Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

Crispin Odey, the former hedge fund manager, has dropped his £79m libel claim against the Financial Times over its reporting of sexual misconduct allegations against him, his lawyers have said.In 2023, the FT published several articles from 20 women alleging sexual assault and harassment against Odey, covering a period of five decades. He has previously denied the allegations against him.On Friday, lawyers for the former hedge fund tycoon, 67, said he had been “forced to accept” that the newspaper was “likely to succeed in establishing” its public interest defence.Odey’s decision to drop his claim follows a three-week hearing in which he challenged a decision by the Financial Conduct Authority, the City regulator, to ban him from the financial services industry.The FT’s editor, Roula Khalaf, said: “This is a vindication for investigative journalism and for the victims whose stories of abuse we reported. The FT was always confident in its reporting. This is a case that should have never been brought.”In March 2025, Odey was provisionally banned from working in financial services and fined £1.8m by the UK regulator for a “lack of integrity”. The FCA said at the time that Odey had attempted to “frustrate” a disciplinary process into sexual harassment allegations against him, and his conduct proved he was “not a fit and proper person to perform any function”.

The UK medicines regulator has opened an inquiry into a growing number of clinics that sell injectable peptides while promoting them as cures for everything from ageing to injury recovery. The investigation, disclosed by the Guardian, focuses on whether these businesses are breaching the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 by making unauthorised medicinal claims. Interest in peptide‑based treatments has surged in recent years, driven by social‑media influencers, some healthcare professionals, and direct‑to‑consumer marketers. Yet the scientific foundation for most of these claims is weak, with the bulk of research confined to animal models or cell‑culture studies. According to an MHRA spokesperson, any clinic that advertises a peptide as having therapeutic benefits must treat the product as a medicine, which triggers a comprehensive regulatory framework. "If clinics offering peptide injections make medicinal claims for those treatments, the products will be considered medicines and subject to regulation," the agency warned, adding that it will act against any identified breaches. Guardian reporters identified several high‑ranking Google search results that list peptides such as Cortexin (promoted for neuroprotection), BPC‑157 (claimed to aid tissue repair), and Thymosin Alpha (advertised to boost immunity). After being contacted, one clinic removed the statements from its website. Another clinic, while acknowledging the limited human evidence, continued to market seven specific peptides, providing price lists (£350 per month for a single peptide, £450 for two) and offering delivery via vials, syringes, or pre‑filled pens for an additional fee. During a free consultation, a clinician highlighted the experimental nature of the products, noting the absence of large‑scale, randomised clinical trials and recommending a break of four to eight weeks between treatment cycles to mitigate unknown risks. The clinician suggested BPC‑157 for post‑exercise recovery, describing it as a facilitator of cellular repair and blood flow, but warned against its use in smokers or individuals with a family history of cancer due to potential angiogenic effects. The second peptide discussed was MOTS‑C, portrayed as a mitochondrial enhancer that could improve stress resilience, lower insulin resistance, and reduce visceral fat by boosting cellular energy production (ATP). The MHRA confirmed it is reviewing whether the clinician’s statements constitute medicinal claims. The clinic defended its approach, emphasizing that it clearly informs clients that the peptides are not licensed medicines and that the evidence base is largely pre‑clinical. In a broader statement, Lynda Scammell, head of borderline products at the MHRA, explained that peptide products may be marketed as cosmetics, supplements, or medicines, and each case is assessed on its intended use, pharmacological effect, and supporting evidence. She added, "We disregard claims that products are for ‘research purposes’ if it is clear that such claims are being used as an attempt to avoid medicines regulations." Peptides are short chains of amino acids, some of which occur naturally (e.g., insulin). While synthetic peptide analogues like semaglutide and tirzepatide have secured approval for weight‑loss treatments, many of the compounds promoted by these clinics remain experimental and lack the rigorous safety and efficacy testing required for medicinal products.