Search This Blog

Monday, June 10, 2024

Why Gen X is getting cancer more often than their parents’ generation

 More bummer news for Gen X: A new study finds that the forgotten generation is being diagnosed with more cancer than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations.

“Our results speak to the rate of incidence per 100,000 people,” the researchers told The Post on Monday. “According to our projections and analysis, Gen X is experiencing more cancer than their parents. They are outpacing both baby boomers and the Silent Generation in the incidence of leading cancers combined.”

The researchers analyzed the number of newly diagnosed cancer cases among Gen X (born between 1965 and 1980), baby boomers (1946-1964), and the Silent Generation (1928-1945). The study — conducted by biostatisticians at the National Cancer Institute’s Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics — was published Monday in JAMA Network Open.

More bummer news for Gen X: A new study finds that the forgotten generation is being diagnosed with more cancer than their parents’ and grandparents’ generations.Photographee.eu – stock.adobe.com
Despite “substantial declines” in smoking, cancer incidence is still high.Monkey Business – stock.adobe.com
00:00
03:20

“The substantial increases we identified in Generation X vs both the baby boomers and their
proxy parents surprised us,” the authors wrote in their findings.

The researchers noted that public health initiatives have led to “substantial declines” in smoking while screening tests can find colon, rectum, cervix, uterus and breast cancers early.

Obesity is one of the reasons for increases in newly diagnosed cancer cases.9nong – stock.adobe.com

“However, other suspected carcinogenic exposures are increasing,” the researchers reported.

They said it seems likely that some of the growth is attributable to rising obesity rates and increasingly sedentary lifestyles. They also acknowledged that more cancer cases may be recorded these days thanks to improvements in medical imaging and changes in cancer registry policies.

They call for more research into the contemporary causes of cancer.

In their study of 3.8 million cancer patients, researchers found there have been declines in lung and cervical cancers among Gen X women, but also “significant increases” in thyroid, kidney, rectal, endometrial, colon, pancreatic and ovarian cancers, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and leukemia.

Among Gen X men, declines in non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung, liver and gallbladder cancers have been offset by gains in thyroid, kidney, rectal, colon and prostate cancers and leukemia.

The researchers analyzed the number of newly diagnosed cancer cases among Gen X (born between 1965 and 1980), baby boomers (1946-1964) and the Silent Generation (1928-1945).Halfpoint – stock.adobe.com

The researchers reported they had “too few data points” to produce estimates for millennials (born between 1981 and 1996), although they are concerned about how cancer will affect this generation when they enter their 40s, 50s and 60s.

“On one hand, our analysis shows that the proxy parents of the millennials are experiencing as much or more cancer than the proxy parents of Generation X. This increase is concerning because of shared cancer predisposing lifestyle factors and exposures,” the researchers wrote.

“On the other hand, thanks to the global investment in cancer research, there are tremendous opportunities to prospectively reduce the millennials’ future cancer burden,” they added.

The study authors say that reducing tobacco and alcohol use, increasing physical activity, improving dietary habits and promoting breastfeeding can lower the risk of cancer.

If people do not take preventive actions, the researchers warn that “cancer incidence in the US could
remain unacceptably high for decades to come.”

https://nypost.com/2024/06/10/lifestyle/why-gen-x-is-getting-cancer-more-often-than-their-parents-generation/

Court Rules Meta Must Face Lawsuit Over Fraudulent Ads

 by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Facebook parent company Meta must face a lawsuit over claims it breached its terms of service by soliciting fraudulent advertisements from Chinese companies, a federal appeals court has ruled.

Christopher Calise and Anastasia Groschen sued Facebook in 2022 after they bought items advertised on Facebook. Mr. Calise’s car engine assembly kit did not arrive. Ms. Groschen’s toddler activity board did arrive, but it was a puzzle, not a board.

The pair said Facebook was unjustly enriching itself and being negligent by not only accepting but soliciting ads from scammers. That included efforts to solicit ads from China-based advertisers, despite internal data indicating nearly three-in-10 such ads violated one or more Facebook policies.

They also said that Facebook was breaching the contract it made with users when it stated in its terms of service that if it learned of harmful conduct, “we will take appropriate action,” but instead solicited, encouraged, and assisted deceptive advertisers.

The entire case was thrown out by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, who ruled the claims were barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

However, Judge White was wrong to toss the breach allegations, according to the new ruling, which came from a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Section 230 confers immunity on providers “of an interactive computer service” for “information provided by another information content provider.” The law bars treating the providers “as a publisher or speaker” in such cases.

But Meta “has failed to meet its burden of showing that § 230(c)(1) applies to plaintiffs’ contract-related claims, because these claims do not ’seek to treat [Meta] as a publisher or speaker,'” U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan Nelson, writing for the majority, said.

“To the extent that Meta manifested its intent to be legally obligated to ’take appropriate action' to combat scam advertisements, it became bound by a contractual duty separate from its status as a publisher. We thus hold that Meta’s duty arising from its promise to moderate third-party advertisements is unrelated to Meta’s publisher status, and § 230(c)(1) does not apply to plaintiffs’ contract claims,” he added later.

The appeals court remanded the case back to Judge White.

“Discussions of a narrower application of Section 230 coming from the Ninth Circuit are encouraging,” Courtney Maccarone, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told The Epoch Times in an email. She added, “We look forward to continuing to pursue our clients’ claims in district court.”

Meta did not respond to a request for comment.

The claims regarding unjust enrichment, negligence, and state business law were correctly judged as falling under Section 230 immunity because there was not enough evidence to show Meta “materially contributed” to the ads, Judge Nelson said.

“Without more allegations of Meta’s contribution, its ’solicitation‘ or ’assistance' for advertisers—a fundamental part of Meta’s business model and that of countless other internet companies—does not undo § 230(c)(1)’s protections just because it could be misused by third parties,” he wrote.

Judge Nelson was joined by U.S. Circuit Judges Jacqueline Nguyen and Eugene Siler Jr.

Judge Nelson was appointed under President Donald Trump, while Judge Nguyen received his appointment from President Barack Obama. Judge Siler was appointed by President George H. W. Bush, and Judge White was appointed by President George W. Bush.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Nelson said that it was time to reconsider the sweeping immunity that courts have ruled Section 230 gives to Facebook and other Big Tech companies. He pointed to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s statement in 2020 that said courts have stretched the protection from publishers and speakers to distributors, thus granting immunity “even when a company distributes content that it knows is illegal.”

These courts argue that this rule encourages ’self[-]regulation,'” Judge Nelson said. “But as plaintiffs have plausibly pled, when an internet company has an economic incentive to permit unlawful content to be posted by third parties, it seems to encourage the opposite—willful blindness.

The broad immunity also conflicts with other laws, including one that imposes liability for knowingly displaying obscene material to children, the judge said, and has resulted in protecting companies displaying such material and even facilitating terrorism.

“These applications stretch the statute’s plain meaning beyond recognition. And they will continue to occur unless we consider a more limited interpretation of § 230(c)(1)’s scope of immunity,” Judge Nelson said. “In a world ever evolving and with artificial intelligence raising the specter of lawless and limitless protections under § 230(c)(1), we should revisit our precedent and ensure we have grounded its application.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/court-rules-meta-must-face-lawsuit-over-fraudulent-ads

Skye Bioscience ends eye disease R&D efforts after glaucoma drug’s phase 2 fail

 Skye Bioscience’s share price tumbled in pre-market trading Monday, as the biotech announced a strategic refocus in the wake of a phase 2 trial failure.

The company’s stock dropped by 28% to $7.90 as of 8:15 a.m. ET on Monday, compared to a Friday closing price of $10.94 after the biotech disclosed that its lead asset, a cannabinoid receptor-1 (CB1) agonist called SBI-100, failed to demonstrate a statistically significant lowering of intraocular pressure in a mid-stage trial across 56 patients with primary open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension.

As recently as April, Skye had been attributing its work getting SBI-100 into the phase 2 trial—which completed dosing in February—as one of the reasons for being able to bounce its shares from the over-the-counter securities market to the Nasdaq Global Market.

But in response to today’s clinical fail, Skye will not only halt all work on SBI-100 but end its ophthalmology R&D ambitions entirely. From now on, all resources are being funneled into the company’s metabolic program, which is headed up by CB1 inhibitor nimacimab.

A phase 2 trial of nimacimab in obesity is due to begin dosing in the third quarter and Skye said the strategic pivot would extend its operating runway into 2027.

The company had already “laid the groundwork for our metabolic program” over the last year, according to CEO Punit Dhillon, with the aim of “diversifying our product portfolio’s disease targets and therapeutic mechanisms.”

“With this data outcome from our glaucoma program, we will now focus 100% of our efforts on broadening our metabolic clinical pipeline,” Dhillon added in the June 10 release. “We believe that nimacimab’s unique mechanism of peripheral CB1 inhibition positions it to potentially contribute to the need for higher-quality, sustainable weight loss and better treatments for co-morbid conditions amidst an incretin-biased anti-obesity therapeutic landscape.”

“We will look forward to sharing updates on this clinical program and advancing nimacimab through to data in 2025,” the CEO added.

Inhibiting CB1 has shown potential to address a “broad range of diseases with notable unmet medical needs” including obesity, chronic kidney disease and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), the biotech noted in the release.

However, the modality doesn’t have a great track record. In fact, CB1 agonists have been tied to one of the biggest pharma flops of recent decades, when Sanofi and Aventis’ obesity drug Acomplia was pulled from European markets in 2008 over risks of depression and suicidal thoughts.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/skye-bioscience-ends-eye-disease-rd-after-glaucoma-drugs-phase-2-fail

NYC’s Congestion Pricing Delay Puts Transit Agency’s Credit Rating at Risk

 

  • S&P notes agency debt is backed by farebox, toll collections
  • Congestion pricing was going to bring $1 billion a year to MTA

The credit rating on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s farebox revenue bonds could be hurt by the delay of New York City’s congestion pricing plan, according to S&P Global Ratings.

Governor Kathy Hochul temporarily paused the congestion pricing plan that was set to begin June 30, saying last week she was concerned the new toll would add a financial burden to working-class families. That decision means the MTA — for now — won’t collect $1 billion a year to fund necessary infrastructure projects to modernize the system and attract more riders.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-10/nyc-s-toll-delay-puts-mta-s-credit-rating-at-risk

Tenaya started at Outperform by Blair

 William Blair initiated coverage of Tenaya Therapeutics (NASDAQ:TNYA) with an outperform rating, citing its gene therapy candidate TN-201.

The investment firm believes TN-201 could reverse cardiac hypertrophy and provide durable improvements in cardiac function in patients with MYBPC3-associated hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

William Blair also said it sees upcoming Phase 1 data for the product, expected in the second half of 2024, to provide “insight into TN-201’s therapeutic benefit and be a major catalyst for the stock.”

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4114530-william-blair-starts-tenaya-at-outperform-cites-upcoming-data

Geron started at overweight at Barclays

 Target $9

https://seekingalpha.com/news/4114480-geron-started-overweight-barclays-following-imetelstat-approval