US approves AstraZeneca, Daiichi's treatment for lung cancer
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Three charts that show you're paying too much for gold
Investors are piling into gold as market volatility drives the price higher. They may, however, be overpaying. New analysis shows the precious metal has never been so expensive. Unlike other investments, gold produces no income, and its industrial uses are limited, which makes it difficult to assess its 'fair value'. But Russ Mould, of stockbroker AJ Bell, said one crude way of doing so is to measure how much metal a pay packet can buy. He explains: 'If bullion moves beyond the reach of the worker, that could at least crimp jewellery demand and one source of incremental buying.' By this measure, gold is at its most expensive level on record. Today, a blue collar worker in the US would have to work for 105 hours to buy one ounce of gold, according to AJ Bell's analysis of US Federal Reserve data. This compares to just 12 hours in the early 1970s, before president Richard Nixon broke up the Bretton Woods agreement that pegged the US dollar to the precious metal. Even when the price of gold spiked in the 1980s, one ounce peaked at just under 99 hours of earnings. Mr Mould said: 'The current score of 105 hours could be seen as ominous for gold affordability, since the best cure for high prices is high prices – they stoke supply, depress demand, prompt searches for substitutes, or all three.' Gold is also far more expensive compared to other commodities than it has been in the past. Since 1970, one ounce of gold has bought an average of 17 to 18 barrels of oil, but today it would buy 49 barrels, while one ounce of gold would buy 91 ounces of silver today, up from an average of 60. Since 1976, gold and platinum prices have been equally matched. But today, one ounce of gold buys 2.4 ounces of platinum, despite a recent surge in the price of platinum. Gold is a go-to asset during times of economic turmoil thanks to its reputation as a store of value. The price hit a record high of over £2,500 per Troy ounce in April, as investors sought safe havens from market volatility. Investors are usually advised against buying when prices are at the top, but in the case of gold, it seems newcomers have been unable to resist. In the second quarter of the year, UK buyers of the precious metal outnumbered sellers by the widest margin in four years, according to precious metals marketplace, BullionVault. Adrian Ash, of BullionVault, said: 'After taking profit on this year's earlier surge in prices, UK investors are now buying into gold's bull market. 'They're joining central banks and Asian wealth managers in building their holdings as the geopolitical shock of Trump's return to the White House persists and the UK's economic gloom worsens under Labour.' Some experts believe gold can only rise further because of geopolitical instability and inflationary pressures, but others are more apprehensive. Jock Henderson, investment analyst at Capital Gearing Asset Management, said the firm was 'cautious' about being overly exposed at current prices. The investment trust Capital Gearing has only 1pc in gold, despite its defensive positioning. Mr Henderson said: 'While gold investors have been rewarded for holding gold, there are complicated underlying dynamics which make its fundamental value hard to determine.' Advisers generally recommend that investors should not hold more than 10pc in gold. Over time, the allocations in your portfolio typically drift in favour of the highest-performing asset, so some investors may need to trim their gold exposure in order to reduce volatility across their investments.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Scientists pinpoint reason why more boys than girls have autism and ADHD
It's a question that has long stumped researchers. Now, new light has been shed on one reason why three times more boys than girls are diagnosed with autism and ADHD. Researchers from the University of Rochester have suggested that boys may be more vulnerable to environmental stressors such as toxic 'forever chemicals' as their brain develops. These chemicals are believed to warp brain signals, causing long-term behavioral changes in boys, such as social anxiety, difficulty sitting still and finding it hard to follow instructions. Found in everything from plastic bottles, clothing and even drinking water, these chemicals can take thousands of years to degrade and have been linked to cancer, infertility and birth defects. In the current study, the scientists pinpointed a specific 'forever chemical' known as PFHxA, which is used in paper food packaging and stain-resistant fabrics. Researchers say it could cause anxiety-like behaviours seen in autism and ADHD, but oddly, mostly in boys. They conducted a study that involved exposing baby mice to the toxin via their mother's milk. The scientists found that the male baby mice showed alarming developmental changes including a decrease in activity levels, increased anxiety and memory problems. Significantly, researchers did not observe the same behaviour changes in the female baby mice. Even years after the mice had first been exposed to the chemical, they still showed behavioral patterns associated with the disorders, suggesting forever chemical exposure could have long-lasting effects on the brain. Professor Elizabeth Plunk, first author of the study and expert in environmental medicine desribed the findings as 'concerning'. Writing in the European Journal of Neuroscience, researchers said: 'Although these effects were mild, finding behavioral effects only in males was reminiscent of many neurodevelopmental disorders that are male-biased.' 'Understanding the impact of PFHxA on the developing brain is critical when proposing regulations around this chemical,' Prof Plunk added. The researchers hope that this will be the first of many studies investigating the harmful effects of PFHxA on the brain—with a renewed focus on the areas of the brain responsible for movement, memory and emotions. The findings come amid rising concerns over a surge in ADHD diagnoses —with an estimated 2.5million people in England now living with the attention deficit disorder, according to the NHS. ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects concentration, impulse control and activity levels. Common symptoms include restlessness, distractibility, forgetfulness, difficulty following instructions or managing time, and making impulsive decisions. Similarly, officials have warned that the NHS is 'overwhelmed' by soaring autism rates as 200,000 people wait for an autism assessment in England according to the latest figures. Autism is a spectrum disorder which affects how people communicate and interact. According to the World Health Organisation, around one in 100 children across the globe have the condition. Autistic children may avoid eye contact and not respond to their name being called, among other symptoms. Autism is not a disease and people have it from the moment they are born, although it may not be spotted until childhood and sometimes much later. Researchers are now worried that forever chemicals could be contributing to the surge in cases, with experts warning earlier this year the the UK's regulation of the toxic element is too lax. PFAS are found in hundreds of everyday products due to their durability. But last year a review of 500 studies found they were linked to 'serious health implications', including weakening the immune system and being a factor in cancer diagnosis. Now the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) is set to put recommendations to the Government by the end of the year on whether the UK needs to introduce stricter guidelines.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump's big bill achieved what conservatives have been trying to do for decades
For decades, Republicans have argued that the US would be better off if taxes were low, and programs to help low-income Americans were harder to access. With Donald Trump's marquee tax and spending bill now set to become law, the country will find out what it's like to live under that sort of system. The massive legislation that Trump plans to sign Friday will make his campaign promises a reality by extending tax cuts enacted during his first term, and creating new deductions aimed at the working-class voters who backed his re-election. But it will also fundamentally reorder two major social safety net programs, slashing funding and imposing new work requirements that nonpartisan estimates say will cost millions of people their benefits. The ripple effects, experts say, will be felt across the country, and not just by the poor. 'Sometimes people like to feel like this is an us versus them [issue], but this is really all of us. It is the people that your kids are going to school with it, is your neighbor, the people that you play soccer with,' said Lelaine Bigelow, executive director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty and Inequality 'This is going to have a massive effect on a lot of people around this country.' The 'one big, beautiful bill', as Trump calls it, won final approval by the House of Representatives on Thursday, in time for his signature on 4 July, the US Independence Day holiday. In addition to the tax cuts, it will also channel tens of billions in dollars towards immigration enforcement and building a wall along the Mexican border. To cut costs, Republicans included provisions to end green energy incentives created under Joe Biden, but the bulk of the savings will come from changes to two programs: Medicaid, which provides healthcare to low-income and disabled Americans, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which helps low-income Americans afford food. Both programs will face new and stricter work requirements, and states will be forced to share part of the cost of Snap for the first time ever. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the bill's Medicaid changes could cost as many as 11.8 million people their healthcare, and the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities forecasts about 8 million people, or one in five recipients, may lose their Snap benefits. The GOP argues that the bill will not cut Medicaid or Snap, but weed out 'waste, fraud and abuse' thereby making the programs more efficient. At one point, House speaker Mike Johnson circulated research from the conservative American Enterprise Institute finding that, after sleeping, playing video games was how Medicaid recipients who do not work spend most of their time. If they did not act, Republicans warned, the 2017 tax cuts would expire this year, many Americans would be forced to pay more, and economic growth would suffer. However, analyses of the law found that it was the highest earners who felt most of the benefit from the tax regimen. Bigelow warns that the benefit cuts will be the most widespread effect of the bill. Her center's research found that 34% of the country's population will be negatively affected by the bill, mostly through the Snap and Medicaid cuts, while just under 2% of taxpayers are in the income bracket that will get most of the tax relief. And though the bill cuts taxes on tips, overtime and car loan interest, they only to last through 2028. Even Americans who do not interact with federal safety programs could feel the economic effects of its retrenchment. Fewer Snap enrollees could mean less business for grocery stores, while rural hospitals could be hard hit by the Medicaid cuts, even with a $50bn fund included in the bill to help those in poor financial shape. Robert Manduca, a University of Michigan sociology professor, forecast a $120bn per year hit to local economies from the benefit cuts. Employees and business owners, he warned, 'might see their job become less secure because the demand in their local economy is getting reduced'. Paradoxically, the bill is still hugely expensive. The CBO forecasts it will add $3.3tn to the deficit through 2034, mostly due to the tax cuts. For fiscal hawks concerned about the sustainability of the country's budget deficit, which has yawned higher in recent years as Washington DC battled the Covid-19 pandemic with massive fiscal stimulus, there's little beauty in Trump's bill. 'Yes, the economy may well enjoy a sugar-high the next couple of years, as borrowing stimulates near-term consumption,' said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which advocates for lowering the deficit. 'But a sugar-high won't be sustained, it will do real damage, and often what comes next is the crash. The longer-term health of our economy, American families, and our children will be worse off due to this debt-financed bill.'
