Day: November 9, 2022

• Paxlovid, which was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021, has become widely associated with rebound infection

• While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Pfizer have tried to suggest that COVID rebound is spontaneous and not necessarily linked to Paxlovid, recent research found no rebound cases among COVID-19 patients who did not take Paxlovid

• People who take Paxlovid can also still transmit COVID-19 to others, even if they’re asymptomatic

• A number of high-profile individuals have experienced COVID rebound after using Paxlovid, including “The Late Show” host Stephen Colbert, comedian Jimmy Dore, Dr. Anthony Fauci, President Joe Biden, First Lady Jill Biden and CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. Most were double-jabbed and double-boosted. Walensky actually had three boosters

• Emerging evidence also suggests SARS-CoV-2 can develop resistance to Paxlovid. Two separate studies cultured SARS-CoV-2 and exposed it to low levels of nirmatrelvir — the active antiviral ingredient in Paxlovid — which would kill some, but not all, of the virus. As a result, the virus became 20 times and 80 times less susceptible to the drug, respectively

So far, all of the drugs developed against COVID-19 have been disastrous in one way or another. Remdesivir, for example, which to this day is the primary COVID drug approved for use in U.S. hospitals,1 routinely causes severe organ damage2 3 4 5 and, often, death.

Another notable one is Paxlovid, which was granted emergency use authorization to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in December 2021.6 While not showing signs of being deadly like remdesivir, Paxlovid has become so widely associated with rebound infection that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has even issued a warning about it. According to the CDC’s health advisory:7

“Recent case reports document that some patients with normal immune response who have completed a 5-day course of Paxlovid for laboratory-confirmed infection and have recovered can experience recurrent illness 2 to 8 days later, including patients who have been vaccinated and/or boosted.”

The CDC8 and Pfizer9 have suggested that sometimes COVID-19 naturally comes back after a person tests negative, implying that COVID-19 rebound is spontaneous and not necessarily linked to Paxlovid. However, research10 by Dr. Michael Charness of the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Boston refutes this notion.

When Charness and colleagues analyzed 1,000 cases of COVID-19 diagnosed among members of the National Basketball Association — none of whom took Paxlovid — no cases of COVID-19 rebound were found.11 They also found that people who take Paxlovid can still transmit COVID-19 to others, even if they’re asymptomatic. Charness told CNN:12

“People who experience rebound are at risk of transmitting to other people, even though they’re outside what people accept as the usual window for being able to transmit.”

While Paxlovid-induced rebound of COVID is clearly widespread, health authorities insist the effect is “rare.”13 Pfizer’s clinical trial had a 1% to 2% rebound rate. White House COVID response coordinator, Dr. Ashish Jha, put the rebound rate at 5% in real-life settings.

“If you look at Twitter, it feels like everybody has rebound,” Jha said during a White House press conference in July 2022. “But it turns out there’s actually clinical data.”14

In one such study,15 5.87% of the 13,600 patients experienced rebound of symptoms within a month of the treatment. Dr. Aditya Shah, an infectious disease specialist at the Mayo Clinic, thinks the rebound rate may be as high as 10%.16

But if those rebound statistics were actually true, how does one explain the fact that so many high-profile celebrities and government officials who have used it have ended up rebounding? Statistically, that seems rather incredible.

For example, in April 2022, the fully jabbed and boosted “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert got COVID, took Paxlovid and recovered, only to suffer a rebound a week later. Tweeting about his experience, Colbert referred to it as the “WORST. SEQUEL. EVER.”17 Comedian Jimmy Dore also experienced COVID-19 rebound after taking Paxlovid.18

Dr. Anthony Fauci got COVID in June 2022 — again despite being double-jabbed and double-boosted — and proudly shared that he took Paxlovid. Immediately after the five-day treatment, he tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Alas, three days after that, he not only tested positive again but all the symptoms of infection also returned, and they were more severe than the first time around.19 20

Fauci described his rebound in an interview: “Over the next day or so I started to feel really poorly, much worse than in the first go around. I went back on Paxlovid, and right now I am on my fourth day of a five-day course of my second course of Paxlovid. Fortunately, I feel reasonably good. I mean, I’m not completely without symptoms, but I certainly don’t feel acutely ill.”21

At the end of July 2022, it was President Joe Biden’s turn to announce he had COVID, despite being double-jabbed and double-boosted — something Biden had previously insisted could not happen (see video above). He too took Paxlovid and, like Fauci, ended up rebounding around Day 3, just as I predicted on Twitter.22 Unlike Fauci, however, he reportedly didn’t have any symptoms.23

In mid-August 2022, the double-jabbed, double-boosted First Lady, Jill Biden, came down with COVID,24 took Paxlovid and, like clockwork, rebounded a few days after finishing the treatment and initially testing negative.25

Toward the end of October 2022, double-jabbed and TRIPLE-boosted Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, got COVID. She’d received her fifth shot — the latest bivalent booster that has only been tested on mice — on September 22.26

Exactly one month later, she tested positive and reported mild symptoms.27 28 I think that makes the “new and improved” bivalent booster the shortest-acting shot so far. Anyway, Paxlovid to the rescue once again. And once again, it caused rebound. After initially testing negative after the treatment, she tested positive a couple of days later as symptoms returned.29

At the end of April 2022, Bloomberg described the post-Paxlovid rebound of David Ho, a virologist at the Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center at Columbia University:30

“Ho said he came down with COVID on April 6 … His doctor prescribed Paxlovid, and within days of taking it, his symptoms dissipated and tests turned negative. But 10 days after first getting sick, the symptoms returned and his tests turned positive for another two days.

Ho said he sequenced his own virus and found that both infections were from the same strain, confirming that the virus had not mutated and become resistant to Paxlovid. A second family member who also got sick around the same time also had post-Paxlovid rebound in symptoms and virus, Ho says.

‘It surprised the heck out of me,’ he said. ‘Up until that point I had not heard of such cases elsewhere.’ While the reasons for the rebound are still unclear, Ho theorizes that it may occur when a small proportion of virus-infected cells may remain viable and resume pumping out viral progeny once treatment stops.”

Clinical Director of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Dr. Paul Sax, told Bloomberg:31

“Providers who are going to be prescribing this should be aware that this phenomenon occurs, and if people have symptoms worsening after Paxlovid, it’s probably still COVID. The big problem is that when this drug was released, this information wasn’t included [on the label].”

Research published in Clinical Infectious Diseases32 33 looked into why Paxlovid may be leading to rebound symptoms and suggests it could be the result of insufficient exposure to the drug. Possibly, the drug is metabolized more rapidly in some individuals. Alternatively, perhaps the drug needs to be administered for a longer period of time.

Emerging evidence also suggests SARS-CoV-2 can develop resistance to Paxlovid if the drug doesn’t eradicate all of the virus the first time around. Two separate studies cultured SARS-CoV-2 in a lab and exposed it to low levels of nirmatrelvir — the active antiviral ingredient in Paxlovid — which would kill some, but not all, of the virus.

“Such tests are meant to simulate what might happen in an infected person who doesn’t take the whole regimen of the drug or an immunocompromised patient who has trouble clearing the virus,” Science reported.34

One of the studies revealed that SARS-CoV-2 developed three mutations after 12 rounds of nirmatrelvir treatment — “at positions 50, 166 and 167 in the string of amino acids that make up MPRO.”35 The mutations amounted to a 20-fold reduction in the virus’ susceptibility to nirmatrelvir.36

The other study37 also found mutations at positions 50 and 166, revealing that when they occurred together, SARS-CoV-2 became 80 times less susceptible to nirmatrelvir. According to the authors:38

“Reverse genetic studies in a homologous infectious cell culture system revealed up to 80-fold resistance conferred by the combination of substitutions L50F and E166V. Resistant variants had high fitness increasing the likelihood of occurrence and spread of resistance.”

It’s still unknown what might happen when two courses of Paxlovid are taken in quick succession to treat COVID-19 rebound — as occurred with Fauci. It’s possible that ever-mutating COVID-19 variants could be created.

Other antivirals on the market to treat COVID-19 have also led to concerns about drug resistance. Molnupiravir (sold under the brand name Lagevrio), approved by the FDA for emergency use in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID symptoms, has been shown to supercharge the rate at which the virus mutates inside the patient, resulting in newer and more drug resistant variants.39

Pfizer’s revenue is expected to reach $101.3 billion in 2022,40 thanks to the COVID jab and Paxlovid ($10 billion from Paxlovid alone) — both of which are frauds. Neither of them actually work as advertised, and both can make matters worse. In the case of Pfizer’s COVID-19 shot, you can still get the disease once you’ve been injected and boosted, and may still transmit the disease to others as well.

Then, when the shots don’t work to prevent infection — and we’ve now seen even five doses won’t prevent infection — Pfizer makes even more money by selling Paxlovid, which in many cases causes rebound! There can be only one reason for why the FDA has not withdrawn both of these drugs, and that is because they’re actually working for Pfizer.

“Immunocompromised patients ‘may carry this virus for a very, very long time, and we see that area as a real new opportunity growth area for Paxlovid to do very well, where you may need to take multiple courses.’” ~ Dr. Mikael Dolsten, chief scientist and president of Worldwide Research and Development at Pfizer

Pfizer itself doesn’t view COVID rebound after Paxlovid treatment as a failure; they see it as a successful venture because the more courses needed, the more money they make. As reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) in early July 2022:41

“During a recent investor call, a Pfizer official could spin the recent reports that the virus can hide from Paxlovid into good news, predicting that, as with the vaccine, patients may need multiple courses.

Immunocompromised patients ‘may carry this virus for a very, very long time,’ Dr. Mikael Dolsten [chief scientist and President of Worldwide Research and Development at Pfizer42] said in the investor call. ‘And we see that area as a real new opportunity growth area for Paxlovid to do very well, where you may need to take multiple courses.’”

Pushing a drug that causes COVID rebound does not appear to be in the best interest of public health. Paxlovid is a fraud and should be taken off the market. The fact that the FDA and CDC have focused on Paxlovid, remdesivir and molnupiravir to the exclusion of all others, including older drugs with high rates of effectiveness and superior safety profiles, sends a very disturbing message.

They’ve basically become extensions of the drug industry and have abandoned their original purpose, which is to protect public health — by ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs, in the case of the FDA,43 and by conducting critical science and data analysis in the case of the CDC.44

Instead, they seem to be doing everything they can to protect Big Pharma profits, even if it costs you your life. Remdesivir, for example, costs between $2,340 and $3,120 depending on your insurance.45 Ivermectin, meanwhile — which has been very effective against COVID and shown to outperform at least 10 other drugs, including Paxlovid46 — costs between $4847 and $9448 for 20 pills depending on your location. The average cost is said to be about $58 per treatment.49

Paxlovid costs $529 per five-day course of treatment,50 and molnupiravir is around $700.51 While not quite as expensive as remdesivir, both are still nearly 10 times costlier than ivermectin, which is more effective. Imagine the billions of dollars we could have saved were it not for our health agencies being so compromised by industry.

Since the FDA and CDC cannot be trusted, it’s imperative to take responsibility for your own health. Do your own research and follow your own conscience and conviction. Remember, when it comes to COVID-19, early treatment is crucial, and effective protocols are readily available — just not from the FDA, CDC or even most hospitals.

For a refresher, check out Dr. Pierre Kory’s interview with Chris Martenson. You can also find many other articles describing treatment protocols by searching through my Substack archive.

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.

• Hearing birdsongs may yield lasting mental health benefits that last up to eight hours

• Significant improvements were reported in the mental well-being of people with and without depression upon seeing a bird or hearing birdsongs compared to not seeing or hearing a bird

• Separate research found birdsongs and calls were the natural sounds most often associated with stress recovery and attention restoration

• In a study of the perceived restorative benefits of wetland paths in China, the presence of singing birds significantly enhanced the experience

• Humans are designed to be connected to their natural environment, and when this connection is severed, as is so common in the modern world, physical, emotional and mental health suffers

• According to data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, 13.5% of bird species are threatened with global extinction, 4% of which are endangered and 2% that are critically endangered

The melodic sound of birds chirping brings a smile to many people’s faces. It turns out these sweet melodies may yield lasting mental health benefits, according to research from the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN) at King’s College London1 — highlighting not only the importance of nature for human health but also the importance of protecting bird species around the globe.

It’s revealing that in the U.K. more than 1.3 million people belong to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is more than the members of all the country’s political parties combined.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., birdwatching is a favorite hobby for more than 70 million people,2 and birders can be found worldwide, making a habit of seeking out different bird species whenever they can. The study reveals, however, that interactions with birds in your everyday life may be enough to compel lasting change to your mood.

The study took place between April 2018 and October 2021. It involved 1,292 participants primarily from the U.K., the European Union and the U.S. A cellphone app called Urban Mind was used to collect real-time reports of participants’ mood and environment.

Specifically, the app asked participants three times a day whether they could see or hear birds, along with posing questions about their mental well-being. Participants were also asked about whether they could see trees or plants or hear water to determine if those natural elements could be accounting for any mood benefits.3

Information was also collected regarding diagnoses of mental health conditions such as depression. During the study period, 26,856 assessments were completed using the Urban Mind app.4 Significant improvements were reported in the mental well-being of people with and without depression upon seeing a bird or hearing birdsongs compared to not seeing or hearing a bird.5

The positive benefits to mood lasted until the next app message, or up to eight hours.6 “That was something that quite hit home that it’s not just an immediate effect,” the study’s lead author, Ryan Hammoud, research assistant at IoPPN, said.7 Hammoud continued in a news release:8

“There is growing evidence on the mental health benefits of being around nature and we intuitively think that the presence of birdsong and birds would help lift our mood. However, there is little research that has actually investigated the impact of birds on mental health in real-time and in a real environment.

By using the Urban Mind app we have for the first time showed the direct link between seeing or hearing birds and positive mood. We hope this evidence can demonstrate the importance of protecting and providing environments to encourage birds, not only for biodiversity but for our mental health.”

Encounters with birds involve both sight and sound, providing complex, multisensory experiences. In 2013, researchers with the University of Surrey’s School of Psychology explored reasons for the restorative perceptions of bird sounds, nothing that natural environments are typically regarded as restorative following stress.9

Using semi-structured interviews with 20 adults, they found birdsongs and calls, specifically, were the natural sounds most often associated with stress recovery and attention restoration. Songs from different bird species offered varying levels of perceived restorative value, however.

In 2018, the researchers conducted another study to find out why certain bird sounds, but not others, were associated with restoration.10 Perceived familiarity, complexity and pattern, along with sound level, harmonics and frequency, were all involved in how stress-relieving certain bird sounds turned out to be.

Further, while spending time in natural areas is considered important for mental restoration, the presence of birdsongs appears to enhance the mental benefits. In a study of the perceived restorative benefits of wetland paths in China, the presence of singing birds significantly enhanced the experience.

“The results show that soundscapes can significantly improve perceived recovery benefits, and that hearing birdsongs can significantly improve the perceived restorative benefits of wetland paths,” the study, published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, noted.11

While past studies on birds’ benefits to mental health relied on the recollection of past experiences, the featured study reduces the changes of recall bias by collecting data in real-time via the Urban Mind app. Senior author Andrea Mechelli, professor of early intervention in mental health at IoPPN, explained:12

“The term ecosystem services is often used to describe the benefits of certain aspects of the natural environment on our physical and mental health. However, it can be difficult to prove these benefits scientifically. Our study provides an evidence base for creating and supporting biodiverse spaces that harbor birdlife, since this is strongly linked with our mental health.

In addition, the findings support the implementation of measures to increase opportunities for people to come across birdlife, particularly for those living with mental health conditions such as depression.”

Research partner Jo Gibbons, a landscape architect, added:13

“Who hasn’t tuned into the melodic complexities of the dawn chorus early on a spring morning? A multisensory experience that seems to enrich everyday life, whatever our mood or whereabouts. This exciting research underpins just how much the sight and sound of birdsong lifts the spirits.

It captures intriguing evidence that a biodiverse environment is restorative in terms of mental wellbeing. That the sensual stimulation of birdsong, part of those daily ‘doses’ of nature, is precious and time-lasting.”

Birds are often seen and heard in the backdrop of the great outdoors. Perhaps not surprisingly, the positive effects of birds on mental well-being were more pronounced when people were outside. However, even when seeing trees, plants and water was taken into account, birdsongs still mattered, “providing support to a specific benefit of bird life on mental well-being, above and beyond the well-established effect of green spaces.”14

That said, there’s little doubt that time spent in nature — be it green spaces like forest preserves and parks or blue spaces like rivers, lakes, beaches and coastal areas — offers significant benefits to well-being. Increasingly, it’s being recognized that both green and blue spaces are important.

Though they share characteristics like cooling effects and exposure to biodiversity, they’re also unique. Blue spaces, for instance, offer unique opportunities for recreation, such as swimming, and offer different soundscapes — like water sounds — than green spaces.15 Using data from 18 countries, a team of researchers revealed that the best mental health benefits may come from exposure to multiple types of natural spaces.

For instance, visiting green spaces, inland blue spaces or coastal blue spaces in the last four weeks was positively associated with well-being and negatively associated with mental distress. Nature connectedness, or feeling psychologically connected to the natural world, was similarly associated with mental well-being and was additionally linked to a lower likelihood of using medication for depression.16

In separate research, older adults who had access to parks had better physical and psychological health, while blue space users also reported better health.17

Humans are designed to be connected to their natural environment, and when this connection is severed, as is so common in the modern world, physical, emotional and mental health suffers. It’s noted in Proceedings of the Royal Society B:18

“Humans in developed countries spend much of their time indoors and in urban landscapes that bear little resemblance to the environment in which our species evolved. For example, a large survey based in the USA suggested that a typical citizen spends 87% of their time indoors and an additional 6% of their time in vehicles.

Living almost entirely apart from nature can lead to an overall disconnection from nature that has negative consequences for environmental conservation and can deprive individuals of the health and well-being benefits that nature provides.”

That study also found a unique connection to birdsongs. Hikers exposed to a “phantom birdsong chorus,” which consisted of hidden speakers that played a variety of birdsongs on two trails, reported higher levels of restorative effects.19 They suggested that maintaining and improving natural soundscapes in protected areas may be one way to maximize humans’ time spent in nature.

Indeed, nature deficits are on the rise due to increasingly urbanized lifestyles, which generally include access to fewer natural spaces, lots of screen time and increased pressure from work and school, which leads to more time spent indoors and less leisure time in general, as well as less leisure time spent outdoors.

The term “nature deficit disorder” was coined by journalist Richard Louv, author of “Last Child in the Woods.”20 It’s not an actual psychological diagnosis but rather a term used to describe a lifestyle deficit that contributes to poor psychological and physical health. Louv suggested that humans’ alienation from nature led to “diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties and higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses.”21

Attending outdoor camp has been suggested as one way for children to gain crucial time in the outdoors, and one study found significant benefits when young adults attended a four-week wilderness camp.22 In addition to sense of place and nature connection improving, the participants felt that the wilderness environment facilitated social connections, and they experienced significantly improved well-being, including benefits to:23

• Perceived stress

• Relaxation

• Positive and negative emotions

• Sense of wholeness

• Transcendence

It’s being increasingly recognized that spending time in nature encompasses senses including sight, smell and sound. Natural sounds enhance the natural experience. Birdsongs, in particular, may be appreciated by humans because birds have been around throughout evolution. Singing birds are also often heard in spring and summer, indicating forthcoming or current pleasant weather.24

Birds also play a vital role globally, helping to pollinate plants and disperse seeds while acting as both scavengers and predators. But North American birds are in peril with 29% of U.S. and Canadian bird populations having been lost since 1970. In a 2019 finding researchers called “staggering,”25 ornithologists analyzed decades of data from multiple and independent monitoring networks to estimate bird populations.26

They found a net loss of 2.9 billion birds occurred over the last 48 years,27 including not only rare species but also common birds at backyard feeders, such as sparrows, warblers, finches and blackbirds.28

Further, according to data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, 13.5% of bird species are threatened with global extinction, 4% of which are endangered and 2% that are critically endangered.29 What’s causing the declines? According to the featured study:30

“The reasons for this decline are complex. In rural areas, agricultural intensification and farming with chemicals are causing habitat loss and the disappearance of insects that feed birds; whereas in urban areas, bird population is falling due to a combination of trends including shortages of food, habitat loss, increase in diseases such as avian malaria and raising levels of air pollution.”

The massive loss of birds mirrors similar declines in other creatures, like insects, and is a wake-up call that shows the future of the Rockefeller Foundation-funded Green Revolution looks very dark — unless changes are urgently made.

The light at the end of the tunnel is regenerative agriculture, which is a savior to birds, insects and other species worldwide. The best course of action to reduce the harm industrial agriculture and habitat loss is having on birds is to support biodynamic, grass fed farms that are conserving diversity and not relying on synthetic chemicals and other intensive agriculture practices that harm birds and other wildlife.

Considering birds’ immense value to humans’ well-being, the featured study researchers explained, policy changes are in order to encourage not only protection of birds and the environment but also the “prescription” of time in nature:31

“Our investigation provides support to the introduction of environmental and wildlife protection policies which encourage biodiverse habitats in urban, suburban and rural areas (e.g., permaculture farming, wilding initiatives, hedgerow and meadow enhancement, urban forestry).

Second, the findings have implications for mental healthcare policy. In recent years social prescribing of nature-based activities, also known as ‘green prescribing,’ has become increasingly popular to support individuals with mental illness including depression. Our investigation supports the notion that visits to habitats with a high degree of birdlife, such as parks and canals, may be encouraged as part of green prescribing efforts.”

>”,”action”:null,”class”:null}”>NEXT ARTICLE >>

Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked.

The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional. The subscription fee being requested is for access to the articles and information posted on this site, and is not being paid for any individual medical advice.

If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your health care professional before using products based on this content.