Search This Blog

Thursday, February 1, 2024

Thiel bankrolling ‘Olympics on steroids’ event that allows athletes to dope

 Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel is throwing his financial muscle behind an “Olympics on steroids” — whose organizer boasts that athletes will dope “out in the open and honestly.”

Thiel, who made his fortune as an early investor in tech startups like PayPal and Facebook, is backing the Enhanced Games, which will actively encourage athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs.

The venture — aimed at aiding research into nutritional supplements and biohacks that push the boundaries of human performance — is the brainchild of Dr. Aron D’Souza, a lawyer by training who famously conceived Thiel’s lawsuit against Gawker Media.

He plans to provide more details on April 17 and promote the controversial concept in Paris during the Summer Olympics, which begin in July.

Thiel is among several high-profile venture capitalists who have backed the project, including billionaire Christian Angermayer of Apeiron Investment Group and Balaji Srinivasan, the former chief technology officer of cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase.

D’Souza would not reveal how much money was raised, telling The Post it was in the “high single-digit millions” — a sum that is “enough to produce the first games.”

D’Souza said that Enhanced Games are negotiating with several host cities “that have requisite infrastructure” though he declined to specify which venue will host the inaugural competition, which he expects to get underway by the middle of next year.

Peter Thiel is among the wealthy backers of Enhanced Games, which allows athletes to take performance-enhancing drugs.Getty Images

The competition will feature five events — swimming, gymnastics, weightlifting, track and field, and combat — and will be held once a year at already-existing venues.

He told The Post that the idea behind Enhanced Games is to allow athletes to use whatever substances they wish “out in the open and honestly” — unlike at the Olympics, where “44% of Olympians admit to using banned substance while only 1% get caught.”

“My body, my choice, your body, your choice,” D’Souza told The Post when asked about the philosophy behind allowing athletes to juice.

Thiel made his fortune as an early investor in tech unicorns such as PayPal and Facebook. Thiel is seen left alongside PayPal founder Elon Musk.AP

“Individuals should be able to make choices about your body and no one — whether it’s a sports federation or the government — should be able to tell them what to do about it,” he said.

He said that the events are open to any athletes — current and former professionals and amateurs — and that allowing them to enhance their performance with substances will enable researchers to get a better idea of what technologies are out there that can boost longevity and “healthy aging.”

“We think that this will create conditions by which we will get a much larger data pool of athletes and individuals who are aspiring to self improvement through science,” D’Souza said.

He said that the data would be “very useful to determining compounds and therapies to extending human life.”

D’Souza predicted that Enhanced Games would do for anti-aging what “ChatGPT did for AI.”

Dr. Aron D’Souza, a lawyer by training who led Thiel’s lawsuit against Gawker Media, is the brainchild of Enhanced Games.Enhanced Games

The 56-year-old Thiel is among several Silicon Valley moguls who have invested millions in funding research aimed at helping people live longer.

Thiel himself takes human growth hormone to help maintain muscle mass as well as anti-diabetes drug metformin, which has grown popular in the anti-aging community.

Thiel told media outlets that he adheres to the paleo diet — which eschews processed foods in favor of unprocessed fruits, vegetables and lean meat — and that he aims to one day have his body cryogenically frozen so that he can be posthumously revived if and when technology allows for it.

Enhanced Games will encourage athletes to take substances that will push the bounds of human performance.Instagram / Enhanced Games

So far, 900 athletes have expressed interest in participating in the Enhanced Games, according to D’Souza.

He said Enhanced Games’ free-for-all philosophy will allow athletes who “didn’t win the genetic lottery” to experiment with supplementation that could boost their performance.

“Anyone who wants to compete and can do so,” D’Souza said.

Enhanced Games will also pay athletes a base salary in addition to prize winnings.

Enhanced Games says that allowing athletes to take PEDs will level the playing field since most Olympic athletes who dope don’t get caught, according to D’Souza.Instagram / Enhanced Games

The idea is to avoid an Olympics-style competition in which countries and municipalities compete for the right to host the games by building taxpayer-funded stadiums and venues — only for those same venues to stand unused after the event is over.

Economists at Oxford University conducted an analysis which found that every Olympics since 1960 has run over budget.

D’Souza told The Post that the Enhanced Games will be entirely funded with private money.

“The Olympics wastes tens of billions of dollars building stadiums and then throwing them away after two weeks,” D’Souza said.

Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the Russian anti-doping whistleblower who exposed the country’s state-sponsored doping program, called the idea a “danger to health, to sport.”
Anna Meares, a former Olympic gold medalist who serves as Australia’s Olympic chef de mission for the Paris Summer Games, told The Guardian: “It’s a joke, to be honest.
“Unfair, unsafe — I just don’t think this is the right way to go about sport,” she said.

https://nypost.com/2024/02/01/business/peter-thiel-is-bankrolling-enhanced-games-olympics-on-steroids/

Hologic upgrades annual sales forecast on strong demand for its breast health products

 Med-tech company Hologic raised its annual sales forecast on Thursday, on the back of strong demand for its diagnostics and breast health products.

The company manufactures and supplies diagnostics tests and assays, medical imaging systems and surgical products focused on healthcare needs of women.

Amid a recovery in surgical procedure volumes, Hologic expects growth in revenue from new business lines, particularly from its ongoing strategic expansion efforts in the breast health segment.

Hologic upgraded its annual sales forecast to between $3.99 billion and $4.07 billion from its prior forecast of $3.92 billion to $4.02 billion.

The company, however, expects second-quarter revenue in the range of $990 million-$1.01 billion, compared with analysts' estimates of $998.09 million, according to LSEG data.

Its breast health segment, which offers solutions in radiology, breast surgery, pathology, recorded a 13% rise in quarterly sales to $377.7 million, above analysts' estimates of $373.05 million, primarily due to higher capital equipment revenue.

Hologic's revenue for the quarter ended Dec. 30, was $1.01 billion, above analysts' average estimate of $986.12 million, according to LSEG data.

Its diagnostics segment, which offers viral load tests, molecular diagnostics assays, among other services, reported a 19.9% fall in sales to $447.8 million year-on-year, dragged by lower sales of COVID-19 assays.

The segment's sales, however, beat analysts' estimates of $414.55 million.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hologic-upgrades-annual-sales-forecast-222159564.html

Fractyl Health Announces Pricing of Initial Public Offering

 Fractyl Health (Nasdaq: GUTS), a metabolic therapeutics company focused on pioneering new approaches for the treatment of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity, today announced the pricing of its initial public offering of 7,333,333 shares of common stock at a public offering price of $15.00 per share, for total gross proceeds of approximately $110.0 million, before deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and estimated offering expenses payable by Fractyl Health. All of the common stock is being offered by Fractyl Health. The offering is expected to close on February 6, 2024, subject to customary closing conditions. In addition, Fractyl Health has granted the underwriters a 30-day option to purchase up to an additional 1,099,999 shares of its common stock at the initial public offering price less the underwriting discounts and commissions.

Fractyl Health’s common stock is expected to begin trading on the Nasdaq Global Market on February 2, 2024, under the ticker symbol “GUTS.”

BofA Securities, Morgan Stanley and Evercore ISI are acting as joint book-running managers.

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/02/02/2822565/0/en/Fractyl-Health-Announces-Pricing-of-Initial-Public-Offering.html

American Healthcare REIT sets terms for $756 million IPO

 American Healthcare REIT, a healthcare REIT with 298 properties in the US and UK, announced terms for its IPO on Monday.


The Irvine, CA-based company plans to raise $756 million by offering 56 million shares at a price range of $12 to $15. Certain executives and directors intend to purchase $2 million worth of shares in the offering (<1% of the deal). At the midpoint of the proposed range, American Healthcare REIT would command a market value of $1.7 billion.

The company is an internally-managed REIT that acquires, owns, and operates a diversified portfolio of clinical healthcare real estate properties. American Healthcare REIT focuses primarily on medical offices, senior housing, nursing facilities, hospitals, and other healthcare-related facilities. The company is the ninth largest public reporting healthcare REIT, based on total assets. As of September 30, 2023, American Healthcare REIT owned and/or operated 298 buildings and integrated senior health campuses, representing an aggregate of approximately 18.9 million square feet of gross leasable area.

American Healthcare REIT was founded in 2014 and booked $1.8 billion in revenue for the 12 months ended September 30, 2023. It plans to list on the NYSE under the symbol AHR. BofA Securities, Morgan Stanley, KeyBanc Capital Markets, Citi, RBC Capital Markets, Barclays, and Truist Securities are the joint bookrunners on the deal. It is expected to price during the week of February 5, 2024.

Merck seeks more deals to prepare for Keytruda's revenue decline

 Merck & Co on Thursday said it was in the market for deals of up to around $15 billion as it plans for a loss of revenue from its aging cancer immunotherapy Keytruda, the world's top-selling prescription medicine.

The drugmaker, which also reported better-than-expected fourth-quarter results on strong Keytruda sales, has already inked multiple deals over the last year, including a $5.5 billion payout to Japan's Daiichi Sankyo for the right to co-develop three antibody drug conjugate cancer drugs.

"While I feel very good about the progress we've made and the growing portfolio, the diverse and deep portfolio we have in our pipeline, we do continue to believe we need more, and we will continue to prioritize business development," Chief Executive Officer Rob Davis said on a conference call.

In addition to deals, Davis said Merck would look for more collaborations similar to the Daiichi Sankyo transactions.

Merck's shares were up about 2.5% in early trading.

Keytruda generated $25 billion in 2023 sales, surpassing peak sales of AbbVie's blockbuster arthritis drug Humira.

Keytruda is forecast to top $30 billion in sales by 2026. However, the drug is set to lose its patent protection by the end of the decade.

The company's 2023 transactions are already significantly improving Merck's own outlook for future revenue. Merck said it now expects $20 billion from new oncology products in development by the mid-2030s, nearly double its prior oncology pipeline forecast for over $10 billion.

It also lifted its mid-2030s outlook for new cardiometabolic products to about $15 billion from more than $10 billion.

Merck reported adjusted earnings of 3 cents a share in the fourth quarter, despite taking a charge of $1.69 a share to account for the Daiichi deal. Analysts had expected a loss of 11 cents a share, according to LSEG data.

Revenue for the quarter rose 6% to $14.6 billion, compared with estimates of $14.5 billion.

Today's Censorship Is Personal

 by Jeffrey Tucker via The Brownstone Institute,

The United States has the distinction the world over for being a home to the First Amendment, which guarantees free expression. And yet a mere seven years after its ratification in 1791, Congress violated it in the most severe way with the “Alien and Sedition Acts” of 1798, which made it a crime to engage in “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against government officials. 

The Sedition Act mentioned Congress, the President (John Adams), government generally as protected, but was silent about the Vice President, who was Thomas Jefferson. Upon the election of Jefferson in 1800, it was repealed immediately. Indeed, the censorship was so controversial that Jefferson’s opposition contributed to his victory. 

The experience taught an important lesson. Governments have a tendency to want to control speech, meaning writing in those days, even if it means trampling on the rules that bind them. This is because they have an insatiable desire to manage the public mind, which is the story people carry around that can make the difference between stable rule and popular discontent. It has always been thus. 

We like to think that free speech is settled doctrine but that’s not true. Thirty-five years after Jefferson’s victory, in 1835, the U.S. Post Office banned the circulation of abolitionist materials in the South.

This went on for 14 years until the ban was lifted in 1849. 

Then 12 years later, President Abraham Lincoln revived censorship after 1860, imposing criminal penalties on newspaper editors that supported the Confederacy and opposed the draft. Once again, people who disagreed with regime priorities were considered seditious. 

Woodrow Wilson did the same during the Great War, targeting anti-war newspapers and pamphleteers again. 

A new book by David Beito is the first to document FDR’s censorship in the 1930s, muzzling opponents of his administration. Then in World War Two, the Office of Censorship got busy monitoring all mail and communications. The practice continued on after the war in the early years of the Cold War with the blacklists against alleged communists. 

There is a long history of government using every means to channel speech, especially when technology finds a way around the national orthodoxy. Government has usually adapted to the new problem with the same old solution. 

When radio came along in the early 1920s, radio stations exploded around the country. The federal government quickly responded with the Congress-created Radio Act of 1927, which made the Federal Radio Commission. When television seemed inevitable, that agency converted itself to become the Federal Communications Commission, which long kept a tight rein on what Americans heard and saw in their homes. 

In each of the above cases, the focus of government pressure and coercion was the distribution portals of information. It was always the editors of newspapers. Then it became the broadcasters. 

Sure, the people had free speech but what does it matter if no one hears the message? The point of controlling the broadcast source was to impose top-down messaging for purposes of managing what people generally think. 

When I was a kid, “news” consisted of a 20-minute broadcast on one of three channels that said the same thing. We believed that’s all there was. With such strict controls on information, one can never know what one is missing. 

In 1995, the web browser was invented and an entire world grew up around it that included news from many sources, and then eventually social media too. The ambition was summarized in the name “YouTube:” this was a television from which anyone could broadcast. Facebook, Twitter, and others came along to give every single person the power of an editor or broadcaster. 

Keeping with the long tradition of control, what was government to do? There had to be a way but getting hold of this giant machinery called the Internet was not going to be an easy task. 

There were several steps.

  • The first was to impose high-cost regulations on admission so that only the most well-heeled companies could make it big and consolidate.

  • The second was to rope these companies into the federal apparatus with various rewards and threats.

  • The third was for government to winnow its way into the companies and subtly push them to curate information flows based on government priorities. 

This takes us to 2020, when this vast apparatus was deployed fully to manage messaging on the response to the pandemic. It was highly effective. For all the world, it seemed as if everyone responsible was fully in support of policies that have never before been attempted, such as stay-at-home orders and church cancellations and travel restrictions. Businesses nationwide were shut, with hardly a peep of protest that we could hear at the time. 

It seemed spooky but, over time, investigators came to discover a vast censorship industrial complex that was in heavy operation, to the point that Elon Musk declared that the Twitter he bought might as well have been a megaphone for military intelligence. Thousands of pages have been amassed in court filings that confirm all of this.

The case against the government here is that it cannot do through third parties such as social media platforms what it is forbidden from doing directly by virtue of the First Amendment. The case in question is popularly known as Missouri v. Biden, and there is much at stake with its results. 

If the Supreme Court decides that the government violated free speech with these measures, it will help secure the new technology as a tool of freedom. If it goes the other direction, censorship will be codified in law and it will give license to agencies to lord it over what we see and hear forever. 

You can see the technological challenge here for government. It’s one thing to threaten editors of paper newspapers or throttle communications on radio and television. But it is another matter to gain full control over the vast web of global communication architecture in the 21st century. China has had some measure of success and so has Europe generally. But in America, we have special institutions and special laws. That should not be possible here. 

The challenge of censoring the Internet is vast but consider what they have achieved so far in the US. Everyone knows (we hope) that Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Instagram, and YouTube are thoroughly compromised venues. Amazon’s servers have stepped up in service of federal priorities such as when the company shut down Parler on January 10, 2021. Even auspicious services like EventBrite serve their masters: Brownstone even had an event canceled by this company. At whose behest? 

Indeed, when you look at the lay of the land today, the reed on which free speech still stands is pretty thin. What if Peter Thiel had not invested in Rumble? What if Elon Musk had not bought Twitter? What if we didn’t have ProtonMail and other foreign providers? What if there were no truly private server companies? For that matter, what if we had only to rely on PayPal and conventional banks for sending money? Our freedoms that we know now would gradually come to an end.

These days, and thanks to technological advancements, speech has become deeply personal. As communication has become democratized, so have the censorship efforts. If everyone has a microphone, everyone has to be controlled. The efforts to do so affect the  tools and services everyone uses every day.. 

The outcome of Missouri v. Biden – the Biden administration has fought the case at every step – could make the difference as to whether the US will recapture its former distinction as the land of the free and home of the brave. It’s hard to imagine that the Supreme Court will decide any other way than to smack down the federal censors, but we cannot know for sure these days. 

Anything could happen. There is much at stake. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the pre-trial injunction against agency intervention in social media on March 13, 2024. This year will be the year of decision about our fundamental rights.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/todays-censorship-personal

'IRGC Is Getting Out Of Dodge': Biden Has Telegraphed Syria-Iraq Response Too Much

 US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in a Thursday press briefing claimed that "Our soldiers were killed by Iranian agents," in reference to the weekend drone attack on a Jordanian base which killed three American troops. It is now being widely reported that the Pentagon will launch multiple days of airstrikes on 'Iranian targets' and assets in Syria and Iraq.

Biden admin officials in the last two days have been leaking to the press information about the scope of operations. But Iran hawks aren't happy, saying this level of telegraphing has given Iranian and IRGC officers ample time and opportunity to vacate their bases.

Even as of Monday there were widespread reports that Iran-linked groups were temporarily abandoning their bases in the region, fearing immediate major attacks.

One think tank Iran hawk, Jason Brodsky, complained on Thursday as US strikes are imminent, "The U.S. government is really helping IRGC terrorists get out of Dodge—the long lead time coupled with visibility into the U.S. response. It raises all kinds of questions and none of them are good."

And Republican Congressman from Florida Mike Walz said the extent of foreknowledge and wait time makes the whole operation "deliberately unserious"

Another commentator pointed out that the Biden admin has been "vocal about targeting the IRGC in Iraq & Syria, yet reports say the IRGC has moved its top officers back to Iran... This move raises questions: Is the admin soft on the IRGC or looking to protect them?"

According to Reuters:

Iran's Revolutionary Guards have scaled back deployment of their senior officers in Syria due to a spate of deadly Israeli strikes and will rely more on allied Shi'ite militia to preserve their sway there, five sources familiar with the matter said.

The Guards have suffered one of their most bruising spells in Syria since arriving a decade ago to aid President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian war. Since December, Israeli strikes have killed more than half a dozen of their members, among them one of the Guards' top intelligence generals.

Earlier in the day Defense Secretary Austin was asked whether the US has telegraphed its response too much to the point of essentially allowing leaders to return to Iran. He essentially dodged the question, saying, "We will have a multi-tiered response."

We should point that to some degree the basic Western assumptions that there are "Iran-backed" groups running around all over Syria, and that they take orders directly from Tehran is an exaggeration and misleading. While certainly any group fighting on behalf of the pro-Damascus/Baghdad/Tehran axis is 'Iran-linked', there's still multiple and varied interests driving them. For example, militias close to the Syrian government are seeking to push out the years-long US troop occupation of the country's vital oil and gas resources. Syrian nationalism is something very different from Iran's Islamic revolutionary ideology. 

Getty Images

The New York Times too has conceded that despite it being well-known that Tehran arms and funds the main Shia militias in Iraq, there remains no evidence that Tehran is "calling the shots" when it comes to events like attacks on US personnel out of Syria or Iraq.

As for the major counter-Iran strikes, it seems Biden wants to show he's "doing something" ahead of the election, but an operation which poses less risk for rapid direct escalation with the Islamic Republic. He's going for the "easy" lay up of attacking Syria again, which has already been done several times over the years.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/irgc-getting-out-dodge-biden-has-telegraphed-syria-iraq-response-too-much-hawks