ResMed beats estimates on strong sleep apnea device sales

  ResMed beat Wall Street estimates for second-quarter revenue and profit on Wednesday, powered by strong demand for its respiratory devices used to treat sleep apnea.

Adjusted profit of $1.88 per share beat analysts' average estimate of $1.80, according to LSEG data, while revenue of $1.2 billion topped estimate of $1.15 billion.

The California-based company's continuous-positive-airway-pressure machines (CPAP) help manage sleep apnea, a condition where the airway gets blocked many times during sleep.

Meanwhile, gross margin declined to 55.1% from 56.5%, mainly due to costs associated with the recall of the company's respiratory masks containing magnets. Analysts had expected gross margin of 56%, according to LSEG data.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration earlier this month classified the recall as most serious. The company has said the products would remain on the market and the classification was due to a correction in the labeling.

ResMed has also shrugged off concerns over weight-loss drugs such as Novo Nordisk's Wegovy and Eli Lilly's Zepbound being tested to treat sleep apnea.

Zepbound or tirzepatide is in late-stage testing for patients with obstructive sleep apnea and obesity.

Lilly's study could be a "sentiment overhang" and patients could potentially drop off CPAP treatment as they lose weight, Jefferies analyst Matthew Taylor said in a note ahead of the earnings report.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/resmed-beats-estimates-strong-sleep-230709737.html

Varied risk of persistent COVID-19 infection among immunocompromised

 Individuals who are immunocompromised are at risk of worse COVID-19 outcomes and may have a less robust response to vaccination compared to non-immunocompromised individuals. But the term "immunocompromised" refers to a wide range of conditions, and not all patients in this category may be at equal risk.

Researchers from Mass General Brigham have studied a population of 56 immunocompromised individuals that included patients who were severely immunocompromised due to hematologic malignancies/organ transplant or auto-immune/B cell deficiency as well as non-severely immunocompromised patients. The team compared these groups to one another and to patients who were not immunocompromised.

They found that patients' abilities to clear the virus differed by the extent of their immunosuppression. Patients who were immunocompromised due to a hematologic malignancy or organ transplant were most likely to have a chronic, prolonged infection. This finding suggests the importance of T cells in clearing SARS-CoV-2 infection, which has implications for patient monitoring and improved vaccine design. Participants who were severely immunocompromised also had a higher risk of developing resistance against therapeutic monoclonal antibodies.

The study is published in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

"Providers and patients should be aware that protracted symptoms may mean persistent COVID-19 disease that requires additional testing and potential treatment," said corresponding author Jonathan Li, MD, of the Division of Infectious Diseases at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

Patients with a history of organ transplant or hematologic malignancy had the greatest delay in viral clearance; patients with B cell immunodeficiency had an intermediary risk; and the study's 31 patients with mild, non-severe immunocompromise, such as those with autoimmune diseases receiving anti-tumor necrosis factor (TNF) treatment, had similar viral shedding dynamics to non-immunocompromised participants.

"While our sample size is limited, these results provide reassurance that most patients with mild/moderate immunosuppression (including those on B-cell depleting therapy) will be able to clear the virus during the acute phase of infection," said Li.

More information: Yijia Li et al, SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance and evolution varies by type and severity of immunodeficiency, Science Translational Medicine (2024). DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.adk1599

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-01-highlights-varied-persistent-covid-infection.html

The Logical Inconsistencies of Physician-Assisted Suicide

 By John M. Grondelski

Physician-assisted suicide (PAS) trades on several logical inconsistencies: that suicide is bad, except when you’re dying; that suicides don’t act responsibly, except when they’re facing death; that personal “autonomy” applies before a terminal diagnosis but not otherwise. 

Euthanasia may be coming to a state near you.  About ten states and the District of Columbia already allow doctors to prostitute their healing profession by providing patients with lethal drugs.  Right now, there is a concerted push in Michigan (alongside, paradoxically, commercial surrogacy) to bring what is euphemistically called “physician-assisted suicide” to the Great Lake State.  My Virginia delegate proudly announced that, with a Democrat majority in Richmond, he was reintroducing legislation that would “decriminalize” suicide. 

Has anybody ever asked about the logical contradictions in this movement?

Western society has traditionally banned suicide.  Perhaps at one time the law swung to an extreme, publicly reprobating suicides, e.g., by denying them public burial.  Modern psychology has made us aware of the layers of mental factors that color a person’s acts and, therefore, his responsibility.

That said, have we not swung to the other extreme?  Our psychologization of suicide may have reached the other extreme, where we deny human dignity by automatically assuming every suicide was “out of his mind” and, therefore, really “not responsible” for taking his life.

But, if that’s true, how then do we explain that we want to allow people facing extreme conditions -- a possibly terminal diagnosis or condition -- the “choice” of killing themselves?  Are they out of their minds or not?  Or, suddenly, only in the face of a potential death sentence, have they suddenly become mentally lucid?

That equivocation in what we think of suicide has consequences outside of end-of-life scenarios.  Apart from the coterie of people pushing death on the potentially dying, society as a whole does everything it can to deter suicide.  We’re not doing a good job of it, given declining life expectancies among some groups as well as the rise in both fast ends by suicide as well as slower dying by drugs and alcohol, what Dr. Stephen Doran calls “deaths of despair.”  Nor is it just old white guys; the rise in teenage suicide is alarming. 

But, our track record notwithstanding, we claim to be fighting suicide.  We have suicide hotlines.  We tell people they are “not alone.”  We do our best to discourage them.  We sometimes even institutionalize them “for their own good.”

Except in extremis, when they are facing death?

Why is suicide “bad” in all the other cases but “good” in the face of death?

The advocates of euthanasia might say, “it’s the person’s choice.”

Well, why is a terminal diagnosis – a diagnosis that can be wrong – a “magic moment” that suddenly creates a “choice” we would otherwise deny that person?

Well, the advocates of euthanasia might argue, “the person’s dying.”

We’re all dying … every minute of every day.  Every day that we get up brings us one day closer to our personal appointment with our funeral.  So what makes one “dying” – a dying that can be mistaken – better than another?

Why does “dying” create some “autonomy” that otherwise doesn’t exist?  And why is that moment the one when the state should step aside when, if “autonomy” is real, it should never get in the way anyway?

Or, is the dirty little secret that we would simply like to give people the “right” to kill themselves anytime, anywhere, at any age… but don’t think we can sell that yet to the public?  And that admitting that dirty little secret might scuttle the whole long-term project?

The next time a politician tells you he’s for the “right to die,” ask:

• Why is suicide at the end of life different from suicide at any other time of life? 
• Why doesn’t “personal autonomy” or “privacy” cover suicide whenever, however, or by whatever means one wants?
• Is a person who commits suicide mentally competent or not?  Don’t tell me “it depends?”  It “depends” on what – and what factors differentiate X from Y?

Michigan representative Mary Cavanagh is pushing assisted suicide in the lower house.  Her biography calls her a “vocal champion” for “our most vulnerable populations.” 

She’s a vocal champion for killing those most vulnerable populations, maybe “populations we don’t want too many of,” to quote a “great” Supreme Court justice.

The push for assisted suicide plays on fears and emotions: fears about suffering and emotions about wanting to “care for” or “help” those, particularly those close to us, who might be suffering.  What that push does not traffick very much in is logic, rational thought that recognizes the slippery slope it sets us on, standing on the edge of the grave with one foot on a banana peel.

It’s time to demand we cut the emotivism and address the facts.

Nobody “gets better” by dying.  Because death is not healthcare. 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/01/the_logical_inconsistencies_of_physicianassisted_suicide.html

Exit polls show ‘70%’ of Nikki Haley NH voters were… wait for it… not Republicans

 With “Republicans” like Nikki Haley’s apparent supporters, who needs Democrats? 

Here’s this, as reported by CNN last night:

Roughly 7 in 10 of the New Hampshire voters backing Trump said they were registered as Republicans. And about 8 in 10 of Trump’s voters denied the legitimacy of President Joe Biden’s election win in 2020, highlighting the election denialism that remains widespread among his supporters. There is no evidence of widespread election fraud in 2020. Haley’s backers present a near mirror image: about 7 in 10 said they were registered as undeclared prior to Tuesday, and the vast majority acknowledged the results of the 2020 election.

For context, New Hampshire voters are registered in one of three ways: Republican, Democrat, or undeclared. Registered Republicans may only vote in Republican primaries; registered Democrats may only vote in Democrat primaries; but “undeclared” voters have the option of voting in either the Republican primary or the Democrat primary, but not both.

Now, let’s break CNN’s exit poll down: 70% of Trump’s support came from registered Republicans, which means that 30% came from “undeclared” voters; 80%, or around 4 out of 5 Trump voters polled did not believe the 2020 presidential election was the “most secure” in history, contrary to what the Democrat mouthpieces have repeated ad nauseam for almost four years, a view which is consistent for legitimate Trump supporters.

I’m not asserting what I cannot know for sure, but with the repeated statistical impossibilities in the electoral results, countless criminal convictions since for elections officials cheating to favor Joe Biden, and caught-on-camera ballot-box stuffing, I don’t believe for one second that Biden honestly won the election—which is why you’ll never catch me referring to him as “president.” I explain it to my kids like this: if I were to cheat to win a board game, would I be the actual winner? No, of course not; if there were any suspected cheating, and I refused to offer transparency, would they believe the “win”? Again, no, of course not.

But as for “Republican” Nikki Haley’s support? 70% of her votes came from “undeclared” which means only 30% came from registered Republicans, and the “vast majority” agreed that Joe Biden legitimately won in 2020—sounds like a bunch of Democrats to me, which might explain why Haley’s HQ had CNN on the big screen:

It’s no secret that CNN’s viewership has… to put it politely, precipitously declined over the past few years; you’d never know if this were some sort of appreciation party for the few diehard loyalists still hanging in there, or apparently, a Republican presidential candidate’s election night watch party.

Now I wonder if this story, from October 2023, has anything to do with Haley’s support:

Nearly 4,000 New Hampshire Democratic voters changed their party affiliation ahead of the state’s presidential primary next year, the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s Office announced Wednesday – a possible indication that they plan to participate in the Republican primary.

In a news release, the office said that 3,542 people who were registered as Democrats switched their registration to ‘undeclared.’ An additional 408 Democrats switched to be registered as Republicans.

In contrast to the “3,542” number, only 78 registered Republicans switched and registered as Democrats; Democrats are playing to win, and Republicans are trying to “take the high road” and playing by “rules” that no one else follows.

If I go off the current numbers provided by AP at the time of writing this blog, Trump has 166,970 votes, or 54.6%; Haley has 131,894, or 43.1%. Just to ballpark this, the 70% that came from “undeclared” support (likely Democrat ideologues), yields roughly 92,326 votes. Now, the way I see it, these votes are largely “illegitimate” as in these people aren’t probably normally Republican voters; they’re exploiting the voting process to sabotage a movement instead of genuinely support a chosen candidate. How many of these “undeclared” voters will go back to being registered Democrats now? I imagine a large number.

Seems like something an Alinksyite, or a Marxist would do, if you ask me; like I said, with “Republicans” like Nikki Haley’s apparent supporters, who needs Democrats?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/01/exit_polls_show_70_of_nikki_haley_nh_voters_were_wait_for_it_not_republicans.html

Texas Defies 'Lawless' Biden, Invokes Right To Self-Defense From 'Invasion' With More Razor Wire

 Texas Governor Greg Abbott just drew a hard line in the sand, putting the Biden administration on notice that he's declared the migrant crisis an "invasion" and invoked Texas's constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.

According to Abbott, "That authority is the supreme law of the land and supersedes any federal statutes to the contrary. The Texas National Guard, the Texas Department of Public Safety, and other Texas personnel are acting on that authority, as well as state law, to secure the Texas border."

The situation in Texas has come to a boiling point at Eagle Pass, where the Texas National Guard have taken control of a local park which illegal immigrants use as a landing zone after crossing the Rio Grande. The state has placed razor wire along miles of the river to block entry to the US - which the Supreme Court just allowed the Biden administration to remove while a legal battle plays out in a lower court.

At the White House, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Mr. Biden has the authority to nationalize the Texas National Guard and order them to desist. But he said Mr. Biden has made no such determination.

The high court’s ruling was 5-4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the three Democratic appointees in erasing a lower court injunction that had blocked the feds from cutting wire except in emergency cases. -Washington Times

Meanwhile, Abbott has continued to install razor wire around the migrant-engulfed area.

REUTERS

"Texas’ razor wire is an effective deterrent against the illegal border crossings encouraged by Biden’s open border policies," Abbnott wrote on X Wednesday, adding "We continue to deploy this razor wire to repel illegal immigration."

Are we about to witness the federal government vs. Texas over an invasion of illegals?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-defies-lawless-biden-invokes-right-self-defense-invasion-more-razor-wire

Acadia upped to Buy from Hold by Needham

 Target $37

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

Suspected fake Ozempic linked to three US cases of hypoglycemia

 Three people sought medical treatment for dangerously low blood sugar in the U.S. last year after taking suspected fake versions of Novo Nordisk's diabetes drug Ozempic, America's Poison Centers told Reuters.

One person also experienced hypoglycemia in 2023 after injecting a compounded version of Ozempic, said the organization, which represents 55 regional poison centers across the country and works with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to identify public health risks.

Ozempic and similar diabetes medicines have been increasingly used off label for weight loss. Explosive demand for Ozempic and other drugs approved for weight loss, including Eli Lilly's Zepbound and Novo's Wegovy, has fueled a burgeoning global market for counterfeit versions.

Austrian and Lebanese health authorities last year reported that several people had suffered bouts of hypoglycemia after taking suspected fake Ozempic, some of whom were hospitalized.

The Austrian health regulator said the products likely contained insulin instead of Ozempic's actual active ingredient, semaglutide. Belgium’s drug regulator confirmed that some counterfeit Ozempic seized in that country contained insulin.

America's Poison Centers, formerly known as American Association of Poison Control Centers, said all three U.S. cases of suspected fake Ozempic were reported by the same regional poison control center, and that the FDA was investigating, without providing further details.

The FDA said it had received adverse event reports after patients took both compounded and counterfeit semaglutide products, but that it does not generally comment on ongoing investigations. Semaglutide is also the active ingredient in Wegovy.

Novo Nordisk said it did not have insight into the details of these cases because they were reported directly to the poison control centers.

In December, the FDA said it had seized "thousands of units" of counterfeit Ozempic in an investigation that was ongoing but did not report cases in which people were seriously harmed by the drugs at the time.

America's Poison Centers last year received 3,316 reports from people taking versions of Ozempic, more than double the previous year, said clinical managing director Kaitlyn Brown.

Most were non-serious complaints of symptoms known to be side effects of the drug, such as nausea and vomiting that did not require hospitalization. Sixty-six of those reports involved hypoglycemia, and nearly all of them appeared to have used brand-name Ozempic, Brown said.

Brown added that most of those patients experiencing hypoglycemia went to the hospital for treatment.

Novo Nordisk lists hypoglycemia as a potential side effect of Ozempic. That risk increases for diabetes patients who use the drug along with insulin to manage blood glucose levels, its label says. Symptoms include headaches or dizziness and can progress to a loss of consciousness or seizures.

America's Poison Centers declined to say how the three cases of counterfeit semaglutide were identified. The group's regional centers sometimes receive that information from medical providers that treat the patients and obtain samples of the medicine, Brown said.

While fake drugs often do not contain any of the medication advertised, compounded drugs are custom-made medicines that are based on the same ingredients as branded drugs. They can be legally produced by licensed pharmacies in the U.S. when the branded version of the drug is in short supply.

Compounded medicines are often less expensive, but also subject to less regulatory scrutiny.

Novo Nordisk reported late last year that it had found some samples of compounded semaglutide to be up to 33% impure.

https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-suspected-fake-ozempic-linked-152640480.html