MOLNUPIRAVIR ABSURDITY: Part 1 (my reviews from 2021 and 2022), Part 2 (access bias), and Part 3 (new belated 2023 scientific consensus on absurdity)

Part 1: Molnupiravir is dangerous expensive garbage, and everyone could have seen that it was a bad choice, especially compared against vitamin D

• Molnupiravir wasn’t approved by the FDA for any purpose because it was a bad drug; then all of a sudden the FDA approved it for use against Covid based on a small pathetic study with incomplete results (eg, hiding the negative consequences) that was theatrically “performed” by the drug company wanting to sell the drug.

• This whole charade was so obvious and stupid that the medical profession —were it not genuflexed before the altar of pharma profiteering— should have denounced this political-profiteering drug approval that cost BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and resulted in large and as yet incalculable human damage.

Molnupiravir has been a cash toilet for American taxpayers—a pipeline to convert public money into private profits

• “Before it was tested for Covid-19, EIDD-2801 [molnupiravir] had accrued millions of dollars of federal funding. In 2019, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) gave the Emory Institute for Drug Development a $16 million contract to test the drug for influenza. It had previously garnered funding from several other NIAID grants, as well as funding from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), as disclosed by Emory. When attention turned to Covid-19, Emory received pledges of more than $30 million from NIAID and the Department of Defense to cover development of the drug. … Molnupiravir then received even more federal funding: In September 2021, BARDA procured 1.7 million courses of the five-day regimen for $1.2 billion, or $700 per treatment course.”¹

• “November 9, 2021 (BUSINESS WIRE)-- Merck (NYSE: MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, and Ridgeback Biotherapeutics today announced that the United States government will exercise two of its options to purchase a total of 1.4 million additional courses of molnupiravir, an investigational oral antiviral medicine, if the medicine is granted Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for approximately $1 billion. With these exercised options, the U.S. government has now committed to purchase a total of approximately 3.1 million courses of molnupiravir, for approximately $2.2 billion, between authorization and early 2022. The U.S. government also has the ability to purchase more than 2 million additional courses through further options that remain in the contract.”²

Part 2: Access (distribution) bias, again

I recently coined the phrase “distribution bias” defined as the consistent pattern that I have observed whereby drug-positive and nutrition-negative articles are disproportionately provided for free by journal publishers (specifically the major medical journals), whereas drug-negative and nutrition-positive articles are typically blocked by limited access and/or paywall. The consequence is that the public and the print/television media have easy access to drug-positive and nutrition-negative articles which are then resounded throughout the pharma echo chamber, while drug-negative and nutrition-positive news reaches a small audience. Given that “distribution bias” is already a term used in statistics (albeit with a different definition), I think that “access bias” is likely a better phrase for the defintion that I provided above, again:

ACCESS BIAS or DISTRIBUTION BIAS: easy access to drug-positive and nutrition-negative articles and restricted access to drug-negative and nutrition-positive articles sways the entire national and international conversation and perception toward drugs and against nutrition.

Accordingly, this new 1.5-page article discussing the negativity of molnupiravir is not available for free, but requires payment to the publisher, as if taxpayers had not already paid enough for the subsidization and distribution of this drug.

Part 3: Nature journal (24 October 2023) “Anti-COVID drug accelerates viral evolution: Molnupiravir, an antiviral drug used to treat COVID-19, induces numerous mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 genome that can increase the rate at which the virus evolves — yielding viral variants that might survive and be passed on.”

“When considered together with the low efficacy of molnupiravir in reducing COVID-19 associated deaths or hospitalizations, and that such drugs can interact with (and therefore potentially mutate) host DNA, continued widespread administration of molnupiravir seems inadvisable.”³

My comments:

1. The authors are cowards for not stating plainly that the drug causes VIRAL MUTATIONS and thereby promotes 1) re-infection and 2) escape from supposed vaccines. The implications are that the government and Medical Drones actually pushed the "pandemic" by using this horrible drug.

2. They can almost never establish causality of harm when it will make a drug or vaccine look bad based on the evidence before them

3. They have plenty of mechanistic and temporal data to conclude that MOLNUPIRAVIR DRIVES VIRAL MUTATION AND PROLONGS THE INFECTION/PANDEMIC but they don't/barely have the courage to state it as such

Opinions and perspectives expressed here are not to be misconstrued as personal medical advice for anyone.

1. https://www.statnews.com/2021/10/05/government-funding-backed-molnupiravir-possible-new-covid-19-treatment/

2. https://www.merck.com/news/merck-and-ridgeback-announce-u-s-government-to-purchase-1-4-million-additional-courses-of-molnupiravir-an-investigational-oral-antiviral-medicine-for-the-treatment-of-mild-to-moderate-covid-19-in-a/

3. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03248-3