Connect with us

Government

Wealthy hospitals rake in U.S. disaster aid for Covid-19 costs

After collecting billions of dollars in U.S. coronavirus aid, many of the nation’s wealthiest nonprofit hospitals are tapping into disaster relief funds that critics say they do not need.

Published

3 years ago

on

Wealthy hospitals rake in U.S. disaster aid for COVID-19 costs

(Reuters) – After collecting billions of dollars in U.S. coronavirus aid, many of the nation’s wealthiest nonprofit hospitals are now tapping into disaster relief funds that critics say they don’t need.

The money from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is going to some large health systems that have billions of dollars in cash reserves and investments, according to government records reviewed by Reuters.

FEMA has received nearly 2,200 aid requests from hospitals and thus far has approved about 15% of them, for a total of $894 million, the agency told Reuters. Hospitals can request more money as U.S. infections surge, and FEMA officials expect total aid awards to rise significantly.

Some health policy experts say that large and well-capitalized nonprofit systems – which typically pay no taxes – do not need the additional relief money. Among the aid applicants are some of the nation’s best-known health systems, including the Cleveland Clinic, Providence and Stanford Health Care.

“These are very financially successful hospitals that have already received a huge amount of taxpayer money to help with COVID-19,” said Eileen Appelbaum, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. “This feels like greed for them to go to FEMA for even more money.”

Some nonprofit hospitals said federal aid hasn’t covered all of the lost revenue and higher expenses caused by the pandemic. The FEMA program, they said, recognizes their major investments in staff and equipment to handle the crisis.

FILE PHOTO: The Cleveland Clinic medical center is seen in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S. October 4, 2020. REUTERS/Aaron Josefczyk/File Photo

“The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly impacted hospitals and health systems around the country, including ours,” said Angela Smith, spokeswoman for the Cleveland Clinic.

FEMA funds are typically dispersed after hurricanes, floods or other natural disasters in a specific region. Nonprofit hospitals nationwide can apply now because President Donald Trump declared the pandemic a national emergency in March.

For-profit hospitals, which have faced similar challenges from the pandemic, can’t tap the FEMA money because federal law governing disaster relief excludes for-profit businesses.

FEMA is reimbursing nonprofit hospitals for money spent on personal protective equipment, ventilators, employee overtime, temporary workers, testing supplies and other expenses covered as “emergency protective measures.” The agency reimburses hospitals for 75% of their eligible costs.

“The dollars could be very big for hospitals. FEMA funds are uncapped,” said Brad Gair, a former FEMA official and now senior managing director at consulting firm Witt O’Brien’s.

The program does not consider whether applicants need the money, Gair said.

“If a well-off hospital has eligible expenses, it gets money,” Gair said. “There is always a question about the fairness of that, but FEMA doesn’t look at the hospital’s bottom line.”

Nonprofit hospitals account for about 60% of hospitals nationwide, and years of mergers have created health giants with immense market power and vast resources.

These hospitals get tax exemptions on the condition that they provide charity care and other community benefits. Some lawmakers and economists, however, increasingly criticize large nonprofit hospitals for not doing enough to help low-income patients and their communities while spending surplus cash on lavish building projects, high executive pay and expensive marketing, such as naming rights on professional sports facilities. Some critics say they’re often indistinguishable from their for-profit peers.

Major nonprofit health systems counter that they collectively provide billions of dollars in charity care annually and that the community benefit they provide outweighs the value of their tax exemptions.

Keith Turi, an assistant FEMA administrator, said the agency runs an “eligibility-based program” with no cap, which means smaller hospitals are not competing for limited funds with large and wealthy health systems.

Even so, handing out aid to hospitals that don’t need it is a waste, said Tim Egan, chief executive of Roseland Community Hospital, a nonprofit, 134-bed facility serving low-income patients in Chicago. Egan said his facility has struggled financially as its payroll shot up by $5 million this year to cover coronavirus care. But big nonprofit hospitals, he said, are swimming in money by comparison.

“These FEMA dollars should be earmarked for safety-net hospitals that are really underwater,” Egan said. “We may be in the same storm, but we are not in the same boat. While they’re pulling their multimillion-dollar yacht up to the dock, our boat is leaking.”

MASSIVE CASH RESERVES

This year, hospitals and other medical providers have already received about $145 billion in federal grants under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act. In addition, Medicare has provided nearly $80 billion in low-interest loans and increased reimbursements for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 by 20%, which may yield another $3 billion for hospitals.

After big CARES Act payouts earlier this year attracted scrutiny from advocates and lawmakers, some hospital chains returned the money. Nonprofit health system Kaiser Permanente and for-profit chain HCA Inc acknowledged they didn’t need the aid and returned it.

Some of the hospital systems applying for FEMA aid have vast financial reserves that have provided a cushion against pandemic-related losses and expenses.

Providence, based in Renton, Washington, runs 51 hospitals and nearly 1,000 clinics. It reported an operating loss of $214 million for the first nine months of this year as expenses rose 4% and patient volume dropped by 10%.

But the health system’s reserve of cash and investments ballooned to $14.5 billion by Sept. 30 – an increase of $2.2 billion from nine months earlier. A spokesman said that was due in large part to $1.6 billion in coronavirus loans from Medicare that must be repaid. Providence also got $682 million in CARES Act grants and $9 million initially from FEMA. The hospital chain said it plans to file more requests with FEMA for an undetermined amount.

Providence said it will follow all federal rules in seeking the disaster aid. FEMA officials have reminded applicants not to seek funding for work or expenses covered by the CARES Act or other sources.

“We are being diligent in our effort to avoid double dipping,” Providence said in a statement.

Providence said it needs the money to offset coronavirus-related costs as the pandemic “enters what appears to be its most dangerous phase.”

Cleveland Clinic has experienced a similar shortfall as surgeries were canceled and emergency-room visits plummeted. The health system, which runs 18 hospitals, said that patient revenue was $890 million lower than expected during the first nine months of this year and that it spent more than $190 million on pandemic-related expenses. It reported an operating loss of $108 million through September.

But the system’s net income – including strong investment gains – tripled to $604 million in the most recent quarter, compared to a year ago. Cleveland Clinic has $11.8 billion in cash reserves and investments.

The system has also benefited from $423 million in CARES Act grants and a $849-million loan from Medicare, which it has paid back. Last month, FEMA awarded Cleveland Clinic $46 million to help with the costs of a facility expansion for COVID-19 patients and the purchase of ventilators and other supplies. The system said in a statement that it plans to file for additional FEMA funds as it incurs more pandemic-related costs.

Two of the largest aid requests in FEMA records reviewed by Reuters came from two other hospital systems with billions of dollars in financial reserves: NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, which sought $259 million, and Stanford Health Care, which requested $127 million. A spokeswoman for the New York hospital system said it plans to seek more money to cover its major expenses in staff and equipment. A Stanford Health spokeswoman said federal grants only offset “a small portion of the costs that our hospital has incurred.”

Dan Skinner, an associate professor of health policy at Ohio University, said the “idea that some of these institutions require disaster funding is laughable” given the size of their investment portfolios and rainy-day funds.

He said the debate over coronavirus aid tends to lump together all hospitals and obscures the wide disparities in financial need between small, community hospitals and deep-pocketed health care chains. Moody’s Investor Service wrote earlier this month that smaller hospitals struggling with coronavirus costs may have to merge with larger health systems.

“There is so much public goodwill toward hospitals during the pandemic,” Skinner said. “I feel some of these hospitals are manipulating that.”

HOSPITAL REVENUE DOWN ONLY SLIGHTLY

U.S. hospitals lost considerable revenue during the early days of the pandemic, in March and April, as many Americans postponed routine care. Surging infections also forced hospitals to delay elective procedures – a key revenue source – to devote more staff and resources to the pandemic.

Since then, business has rebounded and hospital revenue was only off by 1.7% through the first nine months of 2020 compared to the same period last year, according to the Peterson-Kaiser Family Foundation Health System Tracker.

“Hospitals had bounced back to financial stability, but now there may be another hit” as coronavirus hospitalizations surge again, said Venson Wallin, an industry consultant and managing director at the BDO Center for Healthcare Excellence & Innovation. “We are on a roller coaster.”

Banner Health, a Phoenix-based nonprofit which runs 29 hospitals in six states, holds $5.4 billion in cash and investments, according to an April report by Fitch Ratings. Banner has filed applications with FEMA, for amounts not yet determined, after receiving about $1 billion in federal grants and loans this year.

Its most recent federal tax return, for 2018, shows that Banner’s chief executive, Peter Fine, made $10.3 million in 2018. He received $25.5 million the year earlier, boosted by a one-time retirement plan payment. A spokesman said Banner may seek FEMA aid if CARES Act funds “do not cover all eligible expenses incurred as a result of the pandemic.”

Reporting by Chad Terhune; Editing by Michele Gershberg and Brian Thevenot

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

 

Reuters source:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-hospitals-aid-insi/wealthy-hospitals-rake-in-u-s-disaster-aid-for-covid-19-costs-idUSKBN29310X

 

Read More

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Government

Mistakes Were Made

Mistakes Were Made

Authored by C.J.Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

Make fun of the Germans all you want, and I’ve certainly done that…

Published

4 hours ago

on

March 17, 2024

By

Mistakes Were Made

Authored by C.J.Hopkins via The Consent Factory,

Make fun of the Germans all you want, and I’ve certainly done that a bit during these past few years, but, if there’s one thing they’re exceptionally good at, it’s taking responsibility for their mistakes. Seriously, when it comes to acknowledging one’s mistakes, and not rationalizing, or minimizing, or attempting to deny them, and any discomfort they may have allegedly caused, no one does it quite like the Germans.

Take this Covid mess, for example. Just last week, the German authorities confessed that they made a few minor mistakes during their management of the “Covid pandemic.” According to Karl Lauterbach, the Minister of Health, “we were sometimes too strict with the children and probably started easing the restrictions a little too late.” Horst Seehofer, the former Interior Minister, admitted that he would no longer agree to some of the Covid restrictions today, for example, nationwide nighttime curfews. “One must be very careful with calls for compulsory vaccination,” he added. Helge Braun, Head of the Chancellery and Minister for Special Affairs under Merkel, agreed that there had been “misjudgments,” for example, “overestimating the effectiveness of the vaccines.”

This display of the German authorities’ unwavering commitment to transparency and honesty, and the principle of personal honor that guides the German authorities in all their affairs, and that is deeply ingrained in the German character, was published in a piece called “The Divisive Virus” in Der Spiegel, and immediately widely disseminated by the rest of the German state and corporate media in a totally organic manner which did not in any way resemble one enormous Goebbelsian keyboard instrument pumping out official propaganda in perfect synchronization, or anything creepy and fascistic like that.

Germany, after all, is “an extremely democratic state,” with freedom of speech and the press and all that, not some kind of totalitarian country where the masses are inundated with official propaganda and critics of the government are dragged into criminal court and prosecuted on trumped-up “hate crime” charges.

OK, sure, in a non-democratic totalitarian system, such public “admissions of mistakes” — and the synchronized dissemination thereof by the media — would just be a part of the process of whitewashing the authorities’ fascistic behavior during some particularly totalitarian phase of transforming society into whatever totalitarian dystopia they were trying to transform it into (for example, a three-year-long “state of emergency,” which they declared to keep the masses terrorized and cooperative while they stripped them of their democratic rights, i.e., the ones they hadn’t already stripped them of, and conditioned them to mindlessly follow orders, and robotically repeat nonsensical official slogans, and vent their impotent hatred and fear at the new “Untermenschen” or “counter-revolutionaries”), but that is obviously not the case here.

No, this is definitely not the German authorities staging a public “accountability” spectacle in order to memory-hole what happened during 2020-2023 and enshrine the official narrative in history. There’s going to be a formal “Inquiry Commission” — conducted by the same German authorities that managed the “crisis” — which will get to the bottom of all the regrettable but completely understandable “mistakes” that were made in the heat of the heroic battle against The Divisive Virus!

OK, calm down, all you “conspiracy theorists,” “Covid deniers,” and “anti-vaxxers.” This isn’t going to be like the Nuremberg Trials. No one is going to get taken out and hanged. It’s about identifying and acknowledging mistakes, and learning from them, so that the authorities can manage everything better during the next “pandemic,” or “climate emergency,” or “terrorist attack,” or “insurrection,” or whatever.

For example, the Inquiry Commission will want to look into how the government accidentally declared a Nationwide State of Pandemic Emergency and revised the Infection Protection Act, suspending the German constitution and granting the government the power to rule by decree, on account of a respiratory virus that clearly posed no threat to society at large, and then unleashed police goon squads on the thousands of people who gathered outside the Reichstag to protest the revocation of their constitutional rights.

Once they do, I’m sure they’ll find that that “mistake” bears absolutely no resemblance to the Enabling Act of 1933, which suspended the German constitution and granted the government the power to rule by decree, after the Nazis declared a nationwide “state of emergency.”

Another thing the Commission will probably want to look into is how the German authorities accidentally banned any further demonstrations against their arbitrary decrees, and ordered the police to brutalize anyone participating in such “illegal demonstrations.”

And, while the Commission is inquiring into the possibly slightly inappropriate behavior of their law enforcement officials, they might want to also take a look at the behavior of their unofficial goon squads, like Antifa, which they accidentally encouraged to attack the “anti-vaxxers,” the “Covid deniers,” and anyone brandishing a copy of the German constitution.

Come to think of it, the Inquiry Commission might also want to look into how the German authorities, and the overwhelming majority of the state and corporate media, accidentally systematically fomented mass hatred of anyone who dared to question the government’s arbitrary and nonsensical decrees or who refused to submit to “vaccination,” and publicly demonized us as “Corona deniers,” “conspiracy theorists,” “anti-vaxxers,” “far-right anti-Semites,” etc., to the point where mainstream German celebrities like Sarah Bosetti were literally describing us as the inessential “appendix” in the body of the nation, quoting an infamous Nazi almost verbatim.

And then there’s the whole “vaccination” business. The Commission will certainly want to inquire into that. They will probably want to start their inquiry with Karl Lauterbach, and determine exactly how he accidentally lied to the public, over and over, and over again …

And whipped people up into a mass hysteria over “KILLER VARIANTS” …

And “LONG COVID BRAIN ATTACKS” …

And how “THE UNVACCINATED ARE HOLDING THE WHOLE COUNTRY HOSTAGE, SO WE NEED TO FORCIBLY VACCINATE EVERYONE!”

And so on. I could go on with this all day, but it will be much easier to just refer you, and the Commission, to this documentary film by Aya Velázquez. Non-German readers may want to skip to the second half, unless they’re interested in the German “Corona Expert Council” …

Look, the point is, everybody makes “mistakes,” especially during a “state of emergency,” or a war, or some other type of global “crisis.” At least we can always count on the Germans to step up and take responsibility for theirs, and not claim that they didn’t know what was happening, or that they were “just following orders,” or that “the science changed.”

Plus, all this Covid stuff is ancient history, and, as Olaf, an editor at Der Spiegel, reminds us, it’s time to put the “The Divisive Pandemic” behind us …

… and click heels, and heil the New Normal Democracy!

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/16/2024 - 23:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Harvard Medical School Professor Was Fired Over Not Getting COVID Vaccine

Harvard Medical School Professor Was Fired Over Not Getting COVID Vaccine

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A…

Published

7 hours ago

on

March 16, 2024

By

Harvard Medical School Professor Was Fired Over Not Getting COVID Vaccine

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Harvard Medical School professor who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine has been terminated, according to documents reviewed by The Epoch Times.

Martin Kulldorff, epidemiologist and statistician, at his home in Ashford, Conn., on Feb. 11, 2022. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times)

Martin Kulldorff, an epidemiologist, was fired by Mass General Brigham in November 2021 over noncompliance with the hospital’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate after his requests for exemptions from the mandate were denied, according to one document. Mr. Kulldorff was also placed on leave by Harvard Medical School (HMS) because his appointment as professor of medicine there “depends upon” holding a position at the hospital, another document stated.

Mr. Kulldorff asked HMS in late 2023 how he could return to his position and was told he was being fired.

“You would need to hold an eligible appointment with a Harvard-affiliated institution for your HMS academic appointment to continue,” Dr. Grace Huang, dean for faculty affairs, told the epidemiologist and biostatistician.

She said the lack of an appointment, combined with college rules that cap leaves of absence at two years, meant he was being terminated.

Mr. Kulldorff disclosed the firing for the first time this month.

“While I can’t comment on the specifics due to employment confidentiality protections that preclude us from doing so, I can confirm that his employment agreement was terminated November 10, 2021,” a spokesperson for Brigham and Women’s Hospital told The Epoch Times via email.

Mass General Brigham granted just 234 exemption requests out of 2,402 received, according to court filings in an ongoing case that alleges discrimination.

The hospital said previously, “We received a number of exemption requests, and each request was carefully considered by a knowledgeable team of reviewers.”

“A lot of other people received exemptions, but I did not,” Mr. Kulldorff told The Epoch Times.

Mr. Kulldorff was originally hired by HMS but switched departments in 2015 to work at the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, which is part of Mass General Brigham and affiliated with HMS.

“Harvard Medical School has affiliation agreements with several Boston hospitals which it neither owns nor operationally controls,” an HMS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email. “Hospital-based faculty, such as Mr. Kulldorff, are employed by one of the affiliates, not by HMS, and require an active hospital appointment to maintain an academic appointment at Harvard Medical School.”

HMS confirmed that some faculty, who are tenured or on the tenure track, do not require hospital appointments.

Natural Immunity

Before the COVID-19 vaccines became available, Mr. Kulldorff contracted COVID-19. He was hospitalized but eventually recovered.

That gave him a form of protection known as natural immunity. According to a number of studies, including papers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, natural immunity is better than the protection bestowed by vaccines.

Other studies have found that people with natural immunity face a higher risk of problems after vaccination.

Mr. Kulldorff expressed his concerns about receiving a vaccine in his request for a medical exemption, pointing out a lack of data for vaccinating people who suffer from the same issue he does.

“I already had superior infection-acquired immunity; and it was risky to vaccinate me without proper efficacy and safety studies on patients with my type of immune deficiency,” Mr. Kulldorff wrote in an essay.

In his request for a religious exemption, he highlighted an Israel study that was among the first to compare protection after infection to protection after vaccination. Researchers found that the vaccinated had less protection than the naturally immune.

“Having had COVID disease, I have stronger longer lasting immunity than those vaccinated (Gazit et al). Lacking scientific rationale, vaccine mandates are religious dogma, and I request a religious exemption from COVID vaccination,” he wrote.

Both requests were denied.

Mr. Kulldorff is still unvaccinated.

“I had COVID. I had it badly. So I have infection-acquired immunity. So I don’t need the vaccine,” he told The Epoch Times.

Dissenting Voice

Mr. Kulldorff has been a prominent dissenting voice during the COVID-19 pandemic, countering messaging from the government and many doctors that the COVID-19 vaccines were needed, regardless of prior infection.

He spoke out in an op-ed in April 2021, for instance, against requiring people to provide proof of vaccination to attend shows, go to school, and visit restaurants.

“The idea that everybody needs to be vaccinated is as scientifically baseless as the idea that nobody does. Covid vaccines are essential for older, high-risk people and their caretakers and advisable for many others. But those who’ve been infected are already immune,” he wrote at the time.

Mr. Kulldorff later co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which called for focused protection of people at high risk while removing restrictions for younger, healthy people.

Harsh restrictions such as school closures “will cause irreparable damage” if not lifted, the declaration stated.

The declaration drew criticism from Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and Dr. Rochelle Walensky, who became the head of the CDC, among others.

In a competing document, Dr. Walensky and others said that “relying upon immunity from natural infections for COVID-19 is flawed” and that “uncontrolled transmission in younger people risks significant morbidity(3) and mortality across the whole population.”

“Those who are pushing these vaccine mandates and vaccine passports—vaccine fanatics, I would call them—to me they have done much more damage during this one year than the anti-vaxxers have done in two decades,” Mr. Kulldorff later said in an EpochTV interview. “I would even say that these vaccine fanatics, they are the biggest anti-vaxxers that we have right now. They’re doing so much more damage to vaccine confidence than anybody else.”

Surveys indicate that people have less trust now in the CDC and other health institutions than before the pandemic, and data from the CDC and elsewhere show that fewer people are receiving the new COVID-19 vaccines and other shots.

Support

The disclosure that Mr. Kulldorff was fired drew criticism of Harvard and support for Mr. Kulldorff.

The termination “is a massive and incomprehensible injustice,” Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, an ethics expert who was fired from the University of California–Irvine School of Medicine for not getting a COVID-19 vaccine because he had natural immunity, said on X.

“The academy is full of people who declined vaccines—mostly with dubious exemptions—and yet Harvard fires the one professor who happens to speak out against government policies.” Dr. Vinay Prasad, an epidemiologist at the University of California–San Francisco, wrote in a blog post. “It looks like Harvard has weaponized its policies and selectively enforces them.”

A petition to reinstate Mr. Kulldorff has garnered more than 1,800 signatures.

Some other doctors said the decision to let Mr. Kulldorff go was correct.

“Actions have consequence,” Dr. Alastair McAlpine, a Canadian doctor, wrote on X. He said Mr. Kulldorff had “publicly undermine[d] public health.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/16/2024 - 21:00

Read More

Continue Reading

International

“Extreme Events”: US Cancer Deaths Spiked In 2021 And 2022 In “Large Excess Over Trend”

"Extreme Events": US Cancer Deaths Spiked In 2021 And 2022 In "Large Excess Over Trend"

Cancer deaths in the United States spiked in 2021…

Published

12 hours ago

on

March 16, 2024

By

"Extreme Events": US Cancer Deaths Spiked In 2021 And 2022 In "Large Excess Over Trend"

Cancer deaths in the United States spiked in 2021 and 2022 among 15-44 year-olds "in large excess over trend," marking jumps of 5.6% and 7.9% respectively vs. a rise of 1.7% in 2020, according to a new preprint study from deep-dive research firm, Phinance Technologies.

Algeria, Carlos et. al "US -Death Trends for Neoplasms ICD codes: C00-D48, Ages 15-44", ResearchGate, March. 2024 P. 7

Extreme Events

The report, which relies on data from the CDC, paints a troubling picture.

"We show a rise in excess mortality from neoplasms reported as underlying cause of death, which started in 2020 (1.7%) and accelerated substantially in 2021 (5.6%) and 2022 (7.9%). The increase in excess mortality in both 2021 (Z-score of 11.8) and 2022 (Z-score of 16.5) are highly statistically significant (extreme events)," according to the authors.

That said, co-author, David Wiseman, PhD (who has 86 publications to his name), leaves the cause an open question - suggesting it could either be a "novel phenomenon," Covid-19, or the Covid-19 vaccine.

"The results indicate that from 2021 a novel phenomenon leading to increased neoplasm deaths appears to be present in individuals aged 15 to 44 in the US," reads the report.

The authors suggest that the cause may be the result of "an unexpected rise in the incidence of rapidly growing fatal cancers," and/or "a reduction in survival in existing cancer cases."

They also address the possibility that "access to utilization of cancer screening and treatment" may be a factor - the notion that pandemic-era lockdowns resulted in fewer visits to the doctor. Also noted is that "Cancers tend to be slowly-developing diseases with remarkably stable death rates and only small variations over time," which makes "any temporal association between a possible explanatory factor (such as COVID-19, the novel COVID-19 vaccines, or other factor(s)) difficult to establish."

That said, a ZeroHedge review of the CDC data reveals that it does not provide information on duration of illness prior to death - so while it's not mentioned in the preprint, it can't rule out so-called 'turbo cancers' - reportedly rapidly developing cancers, the existence of which has been largely anecdotal (and widely refuted by the usual suspects).

While the Phinance report is extremely careful not to draw conclusions, researcher "Ethical Skeptic" kicked the barn door open in a Thursday post on X - showing a strong correlation between "cancer incidence & mortality" coinciding with the rollout of the Covid mRNA vaccine.

Phinance principal Ed Dowd commented on the post, noting that "Cancer is suddenly an accelerating growth industry!"

Continued:

Bottom line - hard data is showing alarming trends, which the CDC and other agencies have a requirement to explore and answer truthfully - and people are asking #WhereIsTheCDC.

We aren't holding our breath.

Wiseman, meanwhile, points out that Pfizer and several other companies are making "significant investments in cancer drugs, post COVID."

Phinance

We've featured several of Phinance's self-funded deep dives into pandemic data that nobody else is doing. If you'd like to support them, click here.

 

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/16/2024 - 16:55

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending