What fallacy is this?

P1: Remdesivir is bad.

P2: Remdesivir is the main drug used to kill hundreds of thousands of hospitalized patients who had Covid-19. 

P3: Remdesivir was used in a study in Africa for Ebola in 2018 and 53% of the recipients died from It.

Now, we know Ebola has a death rate of 50%. And in the trials with treating Ebola patients with Remdesivir the death rate was around 50%. Yet, this person claims the drug killed the people and not the Ebola. What fallacy is that? 

Looks like a bunch of false premises (P2, P3) and one opinion (P1 - also counts as a dubious premise, since it's unsupported yet included as part of an argument).

Were the p's said by the coroner who autopsied the dead patients? If so, the premises are true and just statements of fact. If not, then it's someone speaking an unsupported opinion.

P1 could be "poisoning the well" fallacy maybe

The largest issues I see are not logical errors.  Rather, the biggest issues I see are two misunderstandings: (i) causality and how to demonstrate it, along with (ii) statistics and margins of error.

From the point of view of logic:

I'm not sure if P1 is intended as a conclusion (because of the claims in P2 and P3) or if P1 is simply an appeal to emotion that attempts to set those hearing the argument against Remdesivir before the argument actually begins.  Regardless using a broad, undefined, and subjective term like "bad" without defining what constitutes "badness" makes it impossible to counter the claim or to see how it applies in this situation.

Similarly, the imprecise language of P3 can lead to at least two understandings of the sentence.  The lack of clarity around the antecedent of the pronoun "it" at the end of P3 mean that P3 can be taken at least two ways (either intentionally or accidentally).  If one assumes "it" refers to the subject of the sentence, Remdesivir would become the stated cause of the deaths; if one understood "it" to refer to the object, then Ebola wold be the cause of death.  At best, an unfortunate lack of clarity; at worst, perhaps an attempt to deceive. 

Linking nothing more than the administration of a treatment with patient deaths is also an example of causal reductionism .

Mostly, it seems to be a series of opinions, not supported by logic or sufficient detail or context to be considered fact.