In recent months, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Sebi) has intensified its efforts to regulate financial influencers who offer trading advice and courses. The case of Asmita Patel, a popular YouTuber known as the "She-Wolf of the stock market," exemplifies this crackdown. Patel amassed a significant following by promoting stock trading tips and courses. However, Sebi accused her of selling illegal stock tips under the guise of investor education. This move is part of a broader initiative to protect small investors from misleading schemes and unregistered advisors. With the rapid growth of new retail investors in India, social media platforms have become fertile ground for these influencers, raising concerns about their legitimacy and regulatory compliance.
The Rise of Financial Influencers in India
The surge in online trading accounts from 36 million in 2019 to over 150 million last year highlights the dramatic shift in India's investment landscape. Many first-time investors turned to social media for guidance, leading to the emergence of self-styled "investment gurus" like Asmita Patel. These influencers capitalized on the gap left by the limited number of registered investment advisors in the country. Operating without proper registration, they blurred the lines between legitimate education and unregulated advice. Patel, along with her husband Jitesh, allegedly used private channels and courses to direct investors toward specific stocks, amassing substantial profits from course fees rather than actual trading gains.
Patel's influence extended beyond just providing tips; she built a community around her brand, attracting hundreds of thousands of followers on various platforms. Her success story, however, came under scrutiny when 42 participants complained of trading losses. Sebi's investigation revealed that while Patel earned millions from selling courses, her actual trading profits were minimal. This discrepancy underscores the risks associated with relying on unregulated financial advice. The regulator's actions highlight the need for stricter oversight to ensure that investors receive accurate and trustworthy information.
Regulatory Challenges and Criticisms
As markets correct and economic conditions change, the credibility of financial influencers faces increasing scrutiny. Sebi's crackdown on influencers like Patel aims to protect inexperienced investors from misleading promises of quick money. However, the regulatory actions have drawn criticism for being delayed and lacking clarity. Veteran financial journalist Sucheta Dalal argues that Sebi should have intervened earlier when trading sites began paying influencers to promote products. The current approach appears selective and reactive, potentially leaving many other unregulated entities untouched.
Experts like Sumit Agrawal, a former Sebi officer, suggest that while curbing unregulated stock tips is essential, overly stringent rules could stifle genuine educational content. Manish Singh, a chartered accountant and YouTuber, expresses concern that Sebi's new regulations create confusion and may deter authentic content creators. Balancing effective regulation with fostering a healthy environment for financial education remains a significant challenge for Sebi. The Indian regulator wields broad powers, including the ability to freeze bank accounts and access call records, making it crucial to strike the right balance without stifling innovation and education in the financial sector.
A recent study presented at the 2025 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (AAAAI) meeting in San Diego has shed new light on the effectiveness of omalizumab compared to oral immunotherapy for managing food allergies. The OutMATCH trial involved 177 participants with multiple food allergies and evaluated their tolerance levels post-treatment. Initial findings showed a significant advantage for omalizumab over oral immunotherapy in an intent-to-treat analysis. However, the per-protocol analysis revealed no significant difference between the two treatments. The study underscores the importance of personalized treatment approaches and highlights the varying efficacy and side effect profiles of each therapy.
Evaluating Treatment Success: Intent-to-Treat vs Per-Protocol Analysis
The OutMATCH trial examined the effectiveness of omalizumab against oral immunotherapy through two analytical methods. In the intent-to-treat analysis, omalizumab demonstrated a higher success rate, tolerating all three allergens in 36% of cases compared to 19% for oral immunotherapy. This analysis considers all participants, including those who dropped out, which significantly influenced the results. Conversely, the per-protocol analysis, focusing only on patients who completed the treatment, found no significant differences between the two therapies. The dropout rates played a crucial role in shaping these outcomes.
In the OutMATCH trial, the intent-to-treat analysis highlighted a clear advantage for omalizumab. Participants who received omalizumab injections were more likely to tolerate higher doses of their allergens compared to those on oral immunotherapy. Dr. Robert Wood explained that the low dropout rate among omalizumab users contributed to this favorable outcome. On the other hand, the per-protocol analysis, which excluded dropouts, indicated similar effectiveness between both treatments. This discrepancy underscores the importance of considering patient adherence when evaluating treatment success.
Personalized Approach and Side Effects: Key Considerations for Patients
Based on the OutMATCH findings, healthcare providers are encouraged to adopt a personalized approach to treating food allergies. Both omalizumab and oral immunotherapy have their merits, but they also come with different risks and benefits. Omalizumab was noted for its low risk of side effects and high effectiveness, making it a viable option for many patients. Oral immunotherapy, while potentially offering long-term immune system changes, comes with a higher risk of side effects and lower patient retention rates.
The study’s lead investigator emphasized the need for transparency with patients regarding the potential challenges of oral immunotherapy, particularly the high incidence of side effects and the possibility of intolerance. In contrast, omalizumab offers a safer alternative with minimal side effects, although it may not induce long-term immune changes. Ultimately, the choice between these treatments should be guided by individual patient factors, ensuring the best possible outcomes. Dr. Wood concluded that while oral immunotherapy holds promise, patients must be fully informed about the risks and benefits of each option to make an informed decision.
In a unique and humorous acceptance speech at the Oscars, Kieran Culkin, the 42-year-old Academy Award winner for Best Supporting Actor, made headlines not just for his award but also for his playful proposal to expand his family. After thanking his manager, director Jesse Eisenberg, and fellow nominee Jeremy Strong, Culkin turned his attention to his wife, Jazz Charton. He reminisced about a previous public declaration during an Emmy win and referenced a promise Charton made if he ever won an Oscar. Despite the censored language, Culkin’s heartfelt and comedic remarks left a lasting impression on the audience.
A Night of Celebration and Surprises at the Oscars
On a star-studded evening in early March, Kieran Culkin took home the prestigious Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his role in "A Real Pain." Amidst the applause and cheers, Culkin used his moment in the spotlight to deliver a memorable speech filled with gratitude and humor. He first acknowledged his longtime manager and praised his co-stars, particularly Jeremy Strong, whose performance in "The Apprentice" was highlighted, albeit mostly censored due to Culkin’s colorful language.
The highlight of the speech came when Culkin turned to his wife, Jazz Charton, whom he married in 2013. With a grin, he recounted a similar moment from the previous year’s Emmy Awards, where he had publicly declared his desire for a third child. At that time, Charton had jokingly promised him another child if he won, only to be surprised when he actually did. Culkin revealed that Charton had laughed it off, saying she owed him a child, to which he responded by asking for four kids if he ever won an Oscar.
In a charming and slightly nerve-wracking moment, Culkin extended his hand to Charton, who was seen laughing and covering her face in the audience. He playfully reminded her of their deal and ended his speech with a lighthearted plea: “Let’s get cracking on those kids.” The couple already shares two children, Kinsey Sioux, aged five, and Wilder, aged three.
Cameras captured Charton’s amused reaction as Culkin spoke, adding to the entertainment value of the night. Culkin’s speech not only celebrated his professional achievements but also showcased the loving and humorous dynamic between him and his wife.
From a journalist's perspective, Culkin’s speech serves as a reminder of the personal side of Hollywood’s biggest stars. It highlights the balance between career success and family life, demonstrating that even amidst the glitz and glamour, these individuals are grounded by their loved ones. Culkin’s candid and humorous approach to such a significant moment humanizes him, making him relatable and endearing to audiences worldwide. His speech also underscores the importance of cherishing moments with loved ones, no matter how big or small the occasion.