Character.AI is testing games on its desktop and mobile web apps to boost engagement, available to paid subscribers and a limited set of users on its free plan (Ivan Mehta/TechCrunch)

Character.AI is testing games on its desktop and mobile web apps to boost engagement, available to paid subscribers and a limited set of users on its free plan (Ivan Mehta/TechCrunch)




Ivan Mehta / TechCrunch:

Character.AI is testing games on its desktop and mobile web apps to boost engagement, available to paid subscribers and a limited set of users on its free plan  —  Character AI, a startup that lets users chat with different AI-powered characters, is now testing games on its desktop …





Source link

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors of Visa By Investing.com

SHAREHOLDER ALERT: Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Investigates Claims on Behalf of Investors of Visa By Investing.com



Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP Securities Litigation Partner James (Josh) Wilson Encourages Investors Who Suffered Losses Exceeding $100,000 In Visa To Contact Him Directly To Discuss Their Options

If you suffered losses exceeding $100,000 in Visa between November 16, 2023 and September 23, 2024 and would like to discuss your legal rights, call Faruqi & Faruqi partner Josh Wilson directly at 877-247-4292 or 212-983-9330 (Ext. 1310).

[You may also click here for additional information]

New York, New York–(Newsfile Corp. – January 18, 2025) – Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against Visa Inc (NYSE:). (“Visa” or the “Company”) (NYSE: V) and reminds investors of the January 21, 2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action that has been filed against the Company.

Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com.

As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or misleading statements and/or failing to disclose that: (1) Visa was not in compliance with federal antitrust laws; (2) Visa did not have effective internal programs and policies to assess and control compliance with federal antitrust laws; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

On September 24, 2024, during market hours, the United States Department of Justice issued a release entitled “Justice Department Sues Visa for Monopolizing Debit Markets.” In this release, the DOJ announced that it had “filed a civil antitrust lawsuit today against Visa for monopolization and other unlawful conduct in debit network markets[.]” The release further stated the “complaint alleges that Visa illegally maintains a monopoly over debit network markets by using its dominance to thwart the growth of its existing competitors and prevent others from developing new and innovative alternatives.”

The release quoted Attorney General Merrick Garland as stating “[w]e allege that Visa has unlawfully amassed the power to extract fees that far exceed what it could charge in a competitive market[.] Merchants and banks pass along those costs to consumers, either by raising prices or reducing quality or service. As a result, Visa’s unlawful conduct affects not just the price of one thing – but the price of nearly everything.”

On this news, Visa’s stock fell 5.4% on September 24, 2024.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead plaintiff or not.

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Visa’s conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, on X, or on Facebook (NASDAQ:).

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect to any future matter. We welcome the opportunity to discuss your particular case. All communications will be treated in a confidential manner.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/237483





Source link

XRX DEADLINE NOTICE: ROSEN, SKILLED INVESTOR COUNSEL, Encourages Xerox Holdings Corporation Investors to Secure Counsel Before Important January 21 Deadline in Securities Class Action – XRX By Investing.com

XRX DEADLINE NOTICE: ROSEN, SKILLED INVESTOR COUNSEL, Encourages Xerox Holdings Corporation Investors to Secure Counsel Before Important January 21 Deadline in Securities Class Action – XRX By Investing.com



New York, New York–(Newsfile Corp. – January 18, 2025) – WHY: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds purchasers of securities of Xerox (NASDAQ:) Holdings Corporation (NASDAQ: XRX) between January 25, 2024 and October 28, 2024, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), of the important January 21, 2025 lead plaintiff deadline.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Xerox securities during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Xerox class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31433 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than January 21, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action (WA:) Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) after a large workforce reduction, Xerox’s salesforce was reorganized with new territory assignments and account coverage; (2) as a result, Xerox’s salesforce productivity was disrupted; (3) as a result, Xerox had a lower rate of sell-through of older products; (4) the difficulties in flushing out older product would delay the launch of key products; (5) as a result, Xerox was likely to experience lower sales and revenue; and (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about Xerox’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

To join the Xerox class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=31433 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member and do nothing at this point. An investor’s ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-rosen-law-firm, on Twitter: https://twitter.com/rosen_firm or on Facebook (NASDAQ:): https://www.facebook.com/rosenlawfirm/.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

——————————-

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/237653





Source link

APPLIED THERAPEUTICS, INC. (APLT) Investors are Notified the Company has been Sued for Securities Fraud and are Urged to Contact BFA Law by February 18 By Investing.com

APPLIED THERAPEUTICS, INC. (APLT) Investors are Notified the Company has been Sued for Securities Fraud and are Urged to Contact BFA Law by February 18 By Investing.com



New York, New York–(Newsfile Corp. – January 18, 2025) – Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against Applied Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: NASDAQ:) and certain of the Company’s senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws.

If you invested in Applied Therapeutics, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/applied-therapeutics-inc.

Investors have until February 18, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of investors in Applied Therapeutics securities. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Alexandru v. Applied Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 24-cv-09715.

What is the Lawsuit About?

Applied Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company specializing in the development of novel drug candidates against validated molecular targets in rare diseases. The Company’s lead drug candidate, govorestat, is a central nervous system penetrant Aldose Reductase Inhibitor for the treatment of CNS rare metabolic diseases, including Galactosemia.

During the relevant period, the Company stated that its New Drug Applications submitted to regulators for govorestat were “supported by rapid and sustained reduction in galactitol, which resulted in a meaningful benefit on clinical outcomes across pediatric patients, alongside a favorable safety profile.” Applied Therapeutics also assured investors that its tests were “performed properly” and that the Company “felt good about the quality of the data,” stating that it “took really extensive steps” and “actually videotaped” and had “master trainers” review all of the performances of the 10-meter walk-run test-the primary endpoint of the Company’s Phase III INSPIRE study for govorestat.

The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed

On November 27, 2024, Applied Therapeutics issued a press release stating that the FDA issued a Complete Response Letter for the NDA for govorestat. The Complete Response Letter stated that the FDA completed its review of the application and determined that it was unable to approve the NDA due to “deficiencies in the clinical application.”

This news caused the price of Applied Therapeutics stock to fall more than 80% over the course of multiple trading days, from a closing price of $10.21 per share on November 26, 2024 to a closing price of $1.75 per share on December 2, 2024.

Then, on December 2, 2024, Applied Therapeutics revealed that it received a warning letter from the FDA relating to its govorestat study discussing “issues related to electronic data capture” and “a dosing error in the dose-escalation phase of the study resulting in slightly lower levels than targeted in a limited number of patients[.]”

This news caused the price of Applied Therapeutics stock to fall more than 26% over the course of multiple trading days, from a closing price of $1.75 per share on December 2, 2024 to a closing price of $1.29 per share on December 5, 2024.

Click here for more information: https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/applied-therapeutics-inc.

What Can You Do?

If you invested in Applied Therapeutics you may have legal options and are encouraged to submit your information to the firm.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any potential fees and expenses.

Submit your information by visiting:

https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/applied-therapeutics-inc

Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP?

Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the Plaintiffs’ Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters. Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million in value from Tesla (NASDAQ:), Inc.’s Board of Directors, as well as $420 million from Teva Pharmaceutical (NYSE:) Ind. Ltd.

For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit https://www.bfalaw.com.

https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/applied-therapeutics-inc

Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/237611





Source link

What Does the Evidence Say About Fluoride Lowering IQ?

What Does the Evidence Say About Fluoride Lowering IQ?


Fluoride is once again in the news, and not for a great reason. In a new review of the data published this month, scientists have found evidence that higher levels of fluoride exposure are associated with declined IQ in infants and very young children.

Historically, fluoride has been added to our water to strengthen our tooth enamel, which helps prevent cavities. Improved childhood dental health in turn is known to reduce sick days from school, lead to fewer costly dental procedures, and possibly even reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease later in life.

But this new research, conducted by scientists at the NIH’s National Toxicology Program, suggests that fluoride exposure—and by extension water fluoridation—might be riskier than assumed. They found that children exposed to higher fluoride levels during their earliest years of life had noticeably lower IQ scores, specifically between one and two points, than children exposed to lower levels of fluoride.

The review, published in JAMA Pediatrics, isn’t the only recent study to throw some shade at fluoride. A study from last May, for instance, found a link between higher fluoride exposure in pregnant women and a greater risk of their children later being diagnosed with neurobehavioral problems by age three. Some scientists have also questioned recently whether water fluoridation is needed to obtain the benefits of fluoride anymore, since people in many parts of the world can get fluoride from their toothpaste products.

The scientific debate over fluoride’s positives and negatives isn’t one-sided, however. Some scientists have criticized the methodology and interpretations of the recent review, for instance. And the study itself couldn’t find conclusive evidence linking lowered IQ to low fluoride exposure, including levels recommended for U.S. drinking water (0.7 milligrams per liter). Other reviews have similarly failed to find a link between relatively low fluoride exposure and IQ loss or impaired development (including after the introduction of a fluoridation program).

Some critics of fluoridation have also tried to blame fluoride for other health problems that have much less evidence supporting a potential connection. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who’s in line to head the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration, has argued that fluoride is associated with bone cancer, for instance, despite the majority of studies finding no significant cancer link.

For this Giz Asks, we reached out to experts to share their thoughts on the latest study, the science surrounding fluoride, and the potential implications of this research. The following responses have been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Jay Kumar

A retired epidemiologist specializing in dental health and co-author of a meta-analysis in 2023 on fluoride’s potential IQ effects in children.

The findings that high fluoride levels in drinking water in rural areas of China, India, Pakistan, and Iran are associated with IQ deficits are not new. The authors cannot attribute the IQ deficits to fluoride in water because the study quality is low. These studies measured fluoride in drinking water and IQ in children at the same time. For example, it could be that parents with higher IQs had moved from regions to avoid high-fluoride water because of its well-known risk to teeth and bones, and therefore, the absence of higher IQ families may drive the association rather than the reverse. This potential bias is sometimes known as the “cart-before-the-horse bias.” Also, studies conducted in animals and humans cannot explain how fluoride could affect the brain.

We published a study titled “Association between low fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence: a meta-analysis relevant to community water fluoridation.” In this paper, we answered the research question: Does fluoride exposure recommended for the prevention of tooth decay decrease children’s cognition and IQ scores? Fluoride is recommended at 0.7 mg/L for U.S. community water supplies.

Our study concluded that fluoride exposure at approximately twice the concentration used in community water fluoridation (less than 1.5 mg/L) is not associated with lower IQ scores in children. However, we underscore the necessity for more research to determine whether fluoride naturally occurring in drinking water exceeding 1.5 mg/L causes IQ deficits.

A recent Australian study by Do et al. reaffirmed the findings from Canada, New Zealand, and Spain that the IQ scores are similar in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.

Bruce Lanphear

An epidemiologist at Simon Fraser University who has studied how fluoride exposure in pregnant women may affect their children’s later development.

Fluoride is a reactive chemical that binds strongly to calcium and metals. In 1944, the Journal of the American Dental Association described fluoridation as “spectacularly attractive” for preventing cavities but warned of the risks of adding a “highly toxic substance” to drinking water. Today, over 70% of Americans drink tap water fluoridated at around 0.7 [parts per million, or ppm], considered “optimal.” Fluoride is also present in toothpaste (1,000–1,500 ppm), black teas (1–6 ppm), foods like sardines and anchovies (2–4 mg/100 g), certain medications (e.g., Prozac, Lipitor), and pesticide-treated produce like raisins. Over the past 50 years, fluoride ingestion has increased, contributing to a rise in dental fluorosis—discoloration or mottling of teeth due to excessive fluoride exposure during development.

What Did the Study Find?

Taylor’s team reviewed 74 studies from 10 countries linking fluoride exposure to IQ scores. While many early studies were of lower quality, a meta-analysis of high-quality research revealed that a 1 ppm increase in urinary fluoride was associated with a 1.2 point IQ reduction in children, even at levels below 1.5 ppm. Although these IQ decrements are small, they have substantial population-level implications, particularly for children who are exposed to other toxic chemicals, such as lead or air pollution.

Are These Findings Relevant to Fluoridated Communities?

Critics argue that no IQ deficits were found at water fluoride levels less than 1.5 mg/L, but this is misleading. First, no apparent threshold was identified. Second, water fluoride is just one source of exposure, and total fluoride intake must be considered for risk assessment. Urinary fluoride, a snapshot of overall fluoride intake, showed significant IQ reductions in children at concentrations commonly found in fluoridated communities.

For example, a Canadian study found that 25% of pregnant women in optimally fluoridated areas had urinary fluoride levels higher than 1 ppm, and 5% exceeded 1.5 ppm. While some question the reliability of urinary fluoride measurements, they are widely used by epidemiologists to assess exposure to short-lived chemicals like fluoride and arsenic.

Does Fluoridation Protect Against Tooth Decay?

It is time to critically review the benefits of fluoride. A 2024 update of the Cochrane review found little to no benefit from water fluoridation in studies conducted after 1975, when fluoride toothpaste became widespread. Fluoride’s cavity-preventing effects are primarily topical, not systemic, and provide no benefit until teeth erupt.

Should You Be Concerned?

Public health agencies must re-evaluate fluoridation guidelines based on new evidence. Until then, consider these precautions:

  • Pregnant women and young children: Avoid fluoridated water and other sources of fluoride, like black tea.
  • Infant formula: Use non-fluoridated water for mixing formula; breastmilk contains minimal fluoride.
  • Children’s toothpaste: Use only a rice-sized amount of fluoride toothpaste and make sure children don’t swallow toothpaste.

By taking these steps, you can minimize fluoride exposure during critical developmental periods.

Sarah Evans

An assistant professor of Environmental Medicine and Climate Science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai who studies how people’s early life exposures can impact behavior and cognition.

It’s important to note that none of the studies included in the [NTP] meta-analysis were conducted in the United States, where the recommended fluoride concentration in drinking water is 0.7 mg/L—more than 50% lower than the fluoride exposure measured in most of the communities studied. While more studies are needed to examine the impacts of lower level fluoride exposure, a 2023 meta-analysis found no link between fluoride and child IQ in communities with drinking water levels similar to the US.

While to date there are no studies that suggest risk of harm at the 0.7mg/L fluoride most commonly found in US drinking water, an estimated 2.9 million Americans and 180 million people worldwide may be exposed to fluoride at levels above the WHO guideline due to the presence of high levels of natural fluoride in some areas. Individuals residing in these areas may be at greater risk of exposure to levels that were associated with decreased child IQ in the study. In addition, the inclusion of fluoride in dental products and treatments as well as its natural presence in some foods and beverages may lead to exposures above the daily recommendation. Comprehensive studies that measure individual levels of exposure in the US population from all sources of fluoride are needed.

While around three-fourths of the US water supply is fluoridated, this practice is not mandated by the federal government and is under state or local control, so fluoridation practices vary widely across the country. For example, 99.9% of Kentucky residents receive fluoride in their drinking water compared with only 16% of New Jersey residents. Individuals who are interested to know the level of fluoride in their drinking water should contact their water supplier. If you live in an area with high fluoride from natural sources and are pregnant or have young children, it is possible to reduce fluoride exposure through reverse osmosis filtration. Bottled water is not regulated for the presence of fluoride or other contaminants and is generally not recommended. If you consume water from a public supply or private well that does not have fluoride, it’s important to practice good dental hygiene through the use of fluoride-containing toothpaste and mouthwash and regular dental visits.

The findings of this study are likely to lead to an increase in the number of communities who are questioning whether to discontinue water fluoridation. Although there is some evidence that the rise of products containing fluoride and improved access to dental care have reduced the need for fluoridated water, several studies show a dramatic increase in child tooth decay and need for dental treatments in communities that have removed fluoride from drinking water, suggesting that water fluoridation remains an effective and necessary public health intervention.

While the recent meta-analysis by Taylor et al. suggests adverse impacts of high levels of fluoride exposure on brain development, it also highlights a need for well-designed longitudinal studies that measure individual-level fluoride exposure over time to confirm whether associations with IQ or other neurodevelopmental outcomes persist at the low levels experienced by most Americans. In addition, it highlights the need for research into practices that reduce the risk of exposure to fluoride above the recommended levels in areas where natural fluoride levels are high and a reexamination of practices that increase access to routine dental care.



Source link