune deficiency (KS for example). The huge increase in numbers of people listed as HIV positive would obviously bring the death rate down significantly, but also these people would not have AIDS as a cause on their death certificates.
So even if antivirals killed every single person who took them, it would still look like they had lowered the death rate
in regards to anti viral 'therapy' I quote from the Perth Group
“most HAART therapies appear to offer high levels of CD4 and viral load control” but they “were unable to demonstrate a relationship between change in CD4 cell count or viral load and clinical events”. Even if one assumes there are beneficial effects from HAART therapy, the fact that no correlation exists between virological and clinical outcomes means the benefits are not the result of an antiretroviral effect
Most importantly, HIV viremia and CD4 (T4) cell counts are not just any surrogate markers. According to the HIV theory they are the cause and underlying mechanism for the clinical syndrome, AIDS/death. These surrogate markers are the HIV theory of AIDS: HIV = low T4s (immune deficiency) =AIDS/death. If the best randomised controlled trials to date, lasting between one and two years, show no “relationship between change in CD4 cell count or viral load and clinical events” then either (a) the RNA is not HIV RNA, that is, there is no HIV genome, and if there is no HIV genome there is no virus to cause AIDS; or, (b) the RNA is HIV RNA but HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Since to date nobody has published proof that what was assumed to be the “HIV RNA” originates from a retroviral particle, the former explanation - that there is no virus - must hold true.
Hiya, I'm wondering what controls are used in experiments with HIV?
If the experiments aren't done with appropriate controls, all sorts of terrible things can happen
To detect HIV- a sample from a patient with a range of symptoms (inexplicably not thought to be caused by, in the original 5 AIDS patients, their use of poppers (known to cause Kaposi sarcoma) heavy drug use, lack of sleep, poor diet and promiscuity in filthy bathhouses) is added to abnormal cell lines, to which, importantly, the highly oxidising mitogen PHA is added.
‘HIV’ then appears.
However all the evidence for its presence; reverse transcriptase activity, budding of viral like particles and the presence of ‘core’ proteins have also been shown to occur in uninfected cultures. No controls were done, therefore the experiments are invalid. There is no evidence for a new virus HIV to be the cause of AIDS.
The appearance of the novel poly(A) RNA sequences were thought to be the ‘HiV genomes’. However these are caused by oxidative stress. The cells in culture are stressed and oxidised by PHA. The cells in the body’s of people with AIDS are oxidised by toxins and malnutrition . This results in detection of abnormal RNA sequences. No controls were done in the sequencing, therefore the experiments are invalid and there is no evidence for a new virus HIV to be the cause of AIDS
The reason that PCR can’t be used to test for HIV is because the alleged ‘genome’ exists in millions of ‘variants’ in healthy people and trillions in unhealthy people. Different variants occurring in the same person. There is so much variation over time in the sequence, it’s incredible it can still code for the core proteins, which are still used in the antibody test!
Interestingly antivirals such as AZT are also highly oxidising, causing more abnormalities in the RNA sequences/‘genome’. This explains why ‘viral load’ seems to decrease, or become non-detectable in patients treated with these drugs. The PCR primers are no longer picking up these new ‘variants’ of RNA sequences.
HIV has to be ‘grown’ in specific abnormal cells lines, treated with PHA and antibiotics, starved and left for weeks on the bench in order to produce the ‘appropriate’ proteins and changes to the cell DNA and RNA sequences, which will show subsequent characteristic effects in vitro.
All ‘HIV’ experiments eg on T cell activation should have at least one control running alongside them in order to make them valid- a ‘viral’ culture made from a sample from a sick, but HIV negative, patient who is as similar to the original patient (BRU) as possible , ie with lymphadenopathy and asthenia, should be performed and must be treated in exactly the same way with PHA etc as above. This is not done. Therefore these HIV experiments demonstrate nothing but the effects on ‘immune’ cells of adding damaged proteins and abnormal DNA/ RNA sequences. These cells not surprisingly are stimulated in order to detoxify the body.
If this wasn’t enough HIV cannot be sexually transmitted as AIDS is only correlated with frequency of passive anal sex. Semen is also very oxidising and the anus is very thin.
A £trillion research industry based on an entirely false premise that a virus has been shown to exist.
Millions of lives ruined and ended because school girl errors in science were made and those pointing them out were actively suppressed.
The real cause of AIDS, oxidation, is not addressed. Simple additions of the most powerful antioxidants on the planet- those obtained by eating green leafs (which can handle electrons directly from the sun)-would make the world of difference.
I don’t feel it’s my job to convince anyone of anything. The Powers That Be won’t listen to any proof we give them.
I would love it, though, if more sciencey people would rewind the tape a couple of times and notice the sleight of hand as billionaires repeatedly conjure cash cow viruses out of thin air. Using science that would have got us a fail at school.
a TV ad here in the states (major network markets, I'm assuming; I'm in Chicago) has been airing for about 6 weeks now. its for a P-zer 'oral CV pill' whose drug name is never disclosed in the cartoon-ish commercial. it states: "if you test positive for CV and are in any high risk categories, just call your doctor for this Rx. its important that you begin taking it right away." bla, bla, bla. So... can we assume this is paxlovid? and a doctor will prescribe it to you, over the phone, sight unseen, after a self-administered positive nasal swab!? This drug sounds more like a last resort than something that's glorified OTC (not to mention $$$). and to think that some dummies will actually panic and ask for it, without knowing a damn thing about it, even its actual name. Fear really got people to check their brain at the door. Yikes.
Think I'll stick with pine needle tea, zinc, quercetin, melatonin, oregano oil, iodine, selenium, and vitamins C, D, and B-complex. Haven't had a cold since 2010 and am untested, unmasked, unjabbed, and unafraid.
This is a great article! Very many important details. I did NOT know that it was so hepatotoxic.
Another interesting aspect of Paxlovid is that it was tested on UNVACCINATED people. It was not trialed on vaccinated people.
Without spamming links, I may mention that myself and Brian Mowrey wrote Substack articles that discussed one interesting aspect of Paxlovid: it seems to be more of a five-days biomolecular PAUSE button, simply pausing replication for five days.
At around day 10, numerous people (mostly vaccinated) report resurgence of the virus and reappearance of symptoms.
Brian Mowrey looked at this and also came up with a biological mechanism of how this resurgence would happen. Take a look at our posts and see discussion in comments also, especially in comments to Brian's articles.
I believe that Paxlovid is much less efficaceous than Pfizer wants us to believe, which should not surprise us too much given Pfizer's history.
Maybe the three of us can bring attention to the problems of Paxlovid, some of which you outlined but also the post-treatment resurgence, and save some lives by highlighting that Paxlovid is not as good as advertised.
Pfizer deserves the highest degree of scrutiny.
Thanks buddy :)
Thank you Igor! I literally just stopped two ppl from taking this b/c of your statement. Maybe they’ll start questioning more… not holding my breath.
Excellent trio!!
Pfizer’s PI is considerably safer than Merk’s NRTI. As a class of drugs PI’s seem to be wildly superior to NRTI’s. PI’s have made HIV manageable and yes heptotixicity is an issue when taken for a chronic condition. The risk is likely significantly diminished when taken over a 5 day course. The bigger issue is the novel PI does not have any long term safety data. And using low risk Covid patients as human Guinea pigs for this molecule is arguably unethical. Given the choice between Merk’s pill and Pfizer’s, I’m gonna take the PI every time. But given the choice between a novel PI and other established therapeutics, I’m surely taking ivm etc. Pfizer’s pill is probably a good option for high risk patients in conjunction with other therapeutics. Merk’s pill should be thrown in the garbage.
Oh and I’m not a dr, this ain’t medical advice. I’m probably just a dog typing on the internet.
dog typing lol
my cat can sing. :)
Besides being hepatotoxic, in the USA it costs $800 a prescription? Not exactly cheap. As mentioned, when we have a few repurposed drugs with long safety data, why aren’t we using them? I am patiently waiting for the day these repurposed drugs are sold otc like in Mexico and India 💖💖. Federal judge over rules the cdc, fda, Biden cabal and rules against mask mandates on planes and trains. I can tell you the radical left are really po’d about this. They wanted to stay masked, lockdown and jabbed forever. I get the sense the tide is turning. Otc repurposed drugs coming soon? I hope so.
holy shit really????
What is Paxlovid? Overpriced & Unacceptable, Jessica.
Call me old-fashioned, but when there's a time-tested, in decades, and Nobel prize-winning, effective repurposed drug (available), no fly-by-night anything, especially from Pfizer, will hold a candle, in my opinion.
Thank you, UJ, for the eval.
There’s simultaneously a huge increase in hepatitis in children, I recently read (not sure where). Coincidence? Or side effect of giving kids a liver-injurious drug without doctor supervision? Is the dose different for kids? Have the authorities put two-and-two together here, or should they be alerted? Do they care?
yes there's an 'outbreak' in the UK.
Any ideas or analysis so far? It’s really concerning. They’re relating this hepatitis to adenoviruses gone rogue. Are these the same adenoviruses present in Astrazeneca, J&J, Sputnik and other vaccines?
Why are unvaccinated infants also affected?
Dark path ahead …
Yahoo! Get your New and Improved Pfizer Snake Oil with a fine array of side effects that your liver will love!! Its going fast! Yahoo! Pfizer a name you can trust! Thank you Jessica
Wait till our universities and armed forces mandate this Pfizer drug.
Thanks for sharing your PhD! Wonderful stuff. I think I first read about system dynamics modeling of Hiv in the popular book Infinite Power by Steven Strogatz.
That was my master's. :)
'Interestingly antivirals such as AZT are also highly oxidising, causing more abnormalities in the RNA sequences/‘genome’. This explains why ‘viral load’ seems to decrease, or become non-detectable in patients treated with these drugs. The PCR primers are no longer picking up these new ‘variants’ of RNA sequences'. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-intellectual-freedom?s=w
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-intellectual-freedom?s=w
thank you
'Finally no relationship between CD4 cell count/ ‘viral load’ and clinical outcomes has ever been shown- so either the RNA detected is not ‘HIV’ and there isn’t a viral cause of AIDS or it is ‘HIV’- but it doesn’t cause AIDS.'
AZT was introduced in 1987 and by 1990 gay men realised that it's alleged benefits are not backed up by hard data, and not sufficient to compensate for the drugs known toxicities.
Recovery from AIDS will come by strengthening the body, not by poisoning it". In fact it was its toxicities that led John Lauritsen to invent the epithet "Poison by Prescription". Clinical data show that AZT is detrimental to patients.359, 367, 370-373 This is recognised by the HIV experts and their supporters, such as the AIDSTruth Team members, who described AZT toxicities including deaths, as “bumps in the early years of treatment”.319, 374 Recovery from AIDS will come by strengthening the body, not by poisoning it".367-369 In fact it was its toxicities that led John Lauritsen to invent the epithet "Poison by Prescription". Clinical data show that AZT is detrimental to patients.359, 367, 370-373 This is recognised by the HIV experts and their supporters, such as the AIDSTruth Team members, who described AZT toxicities including deaths, as “bumps in the early years of treatment”.319, 374
the Perth Group Magnus opus is highly recommended on antiviral therapies http://www.theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGVirusLikeNoOther.pdf
The pharma line is that antivirals were helping and the death rate was lower after introduction. In fact numbers of AIDS deaths was already declining before 'therapy' introduced. The criteria for AIDS diagnosis was significantly broadened several times to include mild and moderate disease, people with a T4 cell count below 200 though clinically healthy and negative HIV test, people with symptoms eg weight loss etc in the absence of HIV testing, those with symptoms not caused by HIV or immune deficiency (KS for example). The huge increase in numbers of people listed as HIV positive would obviously bring the death rate down significantly, but also these people would not have AIDS as a cause on their death certificates.
So even if antivirals killed every single person who took them, it would still look like they had lowered the death rate
in regards to anti viral 'therapy' I quote from the Perth Group
“most HAART therapies appear to offer high levels of CD4 and viral load control” but they “were unable to demonstrate a relationship between change in CD4 cell count or viral load and clinical events”. Even if one assumes there are beneficial effects from HAART therapy, the fact that no correlation exists between virological and clinical outcomes means the benefits are not the result of an antiretroviral effect
Most importantly, HIV viremia and CD4 (T4) cell counts are not just any surrogate markers. According to the HIV theory they are the cause and underlying mechanism for the clinical syndrome, AIDS/death. These surrogate markers are the HIV theory of AIDS: HIV = low T4s (immune deficiency) =AIDS/death. If the best randomised controlled trials to date, lasting between one and two years, show no “relationship between change in CD4 cell count or viral load and clinical events” then either (a) the RNA is not HIV RNA, that is, there is no HIV genome, and if there is no HIV genome there is no virus to cause AIDS; or, (b) the RNA is HIV RNA but HIV is not the cause of AIDS. Since to date nobody has published proof that what was assumed to be the “HIV RNA” originates from a retroviral particle, the former explanation - that there is no virus - must hold true.
Thanks Jo
Hiya, I'm wondering what controls are used in experiments with HIV?
If the experiments aren't done with appropriate controls, all sorts of terrible things can happen
To detect HIV- a sample from a patient with a range of symptoms (inexplicably not thought to be caused by, in the original 5 AIDS patients, their use of poppers (known to cause Kaposi sarcoma) heavy drug use, lack of sleep, poor diet and promiscuity in filthy bathhouses) is added to abnormal cell lines, to which, importantly, the highly oxidising mitogen PHA is added.
‘HIV’ then appears.
However all the evidence for its presence; reverse transcriptase activity, budding of viral like particles and the presence of ‘core’ proteins have also been shown to occur in uninfected cultures. No controls were done, therefore the experiments are invalid. There is no evidence for a new virus HIV to be the cause of AIDS.
The appearance of the novel poly(A) RNA sequences were thought to be the ‘HiV genomes’. However these are caused by oxidative stress. The cells in culture are stressed and oxidised by PHA. The cells in the body’s of people with AIDS are oxidised by toxins and malnutrition . This results in detection of abnormal RNA sequences. No controls were done in the sequencing, therefore the experiments are invalid and there is no evidence for a new virus HIV to be the cause of AIDS
The reason that PCR can’t be used to test for HIV is because the alleged ‘genome’ exists in millions of ‘variants’ in healthy people and trillions in unhealthy people. Different variants occurring in the same person. There is so much variation over time in the sequence, it’s incredible it can still code for the core proteins, which are still used in the antibody test!
Interestingly antivirals such as AZT are also highly oxidising, causing more abnormalities in the RNA sequences/‘genome’. This explains why ‘viral load’ seems to decrease, or become non-detectable in patients treated with these drugs. The PCR primers are no longer picking up these new ‘variants’ of RNA sequences.
HIV has to be ‘grown’ in specific abnormal cells lines, treated with PHA and antibiotics, starved and left for weeks on the bench in order to produce the ‘appropriate’ proteins and changes to the cell DNA and RNA sequences, which will show subsequent characteristic effects in vitro.
All ‘HIV’ experiments eg on T cell activation should have at least one control running alongside them in order to make them valid- a ‘viral’ culture made from a sample from a sick, but HIV negative, patient who is as similar to the original patient (BRU) as possible , ie with lymphadenopathy and asthenia, should be performed and must be treated in exactly the same way with PHA etc as above. This is not done. Therefore these HIV experiments demonstrate nothing but the effects on ‘immune’ cells of adding damaged proteins and abnormal DNA/ RNA sequences. These cells not surprisingly are stimulated in order to detoxify the body.
If this wasn’t enough HIV cannot be sexually transmitted as AIDS is only correlated with frequency of passive anal sex. Semen is also very oxidising and the anus is very thin.
A £trillion research industry based on an entirely false premise that a virus has been shown to exist.
Millions of lives ruined and ended because school girl errors in science were made and those pointing them out were actively suppressed.
The real cause of AIDS, oxidation, is not addressed. Simple additions of the most powerful antioxidants on the planet- those obtained by eating green leafs (which can handle electrons directly from the sun)-would make the world of difference.
I don’t feel it’s my job to convince anyone of anything. The Powers That Be won’t listen to any proof we give them.
I would love it, though, if more sciencey people would rewind the tape a couple of times and notice the sleight of hand as billionaires repeatedly conjure cash cow viruses out of thin air. Using science that would have got us a fail at school.
hi I came through I pay wall to communicate with you so please have a look at my post. I'd be interested in what you think we may have got wrong. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-intellectual-freedom?s=w
a TV ad here in the states (major network markets, I'm assuming; I'm in Chicago) has been airing for about 6 weeks now. its for a P-zer 'oral CV pill' whose drug name is never disclosed in the cartoon-ish commercial. it states: "if you test positive for CV and are in any high risk categories, just call your doctor for this Rx. its important that you begin taking it right away." bla, bla, bla. So... can we assume this is paxlovid? and a doctor will prescribe it to you, over the phone, sight unseen, after a self-administered positive nasal swab!? This drug sounds more like a last resort than something that's glorified OTC (not to mention $$$). and to think that some dummies will actually panic and ask for it, without knowing a damn thing about it, even its actual name. Fear really got people to check their brain at the door. Yikes.