White House spokeswoman Karina Jean-Pierre denied a report in the U.S. media on the 8th that President Joseph Biden did not receive treatment for Parkinson's disease. Biden had the first televised debate of the 2024 presidential election with Republican opponent Donald Trump on June 27, and his poor performance on the spot triggered discussions about his physical condition. The New York Times reported that a doctor specializing in the treatment of Parkinson's disease had "visited" the White House eight times from August last year to March this year. Facing the media's questions about Biden's health, Jean-Pierre asked and answered himself at a regular White House press conference on the 8th: "Has the president received treatment for Parkinson's disease? No. Is he currently receiving treatment for Parkinson's disease? No, he is not. Is he taking medication for Parkinson's disease? No." Jean-Pierre said Biden had seen a neurologist three times, all related to his annual physical examination. She also took out the report issued by the doctor after Biden's most recent physical examination in February this year. The report said, "An extremely detailed neurological examination was once again reassuring" because no symptoms consistent with stroke, multiple sclerosis or Parkinson's disease were found. The doctor who went to the White House mentioned by the New York Times is Kevin Kanal, a neurology and movement disorder expert at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Maryland and an authority on Parkinson's disease. Jean-Pierre suggested that the doctor might have come to treat military personnel on duty at the White House.

New details about Jesse Jane’s death have emerged. More than six months after the former adult film star was found dead alongside her boyfriend Brett Hasenmueller in her Moore, Oklahoma, home from a suspected overdose, authorities confirmed what led to the tragedy. Jane and Hasenmueller reportedly died of an accidental fentanyl and cocaine overdose according to TMZ, citing the Oklahoma City Medical Examiner’s Office. E! News has reached out to the Examiner’s Office for comment but had not yet heard back. In late January, local outlet KFOR reported that Moore Police found Jane and Hasemueller’s bodies while performing a wellness check after the couple had not been heard from in several days. Moore PD's Lt. Francisco Franco told The New York Times at the time that it was believed Jane died from a drug overdose, but that both deaths remained under investigation. Jane, who was 43 at the time of her passing, acted in a number of adult films starting in 2003 before transitioning to other projects, including an appearance in Baywatch: Hawaiian Wedding and 2004's Starsky and Hutch, as well as season two of Entourage. Pretty Pastel Please, YouTuber, Instagram By 2007, Jane had officially retired from the adult film industry, pivoting into making her own line of sex toys. At the time of her death, BSG Public Relations President Brian Gross shared in a statement to E! News, "Jesse Jane was a vivacious person who had an absolute and ultimate love for life. During her time in the adult industry, of which I was able to spend wonderful moments with her, she was an incredible professional who cheered everyone on and brought sunshine to every film set she worked on." "There is not one person in the adult industry who didn't spend time with her, whether onset or in a social setting, that she didn't make smile, laugh or both. She would light up a room as soon as she walked in," he continued, "I will personally miss her very much for the reasons above. Her smile was everything."

South Korea's Minister of Health and Welfare Cho Kyu-hong said at a press conference on the 8th local time that after comprehensively considering the suggestions of frontline interns and the situation on the front line of medical care, the government decided that from that day on, all interns and residents who resigned would not be given administrative sanctions such as revoking their medical licenses. Cho Kyu-hong also said that for interns and residents who have returned to work and those who have resigned and are preparing to re-register for internship courses in September, the government will make special cases to try to minimize the internship gap and not affect the relevant doctors from obtaining specialist medical licenses. Cho Kyu-hong said that the government believes that in order to minimize the diagnosis and treatment gaps for critically ill and emergency patients and ensure the smooth training process of interns and residents, it is in the public interest, so it has made a decision not to punish interns and residents who resigned. It is hoped that major hospitals will complete the resignation processing of doctors who have not returned to work before July 15 and determine the scale of vacancies. Previously, large general hospitals in South Korea, such as Seoul National University Hospital, Yonsei University Severance Hospital, and Seoul Asan Medical Center, suspended or limited their medical services in an effort to cancel all penalties against interns and residents.

US politicians are advocating for steep tariffs, echoing the protectionist Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. Despite potential international retaliation, risks to global economic rules and a shift from post-World War II principles, US politicians have promised to increase trade barriers against China, causing concerns for the sustainability of global economic harmony. A century ago, the Republican Congress passed the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922. This post-World War-I effort to protect the US from German competition and rescue America's own businesses from falling prices sparked a global wave of tariff hikes. While long forgotten, echoes of Fordney-McCumber now reverberate across the US political landscape. Once again, politicians are grasping the tariff as a magic talisman against its own economic ills and to contain the rise of China. The Democratic Party of the 1920s opposed tariffs, because duties are harmful to consumers and farmers, but today both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump favor national delivery through protectionism. Trump promised that his second term, if elected, would impose 60-percent tariffs on everything arriving from China and 10-percent tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, apparently including the imports covered by 14 free trade agreements with America's 20 partners. He initially promised 100-percent tariffs on electric vehicles (EVs), but when Biden declared that he was hiking tariffs on EVs from China to 100-percent, Trump raised the ante to 200-percent. On May 14, 2024, the White House imposed tariffs ranging from 25 percent (on items such as steel, aluminum and lithium batteries) to 50 percent (semiconductors, solar cells, syringes and needles) and 100 percent (electric vehicles) on Chinese imports. US government officials offer "national security" and "supply chain vulnerability" as the justification for levying high tariffs. To deflect worries about inflation, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai declared, "first of all, I think that that link, in terms of tariffs to prices, has been largely debunked." Contrary findings by the United States International Trade Commission and a number of distinguished economists, as well as Biden's own 2019 statement criticizing Trump's tariffs - "Trump doesn't get the basics. He thinks tariffs are being paid by China… [but] the American people are paying his tariffs" - forced Tai's office to wind back her declaration. The fact that prohibitive barriers to imports of solar cells, batteries and EVs will delay the green economy carries zero political weight with Trump and little with Biden. Nor does either of them worry about the prospects of Chinese retaliation and damage to the fabric of global economic rules. Historical lessons - unanticipated consequences of the foolish Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922 and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930 - are seen as irrelevant by the candidates and their advisers. The US' lurch from its post-World War II free trade principles offers China a golden opportunity. On the world stage, China will espouse open free trade and investment. China will encourage EV and battery firms to establish plants in Europe, Brazil, Mexico and elsewhere, essentially daring the US to damage its own alliances by restricting third country imports containing Chinese components. Whether the fabric of global economic rules that has delivered astounding prosperity to the world will survive through the 21st century remains to be seen. Much will depend on the decisions of other large economic powers, not only China but also the European Union and Japan, as well as middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil, Chile, ASEAN and South Korea. Their actions and reactions will reshape the rules of the 21st century. If others follow America down this costly path, the world will become less prosperous and vastly more unpredictable. If they resist, the US risks being diminished and more isolated. The author is a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute of International Economics. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn

US President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Wednesday restricting investments in China, intended to further stymie China's advances in three cutting-edge technology areas: semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and certain artificial intelligence systems. The "decoupling" of high tech from China began under Donald Trump, and the Biden administration has continued that ambition. However, the new order doesn't target US investments already invested in China, but the new ones. The Biden administration has repeatedly claimed that the US restrictions will be narrowly targeted and will not "have a fundamental impact on affecting the investment climate for China." Biden's new executive order is still subject to consultation with the US business community and the public and is not expected to take effect until next year. The order has been brewed for a long time and has generated a lot of publicity. But almost no one believes that this executive order will deal a new practical blow to Chinese high technology, because almost everyone knows that China needs American technology more than American money. The order has gained much attention because it is seen as part of a broader trend of the US drifting away from China. The promulgation and brewing process of the executive order reflects the strong desire of American political elites to suppress China's high-tech development, as well as a fierce game between those supporting the executive order and the concerns of the technology and economic sectors about a potential backfire on the US. It is a kind of compromise. Washington obviously hopes that major allies will follow Biden's executive order. The UK's Sunak government has made cautious statements, stating that it is consulting business and the financial sector before deciding whether to follow suit. In fact, China also has the ability to influence the extent to which Biden's executive order is implemented, as well as the extent to which the US will go in terms of "decoupling" from China. We are definitely not just passive recipients of US policies. American political elites are eager to "decouple" from China as quickly and deeply as possible, but they fear two things: First, this will immediately damage the performance of relevant high-tech companies in the US, undermine their influence and further innovation. The current Biden administration, in particular, does not want to incur strong resentment from Silicon Valley and Wall Street toward the escalating "decoupling," which will ultimately lead to the loss of support for the Democratic Party. Second, they are afraid of pushing China toward more resolute independent innovation to achieve breakthroughs in key technologies such as chips. If the US "decoupling" policy gives birth to major technological achievements in China, it means that Washington will completely lose the gamble: They originally wants to stifle China's high-tech development, but ends up strangling their own companies. What China needs to do next is to fully unleash our innovation vitality, continuously reduce our dependence on high-tech products from the US, and prove that as long as we are determined to achieve independent innovation, we have the ability to accomplish things. We need to prove that being pressured by the US will only make us stronger. As long as there are several solid proofs of this trend, the US policy community will fall into unprecedented chaos, and their panic will be much more severe than when they saw the rapid expansion of the Chinese economy before Trump started the trade war. Regardless of the future of China-US relations, the current battle will be the key battle that determines the future competition between China and the US. China can only win and cannot afford to lose. High-tech products such as chips are not isolated. The innovation power of China's entire manufacturing industry and the creative vitality of the whole society are the foundation for shaping these key achievements. When pressured by the US, our society needs to generate confidence and resilience from all directions, and we need to accelerate and seize every opportunity, rather than shrink and simply defend. Otherwise, the US will gain the upper hand in momentum, and we will truly be in a passive and defensive position. We must see that the US is on the offensive, but its offensive is becoming weaker and weaker, and it is always hesitant with each step. What is presented to China are difficulties and risks, but also the dawn of victory.