Crown Reserve Acquisition I, a blank check company led by healthcare entrepreneur Prashant Patel, filed for a US IPO on Friday.
The company plans to raise $150 million by offering 15 million units at $10 per unit. Each unit consists of one share of common stock and one right to receive one-seventh (1/7) of a share upon the completion of a merger.
Crown Reserve Acquisition I is led by Chairman and CEO Prashant Patel, a registered pharmacist, and a board member of Wellgistics Health (Nasdaq: WGRX). Previously Danam Health, Wellgistics raised $4 million in a February 2025 IPO at an offer price of $4.50. Patel also held a leadership position at Scienture Holdings (Nasdaq: SCNX). He is joined by CFO Eric Sherb, an accountant who owns and manages his own firm, EMS Consulting Services, and who recently joined Scienture as CFO.
The SPAC plans to focus its search on the pharma, medical technology and medical equipment, and healthcare IT industries.
Incorporated in the Cayman Islands in 2025, Crown Reserve Acquisition I plans to list on the Nasdaq under the symbol CRACU. SPAC Advisory Partners (Kingswood) is the sole bookrunner on the deal.
The Department of Energy has canceled 24 clean energy demonstration projects worth nearly $3.7 billion, citing concerns over financial viability, insufficient return on taxpayer investment, and a failure to meet the energy needs of Americans.
Energy Secretary Chris Wright announced the decision on May 30, describing the awards as hastily approved in the final days of the Biden administration and misaligned with the Trump administration’s energy and economic priorities. The cancellations come after an internal review ordered earlier this month under a new departmental policy aimed at increasing accountability and rooting out waste in federally funded energy programs.
“The Trump administration is doing our due diligence to ensure we are utilizing taxpayer dollars to strengthen our national security, bolster affordable, reliable energy sources and advance projects that generate the highest possible return on investment,” Wright said. “Today, we are acting in the best interest of the American people by cancelling these 24 awards.”
According to a department list reviewed by The Epoch Times, the terminated awards include high-dollar carbon capture and industrial decarbonization projects involving firms such as ExxonMobil, Calpine, Heidelberg Materials, and Kraft Heinz. Sixteen of the 24 awards were signed between Election Day 2024 and Inauguration Day 2025.
The rescinded projects span a range of industries and regions, including glass manufacturing facilities in Ohio, carbon capture efforts in Texas and California, and decarbonization initiatives at food production sites nationwide. The largest award canceled was a $500 million grant to Heidelberg Materials for a carbon capture project in Louisiana.
The move follows a May 15 memorandum issued by Wright titled “Ensuring Responsibility for Financial Assistance,” which established new standards for evaluating financial assistance programs. Under the policy, DOE is now requiring detailed financial, technical, and legal documentation from all recipients and reserving the right to modify or terminate awards that fail to meet economic or national interest benchmarks.
Earlier oversight efforts had flagged the risk of poorly vetted loans and grants under Biden-era programs.
A November 2024 report from the DOE’s Office of Inspector General warned that the Loan Programs Office, which saw its authority balloon from $17 billion to more than $400 billion under the Inflation Reduction Act and other legislation, was under pressure to rapidly distribute funds before key deadlines expired. The report highlighted “significant risks” to taxpayers from rushed decision-making and insufficient vetting, particularly given the volume and complexity of applications.
In two cases, the inspector general said DOE had already canceled nearly $400 million in grants awarded to entities with suspected ties to foreign adversaries. The watchdog urged the department to expand its applicant vetting capabilities and avoid what it described as a “pay and chase” model, where funds are disbursed before due diligence is complete.
President Donald Trump has issued multiple executive orders aimed at boosting fossil fuel production and limiting public funding for climate initiatives or ones involving DEI mandates. The administration has also directed federal agencies to review all discretionary grants issued under the Biden administration, with a focus on clawing back funds where possible.
In the case of the DOE, Wright said his department has already requested further documentation from 179 award recipients whose combined funding totals more than $15 billion. These reviews are ongoing and could result in further cancellations.
Following days of frenzied speculation that OPEC+ may go so far as to start another global price war similar to the Saudi armada in March 2020 which eventually sent WTI crude prices to a negative $45, however briefly, today's decision was positively tame: OPEC+ agreed to surge oil output for the third month in a row, despite mounting reservations from key member Russia, doubling down on a historic policy shift that has sent crude prices sinking.
According to a statement on the OPEC website, the cartel of oil-exporting nations and several hangers on agreed during a video conference on Saturday to add 411,000 barrels a day to the market in July. The hike matches increases scheduled for May and June, marking a radical reversal from defending prices to actively driving them lower, largely in response to Kazakhstan chronically and unapologetically breaching its quota.
“OPEC+ isn’t whispering anymore,” said Jorge Leon, an analyst at Rystad Energy A/S, who previously worked at the OPEC secretariat. “May hinted, June spoke clearly, and July came with a megaphone.”
Officials said the supply hikes reflect Saudi desire to punish over-producing members like Kazakhstan and Iraq, recoup market share lost to US shale drillers and other rivals, and satisfy President Donald Trump’s desire for cheaper oil, even if it leads to - well - cheaper oil, and even steeper budget deficits for the country that exports 10 million barrels of oil per day and has an all-in breakeven price around $90.
The hikes will offer temporary relief to consumers as the northern hemisphere goes into its peak demand season, while also helping central banks grappling with stubborn inflation. Yet the market impact creates financial peril for oil producers around the world, which could be facing a period of prolonged low prices, followed by much higher prices as producing infrastructure suffers from disuse.
What was most notable about this latest production hike is that, according to Bloomberg, several members expressed reservations during Saturday’s meeting about the speed with which OPEC+ was raising production. Russia, Algeria and Oman wanted a pause in the increases, according to delegates.
The difference in views between Moscow and Riyadh, the cartel’s two most powerful members, will come back into play on July 6, when they meet again to discuss output levels for August.
In April oil briefly tumbled to a four-year low under $60 a barrel after OPEC+ first unexpectedly announced they would bolster output by triple the scheduled amount. The move came even as faltering demand and Trump’s trade war were already crushing the market. This was followed by a second hike announcement one month later, and now a third one.
While Brent futures have since recovered to trade near $64 a barrel, the IMF estimates the Saudis need prices above $90 to cover the lavish spending plans of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The kingdom is contending with a soaring budget deficit, and has been forced to cut investment on flagship projects such as the futuristic city, Neom.
However, thanks to earlier Reuters leaks, the markets is likely to take Saturday’s agreement as positive because ahead of today's announcement “there were some concerns of a larger increase,” said Giovanni Staunovo, a commodity analyst at UBS, referring to Reuters reports that OPEC+ was considering even bigger output hikes.
Meanwhile, if Riyadh’s strategy is to discipline the cartel’s quota cheats through a “controlled sweating,” it doesn’t seem to be working. Kazakhstan, the most blatant offender, continues to exceed its limits by several hundred thousand barrels a day and has publicly stated that it has no plans to atone. Energy Minister Yerlan Akkenzhenov told reporters on Thursday that the country can neither enforce cutbacks on international corporate partners, or dial back at state-run fields. Which is why we recently speculated that if one or more of its peers wishes to teach Kazakhstan a painful lesson, then the Caspian Sea pipeline which carries most of Kazakh oil exports courtesy of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, is probably sweating bullets right now.
With Kazakhstan chronically abusing its OPEC+ quota, and with 80% of Kazakh oil reaching the world via the CPC pipeline, what are the odds CPC gets Nordstreamed? pic.twitter.com/xgQ0QGlkMJ
But while Kazakhstan has so far refused to budge, the price downturn is taking a clear toll in America’s shale oil heartlands, where companies like Diamondback Energy Inc. say production has peaked, despite Trump’s promise the country would “drill, baby, drill” in a new energy boom.
With the hike scheduled for July, OPEC+ will be just over halfway through a road map for reviving 2.2 million barrels a day of output it had idled in recent years, a process that was previously planned to last until late 2026 yet which depends largely on how much of a stimulus China will finally unleash. The group will decide in the coming months how quickly to restore the remainder of supplies it’s still withholding from the market.
For some analysts, increasing supply is entirely logical. Demand will rise over the next few months in the US as drivers take to the roads for summer vacations, and also in the Middle East, where peak use of air conditioning means some barrels will be consumed domestically.
“Fundamentals in the right-here, right-now are strong — inventories are very low,” Amrita Sen, director of research at consultant Energy Aspects Ltd., said in a Bloomberg television interview before the meeting. “It is a good time for OPEC+ to add barrels to the market, so I don’t see why they wouldn’t.”
Nonetheless, further price losses may be in store. JPMorgan forecasts that Brent futures will sink into the “high $50s” later this year as the cartel’s hikes contribute to a global supply glut of more than 2 million barrels a day.
With the explosive popularity of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, physicians say a key avenue in treating obesity is being underutilized by many clinicians: First-generation anti-obesity medications (AOMs).
“First-generation medications don’t get as much attention as the newer ones,” said Courtney Younglove, MD, an obesity specialist and founder of Heartland Weight Loss in Overland Park, Kansas. “They’re fantastic, too. They just get overlooked.”
Older AOMs typically cost less than GPL-1s, are more accessible, and often have low risks, Younglove said. But patients frequently ask for the newer medications, and some doctors don’t assess their full treatment toolbox before prescribing, she said.
Currently, there are six AOMs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for chronic weight management: Orlistat, phentermine/topiramate extended release, bupropion sustained release/naltrexone, liraglutide, semaglutide, and tirzepatide.
The first four medications are considered first-generation AOMs, according to a 2024 analysis in Diabetes Spectrum, a journal from the American Diabetes Association.
“The advent of new AOMs has transformed the treatment of obesity,” the study author Sarah R. Barenbaum, MD, wrote. “For the first time, there are now second-generation medications whose outcomes can rival those of bariatric surgery. However, first-generation AOMs serve an equally important and enduring role in the treatment of obesity. Whether because of insurance or supply limitations, costs, patient preferences, tolerability, or safety, patients may require a first-generation AOM, and providers must feel comfortable prescribing them.”
Courtney Younglove, MD
1st-Gen AOMs
One group that may benefit from first-generation AOMs are patients whose treatment goals include losing a moderate amount of weight, said Ethan Lazarus, MD, an obesity medicine and family physician and a past president of the Obesity Medicine Association.
Older AOMs are generally appropriate for patients in whom about a 10% loss of body weight would be an adequate result, Lazarus said. If patients need to achieve 20% or more loss of body weight, physicians may want to jump straight to a GLP-1, like Wegovy or Zepbound, he said.
For example, patients who are planning knee replacement surgery, or those with a higher body mass index (BMI) and are considering weight loss surgery, would be good candidates for the latter, he noted.
“If appropriate, we usually follow a stepped approach to treatment,” Lazarus said. “For example, we might start a generic medication, like phentermine. If it is not tolerated, or we do not get the amount of weight loss needed to improve obesity complications, we would transition to a branded oral medication, [like] Contrave or Qsymia, or switch to or add a GLP-1, like Wegovy or Zepbound.”
First-generation AOMs may also be good choices for patients with certain comorbidities, like chronic headaches, said Shagun Bindlish, MD, an internal medicine physician and diabetologist based in Dublin, California.
Patients with a history of migraines, or those who have polycystic ovary syndrome, may benefit from topiramate, Bindlish said, while a phentermine-topiramate combination may help with appetite suppression and impulsivity modulating. The latter can be useful for patients with nighttime eating syndrome and binge eating disorder, she noted.
Ethan Lazarus, MD
In addition, bupropion/naltrexone can be beneficial for patients with depression and anxiety and may help with smoking cessation in patients with smoking habits.
“Obesity, as we all know, is not one-size-fits-all,” Bindlish said. “It’s not just about BMI. It’s about tailoring the therapy depending on what other comorbidities they have. That’s why I feel that it’s always good to lay down all the tools and discuss with the patient what will benefit them in their certain circumstances.”
The lower cost of first-generation AOMs also makes them good options for many patients, obesity physicians say. Even with pharmaceutical savings programs, GLP-1s are usually $499 per month or more, Lazarus said.
By contrast, Contrave can be purchased for $99 a month directly through the savings program CurAccess, and Qsymia is generally available through Qsymia.com for $98 a month.
Shagun Bindlish, MD
Bindlish said she recently treated a 45-year-old man with class II obesity and high blood pressure who was unable to access GLP-1s through his insurance, despite several prior authorization attempts. Bindlish started the patient on a phentermine-topiramate combination, which worked well, and led to weight loss of about 30 pounds. Since phentermine is a stimulant, Bindlish said they closely monitored the patient’s blood pressure. Ultimately, the weight loss led to better management of the patient’s hypertension, she said.
Patients who are nonresponders to GLP-1s, or who have difficulty tolerating GLP-1–based therapies, may make promising candidates for first-generation AOMs, according to the Diabetes Spectrumanalysis. These older medications may also be good choices for patients with lower BMIs and older patients in cases where second-generation AOMs may be too powerful and result in excessive weight loss.
Age should also factor into the decision, Lazarus said. He noted that Wegovy, Saxenda, and Qsymia are approved for patients as young as age 12 years, while other medications are only indicated in adults aged 18 years or older.
Risks of First-Gen AOMs
It’s important to know your patient and be sure there are no contraindications before prescribing older AOMs, Lazarus said. For example, physicians should consider avoiding prescribing phentermine in patients sensitive to stimulants (like caffeine), who suffer from severe insomnia, or who have complicated hypertension, he said.
The three most common side effects of phentermine are dry mouth, constipation, and trouble sleeping, Younglove added. Patients can usually get around these problems by modifying their dosage, taking a stool softener, drinking more water, and not taking the medication in the evening, she said.
Contrave, meanwhile, should be avoided in patients with a history of seizures or those on opioid pain medicine, Lazarus noted. Qsymia should not be prescribed in patients with a history of kidney stones or at risk for pregnancy because Qsymia can cause birth defects.
“If they do not have a contraindication or other concern, by all means we would consider a first-generation obesity medicine,” Lazarus said.
Keep in mind that all these medications can cause gastrointestinal abnormalities and could lead to gastrointestinal side effects, Younglove said.
Orlistat has really “fallen out of favor” due to minimal weight loss and too many side effects, said Lazarus. Younglove also does not prescribe Orlistat because of the side effects, which include an oily discharge from the rectum, she said.
The Diabetes Spectrumanalysis includes a comprehensive list of clinical effects, mechanisms of action, and common side effects of all first-generation AOMs.
Dispelling Fears About Older Meds
Younglove emphasized the importance of dispelling misconceptions surrounding first-generation AOMs. Because the drugs are in the stimulant category (sympathomimetics), there has been concern — even among clinicians — that patients could become addicted to them, she said. There have also been worries about the medications raising patients’ blood pressure.
“There’s a lot of fear around those medications, which is ironic, because we’ll give Adderall to a 6-year-old and not be worried about it at all,” she said. “There is data on long-term use of these medications. There is data on side effects of these medications. They’re not for everyone, but they certainly are fairly benign in terms of risks. They get a bad rap, but they’re really good medications for a lot of people, and a lot of people do really well with them.”
Bindlish added that older AOMs have stood the test of time and proved their value, which is something the newer medications still must do. She said that medication choice should always be matched with patients’ individual risk factors, goals, and access.
“It is also critical to set realistic expectations and incorporate these drugs within a broader framework where we consider behavioral, nutritional, and lifestyle interventions,” Bindlish said.
Herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) infection is associated with an increased risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease (AD), but treating the viral infection may offer protection, a new study found.
In a matched case-control study of nearly 700,000 older adults, HSV-1 was more common in those with AD, and antiviral therapy for HSV-1 was associated with a lower risk of developing AD.
However, the authors and outside experts cautioned that no firm conclusions can be drawn from this observational study and called for more research.
The study was published online on May 20 in BMJ Open. It was funded by Gilead Sciences, which is actively involved in the research and development of treatments for HSV.
Mixed Data
HSV-1, a common virus that causes cold sores, affects more than two thirds of the global population younger than 50 years.
An association between HSV-1 and AD has been reported previously, albeit with conflicting results across various studies.
One recent Taiwanese cohort study found that symptomatic HSV infection was associated with a threefold increased risk of developing dementia. Antiherpetic medication reduced the risk by 90%. However, a study of US veterans failed to link HSV infection with an increased risk for dementia. Although, like the Taiwanese findings, antiherpetic medication was associated with a protective effect against dementia.
To investigate further, researchers led by Yunhao Liu, PhD, data scientist with Gilead Sciences, used the IQVIA PharMetrics Plus claims database to match 344,628 people with AD to an equal number of control individuals without AD.
Compared with 823 (0.24%) control individuals without an AD diagnosis, 1507 (0.44%) individuals diagnosed with AD had a history of HSV-1.
Among those with AD, nearly two thirds were women (65%), their mean age was 73 years, and they tended to have more coexisting conditions.
After adjusting for relevant confounding factors, the likelihood of an HSV-1 diagnosis was 80% higher in those with AD (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.65-1.96).
In a stratified analysis, the association of HSV-1 with AD was more pronounced in older age groups — with an aOR of 2.10 in those aged 75 years or older vs an aOR of 1.14 in those aged 50-70 years.
“These findings are consistent with studies suggesting that the neurodegenerative impact of HSV-1 becomes more apparent with age and cumulative exposures,” the authors noted.
Among the 2330 adults with a history of HSV-1, 931 (40%) were treated with antiherpetic medication, which was associated with a 17% reduced risk for AD compared with no treatment (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.92).
“While the molecular mechanisms remain to be fully elucidated, these results are indicative of a possible role for antiherpetic therapy in mitigating dementia risk,” the authors wrote.
Caveats and Cautionary Notes
F. Perry Wilson, MD, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, and Medscape’s Impact Factor commentator, noted in a recent commentary that studies that use administrative data have limitations and said the author’s suggestion that antiherpetic therapies are potentially protective for AD-related dementia “feels like a bit of a leap to me at this point.”
On the other hand, Wilson said, “for those who suffer from cold sores, a study like this may push you a bit toward treatment, at least during an outbreak. Short-term valacyclovir is relatively safe and reduces the duration of the cold sore by about a day, which is nice. But if it reduces your risk of dementia as well, well, it might be a no-brainer.”
Several outside experts also weighed in on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre.
Sheona Scales, PhD, director of research at Alzheimer’s Research UK, Cambridge, England, cautioned that “despite the large sample size, this research has limitations partly due to only using health records and administrative claims data.”
“Most people infected with HSV-1 don’t have any symptoms, so some infections might not have been recorded. Infections predating the information recorded are also not available. Although cases were matched with controls, diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease, especially in the early stages, remains a challenge,” Scales commented.
While the study found that some people receiving medicines to treat HSV-1 infections had a lower risk for AD, “a lot more work is needed to unpick this,” she added.
“We know there are 14 established risk factors for dementia, and there’s not enough evidence to include infections in this list. This study doesn’t tell us if infections are causing the risk, it only shows an association. Further research is needed to understand what the underlying biology around this is,” Scales said.
Tara Spires-Jones, PhD, director of the Centre for Discovery Brain Sciences at The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, said the study adds to a growing body of data linking HSV-1 and other viral infections to the risk for AD.
However, “it is important to note that HSV-1 infection, which is extremely common in the population, is by no means a guarantee that someone will develop Alzheimer’s,” Spires-Jones noted.
“Why viral infections may increase risk of dementia is not fully understood, but the most likely explanation is that infections increase inflammation in the body and contribute to age-related brain inflammation. More research is needed to understand the best way to protect our brains from Alzheimer’s disease as we age, including a better understanding of links between viral infection and Alzheimer’s risk,” Spires-Jones said.
Richard Oakley, PhD, director of Research and Innovation at Alzheimer’s Society, London, England, cautioned that the study “doesn’t prove that cold sores cause Alzheimer’s disease, or that antivirals prevent it. Much more research is needed to explore exactly how viruses might be involved and before we can draw firm conclusions.”
The study was funded by Gilead Sciences, Inc. Four authors reported being employees of the company. Spires-Jones had no relevant disclosures. Oakley and Scales did not provide disclosure information.
Phase 2 (Actuate-1801 Part 3B) trial meets primary endpoint and demonstrates a clinically meaningful increase in median overall survival (10.1 months vs 7.2 months; log-rank p=0.01) in previously untreated patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) receiving elraglusib/GnP
Risk of death was reduced by 37% (HR=0.63) in patients treated with elraglusib/GnP
Data featured as an oral presentation at the ASCO Annual Meeting
Company plans to engage with FDA in the second half of 2025 to align on a path towards product registration
Company to host KOL event today at 6:30 pm CDT to discuss 1801 Part 3B results
Why can’t the second-largest nation on earth ever get control of its wildfires?
Canada should have had enough practice by now.
Hundreds of fires raged out of control for months in the summer of 2023. And 2024. We got the smoke.
For that matter, why can’t the most populous state in the union do the same?
Maybe for the same reason. Progressive asshats in both places seem to be unable to do literally anything except aggressively police “Islamophobia,” “homophobia,” and “transphobia.” And their green policies may be contributing to the problem, which coincides with their monolithic grip on power.
Thick, billowing clouds of smoke are sweeping south from wildfires ravaging the central Canadian province of Manitoba into parts of the United States, compromising air quality for millions of Americans across several northern states.
Of course, the NPR report was sure to mention climate change, claiming:
The U.S. has also battled increasingly devastating wildfires over recent years as climate change has made larger wildfires more likely and more intense.
Regarding Canadian wildfires,a CNN articlefrom 2023 reported:
Scientists from the World Weather Attribution initiative – which calculates the role of climate change in extreme weather events – found human-caused climate change more than doubled the likelihood of hot, dry and windy conditions that drove the Quebec fires between May and July, and made this fire-prone weather at least 20% more intense.
Made this fire-prone weather at least 20% more intense? How does fire-prone weather get made (at least 20%) more intense? How is this measured … and by whom?
For that matter, how much more intense can a raging, out-of-control fire consuming hundreds of thousands of acres of forest get?
Friederike Otto, co-founder of something called the World Weather Attribution initiative (and senior lecturer at the Grantham Institute in the UK!) issued this dubious statement:
"Until we stop burning fossil fuels the number of wildfires will continue to increase, burning larger areas for longer periods of time."
Ah, there it is! Fossil fuels bad.
The CNN piece referenced Kira Hoffman, a fire ecologist at the University of British Columbia and the Bulkley Valley Research Centre, who averred that there are many factors that contribute to extreme wildfire seasons, including logging and abandoning Indigenous fire stewardship techniques. (Guess we have to capitalize the ‘I’ in Indigenous.)
Sorry, Kira, not buying that one. Logging removes trees. Oddly enough, things that aren’t there don’t burn. And what the hell is “Indigenous fire stewardship?” I have respect for Indigenous peoples and a love for trees, but, seriously, come on!
Many of the fires are at least partially the result of leaving too much deadwood and flammable material on forest floors, usually due to ‘environmentalists’ wishes. Of course, more folks live in more areas, and fire detection and reporting are better than in prior eras, too. And, at least in the case of Canada, one gets the impression that an all-out effort to contain these conflagrations hasn’t been made…possibly to drive home the point that global warming is going to be the death of us all, and sooner rather than later. (It wouldn’t stun me if some of the fires were set by those with an agenda.)
A recent study by Danish author and academic Bjorn Lomborg, published in the Wall Street Journal, illustrated a vast disparity between the actual number of wildfires and the attention given them by the mainstream media and politicians.
Lomborg asserted: ‘Climate change hasn’t set the world on fire. It turns out the percentage of the globe that burns each year has been declining since 2001.’
Yet, despite that inconvenient truth, the mainstream media-- and many politicians—insist that there are ever more fires as a direct result of ‘climate change.’ In furtherance of their agenda, reporting on ‘climate change’ has increased by 400% between 2010 and 2020.
We know for a fact that many of the previous Canadian wildfires were deliberately set by arsonists. So, instead of reflexively blaming logging — and oil and gas companies -- for the fires, let’s seek the truth.
I am on vacation in a remote, undisclosed location in northern Minnesota as I write this. The smoke is noticeable, tangible. And I have asthma, so, to use a favorite phrase of progressives, I may be ‘disproportionately affected’ by these wildfires.
I am not a fan of blowing smoke, whether it comes from Canada … or progressive politicians with an agenda.
