PT up 1.8% to $474.31
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/ELI-LILLY-AND-COMPANY-13401/
Thursday, July 6, 2023
Ackman: RFK Jr. Is Asking "Important Questions" About COVID Vaccines
by Catherine Yang via The Epoch Times,
For years, Democratic presidential candidate hopeful Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has raised serious questions about the safety of certain vaccine ingredients, an issue once the domain of small groups of parents that became a national issue with the onset of COVID-19.
During the pandemic, Mr. Kennedy also spoke out against the COVID-19 vaccines, personally and through supporting the Children’s Health Defense, where he served as chairman and chief legal counsel before stepping aside to focus on his campaign in April.
When Mr. Kennedy announced that he would campaign for the 2024 presidential elections, media coverage labeled him an “anti-vaxxer” and painted him as a heretic of conventional science.
When billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman began retweeting clips of Mr. Kennedy’s interview with podcaster Joe Rogan, it helped to propel Mr. Kennedy as the face of a legitimized vaccine-questioning movement. Ackman also offered to donate $150,000 if pediatrician Peter Hotez (who was critical of the interview) debated Kennedy about vaccines on Rogan’s show. Dr. Hotez declined.
Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Dr. Peter Hotez in file photos. (Lisa Lake/Getty Images for SiriusXM; John Mone/AP Photo)
‘Vaccinate every American’
In 2021, Mr. Ackman, CEO of Pershing Square Capital, criticized officials for not doing more to vaccinate the elderly against COVID-19 while suggesting fellow billionaires Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos could help fund logistics to “vaccinate every American. The time is now!”
It’s not an understatement to say Mr. Ackman’s statements are influential. During the onset of the pandemic, he sounded the alarm on the economy with an ominous line: “Hell is coming.”
The market dropped 6 percent, and the uproar he caused had him apologizing to investment executives soon thereafter, according to CBS News.
The billionaire himself had come out of the crisis with $2.6 billion in profits, according to Forbes Lists.
And now his views have changed.
“Science is an unending search for the truth, and this ongoing search is critical, as what was once deemed to be settled science is often revised or reversed with the passage of time,” Mr. Ackman wrote on Twitter in a lengthy explanation accompanied by a video of Tucker Carlson promoting Mr. Kennedy.
“For example, consider how the science of human nutrition has changed dramatically over time, or hypotheses about the causes for Alzheimer’s. And it wasn’t that long ago that doctors were quoted in ads recommending cigarettes as good for your health.”
“@RobertKennedyJr and others have raised important questions about the safety of some vaccines and have sought explanations for the dramatic increases in the incidence of childhood allergies, autism, and other health issues. These are good questions that have not been adequately answered. And I say this from the perspective of someone who is fully vaccinated along with my kids.”
Mr. Ackman preceded the explanation with a seemingly obligatory “for context, I am pro-science,” and encouraged others to seek the answers Mr. Kennedy has demanded for years.
“His concerns are ones shared by millions of parents and others. Rather than censor RFK and the skeptics, shouldn’t we instead seek to understand the causes for the massive increase in autism and allergic diseases in our children over the last 30 or so years? If vaccines are not the cause for increased autism and other allergenic conditions, then what is the cause or causes?”
He pointed out, too, that while he disagreed with Mr. Carlson on many issues, the episode on Mr. Kennedy’s work was one he recommended.
“When even your worst enemy has an insight you agree with, I have often found it has a higher probability of being true. I think you will find this approach will make it easier to get closer to the truth in an uncertain world.”
It was one of many clips on Mr. Kennedy’s work that he circulated.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announces his 2024 presidential bid and Democratic primary challenge to President Joe Biden in Boston, Mass., on April 19, 2023. (Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times)
In a recent interview on CNBC, Mr. Ackman explained why Mr. Kennedy had convinced him.
“I listened to RFK on several podcasts and a town hall and thought he raised important issues about vaccines and other issues that were worth learning more about,” he said.
“I don’t feel like we’ve fully answered questions about the safety of all vaccines, particularly more recently approved vaccines, and our approach to determining their safety and efficacy.”
He did not pledge to back Mr. Kennedy as a candidate.
“I don’t yet know, but I think he is asking important questions and raising interesting issues that are worthy of discussion and debate,” he said.
“It depends on the alternatives at the time of the general election.”
He did not commit to supporting President Joe Biden either.
“My strong preference is that he announces now that he won’t run to create a more open field for other candidates,” Mr. Ackman said.
Watchdog Warns Universities Of Lawsuits If Fail To Observe SCOTUS Affirmative Action Rulings
by Ross Muscato via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The Supreme Court has spoken on the constitutionality of using affirmative action in higher education admissions.
On June 29, the court ruled, in two separate cases, that for colleges and universities to use race in making admissions decisions is unlawful, violating the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Students for Fair Admissions was the plaintiff in the lawsuits, one against Harvard College (the undergraduate college of Harvard University) and one against the University of North Carolina.
The suits charged that the universities “employed and are employing racially and ethnically discriminatory policies and procedures in administering the undergraduate admissions program.”
The court’s conservative majority prevailed in both cases, with each decided along ideological lines: 6-2 in the action against Harvard University and 6-3 in the University of North Carolina suit. (Liberal justice Ketanji Brown recused herself from sitting on the Harvard case because she is a former member of the Harvard University Board of Overseers.)
Conservative Group Puts Higher Education on Notice
The court’s decision overturned 45 years of law that allowed colleges and universities to consider race in admissions.
But the matter—as those on both sides of the issue contend—is not settled because now the law must be observed and enforced.
Moving fast and out front to ensure that law is obeyed is America First Legal (AFL), a conservative advocacy group that promotes itself as opposing the “radical left.”
Stephen Miller, a former senior advisor to President Donald Trump and White House speechwriter, is AFL’s president. Vice president and general counsel for AFL is Gene Hamilton, who served in the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during the Trump administration.
The day after the court issued its decision, AFL sent letters to the deans of 200 of the nation’s law schools, demanding that the schools follow the new law or be subject to a lawsuit.
“I write to inform you of the consequences that you and your institution will face if you fail to comply with or attempt to circumvent the Court’s ruling,” wrote Mr. Miller in the AFL letter sent to John Manning, dean of Harvard Law School.
“You must immediately announce the termination of all forms of race, national origin, and sex preferences in student admissions, faculty hiring, and law review membership or article selection,” wrote Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller addressed the discussion that higher education, notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, still had options to continue to consider race when deciding on who to admit, when choosing whom to hire, and when selecting students for membership to law review.
“There are those within and outside your institutions who will tell you that you can develop an admissions scheme through pretext or proxy to achieve the same discriminatory outcome,” wrote Mr. Miller. “Anyone telling you such a thing is coaching you to engage in illegal conduct in brazen violation of a Supreme Court ruling, lawbreaking in which you would be fully complicit and thus fully liable.”
Mr. Miller emphasized that Harvard would be held accountable if it does not abide by the law.
“You are hereby warned.
“Any such regime—for example, relying on biography over qualifications—to achieve desired racial outcomes is clearly illegal and unconstitutional, and you will face legal repercussions accordingly.”
Marriage is the true civil rights issue of our time
“America is an idea, an idea unique in the world,” President Joe Biden said last week when responding to the Supreme Court’s decision to end race-based admissions preferences in universities. “An idea of hope and opportunity, of possibilities, of giving everyone a fair shot, of leaving no one behind.”
The United States is not giving everyone a fair shot. Far too many are being left behind. But what we're lacking isn't codified racial preferences.
Our wealth gap is growing, and millions of children are being deprived of equal opportunity because one of our nation’s foundational institutions is failing: People are getting married less than ever.
According to a new Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data released last week, a record high 25% of 40-year-olds have never been married. The collapse of marriage has not affected all communities equally. It is poor and black communities that have suffered the most.
Until the marriage crisis is addressed, the opportunity gap will only widen.
For all the controversy that the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision generated, the reality is that the elite institutions that use race-based admissions educate less than 5% of all college students. This fact does not diminish the very real harm these discriminatory policies inflict on the mostly Asian American students denied admissions to elite institutions, but it does illustrate why affirmative action has failed to bring widespread prosperity to black communities.
As the Pew study notes, almost half (46%) of all black 40-year-olds alive today have never been married. This compares to just 20% of white people and 17% of Asians. Considering the high percentage of black people who have never been married by age 40, it should not be surprising that a higher percentage of black children are born to unmarried mothers. According to the most recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data available, 70% of black children are born to an unmarried mother compared to just 28% of whites and 13% of Asians.
This huge gap in marriage ends up causing significant differences in educational success as children age. One Harvard study found that both black and white children who never had a father in the home by the time they reached 18 had an identical 58% chance of graduating from high school on time. That same study found that for every year there was a father in the home, for both black and white children, a child’s chance of graduating from high school went up, although the effect of having two parents in the home was stronger for white children.
After 18 years of having two parents in the home, a black child’s chance of graduating high school rises nearly 20 points, to 77%. If Biden and the Democrats want more black children to graduate high school, helping keep two parents in the home should be one of their top priorities. And there is no institution on the face of the Earth that has a better track record of keeping two parents in a home than marriage.
Other than Democratic elites, no one needs to be lectured about the value of marriage. Black Americans already value the ideal of marriage, often more than white people. A 2019 Pew poll found that just 52% of white people said society was better off if long-term couples got married, compared to 61% of black people. Unfortunately, our nation’s social safety net programs, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, Food Stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and even Obamacare subsidies, all include harsh marriage penalties that make it harder for working-class people of all communities to get and stay married.
It doesn’t have to be this way. We can make marriage a priority in federal policy. Opportunity would be more widely available, and far fewer children would be left behind. But first, we have to acknowledge that marriage matters and is the civil rights issue of our time.
The Biden-Big Tech Collusion Case
Big news on big tech and free speech. A federal judge ruled Tuesday that government officials can’t coerce social-media platforms to do what the Constitution forbids the government from doing.
Missouri and Louisiana, joined by scientists and conservatives whose posts were censored, sued to protect their First Amendment rights. The issue in Missouri v. Biden isn’t whether social-media platforms are government actors, but whether government officials can be held responsible for their censorship. Judge Terry Doughty ruled they can and his 155-page opinion describes disturbing coordination between the government and tech firms to suppress unpopular views, especially on Covid-19.
***
White House officials and public-health agency leaders held biweekly meetings with tech companies over how to curb the spread of misinformation during the pandemic. Former White House director of digital strategy Rob Flaherty and Covid-19 adviser Andy Slavitt were in constant contact with social-media executives, as former press secretary Jen Psaki acknowledged.
“We are in regular touch with these social-media platforms” and are “flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation,” Ms. Psaki said on July 15, 2021. But officials weren’t merely flagging false statements. They were bullying companies to censor anything contradicting government guidance.
On March 15, 2021, Mr. Flaherty accused Facebook of “hiding the ball” on the company’s efforts to combat vaccine “borderline content.” He repeatedly lambasted Facebook as a “top driver of vaccine hesitancy.” In one email he wrote that “I care mostly about what actions and changes you are making to ensure you’re not making our country’s vaccine hesitancy problem worse.”
Facebook employees typically responded with solicitude, insisting they were doing their best to reduce the spread of content the government found problematic. But White House officials weren’t satisfied because the companies hadn’t booted the supposed offenders from their platforms.
Ms. Psaki said Facebook’s censorship actions were “clearly not sufficient.” On July 16, 2021, the President accused social-media companies of “killing people,” though the White House later claimed he was referring to individuals spreading vaccine misinformation.
Two days later a Facebook executive reached out to Surgeon General Vivek Murthy: “I imagine you and your team are feeling a little aggrieved—as is the [Facebook] team, it’s not great to be accused of killing people—but as I said by email, I’m keen to find a way to deescalate and work together collaboratively. I am available to meet/speak whenever suits.”
Judge Doughty concludes from all this that “the public and private pressure from the White House apparently had its intended effect.” All 12 people dubbed the “Disinformation Dozen” by the Center for Countering Digital Hate were censored, and pages, groups and accounts linked to them were removed. On July 16, Twitter also booted Covid vaccine skeptic Alex Berenson, whom Mr. Slavitt had labelled the “epicenter of disinfo.”
Some Covid claims flagged by the White House were clearly erroneous, such as that vaccine ingredients can cause people to become magnetic. But many are scientifically debatable—for instance, that vaccines can cause Bell’s palsy and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, and that Covid had a 99.96% survival rate.
The private intimidation was amplified by public threats to use antitrust action and regulation if tech companies didn’t follow orders. Ms. Psaki warned on May 5, 2021, that platforms could face “legal consequences” if they didn’t do more. White House communications director Kate Bedingfield warned on July 21 that the White House was weighing whether social-media companies should be legally liable for misinformation on their platforms and whether to amend Section 230 to ensure platforms “be held accountable.”
The Biden Administration claims government officials were merely making “recommendations,” not demands. But the threats were explicit, and the companies knew they could face government investigations and punishment if they disobeyed.
The government also claims officials’ statements are protected speech. But as the judge notes, “It was not the public statements that were the problem. It was the alleged use of government agencies and employees to coerce and/or significantly encourage social-media platforms to suppress free speech on those platforms.”
The link between government and private censorship at its behest isn’t well developed under law, so this could be a major test case. The plaintiffs are doing a public service by teeing up whether government can use the cover of private business to censor views it dislikes.
Novavax Gets Full Marketing Authorization in the EU for Prevention of COVID
Marketing Authorization replaces conditional Marketing Authorization and is first for Novavax in the EU
Marketing Authorization includes use of Nuvaxovid™ as a primary series in individuals aged 12 and older and booster in adults
Marketing Authorization provides regulatory foundation for future vaccine updates, including Fall vaccination campaign
Carrick joins Pfizer, Arvinas on breast cancer combo
Carrick Therapeutics, an oncology-focused biopharmaceutical company discovering and developing highly differentiated therapies, today announced a clinical trial collaboration and supply agreement with Arvinas, Inc. (Nasdaq: ARVN) and Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE).
This agreement covers the execution of a Phase 1b/2 clinical trial to evaluate the novel combination of Carrick’s samuraciclib (CT7001), an oral and first-in-class inhibitor of CDK7, and Arvinas’ vepdegestrant (ARV-471), an investigational oral PROTAC® (PROteolysis TArgeting Chimera) estrogen receptor protein degrader being developed in collaboration with Pfizer, in patients who have received prior CDK4/6i, with ER+, HER2- metastatic breast cancer.
“We’re pleased to announce our collaboration with Arvinas and Pfizer to explore the potential of samuraciclib in combination with vepdegestrant for the treatment of advanced breast cancer,” said Tim Pearson, Chief Executive Officer of Carrick Therapeutics. “Despite the significant progress made in oncology in recent years, the treatment of HR+ breast cancer continues to have considerable unmet needs. We are encouraged by the initial clinical trial data from vepdegestrant and believe there could be potential synergies when combining it with samuraciclib.”
Under the terms of the agreement, Arvinas will be the regulatory sponsor of the study in the U.S. and Pfizer will be the acting sponsor for the study conducted in the U.S., as well as the regulatory and acting sponsor of the study outside of the U.S. The three parties will collaborate through a Joint Development Committee. It is anticipated that the Phase 1b/2 trial will be initiated in the second half of 2023.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/carrick-therapeutics-announces-clinical-trial-130000829.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)