Author: admin

  • Gilead Sciences Plans Price Increases for HIV Drugs in State-Run AIDS Assistance Programs – geneonline.com

    Gilead Sciences Plans Price Increases for HIV Drugs in State-Run AIDS Assistance Programs – geneonline.com

    1. Gilead Sciences Plans Price Increases for HIV Drugs in State-Run AIDS Assistance Programs  geneonline.com
    2. Pharmalittle: We’re reading about Gilead price hikes for HIV drugs, a Novartis China deal, and more  statnews.com
    3. Gilead Sciences Plans Price Increases for HIV Drugs in State-Run AIDS Programs  geneonline.com
    4. Gilead wants state AIDS drug programs to pay significant price hikes for HIV meds  statnews.com

    Continue Reading

  • 41,000 Years Ago, Something Weird in Space Changed How Humans Lived on Earth

    41,000 Years Ago, Something Weird in Space Changed How Humans Lived on Earth

    Wandering magnetic fields would have had noticeable effects for humans. Credit: Maximilian Schanner (GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany)

    Weak magnetic fields once exposed humans to radiation. People adapted with shelter, clothing, and mineral protection.

    Our first meeting was a bit awkward. One of us is an archaeologist who studies how past peoples interacted with their environments. Two of us are geophysicists who investigate interactions between solar activity and Earth’s magnetic field.

    When we first got together, we wondered whether our unconventional project, linking space weather and human behavior, could actually bridge such a vast disciplinary divide. Now, two years on, we believe the payoffs – personal, professional and scientific – were well worth the initial discomfort.

    Our collaboration, which culminated in a recent paper in the journal Science Advances, began with a single question: What happened to life on Earth when the planet’s magnetic field nearly collapsed roughly 41,000 years ago?

    Weirdness when Earth’s magnetic shield falters

    The event is known as the Laschamps Excursion, a short but intense geomagnetic disruption named after volcanic deposits in France where it was first discovered. Near the end of the Pleistocene epoch, Earth’s magnetic poles did not undergo a full reversal, as they typically do every few hundred thousand years. Instead, they shifted erratically across thousands of miles, while the strength of the magnetic field fell to less than 10% of its present level.

    Auroras in the Skies Above Europe
    Aurors in the skies above Europe could have been breathtaking, terrifying or both for ancient humans. Credit: The Conversation

    Under normal conditions, Earth’s magnetic field behaves like a stable dipole, similar to a bar magnet. During the Laschamps Excursion, however, it broke apart into several weaker poles scattered across the globe. This fragmentation weakened the magnetosphere, Earth’s natural shield that normally blocks much of the solar wind and harmful ultraviolet radiation from reaching the surface.

    With the magnetosphere compromised, models suggest that a variety of near-Earth effects would have occurred. Auroras, which today are usually confined to the polar regions, likely appeared much closer to the equator, and the planet was exposed to significantly higher levels of solar radiation than we experience now.

    The skies some 41,000 years ago may therefore have been both dazzling and dangerous. Recognizing this, we as geophysicists began to wonder how such conditions might have influenced human populations of the time.

    From an archaeological perspective, the answer was clear: they were indeed affected.

    Human responses to ancient space weather

    For people living during this period, the auroras would likely have been the most visible and dramatic consequence, perhaps provoking awe, fear, ritual practices, or other responses that are difficult to trace. The archaeological record rarely preserves direct evidence of such emotional or cognitive reactions.

    The physiological consequences of heightened ultraviolet exposure, however, are easier to assess. With the magnetic field weakened, more harmful radiation reached the surface, increasing the risks of sunburn, vision damage, birth defects, and other health concerns.

    Red Ochre Stone
    Naturally occurring ochre can act as a protective sunscreen if applied to skin. Credit: Museo Egizio di Torino

    In response, people may have adopted practical measures: spending more time in caves, producing tailored clothing for better coverage, or applying mineral pigment “sunscreen” made of ochre to their skin. As we describe in our recent paper, the frequency of these behaviors indeed appears to have increased across parts of Europe, where effects of the Laschamps Excursion were pronounced and prolonged.

    During this time, both Neanderthals and Homo sapiens inhabited Europe, though their ranges likely overlapped only in certain regions. Archaeological findings indicate that these populations responded differently to environmental pressures, with some relying more heavily on shelter or material culture as forms of protection.

    It is important to emphasize that the research does not claim space weather alone drove these changes in behavior, nor that the Laschamps event was responsible for Neanderthal extinction—a common misinterpretation. Instead, it may have been one of several factors, an unseen but influential force shaping human adaptation and innovation.

    Cross-discipline collaboration

    Collaborating across such a disciplinary gap was, at first, daunting. But it turned out to be deeply rewarding.

    Archaeologists are used to reconstructing now-invisible phenomena like climate. We can’t measure past temperatures or precipitation directly, but they’ve left traces for us to interpret if we know where and how to look.

    But even archaeologists who’ve spent years studying the effects of climate on past behaviors and technologies may not have considered the effects of the geomagnetic field and space weather. These effects, too, are invisible, powerful and best understood through indirect evidence and modeling. Archaeologists can treat space weather as a vital component of Earth’s environmental history and future forecasting.

    Aurora Ring Encircling Earth in Artistic Rendering
    An artistic rendering of how far into lower latitudes the aurora might have been visible during the Laschamps Excursion. Credit: Maximilian Schanner (GFZ Helmholtz Centre for Geosciences, Potsdam, Germany)

    Likewise, geophysicists, who typically work with large datasets, models and simulations, may not always engage with some of the stakes of space weather. Archaeology adds a human dimension to the science. It reminds us that the effects of space weather don’t stop at the ionosphere. They can ripple down into the lived experiences of people on the ground, influencing how they adapt, create and survive.

    The Laschamps Excursion wasn’t a fluke or a one-off. Similar disruptions of Earth’s magnetic field have happened before and will happen again. Understanding how ancient humans responded can provide insight into how future events might affect our world – and perhaps even help us prepare.

    Our unconventional collaboration has shown us how much we can learn, how our perspective changes, when we cross disciplinary boundaries. Space may be vast, but it connects us all. And sometimes, building a bridge between Earth and space starts with the smallest things, such as ochre, or a coat, or even sunscreen.

    Reference: “Wandering of the auroral oval 41,000 years ago” by Agnit Mukhopadhyay, Sanja Panovska, Raven Garvey, Michael W. Liemohn, Natalia Ganjushkina, Austin Brenner, Ilya Usoskin, Mikhail Balikhin and Daniel T. Welling, 16 April 2025, Science Advances.
    DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adq7275

    Adapted from an article originally published in The Conversation.The Conversation

    Agnit Mukhopadhyay has received funding from NASA Science Mission Directorate and the University of Michigan Rackham Graduate School.

    Raven Garvey and Sanja Panovska do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.

    Continue Reading

  • Penn State researchers reveal new function of antibody-producing cells

    Penn State researchers reveal new function of antibody-producing cells

    The body has an intricate system to defend against infections where each type of immune cell plays a distinct role. Now, a study led by researchers from the Penn State College of Medicine has uncovered a new function of the immune cells that are known for making antibodies. They determined that, in response to flu infection, a specialized set of B cells produce a key signaling molecule that the immune system needs to develop a robust, long-term response to fight off infections.

    It’s a function that has not previously been seen in these types of cells. The finding highlights a potential target for improving immunizations, particularly the flu vaccine, and future therapies for conditions like cancer and autoimmune disease. The team published their study in PLOS Pathogens.

    It’s paradigm-shifting. The pathway for producing the cytokine called interleukin-1 beta – a messenger that helps coordinate immune response – has almost exclusively been seen in the body’s front-line, innate immune cells. Yet here, we see it in B cells in a specialized area of the lymph node called the germinal center, which is part of the body’s adaptive immune response. We don’t expect them to do that.”


    S. Rameeza Allie, assistant professor of microbiology and immunology at the Penn State College of Medicine and senior author on the paper

    When a pathogen like the flu virus enters the body, it sets off a cascade of responses, the research team explained. First, the body’s front-line defense, called innate immunity, jumps into action to battle the pathogen and broadly suppress the infection. At the same time, the body gathers information about the pathogen and develops a targeted response using B cells and T cells, two types of white blood cells. This adaptive immunity, while slower to develop, is crucial for survival because it remembers pathogens and provides long-lasting protection. If the immune system encounters the same pathogen again, it mounts a faster, more robust response and protects against re-infection.

    Germinal centers are key to developing good adaptive immunity, the researchers explained. These are areas that form in the lymph nodes in response to an infection or immunization and act as a training ground for B cells. Germinal center B cells, or GC B cells, multiply and undergo rapid changes to produce highly specific antibodies and memory B cells.

    “The focus of our lab is understanding how we make this germinal center work better so that we can have these very protective memory B cells,” Allie said. “Studies have shown that if you can make the germinal centers persist longer, the production of memory B cells is really good.”

    Allie explained that the interleukin-1 beta is necessary for a high-quality germinal center. Germinal centers need T follicular helper (TFH) cells in order to persist, and these TFH cells, in turn, need interleukin-1 beta to function. Without interleukin-1 beta, there are fewer TFH cells and germinal centers are smaller in size.

    This study demonstrated that GC B cells produce interleukin-1 beta locally in the germinal center, and supplies it to TFH cells, a relationship that was previously unknown, the researchers said. The findings highlight the two-way relationship between these immune cells and how they work together to promote better quality germinal centers.

    “We’ve known about B cells for a long time, and we know that their prominent function is to produce antibodies. But here, we show that they aren’t just antibody-producing cells. They are also helper cells for other immune cells and are essential for TFH cells to do their job and therefore the germinal center, too,” said Juliana Restrepo Munera, doctoral candidate in cell and biological systems at the Penn State College of Medicine and first author of the study.

    The research team validated their data in a mouse model of influenza and in human B cells. They found that GC B cells produce interleukin-1 beta through a well-studied mechanism which uses a multi-protein complex called the NLRP3 inflammasome. When activated, this protein complex triggers the release of cytokines like interleukin-1 beta. Prior to this work, this inflammasome wasn’t widely linked to adaptive immunity. The researchers found that the inflammasome and interleukin-1 beta were expressed by GC B cells but not by other B cells. Without the inflammasome or interleukin-1 beta, TFH cells didn’t function effectively and the germinal centers weren’t well formed.

    This finding could point to ways to enhance the response and prolong the activity in the germinal center by targeting the NLRP3 inflammasome pathway or GC B cell-derived interleukin-1 beta, Restrepo Munera explained. It could inform future flu vaccine strategies to provide better protection against viruses that constantly evolve. It could also lead to better ways to manage immune response in conditions like autoimmune disease and cancer.

    “There’s so much translational potential because this is a cytokine that’s been studied and has been used in clinical settings,” Allie said.

    The research team said they plan to continue this line of research to understand what’s required for the formation of optimal germinal centers and how to enhance their interaction between the GC B cells and TFH cells.

    Funding from the Penn State College of Medicine supported this work.

    Source:

    Journal reference:

    Munera, J. R., et al. (2025). Germinal Center B cells provide essential IL-1β signals to TFH cells via canonical NLRP3 inflammasome activity post influenza infection. PLoS Pathogens. doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1013404

    Continue Reading

  • Trump asks US Supreme Court to uphold his tariffs after lower court defeat

    Trump asks US Supreme Court to uphold his tariffs after lower court defeat

    President Donald Trump has asked the US Supreme Court to overturn a lower court decision that found many of his sweeping tariffs were illegal.

    In a petition filed late on Wednesday, the administration asked the justices to quickly intervene to rule that the president has the power to impose such import taxes on foreign nations.

    A divided US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last week ruled 7-4 that the tariffs Trump brought in through an emergency economic powers act did not fall within the president’s mandate and that setting levies was “a core Congressional power”.

    The case could upend Trump’s economic and foreign policy agenda and force the US to refund billions in tariffs.

    Trump had justified the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president the power to act against “unusual and extraordinary” threats.

    In April, Trump declared an economic emergency, arguing that a trade imbalance had undermined domestic manufacturing and was harmful to national security.

    While the appellate court ruled against the president, it postponed its decision from taking effect, allowing the Trump administration time to file an appeal.

    “The stakes in this case could not be higher,” Solicitor General John Sauer said in Wednesday night’s filing.

    He wrote that the lower court’s “erroneous decision has disrupted highly impactful, sensitive, ongoing diplomatic trade negotiations, and cast a pall of legal uncertainty over the President’s efforts to protect our country by preventing an unprecedented economic and foreign policy crisis”.

    Lawyers representing small businesses challenging the tariffs said they were confident they would win the case.

    “These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardising their survival,” said Jeffrey Schwab of Liberty Justice Center. “We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients.”

    If the Supreme Court justices deny the review, the ruling could take effect on 14 October.

    In May, the New York-based Court of International Trade declared the tariffs were unlawful. That decision was also put on hold during the appeal process.

    The rulings came in response to lawsuits filed by small businesses and a coalition of US states opposing the tariffs.

    In April, Trump signed executive orders imposing a baseline 10% tariff as well as “reciprocal” tariffs intended to correct trade imbalances on more than 90 countries.

    In addition to those tariffs, the appellate court ruling also strikes down levies on Canada, Mexico and China, which Trump argues are necessary to stop the importation of drugs.

    The decision does not apply to some other US duties, like those imposed on steel and aluminium, which were brought in under a different presidential authority.

    Continue Reading

  • Apple juice has temporary effects on saliva but no lasting damage

    Apple juice has temporary effects on saliva but no lasting damage

    A new study led by the University of Portsmouth suggests our saliva is stronger than we thought. 

    The research, published in PLOS One, is the first to examine how drinking apple juice affects saliva’s lubricating properties using advanced scientific techniques. 

    Saliva plays an important role in preventing friction and bacteria in our mouths by creating a slippery film on teeth. It also helps repair early damage to tooth enamel. We know this protective layer is affected by different drinks, but until now it wasn’t clear exactly in what way and for how long.

    Using 32 healthy participants, scientists analysed how rinsing with apple juice for one minute impacts saliva, before doing the same test using water. They found the mouth’s natural defences bounce back remarkably quickly when exposed for a short period of time.

    While apple juice temporarily disrupted saliva, the effects began to wear off within just 10 minutes. Even more surprisingly, the team discovered that water actually caused greater initial disruption to saliva’s protective properties – but the recovery time was much faster.

    We were genuinely surprised by these results. 


    It’s long been believed that apple juice, like other acidic drinks, immediately harms our oral health, including the teeth. However, our research shows that saliva plays a vital role in protecting and quickly repairing the mouth to prevent lasting damage.


    But it’s important to point out that long-exposure to apple juice – by repeatedly drinking it or not washing your mouth out with water after taking a sip – can have a long-term negative effect on our oral hygiene.”


    Dr. Mahdi Mutahar, lead author from the University of Portsmouth’s School of Dental, Health and Care Professions

    The team used cutting-edge laboratory techniques – normally used in engineering – to measure exactly how slippery and protective saliva is before and after drinking apple juice and water. These included tribology, protein analysis, and real-time monitoring of salivary films.

    Protein players 

    The study revealed which specific proteins in spit are affected when you drink apple juice; immunoglobulins, cystatins and carbonic anhydrase decrease significantly, while mucins – the main lubricating proteins that keep everything slippery – remain stable.

    Understanding these proteins could lead to new toothpastes and mouthwashes designed to boost the mouth’s natural defenses.

    Dr Mutahar explained: “The key finding is that one brief drink of apple juice isn’t harmful – the lubrication comes back to normal and the proteins in saliva do their protective work. 

    “The biggest shock though was discovering that rinsing mouths with tap water actually caused more friction and disruption than apple juice. The Portsmouth water we used contains minerals that seem to interfere with saliva’s lubricating proteins, more than the fruit juice did.”

    The Portsmouth tap water contains high concentrations of ions including sodium, potassium, and magnesium, which interfere with saliva’s main lubricating protein, mucin. 

    The research also uncovered an unexpected link between fruit juice consumption and the mouth’s immune system. The decrease in immune-related proteins suggests that what we drink or eat may influence our oral immune defenses, which in turn may affect the general immune system. 

    “What’s new is discovering that what we drink can actually change how our mouth’s immune system works,” explained Dr Mutahar. “The ingredients in apple juice may be influencing oral immune defences, possibly affecting overall immune response in ways we’re only just beginning to understand.”

    Changing your hygiene habits 

    The research suggests that moderate consumption of fruit juice may not be as immediately damaging as once thought, thanks to saliva’s rapid recovery abilities. 

    However, the team cautions this doesn’t mean fruit juice is harmless – repeated exposure throughout the day could overwhelm the mouth’s natural repair mechanisms.

    “Think of it like a cut on your skin,” said Dr. Mutahar. “Your body can heal small, occasional damage quite well, but if you keep reopening the wound, it becomes a problem. The same principle applies here.”

    A few simple behaviour changes could minimise any negative effects of drinking apple juice:

    Drink quickly, don’t sip: “Don’t expose your teeth for long periods of time,” advises Dr Mutahar. “Have your apple juice fairly quickly rather than sipping it constantly throughout the day.”

    Rinse immediately: Rinse your mouth with water immediately after drinking apple juice. This helps remove lingering acids, which is especially important for sugary drinks like apple juice, as sugar is a major contributor to tooth decay too.

    Use a straw: This reduces contact between the acidic drink and your teeth.

    Allow recovery time: If you want a second drink, have a short drink of water, wait, and then have your second one. This allows saliva to work and those important proteins to buffer and protect.

    The research team is now exploring the effects of repeated exposure – specifically, what happens when people consume acidic drinks several times a day. Most importantly, they aim to investigate how apple juice impacts the teeth directly, rather than just saliva, and how it compares to the effects of pure acid. They are also planning to test deionized water (with minerals removed) to confirm whether Portsmouth’s hard water findings apply to all water types. 

    Future research could look into adding protective proteins to everyday drinks – a move that might not only neutralize harmful acids but also strengthen the mouth’s natural defences by supporting saliva’s ability to repair and protect teeth.

    The research was conducted in collaboration with Professor Anwesha Sarkar from the University of Leeds, a leading international expert in food-saliva interactions, and involved participants aged 18-56 from the Portsmouth area.

    Professor Sarkar, a professor of colloids and surfaces in the University of Leeds School of Food Science and Nutrition, said: “This is fascinating research which shows how open collaboration can improve our understanding of food and drink, and its effects on our oral health. 

    “By combining the knowledge and expertise of Dr. Mutahar and the dental team in Portsmouth with my expertise in material science, specifically friction and real-time adsorption measurements, we have opened up new areas of possibility when it comes to dental health and protecting our teeth with our very own, highly potent saliva. In time I hope this collaboration leads to more improvements in dental care and development of oral devices.”

    Source:

    Journal reference:

    Zaheer, S., et al. (2025). Short-term effects of sweetened acidic beverages consumption on human saliva: Colloidal properties and protein composition. PLOS One. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0330023

    Continue Reading

  • NDMA issues warning of high flooding in Chenab River – RADIO PAKISTAN

    1. NDMA issues warning of high flooding in Chenab River  RADIO PAKISTAN
    2. 37 Killed, All 23 Districts Hit As Punjab Sees Worst Floods Since 1988  NDTV
    3. Watch: Luxury neighbourhood in Lahore submerged in floods  BBC
    4. Mass evacuations in Pakistan’s flooded Punjab hit 300,000 in 48 hours  Al Jazeera
    5. Pakistan: Monsoon Floods 2025 Flash Update #4 (As of 30 August 2025)  ReliefWeb

    Continue Reading

  • How to decide between Linux and MacOS – if you’re ready to ditch Windows

    How to decide between Linux and MacOS – if you’re ready to ditch Windows

    mrgao/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    Follow ZDNET: Add us as a preferred source on Google.

    ZDNET’s key takeaways

    • The choice between Linux and MacOS isn’t hard.
    • If you can answer these questions, you’ll know which to choose.
    • Both are outstanding choices and will serve you well.

    I use both Linux and MacOS. The former is used for everyday tasks, and the latter for video editing and mobile usage (please, someone, create a Linux laptop that is as reliable and similar to a MacBook). 

    Also: New to Linux? 5 desktop environments I recommend you try first – and why

    Unfortunately, not everyone can use both, and with Windows 10 support ending soon, you might find yourself choosing between Linux and MacOS.

    Let me help you with that choice.

    1. Do you want an ecosystem or a stable OS?

    One of the biggest differences between MacOS and all other operating systems is that it is more of an ecosystem than an isolated OS. What Linux offers is remarkable stability. There are some Linux distributions (such as Debian) that are considered the most stable operating systems on the planet. 

    Also: This new Linux desktop is almost a dead ringer for OS X

    But Linux doesn’t enjoy a similar ecosystem to that of MacOS. So, if you want to easily connect your machines (without having to configure anything) or if you want easy integration with a cloud service, MacOS is right for you. If, on the other hand, you want a rock-solid OS that won’t let you down, Linux is what you want.

    2. Is freedom of choice important?

    MacOS is pretty much locked down. What you get on your MacBook or your iMac is exactly what Apple wants. MacOS also forces you into the Apple way, and if you want to venture away from that, good luck. 

    Also: This lightweight Linux distro makes switching from Windows 10 easy

    Linux is all about choice, and there’s zero vendor lock-down to deal with. If you want a company to tell you how to use your computer, use MacOS. If you want to be the one who makes those decisions, use Linux.

    3. Is there a proprietary app you depend on?

    Although Linux makes it possible (and even easy) to use non-Linux apps, there are some proprietary applications (such as Photoshop) that simply cannot run on Linux. If there’s a particular app you depend on, it’s important that you first find out if there’s a Linux port available. If not, chances are good there’s a MacOS version. 

    If you know there are proprietary apps you must use that are not available on Linux, the choice is obvious. If those proprietary apps can be installed with Wine, Steam, or the new Winboat, you can choose between them. If not, MacOS is the way to go.

    4. Are you on a budget?

    This one should be obvious. Apple hardware can be pretty pricey, especially compared to off-the-shelf hardware that can run Linux. If you are on a budget, Linux is the right choice. If money is not an issue, Apple sells some of the best hardware on the market. 

    Also: Should you ever pay for Linux? 5 times I would – and why

    Linux is a free operating system and can run on just about any kind of hardware (even made by Apple). Linux is the most budget-friendly operating system available.

    5. Do you prefer a company for tech support or community-driven help?

    Apple Care is available for anyone who purchases a MacBook or iMac for roughly $20/month. That support will go a long way to help you through any issue you might have. 

    Linux, on the other hand, depends on community-driven support, which is free. If you don’t mind searching forums, mailing lists, and even social media groups for help, Linux is your OS. If you prefer to have a company backing your support, go with MacOS.

    6. Do you want to select your hardware?

    Have you ever tried to upgrade a MacBook or iMac? It’s not easy. If you have specific hardware needs or prefer to choose specific GPUs, RAM, or motherboards, Linux is your only choice. 

    Also: You can try Linux without ditching Windows first – here’s how

    You cannot build a Mac from the ground up, but you can with Linux. If you want to easily upgrade your machine, go with Linux. If you don’t care about selecting specific hardware or an easy path to upgrade, go with MacOS.

    7. Have an iPhone?

    Simple. If you use an iPhone, your best choice is MacOS. That doesn’t mean you can’t connect an iPhone to Linux (thank you, KDE Connect), but you don’t get nearly the integration you enjoy between MacOS and iOS. If you use Android, go with Linux. If iOS is your mobile OS of choice, stick with MacOS.


    Continue Reading

  • Trump asks Supreme Court to save his emergency tariffs

    Trump asks Supreme Court to save his emergency tariffs

    President Donald Trump on Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to step into the fray over his emergency tariffs, putting the centerpiece of his economic agenda in the hands of the justices who have mostly backed his sweeping view of executive power, according to a copy of the appeal obtained by CNN.

    Trump is pressing the justices to overturn a lower court ruling that found his administration acted unlawfully by imposing many of his sweeping import taxes, and he has framed the case in existential terms.

    “The stock market needs the tariffs, they want the tariffs,” Trump said Tuesday in the Oval Office, asserting that an adverse decision would mean “devastation for our country.”

    The case once again raises fundamental questions for the court about a president’s power to act unilaterally and without explicit authority from Congress. Trump’s critics note that the last president to raise tariffs under similar circumstances was Richard Nixon, and Congress later pared back the president’s power.

    “To the president and his most senior advisors, these tariffs thus present a stark choice: With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation,” according to the appeal.

    The appeal follows a divided decision Friday from a federal appeals court in Washington that found Trump overstepped his authority by relying on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose the tariffs. The authority to impose taxes, including tariffs, is “a core congressional power” that the Constitution left to the legislative branch, the appeals court ruled.

    Trump has relied on the 1970s-era emergency law, known as IEEPA, to reshape not just global trade, but also alliances with allies and adversaries. If some of the powers he’s claimed to set those tariffs are permanently blocked, the administration would need to find other levers to accomplish its ambitious foreign policy goals.

    At the center of the case are the “Liberation Day” tariffs Trump announced in April and tariffs placed this year against China, Mexico and Canada that were designed to combat fentanyl entering the United States. A wine importer, VOS Selections, and other small businesses sued, along with a dozen states, arguing Trump had exceeded his authority.

    “Both federal courts that considered the issue agreed that IEEPA does not give the president unchecked tariff authority,” said Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel and director of litigation for Liberty Justice Center, which is representing the plaintiffs in the case. “These unlawful tariffs are inflicting serious harm on small businesses and jeopardizing their survival. We hope for a prompt resolution of this case for our clients.”

    The Trump administration has requested an unusually speedy review by the Supreme Court, asking that the justices decide whether to hear the case by September 10 and tee up arguments for early November. The plaintiffs in the case have agreed to that rapid timeline.

    A federal court in New York agreed in late May and sided with the companies and states. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld that decision. However, the appeals court let the tariffs stand temporarily while the litigation continues.

    The lower court’s decision, the Trump administration argued to the Supreme Court, “would, in the president’s view, unilaterally disarm the United States and allow other nations to hold America’s economy hostage to their retaliatory trade policies.”

    While the bulk of the tariffs Trump imposed during his second term, which cited emergency economic powers, could ultimately be rendered illegal, the president has plenty of other levers he can pull to continue pushing his tariff-heavy agenda.

    That’s because Trump hasn’t just been using IEEPA to levy tariffs. All the sectoral tariffs Trump has imposed during his second term, most recently a 50% tariff on derivatives of steel and aluminum, such as spray deodorants and baby strollers, have used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

    The Section 232 authority gives the president the authority to impose higher tariffs on national security grounds. But it can only be used to target specific sectors and requires an investigation to be launched before tariffs can be imposed.

    Similarly, there are several other methods Trump can use to impose tariffs that aren’t currently facing legal challenges. However, they too have catches that could make it harder for him to dangle and then withdraw duties quickly, as he has repeatedly done since retaking power in January.

    The ongoing case is not the first to reach the Supreme Court dealing with Trump’s emergency tariffs. Two American family-owned toy companies filed a similar appeal in June. The court is scheduled to meet behind closed doors later this month to consider whether to hear arguments in that case.

    The legal fight over the tariffs is likely to implicate a theory that conservative groups repeatedly used successfully at the Supreme Court in recent years to block former President Joe Biden’s agenda, including his effort to forgive student loans. The court repeatedly relied on the “major questions doctrine” to trim the power of the White House and federal agencies to act without congressional approval.

    The federal law at issue allows a president to “regulate … importation” during emergencies, but the statute does not specifically address tariffs.

    The law “bestows significant authority on the president to undertake a number of actions in response to a declared national emergency,” the appeals court wrote in its decision. “But none of these actions explicitly include the power to impose tariffs, duties, or the like, or the power to tax.”

    Trade agreements and tariff revenue at stake

    Record levels of tariff revenue have been flowing into the US Treasury Department’s general account since Trump ramped up in the spring. Over the course of the 2025 fiscal year, more than $210 billion in tariff revenue stemmed from the IEEPA-related tariffs, according to data from US Customs and Border Protection.

    If the Supreme Court doesn’t hear the Trump administration’s appeal or sides with the lower courts, American importers could be due refunds.

    Trump acknowledged that potential consequence earlier this week, as well as the impact the case outcome could have on a handful of recent trade agreements that are still being worked out.

    “Numerous of the trade deals that I made were because of tariffs. It gives you a great negotiating ability,” Trump said Tuesday.

    But those agreements could quickly fall apart because Trump has cited IEEPA in imposing tariffs on other trading partners’ goods. It’s also possible other trading partners could leverage Trump’s weakened ability to impose tariffs on their exports by negotiating more favorable terms to trade agreements.

    This story has been updated with additional details.


    Continue Reading

  • Colorectal cancer identified by its unique microbial fingerprint

    Colorectal cancer identified by its unique microbial fingerprint

    Colorectal cancer is unique in having its own microbial ‘fingerprint’ – according to new research from the University of East Anglia.

    Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common cancer in the UK and the second deadliest.

    The research could help doctors better understand how this cancer develops, how aggressive it might be, and even how a patient might respond to treatment.

    The team studied whole genome sequencing (WGS) data from more than 9,000 cancer patients.

    The analysis, published today, also challenges scientific claims that all cancers are associated with a unique microbial fingerprint.

    This study changes how we think about the role of microbes in cancer.”


    Dr. Abraham Gihawi, lead researcher from UEA’s Norwich Medical School

    How the research happened

    The research team studied Genomics England DNA sequence information from 11,735 cancer samples representing 22 different types of cancer.

    “When you collect cancer DNA sequences, you also gain information from the DNA of microbes contained within the samples,” said Dr. Gihawi. 

    “We wanted to determine the precise DNA composition of microbes present in each sample. So, we developed computer programs to remove human DNA and analyse the remaining microbe DNA.

    “We then correlated this information with clinical data from the patients about their cancer type and clinical outcome.

    “What we found challenges previous claims that each cancer type has a distinct microbiological signature or fingerprint.

    “But importantly, as whole genome sequencing becomes more common in hospitals, we show that looking at the microbes in tumor samples could become a powerful tool for improving cancer care at little extra cost.

    A breakthrough for colorectal and oral cancers

    “Our results show that only colorectal tumors possess distinctly identifiable microbial communities.

    “We found that these microbial signatures were so specific that they could accurately distinguish colorectal tumors from other tumors. We hope that this could help doctors diagnose the disease more precisely and researchers to study the microbes found in colorectal cancer.”

    The study also uncovered promising clinical applications.

    For example, in oral cancers, the study found that certain viruses like HPV (human papillomavirus) could be detected accurately compared with current medical tests.

    The team also found rare but dangerous viruses, such as Human T-Lymphotropic Virus-1 (HTLV-1), which can be dormant infections capable of causing cancer.

    Better survival rates

    “We found that certain types of bacteria were associated with poorer survival rates in some cases of sarcoma. This might lead to additional research and treatment options for these types of cancer,” said Dr. Gihawi.

    “One of the most exciting things we found was that in some sarcoma cases, the presence of specific bacteria was linked to better survival rates.

    “This suggests that microbes might one day help doctors predict how well a patient will respond to treatment and open up new approaches to treatment,” he added.

    An indispensable tool

    Prof Daniel Brewer, from UEA’s Norwich Medical School, said: “This study highlights the growing clinical value of whole genome sequencing in identifying pathogenic organisms such as HTLV-1 and papillomavirus, which may otherwise go undetected.

    “By revealing these hidden infections and providing insight into cancer prognosis – particularly in sarcomas – it demonstrates how genomic analysis is becoming an indispensable tool in precision medicine.

    “The findings also suggest that oral cancer, in some cases, may be a close diagnostic consideration, further emphasizing the importance of comprehensive genomic profiling in clinical decision-making.”

    This research was led by UEA in collaboration with the University of Leeds, the Quadram Institute, Oxford Nanopore Technologies, the Institute of Cancer Research, London, the University of Manchester, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, the University of Athens (Greece) the University of Liverpool, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, University College London, the University of Southampton, the University of North Carolina (US) and the Earlham Institute.

    This work was funded by the Big C Cancer Charity and Prostate Cancer UK, with further support from The Bob Champion Cancer Trust, The Alan Boswell Group, Masonic Charitable Foundation Successor to the Grand Charity, Movember, Prostate Cancer Research, the King Family, the Hargrave Foundation, NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre and Sarcoma UK.

    ‘Microbial Clues in Cancer: New Study Challenges Old Assumptions and Reveals Clinical Potential’ is published in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

    Source:

    University of East Anglia

    Continue Reading

  • Pakistan sends 105 tonnes of relief goods to Afghanistan

    Pakistan sends 105 tonnes of relief goods to Afghanistan

    Pakistan on Wednesday dispatched 105 tonnes of humanitarian relief to Afghanistan following a telephone call between Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and Taliban Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi.

    The consignment includes food, medicines, tents, blankets and bubble mats to support victims of the recent earthquakes, according to the government.

    “We extend our deepest condolences and prayers for the victims and wish a speedy recovery to the injured,” Dar said in a statement, adding that “Pakistan stands in solidarity with the brotherly people of Afghanistan in this difficult time.”

    A magnitude-6.0 earthquake hit the Afghanistan on Sunday, leaving residents huddled in the open air for fear of powerful aftershocks and desperately trying to pull people from under flattened buildings.

    The earthquake killed more than 1,400 people and injured over 3,300, Taliban authorities said, making it one of the deadliest in decades to hit the impoverished country. The vast majority of the casualties were in Kunar province, with a dozen dead and hundreds hurt in nearby Nangarhar and Laghman provinces.

    In Kunar’s Nurgal district, victims remained trapped under the rubble and were difficult to rescue, local official Ijaz Ulhaq Yaad told AFP on Wednesday.

    “There are some villages which have still not received aid,” he said. Landslides caused by the earthquake stymied access to already isolated villages. The non-governmental group Save the Children said one of their aid teams “had to walk for 20 kilometres (12 miles) to reach villages cut off by rock falls, carrying medical equipment on their backs with the help of community members”.

    The World Health Organization warned the number of casualties from the earthquake was expected to rise, “as many remain trapped in destroyed buildings”.

    In two days, the Taliban government’s defence ministry said it organised 155 helicopter flights to evacuate some 2,000 injured and their relatives to regional hospitals.

    In the Mazar Dara village of Kunar, a small mobile clinic was deployed to provide emergency care to the injured, but no tents were set up to shelter survivors, an AFP correspondent said.

    On Tuesday, a defence ministry commission said it had instructed “the relevant institutions to take measures in all areas to normalise the lives of the earthquake victims”, without providing further details on the plans to do so.

    Deputy government spokesman Hamdullah Fitrat said a camp had been set up in Khas Kunar district to coordinate emergency aid, while two other centres were opened near the epicentre “to oversee the transfer of the injured, the burial of the dead, and the rescue of survivors”.

    According to the United Nations, hundreds of thousands of people could be affected by the disaster. Multiple countries have pledged assistance but NGOs and the UN have voiced alarm that funding shortfalls after massive aid cuts threaten the response in one of the poorest countries in the world.


    Continue Reading