Category: Books

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.

Libertarians Salute Trump for Keeping His Promise to Pardon Free Trade Innovator Ross Ulbricht

Libertarians believe that governments should stay out of voluntary exchanges between consenting adults. So when Ross Urlbricht set up Silk Road as a platform for exchange that excluded governments, he became a libertarian hero. (For an extensive account see Bilton 2017.) When Ulbricht was given a disproportionately severe sentence, he became a martyred libertarian hero.

Libertarians are conflicted about Donald Trump. They like his courage and perseverance, but don’t like his name-calling and bullying. They like his deregulation and downsized bureaucracies, but don’t like his tariffs and industrial policy.

Trump promised that if elected, he would pardon Ross Ulbricht. On the first full day of his second term, The Donald kept his promise. Libertarians like that–a lot!

Michael Milken was an entrepreneurial finance innovator whose RICO conviction, instigated by Rudy Giuliani in his New York City prosecutor days, was a travesty of justice. (See: Kornbluth 1992; (an aside in) Milken 2023, and Sandler 2023.) The second Bush could and should have pardoned Milken, but did not. Trump late in his first term did, putting justice ahead of political correctness.

Not many people care about Ulbricht and Milken, but those who do care, care–inclining them to keep open minds on Donald Trump.

For The New York Times‘s snidely dismissive view of the Ulbricht pardon see:

David Yaffe-Bellany and Ryan Mac. “Pardon Is Won By Leveraging Trump’s Needs.” The New York Times (Fri., January 24, 2025): A1 & A15.

(Note: the online version of the article has the date January 22, 2025, and has the title “How Trump Was Persuaded to Pardon an Online Drug Kingpin.”)

The best known account of Ulbricht’s Silk Road is:

Bilton, Nick. American Kingpin: The Epic Hunt for the Criminal Mastermind Behind the Silk Road. New York: Portfolio, 2017.

The books on Milken mentioned in my comments are:

Kornbluth, Jesse. Highly Confident: The Crime and Punishment of Michael Milken. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1992.

Milken, Michael. Faster Cures: Accelerating the Future of Health. New York: William Morrow, 2023.

Sandler, Richard V. Witness to a Prosecution: The Myth of Michael Milken. ForbesBooks: Charleston, South Carolina, 2023.

Medical Oversight Boards Jeopardize Patient Safety by Ignoring or Forgiving the “Egregious Misconduct” of Healthcare Providers

(p. C7) In her excellent book, “The Licensing Racket,” the Vanderbilt law professor Rebecca Haw Allensworth presents plenty of cases of hair braiders, barbers and interior decorators who have been prevented from working by license restrictions that inflate prices without improving safety or quality. But Ms. Allensworth has bigger targets in mind.

Most people will concede that licensing for hair braiders and interior decorators is excessive while licensing for doctors, nurses and lawyers is essential. Hair braiders pose little to no threat to public safety, but subpar doctors, nurses and lawyers can ruin lives. To Ms. Allensworth’s credit, she asks for evidence. Does occupational licensing protect consumers? The author focuses on the professional board, the forgotten institution of occupational licensing.

. . .

(p. C8) You might hope that boards that oversee nurses and doctors would prioritize patient safety, but Ms. Allensworth’s findings show otherwise. She documents a disturbing pattern of boards that have ignored or forgiven egregious misconduct, including nurses and physicians extorting sex for prescriptions, running pill mills, assaulting patients under anesthesia and operating while intoxicated.

In one horrifying case, a surgeon breaks the white-coat code and reports a fellow doctor for performing a surgery so catastrophically botched that he assumes the practitioner must be an imposter. Others also report “Dr. Death” to the board. But Ms. Allensworth notes, “at the time of the complaints to the medical board, [Dr. Death] was only one third of the way through the thirty-seven spinal surgeries he would perform, thirty-three of which left the patients maimed or dead.” The board system seems incapable of acting decisively and Dr. Death’s rampage is only ended definitively when he is indicted—the initial charges include “assault with a deadly weapon,” the scalpel—and eventually imprisoned.

No system is perfect, but Ms. Allensworth’s point is that the board system is not designed to protect patients or consumers. She has a lot of circumstantial evidence that signals the same conclusion. The National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), for example, collects data on physician misconduct and potential misconduct as evidenced by medical-malpractice lawsuits. But “when Congress tried to open the database to the public, the [American Medical Association] ‘crushed it like a bug.’”

One of the most infuriating aspects of the system is that the AMA and the boards limit the number of physicians with occupational licensing, artificially scarce residency slots and barriers preventing foreign physicians from practicing in the U.S. Yet when a physician is brought before a board for egregious misconduct, the AMA cites physician shortage as a reason for leniency. When it comes to disciplining bad actors, the mantra seems to be that “any physician is better than no physician,” but when it comes to allowing foreign-trained doctors to practice in the U.S., the claim suddenly becomes something like “patient safety requires American training.”

. . .

I agree that licensing boards have failed to effectively discipline their members, but I think we should eliminate restrictions on supply. The adage “any physician is better than no physician” should not be a shield for negligent doctors, but it underscores an essential truth. The real harm lies in the scarcity created by licensing.

. . .

Voluntary certification can effectively replace many occupational licenses. Consider computer security, one of the most critical fields for consumer safety. Instead of requiring occupational licenses, professionals in this field rely on certifications such as the CISSP (Certified Information Systems Security Professional) to demonstrate expertise and competence.

. . .

The medical profession is unlikely to be delicensed, but as Ms. Allensworth’s book shows, we shouldn’t let the AMA dictate the terms of medical education. Many European countries offer combined undergraduate and medical degree programs that take only six years, compared to the eight or more years required in the U.S.

Advances in artificial intelligence, which Ms. Allensworth doesn’t explore, may also catalyze reform. AI is already transforming fields such as legal research and medical diagnostics, automating tasks once reserved for licensed professionals. As these technologies advance, they can reduce reliance on rigid licensing systems by ensuring quality and safety through innovative tools.

For the full review see:

Alex Tabarrok. “Permission To Join The Field.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, Feb. 8, 2025): C7-C8.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date February 7, 2025, and has the title “‘The Licensing Racket’: There’s a Board for That.”)

The book under review is:

Allensworth, Rebecca Haw. The Licensing Racket: How We Decide Who Is Allowed to Work, and Why It Goes Wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2025.

Those Who Criticize the Powerful “Are Seldom Seen Distinctly by the Age in Which They Live”

Founding Father Benjamin Rush was apparently willing to take the ill-will that comes to those who challenge the lazy, incompetent, or corrupt.

The importance of being willing to be the target of ill-will was well-described by Charlie Munger.

(p. C7) During the spring of 1813, former presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were united in grief at the death of a mutual friend who had recently persuaded them to forget their bitter rivalries. Like the two celebrated statesmen, the eminent physician and social reformer Benjamin Rush had been a Founding Father, one of 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

. . .

. . ., after George Washington’s beaten army was pushed back across the Delaware River and Philadelphia’s militia marched to his assistance, Rush volunteered his medical skills. He helped tend the wounded from the Second Battle of Trenton, on Jan. 2, 1777, and the next day witnessed the bloody aftermath of Washington’s victory at Princeton.

Months later, Rush was appointed surgeon-general of the Continental Army’s so-called Middle Department—a key geographical sector that included Pennsylvania. He had ambitious plans for reform and outlined them in a pamphlet titled “Directions for Preserving the Health of Soldiers.” In a statement true for future American wars, he observed: “A greater proportion of men have perished with sickness in our armies than have fallen by the sword.” To curb that toll, Rush urged radical changes in food, clothing and hygiene. In his improving zeal, he unleashed a barrage of unrestrained letters to his friends in Congress that swiftly kindled a feud with his superior, Dr. William Shippen.

Rush accused Shippen of neglect, incompetence and corruption but underestimated his antagonist’s political clout.

. . .

(p. C8) . . ., Rush himself had always suspected that his outspoken views would affect his reputation, observing: “The most acceptable men in practical society, have been those who have never shocked their contemporaries, by opposing popular or common opinions.” He added, with considerable prescience: “Men of opposite characters, like objects placed too near the eye, are seldom seen distinctly by the age in which they live.” Through the efforts of Mr. Fried and Mr. Unger, what Benjamin Rush characterized as “the distant and more enlightened generations” are now better placed to judge him.

For the full review see:

Stephen Brumwell. “American Hippocrates.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, May 20, 2017 [sic]): C7-C8.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date Sept. 20, 2018 [sic], and has the title “‘Rush’ and ‘Dr. Benjamin Rush’ Review: American Hippocrates.”)

The books under review are:

Fried, Stephen. Rush: Revolution, Madness, and Benjamin Rush, the Visionary Doctor Who Became a Founding Father. New York: Crown, 2018.

Unger, Harlow Giles. Dr. Benjamin Rush: The Founding Father Who Healed a Wounded Nation. New York: Da Capo Press, 2018.