Search This Blog

Thursday, August 3, 2023

Witness: Rep. Jackson handcuffed, ‘briefly detained’ while trying to assist with medical emergency

 Republican Rep. Ronny Jackson of Texas was handcuffed and placed on the ground face-first by local law enforcement while he was trying to assist a teenage girl in medical distress at a rodeo over the weekend, according to a witness who spoke to CNN.

In a Facebook post, Linda Dianne Shouse, a home healthcare and traveling nurse, said her 15-year-old relative was “seizing due to possible hypoglycemia” Saturday night at the White Deer rodeo, about 45 miles northeast of Amarillo, Texas. Jackson represents the Amarillo area and was an attendee at the rodeo.

Shouse said she and another family member, who is also a nurse, were attending to the girl when Jackson, who is an ER physician, stepped in to assist. Shouse said she didn’t know Jackson was a congressman at the time but told CNN they were all working together to help the teen girl.

“We were just waiting for EMS to get there. The police came up, the deputies, highway patrol, and everyone was just screaming, ‘Get back, get back, get back,’” she said during an interview.

Shouse said she was pushed back and then punched in the chest by a woman and said she saw a law enforcement official screaming in Jackson’s face, telling him to “Get the f**k back.”

“He was trying to tell them that he was a doctor and probably trying to tell him who he was, to be honest. And they were screaming that they did not effing care who he was,” she said. “And the next thing I knew, they had him on the ground, grabbed him by the shirt, threw him on the ground, face first into the concrete and had him in cuffs.”

Shouse said once they realized Jackson was a congressman and doctor, they uncuffed him and started apologizing.

“We had the scene under control. We were just ready to give a report to EMS and get the patient out of there. And that’s not what happened,” Shouse said, recalling what she described as a “loud, chaotic” situation. “She wound up going eventually, but whenever you have someone laying there – when it could be neurological – time is on your hands.”

In a statement provided to CNN, a spokesperson for Jackson said the congressman was “briefly detained” while trying to help the teenager. When Jackson approached the scene, a relative of the girl, who is a nurse, was assisting the 15-year-old. Jackson asked if the relative needed any help, and she said she did, according to the statement.

“While assessing the patient in a very loud and chaotic environment, confusion developed with law enforcement on the scene and Dr. Jackson was briefly detained and was actually prevented from further assisting the patient,” the spokesperson said.

His office believes he was detained for a matter of minutes. Jackson was released immediately when officers realized that he was tending to the medical emergency, the spokesperson said. Jackson’s office did not deny he was handcuffed during the incident.

According to the Texas Tribune, Carson County Sheriff Tam Terry said in a statement that one person was “temporarily detained” at the rodeo on Saturday night and his department was “reviewing the incident.”

CNN has reached out to Sheriff Tam Terry of Carson County for further comment. CNN has also reached out to the Texas Department of Public Safety.

Jackson previously served as the White House physician for Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. He retired from the US Navy as a rear admiral in 2019 and was elected in 2020 to represent the 13th Congressional District in Texas.

Shouse said the girl is back in her hometown and undergoing further evaluation.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/01/politics/texas-congressman-detained-ronny-jackson/index.html

"Everything Appears A Cover Up": Capitol Police Chief Challenged J6 Line In Never-Aired Carlson Interview

 In never-before-seen footage that was withheld by Fox Newsformer Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund told former Fox News host Tucker Carlson that January 6th was a complete debacle and a "cover up."

"Everything appears to be a cover up," Sund tells Carlson in footage obtained by the National Pulse. "Like I said, I’m not a conspiracy theorist," he continued. "…but when you look at the information and intelligence they had, the military had, it’s all watered down. I’m not getting intelligence, I’m denied any support from National Guard in advance. I’m denied National Guard while we’re under attack, for 71 minutes…"

Beginning around 19 minutes into the conversation, Sund tells Tucker: "If I was allowed to do my job as the chief we wouldn’t be here, this didn’t have to happen," adding that he's "pissed off" about being "lambasted in public" over what happened that day.

The full interview has thus far been hidden from the public at the behest of Rupert Murdoch’s increasingly left-wing Fox News channel, which unceremoniously fired its prime time host Tucker Carlson allegedly as part of a private settlement with Dominion Voting Systems. -National Pulse

"It sounds like they were hiding the intelligence," Carlson said, to which Sund responds: "Could there possibly be actually… they kind of wanted something to happen? It’s not a far stretch to begin to think that. It’s sad when you start putting everything together and thinking about the way this played out… what was their end goal?"

Last month Carlson told Russell Brand that Sund said the crowd on January 6th was 'filled with federal agents.'

“I interviewed the chief of the Capitol Police, Steven Sund, in an interview that was never aired on Fox, by the way — I was fired before it could air, I’m gonna interview him again,” Carlson said.

“But Steven Sund was the totally non-political, worked for Nancy Pelosi, I mean, this was not some right-wing activist. He was the chief of Capitol Police on January 6, and he said, ‘Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, that crowd was filled with federal agents.’ What? ‘Yes.’ Well he would know, of course, because he was in charge of security at the site.”

“So, the more time has passed... it becomes really obvious that core claims they made about January 6 were lies,” Carlson explained.

“The amount of lying around January 6, and it was obvious in the tapes that I showed, is really distressing.”

Watch:

FDA Relied On Wildly Incorrect Booster Estimates

 The efficacy of interventions against COVID has been one of the pandemic’s most important considerations.

Many government-imposed policies and mandates have unfortunately rested on assumptions and estimates provided in studies, yet with a complete disregard of the extent to how poorly conducted or misleading they may have been.

Whether it be applied to masks, vaccine efficacy, or other potential policies, a tremendous amount of research has been published or posted claiming to show benefits from government-preferred interventions.

The same applies to vaccines and boosters.

In fact, these might be the most commonly studied subjects, since many politicians relied on efficacy estimates to impose inexcusable discriminatory practices barring unvaccinated individuals from businesses, jobs, or schools. 

And turns out, some of these estimates have been hopelessly overestimated in order to give cover to those who demand endless booster doses, which of course includes the CDC, an organization that is now openly signaling its intention to demand annual COVID shots.

Some of these estimates have been repeatedly used by the US FDA, one of the world’s most influential public health organizations, which relied on an unbelievably misleading study to promote their policy goals.

The powerhouse team of Tracy Høeg and Vinay Prasad are at it again. 

Høeg and Prasad were joined by Ram Duriseti, an MD from Stanford University, to examine a published study from December 2021 that claimed a monumental mortality benefit to those receiving booster doses. 

Studies like the 2021 examination were frequently used by experts, politicians and administrators to justify booster mandates, since they seemed to indicate that additional doses were inarguably more protective and even more effective at “saving lives.”

Except as with so much of COVID research, the ends justified the inaccurate means.

First, it’s important to understand the claims that were made based on the initial research. And they are dramatic.

Essentially, the study from “Arbel et al.” claimed that among those who’d received a Pfizer booster dose, there was a 90 percent lower rate of mortality due to COVID.

Using observational methods, Arbel et al. (Dec. 23, 2021, issue)1 calculated an adjusted 90% lower mortality due to Covid-19 among participants who received a first BNT162b2 vaccine (Pfizer–BioNTech) booster than among those who did not receive a booster. They found 65 Covid-19–associated deaths (reported as 0.16 per 100,000 persons per day) among participants in the booster group and 137 (reported as 2.98 per 100,000 persons per day) among those in the nonbooster group — a 94.6% difference. In a subsequent letter (March 10, 2022, issue),2 Arbel et al. reported 441 deaths not related to Covid-19 in the booster group and 963 deaths not related to Covid-19 in the nonbooster group.

Essentially, these results implied that the initial claims of 90+% efficacy from the two-dose vaccination series could be reestablished by getting a booster dose. Never mind the fact that waning efficacy, especially against new variants, was a problem that these researchers chose to ignore.

The calculations underlying these optimistic 90 percent estimates were used to indicate a “markedly lower incidence of adverse health outcomes in the booster group.” And a closer reading of the data shows where the problems with this influential study lie.

The mortality not related to Covid-19 was calculated as (441/65)×0.16=1.09 per 100,000 persons per day in the booster group as compared with (963/137)×2.98=20.95 per 100,000 persons per day in the nonbooster group. This corresponds to a 94.8% lower mortality not related to Covid-19 among participants in the booster group and indicates a markedly lower incidence of adverse health outcomes in the booster group.

The key is hidden in the first sentence.

The mortality not related to Covid-19 was calculated as (441/65)×0.16=1.09 per 100,000 persons per day in the booster group as compared with (963/137)×2.98=20.95 per 100,000 persons per day in the nonbooster group.

The differences in non-COVID-related mortality between the two groups was astronomical. 

What does that mean exactly? Well if the people who received the booster had a 95 percent lower non-COVID mortality rate, it implies that they were significantly healthier than the group that didn’t receive the booster dose.

And therein lies the problem with attempting to calculate vaccine efficacy by observing two different groups. They might have significantly variable underlying, pre-existing health conditions.

Healthier people, in the initial examination, chose to get boosted. Therefore, they were less likely to die.

But if you’re attempting to show a benefit against COVID-related outcomes, you have to adjust for such vast health disparities. The initial authors didn’t.

Høeg, Prasad and Durati reference this exact problem, defined as a “healthy vaccinee bias.”

The unadjusted differences in mortality related to Covid-19 and mortality not related to Covid-19, according to vaccination status, were essentially the same in the 2021 study by Arbel and colleagues. These findings arouse strong concern regarding unadjusted confounding. The adjusted 90% lower mortality due to Covid-19 reported among the participants who received a booster cannot, with certainty, be attributed to boosting. “Healthy vaccinee bias” in this population may have also led to overestimates of vaccine effectiveness in similar studies from Clalit Health Services.

The results claimed by the initial authors, the results relied upon by the FDA to justify their booster campaign, were likely based on biased methodology that stacked the deck in favor of vaccine efficacy. As they explain in the above passage, the adjusted mortality benefits due to vaccination “cannot, with certainty, be attributed to boosting.” 

Because those that were boosted were less likely to die, regardless of whatever actions they did to protect themselves against COVID.


Another Example of Systemic Errors

On the one hand, it’s difficult to believe it took this long for someone to notice the underlying, methodological errors involved in the initial study. 

But on the other hand, it’s clearly emblematic of systemic failures from regulatory bodies, “experts,” and other organizations and administrators throughout the pandemic. 

A combination of wishful thinking, poor process, relying on unreliable results, and in some cases, a malicious desire to control and compel behavior has contributed to the disgraceful mess we now see playing out.

“Experts” called for boosters, tacitly acknowledging that the original vaccination series wasn’t as effective in reality as they believed it would be, so they relied on catastrophically flawed research to promote their agenda. All the while, undoubtedly, realizing that it wasn’t able to make the claims they wanted it to make.

At this point it’s a cliché to say that it’s impossible to lose enough trust in experts. Given this study’s importance and influence, it’s more accurate to wonder how we ever had any trust in them to begin with.

Ian Miller is the author of “Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates.” 

https://brownstone.org/articles/fda-relied-on-wildly-incorrect-booster-estimates/

Will unpredictable side effects dim the promise of new Alzheimer’s drugs?

A sea change is underway in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, where for the first time a drug that targets the disease’s pathology and clearly slows cognitive decline has hit the U.S. market. A related therapy will likely be approved in the coming months. As many neurologists, patients, and brain scientists celebrate, they’re also nervously eyeing complications from treatment: brain swelling and bleeding, which in clinical trials affected up to about one-third of patients and ranged from asymptomatic to fatal.

The side effect—amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, or ARIA—remains mysterious. “We don’t really understand what it is, what causes it, and what we can do about it,” says neurologist R. Scott Turner, director of the Memory Disorders Program at Georgetown University.

The drugs triggering the problem are monoclonal antibodies that mop up beta amyloid, a protein that accumulates in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s. One such antibody, lecanemab, marketed as Leqembi by Eisai and Biogen, won full approval in the United States last month after trials showed it modestly slowed cognitive decline in early disease. Another, Eli Lilly & Co.’s donanemab, had similar results and is under regulatory review. These therapies aim to clear clumps of amyloid, called plaques, from between neurons. But such plaques can also build up in brain blood vessels, and breaking them down there may set off ARIA.

The condition comes in two forms: brain swelling (ARIA-E for edema) and brain bleeding (ARIA-H for hemorrhage). Both show up in MRI and some patients also experience symptoms, which can include headaches, confusion, vomiting, and seizures. In the largest lecanemab trial, 21% of those on the drug had ARIA, and 3% had ARIA with symptoms. In donanemab’s biggest trial, 37% on therapy got ARIA and 6% had symptoms.

These trials and others of similar antibodies have helped identify risk factors for ARIA, in particular having a gene variant, APOE4, that also heightens risk of Alzheimer’s. Anticoagulants that treat or prevent blood clots appear to increase ARIA risk as well.

As patients and families express enthusiasm for the treatments, neurologists are worrying not only about serious ARIA, but the challenges that may accompany milder cases, which often call for pausing treatment and monitoring brain health with MRIs. “We’ve got to get our hands around this,” says Walter Koroshetz, director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Yet few researchers are studying ARIA. NINDS is now funding one ARIA-focused grant, but has new applications under review. Along with the National Institute on Aging (NIA), NINDS is also planning a meeting on ARIA next month to sketch out scientific priorities.

Interest in ARIA blossomed 20 years ago, when antiamyloid antibodies were drawing increasing attention. In 2002, a brief report in Science described 10 mice engineered to develop Alzheimer’s-like symptoms and treated with antiamyloid therapy; plaques faded, but the mice had more frequent and severe brain hemorrhages than controls. “I call that the first-ever report of ARIA,” says Donna Wilcock, a neuroscientist who directs the Center for Neurodegenerative Disorders at the Indiana University School of Medicine. She joined other scientists who began to study the complication. But as excitement grew about the therapies’ potential and they entered clinical trials, the basic science “just kind of dried up,” she says.

Wilcock has returned to ARIA research and holds the lone NINDS ARIA grant. She is examining whether side effects in her antibody-exposed mice align with what most doctors believe occurs in people on treatment: ARIAE, followed in some cases by ARIA-H.

Wilcock and others think a condition called cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), a buildup of amyloid in brain blood vessels that’s common in older people with Alzheimer’s, helps set the stage for ARIA. CAA can lead to small brain hemorrhages; in the drug trials, the rate of ARIA-H alone was roughly the same in the treated and placebo groups. CAA also raises risk of ARIA for those on antiamyloid antibodies, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends that people with signs of CAA exercise caution before taking lecanemab. But CAA isn’t always easy to detect on MRIs, especially when it’s mild.

What happens, Wilcock suspects, is that as the antibodies break down amyloid deposits in blood vessels, they activate microglia. These cells support brain repair and likely help antibodies clear plaques, but they can also cause inflammation. Such inflammation could prompt blood vessels to leak, producing swelling. In the trials, brain swelling, especially with symptoms, was far more common in the treatment than the placebo groups. Blood vessel ruptures can also cause bleeding. But, “There’s a lot of what-ifs” in this cascade of events, Wilcock acknowledges, and there are other theories, too.

She and other scientists suspect an uncommon complication of CAA, called CAA-related inflammation (CAA-ri), may offer further insight. Here, people not taking the antibodies spontaneously develop what looks like ARIA-E with symptoms. Last year, Fabrizio Piazza, a translational researcher at the University of Milano-Bicocca, reported in Neurology that in patients with CAA-ri, microglia are activated in areas with brain swelling. That finding, he says, supports the idea that these cells may contribute to treatment- related ARIA.

Piazza also found spontaneously occurring antiamyloid antibodies in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of people with CAA-ri. He’s setting up a global registry of CAA-ri patients to see whether these CSF markers can help predict and track ARIA-E, given that abnormalities on MRIs don’t always reflect symptoms.

For now, the risk of complications raises many questions for doctors and patients, some of them life or death. At Northwestern University, chief of neurocritical care Sherry Chou is struggling with what she knows is an inevitable scenario: A patient on antibody treatment for early Alzheimer’s is having a stroke and urgently needs a clot-busting drug to stop brain cells dying en masse. Withholding the drug could mean devastating brain damage, but giving it may raise the risk of catastrophic hemorrhage. In February, Chou and her colleagues published the case of a woman she helped care for, who was taking Leqembi through a trial, received this stroke treatment, and died days later after suffering significant hemorrhages.

Given that about 800,000 people in the United States have a stroke every year, Chou anticipates “natural experiments” where doctors make emergency medical decisions without data. “The research is just getting started, but the drug is already in clinical use,” Chou says. “What happens now?”

Another quandary is when or whether to return a patient to antibody treatment after stopping it because of ARIA. “There’s a lot of guesswork” and a need for more data, Turner says. MRIs may be reassuring, but the risk of a repeat scenario could remain. In the donanemab trial, one participant died from ARIA months after an episode apparently resolved and therapy restarted.

Such guesswork is complicated by another mystery: “I want to know what, if anything, ARIA did to a patient’s cognition at the end of the clinical trial,” especially in serious cases, says Madhav Thambisetty, chief of the clinical and translational neuroscience section at NIA and a neurologist at Johns Hopkins University. One concern is whether some patients with marked ARIA might have worsening memory or other cognitive functions by the trial’s end. Data on that question exist but the companies haven’t shared them, Thambisetty says.

Doctors also want to know how best to treat ARIA and whether it can be prevented. Again, CAA-ri may provide clues. Steven Greenberg, a vascular neurologist and director of the Hemorrhagic Stroke Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital, recently found that CAA-ri patients with brain swelling reminiscent of ARIA-E generally had quick improvement and a reduced chance of relapse when treated with high-dose steroids, a treatment also used for severe ARIA. Depending on how steroids work in CAA-ri, Greenberg even wonders whether they might be given alongside antiamyloid therapy or at the earliest sign of ARIA to head off severe effects; such strategies would need testing, he stresses.

Researchers are especially eager to help people with two copies of APOE4. They are at higher risk for ARIA but also develop Alzheimer’s at a younger age. Many doctors are unsure about prescribing the antibodies to these patients (lecanemab data suggest they may also benefit less than patients without APOE4), and the Department of Veterans Affairs has said it won’t typically cover antiamyloid treatment for them, but will consider requests for exceptions. But, “Just saying, ‘Oh, sorry,’” isn’t good enough, Wilcock says. “We need to figure this out so we can treat those people without the risk.”

Ultimately, the risk calculus will be personal. Nancy Meserve, a retired special education administrator who carries two copies of APOE4, is enrolled in a trial to see whether lecanemab can prevent Alzheimer’s. She doesn’t know whether she’s on the drug or the placebo, but based on side effects suspects the drug; she also developed ARIA-H with mild symptoms, which resolved. “People take risks with things that are important to them,” Meserve says. “To me, this was important.”

https://www.science.org/content/article/will-unpredictable-side-effects-dim-promise-new-alzheimer-s-drugs

PacBio builds in short-read sequencing with $110m Apton buy

 Gene sequencing specialist PacBio has reached an agreement to buy Apton Biosystems, boosting its position in short-read sequencing technology that has traditionally been dominated by rival Illumina.

The deal includes an upfront payment of $85 million in the form of an all-stock transaction, with a total deal value of $110 million dependent on PacBio achieving $50 million in revenue as a result of absorbing Apton's technology platform.

California-based Apton has developed a high-throughput short-read sequencer technology that is designed to enable the sequencing of billions of clusters of DNA on one flow cell.

PacBio built its business on long-read raw sequence data, analysing DNA sequences of 10,000 base pairs or more, which the company says makes it easier to assemble genome data and is more accurate at finding rare variations, but is comparatively low throughput.

Illumina – by far the biggest player in the market overall – traditionally focused on high-throughput short reads of up to 300 base pairs.

Both companies have been making moves to encroach on each other's territory of late. Illumina launched its own long-read Infinity technology last year, while PacBio has developed its short-read chemistry – called Sequencing by Binding (SBB) – which will now be combined with Apron's sequencer device.

PacBio also revealed in its second-quarter results update that it has started rolling out a new short-read sequencing benchtop instrument called Onso that will make use of the SBB technology. It added the instrument through its $316 million acquisition of Omniome in 2021.

With the Apton acquisition, PacBio expects to "launch a high throughput short-read platform faster than we had planned", said the company's chief executive Christian Henry. Apton's tech will be used to develop the high-throughput version of Onso.

"When launched, we expect this platform to deliver billions of reads per flow cell sequencing output on par with other high throughput offerings while providing differentiated accuracy and compelling economics," he told investors on a conference call.

"We believe PacBio is the only company to offer both highly accurate, native short and native long-read sequencing technologies," added Henry.

In 2019, Illumina made a play to acquire PacBio in a deal valued at $1.2 billion but abandoned the plan after it became clear it would struggle to make it past antitrust regulators in the US and overseas.

The Apton agreement came as PacBio reported a 34% increase in second-quarter revenues to just under $47 million, posting an operating loss of $73 million with cash reserves of around $830 million.

https://pharmaphorum.com/news/pacbio-builds-short-read-sequencing-110m-apton-buy

'Eliquis: the cardio drug that cannot be beat'

 Bristol Myers Squibb’s clotbuster Eliquis is set to be this year’s biggest selling cardiac drug, Evaluate Pharma consensus forecasts suggest – and remarkably, it is forecast to retain the crown all the way to 2028. This comes courtesy of several court rulings preventing US generic competition until that year. Indeed the remarkable aspect of the top 10 drugs lists is the longevity of these products. Lipitor, only just dethroned by Keytruda as the bestselling drug of all time, was first launched in 1997 and is still bringing in swathes of cash for the generics business Viatris; Roche’s stroke therapy Activase is a decade older. Only two drugs not yet launched appear in the 2028 table: Cytokinetics’ cardiomyopathy project aficamten, due a pivotal readout this year, and Merck’s sotatercept, which already has highly positive pivotal data in pulmonary arterial hypertension. As for the leading companies, Novartis takes the current top spot buoyed by heart failure therapy Entresto; in 2028 it will also benefit from the PCSK9 Leqvio, though this will not make up for the sales shed by Entresto. All but one of this year’s top 10 companies will see their heart drug sales fall in the next five years. The exception is United Therapeutics, whose inhaled pulmonary arterial hypertension therapy Tyvaso is growing fast.

Top 10 cardiovascular drug sales: 2023
ProductCompanyIndications2023e sales ($bn)
EliquisBristol Myers Squibb/PfizerStroke prophylaxis12.2
EntrestoNovartisChronic heart failure5.8
XareltoBayer/J&JStroke prophylaxis; Myocardial infarction, acute2.9
OpsumitJohnson & JohnsonPulmonary hypertension1.9
LipitorViatrisHyperlipidaemia1.6
RepathaAmgenHyperlipidaemia1.6
UptraviJohnson & JohnsonPulmonary hypertension1.5
TyvasoUnited TherapeuticsPulmonary hypertension1.4
LixianaDaiichi SankyoStroke prophylaxis1.4
ActivaseRocheMyocardial infarction, acute1.3
Source: Evaluate Pharma.

 

Top 10 cardiovascular companies 2023 & 2028
Company2023e cardiovascular sales ($bn) Company2028e cardiovascular sales ($bn)
Novartis7.8  Novartis6.9
Pfizer6.8 Bristol Myers Squibb5.4
Bristol Myers Squibb5.8 Merck & Co4.0
Bayer5.2 United Therapeutics3.9
Johnson & Johnson5.1 Pfizer3.8
AstraZeneca4.0 Sanofi3.5
Sanofi3.7 Bayer3.4
Viatris2.9 Johnson & Johnson3.2
United Therapeutics2.3 AstraZeneca3.1
Daiichi Sankyo2.0 Viatris2.8
Source: Evaluate Pharma.

 

Top 10 cardiovascular drug sales: 2028
ProductCompanyIndications2028e sales ($bn)
EliquisBristol Myers Squibb/PfizerStroke prophylaxis6.7
TyvasoUnited TherapeuticsPulmonary hypertension2.8
EntrestoNovartisChronic heart failure2.7
SotaterceptMerck & CoPulmonary hypertension2.6
RepathaAmgenHyperlipidaemia2.2
CamzyosBristol Myers SquibbHypertrophic cardiomyopathy; Chronic heart failure2.1
LeqvioNovartisHyperlipidaemia; Atherosclerosis2
AficamtenCytokineticsHypertrophic cardiomyopathy1.7
LipitorViatrisHyperlipidaemia1.5
ActivaseRocheMyocardial infarction, acute1.5
Source: Evaluate Pharma.

https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/corporate-strategy-snippets/eliquis-cardio-drug-cannot-be-beat

Doximity cut to Neutral from Overweight by Piper

 Target to $36 from $38

https://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=DOCS&p=d