Category: Books

Nvidia Entrepreneur’s Work-Life Imbalance: Ferocious Hard Work

(p. A15) Mr. Kim’s book is nothing like Walter Isaacson’s portraits of tech geniuses Steve Jobs or Elon Musk. It is more prosaic, focusing on the technical and human ground war of building a company. Even so, there is drama in Nvidia’s remarkable rise, and Mr. Kim’s reporting offers plenty of incident and portraiture.

. . .

As a teenager, we are told, Mr. Huang was a formidable table-tennis player and earned money by cleaning tables and bathrooms at a local Denny’s, a toughening experience that prepared him for life as a tech CEO. As a business sage, Mr. Huang says that work is simply perseverance in the face of difficult odds and that character is the source of greatness. Asked how to be successful, he will respond: “I wish upon you ample doses of pain and suffering.”

. . .

By . . . -the late 1990s—Mr. Huang had figured out a particular way of building and managing his company. The bedrock precept was ferociously hard work. New employees were told that the culture was “ultra-aggressive.” Mr. Huang demanded that they work at the “speed of light,” constrained (as Mr. Kim puts it) “only by the laws of physics—not by internal politics or financial concerns.”

. . .

Does all of this success make Mr. Huang happy? Apparently not. After one especially successful quarter, he began a review meeting by saying: “I look in the mirror every morning and say, ‘you suck.’ ” He still enjoys publicly dressing down employees, saying that humiliation is a small price to pay for group learning. He believes that he can “torture” his people “into greatness.” When employees begin to ramble in his presence, he will start to murmur “LUA,” a warning to the speaker. The abbreviation means: “Listen to the question. Understand the question. Answer the Question.”

For the full review see:

Philip Delves Broughton. “Bookshelf; The Hard Work Of Tech Mastery.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Dec. 16, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date December 15, 2024, and has the title “Bookshelf; The Nvidia Way’: The Hard Work of Tech Mastery.”)

The book under review is:

Kim, Tae. The Nvidia Way: Jensen Huang and the Making of a Tech Giant. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2024.

Idaho Cut or Simplified 95% of Regulations by a “Sunset” Review

In my Openness book, I argue that government regulations bind entrepreneurs and reduce innovation. As part of an antidote, I suggest that “sunset laws,” where regulations automatically expire, if not renewed. Later, at a small conference on Adam Thierer’s latest book, I was discouraged to hear a couple of participants grant the plausibility of the “antidote,” but report that in actual practice it does not work because almost all old regulations get renewed. Some hope returned when I read a report from James Broughel of a successful sunset review process:

Idaho has proved deregulation is possible. The state repealed and revised its administrative rules code through a sunset review process in 2019. The results were dramatic. Since then, 95% of state regulations have been eliminated or simplified. The sky didn’t fall. Most regulations, when subject to genuine scrutiny, fail to justify their existence.

I will keep my eyes open on this issue, looking for more evidence.

James Broughel’s commentary is:

James Broughel. “Recipe for a Regulatory Spring Cleaning.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., Nov. 26, 2024): A13.

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date November 25, 2024, and has the same title as the print version.)

My book mentioned above is:

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

Adam Thierer’s book mentioned above is:

Thierer, Adam. Evasive Entrepreneurs and the Future of Governance: How Innovation Improves Economies and Governments. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 2020.

Off-Label Drug Use Shows F.D.A. Phase 3 Trials Could Be Dropped, Adding New Cures and Lowering Costs

The F.D.A. allows physicians to prescribe drugs for “off-label” use. These drugs were originally approved for a different “on-label” use. For that approval the drugs had to pass through Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials, mainly to show safety, and massively expensive Phase 3 clinical trials to show efficacy for the on-label use.

When off-label use is allowed, that shows that the F.D.A. is accepting drugs for a use where efficacy has NOT been shown.

This is a proof of concept for my suggestion (that I originally heard from Nobel-Prize-winner Milton Friedman) that F.D.A. regulation should be pared back to just Phase 1 and Phase 2, for safety. Since the Phase 3 trials are usually far more expensive than the Phase 1 and Phase 2 combined, this would allow far more new drugs to be developed.

If the development of new drugs was cheaper, Fajgenbaum and others would not need to spend N.I.H.’s 48 millions of taxpayer dollars to comb through already-approved drugs to see if one can be jury-rigged as a therapy for a different disease.

(p. A6) [Dr. David Fajgenbaum, an immunologist at the University of Pennsylvania and . . . Castleman patient who studies the disease] . . . has matched rare-disease patients with drugs that are already in pharmacies for other conditions for over 10 years, starting with himself.

. . .

Every Cure, a nonprofit Fajgenbaum helped found in 2022, received funding on Wednesday [Feb. 28, 2024] that could surpass $48 million from the federal Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health. Fajgenbaum and his team will spend the money to build a drug-repurposing database and algorithms that patients, doctors and researchers can use to find drugs for untreated diseases.

There are over 10,000 known rare diseases and most don’t have a drug approved to treat them. The FDA said it has approved over 19,000 prescription drugs.

The notion of finding new uses for existing drugs has been around for a long time. Once the FDA approves a drug, doctors can prescribe it off-label to patients with other conditions they think it will help. Ozempic, originally approved for people with Type 2 diabetes, is now used by millions of people without the disease for weight loss.

The National Institutes of Health and research institutions have invested over the years in drug repurposing, hoping it would be faster and less costly to find new uses for drugs that have already made it to market, a process that can take more than a decade and cost $2 billion. But systematically matching approved treatments to unmet needs has been hard.

. . .

“Our end goal is not FDA approval. Our end goal is giving patients maximum access to medications,” said Tracey Sikora, co-founder of Every Cure.

For the full story see:

Amy Dockser Marcus. “Repurposed Drugs Give People With Rare Diseases New Hope.” The Wall Street Journal (Thursday, Feb. 29, 2024 [sic]): A6.

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

(Note: the online version of the story has the date February 28, 2024 [sic], and has the title “This Doctor Found His Own Miracle Drug. Now He Wants to Do It for Others.”)

For more on Fajgenbaum’s story, read his autobiographical account:

Fajgenbaum, David. Chasing My Cure: A Doctor’s Race to Turn Hope into Action; a Memoir. New York: Ballantine Books, 2019.

Covid Citizen Scientists Provided Quick and Useful Knowledge

The essay quoted below claims that patients can provide useful knowledge about the symptoms of the diseases that afflict them. I agree, but would go even further. One source of knowledge that all humans have, and even non-humans to some extent, is the observation of patterns. Patients can observe which behaviors, medicines, circumstances make their disease better and which make their disease worse. Of course sometimes patients can be biased, can fool themselves. That can be a reason that patients disagree about what works. But another reason that patients can disagree is that patients have different bodies so that what works for one patient may not work for another. Researchers and clinicians are increasingly recognizing this when they advocate and practice “personalized” (aka “precision”) medicine.

And the academic and popular literatures have exaggerated the extent to which biases undermine our observation of patterns. The exaggeration is partly because bias is bad news, and bad news sells. The usual reliability of observed patterns has been persuasively defended in Gary Klein’s The Sources of Power.

Note another point in the passages quoted below. Patients have a sense of “urgency” that scientists often lack. Sometimes quick imperfect conclusions are actionable, while slow peer-reviewed conclusions are too late to be actionable. And sometimes peer-reviewed conclusions give us conclusions that are both slow and imperfect. Ioannides argues that “most published research findings are false” (2005). I am currently reading Piller’s Doctored that discusses highly-cited papers from the Alzheimer’s literature that illustrate Ioannides’s claim.

(p. C3) A month after her Covid-19 diagnosis last March [2020], Lisa McCorkell wanted to know why she was still struggling with a cough, shortness of breath and other debilitating symptoms. Her doctors didn’t have answers, so she and a group of other Covid patients took matters into their own hands. They formed a research group on a Slack channel and launched their own study.

“I was looking for validation, that my experience was reflected in the others,” said Ms. McCorkell, 28, of Oakland, Calif., who was finishing her graduate studies in public policy when she was diagnosed.

. . .

Covid citizen scientists generated information about symptoms, such as neurological issues, that didn’t garner a lot of attention at the start of the pandemic. They highlighted the overlooked challenges faced by people whose symptoms last longer than 28 days. The studies were limited by drawing largely from patients who joined online support groups, but they gained the kind of recognition by professional scientists that citizen science doesn’t always get.  . . .

The pandemic has created an opening for citizen scientists, because even now clinicians don’t fully understand the virus. Early clinical trial data comes mainly from studies involving hospitalized patients, whose experiences may not apply to those who are suffering but don’t end up in the emergency room.

. . .

Patients who want to lead Covid research projects often must navigate tension between their sense of urgency and the traditional scientific process, which typically requires a long peer review process before publication in a journal, said Emily Sirotich, a Ph.D. student at McMaster University in Canada. On March 12, the day the WHO declared Covid a pandemic, Ms. Sirotich joined a Twitter conversation between rheumatology patients and doctors, who were on equal footing when it came to Covid: No one understood the disease. “Everyone was worried,” she said.

. . .

Patients wanted to share the survey data right away, but the researchers argued that the scientific community wouldn’t use the information to inform patient care without the validation of going through peer review. “It has to be accurate,” said Ms. Sirotich.

The two groups tried to strike a balance, Ms. Sirotich said. Patients created overview summaries of the raw data that they immediately disseminated to support groups for use in personal decision making. The physicians and patients also co-wrote and submitted articles with more detailed data analysis to peer-reviewed journals and conferences.

“Covid gave us the opportunity to show that patients can produce valid data and reliable information about what they are experiencing,” Ms. Sirotich said.

In December [2020], the Patient-Led Research for Covid-19 group posted a paper based on analyzing data from over 3,700 patients to the MedRxiv public server, which professional scientists have used throughout the pandemic to quickly make results available to the wider community before peer review. The group also plans to submit the paper to a scientific journal.

Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, Calif., and a proponent of patients tracking their own health, tweeted the results. “There is a dearth of information about Covid,” Dr. Topol later said. As a professional scientist, he added, “The paper provided invaluable new insights to me.”

For the full essay see:

Amy Dockser Marcus. “Patients Are Doing Their Own Covid-19 Research.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Jan. 30, 2021 [sic]): C3.

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

(Note: the online version of the essay has the same date as the print version, and has the title “Covid-19 Patients Are Doing Their Own Research.”)

Marcus’s essay is consistent with the theme of her book:

Marcus, Amy Dockser. We the Scientists: How a Daring Team of Parents and Doctors Forged a New Path for Medicine. New York: Riverhead Books, 2023.

The Gary Klein book I praise in my comments is:

Klein, Gary A. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. 20th Anniversary ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2017.

The Ioannidis paper that I quote above is:

Ioannidis, John P. A. “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” PLoS Medicine 2, no. 8 (Aug. 2005): 696-701.

The Piller book that I praise in my comments is:

Piller, Charles. Doctored: Fraud, Arrogance, and Tragedy in the Quest to Cure Alzheimer’s. New York: Atria/One Signal Publishers, 2025.

F.D.A.’s Project Optimus Adds to Complexity and Length of Mandated Clinical Trials, Further Burdening Innovative Startups

One of Joseph Schumpeter’s profound subtle points in the key chapter 7 of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy is that the kind of thinking and rules that aim for optimization, restrict the kind of creative, inspired thinking or improvisational pivoting that results in the greatest and fastest progress and flourishing. (My interpretation of Schumpeter.)

Great leaps forward have tended to originate from small startups. But increasing the size, length, and costs of mandated clinical trials, as the F.D.A. is doing with “Project Optimus,” will make it harder for small startups to survive, let alone flourish.

(p. B2) For years, Food and Drug Administration officials have expressed concern that cancer drug doses are often too high, leading to unnecessary side effects. An FDA program launched in 2021, Project Optimus, requires companies to re-examine how they set doses of cancer treatments.

This typically involves larger clinical trials to test doses to find those that optimally balance safety and efficacy. Entrepreneurs support the aim, but some fear the initiative will add time and cost to drug development, putting startups at a further disadvantage to larger competitors.

“I don’t think anybody disagrees with the idea that we’re trying to find the best thing for the patient,” said David Bearss, chief executive of biotechnology startup Halia Therapeutics. “I hope it doesn’t have unintended consequences of actually suppressing innovation.”

. . .

Because Project Optimus is still relatively new it will take a while for its full impact to be known. But it will likely add six to 12 months to the drug-development process, said Tara Raghavan, a pharmaceutical patent lawyer and partner with law firm Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff.

For the full story, see:

Brian Gormley. “FDA Drug Initiative Vexes Startups.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, Aug 30, 2024): B2.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date August 29, 2024, and has the title “FDA Wants Safer Cancer Drugs, but Some Startups Fear Unintended Consequences.”)

In my comments I mention Schumpeter’s chapter 7 on creative destruction that can be found in his messy, inspired masterpiece:

Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1950.

Harold Ridley’s Innovative Project Was to Replace a Cataract with a Plexiglass Lens

I am currently working on a book on medical entrepreneurship. Harold Ridley deserves inclusion.

Innovative entrepreneurs often observe anomalies and realize how the anomalies can be put to good use, where others would not notice the anomalies, or would notice them, shrug, and forget. (In Ridley’s case the anomalie was that the plastic fragments in Cleaver’s eyes “weren’t causing any inflammation or infection.”)

Pasteur famously said that ‘chance favors a prepared mind.’ If he had read Kirzner, he might have added ‘chance also favors an alert mind.’ (Kirzner’s account of entrepreneurship emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurial alertness.)

(p. A17) On Aug. 15, 1940, Royal Air Force pilot Gordon Cleaver scrambled into the cockpit of his Hawker Hurricane and lifted into the sky.  . . .  He was shot down over Winchester. Enemy bullets shattered his canopy, showering debris into his eyes. Flying blind and in excruciating pain, Cleaver managed to escape his doomed plane and parachute to the ground.

. . .

Cleaver’s damaged eyes were examined by a 34-year-old ophthalmologist, Harold Ridley. Shards of Plexiglas from his shattered canopy remained in the pilot’s eyes. This was a disaster. Foreign bodies in the eye such as lead or shrapnel usually caused inflammation or infection so severe that the eyes often had to be removed. But Ridley noticed something peculiar: The fragments of clear plastic weren’t causing any inflammation or infection. They sat quietly inside Cleaver’s eyes, glistening in the light of the ophthalmoscope. This was a shocking discovery.

Ridley examined Cleaver multiple times. The pilot’s sight was severely damaged, but the Plexiglas remained inert in his eyes, causing no inflammation. In 1948, while Ridley was removing a cataract—a clouding of the eye’s lens—for another patient, the memory of Cleaver’s case sparked an epiphany. A medical student observing the operation said, “It’s a pity you can’t replace the cataract with a clear lens.” Ridley recalled the well-tolerated Plexiglas in Cleaver’s eyes and realized that he could use the material to make an intraocular lens that the body wouldn’t reject.

. . .

His invention has saved the sight of millions. But instead of stirring professional acclaim, Ridley’s invention was a disaster for his career. The ophthalmology establishment labeled him a heretic.

Leaders in the field accused him of malpractice, ridiculed him at science conferences and poisoned colleagues against his ideas. They argued that the procedure was a “time bomb” and that “manufacturers should be prosecuted for supplying implants.” Ridley worked for decades to improve his operation and gain converts, but fell into a deep depression. When he retired in 1971, he considered his career a failure.

For the full commentary see:

Andrew Lam. “The Doctor and the Pilot Who Saved the Eyesight of Million.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Feb. 8, 2025): A17.

(Note: ellipses added.)

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

Lam’s commentary is related to his book:

Lam, Andrew. Saving Sight. Bokeelia, FL: Irie Books, 2013.

For Kirzner on entrepreneurial alertness see:

Kirzner, Israel M. Competition and Entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

Rickets Is Now Rare Because Vitamin D Is Easy to Get

(p. A15) Rickets is one of those diseases that seem incredibly old-fashioned. It’s difficult to comprehend, now, how widespread this bone ailment once was: In some cities less than a century ago, 90% of children showed symptoms of rickets during wintertime. But ubiquity has its benefits. In “Starved for Light,” Christian Warren convincingly argues that modern medicine would be unrecognizable without the many advances in treatment that trace their roots to this once-widespread disease.

Rickets results from a lack of vitamin D, which we need to help shuttle calcium and phosphorus into our bones. Our bodies manufacture vitamin D whenever ultraviolet sunlight hits our skin; we can also get it through food. A deficiency in vitamin D causes the softening and bending of bones characteristic of rickets; victims are often left bowlegged or knock-kneed, or with curved spines or misshapen pelvises. The worst cases leave babies unable to crawl or even sit up straight.

. . .

Given how disgusting cod-liver oil tastes, some countries began combating rickets by adding vitamin D to milk in the 1930s—an odd choice, since milk contains no vitamin D naturally. (Amusingly, Mr. Warren calls the practice an “in uddero” health intervention.) The choice seems even odder, the author wryly notes, when there’s a much simpler solution to preventing rickets: going outside for a few minutes. Instead, we’ve effectively turned “a dairy product into a drug-delivery device,” severing the ancient interplay between “sun, skin, and bone.”

For the full review see:

Sam Kean. “Bookshelf; A Disease Of Deficiency.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Dec. 9, 2024): A15.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date December 8, 2024, and has the title “Bookshelf; ‘Starved for Light’: A Disease of Deficiency.”)

The book under review is:

Warren, Christian. Starved for Light: The Long Shadow of Rickets and Vitamin D Deficiency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2024.

Using the Blood of the Young to Rejuvenate the Organs of the Old

The strange longevity therapy described in the passages quoted below, are hard to test, especially if started at a time in life early enough to do the most good.

Phase 3 clinical trials to establish the efficacy of a therapy are in general very expensive, and they are especially very expensive for therapies aimed at extending lifespan. To know the efficacy of such therapies you have to run the trial for many years, before you can learn the lifespans of all of those in the trial.

This may be one reason why pharma firms instead invest in incremental improvements in health tested for those predicted to be near the end of their lives.

Azra Raza claims that the most promising therapies for cancer would be those applied early in the disease. But it is precisely these candidate therapies that would be most expensive to test through a hyper-expensive Phase 3 clinical trial. The result? Unnecessarily slow progress in curing cancer.

(p. B3) Several years ago, scientists studying aging at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute used a somewhat Frankensteinian technique known as parabiosis — surgically joining a young mouse and an old mouse so that they share blood — to see what would happen to the heart and skeletal muscle tissue. They knew from previous research that putting young blood in old mice caused them to grow biologically younger, and that young mice exposed to old blood aged faster.

The Harvard researchers, Amy Wagers and Dr. Richard Lee, found that the old mouse’s heart tissue had been repaired and rejuvenated, becoming young again. In fact, the size of the old mouse’s heart had reduced to that of a young heart.

“We all wondered, what’s the magic stuff in the blood?” said Lee Rubin, a professor of stem cell and regenerative medicine at Harvard and the co-director of the neuroscience program at the Stem Cell Institute. The “magic” they identified was a protein, GDF11, one of tens of thousands produced in the human body.  . . .  The scientists’ discoveries were published in the journals Cell and Science in 2013 and 2014.

. . .

“We’re interested in proteins like GDF11 that are excreted into the bloodstream because those can cause changes throughout the body,” said Dr. Mark Allen, the chief executive of Elevian. “And those are the kind of changes we want.”

. . .

The initial research into the rejuvenating properties of GDF11 has gotten some pushback from the scientific community. In 2015, after Dr. Wagers and Dr. Lee had published their results, a group of researchers led by David Glass, the executive director of the Novartis Institutes for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass., at the time, challenged the accuracy of their findings in an article in the journal Cell Metabolism. The Harvard researchers subsequently countered the Novartis team’s findings in another paper published later that year in the journal Circulation Research, in which the Harvard researchers cited a problem with the Novartis team’s findings.

Dr. Glass, who is now at the biotechnology company Regeneron, said in a recent email that he stands by his original work, which showed that GDF11 inhibits, rather than helps, muscle regeneration. But, he added, “our work still leaves open the possibility that there could be positive effects of GDF11 in particular settings.”

Dr. Allen said that since the original controversy, Elevian’s research team has reproduced and extended its original findings in multiple studies, but none have yet been published in peer-reviewed journals. However, institutions unrelated to Elevian have conducted and published many preclinical studies demonstrating the therapeutic efficacy of rGDF11 (the form of GDF11 developed in a lab) in treating age-related diseases.

. . .

A significant challenge lies ahead for all of these companies: Commercializing a drug for aging is nearly impossible because the F.D.A. doesn’t recognize aging as a disease to be treated. And even if it were considered a disease, the clinical studies required to prove that a treatment for it worked would take many years.

“It is likely that clinical studies to see if some drug slows aging — and thereby delays the many consequences of aging — would take a long time,” Dr. Miller said.

. . .

The next big hurdle for Elevian is scaling its manufacturing, which requires specialized equipment and conditions. So much research is being conducted in biotech that contract manufacturers are “full up,” Dr. Allen said. “They are busy with Covid-related work, and there has been a lot of funding in biotech generally,” he added. “So it’s a challenge finding the space that meets our specifications.”

. . .

“By targeting fundamental mechanisms of aging, we have the opportunity to treat or prevent multiple aging-related diseases and extend the health span,” he said. “We want to make 100 the new 50.”

For the full story see:

Eilene Zimmerman. “Biotech Start-Up Invests in Anti-Aging Therapy.” The New York Times (Monday, August 1, 2022 [sic]): B3.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date July 19, 2022 [sic], and has the title “Can a ‘Magic’ Protein Slow the Aging Process?”)

The published academic articles supporting the promising effects of GDF11 are:

Katsimpardi, Lida, Nadia K. Litterman, Pamela A. Schein, Christine M. Miller, Francesco S. Loffredo, Gregory R. Wojtkiewicz, John W. Chen, Richard T. Lee, Amy J. Wagers, and Lee L. Rubin. “Vascular and Neurogenic Rejuvenation of the Aging Mouse Brain by Young Systemic Factors.” Science 344, no. 6184 (May 9, 2014): 630-34.

Loffredo, Francesco S., Matthew L. Steinhauser, Steven M. Jay, Joseph Gannon, James R. Pancoast, Pratyusha Yalamanchi, Manisha Sinha, Claudia Dall’Osso, Danika Khong, Jennifer L. Shadrach, Christine M. Miller, Britta S. Singer, Alex Stewart, Nikolaos Psychogios, Robert E. Gerszten, Adam J. Hartigan, Mi-Jeong Kim, Thomas Serwold, Amy J. Wagers, and Richard T. Lee. “Growth Differentiation Factor 11 Is a Circulating Factor That Reverses Age-Related Cardiac Hypertrophy.” Cell 153, no. 4 (May 9, 2013): 828-39.

Poggioli, Tommaso, Ana Vujic, Peiguo Yang, Claudio Macias-Trevino, Aysu Uygur, Francesco S. Loffredo, James R. Pancoast, Miook Cho, Jill Goldstein, Rachel M. Tandias, Emilia Gonzalez, Ryan G. Walker, Thomas B. Thompson, Amy J. Wagers, Yick W. Fong, and Richard T. Lee. “Circulating Growth Differentiation Factor 11/8 Levels Decline with Age.” Circulation Research 118, no. 1 (Jan. 2016): 29-37.

Sinha, Manisha, Young C. Jang, Juhyun Oh, Danika Khong, Elizabeth Y. Wu, Rohan Manohar, Christine Miller, Samuel G. Regalado, Francesco S. Loffredo, James R. Pancoast, Michael F. Hirshman, Jessica Lebowitz, Jennifer L. Shadrach, Massimiliano Cerletti, Mi-Jeong Kim, Thomas Serwold, Laurie J. Goodyear, Bernard Rosner, Richard T. Lee, and Amy J. Wagers. “Restoring Systemic Gdf11 Levels Reverses Age-Related Dysfunction in Mouse Skeletal Muscle.” Science 344, no. 6184 (May 9, 2014): 649-52.

The book by Asra Raza that I praise in my introductory comments is:

Raza, Azra. The First Cell: And the Human Costs of Pursuing Cancer to the Last. New York: Basic Books, 2019.

W.H.O. Ignored Those Who Knew Covid Was Airborne

The article quoted below provides more evidence that the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) failed to protect world health during the Covid pandemic. Its funding and decision-making processes made failure highly likely.

In the absence of W.H.O, how can we learn quickly of potential pandemic threats from around the world? The Covid book co-authored by Ridley documents quick and effective Twitter (now X) networks that spread and evaluated Covid information. Maybe a proof of concept?

(p. D3) In early February 2020, China locked down more than 50 million people, hoping to hinder the spread of a new coronavirus. No one knew at the time exactly how it was spreading, but Lidia Morawska, an expert on air quality at Queensland University of Technology in Australia, did not like the clues she managed to find.

It looked to her as if the coronavirus was spreading through the air, ferried by wafting droplets exhaled by the infected. If that were true, then standard measures such as disinfecting surfaces and staying a few feet away from people with symptoms would not be enough to avoid infection.

Dr. Morawska and her colleague, Junji Cao at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, drafted a dire warning. Ignoring the airborne spread of the virus, they wrote, would lead to many more infections. But when the scientists sent their commentary to medical journals, they were rejected over and over again.

“No one would listen,” Dr. Morawska said.

It took more than two years for the World Health Organization to officially acknowledge that Covid spread through the air.

For the full story see:

Carl Zimmer. “Covid Proved Airborne. Could Bird Flu Be, Too?” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 4, 2025): D3.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date February 3, 2025, and has the title “Could the Bird Flu Become Airborne?”)

The book co-authored by Ridley that I praise in my initial comments is:

Chan, Alina, and Matt Ridley. Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19. New York: Harper, 2021.

Chinese Communist Regulators Will Want to Deep-Six DeepSeek

Many policy experts have worried than China’s economy will surpass the economy of the United States. If we lived in a world of totally free trade, I would not care if this happened. Economics is not a competitive sport where one team can win only if another team loses. A free economy is not a zero-sum game. If you are OK with me mixing metaphors: a rising tide really does lift all boats. (Amar Bhidé (quoting Paul Krugman, if memory serves) does a good job of making this point in The Venturesome Economy.)

But even though it wouldn’t bother me, China’s economy will not surpass that of the United States if China continues to oppressively regulate its economy and we continue to exuberantly unregulate our economy. An economy thrives when entrepreneurs thrive and entrepreneurs thrive when unregulated.

Consider the recent hand-wringing over the recently announced DeepSeek Chinese A.I. program. The Chinese Communists will be especially energetic in regulating entrepreneurs in the A.I. sector because the Communists cannot afford to have Chinese A.I. programs giving true answers to questions in any way related to the Chinese economy, or to the corruption and authoritarianism of the Chinese Communist regime. A.I. policy expert Barath Harithas understates the situation when he says: “Overregulation and the need to adhere to ‘core socialist values’ could risk neutering A.I.’s potential” (as quoted in Pierson and Wang 2025, p. A4).

Barath Haritas’s statement on overregulation of A.I. in China can be found in:

David Pierson and Berry Wang. “Success of DeepSeek Lifts China, but Party May Halt Its Progress.” The New York Times (Tues., February 4, 2025): A4.

(Note: the online version of the article has the date February 2, 2025, and has the title “DeepSeek Is a Win for China in the A.I. Race. Will the Party Stifle It?”)

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

Bhidé, Amar. The Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a More Connected World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Dow Chemical CEO Oreffice Candidly Called Environmentalists “Professional Merchants of Doom”

I have the impression that few C.E.O.s today display the open candor that Ralph Nader admired in Paul Oreffice. Is that because cancel culture has been efficient at weeding out any rising executives who might be tempted to be candid? Or do I have a mistaken impression due to the press not reporting as often on the candid comments still being made by some C.E.O.s?

[I was happy to see that Oreffice had learned public speaking in a Toastmasters Club. I heard a lot about Toastmasters as a child–my father was very active in Toastmasters and was eventually elected President of the whole international self-help organization.]

(p. C6) In a 1977 speech at Central Michigan University, Jane Fonda accused Dow Chemical of exposing workers to dangerous substances and not paying its fair share of taxes. Paul Oreffice, who was then president of Dow’s U.S. operations, sent a letter to the university denouncing Fonda as “an avowed communist sympathizer” who was spreading “venom against free enterprise.”

He also cut off Dow’s donations to the university.

. . .

Addressing a business conference in 1979, Oreffice described environmentalists as “professional merchants of doom” and enemies who were destroying free enterprise, according to a Washington Post report.

. . .

Ralph Nader, the consumer-protection crusader, often was at odds with Oreffice but saw merit in his candor. “He is comparatively open to interviews, to questions from audiences, to debates,” Nader wrote in “The Big Boys,” a 1986 book written with William Taylor. “Despite his position as chief executive of a major corporation embroiled in ongoing controversies, he chooses not to hide behind company spokesmen and other bureaucratic shields.”

. . .

Oreffice resisted organization charts because he believed they “put people in boxes.”

. . .

. . ., Oreffice . . . learned public speaking at a Toastmasters club, . . .

As a CEO, he reduced costs and bureaucracy through attrition rather than mass layoffs. “How can you expect allegiance from your employees when you don’t show them any yourself?” he wrote in his memoir.

For the full obituary see:

James R. Hagerty. “An Outspoken Former CEO Of Dow Chemical.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, February 1, 2025): C6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the obituary has the date January 29, 2025, and has the title “Paul Oreffice, Outspoken Former CEO of Dow Chemical, Dies at 97.” Where the wording is different between the two versions, the passages quoted above follow the online version.)

Oreffice’s memoir mentioned above is:

Oreffice, Paul. Only in America: From Immigrant to CEO. Macon, GA: Stroud & Hall Publishers, 2006.