- Crispr Therapeutics (CRSP) pared a loss amid some takeover speculation.
- There's speculation that a takeover bid for Crispr (CRSP) could be moving along as the potential buyer has hired an adviser to help with a bid, according to traders, who cited a Betaville "uncooked" alert that was circulating on Monday. People following the matter have heard talk that the potential bidder may have hired law firm Skadden for a takeover.
- The latest update comes after Betaville last month said a US-based biopharma with a market cap of $100-$200 billion may be interested in bidding for Crispr (CRSP).
Monday, December 1, 2025
Crispr Therapeutics pares loss amid takeover speculation
Merck Seeks Up to $8 Billion in US Bond Sale Tied to Cidara Deal
Merck & Co Inc. is seeking to raise as much as $8 billion through a corporate bond sale, with part of the proceeds expected to help fund its proposed acquisition of Cidara Therapeutics Inc., according to people with knowledge of the matter.
The pharmaceutical company is selling US dollar bonds is as many as eight parts, with maturities ranging from three to 40 years, according to a separate person familiar with the matter. Initial price discussions for the longest portion of the deal — a note maturing in 2065 — are for a premium of about 1.2 percentage points above Treasuries, the person added, asking not to be identified discussing private details.
Trump Leadership Gauges Regain Lost Ground In December: I&I/TIPP Poll
As December begins and 2025 nears an end, voters appear to be a lot happier with President Donald Trump than in recent months, with both his “favorability” and “approval” ratings climbing. Trump’s actions to promote peace abroad, build a stronger economy, and end the flow of illicit drugs across the U.S. border have struck a chord with average Americans.
As it does each month, the I&I/TIPP Poll leads off asking voters the following question about presidential leadership: “Overall, is your opinion of Donald Trump generally favorable, generally unfavorable, or are you not familiar enough to say one way or the other?”
This month’s online national poll was taken from Nov. 25 to Nov. 29 by 1,483 adults. It has a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points.
The answers show solid month-to-month improvement from early fall, when Trump’s leadership ratings sagged a bit.
Among all respondents, 44% gave Trump a favorable rating, while 47% gave him an unfavorable rating, for a net -3% rating. Another 6% said they weren’t familiar enough to say, and 3% weren’t sure.
That’s a big shift from a month earlier, when just 41% gave Trump favorable marks, while 49% gave him unfavorable marks, for a net of -8%.
Trump made small gains among all political parties. For December, independent voters gave the president a 34% favorability, up from 31% a month earlier, while unfavorable scores fell from 56% to 55%.
Democratic voters, likewise, improved from 14% favorable in November to 15% in December, while unfavorable dipped from 79% in November to 78% this month.
But the biggest gains came among Republicans, with favorability jumping from 76% in November to 81% in December, while unfavorable ratings fell over the month from 14% to 12%. That’s a net rating of 69% positive in December, a 7-point gain from 62% in November, a significant swing.
Next comes the second question asked each month: “In general, do you approve or disapprove of the way Donald Trump is handling his job as president, or are you not familiar enough to say one way or the other?”
Once again, the improvement was noteworthy. Among all who took the December poll, 43% said they approved, versus 47% who disapproved. That compares to 40% approve to 51% disapprove a month earlier.
That’s a swing from a net -11% disapproval in November to just -4% in December, 7 points in total.
Trump’s approval climbed among all voting blocs: Independents (34% approval in December, versus 28% in November), Democrats (15% in December, 13% approval in November), and Republicans (78% in December, versus 75% in November).
The net gain in overall approval also showed in shrinking disapproval numbers: Democrats (82% in November, 78% in December), independents (59% in November, 55% in December) and Republicans (16% in November, 13% in December).
Trump also continues to score either “A” (excellent) or “B” (good) for his most widely followed specific policies.
In particular, voters give Trump 45% As and Bs for his immigration policies, while giving him 39% top grades for “handling violence and crime in the country” and for “restoring America’s core values,” and 37% for “handling the economy,” “handling energy policy,” and “handling of trade and tariffs.”
His worst scores come with “handling of North Korea” and “handling of health care,” both at (33%), and “handling of Russia” (34%).
Taken as a whole, U.S. voters give Trump 39% A and B grades for his overall performance as president, a more than passing number.
Overall, it was a bounce back for Trump. Not surprisingly, Democrats were parsimonious in their grading, with just 14% giving A and B grades for Trump policies, while independents (29%) and especially Republicans (73%) were far more generous in grading Trump.
As a result, more Americans see Trump as a strong leader as December begins than in November. Among all respondents, 42% called Trump either a “very strong leader” (24%) or a “strong” leader (18%), while 39% called him either “very weak” (28%) or “weak” (11%).
In November, only 40% called Trump strong. So Trump went from a -1% strength rating in November to +3% in December — a 4-point swing.
(Below: The TIPP Presidential Leadership Index measures public sentiment over time by combining three components: favorability, job approval, and presidential leadership. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with readings above 50 indicating optimism and below 50 signaling pessimism. In December, the overall index stood at 48.4 (Nov=45.9, Oct=48.8, Sep=48.5), with Republicans most optimistic at 84.8 (Nov=81.7, Oct=84.0, Sep= 83.0), Democrats least at 18.7 (Nov=17.1, Oct=18.7, Sep= 18.5), and independents in between at 39.3 (Nov=36.1, Oct=39.4, Sep=38.8).
Why the change?
For one thing, Trump is doing things the nation mostly wants him to do, such as interdicting illicit, deadly drugs before they enter the U.S. For another, for the first time in years, Trump has been enforcing America’s immigration laws, which were largely ignored during President Joe Biden’s four years.
Both of those actions are highly popular. Our own I&I/TIPP Poll, for instance, showed 60% support for Trump’s attacks on narco-trafficking boats in the Caribbean. And he has long had strong backing for stricter immigration curbs, especially deportation for criminal non-citizens.
Worries during the summer about soaring prices due to tariffs haven’t emerged, as Trump eased tariffs on many key items in the run-up to the Christmas season.
Indeed, so far, tariffs haven’t shown up much in retail prices. Quoting “economic data from government agencies and reports,” The Hill recently concluded: “So far, Trump’s tariffs are not driving inflation. In fact, some goods that are affected by tariffs have actually become more affordable.”
Trump’s strenuous efforts to bring peace to various parts of the world have also been met with solid acceptance among Americans. Trump was portrayed in recent years as a head-in-the-sand America Firster who didn’t care at all about other countries, even our allies.
But as respected foreign policy analyst Walter Russell Mead recently noted in the Wall Street Journal: “Not since Franklin D. Roosevelt has an American president been this powerful or this busy. In his hyperactive second term, Mr. Trump doesn’t merely walk and chew gum at the same time. He dances on tightropes while juggling chainsaws.”
The “juggling chainsaws” includes working nonstop on ending the Russia-Ukraine war, forging a new relationship with a hostile China, ending the massacre of Christians in Africa, and putting narco-states Venezuela and Colombia on notice: America will not tolerate cartels’ unimpeded shipments of deadly drugs into the U.S.
This is a long way from Biden’s chaotic closing days in office a mere 11 months ago, when 51% of Americans gave Biden failing grades for leadership, including 59% of independents.
Trump continues to do well with independents, yet it’s likely that, regardless of what Trump does in the coming months, a majority of Democrats are unlikely to support him. But as this month’s I&I/TIPP Poll shows, Trump’s favorability remains solid among Republicans and independents, who now make up a de facto centrist third party.
I&I/TIPP publishes timely, unique, and informative data each month on topics of public interest. TIPP’s reputation for polling excellence comes from being the most accurate pollster for the past six presidential elections.
Terry Jones is an editor of Issues & Insights.
Evidence acetaminophen triggers autism in susceptible individuals ignored, mishandled for over decade
William Parker
Paul T. Corrigan
Rachel Anderson
John P. Jones III
Zacharoula Konsoula
Lauren Williamson
R. Randal Bollinger
Rachel Anderson
John P. Jones III
Zacharoula Konsoula
Lauren Williamson
R. Randal Bollinger
DOI: https://doi.org/10.70542/rcj-japh-art-1gca1pr
Abstract
Overwhelming evidence shows that exposure of susceptible babies and children to acetaminophen (paracetamol) triggers many if not most cases of autism spectrum disorder, and that oxidative stress causes susceptibility. However, these conclusions have not yet been widely acknowledged or integrated into clinical practice or regulatory guidelines, leaving the continued high prevalence of autism spectrum disorder unchecked. To understand why the conclusions have not been widely accepted, this study conducts systematic analyses of all PubMed-indexed papers with “acetaminophen” and “autism” in any search field. In these papers, statements that failed to promote changes in clinical practice or regulatory guidelines were pervasive. Also pervasive were mishandlings of available evidence, including treating interacting variables as if they are confounding factors (66% of studies affected) and considering too narrow a range of evidence (77% of studies affected). Also present were erroneous criticisms of potentially groundbreaking research, undermining the potential impact of that research. It is hoped that identification of these fundamental problems will lead to widespread acceptance of the evidence that acetaminophen triggers autism spectrum disorder in susceptible babies and children and to subsequent regulatory and clinical changes that will effectively and quickly reduce the induction of autism spectrum disorder.
Disclosures, Funding & Conflicts of Interest
Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank Kathryn J. Reissner, Susan Poulton, and John Poulton for invaluable insight and discussion, and thank Spencer Sharpe for assistance with logistics. The authors also thank Vishnu Patel, Caitlin Travers, and Lauren Piper for participation in a panel discussion germane to the study design, and the Interlibrary Borrowing staff at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Library for their extensive work that was vital to the conduct of this study. The authors also thank Vishnu Patel and Caitlin Travers for assistance with the systematic review and for careful reading of the manuscript. In addition, the authors thank Zoie E. Holzknecht for careful reading of the manuscript.
Author Contributions
Coauthors RA, RRB and WP conceptualized the study.
Coauthors PTC, RA, RRB, and WP contributed to study design and executed that design, including data collection and analysis.
Coauthors PTC, JPJ III, ZK, LW, and RRB critically reviewed and revised the manuscript for important intellectual content.
All authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.
Funding: This work was funded in part by generous donations to WPLab, Inc., a non-profit corporation based in Durham, North Carolina.
BMJ’s Coverage of Kennedy’s Vaccine Reforms Amounts to Character Assassination
Peter C. Gøtzsche
DOI: https://doi.org/10.70542/rcj-japh-art-17qokzv
Abstract
The reactions to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s initiatives to improve vaccine safety have been almost uniformly negative. I studied how the narratives were framed in a cohort of 33 articles in the BMJ of which 30 were written by journalists or the editor. I focused on whether the reporting was balanced and informative, and whether the articles saw any merit in Kennedy’s reforms in his role as Secretary of Health and Human Services or supported the status quo.
The reporting in the BMJ was highly biased. Much of the information provided in Kennedy’s disfavour was misleading, and some was wrong. All initiatives at improving vaccine safety were condemned, without any analysis of their merits in an evidence-based fashion. Instead, the BMJ cited people who had their own agendas and who condemned Kennedy without providing any evidence in their favour while expressing faith in vaccines, with the industry mantra that they are safe and effective, although all drugs will harm some people.
The BMJ did not take any interest in the widespread and lethal corruption in US healthcare institutions – one of Kennedy’s focus points - but toned it down.
Despite the constant ad hominem attacks, Kennedy has succeeded to introduce important changes and plans related to vaccine safety, guidance about how vaccines are used, and about avoiding neurotoxic metals in vaccine adjuvants.
Disclosures, Funding & Conflicts of Interest
I have no conflict of interest and my research was not funded.
'Obamacare threatens economic recovery'
President Trump is obviously angered by inflation in health insurance, calling carriers “money sucking.”
Major benefit consultants including Aon and WTW are forecasting employer costs for providing coverage in 2026 will rise from 9.5% to 10.3%.
Economists worry that working Americans will suffer wage stagnation in a growing economy because higher premiums force employers to shift the costs of coverage to employees via higher deductibles and out-of-pocket payments.
This presents a smoldering political problem for the president as Zohran Mamdani’s win in New York City suggests “affordability” could become the watchword of a Democratic socialist midterm success.
The recent government shutdown was all about the affordability of health insurance.
The 15-year effort to make Obamacare America’s version of national health insurance, the left’s goal since FDR refused to put universal coverage in the 1935 Social Security Act, was exposed by its impact on the nation’s deficit.
President Joe Biden used COVID to supercharge Obamacare enrollment and expand Medicaid so together they might overtake private insurance.
Using greatly enlarged subsidies and reduced eligibility requirements, 44 million more Americans signed up for government coverage.
The shutdown saw the Democrats argue that if these subsidies ended, people would die.
The president rightly saw the demand as incompatible with deficit reduction.
This contest will play out again in January when the continuing resolution ends.
It may be that one of history’s most important lost moments was Trump’s failure to deliver on his promise of “Repeal and replace” in his first term.
The House voted to repeal the hated plan more than 100 times. Yet no replacement has emerged, and Obamacare gets worse.
The law’s mandated coverage of a long list of preventive services, meant to reduce demand for costly inpatient care, had the opposite effect.
Hospitals were adept at stimulating demand, driving up costs.
Many of the newly established local insurance exchanges meant to displace insurance companies went bankrupt.
Politically favored executives with no experience in health insurance were not up to the job of disciplining hospitals and doctors.
Hoping to save money by requiring digital patient records, Obamacare paid for their installation. Government chose vendors that produced the unbelievable — software that lengthened outpatient visits and raised their costs.
Perhaps the most scandalous aspect of Obamacare is it mandated specialized agents to help potential enrollees “navigate” the system.
Compensated on the number of eligibles they could enroll, agents signed up individuals they never met, who never knew they had insurance and never sought medical attention.
This mess was predictable from the start.
To get Obamacare passed, the insurance industry, consolidated two decades earlier into a handful of giant companies as a presumptive defense against Hillarycare’s promise to eliminate them, had to go along.
Enjoying monopoly power, carriers drove up prices in cahoots with hospitals and doctors happy to deliver more costly care.
Trump wants to disrupt the reign of these “big, fat, rich” companies.
The problem is Obamacare succeeded all too well in eliminating hundreds of competitors.
President Barack Obama, despite his promise that we could keep our insurance company, intended just this outcome.
He believes efficiency comes with scale — a nonworking principle in health care. If it did, the resulting insurance monopolies and huge hospital systems would have made health care more affordable.
While the administration works on the complexities of replacing Obamacare, it can take immediate steps to encourage the formation of many new health insurance companies including for-profits, nonprofits resembling original Blue Cross community plans and mutual companies organized by employer associations, religious groups and community cooperatives.
The government could provide capital for these startups and support shared risk pools for individuals with severe illnesses. Private reinsurance arrangements would follow.
The government should also immediately require radical price transparency — making providers show patients the cash price and the amount actually paid by insurance and Medicare/Medicaid.
Patients could not only pressure providers for discounts but could be incentivized to search for fraud and billing abuse by participating in savings.
Third, improving labor productivity in health care delivery is imperative.
Nearly 90% of all personnel working in health care, including in many instances unskilled kitchen and janitorial staff in hospitals, must be certified to work.
Less than 20% of the non-health workforce needs the equivalent of a license to work.
Using its payment authority, the federal government should eliminate publicly required licensing and guild-imposed certification requirements that do nothing to ensure quality of care or service.
Labor costs in doctors’ offices should also be a target.
The average doctor employs 3.5 staff in large part because insurance companies still require physicians to submit billing documents using fax machines!
How is it that government mandates digitized patient records but allows claims handling to continue on millions of pages of paper?
Trump has said many times that the Affordable Care Act is anything but and must be replaced.4
One step in that direction is to greatly expand the supply side of the health insurance market, letting competition emerge.
Carl Schramm is university professor at Syracuse. He has served as president of the Health Insurance Association of America, now America’s Health Insurance Plans, and as CEO of an insurance company specializing in small group and individual coverage. His most recent book is “Burn the Business Plan.”
El Chapo’s Son to Change Plea in Drug Trafficking Prosecution
One of the four sons of imprisoned drug kingpin Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, is set to change his not guilty plea in a case charging him in a drug trafficking conspiracy, according to court documents.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)