Latest news with #Abraxane
Time of India
03-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
How Trump's war on international students hurts the US more than it helps
Why targeting international students may backfire on the US economy and trade. President Donald Trump's administration has launched a sweeping effort to curb the presence of international students in the United States, targeting institutions like Harvard University and pausing the issuance of key student visas. While framed as a national security move, this aggressive stance could backfire by damaging the US economy, weakening higher education, and pushing future innovators away from American shores. Recently, the Trump administration confirmed it would end all remaining federal grants to Harvard. More critically, it announced a 30-day window to block Harvard's access to new international students. Interviews for incoming foreign students and exchange visa holders are also on hold while the administration weighs enhanced social media vetting. A federal judge temporarily blocked the enforcement of this order on May 29, 2025, as reported by MSNBC News. Universities and innovation at risk There are more than 1.1 million international students enrolled in US colleges and universities, representing just under 6% of the total 19.1 million higher education population. According to the Open Doors 2024 Report on International Educational Exchange, over half of these students pursue STEM fields—25% study math and computer science, and nearly 20% are in engineering. This talent pipeline is crucial. Many skilled immigrants begin their US journey as students. Elon Musk studied at the University of Pennsylvania before obtaining an H-1B visa. Similarly, South African-born Patrick Soon-Shiong completed surgical training at UCLA and went on to invent Abraxane, a major cancer drug. In a 2017 interview, Soon-Shiong told MSNBC News, 'We still have the best universities, and I think it's crazy that (foreigners) come here and we train them as masters and PhDs and then we kick them out. That's ridiculous.' A blow to economic growth and trade Canceling student visas contradicts the administration's economic objectives. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, international students contribute $50.2 billion annually to the US economy—classified as an export. Removing them not only undermines innovation but worsens the trade deficit the administration claims to fight. Pierre Azoulay, an economist cited by MSNBC News, found that immigrants are 80% more likely to start businesses. Their companies generate 50% more jobs and pay about 1% higher wages than firms started by native-born Americans. Historically, a 1% increase in immigrant population has correlated with a 15% rise in patents per capita, fueling long-term economic growth. National security or national self-sabotage? The administration insists it is safeguarding national security by scrutinizing students' political affiliations and online activity. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated the US will increase visa vetting for Chinese students tied to the Communist Party, as reported by MSNBC News. However, experts warn that overreach could alienate talented students and bolster rival nations. As MSNBC News noted, this policy threatens to 'lock their smartest students in a communist dictatorship' while weakening US innovation during an ongoing trade war. Trump's immigration crackdown may serve short-term political goals, but its long-term cost to the US could be far greater. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Business Upturn
22-05-2025
- Business
- Business Upturn
Citi maintains ‘Buy' on Cipla; sees 21.5% upside despite rising competition in Abraxane generic
By News Desk Published on May 22, 2025, 08:26 IST Citi has reiterated a 'Buy' rating on Cipla Ltd, assigning a target price of ₹1,800, implying an upside of 21.5% from the current market price of ₹1,481.00 (as of latest close). The brokerage highlighted growing competitive pressure in Abraxane generic, one of Cipla's key focus products for FY26–27E. The latest entrant is Shuangcheng, a China-based pharmaceutical company, which becomes the third interchangeable version in the segment after Cipla and Sandoz (partnered with another Chinese firm). In total, there are now five generic versions, including 505(b)(2) approvals, making the market increasingly crowded. Citi expects Abraxane to contribute ~$40–50 million in annual U.S. sales for Cipla in the coming fiscal years. However, it cautioned that the intensifying competition could pose downside risk to these projections. Despite these headwinds, Citi remains bullish on Cipla's broader fundamentals and growth outlook, maintaining its positive stance. Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. Please consult a financial advisor before making any investment decisions. News desk at
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's decimation of US science and workforce funding is a gift to China
China is the only other country in the world that pushes science frontiers in a way that competes with the U.S. And right now, we are losing the science race. I'm a professor of mechanical engineering, materials science, and chemistry at Duke University. I spent the past year at the State Department's Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation as a science fellow. My office at the State Department monitored scientific advances across the globe and coordinated with allies to ensure the protection of new technologies. Why is it important that the U.S. 'wins' at science? I'll use an example from my own field of nanoscience. You might know someone whose cancer was treated with Abraxane, a nanoparticle-based chemotherapy. Let's now imagine that China develops a new treatment for cancer and decides not to share it with us. Or consider current developments in AI, quantum computing, and brain-machine interfaces. These all have military applications. I would certainly prefer that the U.S., not China, has the most advanced military technologies. I'm not sure whether Trump voters were voting to stop the development of new technologies in the U.S. I doubt they were voting to support the Chinese Communist Party, but that's the situation we are in now. We need a democracy that protects human rights to be the leader in science. The science being produced by scientists in China is outstanding. The training of young scientists in China is better than the U.S. Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party have prioritized science, and it shows. But our threat isn't what China is doing to promote science. Our threat is coming from within the country — the Trump administration is destroying American science. Even if China weren't moving ahead, the U.S. would still be moving backwards. Since returning to office, President Trump has done everything possible to destroy U.S. science dominance and hand leadership in science and technology to the Chinese Communist Party. He is attacking U.S. science on all fronts — people, funding, and institutions. He is shutting down the training of scientists in the U.S. and the recruitment of top international scientists. He has stopped research at top universities and cancelled federally-funded projects he doesn't agree with. He has attacked flagship federal science agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. The attack on people is most concerning as this will have fallout for years. This year is the first in my career that many universities are not able to admit new PhD students for training due to the many actions taken by the Trump administration. China is certainly continuing to train PhD scientists while the U.S. is heading towards a future where our country no longer produces new scientists and engineers. The U.S. doesn't have enough scientists to keep up in the race for better computer chips or new treatments for disease. Most importantly, science thrives on people from different backgrounds coming together to forge new frontiers. Until now, we have recruited the best and brightest young scientists from around the world and encouraged them to stay in the United States. Ideally, we would recruit the top students from China and provide pathways for them to become citizens. But now, top international students fear coming to the U.S. because of ICE arrests and travel bans. And even if they did want to come to the U.S., we might no longer have research institutions to take advantage of their ambitions. The U.S. has the top universities in the world, but nearly all of these universities are now implementing hiring freezes and significant budget cuts as China pushes ahead. My colleagues and friends at the State Department work incredibly hard to protect U.S. science through careful coordination with allies and partners. Their work, which happens behind the scenes, allows the U.S. to capitalize on the advances of scientists and engineers. But if Trump continues his attack on science, it's not clear there will be any American science worth protecting. Christine Payne is a professor of mechanical engineering and materials science, and chemistry at Duke University. She served as a Jefferson Science Fellow at the State Department's Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Office of Critical Technology Protection, from January 2024 to January 2025. The opinions and characterizations in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. government. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
16-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump's decimation of US science and workforce funding is a gift to China
China is the only other country in the world that pushes science frontiers in a way that competes with the U.S. And right now, we are losing the science race. I'm a professor of mechanical engineering, materials science, and chemistry at Duke University. I spent the past year at the State Department's Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation as a science fellow. My office at the State Department monitored scientific advances across the globe and coordinated with allies to ensure the protection of new technologies. Why is it important that the U.S. 'wins' at science? I'll use an example from my own field of nanoscience. You might know someone whose cancer was treated with Abraxane, a nanoparticle-based chemotherapy. Let's now imagine that China develops a new treatment for cancer and decides not to share it with us. Or consider current developments in AI, quantum computing, and brain-machine interfaces. These all have military applications. I would certainly prefer that the U.S., not China, has the most advanced military technologies. I'm not sure whether Trump voters were voting to stop the development of new technologies in the U.S. I doubt they were voting to support the Chinese Communist Party, but that's the situation we are in now. We need a democracy that protects human rights to be the leader in science. The science being produced by scientists in China is outstanding. The training of young scientists in China is better than the U.S. Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party have prioritized science, and it shows. But our threat isn't what China is doing to promote science. Our threat is coming from within the country — the Trump administration is destroying American science. Even if China weren't moving ahead, the U.S. would still be moving backwards. Since returning to office, President Trump has done everything possible to destroy U.S. science dominance and hand leadership in science and technology to the Chinese Communist Party. He is attacking U.S. science on all fronts — people, funding, and institutions. He is shutting down the training of scientists in the U.S. and the recruitment of top international scientists. He has stopped research at top universities and cancelled federally-funded projects he doesn't agree with. He has attacked flagship federal science agencies like the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. The attack on people is most concerning as this will have fallout for years. This year is the first in my career that many universities are not able to admit new PhD students for training due to the many actions taken by the Trump administration. China is certainly continuing to train PhD scientists while the U.S. is heading towards a future where our country no longer produces new scientists and engineers. The U.S. doesn't have enough scientists to keep up in the race for better computer chips or new treatments for disease. Most importantly, science thrives on people from different backgrounds coming together to forge new frontiers. Until now, we have recruited the best and brightest young scientists from around the world and encouraged them to stay in the United States. Ideally, we would recruit the top students from China and provide pathways for them to become citizens. But now, top international students fear coming to the U.S. because of ICE arrests and travel bans. And even if they did want to come to the U.S., we might no longer have research institutions to take advantage of their ambitions. The U.S. has the top universities in the world, but nearly all of these universities are now implementing hiring freezes and significant budget cuts as China pushes ahead. My colleagues and friends at the State Department work incredibly hard to protect U.S. science through careful coordination with allies and partners. Their work, which happens behind the scenes, allows the U.S. to capitalize on the advances of scientists and engineers. But if Trump continues his attack on science, it's not clear there will be any American science worth protecting. Christine Payne is a professor of mechanical engineering and materials science, and chemistry at Duke University. She served as a Jefferson Science Fellow at the State Department 's Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Office of Critical Technology Protection, from January 2024 to January 2025. The opinions and characterizations in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. government.
Gulf Insider
28-03-2025
- Health
- Gulf Insider
'"This Is Existential": Billionaire Links Covid, Vaccine to Cancer Surge'
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong – a transplant surgeon-turned-biotech billionaire renowned for inventing the cancer drug Abraxane – has issued a startling warning in a new in-depth interview with Tucker founder of ImmunityBio ($IBRX) and owner of the Los Angeles Times, claims that the COVID-19 pandemic, and the very vaccines developed to fight it, may be contributing to a global surge in 'terrifyingly aggressive' cancers. In the nearly two-hour conversation, the Los Angeles Times owner leveraged his decades of clinical and scientific experience to outline why he suspects an unprecedented cancer epidemic is unfolding. This report examines Dr. Soon-Shiong's background and assertions, the scientific responses for and against his claims, new data on post-COVID health trends, and the far-reaching implications if his alarming hypothesis proves true. Soon-Shiong is a veteran surgeon and immunologist who has spent a career studying the human immune system's fight against cancer. He pioneered novel immunotherapies and even worked on a T-cell based COVID vaccine booster during the pandemic. In the interview, he draws on this background to voice deep concern over rising cancer cases, especially among younger people – something he describes as a 'non-infectious pandemic' of cancer. He tells Carlson that in 50 years of medical practice, it was extraordinarily rare to see cancers like pancreatic tumors in children or young adults, yet recently such cases are appearing. For instance, Soon-Shiong was alarmed by seeing a 13-year-old with metastatic pancreatic cancer, a scenario virtually unheard of in his prior experience. 'I never saw pancreatic cancer in children… the greatest surprise to me was a 13-year-old with metastatic pancreatic cancer,' Soon-Shiong told Carlson, adding that he's seen examples of very young patients (even children under 11 with colon cancer) and unusual surges in aggressive diseases like ovarian cancer in women in their 30s. These personal observations of more frequent, aggressive cancers in youth led him to probe what might have changed in recent years. 'We're clearly seeing an increase in certain types of cancer, like pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer… colon cancer… in younger people.'— Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong According Soon-Shiong, the COVID era is the obvious change – and suggests that both the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and the widespread vaccination campaigns could be key drivers behind this cancer spike. He emphasizes the massive scale of human exposure to the virus and its spike protein (via infection or vaccination). 'I don't know how to say that without saying it. It scares the pants off me because I think what we may be, I don' think it's virus versus man now, this is existential. I think when I talk about the largest non-infectious pandemic that we're afraid of, this is it.' ' Billions of people – literally billions – had the COVID virus. Over a billion got the spike protein vaccine,' said Carlson, adding 'So that's like, we're talking like a huge percentage of the Earth's population, unless I'm missing something.' 'Now you understand what keeps you awake at night and kept me awake at night for two years, two and a half years,' Soon-Shiong replied, suggesting that exposure to both is silently undermining the immune system's natural defenses against cancer on a global scale. Soon-Shiong frames COVID-era cancers as potentially virally triggered or exacerbated. In the interview, he described cases of 'virally induced cancers' in clinics during the pandemic – patients whose cancers may have been kicked into overdrive by the cascade of inflammation and immune stress associated with COVID-19 (Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong: You're Being Lied to About Cancer, How It's Caused, and How to Stop It). COVID infection causes a massive inflammatory response, and some cancers are known to exploit inflammation to grow. TUCKER: 'a lot people have pointed to both COVID, the virus, and to the mRNA COVID vaccines as potential causes. Do you think that they're related?' SOON-SHIONG: 'The best way for me to answer that is to look at history. What we know about virally-induced cancers is well-established. We know that if you get hepatitis, you get liver cancer. Hepatitis is a virus infection. We know if you got human papillomavirus, HPV, you get cervical cancer.' We know that certain viruses directly cause cancer (e.g. HPV, Epstein-Barr), so it's not unprecedented for a virus to play a role in oncogenesis. While SARS-CoV-2 is not a known oncovirus , Soon-Shiong worries its indirect effects – chronic inflammation, immune exhaustion, or 'suppressor cells' that emerge in the wake of infection/vaccination – could be accelerating tumor development. 'The answer is to stop the inflammation…clear the virus from the body,' he argues, positing that until we eradicate lingering virus and restore immune balance, we may see mounting cancer cases. In sum, Dr. Soon-Shiong's claim is that the pandemic has set the stage for an explosion of aggressive cancers: the COVID virus itself (especially if it persists in survivors) might suppress immune surveillance, and the mRNA vaccines 'that didn't stop it' might inadvertently contribute to an immunosuppressive environment. These effects, in his theory, could be unleashing cancers that the immune system would ordinarily have kept in check. Watch: Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong is a surgeon who made billions inventing cancer drugs. He says that Covid, and the vaccines that didn't stop it, are likely causing a global epidemic of terrifyingly aggressive cancers.(0:00) Why Are Cancer Rates Rising in Young People?(6:16) What Is… — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 26, 2025 A number of clinicians and researchers have reported similar worrying observations, though these remain largely anecdotal at this stage. One prominent voice echoing Soon-Shiong's concern is Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a veteran oncologist and professor at St. George's, University of London. In late 2022, Dalgleish wrote to the BMJ's editor after noticing that some cancer patients who had been stable for years experienced 'rapid progression of their disease after a COVID-19 booster.' He cited cases of individuals who were doing well until shortly after vaccination – new leukemias, sudden appearance of Stage IV lymphomas, and explosive metastases in patients who had post-vaccine bouts of feeling unwell. 'I am experienced enough to know that these are not coincidental,' Dalgleish wrote, noting that colleagues in Germany, Australia and the U.S. were independently seeing the same pattern. This frontline testimony aligns with Soon-Shiong's fear: something about the immune system post-vaccination might be removing restraints on latent cancers. Dalgleish specifically pointed to short-term innate immune suppression after mRNA vaccination (lasting for several weeks) as a plausible mechanism. Many of the cancers he saw were ones normally held in check by immune surveillance (melanomas and B-cell cancers), so a temporary post-vaccine drop in immune vigilance could allow a tumor growth spurt. He also alluded to 'suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments' – a reference to preliminary studies that found the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein might interfere with key DNA repair or tumor-suppressor proteins in cells. These lab findings (while not yet confirmed in living organisms) lend some biological plausibility to the idea that spike exposure could affect cancer-related pathways . Beyond individual doctors, some research is probing links between COVID and cancer behavior. For example, a 2022 study in Frontiers in Oncology explored how SARS-CoV-2 proteins interact with cancer cells. It found that the virus's membrane (M) protein can 'induce the mobility, proliferation and in vivo metastasis' of triple-negative breast cancer cells in the lab (Frontiers | SARS-CoV-2 M Protein Facilitates Malignant Transformation of Breast Cancer Cells). In co-culture experiments, breast cancer cells exposed to the viral protein essentially became more aggressive and invasive. The researchers concluded that COVID-19 infection 'might promote…aggressive [cancer] phenotypes' and warned that cancer patients who get COVID could face worse outcomes. While this is one specific context (breast cancer cells and one viral protein), it underpins Soon-Shiong's general concern: the virus can directly alter the tumor microenvironment to the cancer's advantage. Another line of evidence involves latent viruses and inflammation. Doctors have documented unusual reactivations of viruses like Epstein-Barr (which is linked to lymphomas and other malignancies) during both COVID-19 and post-vaccine immune reactions. Such reactivations hint at a period of immune dysregulation that might also let nascent cancer cells slip past defenses. Or course,fact-checkers and medical authorities argue that there is no credible evidence of vaccines causing meaningful immune suppression. 'There isn't evidence to date that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer or lead to worsening cancer,' one infectious disease expert told , though they do acknowledge rare side effects like myocarditis or blood clots were found, but not cancer. While the scientific community debates mechanistic links between COVID and cancer, independent analysts have been parsing population-level data for unusual patterns. One notable effort is by Phinance Technologies, a research firm co-founded by former BlackRock portfolio manager Edward Dowd. Phinance has been analyzing excess mortality and disability data since the pandemic, looking for signals of broad health impacts in the aftermath of COVID and mass vaccination. Their findings reveal concerning trends, especially among younger, working-age populations, that lend some weight to Dr. Soon-Shiong's general warning of a post-COVID health crisis (though not specific to cancer alone). Phinance's 'Vaccine Damage Project' examined the U.S. population aged 16–64 (essentially the workforce) and stratified outcomes into four groups: no effect, mild injuries, severe injuries (disabilities), and death. Using official government databases (the CDC, Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.), they estimated how each category changed starting in 2021 – when vaccines rolled out and COVID became widespread. The results are sobering. According to Phinance's analysis, by the end of 2022 the U.S. had experienced approximately 310,000 excess deaths among adults aged 25-64 (a ~23% increase in mortality in that group over normal expectations). Notably, they argue that after mid-2021, with vaccines available and the virus itself becoming less deadly (due to immunity and milder variants), COVID-19 should not have been causing such high excess death rates. Therefore, those 310k 'unexplained' deaths in 2021–2022 could represent an upper bound on vaccine-related fatalities or other pandemic collateral damage. Even more striking is the data on new disabilities. Phinance found that from early 2021 through late 2022, about 1.36 million additional Americans (age 16–64) became disabled – a 24.6% rise in disability in that cohort, far above historical trend. This jump in disabilities among the workforce correlates in time with the vaccine rollout (and was disproportionately higher in the labor force than among those not working). The analysts note that the healthiest segment of the population (employed working-age adults) saw a greater relative increase in disabilities after Q1 2021 than the older or non-working groups. This is unusual, since typically health shocks hit the elderly hardest – but here something was impacting younger, healthy people to a significant degree. Phinance investigated further and found a tight relationship between the cumulative number of vaccine doses administered and the rise in disabilities in 2021-22. In fact, for the 16–64 population, they computed a ratio of about 4 new disabilities per excess death in that period, suggesting many survivors were left with lingering health issues even if they didn't die. Also read: Cancer Cells 'Cooperate' To Survive, Study Finds
