Search This Blog

Thursday, August 14, 2025

Electricity Inflation: The Next Big Story

 By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

A few months ago, we started to regularly check in on the Tariff Revenue chart. We look forward to getting the next “large” number in a little less than 2 weeks.

In the meantime, this chart has attracted our attention. Full credit to zerohedge for pounding the table on it, but it fits a few of our themes quite well:

  • Energy = Electricity. We have started trying to disassociate energy with oil and make sure we highlight that energy, in this day and age, means electricity even more than oil and it is important for investors, corporations and politicians to think that way.
    • It makes some of the charts about nuclear projects in development really raise your eyebrow (China is pushing hard in this direction).


    • It also fits in with our theme that the Middle East, and Saudi Arabia in particular are pushing to become the data center capitals of the world. Oil is far more expensive to move than “data” and with a wealth of potential solar energy, they are positioned to meet the rising energy demands of AI and data centers. Also, buying a lot of high powered chips from American chip companies is a quick way to reduce trade surpluses.
  • Potential risks to the AI spend. We highlighted issues and the focus on electricity demands in this weekend’s Tariffs, AI and ProSec™ report. (yes, we are trying to get ProSec or Production for Security to stick).
  • While this is not something we have shared, I can admit that I’m in a losing battle with my “smart” thermometer which seems to want to set the temperature to “melt” and manages to turn it higher than I want on a regular basis, and each software “update” seems to only empower the “smart” thermometer more. I’m having Hal/Space Odessey moments with my thermometer. Maybe it is just me, but it is increasingly annoying, but I digress…

For a decade, from 2010, to 2020, electricity, as measured in CPI, rose less than 12%. Since then it has risen almost 35%!

We are all well aware of changes in gasoline prices. We fill up the car periodically and most gas stations publish their prices so we see them when we drive by.

We get hit with electricity bills once a month, so maybe it isn’t as noticeable, but I suspect in the coming months, there will be a LOT more discussion by people about the rise in energy prices. Who cares what happens to gasoline prices, if electricity is inflating by almost double digits annually?

I found this chart interesting and is just the start of what we are trying to explore on the electricity side of things.

Electricity generation is one of the biggest opportunities out there. As prices rise, and politicians focus, it could create even more opportunities. While it is probably a long way from slowing the AI spend, it will be important for that industry to keep focused here (and they already are in a big way) as keeping as much here as possible would be great (remember the Saudis, amongst others are preparing to compete and that could present some security threats).

Anyways, not urgent or alarming, but I do think interesting. Btw, given my overall thoughts on CPI, I suspect that the CPI calculation is understating what most of us experience in terms of inflation on our electric bill.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/electricity-inflation-next-big-story

OneMedNet Stages Financial Turnaround: Cuts $13.5M Debt as Insiders Invest $1.2M



OneMedNet (NASDAQ:ONMD), an AI-powered Real-World Data company, reported significant financial improvements in Q2 2025. The company achieved an 80% reduction in total liabilities, decreasing from $19.7M to $6.2M, with an additional $1.9M reduction in July 2025.

Key financial highlights include $3.0M net income in Q2 2025, $3.7M raised through private placements, and holdings of 15 BTC valued at $1.6M. Operationally, OneMedNet expanded its provider network to 1,750 sites with access to 136M clinical studies, while enhancing its iRWD™ platform with improved AI capabilities and adding over 5 billion administrative records and claims.

Brain Retraining Yields Lasting Relief of Chronic Back Pain

 Psychological therapy that changes an individual’s beliefs about pain can provide lasting relief for chronic back pain (CBP), long-term follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial showed.

More than half of those who received the brain-focused pain reprocessing therapy (PRT) reported being nearly or completely pain-free 5 years later, outperforming placebo and usual care.

While improved coping with chronic pain is the goal of some psychological treatments, “our findings indicate that PRT can provide durable recovery from CBP for some patients,” noted the authors, led by Yoni Ashar, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City.

The study was published online on July 30 in JAMA Psychiatry.

Retraining the Brain

CBP is a leading cause of disability, and durable, nonpharmacologic treatments are scarce.

PRT educates patients about the role of the brain in generating chronic pain, helps them reappraise their pain as they engage in movements that they had been afraid to undertake, and helps them address emotions that may exacerbate pain.

The original study included 151 adults (54% women; mean age, 41 years) who had had primary CBP of low-to-moderate severity (mean pain intensity, 4 of 10) for an average of 10 years.

In all, 50 participants were randomly allocated to PRT (one telehealth session with a physician and eight PRT sessions over 4 weeks), 51 to placebo (subcutaneous saline injection in the back), and 50 to continue their routine, usual ongoing care.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, PRT led to large reductions in CBP severity, with benefits generally maintained through 1-year follow-up.

A total of 113 (75%) participants completed the 5-year follow-up, including 38 in the PRT group, 39 in the placebo group, and 36 in the usual care group.

At 5 years, PRT participants reported significantly lower pain intensity than placebo and usual care participants; the adjusted mean pain intensity was 1.93 in the PRT group vs 3.19 in the placebo and 2.60 in the usual care groups; PRT was superior to both comparators (= .006 vs placebo; = .04 vs usual care).

In the PRT group, 55% of PRT patients were nearly or completely pain-free at 5 years vs 26% in the placebo and 36% in the usual care groups (= .03).

Beyond pain intensity, PRT yielded significant improvements in pain interference, depression, anger, reduced kinesiophobia, and stronger attribution of pain to mind-brain processes. PRT had no significant differential effects at 5 years on sleep, anxiety, positive effect, catastrophizing, or perceived controllability of pain.

The authors noted that the original sample had low-to-moderate baseline pain severity, and trials in higher-severity populations are needed to evaluate generalizability.

The study had no specific funding. Ashar reported receiving grants from the Association for the Treatment of Neuroplastic Symptoms during the conduct of the study and personal fees from the Pain Reprocessing Therapy Center for conducting clinical trainings.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/brain-retraining-yields-lasting-relief-chronic-back-pain-2025a1000kyo

FDA Panel Urges Caution, More Data on Dermal Filler Use in Decolletage Area

 A FDA advisory panel recommended that manufacturers of dermal fillers collect more information on use in the decolletage area of the body and said that some patients might be at higher risk of complications from injections because of the proximity to breast tissue.

The FDA has not approved dermal fillers for use in the decolletage — a body area that advisory panel members said was not well-defined. It is generally considered the triangular area that runs from the neck and clavicle area to in between the breasts. 

Agency officials and committee members noted that fillers are increasingly being used off-label to improve skin texture, crepiness, skin thickness, fine lines, and wrinkles in the decolletage. The most common fillers used in the neck and decolletage are made up of hyaluronic acid (HA), calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA), or poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA), according to the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA).

At a meeting on August 13, the FDA’s General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel was asked to review safety concerns, in anticipation that manufacturers will soon seek FDA approval of fillers for use in the decolletage area and need guidance on trial design and post-marketing studies. The agency raised the possibility that fillers could migrate from the injection site or form nodules and/or granulomas and interfere with mammograms, cause false positive readings on breast imaging or clinical exams, or impact breast feeding and lymphatic drainage.

The committee — made up of dermatologists, plastic surgeons, oncologists, and radiologists — did not formally vote. The panel members agreed that patients who are breastfeeding or pregnant should be excluded from receiving injections because of the unknowns. Individuals with darker skin types or known wound-healing issues — both of whom might easily form keloids or nodules — or those with a history of radiotherapy, lymphoma, or other blood cancers were also seen as potentially higher risk populations, said panel chairman Hobart Harris, MD, MPH, the J. Engelbert Dunphy endowed chair in surgery at the University of California, San Francisco.

Sandra R. Shuffett, MD, a breast imaging specialist in Lexington, Kentucky, and temporary panel member, said she was concerned that fillers could obscure tumors on breast imaging tests. “My focus is to find a cancer as small as possible,” she said, adding that an unseen tumor could quickly grow larger, necessitating more serious treatment. 

The FDA has not received reports of problems with breast feeding or imaging but a post-approval study of Radiesse (CaHA) found that it obscured bone visualization. There have also been reports of lymph node enlargement near dermal filler injection sites. 

FDA reviewer Sung Yoon, MD, said at the meeting that the agency is “not aware of specific reports where breast cancer was missed” because of dermal filler but noted that off-label use might mean less reporting of adverse events.

Yoon told the panel that an analysis of the FDA’s Medical Device Reporting database found 20 reports of serious injury events associated with the use of dermal fillers in the decolletage area since 2007 out of 186 reports related to unapproved upper body use. It is not possible to know how many decolletage procedures have been performed, she said. The FDA reported that an estimated 6.2 million dermal filler procedures were performed in 2024.

Radiesse manufacturer, Merz Aesthetics, told the panel that, between 2018 and 2025, it received 44 reports of potential adverse events in the decolletage area, with none reporting migration of material or radiological interference. Radiesse is approved for decolletage wrinkles in the European Union and Canada. 

Social media may be fueling more use of fillers in the decolletage, especially among those taking GLP-1 receptor agonists for weight loss who are seeking “to improve the skin rippling in the chest,” said Karol A. Gutowski, MD, a Chicago-based plastic surgeon who spoke to the committee.

Representatives from dermatology and plastic surgery organizations said they had crafted guidelines for safe use of fillers in the decolletage but warned that filler use was often unregulated.

“Filler adverse events are likely under reported, and they're increasing in frequency as the popularity of injectable fillers increases,” said M. Laurin Council, MD, director of dermatologic surgery at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, who spoke to the panel on behalf of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

Many panelists suggested women undergo baseline breast imaging before receiving filler in the decolletage area and collecting more data — such as on the volume of filler used during procedures — and added that perhaps a registry should be created. But some were skeptical.

“Probably 75% of these injections are done by non-medical people,” such as attendants at medical spas or storefront wellness centers, said panelist Alan Matarasso, MD, a New York City-based plastic surgeon and past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Matarasso said that manufacturers should be responsible for tracking their products, not clinicians.

“When these things are being done in strip malls and other places, we're not going to get the data that we need, because people are not going to cooperate with this,” said Gutowski.

There is no approved method of removing dermal fillers. That gave some panel members pause. But dermatologists and plastic surgeons said that HA-based fillers could be dissolved with hyaluronidase. Even so, CaHA and PLLA fillers can’t be dissolved and “must break down naturally over time,” said Natalie Curcio, MD, MPH, a Nashville-based dermatologist who spoke to the panel on behalf of the AADA.

Temporary committee member Karla V. Ballman, PhD, professor of biostatistics at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, Minnesota, said that patients should be informed, perhaps via wording on a product label that “at the current time, there is no approved method of removal” of a filler.

The FDA has periodically examined dermal filler safety. In July 2023, the agency updated its informational webpage to describe a new risk of delayed-onset inflammation near treatment sites that had been reported to occur following viral or bacterial illnesses or infections, vaccinations, or dental procedures. The webpage also lists common reactions such as bruising, redness, swelling, and pain.

At the panel meeting, consumer advocate Diana Zuckerman, PhD, president of the National Center for Health Research, said that listing adverse events was not enough. “Risks should be quantified with meaningful statistical data on the short term and long term risks,” said Zuckerman, who spoke during the open public hearing. “FDA should require well designed and full clinical trials so that patients have the information they need to make informed decisions,” she said.

“FDA really appreciates the thoughtful discussion questions and recommendations that have been provided today, and we will certainly take all of these comments into consideration as we move forward,” said Cynthia Chang, PhD, an acting division director within the agency’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/fda-panel-urges-caution-more-data-dermal-filler-use-2025a1000llk

US taking 'special measures' to protect people possibly exposed in court records hack

 The U.S. government is taking unspecified "special measures" to protect people potentially exposed in a recent hack of court records, a top U.S. Department of Justice official said on Thursday.

The hack of the federal judiciary's filing systems has raised concerns across the judiciary since it was disclosed last month, in part because of reports that data about confidential informants and other sealed case files may have been accessed. Although details of the intrusion - or intrusions - have yet to be made public, a person familiar with the matter said unspecified foreign actors had been identified as the culprits. The New York Times reported on Tuesday that investigators believed Russia was at least partly responsible.

"We're aware of the issue," Acting Assistant Attorney General Matt Galeotti told reporters at a briefing. "There's different filing measures that are being put in place. We're also taking other different technical steps." He added that in cases involving individuals who were possibly "subject to some sort of release of information," the department is "taking special measures in those cases."

Galeotti did not elaborate on the nature of those measures, and the DOJ and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts did not immediately answer questions about his comments. The person familiar with the matter said chief judges throughout the country were notified in mid-July that at least eight federal court districts had been targeted by the hackers.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/us-taking-special-measures-protect-180839110.html

Hack at UnitedHealth's tech unit impacted 192.7 million people, US health dept website shows

 The cyberattack at UnitedHealth Group’s tech unit last year impacted 192.7 million people, the U.S. health department’s website showed on Thursday.

In January, the company had estimated the hack at Change Healthcare affected the personal information of 190 million people.

The cyberattack — the largest healthcare data breach in the United States to date — was disclosed in February last year. The unit was infiltrated by hackers who identified themselves as the "Blackcat" ransomware group, causing widespread disruptions in claims processing and impacting patients and providers across the country.

The number of impacted people was posted on a list of data breaches maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ office for civil rights.

Information made vulnerable in the UnitedHealth attack is believed to include health insurance member IDs, patient diagnoses, treatment information and social security numbers, as well as billing codes used by providers.

https://www.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/hack-at-unitedhealths-tech-unit-impacted-1927-million-people-4193345

22 GOP attorneys general call on RFK Jr, FDA to reinstate safeguards for abortion drugs

 More than 20 Republican attorneys general are demanding that the Trump administration reinstate safety protocols for the abortion drug mifepristone, saying it poses "serious risks to women."

In a letter obtained by Fox News Digital, 22 attorneys general called on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Food and Drugs Administration head Martin Makary to bring back safeguards for the pills that were scrapped by the Obama and Biden administrations.

"Recent comprehensive studies of the real-world effects of the chemical abortion drug mifepristone report that serious adverse events occur 22 times more often than stated on the drug’s label, while the drug is less than half as effective as claimed. These facts directly contradict the drug’s primary marketing message of 'safe' and 'effective,'" the letter reads, citing studies published earlier this year by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group.

The EPPC report claims the pill presents harm to women, causing 1 in 10 patients to experience a "serious adverse event," including hemorrhage, emergency room visits and ectopic pregnancy.

The letter, led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, comes after Kennedy Jr. asked Makary to review the latest data on mifepristone and its safety.

"Based on that review, the FDA should consider reinstating safety protocols that it identified as necessary as recently as 2011 in its issuance of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for mifepristone, but which were removed by the Obama and Biden administrations," the letter reads, adding that the drug should be taken off the market if safeguards cannot be put in place.

"Alternatively, in light of the serious risks to women who are presently being prescribed this drug without crucial safeguards, and in the event the FDA is unable to reinstate the 2011 safety protocols for mifepristone, the FDA should consider withdrawing mifepristone from the market until it completes its review and can decide on a course of action based on objective safety and efficacy criteria," the attorneys general wrote.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., also sent a letter to Kennedy Jr. last month urging him to take immediate action to reinstate safety guardrails on mifepristone following the secretary's commitment to conducting a safety review of the drug.

Makary had previously said that he had no plans to modify policies surrounding mifepristone but that the FDA would act if the data suggested there was a safety issue.

Mifepristone, which is taken with another drug called misoprostol to end an early pregnancy, was first approved by the FDA in 2000 after "a thorough and comprehensive review" found it was safe and effective, according to the agency's website, which noted that periodic reviews since its approval have not identified new safety concerns.

Last year, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge targeting the drug's availability. The plaintiffs had sought to restrict access to mifepristone across the country, including in Democrat-led states where abortion remains legal. The court did not rule on whether the FDA acted lawfully when it moved during the Obama and Biden administrations to ease the rules for mifepristone's use that had been established during the Clinton administration.

Medication abortions made up more than half of all abortions in the U.S. health care system in 2023, according to a study by the Guttmacher Institute.

"Currently, a woman can obtain a mifepristone abortion by participating in only one telehealth visit with any approved healthcare provider (not necessarily a physician), ordering the drugs through a mail-order pharmacy, and self-administering them," the attorneys general wrote. "And the prescriber is only required to report an adverse event if he or she becomes aware that the patient has died."

"The FDA’s removal of these crucial safety protocols in 2016 (and in 2023) that only five years before the FDA considered necessary begs the question of whether the removal was motivated by considerations other than the safety of patients … The current FDA’s dedication to the health and wellbeing of all Americans is encouraging, as is the much-needed review of mifepristone that Secretary Kennedy has promised," the letter concludes.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/more-than-20-gop-attorneys-general-call-rfk-jr-fda-reinstate-safeguards-abortion-drugs