Windows 11 remains the driver of growth in PCs, not AISAN FRANCISCO , Dec. 26, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- AusperBio Therapeutics, Inc . and Ausper Biopharma Co., Ltd . (collectively AusperBio ), a privately held clinical-stage biotechnology company dedicated to advancing targeted oligonucleotide therapies to achieve a functional cure for chronic hepatitis B ( CHB ), today announced the successful completion of a USD 73 million Series B financing. The round was led by HanKang Capital , with participation from Sherpa Capital , CDH Investments , and a strategic investor, as well as continued participation from existing investors Qiming Venture Partners , InnoPinnacle Fund , and YuanBio Venture Capital . This financing followed the company's Series A round completed in July this year, demonstrating continued investor confidence in its proprietary platform and strategic direction. The proceeds will fund the continued Phase 2 development of AHB-137 , AusperBio's lead investigational therapy, supporting both clinical studies in China and global trials, as well as the development of commercial-scale manufacturing processes. The funding will also facilitate the expansion of the company's therapeutic pipeline and operational capabilities to drive sustained growth. Dr. Guofeng Cheng , co-founder and CEO of AusperBio, stated, " We are honored by our investors' confidence and support. This milestone financing recognizes our scientific and clinical accomplishments to date and enables us to accelerate our clinical programs and move closer to delivering a functional cure for CHB patients in need." Dr. Chris Yang , co-founder and CSO, added, "AHB-137 continues to attract attention from the scientific and clinical communities, particularly after the late-breaking oral presentation at the recent AASLD conference. The promising clinical data further validates our Med-OligoTM platform, strengthening our development of groundbreaking targeted oligonucleotide therapies for CHB and other serious chronic diseases." AusperBio is committed to delivering patient-centered innovations, aiming to alleviate the global health burden of CHB and transform treatment paradigms for this serious chronic disease. About AHB-137 AHB-137, a novel unconjugated antisense oligonucleotide ( ASO ) developed within AusperBio's proprietary Med-OligoTM ASO technology platform, was designed to treat chronic hepatitis B for a functional cure. Its compelling preclinical and Phase 1 clinical data were highlighted at the 2023 EASL conference and the 2024 EASL conference, respectively. Interim Phase 2a data was presented in a late-breaking oral session at the 2024 AASLD. This novel dual-mechanism ASO has completed its global Phase 1b trial and is now undergoing multiple Phase 2 trials in China . With its global development strategy, AHB-137 is advancing rapidly toward the goal of an HBV cure. About AusperBio. AusperBio is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with operations in the USA and China , dedicated to advancing oligonucleotide and targeted delivery technologies for transformative therapies, with an initial focus on curing chronic hepatitis B infection. The company has developed a proprietary Med-OligoTM ASO platform which has been shown to substantially enhance the current ASO therapeutics, through novel insights into ASO design. Combining with efficient targeted delivery conjugation technologies, the modular Med-OligoTM Platform empowers ASO therapeutics to treat a broad range of diseases, including viral infections, metabolic conditions, genetic disorders, and immune diseases. For further information, please contact: Media Contact Email: info@ausperbio.com Investor Relations Contact: Tel: 650-888-1756 (US) Email: growth@ausperbio.com View original content to download multimedia: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ausperbio-secures-73-million-in-series-b-financing-to-advance-functional-cure-for-chronic-hepatitis-b-302339451.html SOURCE AusperBio Therapeutics Inc.It is an ambitious social experiment of our moment in history — one that experts say could accomplish something that parents, schools and other governments have attempted with varying degrees of success: keeping kids . Australia's new law, approved by its Parliament last week, is an attempt to swim against many tides of modern life — formidable forces like technology, marketing, globalization and, of course, the iron will of a teenager. And like efforts of the past to protect kids from things that parents believe they're not ready for, the nation's move is both ambitious and not exactly simple, particularly in a world where young people are often shaped, defined and judged by the online company they keep. The ban won't go into effect for another year. But how will Australia be able to enforce it? That's not clear, nor will it be easy. TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram have become so ingrained in young people's lives that going cold turkey will be difficult. Other questions loom. Does the ban limit kids' free expression and — especially for those in vulnerable groups — isolate them and curtail their opportunity to connect with members of their community? And how will social sites verify people's ages, anyway? Can't kids just get around such technicalities, as they so often do? This is, after all, the 21st century — an era when social media is the primary communications tool for most of those born in the past 25 years who, in a fragmented world, seek the common cultures of trends, music and memes. What happens when big swaths of that fall away? Is Australia's initiative a good, long-time-coming development that will protect the vulnerable, or could it become a well-meaning experiment with unintended consequences? The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts. “It’s clear that social media companies have to be held accountable, which is what Australia is trying to do,” said Jim Steyer, president and CEO of the nonprofit Common Sense Media. Leaders and parents in countries around the world are watching Australia’s policy closely as many seek to protect young kids from the internet's dangerous corners — and, not incidentally, from each other. Most nations have taken different routes, from parental consent requirements to minimum age limits. Many child safety experts, parents and even teens who have waited to get on social media consider Australia's move a positive step. They say there’s ample reason to ensure that children wait. “What’s most important for kids, just like adults, is real human connection. Less time alone on the screen means more time to connect, not less," said Julie Scelfo, the founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction, or MAMA, a grassroots group of parents aimed at combatting the harms of social media to children. “I’m confident we can support our kids in interacting in any number of ways aside from sharing the latest meme.” The harms to children from social media have been well documented in the two decades since Facebook’s launch ushered in a new era in how the world communicates. Kids who spend more time on social media, especially as tweens or young teenagers, are more likely to experience depression and anxiety, according to — though it is not yet clear if there is a causal relationship. What's more, many are exposed to content that is not appropriate for their age, including pornography and violence, as well as . They also face bullying, sexual harassment and unwanted advances from their peers as well as adult strangers. Because their brains are not fully developed, teenagers, especially younger ones the law is focused on, are also more affected by social comparisons than adults, so even happy posts from friends can send them into a negative spiral. Many major initiatives, particularly those aimed at social engineering, can produce side effects — often unintended. Could that happen here? What, if anything, do kids stand to lose by separating kids and the networks in which they participate? Paul Taske, associate director of litigation at the tech lobbying group NetChoice, says he considers the ban “one of the most extreme violations of free speech on the world stage today" even as he expressed relief that the First Amendment prevents such law in the United States "These restrictions would create a massive cultural shift,” Taske said. “Not only is the Australian government preventing young people from engaging with issues they’re passionate about, but they’re also doing so even if their parents are ok with them using digital services," he said. "Parents know their children and their needs the best, and they should be making these decisions for their families — not big government. That kind of forcible control over families inevitably will have downstream cultural impacts.” David Inserra, a fellow for Free Expression and Technology, Cato Institute, called the bill “about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike” in a . While Australia's law doesn't require “hard verification” such as an uploaded ID, he said, it calls for effective “age assurance.” He said no verification system can ensure accuracy while also protecting privacy and not impacting adults in the process. Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about the law's effect on online anonymity, a cornerstone of online communications — and something that can protect teens on social platforms. “Whether it be religious minorities and dissidents, LGBTQ youth, those in abusive situations, whistleblowers, or countless other speakers in tricky situations, anonymous speech is a critical tool to safely challenge authority and express controversial opinions,” Inserra said. A spot check of kids at one mall in the Australian city of Brisbane on Wednesday didn't turn up a great deal of worry, though. “Social media is still important because you get to talk to people, but I think it’s still good that they’re like limiting it,” said Swan Son, a 13-year-old student at Brisbane State High School. She said she has had limited exposure to social media and wouldn’t really miss it for a couple of years. Her parents already enforce a daily one-hour limit. And as for her friends? “I see them at school every day, so I think I’ll be fine.” Conor Negric, 16, said he felt he’d dodged a bullet because of his age. Still, he considers the law reasonable. “I think 16 is fine. Some kids, I know some kids like 10 who’re on Instagram, Snapchat. I only got Instagram when I was 14." His mom, Sive Negric, who has two teenage sons, said she was happy for her boys to avoid exposure to social media too early: “That aspect of the internet, it’s a bit `meanland.'" Parents in earlier this year organized on platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram to promise not to buy smartphones for children younger than 12 or 13. This approach costs almost no money and requires no government enforcement. In the United States, some parents are either informally or as part of an organized campaign such as Wait Until 8th, a group that helps parents delay kids' access to social media and phones. This fall, Norway announced plans to ban kids under 15 from using social media, while a smartphone ban for kids under 15 in a limited number of schools — a policy that could be rolled out nationwide if successful. U.S. lawmakers have held multiple congressional hearings — — on child online safety. Still, the last federal law aimed at protecting children online was enacted in 1998, six years before Facebook’s founding. In July, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation , pushing forward with what would be the first major effort by Congress in decades to hold tech companies more accountable. But the has since stalled in the House. While several states have passed laws requiring age verification, those are stuck in court. Utah became to pass laws regulating children’s social media use in 2023. In September, a against the law, which would have required social media companies to verify the ages of users, apply privacy settings and limit some features. NetChoice has also obtained injunctions temporarily halting similar laws in several other states. And last May, said there is insufficient evidence to show social media is safe for kids. He urged policymakers to treat social media like car seats, baby formula, medication and other products children use. “Why should social media products be any different? Scelfo said. “Parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children safe online, because the problems are baked into the design of the products.”Ingo Rademacher is trying to take ABC back to court over his 2021 firing from General Hospital , and he’s bringing former co-star Steve Burton into it. Rademacher, who played Jasper “Jax” Jacks on the daytime drama for 25 years on and off, was fired in 2021 when he refused to follow the show’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. He sued the soap later that year claiming that he was fired because of his political views and not just the mandate. “I am entitled to a religious exemption against mandatory vaccination for COVID-19 on the basis of my deeply and sincerely held moral belief that my body is endowed by my creator with natural processes to protect me and that its natural integrity cannot ethically be violated by the administration of artificially created copies of genetic material, foreign to nature and experimental,” the actor wrote in an e-mail to Disney HR before his firing, according to Variety . Rademacher lost the initial suit in 2023 when a judge found that because General Hospital also fired Burton, who plays Jason Morgan in the series, this proved the decision was about the health mandate. Rademacher is resurrecting the suit now because Burton was rehired on the series in January 2024. Jason made his official reappearance in March of that year. In Radaemacher’s motion for a new trial, obtained by InTouch , his lawyer argues, “ABC’s re-hiring of Mr. Burton undermines its argument that Ingo’s political beliefs did not play any role in its decision to fire him—to ‘recast’ his role—in 2021...Judge Goorvitch credited ABC’s evidence that the political animus that the General Hospital producers showed toward Ingo was irrelevant because, like other people, including GH actor Steve Burton, it simply could not accommodate Ingo’s objection to COVID-19 vaccination and fired him only for that reason. “That argument was always specious. But it carries even less weight now, given the newly discovered evidence that ABC re-hired [Steve] for General Hospital but did not re-hire Ingo,” his lawyer continued. The documents also claim that GH will never rehire Rademacher because of his outspoken support for Donald Trump during the 2020 election. He hopes to get a new trial and a jury to evaluate his wrongful termination claim. A judgment on the motion is expected in the new year. Steve Burton Addresses Kelly Monaco’s ‘General Hospital’ Exit Rademacher has opened up about how being let go from the show has affected him, sharing on Instagram in November 2023 that he’s been struggling with mental health issues since leaving the series. “To be completely honest, for the first time in my life, I’ve been faced with some mental health struggles. That’s not something I’ve ever had to face before. I’m a lot better now, but the first year was rough,” he said at the time . “On top of that, I really identified as my character on General Hospital for decades, and I could’ve been there and would’ve been there for many more decades to come,” he continued. “This isn’t a boo-hoo me post, it’s just honest. It’s where I’m at.” More Headlines: The 6 Saddest Scenes in ‘Squid Game’ Season 2 ‘Sister Wives’ Star Meri Brown Debuts ‘Mystery Man’ 2 Years After Kody Brown Split ‘General Hospital’ Alum Ingo Rademacher Reignites Legal Battle With ABC After Steve Burton’s Return When Does ‘Georgie & Mandy’s First Marriage’ Return? Everything We Know About What’s Next ‘Price Is Right’: TikTok Star Reveals Shocks Fans With Major Win — See Her Fiancé’s Hilarious Reaction
gba 777 online casino real money philippines
。
Australia's social media ban for under-16s to become law
Eddie Precision Shines at bauma CHINA 2024Former Deputy CM of Delhi Manish Sisodia on Sunday unveiled the education manifesto for the Jangpura constituency. Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader made several promises through the manifesto ahead of the upcoming Delhi elections 2025. Sisodia is campaigning in the Jangpura constituency after the party changed his seat from Patparganj to Jangpura for the coming polls. Delhi assembly elections are scheduled to be held in February 2025. Manish Sisodia stands by his 'quality education' promise in these polls as well. The education manifesto launched exclusively for his constituency outlines a comprehensive plan to enhance education infrastructure, improve opportunities for the students and involve the parents and educators in shaping the children's future. Sisodia said, "Quality education for children is the key to the progress of any family. We all aspire our children to grow up to be successful and respected individuals. To achieve this, access to quality education is crucial." The Jangpura education manifesto emphasises building building two fully equipped new schools in Sarai Kale Khan and Hazrat Nizamuddin along with modernising facilities in the existing schools in Feroz Shah Kotla and Hari Nagar Ashram. Adequate teaching staff, security measures and cleanliness will be ensured across all schools along with traffic coordination to facilitate smooth commutes are also a part of Sisodia's manifesto. The manifesto also outlines a plan to link Delhi government schools with local municipal schools and Anganwadis, ensuring education opportunities for children aged 3 to 18. The teachers and principals will be provided with modern training opportunities, both in India and abroad, and the DIET Daryaganj will be transformed into a state-of-the-art training center. "Post-school activities, including arts, sports and self-defense training for girls, aim to promote holistic development. The ITI Hazrat Nizamuddin will offer advanced courses with cutting-edge technology to create more job opportunities," manifesto reads. In the February-scheduled assembly polls, AAP changed its line-up and Sisodia's shift is a result of this decision by the party. Patparganj MLA Manish Sisodia was shifted to Jangpura while popular UPSC coaching teacher and motivational speaker Avadh Ojha, who joined the AAP recently, was fielded from Patparganj. Sisodia won from Patparganj in the past three elections – 2013, 2015 and 2020. However, in 2020 Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Ravinder Singh Negi gave him a tough competition. Sisodia won but with a nominal margin of 3200 votes. Sisodia won the seat by about 28,700 votes in 2015 and by 11,500 votes in 2013.
The Marketing Alliance Announces Financial Results for Quarter Ended September 30, 2024Ripple’s XRP Empowers Advanced AI Solutions on Atua AI (TUA)’s Enterprise Platform
Martinez parades goalkeeper awards and justifies them with wonder save for Villa in Champions LeagueFranklin Resources Inc. Acquires 11,289 Shares of Kayne Anderson BDC, Inc. (NYSE:KBDC)
AusperBio Secures $73 Million in Series B Financing to Advance Functional Cure for Chronic Hepatitis BBy JOSH BOAK WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump loved to use tariffs on foreign goods during his first presidency. But their impact was barely noticeable in the overall economy, even if their aftershocks were clear in specific industries. The data show they never fully delivered on his promised factory jobs. Nor did they provoke the avalanche of inflation that critics feared. This time, though, his tariff threats might be different . The president-elect is talking about going much bigger — on a potential scale that creates more uncertainty about whether he’ll do what he says and what the consequences could be. “There’s going to be a lot more tariffs, I mean, he’s pretty clear,” said Michael Stumo, the CEO of Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that has supported import taxes to help domestic manufacturing. The president-elect posted on social media Monday that on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all goods imported from Mexico and Canada until those countries satisfactorily stop illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the United States. Those tariffs could essentially blow up the North American trade pact that Trump’s team negotiated during his initial term. Chinese imports would face additional tariffs of 10% until Beijing cracks down on the production of materials used in making fentanyl, Trump posted. Business groups were quick to warn about rapidly escalating inflation , while Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she would counter the move with tariffs on U.S. products. House Democrats put together legislation to strip a president’s ability to unilaterally apply tariffs this drastic, warning that they would likely lead to higher prices for autos, shoes, housing and groceries. Sheinbaum said Wednesday that her administration is already working up a list of possible retaliatory tariffs “if the situation comes to that.” “The economy department is preparing it,” Sheinbaum said. “If there are tariffs, Mexico would increase tariffs, it is a technical task about what would also benefit Mexico,” she said, suggesting her country would impose targeted import duties on U.S. goods in sensitive areas. House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for a president to impose tariffs due to claims of a national emergency, a largely symbolic action given Republicans’ coming control of both the House and Senate. “This legislation would enable Congress to limit this sweeping emergency authority and put in place the necessary Congressional oversight before any president – Democrat or Republican – could indiscriminately raise costs on the American people through tariffs,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash. But for Trump, tariffs are now a tested tool that seems less politically controversial even if the mandate he received in November’s election largely involved restraining inflation. The tariffs he imposed on China in his first term were continued by President Joe Biden, a Democrat who even expanded tariffs and restrictions on the world’s second largest economy. Biden administration officials looked at removing Trump’s tariffs in order to bring down inflationary pressures, only to find they were unlikely to help significantly. Tariffs were “so new and unique that it freaked everybody out in 2017,” said Stumo, but they were ultimately somewhat modest. Trump imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines at the start of 2018, moves that might have pushed up prices in those sectors even though they also overlapped with plans to open washing machine plants in Tennessee and South Carolina. His administration also levied tariffs on steel and aluminum, including against allies. He then increased tariffs on China, leading to a trade conflict and a limited 2020 agreement that failed to produce the promised Chinese purchases of U.S. goods. Still, the dispute changed relations with China as more U.S. companies looked for alternative suppliers in other countries. Economic research also found the United States may have sacrificed some of its “soft power” as the Chinese population began to watch fewer American movies. The Federal Reserve kept inflation roughly on target, but factory construction spending never jumped in a way that suggested a lasting gain in manufacturing jobs. Separate economic research found the tariff war with China did nothing economically for the communities hurt by offshoring, but it did help Trump and Republicans in those communities politically. When Trump first became president in 2017, the federal government collected $34.6 billion in customs, duties and fees. That sum more than doubled under Trump to $70.8 billion in 2019, according to Office of Management and Budget records. While that sum might seem meaningful, it was relatively small compared to the overall economy. America’s gross domestic product is now $29.3 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The total tariffs collected in the United States would equal less than 0.3% of GDP. The new tariffs being floated by Trump now are dramatically larger and there could be far more significant impacts. If Mexico, Canada, and China faced the additional tariffs proposed by Trump on all goods imported to the United States, that could be roughly equal to $266 billion in tax collections, a number that does not assume any disruptions in trade or retaliatory moves by other countries. The cost of those taxes would likely be borne by U.S. families, importers and domestic and foreign companies in the form of higher prices or lower profits. Former Biden administration officials said they worried that companies could piggyback on Trump’s tariffs — if they’re imposed — as a rationale to raise their prices, just as many companies after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 boosted food and energy costs and gave several major companies the space to raise prices, according to their own earnings calls with investors. But what Trump didn’t really spell out is what might cause him to back down on tariffs and declare a victory. What he is creating instead with his tariff threats is a sense of uncertainty as companies and countries await the details to figure out what all of this could mean. “We know the key economic policy priorities of the incoming Trump administration, but we don’t know how or when they will be addressed,” said Greg Daco, chief U.S. economist at EY-Parthenon. AP writer Mark Stevenson contributed to this report from Mexico City.