Month: September 2025
Norma Swenson Defended Health Freedom for Women
A recurring question raised by my libertarian and classical liberal friends is: how can we persuade others of the value of freedom? One answer is to especially seek conversation with those who strongly object to losing their freedom in some part of their life that they value. As I read the obituary of Norma Swenson, co-author of the book Our Bodies, Ourselves, I thought I recognized her as a libertarian fellow-traveler. She passionately sought for herself and other women to have greater freedom in making their own medical decisions.
Today, born out of outrage over the government’s over-reaching Covid controls, a “health freedom” movement has grown and organized, seeking more broadly (though not always consistently) for all adults to be able to make their own medical decisions.
Libertarians and classical liberals should let those seeking health freedom know that we are with them, in principle and in practice. Many of my own blog entries defend health freedom, for instance here and here.
(p. B11) Norma Swenson was working to educate women about childbirth, championing their right to have a say about how they delivered their babies, when she met the members of the collective that had put out the first rough version of what would become the feminist health classic “Our Bodies, Ourselves.”
. . .
She . . . [knew] quite a bit about the medical establishment, the paternalistic and condescending behavior of male doctors (only 6 percent of incoming medical students were women in 1960) and the harmful effect such behavior had on women’s health. She had lived it, during the birth of her daughter in 1958.
. . .
She would go on to help make “Our Bodies, Ourselves” a global best seller.
. . .
The author Barbara Ehrenreich called it a manifesto of medical populism.
. . .
It was her daughter’s birth that had made Ms. Swenson an activist. She wanted to deliver the baby naturally, without medication. Her decision was such an anomaly that residents at the Boston Lying-In Hospital gathered to watch her labor. It went swimmingly.
But Ms. Swenson, who was in a 12-bed ward, was surrounded by women who were suffering. They were giving birth according to the practices of the era: with a dose of scopolamine, a drug that induced so-called twilight sleep and hallucinations, followed by a shot of Demerol, an opioid.
She remembered the women screaming, trying to climb out of their beds, calling for their mothers and cursing their husbands before being knocked out by the Demerol, their babies delivered by forceps.
It was barbaric, she thought. “These women weren’t being helped,” she said in 2018, “they were being controlled.”
For the full obituary, see:
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed word, added.)
(Note: the online version of the obituary was updated June 16, 2025, and has the title “Norma Swenson, an Author of ‘Our Bodies, Ourselves,’ Dies at 93.”)
The most recent edition of the book co-authored by Norma Swenson is:
Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. Our Bodies, Ourselves. New York: Atria Books, 2011.
F.D.A. Approves Vertex’s Nonaddictive Drug to Block Pain
Ann Case and Angus Deaton’s Deaths of Despair is a depressing but important book. I have read parts of it but plan to read it from cover to cover soon. They document and analyze a substantial group of Americans, mostly whites without college degrees, who die from alcohol, narcotics, or suicide. Starting in the 1990s their numbers grew. Part of the problem for some of the despairing is having jobs that give them hope for a better future, jobs that at least allow them to securely start and raise a family.
The growth in narcotics use is thoughtfully described in an earlier book, Dreamland by Sam Quinones. In some of the book Quinones writes about the same non-degree despairing whites as Case and Deaton, but he also in other parts of the book, discusses rising narcotics use among the better-off. His is a thoughtful complex narrative, involving diverse victims and diverse causes.
One component is that, from desire for euphoria, or to end pain, people start using narcotics that are addictive. Then they must fight, or succumb to, the addiction for the rest of their lives. For those drawn in by a desire to end pain, the news in the passages quoted below is important–the approval of suzetrigine, a drug that blocks some kinds of pain without being addictive. Quinones in his 2015 book reports his conversation with an expert who was pessimistic that such a drug would ever be possible (pp. 311-312).
A second reason suzetrigine is of interest is that it is being brought to market by Vertex, a firm that I have discussed in earlier blog entries, most recently here. Vertex was a once-small innovative mission-oriented start-up that got big. The continuing question is whether the big Vertex can sustain its earlier innovative culture.
(p. A11) The Food and Drug Administration approved a new medication Thursday [Jan. 30, 2025] to treat pain from an injury or surgery. It is expensive, with a list price of $15.50 per pill. But unlike opioid pain medicines, it cannot become addictive.
That is because the drug, suzetrigine, made by Vertex Pharmaceuticals and to be sold as Journavx, works only on nerves outside the brain, blocking pain signals. It cannot get into the brain.
Researchers say they expect it to be the first of a new generation of more powerful nonaddictive drugs to relieve pain.
To test the drug, Vertex, which is based in Boston, conducted two large clinical trials, each with approximately 1,000 patients who had pain from surgery. They were randomly assigned to get a placebo; to get the opioid sold as Vicodin, a widely used combination pain medicine of acetaminophen (Tylenol) and hydrocodone; or to get suzetrigine.
. . .
Suzetrigine eased pain as much as the combination opioid. Both were better than the placebo at relieving pain.
For the full story see:
(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed date, added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 30, 2025, and has the title “F.D.A. Approves Drug to Treat Pain Without Opioid Effects.”)
The Case and Deaton book, cited in my introductory comments, is:
Case, Anne, and Angus Deaton. Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2020. Reprint, pb 2021 (with new preface).
The Quinones book, cited in my introductory comments, is:
Quinones, Sam. Dreamland: The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2015.
National Academy of Sciences Paper Warns Scientific “Fraud Is Growing Exponentially”
In previous blog entries I have cited evidence that top medical scientists have committed fraud in the areas of Alzheimer’s and cancer research. The research discussed in the passages quoted below reports a related but broader problem. In these accounts the fraud consisted mainly of doctored data and images, but did not mainly consist also of wholly fabricated text, which apparently is what new evidence reveals is being increasingly cranked out by paper mills.
The journals accepting these papers are presumably mainly the lower level, and less-cited, journals, and so this fraud arguably may be less damaging to the ongoing progress of science than the more sophisticated fraud carried out by top scientists and published in top journals. This argument assumes that scientists build on work published in the top journals. A problem with this argument is that many times, truly pathbreaking innovations are at first rejected by “top” journals and are only accepted by “lower” level journals. (For instance Hans Krebs’s paper on what is now known as the “Krebs cycle,” that must be memorized by all aspiring doctors, was rejected by the prestigious Nature and published by the much less prestigious Enzymologia (Lane 2022, p. 55).)
The newly revealed fraud reduces even further the credibility of those on the left who order ordinary citizens to “follow the science” rather than follow their own eyes and their own judgement.
(BTW, Dr. Elisabeth Bik who is quoted in a couple of passages quoted below, is also a prominent source in Charles Piller’s Doctored, that documented widespread high-level fraud in the Alzheimer’s research community.)
(p. D1) For years, whistle-blowers have warned that fake results are sneaking into the scientific literature at an increasing pace. A new statistical analysis backs up the concern.
A team of researchers found evidence of shady organizations churning out fake or low-quality studies on an industrial scale. And their output is rising fast, threatening the integrity of many fields.
“If these trends are not stopped, science is going to be destroyed,” said Luís A. Nunes Amaral, a data scientist at Northwestern University and an author of the study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday [Aug. 4, 2025].
. . .
“Science relies on trusting what others did, so you do not have to repeat everything,” Dr. Amaral said.
By the 2010s, journal editors and watchdog organizations were warning that this trust was under threat. They flagged a growing number of papers with fabricated data and doctored images. In the years that followed, the factors driving this increase grew more intense.
As more graduate students were trained in labs, the competition for a limited number of research jobs sharpened. High-profile papers became essential for success, not just for landing a job, but also for getting promotions and grants.
Academic publishers have responded to the demand by opening thousands of new scientific journals every year. “All of the incentives are for publishers to publish more and more,” said Dr. Ivan Oransky, the executive director of the Center for Scientific Integrity.
. . .
(p. D3) Elisabeth Bik, a California-based expert on scientific fraud who was not involved in the study, said that it confirmed her early suspicions. “It’s fantastic to see all the work we’ve done now solidified into a much higher-level analysis,” she said.
Dr. Amaral and his colleagues warn that fraud is growing exponentially. In their new study, they calculated that the number of suspicious new papers appearing each year was doubling every 1.5 years. That’s far faster than the increase of scientific papers overall, which is doubling every 15 years.
. . .
In an executive order in May on “gold-standard science,” President Trump drew attention to the problem of scientific fraud. “The falsification of data by leading researchers has led to high-profile retractions of federally funded research,” the order stated.
. . .
Dr. Bik proposed that scientific publishers dedicate more of their profits to monitoring manuscripts for fraud, similar to how credit card companies check for suspicious purchases.
. . .
Dr. Oransky said that the way scientists are rewarded for their work would have to change as well. “To paraphrase James Carville, it’s the incentives, stupid,” he said. “We need to stop making it profitable to game the system.”
For the full story see:
(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date and year, added.)
(Note: the online version of the story has the date Aug. 4, 2025, and has the title “Fraudulent Scientific Papers Are Rapidly Increasing, Study Finds.” Where there was a minor difference in the wording between the online and print versions, the passages quoted above follow the online version.)
The academic paper documenting the substantial increase in scientific fraud is:
Nick Lane’s book, cited in my introductory comments, is:
Lane, Nick. Transformer: The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2022.