The yuan fell to the lowest level in about a year versus the greenback, as traders added bearish wagers on lackluster China growth amid risks of higher US tariffs.
The onshore yuan fell as much as 0.3% to 7.2970 per dollar, weakest level since November 2023. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index on climbed toward a two-year high on Tuesday.
NATO's new secretary-general is trying to talk tough ahead of Donald Trump taking office. Surely he knows Brussels is in for a rough ride, given that during the first Trump administration the president (rightly) ripped NATO member states for not paying their fair share in defense spending, while relying on Washington to shoulder the burden.
Mark Rutte has warned Trump in a Financial Times interview that if Ukraine is pressured into a 'bad' peace deal which is favorable to Moscow, then the United States and Europe would face a "dire threat" from Iran, China, and North Korea.
All of these 'rogue' states (in the lexicon of some Western leaders) have deepened their relations with Russia throughout the course of the nearly three-year long war in Ukraine. North Korea and Russia in particular even signed a defense pact last summer, resulting in some 10,000 North Korean soldiers being deployed to support the Russian side. All are also coordinating on circumventing US-led sanctions.
Like some pundits at hawkish US think tanks, Rutte tried to frame to outcome of the Ukraine war as of dire importance for Taiwan's freedom. According to FT:
Rutte noted the risks from Russia supplying missile technology to North Korea and cash to Iran. In an apparent reference to Taiwan, he said that Chinese President Xi Jinping "might get thoughts about something else in the future if there is not a good deal [for Ukraine]".
"We cannot have a situation where we have [North Korean leader] Kim Jong Un and the Russian leader and Xi Jinping and Iran high-fiving because we came to a deal which is not good for Ukraine, because long-term that will be a dire security threat not only to Europe but also to the US," Rutte told the FT in his first interview as head of the western military alliance.
Rutte had met with Trump a week-and-a-half ago at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. It was their first such meeting since Trump won the election on November 5.
Clearly the NATO chief tried to persuade Trump to essentially keep up the same muscular stance on Moscow as the Biden administration. It seems he tried to present the same 'domino' effect argument which hearkens back to the Cold War - which goes something like if 'X enemy is not stopped here, then Y enemy will also feel emboldened and seek military conquest' etc.
"Look at the missile technology which is now being sent from Russia into North Korea, which is posing a dire threat not only to South Korea, Japan, but also to the US mainland," Rutte said he told Trump, as quoted in FT.
"Iran is getting money from Russia in return for, for example, missiles, but also drone technology. And the money is being used to prop up Hizbollah and Hamas, but also steering conflict beyond the region," he had claimed.
"So the fact that Iran, North Korea, China and Russia are working so closely together . . . [means] these various parts of the world where conflict is, and have to be managed by politicians, are more and more getting connected," explained Rutte.
"And there is one Xi Jinping watching very carefully what comes out of this," he added, in apparent reference to Taiwan. "These were the points I made," the NTO leader stressed.
But we doubt that that Ukrainians young and old, tragically dying along the front lines in this horrific war of attrition, will care much about NATO and Western grand strategy regarding far-flung places like China or North Korea.
The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released its final report Monday, laying out numerous conclusions from its review of the federal pandemic response, including what the Republican-controlled panel believes to be the likely origins of the virus.
The 520-page document encompassed a wide range of issues relating to the pandemic including vaccinations, public health guidance, state-level actions and use of relief funds.
“Since February 2023, the Select Subcommittee sought to produce a full after-action report to provide a road map of how we, in Congress, the Executive, and the private sector may better prepare for and respond to future pandemics,” subcommittee Chair Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) said in a letter.
“Throughout this process, the Select Subcommittee sent more than 100 investigative letters, conducted 38 transcribed interviews or depositions, held 25 hearings or meetings, and reviewed more than one million pages of documents from of custodians,” he noted.
The subcommittee’s hearings were often marked by contentious back-and-forth between members and witnesses. Several interviews were held behind closed doors, including two days of interviews with Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, earlier this year.
Wenstrup listed seven specific findings in his letter, including that the National Institutes of Health funded controversial gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Operation Warp Speed was “tremendous success” and the public school closures will have an “enduring impact” on American children.
Here are three takeaways from the report:
Lab leak theory
The report starts with the finding that the SARS-CoV-2 virus “likely emerged because of a laboratory or research related accident.”
This finding was supported by remarks from people like Robert Redfield, the former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson, all of whom publicly stated their support for the lab leak theory.
“Based on my initial analysis of the data, I came to believe — and still believe today — that it indicates COVID-19 infections more likely were the result of an accidental lab leak than the result of a natural spillover event,” Redfield is quoted as saying.
The report also found Fauci “prompted” the 2020 study titled “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” which supported the natural origins theory, to “disprove” the lab leak theory.
When he testified before the committee in June, Fauci reiterated that he did not edit the study or help to “suppress” the lab leak theory.
Different federal agencies have drawn different conclusions about the most likely origin of the virus, but it remains a mystery.
The report is critical of many of the mitigation measures that were employed early on in the pandemic.
It found that masks and mask mandates were “ineffective at controlling the spread of COVID-19.” Several studies, including one published this August, have found masking in public has an effect on lowering respiratory viral transmission, though this should not be the sole measure used to mitigate spread.
Further, the report concluded lockdowns caused “more harm than good” to the economy, overall health of Americans and development of children.
The 6-foot social distancing guidance was also blasted as not being “supported by science.”
“Even though it was CDC guidance and not a mandate, it was forcefully implemented by state and local governments and caused lots of strife amongst Americans,” the report states.
However, there were some measures that the subcommittee found to have had some benefit or merit.
The public-private partnerships that were made to enable widespread COVID-19 testing early on in the pandemic allowed for “readily available and accurate tests,” though COVID-19 testing was called “flawed” in the report.
Travel restrictions were also cited as having saved lives.
“With four years of hindsight, it is clear the international travel restrictions early in the pandemic delayed spread of the virus but did not prevent COVID-19 from entering the U.S.,” states the report.
The subcommittee’s report paid particular attention to the actions of EcoHealth Alliance, the nongovernmental organization that sub-awarded NIH grants to global labs including the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
Echoing criticism from members of the subcommittee, the report found EcoHealth failed to carry out proper oversight of the experiments it provided funding for, facilitated gain-of-function research and misled the NIH on the details of its research projects.
The NIH in turn also was found to have failed in its oversight of EcoHealth.
The report found that the Justice Department had empaneled a criminal grand jury to investigate the origins of COVID-19.
“EcoHealth was subject to numerous federal investigations regarding both its potential role in the COVID-19 pandemic, but also multiple accusations surrounding violated federal grant policies. The outcomes of most of these investigations are public,” it states.
“However, the Select Subcommittee discovered that DOJ was also investigating the origins of COVID-19,” it continued. “The specific details of the investigation are unknown but, based on documents, it appears the DOJ’s investigation involves EcoHealth’s role in the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The report says the results of the DOJ’s investigation are not public as of “December 4, 2024,” when the subcommittee plans to mark up the report.
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5018188-house-select-subcommittee-covid-pandemic-report/
Supreme Court justices appeared unswayed by arguments advanced by companies seeking to overturn the Food and Drug Administration’s ban on flavored vapes, which the agency says are too risky for young people. |
The suit filed by Triton and Vapetasia LLC claimed the FDA had essentially moved the goalpost in the midst of its review of the companies’ products.
These included vapes with names like “Jimmy The Juice Man Strawberry Astronaut” and “Suicide Bunny Mother’s Milk and Cookies,” coming in flavors of sour grape, pink lemonade and creme brulee.
Several lower courts all ruled in favor of the FDA, but the ultra-conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs, claiming the companies were told the agency required certain studies but then changed its mind and required different studies.
Conservative Supreme Court justices on Monday focused in on this same issue, but a majority of the bench was unsympathetic to the argument.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh pushed back at the vaping company attorney, joining the liberal justices in noting that the FDA had been clear from the outset it was making decisions based on whether the products appealed to young people.
“FDA has been pretty upfront about this,” Justice Elena Kagan told the companies’ lawyer, Eric Heyer.
“There’s just not a lot of mystery here about what FDA was doing. You might disagree with that. But you can’t say FDA hasn’t told you all about what it was thinking,” she added.
But looming over the case is the future of the FDA’s approach to vaping. President-elect Trump has vowed to “save vaping,” though his administration in 2020 attempted to restrict flavored vaping products. |
Novartis has made a dramatic return to the Huntington's disease therapy stage by licensing a candidate from PTC Therapeutics for a whopping $1 billion upfront.
The deal – which has a potential total value of up to $2.9 billion – gives the Swiss pharma group rights to PTC518, PTC's oral mRNA splicing modifier, which is aiming to become the first disease-modifying therapy for Huntington's.
Novartis' move comes after it abandoned the development of its own Huntington's candidate branaplam last year, which had reached phase 2b development, after concluding that the drug's risks were likely to outweigh any potential clinical benefit.
PTC518 is designed to reduce levels of the mutated huntingtin protein that leads to injury and death of neurons, which results in Huntington's disease progression. It has emerged from the same drug discovery engine that generated Roche's spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) therapy Evrysdi (risdiplam), which made $1.5 billion in sales last year.
PTC recently reported positive 12-month results from the PIVOT-HD trial of the drug, showing a dose-dependent reduction in huntingtin protein in blood cells – a 43% decline at the 10mg dose – as well as in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF).
The effect on the biomarker was accompanied by clinical benefits on disease measurements, including total motor score and the cUHDRS scale that measures functional changes in Huntington's, earning PTC a fast-track designation from the FDA for the drug.
Under the terms of the Novartis licensing deal, PTC is also in line for $1.9 billion in development, regulatory, and sales milestones, a profit share arrangement in the US, and double-digit tiered royalties on ex-US sales. PTC and Novartis will share the US profit and losses for the drug on a 40/60 basis, respectively.
Shares in the company rose sharply on news of the deal, up almost 19% to $52 at the time of writing. The two companies expect to finalise the licensing agreement in the first quarter.
Novartis' chief executive, Vas Narasimhan, said that the licensing deal "bolsters our neuroscience pipeline and reflects our strategic focus and commitment to explore new and potentially transformative approaches for neurodegenerative diseases with high unmet needs."
Another company working on an RNA splicing modifier drug for Huntington's is Skyhawk Therapeutics, which reported phase 1 data with its SKY-0515 candidate earlier this year.
Earlier this year, Novartis also licensed rights to a pair of potential gene therapies for Huntington's and SMA from Voyager Therapeutics, extending a partnership that was signed in 2022 with a value of up to $1.7 billion.
At the moment, uniQure is considered to be out in front in the race to develop a Huntington's gene therapy, having generated phase 1/2 trial results with its AMT-130 candidate in July. Another rival – Bayer – revealed that it had abandoned the development of its rival BV-101 gene therapy in November.
https://pharmaphorum.com/news/novartis-pays-1bn-upfront-huntingtons-drug-ptc
One of the reasons governments are moving to restrict teenagers’ access to social media is the fear of its harm to mental health.
As Statista's Anna Fleck reports, the topic has been reignited by the release of a new book titled The Anxious Generation, by New York University social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who links the rise in mental health illness directly to the proliferation of social networks and smartphones.
While Haidt writes that social media and smartphones are not the only causes of the mental health epidemic seen in several countries, he points to how such technologies are hindering children’s healthy development by reducing their time spent playing with friends in real life, eating into time for sleeping, as well as corroding their self esteem. Even children who do not use social media are struggling, he argues, due to the changes brought about to social life. Critics say, however, that correlation is not the same as causation and that the data does not show a complete picture.
As the following chart shows, the share of U.S. 12-17 year olds having experienced a depressive episode in the past year has risen from 7.9 percent in 2006 to 18.1 percent in 2023.
While the figure has come down from the pandemic high of 20.1 percent in 2021, it is still above that of 2019 and 2020.
This is according to data from the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The source classifies a major depressive episode in the past 12 months if a respondent has had at least one period of two weeks or longer when they felt depressed or lost interest or pleasure in daily activities for most of the day nearly every day. Depressive symptoms include problems with sleeping, eating, energy, concentration, self-worth, or having recurrent thoughts of death or recurrent suicidal ideation.
The share of teens who had reported a major depressive episode was particularly high among Multiracial (24.4 percent) respondents in 2023, followed by white adolescents (19.6), Asian (13.7 percent) and Black teens (13.3 percent).
There was insufficient data for calculating the Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander teenagers.
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/nearly-one-five-us-teens-experienced-depression-last-year
As Adam Schiff said in 2018, we wouldn’t want a president abusing the pardon power in order to “shield himself from liability” because such circumstances could very easily amount to an “obstruct[ion of] justice.” Schiff made the comments on a CNN segment with Don Lemon shortly after he introduced legislation that would compel a president to hand over all the investigative files of any potential pardons in which the president is/was directly implicated.
As you probably already surmised, Schiff’s proposal was a lawfare campaign against President Trump, but in light of Joe Biden’s decision to endow his son Hunter with a get-out-jail-free card—that seems like a more accurate description than “pardon” since Hunter now has a pass on potential crimes with which he’s not even been charged—I have to wonder if Schiff’s sentiments remain the same.
Obviously, the “pardon” isn’t about a father protecting his son, it’s about Joe Biden looking out for Joe Biden. (Andrea Widburg penned a great essay expounding on the “cruel and unhealthy” dynamic between these two criminals; Hunter has always been an exploited prop in Joe’s world.)
How many times did the Democrats tell us that “no one is above the law” as they pursued Trump, his family, and his supporters in an attempt to legitimize their very obvious and very biased political persecution? Well, this many times at least:
So who can we expect to receive a blanket “pardon” for any potential crime that may have been committed over the past decade? Keith Olberman seems to think there are “at least” another ten million individuals who, in the same vein, need a pardon:
How far do the tentacles of the Biden crime family really go?
