The viral rebound after paxlovid I believe is arising from the rush to market in order to start ringing the cash register for the drug company; the length of treatment is probably insufficient and they are just going with what was approved rather than circle back and fix the dosing in the face of the evidence that there is a high rebound rate. I would never consider their competitor molnupiravir based on it’s mechanism of action and the potential for mutagenesis of DNA…that risk is not zero and likely would not manifest till you had large numbers of patients and over a very lengthy study period. The drug company in the end would likely also insist there is “no evidence it was caused by the drug” if something like cancer arose. This “safe and effective, no evidence” mantra was exercised with the mRNA COVID vaccines. I don’t wish to get into a vaccine debate here, it’s really pointless, but the masses asked to take these vaccines would appreciate intellectual honesty and a complete assessment of the risks…the central venous and portal vein clots which have occurred in conjunction with the mRNA covid vaccines, while rare, have a very high fatality rate. It may still be safer to get the vaccine than the disease, but repeating the “safe and effective” mantra till it is tattooed on the public’s brain is lacking an element of transparency in my opinion.