Connect with us

Science

Data suggests mRNA booster dose generates stronger antibody response after J&J shot – Axios

People who received Johnson & Johnson’s Covid-19 vaccine will have a stronger neutralizing antibody response if they get an mRNA shot as the second dose, Axios reported on Oct. 12, citing a person who has seen data collected by the U.S. National Insti

Published

on

Data suggests mRNA booster dose generates stronger antibody response after J&J shot – Axios

(Reuters) – People who received Johnson & Johnson’s (JNJ.N) COVID-19 vaccine will have a stronger neutralizing antibody response if they get an mRNA shot as the second dose, Axios reported on Tuesday, citing a person who has seen data collected by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

J&J has asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve a shot of its own single-dose vaccine as the booster dose. The FDA’s advisers are set to consider the need on Friday.

The NIH will present the mix-and-match data to the FDA panel on Friday, Axios said.

There were limitations to the NIH data, according to the report. Neutralizing antibodies only prevent the virus from entering cells and replicating, and the report said it was unclear how long the response will last.

The NIH, FDA and J&J did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.

Two-dose vaccines made by Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and its German partner BioNTech and Moderna Inc (MRNA.O) use the mRNA technology.

FILE PHOTO: Vials labelled “COVID-19 Coronavirus Vaccine” and sryinge are seen in front of displayed Johnson&Johnson logo in this illustration taken, February 9, 2021. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

The health regulator’s outside experts will also discuss the need for an additional dose of Moderna’s vaccine on Friday.

Scientists at the FDA have said Moderna had not met all of the agency’s criteria to support use of booster doses of its COVID-19 vaccine, possibly because the efficacy of the shot’s first two doses has remained strong. read more

Reporting by Shubham Kalia in Bengaluru; Editing by Sriraj Kalluvila

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

 

Reuters source:

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/data-suggests-mrna-booster-dose-generates-stronger-antibody-response-after-jj-2021-10-13

 

Read More

Continue Reading

Economics

Peter Schiff: Transitory Permanence

Peter Schiff: Transitory Permanence

Via SchiffGold.com,

The inflation that we were emphatically told would be transitory and unmoored continues to persist and entrench. As the troubles gather momentum Washington is doing its best to ignore..

Published

on

Peter Schiff: Transitory Permanence

Via SchiffGold.com,

The inflation that we were emphatically told would be transitory and unmoored continues to persist and entrench. As the troubles gather momentum Washington is doing its best to ignore the problem or actively make it worse.

The latest batch of data shows that the Consumer Price Index rose 5.4% in September, the 5th consecutive month that year over year inflation came in at more than 5%. The figure rises to 6.5% if we project the inflation levels of the first 9 months of 2021 to the entire calendar year. The last time we had to contend with numbers like these, Jimmy Carter was telling us all to put on our sweaters.

Recent developments should be sounding the alarms. Whereas earlier in the year inflation was largely driven by supercharged price increases in narrow sectors, such as used cars and hotel rooms, it’s now occurring in a much wider spectrum of goods and services.

In September, the cost of used autos fell month over month (but are still up 24% year over year), but that didn’t help the overall CPI, which saw increases just about everywhere else. Over the past 12 months: beef prices are up 17.6%, seafood prices up 10.6%, home appliances up 10.5%, furniture and bedding up 11.2%, and new cars up 8.7%.

Even more alarming is that oil is up over $80 per barrel for the first time in almost 10 years and many analysts see $100 in the near future. That has translated to more than a $1 increase in per gallon gasoline prices, a 50% increase in a year. Home heating oil prices are already up 42% year over year and are expected to spike up again when winter demand peaks.  For many low-income residents of the North and Upper Midwest, these types of increases could be very hard to bear, particularly if we have a cold winter.

As I have said many times before, the biggest flaw in the way we measure inflation (and there are many of them) is how the government deals with housing. While the Case Shiller Home Price Index is up more than 20% year over year, and national rents are up more than 12% over the same time frame, the CPI has largely ignored these increases in housing costs. Instead, the government relies on the dubious and amorphous concept of “Owners Equivalent Rent” which asks homeowners to guess how much they would have to pay to rent a house of similar quality to the one they to the one they own. Conveniently, that meaningless figure, which constitutes almost 30% of the total CPI, is only up 3% year over year. If actual rent increases were used instead, the CPI would be almost three full percentage points higher.

In fact, relying on the government to tell us the truth about inflation is a bit like asking high school students to grade their own report cards. There are countless incentives that exist institutionally for the government to underreport inflation. It allows them to make stealth cuts to Social Security, to create higher nominal incomes and capital “gains” to tax, and to minimize the interest rates it pays on over $28 trillion in debt as inflation. But since GDP is adjusted for inflation, it also makes economic growth appear higher than it really is.  The methodology for computing the CPI index was specifically designed to minimize the impact of rising prices. But I don’t believe that this is a conspiracy. Once you understand how institutional bias works, how careers are made by finding new plausible ways to underreport inflation, and how they are ruined by claiming the opposite, you can see how the numbers get farther away from reality with each passing year.

But the disconnect has become so obvious that top officials at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have begun warning the public to prepare for higher prices. In her latest exercise of goal post moving, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said, “I believe that price increases are transitory, but that doesn’t mean they’ll go away over the next several months.” We can expect that months will soon turn into years, as the definition of “transitory,” gets ever more elastic.

This week the government announced that the inflation-adjusted cost of living increases for Social Security payments in 2022 will be 5.9%, the highest such increase since 1982. In addition to throwing yet another log on the government deficit fire, the increase is a direct admission that inflation is not going away.

Despite the marginal increase in wages that the Biden Administration likes to talk about, or the cost of living increases for our seniors, the average American makes less money. After adjusting for inflation real hourly earnings in the United States have dropped 1.9% so far this year. This is the stagflation that I have been warning about. Welcome back to the Carter Administration. We can expect Joe Biden to break out our sweaters if home heating bills get too high this winter.

Team Biden has been working overtime to suggest that the price increases and supply shortages are resulting from temporary bottlenecks at port facilities. Imports are particularly sensitive as our trade deficit has widened to record levels in recent months, making Americans ever more reliant on overseas goods. To combat the problem the Administration has ordered that some ports begin to operate 24 hours a day. (Left unsaid was the very fact that American ports – due to the strength of the Longshoreman’s Union – operate at very spare schedules versus foreign counterparts).

But the effect of this order will be far milder than the Administration hopes. Firstly, it is unclear how many port facilities will comply. Some have noted for instance that the Port of Los Angeles agreed to go 24 hours at only one of its six docks. (Currently, the wait time to enter that port is approaching three weeks). And secondly, most industry analysts note that the problem is not the hours of the dock facilities themselves but the shortfalls of the domestic trucking industry to move the goods once they arrive. Not only are we struggling with a lack of drivers, who struggle with government regulations that sharply limit the number of hours they are allowed to drive, but a lack of shipping containers to put back on the ships. Since many ships refuse to leave unloaded, which greatly reduces their profitability, America needs to first solve a host of problems to get the ports in better order.

But what we are seeing in a larger sense are the fruits of 15 years of bad investments in things that we don’t need and very little investment in the things we do. The ultra-low interest rates that have become the bedrock of our bubble economy have channeled investment capital into the wrong places. These low rates have encouraged corporations to borrow recklessly to buy back shares and inflate stock prices. Such moves have enriched shareholders but have done little to expand productive capacity.

Low rates have also led to runaway speculation in untested and unneeded industries. We have seen massive investments in social media, e-commerce, entertainment, cryptocurrencies, financial technology, and most recently Non-Fungible Tokens (NFT’s). As a result, we have really built out our capacity to post videos, buy things online, and pay for them in new ways. But we have invested comparatively little in boring industries like manufacturing, energy, transportation, and agriculture. As a result, we have all sorts of ways to buy stuff, and gimmicks for how to pay for it later, but we lack the capacity to produce and distribute all the goods we want to buy in the first place.

What’s worse is that given the current policies of the Biden Administration, none of that is going to change anytime soon. His expanded social safety net programs, overly generous unemployment benefits, higher taxes and regulation, and unneeded vaccine mandates are discouraging workers from working and employers from hiring. The American workforce is more than five million workers smaller than it was before the pandemic. That is not an accident. If the Democrats get their caucus together long enough to pass even a slimmed-down version of Biden’s Build Back Better plan look for all these problems to get worse.

With fewer workers working, supplies of goods and services have diminished. Government will look to replace the lost production with even more monetary and fiscal stimulus, which just leads to more inflation, financial speculation, and rising asset prices, largely benefiting the wealthy, and falling the hardest on the poor who have no appreciating assets to compensate for the rising cost of living.

But rather than fixing the problem, our current leaders are mostly worried about equity and diversity. The five leading candidates to replace Jerome Powell, if he is not renominated, all are either female or African American. Now I have no problems with hiring women or minorities in key positions. But if all your candidates come exclusively from those groups, then it’s clear that identity is more important than competency at this moment in time. But if there was ever a time that we needed competence, it’s now.

Tyler Durden Fri, 10/22/2021 - 09:10

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Parents were fine with sweeping school vaccination mandates five decades ago – but COVID-19 may be a different story

Public health experts know that schools are likely sites for the spread of disease, and laws tying school attendance to vaccination go back to the 1800s.

Published

on

Children and parents lined up for polio vaccines outside a Syracuse, New York school in 1961. AP Photo

The ongoing battles over COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. are likely to get more heated when the Food and Drug Administration authorizes emergency use of a vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, expected later this fall.

California has announced it will require the vaccine for elementary school attendance once it receives full FDA approval after emergency use authorization, and other states may follow suit. COVID-19 vaccination mandates in workplaces and colleges have sparked controversy, and the possibility that a mandate might extend to younger children is even more contentious.

Kids are already required to get a host of other vaccines to attend school. School vaccination mandates have been around since the 19th century, and they became a fixture in all 50 states in the 1970s. Vaccine requirements are among the most effective means of controlling infectious diseases, but they’re currently under attack by small but vocal minorities of parents who consider them unacceptable intrusions on parental rights.

As a public health historian who studies the evolution of vaccination policies, I see stark differences between the current debates over COVID-19 vaccination and the public response to previous mandates.

Compulsory vaccination in the past

The first legal requirements for vaccination date to the early 1800s, when gruesome and deadly diseases routinely terrorized communities. A loose patchwork of local and state laws were enacted to stop epidemics of smallpox, the era’s only vaccine-preventable disease.

Vaccine mandates initially applied to the general population. But in the 1850s, as universal public education became more common, people recognized that schoolhouses were likely sites for the spread of disease. Some states and localities began enacting laws tying school attendance to vaccination. The smallpox vaccine was crude by today’s standards, and concerns about its safety led to numerous lawsuits over mandates.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld compulsory vaccination in two decisions. The first, in 1905, affirmed that mandates are constitutional. The second, in 1922, specifically upheld school-based requirements. In spite of these rulings, many states lacked a smallpox vaccination law, and some states that did have one failed to enforce it consistently. Few states updated their laws as new vaccines became available.

School vaccination laws underwent a major overhaul beginning in the 1960s, when health officials grew frustrated that outbreaks of measles were continuing to occur in schools even though a safe and effective vaccine had recently been licensed.

Many parents mistakenly believed that measles was an annoying but mild disease from which most kids quickly recovered. In fact, it often caused serious complications, including potentially fatal pneumonia and swelling of the brain.

With encouragement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, all states updated old laws or enacted new ones, which generally covered all seven childhood vaccines that had been developed by that time: diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus, polio, measles, mumps and rubella. In 1968, just half the states had school vaccination requirements; by 1981, all states did.

Smiling boy rolls up his sleeve to get a shot from a nurse
Sometimes, students even received vaccinations from nurses at school. NIH U.S. National Library of Medicine, CC BY-ND

Expanding requirements, mid-20th century

What is most surprising about this major expansion of vaccination mandates is how little controversy it provoked.

The laws did draw scattered court challenges, usually over the question of exemptions – which children, if any, should be allowed to opt out. These lawsuits were often brought by chiropractors and other adherents of alternative medicine. In most instances, courts turned away these challenges.

There was scant public protest. In contrast to today’s vocal and well-networked anti-vaccination activists, organized resistance to vaccination remained on the fringes in the 1970s, the period when these school vaccine mandates were largely passed. Unlike today, when fraudulent theories of vaccine-related harm – such as the discredited notion that vaccines cause autism – circulate endlessly on social media, public discussion of the alleged or actual risks of vaccines was largely absent.

Through most of the 20th century, parents were less likely to question pediatricians’ recommendations than they are today. In contrast to the empowered “patient/consumer” of today, an attitude of “doctor knows best” prevailed. All these factors contributed to overwhelmingly positive views of vaccination, with more than 90% of parents in a 1978 poll reporting that they would vaccinate their children even if there were no law requiring them to do so.

Widespread public support for vaccination enabled the laws to be passed easily – but it took more than placing a law on the books to control disease. Vaccination rates continued to lag in the 1970s, not because of opposition, but because of complacency.

Thanks to the success of earlier vaccination programs, most parents of young children lacked firsthand experience with the suffering and death that diseases like polio or whooping cough had caused in previous eras. But public health officials recognized that those diseases were far from eradicated and would continue to threaten children unless higher rates of vaccination were reached. Vaccines were already becoming a victim of their success. The better they worked, the more people thought they were no longer needed.

In response to this lack of urgency, the CDC launched a nationwide push in 1977 to help states enforce the laws they had recently enacted. Around the country, health officials partnered with school districts to audit student records and provide on-site vaccination programs. When push came to shove, they would exclude unvaccinated children from school until they completed the necessary shots.

The lesson learned was that making a law successful requires ongoing effort and commitment – and continually reminding parents about the value of vaccines in keeping schools and entire communities healthy.

Add COVID-19 to vaccine list for school?

Five decades after school mandates became universal in the U.S., support for them remains strong overall. But misinformation spread over the internet and social media has weakened the public consensus about the value of vaccination that allowed these laws to be enacted.

adults and kids with signs protesting COVID-19 vaccines
Some anti-vaccination activists are vocal opponents of vaccine mandates for kids. Sarah Reingewirtz/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images

COVID-19 vaccination has become politicized in a way that is unprecedented, with sharp partisan divides over whether COVID-19 is really a threat, and whether the guidance of scientific experts can be trusted. The attention focused on COVID-19 vaccines has given new opportunities for anti-vaccination conspiracy theories to reach wide audiences.

[Over 115,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

Fierce opposition to COVID-19 vaccination, powered by anti-government sentiment and misguided notions of freedom, could undermine support for time-tested school requirements that have protected communities for decades. Although vaccinating school-aged children will be critical to controlling COVID-19, lawmakers will need to proceed with caution.

James Colgrove has received funding from the National Library of Medicine, the Greenwall Foundation, the Milbank Memorial Fund, and the William T. Grant Foundation.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

How Robots and A.I. are About To Change This $11 Trillion Industry Forever

TikTok’s nearly 700 million users seek medical advice from random individuals and charlatans, since anyone can claim to be a medical expert on this raging social media machine.
Dr. Google is also working overtime, receiving more than one billion…

Published

on

TikTok’s nearly 700 million users seek medical advice from random individuals and charlatans, since anyone can claim to be a medical expert on this raging social media machine.

Dr. Google is also working overtime, receiving more than one billion healthcare questions every day.

Web MD is recording over one billion searches a year, too.

When you combine this voracious hunger for digital diagnosis, symptom checkers and immediate medical assistance, with a global mobile app market whose revenues had already hit $365 billion in 2018, and are now on track to generate over $935 billion by 2023 ...

You get one of the best bets on disrupting the virtual medicine industry to date. You get Big Tech built by doctors for doctors in the Global Library of Medicine (GLM).

You get Cara, the new, sophisticated AI, powered by the unique Global Library of Medicine, that has been trained by hundreds of doctors to think just like them.


Cara will be launching at the end of November, marking the first time in our medical history that we can check our symptoms online, at the touch of a button, and truly trust what we are being told.

Over the past five years, Treatment.com (CSE: TRUE; OTC: TREIF) has been developing the world’s next-generation AI symptom checker, picking up where the billions of requests were left hanging by Google and WebMD … and certainly by TikTok.

Now, the app is about to launch as Treatment Mobile with an intelligent digital assistant, Cara, with over 400 diagnoses by a global team of hundreds of doctors who are adding more every day.

A Digital Fix for a Broken Healthcare System

An overwhelming majority of Americans find the healthcare system impossible to navigate.

Nearly three-quarters have no idea how they will afford their healthcare.

Those two facts have led to a shocking increase in at-home health solutions.

Need a healthcare big tech vendor who knows North American Healthcare

From 2019 to 2020--even before the COVID-19 outbreak--telemedicine grew by 46%.

In 2020 alone, wellness apps were downloaded 1.2 billion times.

Major investment into the telemedicine space combined with a massive increase in uptake and rapidly rising favor among consumers has seen telehealth increase 38X so far in 2021 from pre-COVID levels.

In April 2020, right at the start of the pandemic, telehealth use was 78X higher than in February 2020, according to McKinsey.

Total VC investment into the digital health space in H1 2021 was $14.7 billion. That’s more than VC investment for all of 2020, and twice the amount for 2019. That leads McKinsey to project that 2021 could see total investment in the sector hit $30 billion.

The bottom line is this: American healthcare is broken, and digital offerings are a major element of the fix. Cara steps in at exactly the right time to provide the first sophisticated AI that can help bring it all together. This is where big money is going in the healthcare sector.

The Digital Doctor Is In

Working with the University of Minnesota Medical School, Treatment.com (CSE: TRUE; OTC: TREIF) has gathered the best doctors and tech engineers that built the Global Library of Medicine (GLM) from around the world to teach Cara to do two things that no other digital health platform has been able to do successfully:

1) Think like a real doctor

2) Provide consumers with a personalized health assessment and full-on health management

Cara integrates everything by providing consumers with a bridge to wellness, telemedicine, pharma and health products ...


Cara asks you questions about your symptoms and then sorts through millions of pieces of information that include historical medical cases, demographic data and advances in medical knowledge. The end result is a more accurate recommendation than any other digital tool in the world.

Cara helps you understand what your symptom could be. It helps you monitor and track health changes and understand your general health and prevent illness. It gives you personalized support and follow-up and even allows you to track and manage your entire family.

And it can all be integrated with Apple Health Kit, Apple Watch and FitBit.

Treatment’s AI has been so effective, in fact, that the University of Minnesota Medical School licensed it to test medical students.

How Does Cara Make Money?

Treatment.com (CSE: TRUE; OTC: TREIF) plans to leverage its healthcare AI to build a multi-billion-dollar business.

The initial app will be free, but there is an impressive scalability here.

This is how the wildly lucrative world of apps works. Once the upfront costs of development and AI learning are paid for, it’s all revenue, all the time. And app revenue streams are recurring, which is exactly why the mobile app industry continues to surge.

Consumers will pay for recommendations through premium app subscriptions, and Treatment.com’s next move with Cara will be to add a series of paid plugins for everything from dermatology specialty segments, to cardiology.

Additionally, Treatment.com will seek health and wellness partners to integrate to access qualified referrals and improve efficiencies, while simultaneously reducing costs.

There are three revenue-generating avenues here: corporate licenses, health and wellness products and university medical school training.

But the biggest value here is that Cara is a goldmine of data …

Cara’s access to individualized health trends will help insurance providers and governments to provide better health services.

In healthcare, big data like this helps avoid preventable diseases by detecting them in their early stages.

The market for big data analytics in healthcare could be worth an astounding $68 billion by 2025, and Treatment.com will have a major advantage with Cara.

WebMD--a private company--is valued at $2.8 billion, and it doesn’t even have any AI to back it up.

Treatment.com, (CSE: TRUE; OTC: TREIF) which listed on the Canadian Securities Exchange on April 19th, 2021, is about to launch a healthcare app that could completely change the way we view and access healthcare.

Global Medical and AI Expertise

Founded by John Fraser and Dr. Kevin Peterson, Treatment.com International Inc. (CSE: TRUE)(OTC:TREIF) is a sophisticated big-tech setup from the roots up.

Fraser is a computer scientist and entrepreneur with a background in healthcare technology. He’s a 20-year IT software veteran who has done this before. He sold his first unicorn--Vision Share (now Abilities Network)--for over $1 billion.

Dr. Peterson is a leading doctor and tenured professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School. He was also the architect of an international disease surveillance and research system, the first such in the world.

Add to this a global team of doctors in the United States, Canada, Singapore, India, Ethiopia and South Africa and you have the makings of the most intelligent AI symptom checker and health care management platform on the planet.

Again, that’s why it’s been licensed to train medical students at the University of Minnesota.

The Next Healthcare Wave

The healthcare industry is overripe for disruption, and it’s being disrupted in waves.

The most recent wave saw Babylon Health, valued at $4.2 billion in its latest funding round, explode on the scene with an AI-powered platform for virtual clinical operations. Babylon is about to go public via a SPAC deal through a $4.2-billion merger with Alkuri Global Acquisition Corp., led by former Groupon executives.

It’s also been disrupted by Teladoc Health, the $25-billion telemedicine behemoth that has nicely rewarded investors. Investors who jumped in on this in early 2018 could have seen gains of over 1,500% by January this year.

When we miss one wave, we move on to the next because the healthcare industry is set to see wave after wave of disruption, and Cara comes next.

Set to launch by the end of October, Cara is about to go mainstream, and because of the global experts behind it, it stands a good chance of becoming the next app to go from zero to hero--and perhaps to billions.
Treatment.com International Inc. (CSE: TRUE; OTC: TREIF) has:

1) unfettered access to a data goldmine

2) A Global Library of Medicine (GLM) that is continually updated and referenced by its AI engine that will eventually scale up to all ~10,000 diseases known to man

3) Proprietary IP that could one day be worth billions of dollars

4) Massive growth runways

The next healthcare disruption is about empowering consumers to take better care--and control--of their health, and early-in investors may have a unique opportunity here with a new app that puts another big patch on a broken healthcare system.

Other companies looking to transform healthcare:

3D Signatures Inc. is a high-tech Canadian firm that has found itself in the center of two explosive sectors. It’s armed with an innovative new software platform which uses 3D analysis to target various diseases and help clinicians identify a diagnosis and optimize treatment plans. 3D Signatures’ software is saving doctors time which could be the difference of life and death for some patients.  3D Signatures sets itself apart from its competition through creating individualized treatment plans for patients. Using its mapping platform, the software can determine how a disease will progress and whether or not the patient will respond to treatment

3D Signatures’ broad scope and futuristic technology brings a promising opportunity to potential investors. It truly is at the forefront of a new era in medicine, and investors should not overlook this company’s massive potential.

CRH Medical Corporation specializes in products and services designed for the treatment of gastrointestinal diseases in the United States, Canada, and internationally. With a long history within the space, CRH has positioned itself as a leader in the field, trusted by medical professionals all over the world.

CRH also made a majpr acquisition at the beginning of the year, buying out Anesthesia Care Associates, LLC, an Indiana-based gastroenterology anesthesia practice. The estimated $2.6 million deal will increase CRH’s footprint in the space, and has been well received by investors.

AEterna Zentaris Inc. (TSX:AEZS) is a major biopharmaceutical up and comer. The company has seen steady growth, and an array of new developments over the recent years. With a focus on oncology, endocrinology, and women's health solutions, AEterna has created a variety of new products, including Macrilen, the first and only FDA-approved oral test for the diagnosis of Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency.

Recently, AEterna received European approval to market Macrillen which has pushed its value even higher. Dr. Christian Strasburger, the Head of Clinical Endocrinology at Charité Unversitaetsmedizin Berlin and the principal investigator for macimorelin explained, “Clinical studies have demonstrated that macimorelin is safer and much simpler to administer than the current methods of testing for insulin-induced hypoglycemia, and is well-tolerated by patients and reliable in diagnosing the condition.”

Aptose Biosciences Inc. (TSX:APS) is a biotech company specializing in personalized therapies to address Canada’s unmet oncology needs. The company uses genetic and epigenetic profiles to gain insights into certain cancers and patient populations in order to develop new treatments within the space.

Aptose has an exclusive partnership with Ohm Oncology to develop, manufacture and commercialize APL-581 in order to treat hematologic malignancies and related molecules.

Toronto-based Field Trip Health (TSX:FTRP) is taking a three-pronged approach in their work in the transformative psychedelic medicine sector. Not only are they involved in drug development, but they’re also involved in manufacturing and run a number of treatment clinics.

Field Trip has hit the ground running. With clinics currently operating in Toronto, Los Angeles, and New York, they have plans to ramp up to 75 clinics – providing psychotherapy along with psychedelic treatments. As one of the frontrunners in this exciting new industry, investors are keeping a close eye on Field Trip.

By. Charles Kennedy

** IMPORTANT NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER -- PLEASE READ CAREFULLY! **

PAID ADVERTISEMENT. This article is a paid advertisement. Advanced Media Solutions Ltd. and its owners, managers, employees, and assigns (collectively “the Publisher”) is often paid by one or more of the profiled companies or a third party to disseminate these types of communications. In this case, the Publisher has been compensated by Treatment.com International, Inc. Inc. (“Treatment.com” or “Company”) to conduct investor awareness advertising and marketing. Treatment.com paid the Publisher to produce and disseminate six articles profiling the Company at a rate of seventy-five thousand US dollars per article. This compensation should be viewed as a major conflict with our ability to be unbiased.

Readers should beware that third parties, profiled companies, and/or their affiliates may liquidate shares of the profiled companies at any time, including at or near the time you receive this communication, which has the potential to hurt share prices. Frequently companies profiled in our articles experience a large increase in volume and share price during the course of investor awareness marketing, which often ends as soon as the investor awareness marketing ceases. The investor awareness marketing may be as brief as one day, after which a large decrease in volume and share price may likely occur.

This communication is not, and should not be construed to be, an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. Neither this communication nor the Publisher purport to provide a complete analysis of any company or its financial position. The Publisher is not, and does not purport to be, a broker-dealer or registered investment adviser. This communication is not, and should not be construed to be, personalized investment advice directed to or appropriate for any particular investor. Any investment should be made only after consulting a professional investment advisor and only after reviewing the financial statements and other pertinent corporate information about the company. Further, readers are advised to read and carefully consider the Risk Factors identified and discussed in the advertised company’s SEC, SEDAR and/or other government filings. Investing in securities, particularly microcap securities, is speculative and carries a high degree of risk. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This communication is based on information generally available to the public and on interviews with company management, and does not (to the Publisher’s knowledge, as confirmed by Treatment.com) contain any material, non-public information. The information on which it is based is believed to be reliable. Nevertheless, the Publisher cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information.

SHARE OWNERSHIP. The Publisher owns shares and / or options of the featured company and therefore has an additional incentive to see the featured company’s stock perform well. The Publisher does not undertake any obligation to notify the market when it decides to buy or sell shares of the issuer in the market. The Publisher will be buying and selling shares of the featured company for its own profit. This is why we stress that you conduct extensive due diligence as well as seek the advice of your financial advisor or a registered broker-dealer before investing in any securities.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS. This publication contains forward-looking information which is subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual events or results to differ from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Forward looking statements in this publication include, but are not limited to, the size and anticipated growth of the market for the company’s products, the anticipated growth of the market for AI-assisted products generally, the anticipated growth of the market for app-based products generally, the anticipated launch date for the company’s products, the anticipated growth of the market for health care app-based products generally, the anticipated launch date for the company’s products, and the anticipated growth and expansion of the medical library to which the company’s products have access. Factors that could cause results to differ include, but are not limited to, the companies’ ability to fund its capital requirements in the near term and long term, the management team’s ability to effectively execute its strategy, the degree of success of the AI technology used in the company’s products, the company’s ability to effectively market the company’s products to customers within its three anticipated revenue streams, supply chain constraints, pricing pressures, etc. The forward-looking information contained herein is given as of the date hereof and we assume no responsibility to update or revise such information to reflect new events or circumstances, except as required by law.

INDEMNIFICATION/RELEASE OF LIABILITY. By reading this communication, you acknowledge that you have read and understand this disclaimer, and further that to the greatest extent permitted under law, you release the Publisher, its affiliates, assigns and successors from any and all liability, damages, and injury from this communication. You further warrant that you are solely responsible for any financial outcome that may come from your investment decisions.

TERMS OF USE. By reading this communication you agree that you have reviewed and fully agree to the Terms of Use found here http://oilprice.com/Terms-of-Use. If you do not agree to the Terms of Use http://oilprice.com/Terms-of-Use, please contact Advanced Media Solutions Ltd. to discontinue receiving future communications.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. oilprice.com is the Publisher’s trademark. All other trademarks used in this communication are the property of their respective trademark holders. The Publisher is not affiliated, connected, or associated with, and is not sponsored, approved, or originated by, the trademark holders unless otherwise stated. No claim is made by the Publisher to any rights in any third-party trademarks.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending