Connect with us

Government

68% Of Americans Believe Joe Biden Acted Illegally Or Unethically In Hunter’s Foreign Dealings; New Poll Finds

68% Of Americans Believe Joe Biden Acted Illegally Or Unethically In Hunter’s Foreign Dealings; New Poll Finds

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

A…

Published

on

68% Of Americans Believe Joe Biden Acted Illegally Or Unethically In Hunter's Foreign Dealings; New Poll Finds

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

A new AP-NORC poll  is out and, consistent with earlier polling results, shows that there remains a disconnect between the media coverage and public opinion over the Biden corruption scandal. Despite the continued dismissal or downplaying of the scandal by many in the media, a massive 68 percent of Americans believe that President Biden acted either illegally or unethically in his involvement in his son’s foreign dealings.

The largest group (36%) believe that the president has done something illegal. The second largest group (33%) believed Biden has done something unethical.

Only 30% of American adults believe Biden has “not done anything wrong” as he has repeatedly claimed.  It seems like the same 30% has remained supportive on every issue for Biden — the same unchanging support that we have found at the extremes of every poll for both Biden and Trump.

Notably, however, 40% of Democrats now believe Biden has done something illegal or unethical in his handling of his son’s business dealings.

The percentage is overwhelming among Republicans at 96%.

What should worry Biden is that 74% of the key independent vote believes that he has done something illegal or unethical.

What is most striking about these polls is that the public has reached these conclusions despite a media that is overwhelmingly protective of the President. Most major media outlets downplayed or ignored the Hunter Biden laptop story while adopting ever-changing narratives to excuse the President’s role.

Just this week, the Boston Globe ran a story titled “Attacking Biden, GOP tries to have it both ways; He’s old and feeble — and a master criminal?” Of course, you do not have to be a genius to engage in influence peddling. You just need to be corrupt. Menendez was no Brainiac in taking cash and cars from foreign sources. Moreover, one of Hunter Biden’s corrupt clients reportedly viewed him as dumber than his dog but still gave him millions. The labyrinth of shell companies and accounts were set up by others, not the President or his son.

Despite the media running cover for the Bidens for years, the public is just not buying it. Indeed, they are not buying the media. The Washington Post recently acknowledged that it will lose $100 million and announced a new round of layoffs or buyouts.

CEO Patty Stonesifer blamed the continuing loss of readers and revenues on being “overly optimistic” about its growth in readership, subscriptions and ads for the past two years. There is a continued effort at failing media outlets to blame their losses on everything other than their embrace of advocacy journalism and writing off half of the country with its strident political bias.

In fairness to Stonsifer, advertising revenues are down for newspapers with the rise of digital sources for the news. However, the embrace of non-traditional sources of news is not, in my view, entirely due to technological or platform changes.

Much like some companies pursuing woke agendas despite opposition from their consumers, media executives cannot acknowledge that their brand of journalism may be at fault. Editors at the Post and other leading outlets have rejected objectivity in favor of advocacy for journalists — blurring the line between reporting and commentary. That was evident recently when the Post publicly reaffirmed that it was standing by the false reporting of Philip Bump on a variety of disproven stories. These are conspiracy theories and false claims that have been long debunked from Lafayette Park to the Hunter Biden laptop but the Post just declared that Bump was correct.

For his part, Bump recently became irate when confronted with his past false claims, declaring “I just I’m gonna lose my mind. I’m gonna lose my mind.”

Notably, the interviewer explained that many do not believe his reporting and Bump dismissed them as uninformed and said that they need to listen to him as the expert on such matters.

Noam Dworman asked “is there nothing we can talk about … half the country believes this stuff.”

Bump: “I know, because half the country doesn’t actually dig into the issues.”

Dworman: “Here’s your chance to disabuse people. They don’t read the Washington Post.”

Bump responded: “There’s just no point, because all you want to do is you want to have me here as the putative expert so that you can present me with things that have been debunked multiple times that I’ve written about.”

Dworman: “What’s been debunked?”

Bump: “These, these claims. I’ve written about this, this argument about his dad calling him. I’ve written about this. Did you read what I wrote?”

Dworman: “It’s not debunked. Neither of us were there.”

Bump: “Well, I debunked it in the standpoint that I’ve already addressed this and presented the counterarguments to it.”

Before leaving, Bump explained that there was little value to explaining his past claims “because you don’t listen to the press. I’m sitting here and I’m telling you, you’re wrong about these things, and you don’t listen, and you continue to insist upon things that are, you know, parsing of language. And it’s just, it’s this is why I keep saying it’s silly.”

Once again, the Post recently stood by Bump’s past false claims.

This is why the Stonesifer’s account is so striking. She assured staff that “we are working to find ways to return our business to a healthier place in the coming year.” That “healthier place” could be with more balanced reporters.

There are still excellent journalists at the Post who can restore balance in its coverage and regain the trust (and business) of readers. However, it requires a bit of self-awareness and reexamination on the part of the owner and the editors. Instead, the Post continues to write for that same 30% revealed in the poll by the AP, which steadfastly supports the Bidens despite rising evidence of corrupt influence peddling and false statements. You cannot sustain a major publication on 30% of the readership while writing off any conservatives or independents who want balanced coverage.

The disconnect in these polls shows that many in the public are simply dismissing the common narrative of the media. The uniformity in much of the coverage, particularly in the Biden corruption scandal, leaves many with the feeling of a de facto state media. That appearance is not helped with the White House giving marching orders to the media on how to attack the investigations into the Biden family while powerful Democrats warn reporters to “back off” the Bidens.

I have been a columnist and a television analyst for roughly three decades. I have written for papers like the Washington Post and worked for NBC, CBS, BBC, and Fox. I care deeply for the future of these media outlets. However, the lack of impact of the media on public opinion reflects the record low levels of trust in the media found in numerous polls.

That is the result, in my opinion, of the embrace of advocacy journalism and echo chamber coverage.

The “healthier place” for the media is the very place that many reporters abandoned in the past with the tradition of objectivity and neutrality in journalism.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/16/2023 - 05:00

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Glimpse Of Sanity: Dartmouth Returns Standardized Testing For Admission After Failed Experiment

Glimpse Of Sanity: Dartmouth Returns Standardized Testing For Admission After Failed Experiment

In response to the virus pandemic and nationwide…

Published

on

Glimpse Of Sanity: Dartmouth Returns Standardized Testing For Admission After Failed Experiment

In response to the virus pandemic and nationwide Black Lives Matter riots in the summer of 2020, some elite colleges and universities shredded testing requirements for admission. Several years later, the test-optional admission has yet to produce the promising results for racial and class-based equity that many woke academic institutions wished.

The failure of test-optional admission policies has forced Dartmouth College to reinstate standardized test scores for admission starting next year. This should never have been eliminated, as merit will always prevail. 

"Nearly four years later, having studied the role of testing in our admissions process as well as its value as a predictor of student success at Dartmouth, we are removing the extended pause and reactivating the standardized testing requirement for undergraduate admission, effective with the Class of 2029," Dartmouth wrote in a press release Monday morning. 

"For Dartmouth, the evidence supporting our reactivation of a required testing policy is clear. Our bottom line is simple: we believe a standardized testing requirement will improve—not detract from—our ability to bring the most promising and diverse students to our campus," the elite college said. 

Who would've thought eliminating standardized tests for admission because a fringe minority said they were instruments of racism and a biased system was ever a good idea? 

Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. More from Dartmouth, who commissioned the research: 

They also found that test scores represent an especially valuable tool to identify high-achieving applicants from low and middle-income backgrounds; who are first-generation college-bound; as well as students from urban and rural backgrounds.

All the colleges and universities that quickly adopted test-optional admissions in 2020 experienced a surge in applications. Perhaps the push for test-optional was under the guise of woke equality but was nothing more than protecting the bottom line for these institutions. 

A glimpse of sanity returns to woke schools: Admit qualified kids. Next up is corporate America and all tiers of the US government. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 02/05/2024 - 17:20

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Four burning questions about the future of the $16.5B Novo-Catalent deal

To build or to buy? That’s a classic question for pharma boardrooms, and Novo Nordisk is going with both.
Beyond spending billions of dollars to expand…

Published

on

To build or to buy? That’s a classic question for pharma boardrooms, and Novo Nordisk is going with both.

Beyond spending billions of dollars to expand its own production capacity for its weight loss drugs, the Danish drugmaker said Monday it will pay $11 billion to acquire three manufacturing plants from Catalent. It’s part of a broader $16.5 billion deal with Novo Holdings, the investment arm of the pharma’s parent group, which agreed to acquire the contract manufacturer and take it private.

It’s a big deal for all parties, with potential ripple effects across the biotech ecosystem. Here’s a look at some of the most pressing questions to watch after Monday’s announcement.

Why did Novo do this?

Novo Holdings isn’t the most obvious buyer for Catalent, particularly after last year’s on-and-off M&A interest from the serial acquirer Danaher. But the deal could benefit both Novo Holdings and Novo Nordisk.

Novo Nordisk’s biggest challenge has been simply making enough of the weight loss drug Wegovy and diabetes therapy Ozempic. On last week’s earnings call, Novo Nordisk CEO Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen said the company isn’t constrained by capital in its efforts to boost manufacturing. Rather, the main challenge is the limited amount of capabilities out there, he said.

“Most pharmaceutical companies in the world would be shopping among the same manufacturers,” he said. “There’s not an unlimited amount of machinery and people to build it.”

While Novo was already one of Catalent’s major customers, the manufacturer has been hamstrung by its own balance sheet. With roughly $5 billion in debt on its books, it’s had to juggle paying down debt with sufficiently investing in its facilities. That’s been particularly challenging in keeping pace with soaring demand for GLP-1 drugs.

Novo, on the other hand, has the balance sheet to funnel as much money as needed into the plants in Italy, Belgium, and Indiana. It’s also struggled to make enough of its popular GLP-1 drugs to meet their soaring demand, with documented shortages of both Ozempic and Wegovy.

The impact won’t be immediate. The parties expect the deal to close near the end of 2024. Novo Nordisk said it expects the three new sites to “gradually increase Novo Nordisk’s filling capacity from 2026 and onwards.”

As for the rest of Catalent — nearly 50 other sites employing thousands of workers — Novo Holdings will take control. The group previously acquired Altasciences in 2021 and Ritedose in 2022, so the Catalent deal builds on a core investing interest in biopharma services, Novo Holdings CEO Kasim Kutay told Endpoints News.

Kasim Kutay

When asked about possible site closures or layoffs, Kutay said the team hasn’t thought about that.

“That’s not our track record. Our track record is to invest in quality businesses and help them grow,” he said. “There’s always stuff to do with any asset you own, but we haven’t bought this company to do some of the stuff you’re talking about.”

What does it mean for Catalent’s customers? 

Until the deal closes, Catalent will operate as a standalone business. After it closes, Novo Nordisk said it will honor its customer obligations at the three sites, a spokesperson said. But they didn’t answer a question about what happens when those contracts expire.

The wrinkle is the long-term future of the three plants that Novo Nordisk is paying for. Those sites don’t exclusively pump out Wegovy, but that could be the logical long-term aim for the Danish drugmaker.

The ideal scenario is that pricing and timelines remain the same for customers, said Nicole Paulk, CEO of the gene therapy startup Siren Biotechnology.

Nicole Paulk

“The name of the group that you’re going to send your check to is now going to be Novo Holdings instead of Catalent, but otherwise everything remains the same,” Paulk told Endpoints. “That’s the best-case scenario.”

In a worst case, Paulk said she feared the new owners could wind up closing sites or laying off Catalent groups. That could create some uncertainty for customers looking for a long-term manufacturing partner.

Are shareholders and regulators happy? 

The pandemic was a wild ride for Catalent’s stock, with shares surging from about $40 to $140 and then crashing back to earth. The $63.50 share price for the takeover is a happy ending depending on the investor.

On that point, the investing giant Elliott Investment Management is satisfied. Marc Steinberg, a partner at Elliott, called the agreement “an outstanding outcome” that “clearly maximizes value for Catalent stockholders” in a statement.

Elliott helped kick off a strategic review last August that culminated in the sale agreement. Compared to Catalent’s stock price before that review started, the deal pays a nearly 40% premium.

Alessandro Maselli

But this is hardly a victory lap for CEO Alessandro Maselli, who took over in July 2022 when Catalent’s stock price was north of $100. Novo’s takeover is a tacit acknowledgment that Maselli could never fully right the ship, as operational problems plagued the company throughout 2023 while it was limited by its debt.

Additional regulatory filings in the next few weeks could give insight into just how competitive the sale process was. William Blair analysts said they don’t expect a competing bidder “given the organic investments already being pursued at other leading CDMOs and the breadth and scale of Catalent’s operations.”

The Blair analysts also noted the companies likely “expect to spend some time educating relevant government agencies” about the deal, given the lengthy closing timeline. Given Novo Nordisk’s ascent — it’s now one of Europe’s most valuable companies — paired with the limited number of large contract manufacturers, antitrust regulators could be interested in taking a close look.

Are Catalent’s problems finally a thing of the past?

Catalent ran into a mix of financial and operational problems over the past year that played no small part in attracting the interest of an activist like Elliott.

Now with a deal in place, how quickly can Novo rectify those problems? Some of the challenges were driven by the demands of being a publicly traded company, like failing to meet investors’ revenue expectations or even filing earnings reports on time.

But Catalent also struggled with its business at times, with a range of manufacturing delays, inspection reports and occasionally writing down acquisitions that didn’t pan out. Novo’s deep pockets will go a long way to a turnaround, but only the future will tell if all these issues are fixed.

Kutay said his team is excited by the opportunity and was satisfied with the due diligence it did on the company.

“We believe we’re buying a strong company with a good management team and good prospects,” Kutay said. “If that wasn’t the case, I don’t think we’d be here.”

Amber Tong and Reynald Castañeda contributed reporting.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Petrina Kamya, Ph.D., Head of AI Platforms at Insilico Medicine, presents at BIO CEO & Investor Conference

Petrina Kamya, PhD, Head of AI Platforms and President of Insilico Medicine Canada, will present at the BIO CEO & Investor Conference happening Feb….

Published

on

Petrina Kamya, PhD, Head of AI Platforms and President of Insilico Medicine Canada, will present at the BIO CEO & Investor Conference happening Feb. 26-27 at the New York Marriott Marquis in New York City. Dr. Kamya will speak as part of the panel “AI within Biopharma: Separating Value from Hype,” on Feb. 27, 1pm ET along with Michael Nally, CEO of Generate: Biomedicines and Liz Schwarzbach, PhD, CBO of BigHat Biosciences.

Credit: Insilico Medicine

Petrina Kamya, PhD, Head of AI Platforms and President of Insilico Medicine Canada, will present at the BIO CEO & Investor Conference happening Feb. 26-27 at the New York Marriott Marquis in New York City. Dr. Kamya will speak as part of the panel “AI within Biopharma: Separating Value from Hype,” on Feb. 27, 1pm ET along with Michael Nally, CEO of Generate: Biomedicines and Liz Schwarzbach, PhD, CBO of BigHat Biosciences.

The session will look at how the latest artificial intelligence (AI) tools – including generative AI and large language models – are currently being used to advance the discovery and design of new drugs, and which technologies are still in development. 

The BIO CEO & Investor Conference brings together over 1,000 attendees and more than 700 companies across industry and institutional investment to discuss the future investment landscape of biotechnology. Sessions focus on topics such as therapeutic advancements, market outlook, and policy priorities.

Insilico Medicine is a leading, clinical stage AI-driven drug discovery company that has raised over $400m in investments since it was founded in 2014. Dr. Kamya leads the development of the Company’s end-to-end generative AI platform, Pharma.AI from Insilico’s AI R&D Center in Montreal. Using modern machine learning techniques in the context of chemistry and biology, the platform has driven the discovery and design of 30+ new therapies, with five in clinical stages – for cancer, fibrosis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and COVID-19. The Company’s lead drug, for the chronic, rare lung condition idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, is the first AI-designed drug for an AI-discovered target to reach Phase II clinical trials with patients. Nine of the top 20 pharmaceutical companies have used Insilico’s AI platform to advance their programs, and the Company has a number of major strategic licensing deals around its AI-designed therapeutic assets, including with Sanofi, Exelixis and Menarini. 

 

About Insilico Medicine

Insilico Medicine, a global clinical stage biotechnology company powered by generative AI, is connecting biology, chemistry, and clinical trials analysis using next-generation AI systems. The company has developed AI platforms that utilize deep generative models, reinforcement learning, transformers, and other modern machine learning techniques for novel target discovery and the generation of novel molecular structures with desired properties. Insilico Medicine is developing breakthrough solutions to discover and develop innovative drugs for cancer, fibrosis, immunity, central nervous system diseases, infectious diseases, autoimmune diseases, and aging-related diseases. www.insilico.com 


Read More

Continue Reading

Trending