MERCK's Molnupiravir & Pfizer's Paxlovid have MAJOR rebound problems, causing COVID illness; Wang et al. pre-print; "COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid and Molnupiravir during January-June 2022"

COVID-19 rebound occurred both after Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, especially in patients with underlying medical conditions. This indicates that COVID-19 rebound is not unique to Paxlovid; risks similar

These two drugs were garbage to begin with, both rushed through with only one study, very sub-optimal garbage junk questionable research methods, terrible data, yet were given FDA’s corrupted EUAs. Remember, CDC recently put out a Health Alert Network Health Advisory to update us on the potential for COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid treatments. Now we see the problem is with Molnupiravir too. When will we get the advisory?

Main statement/conclusion from the study (note, not yet peer-reviewed):

‘COVID-19 rebound occurred both after Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, especially in patients with underlying medical conditions. This indicates that COVID-19 rebound is not unique to Paxlovid and the risks were similar for Paxlovid and Molnupiravir. For both drugs the rates of COVID-19 rebound increased with time after treatments.’

SOURCE:

COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid and Molnupiravir during January-June 2022

Researchers examined ‘the rates and relative risks of COVID-19 rebound in patients treated with Paxlovid or with Molnupiravir and to compare characteristics of patients who experienced COVID-19 rebound to those who did not.’

This was a retrospective cohort design looking at electronic health records (EHRs) of ‘92 million patients from a multicenter and nationwide database in the US. The study population comprised 13,644 patients age 18 years or older who contracted COVID-19 between 1/1/2022-6/8/2022 and were treated with Paxlovid (n =11,270) or with Molnupiravir (n =2,374) within 5 days of their COVID-19 infection. Exposures Paxlovid or Molnupiravir.’

‘Three types of COVID-19 rebound outcomes (COVID-19 infections, COVID-19 related symptoms, and hospitalizations) were examined. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence interval (CI) of 7-day and 30-day risk for COVID-19 rebound between patients treated with Paxlovid and patients treated with Molnupiravir were calculated before and after propensity-score matching. Results The 7-day and 30-day COVID-19 rebound rates after Paxlovid treatment were 3.53% and 5.40% for COVID-19 infection, 2.31% and 5.87% for COVID-19 symptoms, and 0.44% and 0.77% for hospitalizations. The 7-day and 30-day COVID-19 rebound rates after Molnupiravir treatment were 5.86% and 8.59% for COVID-19 infection, 3.75% and 8.21% for COVID-19 symptoms, and 0.84% and 1.39% for hospitalizations. After propensity-score matching, there were no significant differences in COVID-19 rebound risks between Paxlovid and Molnupiravir: infection (HR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.73-1.11), COVID-19 symptoms (HR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.83-1.27), or hospitalizations (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.56-1.55).

Patients with COVID-19 rebound had significantly higher prevalence of underlying medical conditions than those without. Conclusions and Relevance COVID-19 rebound occurred both after Paxlovid and Molnupiravir, especially in patients with underlying medical conditions. This indicates that COVID-19 rebound is not unique to Paxlovid and the risks were similar for Paxlovid and Molnupiravir. For both drugs the rates of COVID-19 rebound increased with time after treatments.’

Results ‘call for continuous surveillance of COVID-19 rebound after Paxlovid and Molnupiravir treatments. Studies are necessary to determine the mechanisms underlying COVID-19 rebounds and to test dosing and duration regimes that might prevent such rebounds in vulnerable patients.’