iftttwall

Via Off-Guardian.org,

Below is our list of twelve medical experts whose opinions on the Coronavirus outbreak contradict the official narratives of the MSM, and the memes so prevalent on social media.

* * *

Dr Sucharit Bhakdi is a specialist in microbiology. He was a professor at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz and head of the Institute for Medical Microbiology and Hygiene and one of the most cited research scientists in German history.

What he says:

We are afraid that 1 million infections with the new virus will lead to 30 deaths per day over the next 100 days. But we do not realise that 20, 30, 40 or 100 patients positive for normal coronaviruses are already dying every day.

[The government’s anti-COVID19 measures] are grotesque, absurd and very dangerous […] The life expectancy of millions is being shortened. The horrifying impact on the world economy threatens the existence of countless people. The consequences on medical care are profound. Already services to patients in need are reduced, operations cancelled, practices empty, hospital personnel dwindling. All this will impact profoundly on our whole society.

All these measures are leading to self-destruction and collective suicide based on nothing but a spook.

*  *  *

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg is a German physician specialising in Pulmonology, politician and former chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In 2009 he called for an inquiry into alleged conflicts of interest surrounding the EU response to the Swine Flu pandemic.

What he says:

Politicians are being courted by scientists…scientists who want to be important to get money for their institutions. Scientists who just swim along in the mainstream and want their part of it […] And what is missing right now is a rational way of looking at things.

We should be asking questions like “How did you find out this virus was dangerous?”, “How was it before?”, “Didn’t we have the same thing last year?”, “Is it even something new?”

That’s missing.

*  *  *

Dr Joel Kettner s professor of Community Health Sciences and Surgery at Manitoba University, former Chief Public Health Officer for Manitoba province and Medical Director of the International Centre for Infectious Diseases.

What he says:

I have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. I’m not talking about the pandemic, because I’ve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we don’t always know what they are. But I’ve never seen this reaction, and I’m trying to understand why.

[…]

I worry about the message to the public, about the fear of coming into contact with people, being in the same space as people, shaking their hands, having meetings with people. I worry about many, many consequences related to that.

[…]

In Hubei, in the province of Hubei, where there has been the most cases and deaths by far, the actual number of cases reported is 1 per 1000 people and the actual rate of deaths reported is 1 per 20,000. So maybe that would help to put things into perspective.

*  *  *

Dr John Ioannidis Professor of Medicine, of Health Research and Policy and of Biomedical Data Science, at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).

He is also the editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Clinical Investigation. He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.

As a physician, scientist and author he has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, data science and clinical research. In addition, he pioneered the field of meta-research. He has shown that much of the published research does not meet good scientific standards of evidence.

What he says:

Patients who have been tested for SARS-CoV-2 are disproportionately those with severe symptoms and bad outcomes. As most health systems have limited testing capacity, selection bias may even worsen in the near future.

The one situation where an entire, closed population was tested was the Diamond Princess cruise ship and its quarantine passengers. The case fatality rate there was 1.0%, but this was a largely elderly population, in which the death rate from Covid-19 is much higher.

[…]

Could the Covid-19 case fatality rate be that low? No, some say, pointing to the high rate in elderly people. However, even some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses that have been known for decades can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes.

[…]

If we had not known about a new virus out there, and had not checked individuals with PCR tests, the number of total deaths due to “influenza-like illness” would not seem unusual this year. At most, we might have casually noted that flu this season seems to be a bit worse than average.

– “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data”, Stat News, 17th March 2020

*  *  *

Dr Yoram Lass is an Israeli physician, politician and former Director General of the Health Ministry. He also worked as Associate Dean of the Tel Aviv University Medical School and during the 1980s presented the science-based television show Tatzpit.

What he says:

Italy is known for its enormous morbidity in respiratory problems, more than three times any other European country. In the US about 40,000 people die in a regular flu season and so far 40-50 people have died of the coronavirus, most of them in a nursing home in Kirkland, Washington.

[…]

In every country, more people die from regular flu compared with those who die from the coronavirus.

[…]

…there is a very good example that we all forget: the swine flu in 2009. That was a virus that reached the world from Mexico and until today there is no vaccination against it. But what? At that time there was no Facebook or there maybe was but it was still in its infancy. The coronavirus, in contrast, is a virus with public relations.

Whoever thinks that governments end viruses is wrong.

– Interview in Globes, March 22nd 2020

*  *  *

Dr Pietro Vernazza is a Swiss physician specialising Infectious Diseases at the Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen and Professor of Health Policy.

What he says:

We have reliable figures from Italy and a work by epidemiologists, which has been published in the renowned science journal ‹Science›, which examined the spread in China. This makes it clear that around 85 percent of all infections have occurred without anyone noticing the infection. 90 percent of the deceased patients are verifiably over 70 years old, 50 percent over 80 years.

[…]

In Italy, one in ten people diagnosed die, according to the findings of the Science publication, that is statistically one of every 1,000 people infected. Each individual case is tragic, but often – similar to the flu season – it affects people who are at the end of their lives.

[…]

If we close the schools, we will prevent the children from quickly becoming immune.

[…]

We should better integrate the scientific facts into the political decisions.

– Interview in St. Galler Tagblatt, 22nd March 2020

*  *  *

Frank Ulrich Montgomery is German radiologist, former President of the German Medical Association and Deputy Chairman of the World Medical Association.

What he says:

I’m not a fan of lockdown. Anyone who imposes something like this must also say when and how to pick it up again. Since we have to assume that the virus will be with us for a long time, I wonder when we will return to normal? You can’t keep schools and daycare centers closed until the end of the year. Because it will take at least that long until we have a vaccine. Italy has imposed a lockdown and has the opposite effect. They quickly reached their capacity limits, but did not slow down the virus spread within the lockdown.

– Interview in General Anzeiger, 18th March 2020

*  *  *

Prof. Hendrik Streeck is a German HIV researcher, epidemiologist and clinical trialist. He is professor of virology, and the director of the Institute of Virology and HIV Research, at Bonn University.

What he says:

The new pathogen is not that dangerous, it is even less dangerous than Sars-1. The special thing is that Sars-CoV-2 replicates in the upper throat area and is therefore much more infectious because the virus jumps from throat to throat, so to speak. But that is also an advantage: Because Sars-1 replicates in the deep lungs, it is not so infectious, but it definitely gets on the lungs, which makes it more dangerous.

[…]

You also have to take into account that the Sars-CoV-2 deaths in Germany were exclusively old people. In Heinsberg, for example, a 78-year-old man with previous illnesses died of heart failure, and that without Sars-2 lung involvement. Since he was infected, he naturally appears in the Covid 19 statistics. But the question is whether he would not have died anyway, even without Sars-2.

– Interview in Frankfurter Allgemeine, 16th March 2020

*  *  *

Dr Yanis Roussel et. al. – A team of researchers from the Institut Hospitalo-universitaire Méditerranée Infection, Marseille and the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Marseille, conducting a peer-reviewed study on Coronavirus mortality for the government of France under the ‘Investments for the Future’ programme.

What they say:

The problem of SARS-CoV-2 is probably overestimated, as 2.6 million people die of respiratory infections each year compared with less than 4000 deaths for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of writing.

[…]

This study compared the mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 in OECD countries (1.3%) with the mortality rate of common coronaviruses identified in AP-HM patients (0.8%) from 1 January 2013 to 2 March 2020. Chi-squared test was performed, and the P-value was 0.11 (not significant).

[…]

…it should be noted that systematic studies of other coronaviruses (but not yet for SARS-CoV-2) have found that the percentage of asymptomatic carriers is equal to or even higher than the percentage of symptomatic patients. The same data for SARS-CoV-2 may soon be available, which will further reduce the relative risk associated with this specific pathology.

– “SARS-CoV-2: fear versus data”, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 19th March 2020

*  *  *

Dr. David Katz is an American physician and founding director of the Yale University Prevention Research Center

What he says:

I am deeply concerned that the social, economic and public health consequences of this near-total meltdown of normal life — schools and businesses closed, gatherings banned — will be long-lasting and calamitous, possibly graver than the direct toll of the virus itself. The stock market will bounce back in time, but many businesses never will. The unemployment, impoverishment and despair likely to result will be public health scourges of the first order.

– “Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease?”, New York Times 20th March 2020

*  *  *

Michael T. Osterholm is regents professor and director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota.

What he says:

Consider the effect of shutting down offices, schools, transportation systems, restaurants, hotels, stores, theaters, concert halls, sporting events and other venues indefinitely and leaving all of their workers unemployed and on the public dole. The likely result would be not just a depression but a complete economic breakdown, with countless permanently lost jobs, long before a vaccine is ready or natural immunity takes hold.

[…]

[T]he best alternative will probably entail letting those at low risk for serious disease continue to work, keep business and manufacturing operating, and “run” society, while at the same time advising higher-risk individuals to protect themselves through physical distancing and ramping up our health-care capacity as aggressively as possible. With this battle plan, we could gradually build up immunity without destroying the financial structure on which our lives are based.

– “Facing covid-19 reality: A national lockdown is no cure”, Washington Post 21st March 2020

*  *  *

Dr Peter Goetzsche is Professor of Clinical Research Design and Analysis at the University of Copenhagen and founder of the Cochrane Medical Collaboration. He has written several books on corruption in the field of medicine and the power of big pharmaceutical companies.

What he says:

Our main problem is that no one will ever get in trouble for measures that are too draconian. They will only get in trouble if they do too little. So, our politicians and those working with public health do much more than they should do.

No such draconian measures were applied during the 2009 influenza pandemic, and they obviously cannot be applied every winter, which is all year round, as it is always winter somewhere. We cannot close down the whole world permanently.

Should it turn out that the epidemic wanes before long, there will be a queue of people wanting to take credit for this. And we can be damned sure draconian measures will be applied again next time. But remember the joke about tigers. “Why do you blow the horn?” “To keep the tigers away.” “But there are no tigers here.” “There you see!”

– “Corona: an epidemic of mass panic”, blog post on Deadly Medicines 21st March 2020

*  *  *

As always, this list have been impossible to build without Swiss Propaganda Research. Follow their work and share widely. An indispensable resource.

In an extremely rare move considering it’s managed to stay operational in its over century of existence, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) will begin to cut services starting Wednesday after the coronavirus pandemic has seen ridership plummet 87% compared to the same day last year. 

The New York Times reports the city is cutting bus and commuter rail services as well, in total slashing public transport by at least 25%. This is a stunning drop of nearly 4.8 million riders.

In normal times the city’s famous subway system sees about 5.5 million people ride each weekday, but even with the plummeting numbers and with more commuters opting for more ‘social distancing’ friendly means like bicycles or walking, the MTA has struggled with personnel shortages as well amid the crisis.

The NY Times reports: 

Personnel shortages forced the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which oversees subways, buses and two commuter rails, to temporarily eliminate service on three subway lines: the B, the W and the Z.

So far, 52 M.T.A. workers have tested positive for the coronavirus, officials said, and worker shortages have caused around 800 service delays.

The MTA began mulling the scale-back of operations starting two weeks ago as at that moment around the time of Trump’s ‘national emergency’ declaration there was a noticeable 20% drop in ridership as New Yorkers sought to increasingly avoid crowds. 

MTA recently tried to assure the public that the trains “remain safe” but still recommended for those with underlying health issues, “If you can get around without riding the subway, do it.” 

But as for ‘safety’ the fact that over 50 employees and operators have caught Covid-19 is not a good sign for how quickly for virus potentially may have spread among remaining riders.

“Most people should stay off mass transit,” MTA Chairman Patrick Foye said Tuesday. “The step we are taking today is a tenet to advance the governor’s goals of flattening the curve of positive cases and slowing the spread of the virus.”

As The Hill notes, the MTA projects “it will lose about $3.7 billion, not including $300 million for coronavirus-related expenses or the loss in local and state funding from taxes.” The MTA has thus far requested a $4 billion federal bailout, with New Jersey Transit has appealing for $1.25 billion.

Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

We’re well into the coronavirus pandemic at this point. As of this writing, there are 360,765 reported infections and 15,491 deaths worldwide.

Over the next few days, you may be certain that those numbers will be significantly higher.

That’s how pandemics work. The cases and fatalities don’t grow in a linear fashion; they grow exponentially.

It’s widely acknowledged that this pandemic will get much worse before it gets better. There’s no doubt about that.

It didn’t take long for the coronavirus crisis to turn into an economic and financial crisis.

The Worst Collapse Since the Great Depression

The U.S. is falling into the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression in 1929. This will be worse than the dot-com collapse of 2000–01 and worse than the Great Recession and global financial crisis of 2008–09.

Don’t be surprised to see second-quarter GDP drop by 10% or more and for the unemployment rate to race past 10% on its way to 15% or higher.

The questions for economists are whether the lost output will be permanent or temporary and whether U.S. growth will return to trend or settle on a new path that is below the pre-virus trend.

Some lost expenditure may just be a timing difference. If I plan to buy a new car this month and decide not to buy it until August, that’s just a timing difference; the sale is not permanently lost.

But if I don’t go out for dinner tonight and then do go out a month from now, I’m not going to order two dinners. The skipped dinner is a permanent loss.

Unfortunately, 70% of the U.S. economy is based on consumption and the majority of that consists of services rather than goods. This suggests that much of the coronavirus impact will consist of permanent losses, not timing differences.

More important is the question of whether growth returns to trend by next year or follows a new lower trend. (Bear in mind that “trend” for the past 11 years has been 2.2% growth compared with average growth in all recoveries since 1980 of 3.2%; any decline in trend growth would be from an already low base.)

This is unknown, but the result will be as much psychological as policy driven.

The Fed’s Bazooka Is Empty

In situations like this, the standard policy response is for the Fed to cut rates, which it has certainly done.

The Fed has also launched massive amounts of quantitative easing.

In addition, they have guaranteed or offered credit facilities to banks, primary dealers, money market funds, the municipal bond market and commercial paper issuers so far.

Now the central bank has taken the unprecedented step of committing to buy as many U.S. government bonds and mortgage-backed securities as needed to keep the market functioning.

The problem is that the Fed’s programs won’t work as a form of stimulus. We’re seeing a supply shock as the economy grinds to a standstill. What’s everyone going to buy with all the money?

Still, they may have done things exactly backward.

Mohamed El-Erian, chief economic adviser at Allianz, says that the Fed should have focused on payment system problems and liquidity first but should not have cut rates.

Interest rates were already quite low. Once the Fed goes to zero as they did, they are incapable of cutting rates further (leaving aside negative rates, which also don’t provide stimulus).

El-Erian argues the Fed should have saved their rate cuts in case they are needed more acutely in the weeks ahead. Too late now. The interest rate bullets were fired. Now the Fed’s bazooka is empty at the worst possible time.

No Stimulus Bill

Meanwhile, Congress is working to pass a “stimulus” bill to fight the economic effects of the coronavirus pandemic.

Negotiations stalled this morning as Democrats want to insert provisions that would give tax credits to the solar and wind industry, give more power to unions and introduce new emissions standards for the airline industry.

“Democrats won’t let us fund hospitals or save small businesses unless they get to dust off the Green New Deal,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Once again, I need to emphasize the point: The economic impact of coronavirus could be devastating.

If consumers get used to not spending and decide that increased savings and debt reduction are the best ways to prepare for another virus or natural disaster, then velocity will fall and growth will be weak no matter how much money the Fed prints or the Congress spends.

The bottom line is that these spending bills provide spending but they do not provide stimulus. That’s up to consumers. And right now consumers are hunkered down.

It may be that the last of the big spenders just left town.

Physical supply is drying up and dealers are running out.

That’s why I’ve been warning my readers for years to get their gold before the crisis hits. Once it does (and it has), you won’t be able to get any.

What about silver?

Silver’s dynamics are a little bit different than gold because there are some industrial applications, but there’s no question that it’s a monetary metal.

And I always recommend that people have a “monster box.” A monster box is 500 American Silver Eagles, fine pure silver that comes directly from the Mint. It comes in a green case and is sealed.

The 500 coins at retailer commission will run you about $12,000 right now, but everybody should have one.

You ought to have a monster box of silver because if the power grid goes down, which could happen for a lot of reasons, the ATMs won’t work and neither will credit cards.

But if you walk into a store with five or six silver coins, you’ll be able to get groceries for your family.

Believe me, that’ll be legal tender when the time comes, so I definitely recommend silver.

Social distancing is transforming society as we know it. City dwellers are packing up their bags and are heading for the mountains amid the virus crisis.  

“Overnight, the world took a sharp turn into the Twilight Zone,” Gina Grande told the Los Angeles Times. “I had to get out of there. So, I made a beeline to my boss’ office and said, ‘This is awkward, but can I please telecommute from Southern California?'” 

Grande, terrified of the fast-spreading COVID-19 outbreak in San Francisco, which is where she works and lives, left the metro area for her second home on the outskirts of Joshua Tree National Park, a desert area located in southern California. 

As the pandemic sweeps across California’s largest cities, residents are fleeing their urban settings to isolated communities in the Mojave Desert or the rugged Sierra Nevada. The hope is that a remote area can reduce their transmission risk. 

But for some, social distancing measures enforced by the government have not just limited their mobility to and from work and or even their ability to go outside, residents in Los Angeles last week were restricted from leaving the city to vacation homes. 

In Mammoth Lakes, a town in California’s Sierra Nevada mountains, banned non-residents because infection risk in the small community would quickly overwhelm their hospital system. 

The flight from cities to rural communities during the outbreak, ignited by fear, could be the next hottest trend for real estate that revives dying suburbs. Families, who’ve been subjected to chaos at Costco stores of panic hoarding or forced quarantine in their tiny 550 square-foot studios, want the freedom of rural communities and the security of land that could power them through any crisis. 

In Joshua Tree, vacation rental companies have said concerned families from large metro areas are renting short-term rentals for weeks and or months at a time following the virus outbreak. 

“We just confirmed two rentals for long-term stays over three weeks,” said Josh Sonntag, who operates several rental units in the area. “In both cases, social distancing and the ability to work remotely was important.”

Bryan Wynwood, the owner of Joshua Tree Modern Real Estate, said, “Every call I get is related to the coronavirus. Some of them are from city dwellers worried about being stuck in the center of a metropolis that loses control of its basic public services.”

Sam Steinman, 28, owns several short-term rentals in Joshua Tree, said he’d noticed the desperation in city dwellers’ voices who are willing to pay double for his properties to escape the outbreak in large cities. 

“I’ve seen this kind of fear and desperation before in Israel during rocket attacks,” Steinman said. “A friend recently asked if I had a gun he could borrow. I said absolutely not.”

And maybe, just maybe, COVID-19 will have a long-lasting impact on choices made by city dwellers, who have just realized their entire lives can come crashing down in a public health crisis – though, some are making a mad dash to remote areas where life goes on as usual. 

A noticeable trend is developing: A revival of dying suburbs could be on the horizon as cities are just too dangerous when everything goes to sh*t. 

If you’re looking to flee a metro area, not just because of a virus crisis, but also because housing prices in cities are due for a major correction, here are some affordable suburbs in America that you might find interesting.

Via SchiffGold.com,

March 23 was Peter Schiff’s birthday. It was also the day the Federal Reserve announced QE Infinity. So, Peter spent over three hours hosting a live videocast talking about the latest Fed moves, the potential impact on the economy and answering questions from viewers.

Peter said he was hoping to combat the rampant economic ignorance that is pretty much everywhere.

There’s probably one thing that is spreading right now throughout the country faster than the coronavirus and that is economic ignorance and misinformation. It’s all over the place. It’s gone completely viral … The best thing anybody can do to combat the virus of ignorance is to turn off their television sets or their computers and don’t listen to anything that is being said in conventional media, whether it’s a news-related channel or a financial channel, I can virtually assure you that every single thing that you’re hearing is wrong.”

Peter hammered on a number of central themes you won’t hear discussed in the mainstream. For one thing, the Federal Reserve and the US government are repeating the mistakes of 2008.

Peter reminds us that as the crisis unfolded in ’08, he warned that the policies of bailouts and monetary stimulus were a mistake and that they would lead to a bigger crisis in the future.

Well, welcome to the future.”

He also emphasized that this isn’t about the coronavirus. The virus pricked a bubble that was inflated long ago. The economic chaos we’re seeing today started long before the virus reared its ugly head.

Everybody wants us to go back to normal, the way things were before anybody heard the word coronavirus of COVID-19. But you know what? We weren’t normal back then. The economy was sick before the virus infected us. It was a bubble. There was nothing normal about that bubble. And the problem with bubbles is once they pop, they’re not going to reflate. You need a new bubble. You need a bigger bubble. That’s what the Fed did. They inflated the NASDAQ bubble. That popped. They inflated a bigger bubble in housing. That popped. And then they inflated a bubble in everything. Well, everything has already been in a bubble. There’s nothing left to bubble up. It’s over.”

Peter also warned about what’s coming down the pike with all of this money being injected into the economy.

They are going to unleash a tsunami of inflation.”

And people losing their money in this crisis is going to be the least of the problems.

What we’re going to suffer as an economy is far worse than losing your money. Because you know what’s worse than losing your money? Having your money but your money losing it’s purchasing power. That is the worst thing that can happen and that is what’s going to happen. Hyperinflation has gone from the worst-case scenario to the most probable scenario. And that means people have to act quickly to protect themselves.”

Peter spent a lot of time taking questions from viewers. This is a great opportunity to get some economic analysis you’re not going to see on CNBC or Fox Business.

For the longest time, private equity firms seemed like the perfect investment in this market climate: unlike public equity, PE valuations would seemingly increase year after year, and without drawdowns and with no volatility, PE provided an island of stability in a market that was getting increasingly jittery even as stocks hit all time highs. Sure, unlike stocks, PE had virtually no liquidity and carried multi-year lockups, and their portfolio company purchase multiples were absolutely idiotic…

… but why would that matter in a market that seemingly would only go up?

Well, as the events of the past month demonstrated vividly, boy does liquidity and leverage matter. And so, with the US entering a depression, all those pristine PE returns are about to be savaged, the only question is by how much.

The answer – according to a new report from Investec, PE is about to go through a period of violent repricing matched only by the collapse in the global financial crisis: some 50% over the next 3 months!

In the report from Investec’s Fund Finance team, authors Michael Zornitta and Ian Wiese write that valuations will fall this month, with “major adjustments” downward foreseen in June reporting, and that hedging transactions are on the rise as risk management becomes the priority for fund managers. Just one problem: one hedges before the crisis, not after.

“Almost all managers have shifted their focus from deploying capital to defending assets,” Zornitta and Wiese wrote. Managers are looking into “alternative forms of liquidity to prop up companies, prevent breaches and reduce the possibility of having to call any remaining capital” from investors, they wrote.

Ironically, after PE firms were playing down liquidity for much of the past decade, the vital importance of liquidity during the Global Coronavirus Crisis has been underscored by none of the than PE giants Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group which told their portfolio companies to tap bank credit lines and preserve cash. In Europe CVC, EQT and Permira have also urged some companies they own to draw down credit facilities to prevent liquidity crunches if economic prospects worsen.

Apollo Global is one of the few firms that has revealed the impact of the outbreak on its funds so far. It expects to mark down its private equity portfolio by 15% to a “low 20%” figure in the first quarter, Bloomberg reported.

“The next few months will be defining for the industry,” Zornitta and Wiese said. “Defending value and ensuring there is sufficient liquidity will be the name of the game,” which is ironic for an industry that demands its investors accept no liquidity for many years at a time.

So what about all those tens of billions in private equity dry powder, with PE funds furiously raising capital in recent years? Well, as the Friendly Bear said, “it’s a good thing PE has so much “dry powder” – with leverage at 6x EBITDA on average, much of that dry powder will be going into bailing out existing companies…and it would be a good time to ask sponsors what exactly they have been including in “EBITDA”.” A very good time indeed.