Latest data from the phase III OLYMPIA 2 trial presented at the World Congress of Dermatology (WCD) showcase rapid onset of action of nemolizumab in adult patients with prurigo nodularis, with 19.7% of patients treated with nemolizumab monotherapy achieving an itch-free state as early as week 4 after only one dose of nemolizumab1
100% of adults with prurigo nodularis have reported intense itching caused by the condition as their top complaint2
Nemolizumab is a first-in-class investigational monoclonal antibody that blocks the signaling of IL-31, widely recognized as the itch cytokine and a central mediator of inflammation and fibrosis in prurigo nodularis
A greater proportion of patients achieved 100 percent improvement in skin clearance at the highest dose level tested compared to placebo, at week 16
Phase 3 clinical development in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis is planned
The Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson today announced positive topline results from its Phase 2b FRONTIER 1 clinical trial evaluating the novel, first and only oral interleukin-23 receptor (IL-23R) antagonist peptide JNJ-2113 in adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis (PsO).1 The trial achieved all primary and secondary efficacy endpoints. A greater proportion of patients who received JNJ-2113 achieved PASI 75 (primary endpoint) as well as PASI 90 and PASI 100 (75, 90 and 100 percent improvement in skin lesions as measured by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, respectively)a compared to placebo, at week 16.1 Trial results for JNJ-2113 demonstrated a profile1 that supports its advancement into Phase 3 clinical development for moderate-to-severe plaque PsO in adult patients.
Human Rights Watch found that Ukrainian troops have been using scatter mines. The anti-personnel weapons are internationally banned, including by Kiev, because of their devastating impact on civilians.
HRW reports uncovered several instances where Ukraine used anti-personnel scatter mines. The human rights monitoring group first made the allegation in a January report, but a press release issued on Friday says more evidence was found recently.
The evidence shows Ukrainian forces fired rockets carrying thousands of PFM-1 anti-personnel mines, also called “petal” or “butterfly” mines, according to the press release. The submunitions are pressure activated, meaning they linger on the ground until someone steps or drives upon them.
HRW “verified 11 civilian casualties from the mines, including one death and multiple amputations of lower legs, based on interviews with victims and their family members,” the press release said.
Russia has also used anti-personnel weapons. However, unlike Moscow, Kiev has ratified an international treaty outlawing their use.
The Ukrainian government responded to the HRW report by saying it will “study” the claims but maintains Kiev has a right to defense.
Additionally, Washington is close toapproving the transfer of cluster bombs to Kiev. Like scatter mines, the submunitions dropped by cluster bombs will remain on the ground well after the war ends, killing civilians for years to come.
There is an international treaty outlawing cluster bombs. However, the US, Russia and Ukraine are not parties to the agreement. Both Moscow and Kiev have used cluster bombs on the Ukrainian battlefield.
Days afterBrexiteer Nigel Farage told the world about his experience of having his bank accounts abruptly closed by a major banking group, without a valid reason provided,The FT reportsthatChancellor Jeremy Hunt has said the government will take action over banks blacklisting customers who hold controversial views.
As we detailed at the time, Farage claimed that:
“The establishment are trying to force me out of the UK by closing my bank accounts,” adding, "this is serious political persecution at the very highest level of our system.”
And he cited 3 potential reasons for his apparent blanket ban...
the EU's definition of a politically exposed person (PEP),
prejudice from corporate institutions, and
false allegations made by a member of Parliament regarding funds from the Russian government.
"The banking industry in the UK has become politicised. We are going down a road where anybody in Britain could say something on Facebook or Twitter that a bank doesn’t like and lose their accounts."
In response, Chancellor Hunt has asked City minister Andrew Griffith to investigate the practice of lenders closing down the accounts of individuals or companies whose views they disagree with.
“Banks and payment providers occupy a privileged place in society and it would be a concern if financial services were being denied to those exercising the right to lawful free speech,” Griffith told the Financial Times.
The Treasury opened a consultation into the matter earlier this year after rightwing commentator and journalist Toby Young complained that the Free Speech Union group he founded had its PayPal account frozen last September.
PayPal did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Rather notably - given Farage's comments - ministers also want to reform the regime monitoring “politically exposed persons” (PEPs) to ensure it has not been applied too heavily.
Politicians classified as a PEP are subject to tighter controls by banks to guarantee they comply with the law.
Finally, as we noted at the time of Farage's comments, if it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone with a 'view' that is not 'acceptable'. As he concluded:
"I'm beginning to think that perhaps life in the United Kingdom is now becoming completely unlivable because of the levels of prejudice against me."
We wonder just how much of this 'shock, horror' from the establishment that 'deplatforming' of people like Farage is going?
Nevertheless, British PM Sunak's official spokesman said today:
"As you've seen from over the weekend, the Chancellor is concerned by some of the reports. Free speech within the law and the legitimate expression of differing views is an important part of British liberty."
"The Treasury is running a call for evidence already to assess if the current framework strikes the right balance between the rights of a bank customer to express themselves freely and the right of a bank to manage commercial risk. They're going to report back soon."
The results of a government consultation on the subject is due to be published in the coming weeks... and then we will see if this is all just bluster.
A Treasury source told the Daily Telegraph:"It is absolutely a concern. No one should have their bank account denied on the grounds of freedom of expression. We expect to take action on this issue within weeks."
‘All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.’
Over the weekend, former UK Health Secretary Matt Hancock, who advocated and led the use of terror messaging to drive support for and compliance with lockdown measures throughout 2020, choked back tears as he told the Government’s official COVID Inquiry that he is ‘profoundly sorry’ for each and every COVID death and hopes lockdowns will be ‘much earlier’ and ‘more stringent’ during the next pandemic.
One need not have a background in law enforcement to recognize that these are the words of an entirely unrepentant sociopath. Hancock’s testimony seemed to confirm sceptics’ worst fears that the COVID Inquiry is being used as a pretext to institutionalise lockdowns, and it marked an astonishing new low for the COVID Inquiry, which so far has revealed little of value and assiduously avoided asking officials why they found the horrific decision to copy China’s lockdown policy remotely appropriate—though the officials have openly admitted lockdown wasn’t part of any Western country’s pandemic plan and have pondered whether any country would have done it had it not been for China.
Worst of all may be the fact that 17 members of the pro-lockdown pressure group ‘Independent SAGE’ have been asked to give evidence at the COVID Inquiry. For those who’ve been paying attention, this is a far cry from how optimists hoped the aftermath of the COVID response would eventually play out.
‘Independent SAGE’ is not a legitimate political body. ‘Independent SAGE’ is nothing but a questionably-funded group of extremists with no relevant credentials proselytizing the dubious goal of ‘Zero Covid,’ while hijacking the name of an official Government body to fool the public into believing they have some legitimacy.
In short, ‘Independent SAGE’ is nothing but a disinformation organisation that caused unfathomable harm by convincing citizens and officials to pursue an illusory goal using illiberal methods with very real and catastrophic costs. To have Independent SAGE give evidence at the COVID Inquiry means the potential criminals have, quite literally, been given a role in prosecuting the case. The members of Independent SAGE are the ones who should be facing an inquiry; given the scale of the harm, the UK could do worse than to have them all banged up in the Tower of London—at least until we know more.
For the UK Government to stack the official COVID Inquiry with the members of an obvious disinformation group is deeply insulting to the public’s intelligence, and an unsettling glimpse into the lengths the Government has gone to manipulate the perception of public opinion since the response to COVID began. The public did not ask them to put all these members of ‘Independent SAGE’ on the Inquiry, nor can this decision be written off as a mistake.
Rather, it reveals that many Members of Parliament are deliberately working to manipulate public perceptions to prevent the question of whether the UK should have imposed a lockdown from ever being asked—and it begs the troubling question of just how many of these MPs are not mere incompetents, but rather knowing accomplices to the crime. To be frank, it evidences just how vast the communist conspiracy which may have given birth to Western lockdowns may in fact be.
That so many MPs may be knowing accomplices to the crime of lockdown helps explain why such transparently-questionable characters as 40-year British Communist Party Member Susan Michie; China admirer Neil Ferguson; Lancet Editor-in-Chief Richard Horton, who wrote that ‘public health’ is the ‘midwife of Marxism;’ lead lockdown advisor Chris Whitty; and lead lockdown scientist Jeremy Farrar were all able to play leading roles in the response to COVID and significantly advance their careers in its catastrophic aftermath without scrutiny.
To see the leading instigators of lockdown getting away with all this, at least so far, is admittedly a bit deflating. But ultimately, there is an objective reality, and the reality is that these policies destroyed countless millions of lives and transferred trillions in wealth from workers to the very richest for virtually no human benefit.
As Hannah Arendt so beautifully described, this, in the real world, is how evil works: the mass abdication of reality in favor of a fantasy that befits one’s own personal comfort and prurient self-interest. The wide embrace of this fantasy by those in power only deepens the moral imperative to insist on the admission of the objective reality of the devastation that lockdown in fact caused.
Further, that so many MPs are knowingly acting as accomplices to the crime of lockdown doesn’t necessarily mean they’re knowingly advancing China’s interests. To be sure, lockdown propaganda was extremely effective, and all one has to do is talk to ordinary people in liberal cities to realize that many of them honestly seem to think these policies were hunky dory. Some MPs may thus be rationalising their actions as simply telling the public what they want to hear.
When I argue that creating this rift between the ruling class’s self-interest and objective reality may have been the goal of China’s lockdown propaganda from the very start, some fellow commentators such as Will Jones, a good bloke at the Daily Sceptic, like to reply that it all sounds ‘too clever by half.’
But it’s really not terribly original. This is how organised crime organisations have always recruited—albeit on a much larger scale. In general, criminal organisations don’t recruit through applications and interviews; rather, they recruit through a process of manipulation and entrapment, gradually estranging individuals from what they believed to be their values, until all that’s left is nihilism, self-interest, and complete loyalty to the organisation.
And, with its century of history, no one has more experience in this process than the Chinese Communist Party. In that sense, the response to COVID may be seen as the CCP’s largest-ever recruiting event. And without a doubt, Xi Jinping couldn’t be more proud of the performance of the Freshman class.
"Two things are crucial for Europe's competitiveness: the protection of intellectual property, i.e. patent terms for drugs. And the ability to quickly approve drugs and bring them to market," the Merck CEO continued.
Most recently, the DAX-listed Bayer Group announced that it would focus more on the U.S. and China in its pharmaceuticals business, describing the environment in Europe as "innovation-unfriendly." In Germany, the pharmaceutical industry is up in arms against a law to stabilize the finances of health insurance companies, which forces pharmaceutical companies to offer increased price discounts. The Swiss company Roche had filed a constitutional complaint against it. The reform is a risk, Garijo said. "Germany must not lose competitiveness when it comes to commercializing innovations."
Meanwhile, Garijo again defended Merck's involvement in China. "We continue to believe in the opportunities in China," she said. Garijo rejected calls for Western companies to disengage from China because of geopolitical risks. "I don't think disengagement is feasible in the next two decades."
