Astral Codex Ten

Paxlovid

6 min read

Paxlovid

Article

Paxlovid is a recurring brand in the Astral Codex Ten archive, appearing 6 times across 6 issues between November 23, 2021 and February 01, 2023. The archive places it in contexts such as “If Pfizer happened to have some gaps in their understanding for the Paxlovid process”; “including casirivimab/imdevimab, bamlanivimab, sotrovimab, and paxlovid”; “the FDA approving Paxlovid”. It most often appears alongside FDA, ivermectin, Alexandros Marinos.

Metadata

  • Category: Brands
  • Mention count: 6
  • Issue count: 6
  • First seen: November 23, 2021
  • Last seen: February 01, 2023

Appears In

Source Context

Recovered passages from the original issue text. When the raw archive preserved outbound links inside the source passage, they are listed directly under the quote.

When Will The FDA Approve Paxlovid?
November 23, 2021 · Original source
Metaculus predicts January 1 as the median date for the FDA approving Paxlovid. They estimate a 92% chance it will get approved by March.
Inline links: Metaculus predicts
For context: a recent study by Pfizer, the pharma company backing the drug, found Paxlovid decreased hospitalizations and deaths from COVID by a factor of ten, with no detectable side effects. It was so good that Pfizer, “in consultation with” the FDA, stopped the trial early because it would be unethical to continue denying Paxlovid to the control group. And on November 16, Pfizer officially submitted an approval request to the FDA, which the FDA is still considering.
Inline links: a recent study, submitted an approval request to the FDA
As many people including Zvi, Alex, and Kelsey have noted, it’s pretty weird that the FDA agrees Paxlovid is so great that it’s unethical to study it further because it would be unconscionable to design a study with a no-Paxlovid control group - but also, the FDA has not approved Paxlovid, it remains illegal, and nobody is allowed to use it.
Inline links: Zvi, Alex, Kelsey
Highlights From The Comments On The FDA And Paxlovid
November 23, 2021 · Original source
Andrew writes:
Inline links: writes
Zutano adds:
Inline links: adds
Note that this really only applies to new chemical entities; people have been manufacturing fluvoxamine for years and its probably well understood by now. Not always true though; we saw a worst-case situation recently with the ranitidine withdrawal: a medicine that some reasonably healthy people take every day of their lives was shown to be contaminated with small amounts of a nasty carcinogen. If Pfizer happened to have some gaps in their understanding for the Paxlovid process, the FDA might go easy on them as dying of Covid now is worse than a slightly increased risk of cancer in the future, but it takes time to review all of these risks and make a justified decision.
Highlights From The Comments On Ivermectin
November 23, 2021 · Original source
Author appears to be against all treatments, labeling them all "unorthodox" and "controversial", even those approved by western health authorities, including casirivimab/imdevimab, bamlanivimab, sotrovimab, and paxlovid.
First, the claim that I "[appear] to be against all treatments, labeling them all "unorthodox" and "controversial", even those approved by western health authorities, including casirivimab/imdevimab, bamlanivimab, sotrovimab, and paxlovid." They suggest I am turning my readers away from other treatments including ones that are already standard of care in western health systems.
This is false and I don't know where they're getting it from. Corticosteroids, fluvoxamine, and Paxlovid seem provisionally great. I haven't looked into the monoclonal antibodies but if western health authorities say they're fine I have no reason to doubt that. I even think there are plausible arguments (though no proof) for a few less-used options like zinc.
Open Thread 200
November 28, 2021 · Original source
6: In the highlights to the comments on my Paxlovid post, I posted some people’s explanations for why the FDA’s behavior wasn’t so bad. Dan Elton still thinks it’s bad and has written a post on why he rejects the explanations.
Inline links: still thinks it’s bad and has written a post on
Addendum To Luvox Post
December 22, 2021 · Original source
In my post yesterday, I quoted a Vox article describing work by Dr. Ed Mills and others to get the FDA to approve Luvox for COVID. As of that point, the FDA didn’t know how to process an application without a sponsoring drug company:
Inline links: quoted a Vox
The FDA also approved the other drug I’ve been saying they should approve quickly, Paxlovid, a full two weeks before the prediction markets expected! According to Metaculus, there was only a 6% chance we would get Paxlovid approved this quickly. They are genuinely getting better!
Inline links: also approved
Response To Alexandros Contra Me On Ivermectin
February 01, 2023 · Original source
I'll try to answer the question I think​ you're asking: Whether I'd expect a sufficiently-powered, high-quality study (say, something that cloned the protocol used for testing Paxlovid in the EPIC-HR trial, and dosed ivm similarly to how FLCCC recommends) to produce a 10% or higher drop in mortality for high-risk patients. I'd guess we would have seen that kind of reduction or more in that kind of trial at that time, yes. It does seem that TOGETHER, despite the many ways it deviates from what I described above, showed something in that range (12% reduction in mortality), though of course with too low an event/patient number to make it definitive.