Stranger Things 5 Teaser: Millie Bobby Brown, Finn Wolfhard and Gaten Matarazzo Starrer Stranger Things 5 Official Teaser
Donald Trump's recent Club World Cup appearance has sparked a frenzy online after viewers noticed his swollen ankles and apparent bruising on his right hand. Is it just poor circulation—or something being covered up? Social media is flooded with theories, from heart issues to hidden medication. With the 2024 election looming, questions about Trump's fitness are once again center stage. We break down the viral photos, public reaction, and what it could really mean for his health.
1.9K views | 22 hours ago
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
42 minutes ago
- Time of India
Struggling US healthcare stocks endure rough 2025 but draw some bargain hunters
New York: Woes for U.S. healthcare stocks have worsened this year driven partly by Trump administration policies, although some investors are betting that the beaten-down shares are now becoming too much of a bargain to pass up. The S&P 500 healthcare sector -- which includes pharmaceutical companies , biotechs, health insurers and medical equipment makers -- has slumped 5% in 2025, lagging the over 7% gain for the overall index. Pressure to bring down U.S. prescription drug prices to overseas rates, tariffs targeted at pharmaceuticals and cuts to areas such as health research funding and Medicaid are among the Trump administration actions clouding the outlook for the shares this year, investors said. Regulatory obstacles are compounding issues, including expiring drug patents and setbacks for bellwethers including UnitedHealth Group. "You have got this constant overarching political and regulatory overhang that doesn't really seem to subside with any administration," said Jared Holz, healthcare sector strategist at Mizuho Securities. "When you have so much nebulousness around the sector, it turns people off rather than invites them to the party." In another sign of the group losing favor, healthcare exchange-traded-funds have seen 12 consecutive months of net outflows as of July for a total outflow of $11.5 billion in that time, more than for any other sector, according to State Street Investment Management. The performance picture is even dimmer over a longer period. While shares of massive technology companies pushed the benchmark S&P 500 up over 50% the past three years, the healthcare sector is little changed in that time. That gap has put the 60-stock sector at nearly its biggest discount to the broader market in 30 years, which some investors hope is an inflection point for the battered group. "The valuation is extremely cheap and the relative performance is at an extreme," said Walter Todd, chief investment officer at Greenwood Capital, whose healthcare holdings include diversified giant Johnson & Johnson and medical device maker Stryker. "So at this point, it seems like a pretty decent setup to get some outperformance." The price-to-earnings ratio for the healthcare sector, based on earnings estimates for the next year, has fallen to 16.2 times from nearly 20 a year ago, according to LSEG Datastream. Meanwhile, the S&P 500's rally to records has driven the index's P/E ratio to over 22 times -- giving the broader market a significant premium over the healthcare sector. 'BAD NEWS IS PRICED IN' Some high-profile healthcare names are at even cheaper valuations. For example, Merck is trading at a forward P/E of 8.7, against its long-term average of 14.5, while fellow drugmaker Bristol Myers Squibb trades at 7.4 against its average of 15.8, according to LSEG. Year-to-date, shares of both Merck and Bristol Myers are down roughly 20%. The group is drawing bets from some value investors such as Patrick Kaser, portfolio manager at Brandywine Global, whose portfolio is overweight the sector including owning shares of CVS Health and European drugmakers GSK and Sanofi. "Our perspective is a lot of this bad news is priced in and then some," Kaser said. "To bet against the sector from here, you're essentially continuing to bet on the valuation gap, which is already large, continuing to widen." The group's decline means the total market value of the S&P 500 healthcare sector is about $4.8 trillion, not much higher than the $4.3 trillion value of Nvidia, the semiconductor company that has symbolized the artificial intelligence boom. Indeed, some investors said a shift in capital away from Nvidia and other massive tech companies could spark healthcare shares. Such a move appeared to occur in the first quarter, investors said, when the healthcare sector rose 6% while declines in tech and megacap stocks dragged indexes lower. Fears of an economic downturn also could help healthcare shares, at least on a relative basis. The group is often viewed as a defensive area in rockier economic times. Economic fears flared following last Friday's weaker-than-expected employment report, while some strategists say the market could be due for a pullback after surging over 20% since its April lows. "During the first quarter, healthcare did great even as tech rolled over, as the fears of an economic slowdown got to more economically sensitive stocks," said Chris Grisanti, chief market strategist at MAI Capital Management, adding he expects healthcare "will perform better in a more difficult market." More clarity on regulatory issues, including tariffs, also could support healthcare, investors said. But some value investors are hesitant to dive into the group. Michael Mullaney, director of global markets research at Boston Partners, said he is wary some healthcare shares could be "value traps," preferring to overweight areas including industrials or financials. "There's been just so much of an overhang in the sector," Mullaney said. "There are better places to go with cleaner stories."
Mint
4 hours ago
- Mint
Harvard scientists warn of lost breakthroughs as Trump halts $2.6B in research funding
Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of US soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find nongovernment funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were canceled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector.
Mint
6 hours ago
- Mint
Harvard scientists warn of lost breakthroughs after Trump Admin freezes $2.6B in research grants
Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find nongovernment funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were canceled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
