Can touching a barbell in the gym get you sick with the coronavirus?

Monty Bennett's companies did NOT receive $46 million or even $58.7 million in PPP loans.

Bennett's companies received a total of $96.1 million in Paycheck Protection Program loans out of applications for $126 million.

And he's NOT giving any of the money back. He insists that big companies like his also deserve corporate welfare.

According to filings with the SEC, Bennett's three companies have secured $96.1 million in Paycheck Protection Program loans. And more may be on the way. According to a fact sheet produced by the three companies, they've applied for a total of $126 million in Paycheck Protection Act loans.

[...]

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said there would be “severe consequences” for companies that did not return the money by May 7. But Bennett says his companies will keep the Paycheck Protection Program money.

[...]

Bennett, who inherited his business from his father, has been defiant about his thirst for government money despite his enormous personal wealth. "I won’t apologize for being a capitalist in America, or for being reasonably successful at it. But even a capitalist system with companies only and no government backstop does not work,"

Source: Multi-millionaire Trump donor is top recipient of funds intended for struggling small businesses

Bennett thinks that "every American" should support corporate welfare for his companies:

"I’m proud of our accomplishments, of the hotels I’ve bought and built, and of the thousands of folks I’ve hired who have become like family to me. I won’t apologize for being a capitalist in America, or for being reasonably successful at it. But even a capitalist system with companies only and no government backstop does not work. Just as a system with government and no companies to fund it does not work.

"Government needs to play its role in a big way right now. It should make up for its failures to protect our economy, its citizens and, yes, its companies. No one is asking our government to make up for the catastrophic losses caused by its negligence. But today, every American should expect just enough from government that our businesses can survive. Is that too much to ask?"

Source:


More corporate welfare for big businesses under Paycheck Protection Program:

Intellinetics, a software company in Ohio, got $838,700 from the government program — and then agreed, the following week, to spend at least $300,000 to purchase a rival firm.

///

Legacy Housing, a Texas company that manufactures premade homes, announced on April 1 that it had access to a new $25 million credit line. Curtis D. Hodgson, Legacy’s executive chairman, told investors that he expected any damage from the coronavirus to be short-lived. “Our order book is still strong, and we are well-positioned once the situation begins to normalize,” he said.

Less than two weeks later, on April 10, the company announced that a local lender, Peoples Bank, had approved it for $6.5 million under the S.B.A. loan program.

///

Escalade Sports, which makes things like table tennis tables and basketball hoops, already had a $50 million credit line from JPMorgan Chase. The company’s chief executive, Dave Fetherman, told investors this month that the company, based in Evansville, Ind., had “a strong balance sheet” and was seeing rising demand for its products, with so many Americans cooped up in their homes.

Days earlier, Escalade got a $5.6 million federally backed loan. A spokesman for Escalade said the company “fully met all required conditions at the time we applied for the P.P.P. loan.”

///

MiMedx Group, a biopharmaceutical company in Marietta, Ga., got a $10 million loan on April 21. On April 6, the company had agreed to pay the Justice Department $6.5 million to resolve allegations that it violated federal law by knowingly overcharging the Department of Veterans Affairs for medical supplies.

///

Infinite Group, a cybersecurity firm in Pittsford, N.Y., had been borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars from its board members and the brother of a top executive at annual interest rates as high as 7.5 percent. This month, Infinite secured a nearly $1 million federally backed loan whose 1 percent interest rate could allow the company to dramatically lower its funding costs. Company officials didn’t respond to requests for comment.

///

And Manning & Napier, an investment firm in Fairport, N.Y., that has about $20 billion in assets under management, disclosed in March that its chief executive, Marc O. Mayer, earned nearly $5 million last year. On April 19, the company was approved for $6.7 million in the paycheck protection loans — even as the company said it would pay out a quarterly dividend to its shareholders.

Source: Large, Troubled Companies Got Bailout Money in Small-Business Loan Program

Wealthiest Hospitals Got Billions in Bailout for Struggling Health Providers
Twenty large chains received more than $5 billion in federal grants even while sitting on more than $100 billion in cash.

A multibillion-dollar institution in the Seattle area invests in hedge funds, runs a pair of venture capital funds and works with elite private equity firms like the Carlyle Group.

But it is not just another deep-pocketed investor hunting for high returns. It is the Providence Health System, one of the country’s largest and richest hospital chains. It is sitting on nearly $12 billion in cash, which it invests, Wall Street-style, in a good year generating more than $1 billion in profits.

And this spring, Providence received at least $509 million in government funds, one of many wealthy beneficiaries of a federal program that is supposed to prevent health care providers from capsizing during the coronavirus pandemic.

So far, the riches are flowing in large part to hospitals that had already built up deep financial reserves to help them withstand an economic storm. Smaller, poorer hospitals are receiving tiny amounts of federal aid by comparison.

Twenty large recipients, including Providence, have received a total of more than $5 billion in recent weeks, according to an analysis of federal data by Good Jobs First, a research group. Those hospital chains were already sitting on more than $108 billion in cash, according to regulatory filings and the bond-rating firms S&P Global and Fitch. A Providence spokeswoman said the grants helped make up for losses from the coronavirus.

Source: Wealthiest Hospitals Got Billions in Bailout for Struggling Health Providers

The Bailout Is Working — for the Rich
The economy is in free fall but Wall Street is thriving, and stocks of big private equity firms are soaring dramatically higher. That tells you who investors think is the real beneficiary of the federal government’s massive rescue efforts.

If you’re looking for investors’ verdict on who has won the bailout, consider these returns: Shares of Apollo Group, the giant private equity firm, have soared 80% from their lows. The stock of Blackstone, another private equity behemoth, has risen 50%.

The reason: Asset holders like Apollo and Blackstone — disproportionately the wealthiest and most influential — have been insured by the world’s most powerful central bank. This largess is boundless and without conditions. “Even if a second wave of outbreaks were to occur,” JPMorgan economists wrote in a celebratory note on Friday, “the Fed has explicitly indicated that there is no dollar limit and no danger of running out of ammunition.”

Many aspects of the coronavirus bailout that assist individuals or small businesses, meanwhile, are short-term or contingent. Aid to small businesses comes with conditions on what they can do with the money. The sums allocated by the CARES Act for stimulus and expanded unemployment insurance are vast by historical standards. But the relief they provide didn’t prevent tens of millions from losing their jobs. The assistance runs out in weeks, and the jobless live at the mercy of a divided Congress, which will decide whether that help gets extended and, if so, for how long.

It’s a bailout of capital. “If the theory is: Let’s make sure companies are solvent and the workers will be OK, that theory could work. But it’s a trickle-down theory,” said Lev Menand, a former New York Fed economist who now teaches at Columbia Law School.

We do know one thing, he said: “It worked for asset holders.”

The Fed’s efforts, universally praised for their boldness and speed, have come in two stages. First, in February and March, the central bank shored up capital market “liquidity,” which marks how willing investors are to buy and sell. The central bank role is to be a “lender of last resort,” working through banks so they can get money to companies and people.

[...]

The second stage of the Fed’s extraordinary rescue goes beyond liquidity. It has said it will buy assets it has never bought before. For almost 100 years, the Fed purchased only government bonds. Now it has announced a wide variety of programs to buy various forms of corporate and other debt, either by direct lending, by buying bonds, or buying loans.

The mere announcement that the Fed would do this had an immediate effect, spurring the boom in corporate borrowing.

The Fed didn’t stop with the most solid, safest corporate stalwarts. In early April, it also announced something unprecedented. The central bank said it would buy junk bonds, debt issued by fragile companies, many of which already have crushing debt loads. Sure enough, junk bonds roared back and their cousins, leveraged loans, revived.

In doing so, the Fed backstopped the riskiest markets in the world. The most dangerous investments in the world, it should go without saying, are not owned by middle- and working-class Americans, to whom every politician pledges fealty. No, they are owned by the most risk-seeking investors in the world, the ones that need the highest returns: private equity firms and hedge funds.

But wait, there’s more. The riskiest markets only got more so during the long boom era of the last decade. In the past several years, regulators — especially the former chair of the Federal Reserve, Janet Yellen — repeatedly worried that companies had too much debt. They were concerned how lenders had raced to ease conditions, or covenants, on their loans to elbow out their competitors to fork over money, just as they had in the run-up to 2008. At a moment of record profits, the ratio of corporate debt to earnings steadily rose, while corporate stock buybacks hit records. Those cautions were treated like a parental exhortation to their kids to get off TikTok and brush their teeth.

Yet after all that worry, the Fed then stepped in to save the wealthiest speculators. The mere word that the Fed will make some purchases in this market has swelled these investors’ net worth.

Source: The Bailout Is Working — for the Rich — ProPublica
 
Remember that paper that said masks don't work because if you cough through them on a petri dish, some viral RNA gets through? Retracted because the authors didn't understand their own methodology and drew meaningless conclusions.


Notice of Retraction: Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2

According to recommendations by the editors of Annals of Internal Medicine, we are retracting our article, “Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2. A Controlled Comparison in 4 Patients,” which was published on Annals.org on 6 April 2020 (1).

We had not fully recognized the concept of limit of detection (LOD) of the in-house reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction used in the study (2.63 log copies/mL), and we regret our failure to express the values below LOD as “<LOD (value).” The LOD is a statistical measure of the lowest quantity of the analyte that can be distinguished from the absence of that analyte. Therefore, values below the LOD are unreliable and our findings are uninterpretable. Reader comments raised this issue after publication. We proposed correcting the reported data with new experimental data from additional patients, but the editors requested retraction.

Bae S, Kim M-C, Kim JY, et al. Notice of Retraction: Effectiveness of Surgical and Cotton Masks in Blocking SARS-CoV-2. Annals of internal medicine 2020. ACP Journals
 


. Instead, the virus was mostly carried around the hospital by staff and on the surfaces of medical equipment.

.


This and previous studies have reached similar conclusions---- a high prevalence of COVID-19 = a higher incidence of community transmission.

No doubt high volume COVID-19 HC facilities likely contributed to the latter as the availability of PPE, from N95 masks to PAPRS, was limited EARLY in the pandemic.

However that was then this is now, as PPE and other mitigating factors have greatly reduced the probability of nosocomial transmission.

JIM
 
Last edited:


However, a large proportion of the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appears to be occurring through airborne transmission of aerosols produced by asymptomatic individuals during breathing and speaking. Aerosols can accumulate, remain infectious in indoor air for hours, and be easily inhaled deep into the lungs.


The transmission rates of asymptomatic "aerosol spread" is very difficult difficult to verify or quantify bc the studies involve a symptomatic index case who was in close contact with or lived in the SAME family.

And while some relatives had delayed symptom onset (asymptomatic) several were NOT. The distinction is important bc ALL contacts of a symptomatic, as in SICK, patient are considered HIGH RISK.

And based upon known evidence (mush of it from hospitals) the risk of COVID-19 transmission is MUCH higher where clustering has occurred because DROPLET SPREAD becomes the predominate mode of transmission, which has been the case for every other respiratory illness from MERS, SARS to H1N1.

Moreover based upon existing models (for what that is worth) IF asymptomatic spread was the predominant mode or a major contributor of COVID-19 transmission our mitigation efforts would likely be in vain.

All that being said the judicious use of masks seems warranted ESPECIALLY when in crowded areas.


JIM
 
Last edited:
Put it simply, if we’re still relying on remdesivir to treat Covid19 in 2-3 years, we (meaning the world) is truly screwed.


Gilead's stock upgraded on high hopes for remdesivir revenue
Gilead's stock upgraded on high hopes for remdesivir revenue


Shares of Gilead Sciences Inc. GILD, 0.44% gained 1.1% in premarket trading on Wednesday after SVB Leerink upgraded the drugmaker to outperform from market perform. Analysts there predict that remdesivir, Gilead's experimental COVID-19 treatment that has received an emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration, will generate annual peak revenue of $7.7 billion in 2022.
 
The covid19 death count is 0, the virus doesn't exist. People are going to actually start getting sick and dying in the next few months or couple of years but it will be from 5g radiation exposure and the fake virus is the coverup

Wakeup you idiots, you're doing nothing but acting like little brainwashed bitches while world government is exterminating us.

Haven't you noticed how the causes of other deaths has declined while the covid19 death count has gone up?

They never isolated the virus and published anything proving covid19 exists and the covid19 test doesn't test for covid19, it tests for genetic material that anyone who has ever had a common cold, flu, flu-shot, or been exposed to 5g radiation can potentially have and test positive for.

Dr. Scally you're doing the human race a huge disservice by posting this shit, these lame ass, made up, pumped up statistics that have been pulled out of somebody's ass like you're smart or something when really you're just a privelaged, average-intelligence motherfucker who had the patience to sit through medical school. Shut the fuck up already and start doing some actual investigating instead of copying and pasting crap from your slave-masters.
 
Last edited:


In January, one of the first publications on those sickened by the novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China, reported that three out of every four hospitalized patients were male. Data from around the world have since confirmed that men face a greater risk of severe illness and death from COVID-19 than women and that children are largely spared. Now, scientists investigating how the virus does its deadly work have zeroed in on a possible reason: Androgens—male hormones such as testosterone—appear to boost the virus’ ability to get inside cells.

A constellation of emerging data supports this idea, including COVID-19 outcomes in men with prostate cancer and lab studies of how androgens regulate key genes. And preliminary observations from Spain suggest that a disproportionate number of men with male pattern baldness—which is linked to a powerful androgen—end up in hospitals with COVID-19. Researchers are rushing to test already approved drugs that block androgens’ effects, deploying them early in infection in hopes of slowing the virus and buying time for the immune system to beat it back.

Epidemiological data from around the world have confirmed the early reports of male vulnerability. In Lombardy in Italy, for example, men comprised 82% of 1591 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) from 20 February to 18 March, according to a JAMA paper. Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 Admitted to ICUs in Italy

And male mortality exceeded that of women in every adult age group in another JAMA study of 5700 New York City patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Clinical Characteristics, Comorbidities, and Outcomes Among Patients With COVID-19 Hospitalized in the NYC Area

Now, researchers are on the trail of a mechanism for this male bias—an effort led by prostate cancer researchers, who have a deep acquaintance with androgens.

...
 


Hydroxychloroquine did not prevent healthy people exposed to covid-19 from getting the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to a study being published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study is the first randomized clinical trial that tested the antimalarial drug, touted by President Trump, as a preventive measure. It showed that hydroxychloroquine was no more effective than a placebo — in this case, a vitamin — in protecting people exposed to covid-19.



Researchers at the University of Minnesota Medical School launched the trial in mid-March. They enrolled more than 800 adults in the United States and Canada who were exposed to someone with covid-19 because of their jobs as health care workers or first responders, or because they lived with someone with the disease. The study was a randomized placebo-controlled trial, and was double-blinded, meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew what the participants received. Such a study is considered the gold standard for clinical trials.




The malaria drug hydroxychloroquine did not help prevent people who had been exposed to others with Covid-19 from developing the disease, according to the results of an eagerly awaited study published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Despite a lack of evidence, many people began taking the medicine to try to prevent infection early in the Covid-19 pandemic, following anecdotal reports it could be effective and claims by President Trump and conservative commentators. Trump, too, said he took hydroxychloroquine to prevent infection.

But the new study, the first double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine, found otherwise.

The same group of researchers is also planning to publish the results of trials testing the drug as a treatment and as a “pre-exposure prophylaxis” — that is, before any exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.

The latest trial enrolled 821 patients who were either living in the same household as someone with Covid-19 or who were health care workers who had been exposed to someone with Covid-19 without adequate protective gear. While the initial infections had to be confirmed with a diagnostic test, the researchers also counted patients who had symptoms consistent with disease, in part because testing wasn’t available.

Approximately 12% of those given hydroxychloroquine developed Covid-19, compared to 14% who were given the vitamin folate as a placebo. There was no further benefit among patients who chose to take zinc or vitamin C. Nearly 40% of patients on hydroxychloroquine experienced side effects such as nausea, upset stomach, or diarrhea. However, the study did not see a significant increase in disturbances of heart rhythms, or an imbalance of deaths.
 
Last edited:


Hydroxychloroquine did not prevent healthy people exposed to covid-19 from getting the disease caused by the coronavirus, according to a study being published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The study is the first randomized clinical trial that tested the antimalarial drug, touted by President Trump, as a preventive measure. It showed that hydroxychloroquine was no more effective than a placebo — in this case, a vitamin — in protecting people exposed to covid-19.



Researchers at the University of Minnesota Medical School launched the trial in mid-March. They enrolled more than 800 adults in the United States and Canada who were exposed to someone with covid-19 because of their jobs as health care workers or first responders, or because they lived with someone with the disease. The study was a randomized placebo-controlled trial, and was double-blinded, meaning neither the participants nor the researchers knew what the participants received. Such a study is considered the gold standard for clinical trials.




The malaria drug hydroxychloroquine did not help prevent people who had been exposed to others with Covid-19 from developing the disease, according to the results of an eagerly awaited study published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Despite a lack of evidence, many people began taking the medicine to try to prevent infection early in the Covid-19 pandemic, following anecdotal reports it could be effective and claims by President Trump and conservative commentators. Trump, too, said he took hydroxychloroquine to prevent infection.

But the new study, the first double-blind randomized, placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine, found otherwise.

The same group of researchers is also planning to publish the results of trials testing the drug as a treatment and as a “pre-exposure prophylaxis” — that is, before any exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19.

The latest trial enrolled 821 patients who were either living in the same household as someone with Covid-19 or who were health care workers who had been exposed to someone with Covid-19 without adequate protective gear. While the initial infections had to be confirmed with a diagnostic test, the researchers also counted patients who had symptoms consistent with disease, in part because testing wasn’t available.

Approximately 12% of those given hydroxychloroquine developed Covid-19, compared to 14% who were given the vitamin folate as a placebo. There was no further benefit among patients who chose to take zinc or vitamin C. Nearly 40% of patients on hydroxychloroquine experienced side effects such as nausea, upset stomach, or diarrhea. However, the study did not see a significant increase in disturbances of heart rhythms, or an imbalance of deaths.




BACKGROUND - Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown.

METHODS - We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure).

Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days.

RESULTS - We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.

CONCLUSIONS - After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668. opens in new tab.)

Boulware DR, Pullen MF, Bangdiwala AS, et al. A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine 2020. https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
 


BACKGROUND - Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) occurs after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). For persons who are exposed, the standard of care is observation and quarantine. Whether hydroxychloroquine can prevent symptomatic infection after SARS-CoV-2 exposure is unknown.

METHODS - We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across the United States and parts of Canada testing hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis. We enrolled adults who had household or occupational exposure to someone with confirmed Covid-19 at a distance of less than 6 ft for more than 10 minutes while wearing neither a face mask nor an eye shield (high-risk exposure) or while wearing a face mask but no eye shield (moderate-risk exposure).

Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days). The primary outcome was the incidence of either laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 or illness compatible with Covid-19 within 14 days.

RESULTS - We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.

CONCLUSIONS - After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668. opens in new tab.)

Boulware DR, Pullen MF, Bangdiwala AS, et al. A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19. New England Journal of Medicine 2020. https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638



[OA] Cohen MS. Hydroxychloroquine for the Prevention of Covid-19 — Searching for Evidence. New England Journal of Medicine 2020. https://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJMe2020388

So, what are we to do with the results of this trial?

The advocacy and widespread use of hydroxychloroquine seem to reflect a reasonable fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, it would appear that to some extent the media and social forces — rather than medical evidence — are driving clinical decisions and the global Covid-19 research agenda.10

On June 1, 2020, ClinicalTrials.gov listed a remarkable 203 Covid-19 trials with hydroxychloroquine, 60 of which were focused on prophylaxis. An important question is to what extent the article by Boulware et al. should affect planned or ongoing hydroxychloroquine trials. If postexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine does not prevent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (with recognition of the limitations of the trial under discussion), should other trials of postexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine continue unchanged?

Do the participants in these trials need to be informed of these results?

Do these trial results with respect to postexposure prophylaxis affect trials of preexposure prophylaxis with hydroxychloroquine, some of which are very large (e.g., the Healthcare Worker Exposure Response and Outcomes of Hydroxychloroquine [HERO-HCQ] trial, involving 15,000 health care workers; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04334148. opens in new tab)?

The results reported by Boulware et al. are more provocative than definitive, suggesting that the potential prevention benefits of hydroxychloroquine remain to be determined.
 
Surgisphere is shady AF

It looks like they are big pharma shills by:
1 Discouraging use of drugs that do work, like Hidroxychloroquine.
2 Enouraging drugs that may not work: maybe ivermectin, as the concentrations in the test tube study are much higher than those achievable in blood.
3 Shilling that blood pressure meds like ARBs and ACE-Is are safe because they provide a steady revenue for big pharma.
 
Back
Top