Queen Margrethe of Denmark, 85, Discharged After Being Hospitalized for a Cold
The 85-year-old former Queen of Denmark has returned to her residence at Fredensborg Palace, according to the Danish Royal House
The Queen's most recent public appearance ahead of the hospitalization was a May 4 peace service at the Church of Our Lady in CopenhagenQueen Margrethe of Denmark was discharged from the hospital on the morning of Saturday, May 10, after being admitted days before as a precaution for a cold.
The Danish Royal House announced the recovery of the former Queen of Denmark, 85, over the weekend.
'Her Majesty is well and is now back in her residence at Fredensborg Palace,' the court said in a statement. She was initially admitted for observation on Thursday, May 8.
The former Queen's hospitalization forced her to cancel a scheduled outing on May 8, a visit to the Sankt Lukas Foundation's 125th anniversary celebration. Queen Margrethe's latest public appearance ahead of the hospitalization was at a May 4 peace service at the Church of Our Lady in Copenhagen to mark the 80th anniversary of Denmark's liberation.
The Queen abdicated her position in January 2024 on the 52nd anniversary of her rise to the throne, becoming the first Danish royal to voluntarily do so in almost 900 years.
Her eldest son, now known as King Frederik, acceded to the throne later that month, and his Australian-born wife became Queen Mary.
Can't get enough of PEOPLE's Royals coverage? to get the latest updates on Kate Middleton, Meghan Markle and more!
The Queen cited her health during a New Year's Eve 2023 speech announcing her abdication.
"In February this year, I underwent extensive back surgery. Everything went well, thanks to the competent health personnel, who took care of me," she said in part then. "Inevitably, the operation gave cause to thoughts about the future – whether now would be an appropriate time to pass on the responsibility to the next generation. I have decided that now is the right time."
In 2023, the Queen made history as Denmark's longest-reigning monarch after decades of service.
Read the original article on People
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
3 hours ago
- USA Today
Medical journal rejects RFK Jr.'s call for retraction of vaccine study
Aug 11 (Reuters) - An influential U.S. medical journal is rejecting a call from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to retract a large Danish study that found that aluminum ingredients in vaccines do not increase health risks for children, the journal's editor told Reuters. Kennedy has long promoted doubts about vaccines' safety and efficacy, and as health secretary has upended the federal government's process for recommending immunization. A recent media report said he has been considering whether to initiate a review of shots that contain aluminum, which he says are linked to autoimmune diseases and allergies. The study, which was funded by the Danish government and published in July in the Annals of Internal Medicine, analyzed nationwide registry data for more than 1.2 million children over more than two decades. It did not find evidence that exposure to aluminum in vaccines had caused an increased risk for autoimmune, atopic or allergic, or neurodevelopmental disorders. The work is by far the best available evidence on the question of the safety of aluminum in vaccines, said Adam Finn, a childhood vaccination expert in the UK and pediatrician at the University of Bristol, who was not involved in the study. "It's solid, (a) massive dataset and high-quality data," he said. More: Trump's ex-surgeon general slams RFK Jr.'s vaccine cuts: 'People are going to die' Kennedy described the research as "a deceitful propaganda stunt by the pharmaceutical industry," and said the scientists who authored it had "meticulously designed it not to find harm" in a detailed Aug. 1 opinion piece on TrialSite News, an independent website focused on clinical research. He called on the journal to "immediately retract" the study. "I see no reason for retraction," Dr. Christine Laine, editor in chief of the Annals and a professor of medicine at Thomas Jefferson University, said in an interview. The journal plans to respond to criticism the article has received on its website, Laine said, but it does not intend to respond directly to Kennedy's piece, which was not submitted to the Annals. The lead author of the study, Anders Peter Hviid, head of the epidemiology research department at the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark, defended the work in a response post to TrialSite. He wrote that none of the critiques put forward by Kennedy were substantive and he categorically denied any deceit as implied by the secretary. More: Trump admin orders federal agencies to scrub all worker COVID vaccination records "I am used to controversy around vaccine safety studies - especially those that relate to autism, but I have not been targeted by a political figurehead in this way before," Hviid said in an emailed response to Reuters. "I have confidence in our work and in our ability to reply to the critiques of our study." Kennedy had a number of critiques, including the lack of a control group, that the study deliberately excluded different groups of children to avoid showing a link between aluminum and childhood health conditions - including those with the highest levels of exposure - and that it did not include the raw data. Hviid responded to the criticisms on TrialSite. He said some of the points were related to study design choices that were reasonable to discuss but refuted others, including that the study was designed not to find a link. In fact he said, its design was based on a study led by Matthew Daley, a pediatrician at Kaiser Permanente Colorado, which did show a link, and which Kennedy cited in his article. More: There's a war brewing between medical groups and RFK Jr. It's about to explode. There was no control group because in Denmark, only 2% of children are unvaccinated, which is too small for meaningful comparison, Hviid added. The data is available for researchers to analyze, but individual-level data is not released under Danish law, he said. Other prominent vaccine skeptics including those at the antivaccine organization Kennedy previously ran, Children's Health Defense, have similarly criticized the study on the Annals site. TrialSite staff defended the study for its scale, data transparency and funding while acknowledging the limitations of its design, a view seconded by some outside scientists. Laine said that while some of the issues Kennedy raised in his article may underscore acceptable limitations of the study, "they do not invalidate what they found, and there's no evidence of scientific misconduct." An HHS spokesman said the department had "no further comment than what the secretary said." (Reporting by Michael Erman in New York and Jennifer Rigby in London; Editing by Michele Gershberg, Caroline Humer and Mark Porter)
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
RFK Jr.'s cancellation of mRNA vaccine research is even worse than it first seemed
On first glance, the data that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cited to justify canceling some $500 million in federal grants for mRNA vaccine research looked impressive. The data, according to the agency, were embodied in some 400 research papers listed in a compilation that ran to 181 pages. The document was headlined 'COVID-19 mRNA 'vaccine' harms research collection.' 'After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA,' Kennedy said on a video posted on X, referring to the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, 'HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits' for respiratory viruses such as COVID-19 and flu. 'We reviewed the science, listened to the experts, and acted,' he wrote in an accompanying post. Is that so? A close look at the so-called data reveals that the vast majority of the cited papers — all but about 40 — have little or nothing to do with the vaccines. They concern the consequences of COVID-19 infection, not the shots. Many of the papers that do reference the vaccines are studies not of human subjects, but laboratory mice; in some of these studies the mice received the vaccines via injections directly into the brain or intravenously, which is not how people receive the vaccines. What's also important is the lack of evidence supporting the agency's claims. The data packet fails to include well-researched studies attesting to the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines, including some published very recently. Among those is an exhaustive study by Danish researchers of more than 1 million recipients of the latest mRNA COVID booster, published July 28. That study investigated the incidence of 29 potential adverse side effects from the vaccine, including heart, liver and kidney failure; neurological conditions; diabetes; and arthritis. It found 'no statistically significant risk' of any of them from the vaccine. That includes myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that is often cited by anti-vaccine agitators as a dangerous side effect of the mRNA vaccines. That condition was most commonly seen among young men, particularly if they had received two shots within a short time span. But for the most part it was mild and short-term; once the booster was reformulated after 2022, the effect appeared to disappear. No deaths from the condition were known to have occurred, and myocarditis effects were more common and serious among unvaccinated people infected with COVID. Nor did the agency's data packet include an estimate of lives saved by the COVID vaccines, led by Stanford epidemiologist John P.A. Ioannidis and published July 25. That study calculated that from the beginning of the global vaccination campaign in 2020 through September 2024 as many as 4 million lives were saved by the vaccines. Ioannidis acknowledged that his estimate is 'conservative.' Indeed, in 2022 the Commonwealth Fund estimated that in just the first two years the vaccines were available, the shots prevented more than 18 million hospitalizations and more than 3 million COVID-related deaths in the U.S. alone. A 2022 study in The Lancet, a British medical journal, estimated as many as 20 million COVID-related lives saved around the world in just the first year of vaccination. Weigh those figures against Kennedy's assertion that the mRNA vaccines pose 'more risks than benefits,' and it becomes evident that decision-making has gone seriously awry at the Department of Health and Human Services under Kennedy's leadership. To Jake Scott, an infectious disease expert at Stanford Medical School who painstakingly examined the agency's data citations, they point to 'textbook confirmation bias'—the quest for information that confirms someone's preexisting beliefs. In this case, that someone is Kennedy, whose record of anti-vaccine advocacy is indisputable. The mismatch between the data packet cited by Kennedy and the established facts of the vaccines' safety and efficacy explain why Kennedy's cancellation of 22 contracts supporting mRNA vaccine research has been greeted by experts as a senseless and devastating blow against science and public health. 'I have have been in this business for over 50 years on the front lines of public health,...and I can say unequivocally that this was the most dangerous public health decision I have ever seen made by a government body,' Michael Osterholm, an expert in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, told PBS. At the very least, if Kennedy is so convinced that the effects mRNA vaccines are not sufficiently well-understood, the solution is more research, not less. I asked Kennedy's department to respond to criticism of his decision, but received no response. A few words about the mRNA technology. Using messenger RNA as an intermediary in their actions, the vaccines instruct the body how to manufacture parts of a pathogen that its immune system can recognize and fight. For immunologists, the virtues of the new technology are manifest. Vaccines to combat new pathogens or new versions of existing pathogens can be engineered quickly, allowing them to be rolled out to stifle pandemics before they even emerge. The potential utility of mRNA vaccines is unprecedentedly broad. The possible targets under study today — including in some of the research contracts Kennedy cancelled — include flu, HIV, hepatitis C, malaria, tuberculosis, and cancer, Drew Weissman of the University of Pennsylvania and other scientists told Nature in 2021. Weissman shared the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine with Katalin Karikó in 2023 for their work on mRNA vaccines. In the U.S., the development of the mRNA COVID vaccine was sponsored by $2.5 billion in grants and purchase guarantees from the federal government to Moderna, one of the two drugmakers that brought out the COVID vaccines, partially through Operation Warp Speed, an R&D effort under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA. That's the agency that Kennedy has ordered to cancel the mRNA contracts. President Trump bragged about the achievement during his first term, but reversed course after the vaccines became the target of fearmongering from the right-wing and the anti-vaccine camp. Kennedy's video on X explaining his decision was replete with fundamental misconceptions about the vaccines, according to scientists and real-world data. 'As the pandemic showed us, mRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract,' he said. But that's plainly contradicted by the record of lives saved and hospitalizations averted. Statistics published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which falls under Kennedy's jurisdiction, show that the average weekly COVID case rate in late 2020 was 347.8 per 100,000 population among the unvaccinated, but 25 per 100,000 among the fully vaccinated and boosted population. The weekly average death rate in the same period was 7.8 among the unvaccinated and 0.1 among the vaccinated. He claimed that the vaccines promote the mutation of COVID; 'one mutation, and the vaccine becomes ineffective,' Kennedy said. Neither of those statements is supported by science. 'MRNA vaccines do not cause the virus to mutate — they do that all on their own,' writes Steven Novella, a neurologist and veteran misinformation debunker. 'What causes new variants to arise more quickly is allowing a virus to spread uninhibited throughout a population — the more it replicates, the more opportunities there are for new mutations. Widespread vaccination therefore decreases new mutations and variants.' Moreover, no 'one mutation' causes the vaccines to become ineffective; as vaccinologist Peter Hotez observes, in no known case has a single mutation rendered the vaccine ineffective. Boosters developed for COVID variants have remained relatively effective even as new variants become dominant. Anyway, the virtue of mRNA technology is that the vaccine can be rapidly retooled to meet the challenge of new variants. That brings us to the data package Kennedy's agency offered to defend his decision. It's not the product of U.S. government scientists, although one of its developers, Steven Hatfill, is currently on the HHS staff. Its other chief compilers are identified as Martin Wucher, a dentist ; Byram Bridle, a faculty member at a Canadian veterinary college; and Erik Sass, a nonfiction author. I reached out to all three for comment but received no reply. The compilation originated as material for a book titled 'TOXIC SHOT: Facing the Dangers of the COVID 'Vaccines',' an anthology of essays by prominent anti-vaxxers. The compilation doesn't make the case for canceling the research. A paper listed as support for the myocarditis threat, for example, states, 'no causality can be assumed or established' linking the condition to the vaccine because of the lack of a control group for comparison. 'There is no direct evidence of a vaccine-induced inflammatory response' to the vaccine. Kennedy's action is almost certain to hamstring American science for years, possibly decades, to come. It's the antithesis of Trump's claim to put 'America First,' for it cedes the development of a life-saving medical technology to Europe and China. And it's not limited to the development of vaccines for respiratory diseases. During a recent appearance on a podcast hosted by the right-wing influencer Steve Bannon, the newly-appointed commissioner of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya, declared, 'As far as public health goes for vaccines, the mRNA platform is no longer viable.' Bhattacharya justified this statement by noting a rise in public skepticism about mRNA technology. What he didn't say was that the skepticism was promoted by Kennedy and other anti-vaxxers denigrating the technology; a competent and responsible NIH chief would be defending a technological innovation, not magnifying disinformation about it. The truth is that the mRNA platform is likely to be seen in retrospect as a historic advance in healthcare ... everywhere but in the United States.
Business Insider
8 hours ago
- Business Insider
Why Eli Lilly's (LLY) Tasty Q2 Earnings Left a Bitter Aftertaste
Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) delivered a blockbuster earnings report— $15.56 billion in revenue, up 38% year over year —yet the stock cratered nearly 15%, erasing roughly $100 billion in market value within hours. Since then, market bears have consolidated their positions, leaving LLY stock almost 19% lower by Friday's close. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. The company's appeal has been anchored in its commanding position in the global obesity market, driven by treatments like Zepbound, an injectable GLP-1. A key pillar of that story was orforglipron, a once-daily pill expected to match the efficacy of leading injectables. But alongside earnings, Lilly unveiled pivotal Phase 3 results showing orforglipron cut weight by 12.4% on average—below lofty expectations—and the market reacted harshly. While sentiment around orforglipron has cooled, the sell-off appears overdone. Given Eli Lilly's robust obesity franchise and deep pipeline, the company's long-term growth story remains compelling, making LLY attractive at current levels for patient investors. I remain confidently Bullish on LLY, despite the market beating the stock has taken in recent days. The High-Stakes Obesity Market For some background, the global obesity market is expected to eclipse a staggering $100 billion in the next few years. Eli Lilly, with its popular Zepbound, is a clear leader in this space, alongside Novo Nordisk (NVO), a Danish pharmaceutical company, and its GLP-1 injectable Wegovy. While Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk act as a duopoly in the obesity market, this isn't expected to last. Innovation happens fast in medicine, and both Zepbound and Wegovy will soon face competition. Fortunately for Eli Lilly, the billions of dollars it generates from treatments like Zepbound and its diabetes medication Mounjaro can be funneled back to R&D efforts, procuring a flywheel of innovative drugs. Orforglipron Versus the Competition Orforglipron is an investigational oral GLP-1 being studied in late-stage trials. Orals would significantly broaden the obesity market, appealing to patients averse to needles and interested in maintenance, 'step down' weight loss therapy. Before Phase 3 data, some analysts expected orforglipron could generate over $15 billion in peak annual revenue. So, expectations were high. Naturally, in the oral obesity market, the two main competitors are Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk, with their oral GLP-1, high-dose semaglutide. In its pivotal OASIS 4 trial, oral semaglutide demonstrated an average weight loss of between 13.6% to 15%, which is superior to orforglipron's 12.4%. Regarding safety, the GLP-1 class continues to feature gastrointestinal side effects like nausea and vomiting, which can lead to treatment discontinuations and compliance issues in a real-world setting. Novo Nordisk has already submitted all the paperwork required to achieve FDA approval for oral semaglutide, positioning it to be the first oral GLP-1 treatment. Eli Lilly's Ace in the Deck I believe the market is missing some important nuances here. First, the gap between 13.6% and 15% weight loss is likely clinically insignificant. Cross-trial comparisons are fraught with pitfalls—differences in patient populations, study designs, and treatment protocols can skew perceptions. Until orforglipron and its rivals are tested head-to-head (as Wegovy and Zepbound were in SURMOUNT-5), declaring one clearly superior is premature. More importantly, orforglipron holds two decisive advantages: convenience and manufacturing. As a non-peptide small molecule, it imposes no food or water restrictions—unlike oral semaglutide. The simpler chemistry also makes it far cheaper and easier to mass-produce than complex peptides. In a weight-loss market plagued by supply shortages, this could be a game-changer for Eli Lilly. Let's also bring some perspective to the drama. Orforglipron's potential, combined with Zepbound and Lilly's aggressive access strategy, is enormous. High list prices for injectables—often over $1,000 per month—remain a barrier, with many insurers refusing coverage. That leaves a vast patient population unable to pay out-of-pocket. By leveraging orforglipron's low manufacturing costs and LillyDirect's direct-to-consumer reach, Lilly can offer lower cash prices and dramatically expand access—turning a perceived setback into a long-term competitive edge. LLY Risks and its Bearish Case Evaluated On the other hand, there's a legitimate bearish case for LLY that even bullish investors should acknowledge. The stock had been priced for near-perfection—its P/E ratio sits more than 100% above the sector median, signaling sky-high growth expectations—and the orforglipron results didn't quite deliver that perfection. Novo Nordisk's modest numerical lead in weight-loss efficacy, combined with its first-mover advantage, could give it the upper hand in the oral obesity market. From this perspective, LLY's sharp drop may reflect not just a knee-jerk reaction, but growing skepticism among institutional players that retail investors are now starting to echo, as TipRanks data shows. Despite its headline-grabbing exploits, the smart institutional money doesn't seem to like LLY. According to TipRanks' hedge funds tracker, LLY is currently seen with low confidence by hedge fund managers on Wall Street. According to 13F filings from 487 hedge funds submitted to the U.S. SEC throughout 2025, as LLY has reached a peak of $960 per share, hedge fund managers have reduced their stakes from around 32 million shares in May 2023 to around 25 million today. The current Confidence Signal, based on 60 leading hedge funds this quarter, is Very Negative. To get its stock back on track, Eli Lilly must convince investors of its ability to maintain a stronghold in the obesity market with innovations beyond Zepbound. Is Eli Lilly a Buy, Sell, or Hold? On Wall Street, LLY sports a consensus Strong Buy rating based on 17 Buy, four Hold, and zero Sell ratings in the past three months. LLY's average stock price target of $961.83 implies an upside potential of 53% over the next twelve months. Despite some firms adjusting expectations following orforglipron data, Wall Street has remained largely positive on LLY. For instance, Chris Schott from J.P. Morgan believes LLY's recent plunge is a 'compelling' entry point, noting that orforglipron's '1-2 percentage points lower weight loss,' compared to oral semaglutide, is unlikely to meaningfully impact its commercial potential. Eli Lilly Transitions from Perfection to Resilience The Eli Lilly story has moved from one of flawless execution to one of strategic resilience. While the orforglipron results fell short of the lofty expectations embedded in its stock price, they still reinforce the strength of Lilly's broader portfolio—and come with notable competitive edges in convenience, manufacturing scalability, and potential for disruptive pricing. Near-term volatility is likely as the market recalibrates, but the core drivers of Lilly's long-term growth remain firmly in place, keeping the bullish case intact.
