Category: Books

Vinyl LP Records Have Been Mostly Replaced, but in Kansas Not Completely Destroyed

In my Openness book, I argue that Schumpeter’s phrase “creative destruction” misleads by overemphasizing the extent of destruction in the process of breakthrough innovation, so I prefer to call the process “innovative dynamism.” A new innovation is often better than the old in many, but not all, traits. A minority of people who put heavy weight on the traits where the old product is better, will still prefer the old product. If the minority is large enough, and willing to pay enough for their preference, then there will be enough demand for the old product to remain in production, rather than be fully replaced (i.e., destroyed).

Illustrating my point, The New York Times ran two full pages on Chad Kassem, a Kansas entrepreneur who is working hard, with some success, at making higher quality vinyl LP records. He has 114 employees and annual revenue of over $1 million.

He is even introducing incremental innovations to the old product: (p. 6) “Kassem hired veterans of the record-making business and indulged their ideas for modernizing a process that (p. 7) had barely changed since the 1970s. Among other innovations, they introduced computerized controls and found ways to regulate the fluctuating temperature of vinyl in the presses.”

The New York Times article is:

Ben Sisario. “In a Digital World, Pursuing an Ideal Of Perfect Vinyl.” The New York Times, Arts&Leisure Section (Sun., March 9, 2025): 6-7.

(Note: the online version of The New York Times article on the resilience of vinyl was updated March 7, 2025, and has the title “The Wizard of Vinyl Is in Kansas.”)

My book mentioned in my initial comments is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

Muriel Bristol Was Allowed to Act on What She Knew but Was Unable to Prove or Explain

Muriel Bristol knew that tea tasted better when the milk was poured in first, than when it was poured in after the tea. She knew it but couldn’t prove it and didn’t know why it was true. The world is better when more of us, more often, can act on what we know, but what we can neither prove nor explain. Too often regulations restrict the actions of entrepreneurs to what they can prove and explain, e.g., in the firing of employees.

This slows and reduces efficiency and innovation (not to mention freedom).

(p. C8) [Adam] Kucharski, a mathematically trained epidemiologist, says that the rigor and purity of mathematics has imbued it with extraordinary rhetorical power. “In an uncertain world, it is reassuring to think there is at least one field that can provide definitive answers,” he writes. Yet he adds that certainty can sometimes be an illusion. “Even mathematical notions of proof” are “not always as robust and politics-free as they might seem.”

. . .

. . ., proving what is “obvious and simple” isn’t always easy. Kucharski offers the delightful example of Muriel Bristol, a scientist who always put the milk in her cup before pouring her tea, because she insisted it tasted better. In the 1920s, a skeptical statistician designed a blind taste test to see if Bristol could distinguish between cups of milk-then-tea and cups of tea-then-milk. Bristol got all of them right. In 2008, the Royal Society of Chemistry reported that when milk is poured into hot tea, “individual drops separate from the bulk of the milk” and allow “significant denaturation to occur.” The result is a burnt flavor. Eighty years after Bristol was statistically vindicated, she was chemically vindicated too.

For the full review see:

Jennifer Szalai. “Proving It Doesn’t Necessarily Make It True.” The New York Times (Saturday, May 3, 2025): C8.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed name, added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date April 30, 2025, and has the title “Just Because You Can Prove It Doesn’t Make It True.”)

The book under review is:

Kucharski, Adam. Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. New York: Basic Books, 2025.

A Rare Antibody in James Harrison’s Blood Protected the Lives of 2.4 Million Australian Babies

I recently purchased from Amazon, but have not read, Good Blood, which describes the discovery of a cure, and the struggle for acceptance of the cure, for the RH disease sketched in the passages quoted below. The disease affected my family, but I am not sure I remember exactly how. I am Rh positive and I think my mother was Rh negative. I think with each child after me, there was increasing risk and worry of possible bad health effects.

According to the Amazon summary for Good Blood, the book also describes the devotion of master blood donor James Harrison, whose recent obituary is quoted below.

Starting at least in the 1960s medical experts were often optimistic that future medical advances would come from designer chemicals enabled by scientific advances in our knowledge of chemistry and biological processes. Taxpayer funding was devoted to that approach in Nixon’s War on Cancer. But fewer medical advances have come from that approach than hoped, and more advances than expected have continued to come from the evolved usable chemicals (sometimes poisons, sometimes antibodies) of plants, animals, and exceptional human beings like Mr. Harrison.

Mao is often misquoted as saying ‘Let a thousand flowers bloom,’ but someone should say it (at least if the cost of planting the flowers is not too high).

(p. A25) James Harrison did not much care for needles. Whenever he donated plasma, he would look away as the tip went into his arm.

But Mr. Harrison was one of the most prolific donors in history, extending his arm 1,173 times. He may have also been one of the most important: Scientists used a rare antibody in his plasma to make a medication that helped protect an estimated 2.4 million babies in Australia from possible disease or death, medical experts say.

“He just kept going and going and going,” his grandson Jarrod Mellowship said in an interview on Monday [March 3, 2025]. “He didn’t feel like he had to do it. He just wanted to do it.”

. . .

Mr. Harrison’s plasma contained the rare antibody anti-D. Scientists used it to make a medication for pregnant mothers whose immune systems could attack their fetuses’ red blood cells, according to Australian Red Cross Lifeblood.

Anti-D helps protect against problems that can occur when babies and mothers have different blood types, most often if the fetus is “positive” and the mother is “negative,” according to the Cleveland Clinic. (The positive and negative signs are called the Rhesus factor, or Rh factor.)

In such cases, a mother’s immune system might react to the fetus as if it were a foreign threat. That can lead babies to develop a dangerous and potentially fatal condition, hemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn, which can cause anemia and jaundice.

. . .

In Australia, scientists from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne are working to create a synthetic version of the drug using what some have called “James in a Jar,” an antibody that can be made in a lab.

But for now, human donors are essential: The anti-D shots are made with donated plasma, and Mr. Harrison was one of about 200 donors among the 27 million people in Australia, Lifeblood said.

. . .

Mr. Harrison knew the importance of his work firsthand. At 14, he needed a lot of blood transfusions during a major lung surgery. The experience inspired him to donate and encourage others to donate, too.

For the full obituary, see:

Amelia Nierenberg. “James Harrison, Whose Rare Antibodies Helped Millions, Is Dead at 88.” The New York Times (Saturday, March 8, 2025): A25.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the obituary was updated March 7, 2025, and has the title “James Harrison, Whose Antibodies Helped Millions, Dies at 88.”)

The Good Blood book, mentioned above, is:

Guthrie, Julian. Good Blood: A Doctor, a Donor, and the Incredible Breakthrough That Saved Millions of Babies. New York: Harry N. Abrams Press, 2020.

Private Sector Succeeds Where Public Sector Fails at Operating a Successful Passenger Train

The New York Times recently ran a surprising (for them) article highlighting the success of the privately owned Brightline passenger railroad on the east coast of Florida. The Times contrasts the private success of Brightline with the public failures of Amtrak and California’s mostly undone proposed bullet train. Amtrak ran an operating deficit of over $700 million in 2024. The long-planned, barely-begun, pared-back California bullet train is now estimated to require over $100 billion to reach completion.

Maybe Brightline succeeds because the private sector allows entrepreneurs to use what Deirdre McCloskey calls trade-tested innovation to pursue their projects.

The private sector allows innovative dynamism.

The New York Times article is:

Michael Kimmelman. “What’s So Hard About Building High-Speed Trains?” The New York Times (Sat., April 19, 2025): B4-B5.

(Note: the online version of the article was updated April 18, 2025, and has the title “What’s So Hard About Building Trains?”)

McCloskey discusses trade-tested innovation in:

McCloskey, Deirdre N. Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital, Transformed the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 2016.

I discuss innovative dynamism in:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

A World with No Tariffs, No Barriers, No Subsidies

Art Laffer and Stephen Moore had an op-ed a few weeks ago in which they encouraged Donald Trump to be the best version of himself on the tariff and trade issue. Trump has made inconsistent statements on tariffs and trade. Sometimes his goal seems to be to seek long-term tariffs that bring in substantial revenue. But his best version seeks a mutual reduction in tariffs to zero–a world of free trade, which when combined with deregulation and downsizing of government will allow entrepreneurs to innovate and trade so that we all flourish.

The best version of Trump is the one who spoke the following words in 2018 at a meeting of the Group of Seven in Quebec:

“No tariffs, no barriers. That’s the way it should be. And no subsidies. I even said, ‘no tariffs.’ . . . Ultimately, that’s what you want. You want tariff-free, no barriers and you want no subsidies.”

Source of quote:

Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore. “A Win-Win Exit Strategy For Trump on Tariffs.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., April 8, 2025): A17.

(Note: ellipsis in original.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date April 7, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

(Note: Stephen Moore wrote a nice blurb for my Openness book.

Killer Conservationists

I have not read Cull of the Wild: Killing in the Name of Conservation, but from its title and description it sounds like it documents an important and under-appreciated point. The point is that to “conserve” some species, so-called “conservationists” sometimes kill large numbers of the members of other species. (See, e.g., my blog entry on west coast “conservationists” killing massive numbers of one kind of brown owl in order to preserve a similar species of brown owl.)

Species ebb and flow. This was true before humanity arrived and is still true now. “Conservationists” anoint some species as “indigenous” and others as “invasive,” which can only be done if some particular arbitrary moment is taken as the one that must be preserved or returned-to.

The book that looks promising is:

Warwick, Hugh. Cull of the Wild: Killing in the Name of Conservation. London: Bloomsbury Wildlife, 2024.

Pasteur Saw That “Germs Were Everywhere in the Air”

The passages quoted below show how Pasteur respected his audience by finding a clear and compelling way to communicate that “germs” float in the air. The essay quoted below is adapted from Zimmer’s recently released Air-Borne book.

In other parts of Air-Borne, Zimmer discusses how the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. ignored the implications of the findings of Pasteur and others, relevant to the air-borne (aerosol) spread of diseases such as Covid-19.

(p. D8) On the evening of April 7, 1864, in an amphitheater filled with Parisian elites, Pasteur stood surrounded by lab equipment and a lamp to project images on a screen. He told the audience it would not leave the soiree without recognizing that the air was rife with invisible germs. “We can’t see them now, for the same reason that, in broad daylight, we can’t see the stars,” he said.

At Pasteur’s command, the lights went out, save for a cone of light that revealed floating motes of dust. Pasteur asked the audience to picture a rain of dust falling on every surface in the amphitheater. That dust, he said, was alive.

Pasteur then used a pump to drive air through a sterile piece of cotton. After soaking the cotton in water, he put a drop under a microscope. He projected its image on a screen for the audience to see. Alongside soot and bits of plaster, they could make out squirming corpuscles. “These, gentlemen, are the germs of microscopic beings,” Pasteur said.

Germs were everywhere in the air, he said — kicked up in dust, taking flights of unknown distances and then settling back to the ground, where they worked their magic of fermentation. Germs broke down “everything on the surface of this globe which once had life, in the general economy of creation,” Pasteur said.

“This role is immense, marvelous, positively moving,” he added.

The lecture ended with a standing ovation. Pasteur’s hunt for floating germs elevated him to the highest ranks of French science.

For the full essay see:

Zimmer, Carl. “He Showed That Germs Floated in Air.” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 18, 2025): D8.

(Note: ellipsis, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the essay was updated Feb. 18, 2025, and has the title “Louis Pasteur’s Relentless Hunt for Germs Floating in the Air.”)

Zimmer’s essay, quoted above, is adapted from his book:

Zimmer, Carl. Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe. New York: Dutton, 2025.

“Effort Means That You Care About Something”

In my Openness book, I argue that we should allow each other the freedom to choose intensity over work-life balance. David Brooks is sometimes thought-provoking and eloquent, for instance in the passages quoted below where he defends intensity.

One question that Brooks discusses elsewhere in his essay is: how do you find your “passion,” your “misery,” your “vocation”? He tries but after reading his answers, I think the mystery mostly remains. The best answer to this question that I have found is in a book by John Chisholm called Unleash Your Inner Company. Chishom suggests that you should apply yourself to something worth doing, and work to do it better. If you do that, he suggests, you are likely to eventually find you increasingly care about what you are doing.

(p. 9) My own chosen form of misery is writing. Of course, this is now how I make a living, so I’m earning extrinsic rewards by writing. But I wrote before money was involved, and I’m sure I’ll write after, and the money itself isn’t sufficient motivation.

Every morning, seven days a week, I wake up and trudge immediately to my office and churn out my 1,200 words — the same daily routine for over 40 years. I don’t enjoy writing. It’s hard and anxiety-filled most of the time. Just figuring out the right structure for a piece is incredibly difficult and gets no easier with experience.

I don’t like to write but I want to write. Getting up and trudging into that office is just what I do. It’s the daily activity that gives structure and meaning to life. I don’t enjoy it, but I care about it.

We sometimes think humans operate by a hedonic or utilitarian logic. We seek out pleasure and avoid pain. We seek activities with low costs and high rewards. Effort is hard, so we try to reduce the amount of effort we have to put into things — including, often enough, the effort of thinking things through.

And I think we do operate by that kind of logic a lot of the time — just not when it comes to the most important things in our lives. When it comes to the things we really care about — vocation, family, identity, whatever gives our lives purpose — we are operating by a different logic, which is the logic of passionate desire and often painful effort.

. . .

. . . I have found that paradoxically life goes more smoothly when you take on difficulties rather than try to avoid them. People are more tranquil when they are heading somewhere, when they have brought their lives to a point, going in one direction toward an important goal. Humans were made to go on quests, and amid quests more stress often leads to more satisfaction, at least until you get to the highest levels. The psychologist Carol Dweck once wrote: “Effort is one of the things that gives meaning to life. Effort means that you care about something.”

All this toil is not really about a marathon or a newspaper article or a well-stocked shelf at the grocery store. It’s about slowly molding yourself into the strong person you want to be. It’s to expand yourself through challenge, steel yourself through discipline and grow in understanding, capacity and grace. The greatest achievement is the person you become via the ardor of the journey.

. . .

So, sure, on a shallow level we lead our lives on the axis of pleasure and pain. But at the deeper level, we live on the axis between intensity and drift. Evolution or God or both have instilled in us a primal urge to explore, build and improve. But life is at its highest when passion takes us far beyond what evolution requires, when we’re committed to something beyond any utilitarian logic.

For the full commentary see:

David Brooks. “A Surprising Route to the Best Life Possible.” The New York Times, SundayOpinion Section (Sun., March 30, 2025): 9.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date March 27, 2025, and has the same title as the print version. The first couple of paragraphs quoted above appear in the longer online version, but not in the shorter print version, of the commentary. In the third quoted paragraph, the words “like” and “want” are italicized.)

My book mentioned in my initial comments is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

The book by Chisholm that I praise in my initial comments is:

Chisholm, John. Unleash Your Inner Company: Use Passion and Perseverance to Build Your Ideal Business. Austin, TX: Greenleaf Book Group Press, 2015.

Animals Consume Effective Medicines Without Spending Billions on Phase 3 Clinical Trials

Animals are free to self-medicate and apparently often do so effectively. Isn’t it ironic that our government F.D.A. restricts the freedom of humans to self-medicate?

(p. A13) . . . as Jaap de Roode reveals in “Doctors by Nature: How Ants, Apes, and Other Animals Heal Themselves,” many animals seek out substances to relieve illnesses or battle parasites that drag their health down: . . .

Mr. de Roode, a biology professor at Emory University, chronicles animal self-medication in everything from caterpillars and bees to pigs and dolphins. The drugs take the form of minerals, fungi and especially plants. Often, the drug is ingested for therapeutic reasons, as when chimps eat Velcro-like leaves to scour parasitic worms from their intestines. Many creatures also take drugs prophylactically, to prevent disease. The feline love of catnip, Mr. de Roode suggests, is probably an evolutionary adaptation: The plant deters disease-carrying mosquitoes, so cats with a taste for it ended up more equipped for survival.

. . .

Many plants produce chemicals called alkaloids that taste foul and cause other unpleasant sensations, but can also fight off parasites. After noticing that woolly bear caterpillars infested with fly maggots tend to seek out alkaloid-rich plants, scientists documented—by threading tiny wires into the caterpillars’ mouths—that the infected critters’ taste buds fired far more often when eating these plants than did the taste buds of the uninfected. The bugs’ sensory perception changed to make drugs more attractive. If the consumption of some irregular substance leads to a drop in infection load and alleviates negative symptoms, then, Mr. de Roode convincingly argues, animals are indeed using medicine. Caterpillar, heal thyself.

. . .

Humans can benefit from studying animal medicine, too. Most of our drugs are either plant compounds or derived from plant compounds. But researchers have systematically studied only a few hundred of the earth’s estimated tens of thousands of plant species. To guide researchers’ studies, scientists could note which ones animals consume and concentrate on those. Let Mother Nature do the research and development for us.

For the full review see:

Sam Kean. “Bookshelf; Medicinal Kingdom.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, March 28, 2025): A13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date March 27, 2025, and has the title “Bookshelf; ‘Doctors by Nature’: Medicinal Kingdom.”)

The book under review is:

Roode, Jaap de. Doctors by Nature: How Ants, Apes, and Other Animals Heal Themselves. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2025.

90% of Biomedical Articles Are “Either Misleading, Wrong or Completely Fabricated”

The right to health freedom is primarily an ethical issue. But the uncertainty and unreliability of much medical “knowledge” (as argued in the book reviewed in the passages quoted below) seems to strengthen the case for patient self-determination.

(p. A15) The largest repositories of biomedical research in the U.S. and Europe, PubMed and Europe PMC, contain 84 million articles between them, and add a million more each year. According to recent estimates, up to 90% of those papers—75 million total—contain information that’s either misleading, wrong or completely fabricated.

Over the past 20 years, certain branches of science have endured a so-called reproducibility crisis, in which countless papers have been exposed as shoddy if not bogus. Sometimes these revelations are merely embarrassing, but in biomedical research, incorrect publications can cost lives as doctors and drugmakers rely on them to treat patients.

In “Unreliable: Bias, Fraud, and the Reproducibility Crisis in Biomedical Research,” Csaba Szabo—a physician with doctorates in physiology and pharmacology—dissects the ways he’s seen research go wrong in his 30 years in academia and industry: data manipulation, poor experimental design, statistical errors and more.

. . .

The biggest problem, however, lies with scientists who strive to do good work but feel pressured to cut corners. Scientists cannot work without grant money, but of the 70,000 applications the National Institutes of Health receive each year, only 20% get funded. Leading journals reject up to 99% of papers submitted, and only one in 200 doctoral graduates ever becomes a full professor. Even with tenure, professors can suffer salary cuts or have their labs handed to higher-performing colleagues if they don’t keep pulling in cash. Some sadistic research professors even pit their graduate students against each other in “dogfights”—they run the same experiment, but only the first to get results publishes. No wonder researchers massage data or fudge images: Forget “publish or perish.” It’s “fib or forgo your career.”

. . .

Given this tsunami of mistakes, the author points out that cynical types have suggested we treat all biomedical research as fraudulent unless proved otherwise. The cost is staggering: The U.S. wastes tens of billions of dollars annually on useless research, shortening or even costing patient lives. Most scientists can’t even reproduce their own data half the time, and the number of papers retracted rose to 10,000 in 2023 from 500 in 2010.

. . .

Most importantly, Dr. Szabo calls for systematic changes in how science gets done.

. . .

Above all, he despises the broken status quo, where “everybody acts politely . . . keeps their mouths shut, and acts like the whole process is functioning perfectly well.”

For the full review see:

Sam Kean. “Bookshelf; Reaching For Results.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, March 24, 2025): A15.

(Note: ellipses between paragraphs added; ellipsis internal to paragraph, in original.)

(Note: the online version of the review was updated March 24, 2025, and has the title “Bookshelf; ‘Unreliable’: Reaching for Results.”)

The book under review is:

Szabo, Csaba. Unreliable: Bias, Fraud, and the Reproducibility Crisis in Biomedical Research. New York: Columbia University Press, 2025.

Both Homocysteine and Cholesterol Are Actionable Causes of Atherosclerosis

Alan Donagan taught a thought-provoking graduate course on Action Theory when I was a philosophy student at the University of Chicago in the mid to late 1970s. Some of the course related to how we think about causes in the social sciences and in policy debates.

Often we seek THE cause of what we want (or what we want to avoid). But most results have multiple causes. Which cause is most important, and so to some appears to be THE cause, depends largely on which cause is most easily actionable, which can change based on our knowledge or our constraints.

The obituary passages quoted below tell the sad story of how Kilmer McCully found that an amino acid called homocysteine was one cause of atherosclerosis, a cause that was actionable (could be countered) by eating foods containing various of the B vitamins. Kilmer’s career was canceled by powerful academics committed to the dominant view that cholesterol was THE cause of atherosclerosis.

McCully’s Harvard lab was moved to the basement, and eventually he was pressured out of Harvard.

Later studies, including the large, influential, and continuing Framingham study, eventually vindicated McCully’s claim.

We know the wrongly-cancelled pay a price for deviating from the dominant view. But how often do the cancellers pay a price for wrongly cancelling?

(p. B6) Kilmer S. McCully, a pathologist at Harvard Medical School in the 1960s and ’70s whose colleagues banished him to the basement for insisting — correctly, it turned out — that homocysteine, an amino acid, was being overlooked as a possible risk factor for heart disease, died on Feb. 21 [2025] at his home in Winchester, Mass. He was 91.

. . .

Dr. McCully didn’t think cholesterol should be ignored, but he thought it was malpractice to disregard the significance of homocysteine. His bosses at Harvard disagreed. First, they moved his lab below ground; then they told him to leave. He struggled to find work for years.

. . .

Presenting the case of homocystinuria in a 9-year-old girl, doctors mentioned that her uncle had died from a stroke in the 1930s, when he was 8 and had the same disease. “How could an eight-year-old have died the way old people do?” Dr. McCully wrote, with his daughter, in “The Heart Revolution” (1999).

When Dr. McCully tracked down the autopsy report and tissue samples, he was astounded: The boy had hardened arteries, but there was no cholesterol or fat in the plaque buildup. A few months later, he learned about a baby boy with homocystinuria who had recently died. He also had hardened arteries.

“I barely slept for two weeks,” he wrote.

In 1969, Dr. McCully published a paper about the cases in The American Journal of Pathology. The next year, in the same journal, he described what happened after he injected rabbits with high doses of homocysteine. “The aortas of all 13 of the animals injected with homocysteine were moderately thickened,” he wrote, “compared to the controls.”

. . .

The medical profession responded with “stony silence,” Dr. McCully told The Times.  . . .

. . .

“I felt for him, and I admired him,” J. David Spence, a professor emeritus at the University of Western Ontario who studies homocysteine, said in an interview. “He was neglected more than he ought to have been. It was sad.”

That began to change in the early 1990s, when large-scale, long-term studies of the risks for heart disease revealed that Dr. McCully had, in fact, been heading down the right path when Harvard relegated him to the basement.

. . .

As a teenager, Kilmer was enthralled by “Microbe Hunters,” Paul de Kruif’s 1926 book about Pasteur, Walter Reed, Robert Koch and others who investigated infectious diseases. He knew almost immediately that he wanted to become a scientist.

. . .

At a medical school reunion in 1999, his classmates presented him with a silver platter.

It was inscribed, “To Kim McCully, who saw the truth before the rest of us, indeed before the rest of medicine, and who would not be turned aside.”

For the full obituary see:

Michael S. Rosenwald. “Kilmer S. McCully Is Dead at 91; Fueled Debate on Heart Disease.” The New York Times (Monday, March 24, 2025): B6.

(Note: ellipses, and bracketed date, added.)

(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date March 21, 2025, and has the title “Kilmer McCully, 91, Dies; Pathologist Vindicated on Heart Disease Theory.”)

The book by McCully and his daughter, mentioned above, is:

McCully, Kilmer, and Martha McCully. Heart Revolution: The Vitamin B Breakthrough That Lowers Homocysteine Levels, Cuts Your Risk of Heart Disease, and Protects Your Health. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999.

The book that inspired a teenage McCully to become a scientist is:

Kruif, Paul de. Microbe Hunters. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1926.