Category: Entrepreneurship

Health Freedom Is a Right AND Can Yield More and Faster Therapies

The headline of the article on the front page of the NYT says “No Evidence for Healing Powers,” and goes on to slam unsophisticated right-wingers as irresponsibly pushing ivermectin as a therapy for cancer. In the article the NYT publishes a ludicrous picture from a right-winger’s Facebook page where he has spread veterinary ivermectin cream on his tongue and says “tastes like dead cancer.”

But this is unfair and tendentious caricature. A friend recently sent me an Instagram post by a chiropractor suffering from glioblastoma who has taken ivermectin and mebendazole. He briefly sketches the hypothesized mechanisms for activity of the two drugs, consistent with research published in scientific papers.

Glioblastoma is a serious, often fatal, brain cancer. He had surgery, but knows that surgery often does not cure, so he threw a Hail Mary and took ivermectin and mebendazole. These drugs have long track-records for safety, having been tested and approved for other uses. Doctors can, and have, prescribed drugs for off-label uses for decades.

Decades ago minoxidil was approved as an blood pressure medicine. I asked my then-doctor to prescribe it for me for its rumored effects as a hair loss cure. He did, so I crushed the tablets and somehow applied them to my scalp, which proceeded to itch, but not grow hair. It was a low-risk, modest-chance-of-success experiment. I think I had a right to try it, and that no government or expert had a right to forbid it. (Eventually minoxidil was approved for hair loss and branded Rogaine–which still didn’t work for me.)

In a free country adults should have wide latitude to make decisions about what risks they take; to scuba dive, to drive NASCAR, to go into space, and yes to take ivermectin and mebendazole. And the ludicrous right-winger? Hey, maybe even he has rights.

The NYT headline says there is “no evidence” for ivermectin. Below I cite a survey article that identifies 24 articles published in scientific journals identifying mechanisms by which ivermectin may be effective against cancer. There’s plenty of evidence, just not from randomized double-blind clinical trials (RCTs). But as long-time readers of this blog may remember, I have posted many entries giving useful actionable evidence that takes forms other than RCTs.

“No evidence”? Maybe the NYT was seeking plausible deniability by running its article on April 1st.

Oh, and by the way, allowing health freedom might sometimes result in better and faster therapies. I am currently reading Rethinking Diabetes by Gary Taubes. He tells the story (pp. 346-356) of Richard K. Bernstein, an engineer with Type 1 diabetes who was suffering from various serious ailments from his diabetes, in spite of the doctors saying it was being well-controlled by insulin. In his 40s, he was only expected to live another 10 years. Well he bought a new device that was not supposed to be bought by patients. The medical profession thought patients could not handle the information. (His wife was an MD, so he ‘bought’ it by asking her to buy it for him.) The device allowed him to get frequent readings of his blood sugar, and thereby to better control it, ultimately through changes in diet. When he tried to share what he had learned, he had trouble finding anyone who would take him seriously, so in his 40s he enrolled in medical school, and started publishing papers and books describing his results.

Richard K. Bernstein died on April 15, 2025 at age 90.

[Below are some relevant quotations from a NYT companion piece to the front-page article. The companion piece provides only slightly less tendentious background information on ivermectin.]

(p. A21) . . . there is not evidence to support people taking ivermectin to treat cancer.

. . .

Scientists do not dispute that ivermectin is powerfully effective — against parasites. The drug was such a breakthrough in the fight against tropical parasitic diseases that two scientists who studied it won the Nobel Prize in 2015.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ivermectin tablets to treat certain parasitic infections, and the agency has authorized ivermectin lotions to kill lice and creams to help with rosacea. Veterinarians also use the drug to prevent and treat parasitic diseases in animals.

. . .

Studies in human cells suggest that the drug may kill certain types of cancer cells in a way that triggers the immune system, said Dr. Peter P. Lee, chair of the department of immuno-oncology at Beckman Research Institute of City of Hope in Duarte, Calif. In mouse studies, Dr. Lee has seen that the drug, on its own, does not shrink breast tumors. But it’s possible that the drug may have benefits for breast cancer when used alongside existing cancer immunotherapy, he said. Researchers are studying a combination of ivermectin and an investigational cancer drug in people with breast cancer.

While some inaccurate social media posts claim that ivermectin can treat cancer because tumors themselves are parasitic, the promise of ivermectin for cancer has nothing to do with its anti-parasitic effect, Dr. Lee said. Rather, it seems that the drug may be able to modulate a signal involved with cancer growth.

But doctors still need larger, randomized clinical trials to better understand whether ivermectin could treat cancer. Just because a drug seems to work in animals doesn’t mean those results will translate into real-world outcomes, Dr. Johnson noted. There are “hundreds of medications that look to be promising in a preclinical setting” every year, he said, adding, “The vast majority of those will never be shown to be effective in humans.”

. . .

Doctors generally view ivermectin as safe at the doses prescribed to treat parasitic infections.

For the full story, see:

Dani Blum. “What Ivermectin Can and Can’t Do, and What the Dangers Are.” The New York Times (Tues., April 1, 2025): A21.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version has the date March 31, 2025, and has the title “What Ivermectin Can (and Can’t) Do.” In the first quoted sentence, the print version says “no evidence” and the online version says “not evidence.”)

The Blum article that I just quoted and cited, is a secondary companion article to a longer front-page article, also on ivermectin:

Richard Fausset. “No Evidence for Healing Powers, but ‘Tastes Like Dead Cancer’.” The New York Times (Tues., April 1, 2025): A1 & A21.

(Note: the online version has the date March 31, 2025, and has the title “Why the Right Still Embraces Ivermectin.”)

The paper cited below reviewed the published scientific literature as of 2020 on the mechanisms through which ivermectin could have anti-cancer effects, finding 24 articles documenting one or more mechanisms.

Tang, Mingyang, Xiaodong Hu, Yi Wang, Xin Yao, Wei Zhang, Chenying Yu, Fuying Cheng, Jiangyan Li, and Qiang Fang. “Ivermectin, a Potential Anticancer Drug Derived from an Antiparasitic Drug.” Pharmacological Research 163 (Jan. 2021): 105207.

Tang and co-authors are optimistic in their summary section quoted below. [In this quote IVM is “ivermectin” and MDR is “multidrug resistance”.]

. . ., the broad-spectrum antiparasitic drug IVM, which is widely used in the field of parasitic control, has many advantages that suggest that it is worth developing as a potential new anticancer drug. IVM selectively inhibits the proliferation of tumors at a dose that is not toxic to normal cells and can reverse the MDR of tumors. Importantly, IVM is an established drug used for the treatment of parasitic diseases such as river blindness and elephantiasis. It has been widely used in humans for many years, and its various pharmacological properties, including long- and short-term toxicological effects and drug metabolism characteristics are very clear. (Tang et al. Jan. 2021, pp. 7-8)

The paper cited below reviewed the published scientific literature as of 2019 on the effect of mebendazole on cancer, and found 26 in vitro studies showing anti-cancer biological effects, 14 in vivo studies showing anti-tumor effects, and six Phase 1 or Phase 2 clinical trials listed in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Guerini, Andrea Emanuele, Luca Triggiani, Marta Maddalo, Marco Lorenzo Bonù, Francesco Frassine, Anna Baiguini, Alessandro Alghisi, Davide Tomasini, Paolo Borghetti, Nadia Pasinetti, Roberto Bresciani, Stefano Maria Magrini, and Michela Buglione. “Mebendazole as a Candidate for Drug Repurposing in Oncology: An Extensive Review of Current Literature.” Cancers 11, no. 9 (Aug. 2019): article #1284.

Gary Taubes’s book, praised by Marty Makary and Siddhartha Mukherjee, and mentioned by me near the end of my commentary, is:

Taubes, Gary. Rethinking Diabetes: What Science Reveals About Diet, Insulin, and Successful Treatments. New York: Knopf, 2024.

[I thank Ivette Locay for sending me a link useful for my commentary.]

Mark Twain “Dared to State Things That Others Only Thought”

I have read three of Ron Chernow’s massive biographies, the ones on Rockefeller, Washington, and Hamilton. Because they are massive, reading them takes a long time, at least for a slow reader like me. But I learned a lot that is important or useful from them, especially the ones on Rockefeller and Hamilton. Because I am an admirer of both Chernow and Twain, I look forward to also reading Chernow’s biography of Twain.

(p. C7) More than a century after his death, Mark Twain remains one of the most recognizable voices in American literature—the author of “The Adventures of Tom Sawyer” (1876), “Life on the Mississippi” (1883) and “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” (1884), the latter among the most consequential novels ever written in English and possibly (if you believe Ernest Hemingway) the source of American literature itself.

. . .

In his biography of the famed satirist, Ron Chernow tracks, with patience and care, Twain’s journey over nearly eight tumultuous decades. Mr. Chernow’s tale is enlivened by blazing quotes from Twain’s prodigious interviews, diaries and letters.  . . .  The quotes tend to burn a hole in the page, and it’s difficult for a biographer to recover. Mr. Chernow, whose lives of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Ulysses S. Grant are revered for their sound scholarship, clear writing and strong narrative drive, weaves Twain’s sizzling remarks almost seamlessly into his own narrative.

We watch as Twain lunges from coast to coast, rolling up and down the Mississippi (as a riverboat pilot in his early days), moving from country to country, writing books and articles, investing large sums in various hair-brained schemes.

. . .

This was, in Twain’s own phrase, the Gilded Age. He admired, even idealized, those who made huge sums of money through their entrepreneurial energy and acumen. He had the same energy, but he didn’t have the right vehicles for speculation nor the business sense to make his investments pay off. As Mr. Chernow observes, Twain could well have enjoyed an easy life of writing and giving lectures, having married a wealthy woman and published several bestsellers. “Instead, he had started a publishing house and financed a typesetter”—the Paige Compositor, which was supposed to replace manual typesetting but failed spectacularly because of engineering flaws—“before he had the expertise or requisite fortune to bring them to completion.” His expenses soon dwarfed his income and he was forced to abandon his Hartford mansion, never to return.

. . .

Twain was “a man who professed to be chronically lazy,” says Mr. Chernow, yet he left behind him a vast portfolio of writings that included 30 books, several thousand magazine articles and some 12,000 letters. “Mark Twain had not only moved people to laughter and tears with his books,” Mr. Chernow writes, “but had challenged them with unorthodox views as he ventured out from his safe cubbyhole as the avuncular humorist. He had dared to state things that others only thought.” It’s because of this bravery, and his peerless gift for expression, that we still value him and will never stop reading his books, which never grow old.

For the full review see:

Jay Parini. “A Most American Writer.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, May 10, 2025): C7.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date May 9, 2025, and has the title “‘Mark Twain’: The Most American Writer.”)

The book under review is:

Chernow, Ron. Mark Twain. New York: The Penguin Press, 2025.

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.

Tim Friede’s “Daredevilry” in Taking 650 Venom Injections and 200 Poisonous Snake Bites to Help Create a Universal Antivenom “for Humanity”

Back during Covid, over 38,000 adults volunteered to participate in a “challenge” clinical trial of the new vaccines, but such trials were not allowed. In a challenge trial each participant receives the vaccine and then is exposed to the disease. Phase 3 trials for efficacy can be completed much more quickly, with many fewer participants, and at much lower costs, if the trials are “challenge” trials.

We allow people the freedom to dangerous actions for fun or excitement, or to help humanity, like Tim Friede (below) injecting snake venom and letting snakes bite him. Why then did we not allow challenge trials with the Covid vaccine?

Note on another issue, that the researchers are planning in their next step to test their antivenom on dogs who are bitten by snakes. This is a good example of my ideal use of dogs in medical research–where the trial aims at benefits for both the humans AND the dogs.

(p. A1) Over nearly 18 years, the man, Tim Friede, 57, injected himself with more than 650 carefully calibrated, escalating doses of venom to build his immunity to 16 deadly snake species. He also allowed the snakes — mostly one at a time, but sometimes two, . . . — to sink their sharp fangs into him about 200 times.

This bit of daredevilry (one name for it) may now help to solve a dire global health problem. More than 600 species of venomous snakes roam the earth, biting as many as 2.7 million people, killing about 120,000 people and maiming 400,000 others — numbers thought to be vast underestimates.

In Mr. Friede’s blood, scientists say they have identified antibodies that are capable of neutralizing the venom of multiple snake (p. A19) species, a step toward creating a universal antivenom, they reported on Friday [May 2, 2025] in the journal Cell.

“I’m really proud that I can do something in life for humanity, to make a difference for people that are 8,000 miles away, that I’m never going to meet, never going to talk to, never going to see, probably,” said Mr. Friede, who lives in Two Rivers, Wis., where venomous snakes are not much of a threat.

. . .

“This is a bigger problem than the first world realizes,” said Jacob Glanville, founder and chief executive of Centivax, a company that aims to produce broad-spectrum vaccines, and lead author on the study.

Dr. Glanville and his colleagues found that two powerful antibodies from Mr. Freide’s blood, when combined with a drug that blocks neurotoxins, protected mice from the venom of 19 deadly snake species of a large family found in different geographical regions.

This is an extraordinary feat, according to experts not involved in the work. Most antivenoms can counter the venom from just one or a few related snake species from one region.

The study suggests that cocktails of antitoxins may successfully prevent deaths and injuries from all snake families, said Nicholas Casewell, a researcher at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine in England.

. . .

There were other mishaps — accidental bites, anaphylactic shocks, hives, blackouts. Mr. Friede describes himself as a nondegree scientist, but “there’s no college in the world that can teach you how to do it,” he said. “I was doing it on my own as best I could.”

Two teams of scientists sampled Mr. Friede’s blood over the years, but neither project led anywhere. By the time he met Dr. Glanville, in 2017, he was nearly ready to give up.

Dr. Glanville had been pursuing what scientists call broadly acting antibodies as the basis for universal vaccines against viruses. He grew up in a Maya village in the Guatemala highlands, and became intrigued by the possibility of using the same approach for universal antivenom.

. . .

The researchers next plan to test the treatment in Australia in any dogs that are brought into veterinary clinics for snakebites. They are also hoping to identify another component, perhaps also from Mr. Friede’s blood, that would extend full protection to all 19 snake species that were subjects of the research.

Mr. Friede himself is done now, however. His last bite was in November 2018, from a water cobra. He was divorced — his wife and children had moved out. “Well, that’s it, enough is enough,” he recalled thinking.

He misses the snakes, he said, but not the painful bites. “I’ll probably get back into it in the future,” he said. “But for right now, I’m happy where things are at.”

For the full story see:

Apoorva Mandavilli. “Man of 200 Snake Bites May Be the Antivenom.” The New York Times (Saturday, May 3, 2025): A1 & A19.

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

(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 2, 2025, and has the title “Universal Antivenom May Grow Out of Man Who Let Snakes Bite Him 200 Times.”)

The academic article in the journal Cell mentioned above is:

Glanville, Jacob, Mark Bellin, Sergei Pletnev, Baoshan Zhang, Joel Christian Andrade, Sangil Kim, David Tsao, Raffaello Verardi, Rishi Bedi, Sindy Liao, Raymond Newland, Nicholas L. Bayless, Sawsan Youssef, Ena S. Tully, Tatsiana Bylund, Sujeong Kim, Hannah Hirou, Tracy Liu, and Peter D. Kwong. “Snake Venom Protection by a Cocktail of Varespladib and Broadly Neutralizing Human Antibodies.” Cell 188 (2025): 1-18.

Democratic Donor Warren Buffett Praises DOGE

(p. A1) . . . at the end of Saturday’s Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting, the Oracle of Omaha dropped a bonbshell before a gathering of some 17,000 shareholders: that he’s set to step aside as Berkshire CEO, with vice chairman Abel taking his place.

. . .

(p. A4) It was little surprise that the very first question from moderator Becky Quick of CNBC in the Saturday [May 3, 2025] Q&A had to do with tariffs.

. . .

While critical of Trump’s tariffs, Buffett had little bad to say about Trump’s budget and program-slashing Department of Government Efficiency.

He called the current 7% gap between the federal government’s revenues and expenditures unsustainable. Whether that’s two or 20 years “it’s something that cannot go on forever,” he said. And if it isn’t brought under control, he said, it risks rampant inflation.

“I think it’s a job I don’t want, but it’s a job I think should be done, and Congress doesn’t seem to be doing it,” Buffett said.

For the full story, see:

Cordes, Henry J. “Buffett to Step Down as CEO of Berkshire.” Omaha World-Herald (Sunday, May 4, 2025): A1 & A4.

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

(Note: the online version of the article has the title “Warren Buffett stepping down as Berkshire Hathaway CEO at end of year; shareholders react.”)

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.” (Trump as quoted in Laffer and Moore 2023, p. A17)

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.

Trump Hits ‘New High Water Mark’ for Deregulation

In my friendly debate with fellow libertarians, the passages quoted below support my claim/hope that Trump’s deregulation and downsizing efforts will prove to be substantial.

(p. A2) WASHINGTON—President Trump is following through on his pledge to usher in one of the most sweeping deregulatory drives in modern U.S. history, moving swiftly to slash environmental rules and bank oversight, remove barriers to cryptocurrencies, and reverse the Biden administration’s restrictions on energy production.

The most aggressive plans for a red-tape rollback have come from the Environmental Protection Agency, which in a single day announced 31 actions to deregulate U.S. environmental policies, including rules for power plants, the oil-and-gas industry, electric vehicles and wastewater.

Venture Global, a liquefied natural gas exporter, in early March announced an $18 billion investment in a Louisiana project, following the administration’s reversal of President Joe Biden’s freeze on approvals for LNG gas export plants, which has yielded plans for new projects and expansions. The Trump administration is “getting the red tape, getting the federal government off the back of the worker, off the back of companies,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in an address to workers at the Louisiana facility.

. . .

Trump’s deregulatory moves are widespread: The Securities and Exchange Commission is backing away from Biden’s climate-related disclosure rules; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. rolled back a Biden-era policy that had stepped up scrutiny of large bank mergers; and the Interior and Housing and Urban Development departments are aiming to streamline regulations to spur the construction of housing on millions of acres of federal land.

Taken together, Trump’s moves are setting “the new high water mark in terms of the deregulatory agenda,” said Travis Fisher, who served in the first Trump administration and is now the director of energy and environmental policy studies at the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank. He added that Trump is “moving more boldly than Ronald Reagan.”

Investors, bullish about Trump’s deregulatory agenda, sent stocks soaring after the election.

For the full story see:

Scott Patterson and Amrith Ramkumar. “Deregulation Hits ‘New High Water Mark’.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., March 29, 2025): A2.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 28, 2025, and has the title “Trump Ushers In ‘New High Water Mark’ for Deregulation.” The passages quoted include a couple of sentences that appear in the online, but not the printed, version of the article.)

Ramaswamy Avowed That the F.D.A. “Erects Unnecessary Barriers to Innovation”

The New York Times article quoted below worried that if Vivek Ramaswamy succeeded in “slashing regulation” of drugs, his own drug development firm would have benefitted. Maybe so, but that misses the main point–all the rest of us also would have benefitted by medical entrepreneurs being allowed to create more and quicker cures. Presumably The New York Times was relieved when Ramaswamy resigned from DOGE, but I was discouraged.

I was in favor of Elon Musk’s push to reduce the number of federal employees. But I was even more in favor of Vivek Ramaswamy’s push to deregulate innovative entrepreneurs.

[By the way, isn’t it predictable that The New York Times delights in highlighting Roivant’s one failure, but gives only passing scant mention to its six successes?]

(p. A10) Vivek Ramaswamy is the less famous and less wealthy half of the duo of billionaires that President-elect Donald J. Trump has designated to slash government costs.

. . .

At 39, he is one of the world’s youngest billionaires, having made his fortune in the pharmaceutical industry.  . . .

Mr. Ramaswamy, who owns a stake currently valued at nearly $600 million in a biotechnology company he started, has called for changes at the Food and Drug Administration that would speed up drug approvals.

. . .

Since being named to jointly lead DOGE, Mr. Ramaswamy had until recently been posting on Mr. Musk’s social media site X, hinting about where he may look to make changes in the government.

He called for slashing regulation, not just cutting government spending. He pointed to federal workers focused on diversity as potential targets for “mass firings.”

And he has been taking aim at the F.D.A. “My #1 issue with FDA is that it erects unnecessary barriers to innovation,” he wrote on X. He criticized the agency’s general requirement that drugmakers conduct two successful major studies to win approval rather than one.

Mr. Ramaswamy founded his biotechnology company, Roivant Sciences, in 2014, betting that he could find hidden gems whose potential had been overlooked by large drugmakers. The idea was to hunt for experimental medications languishing within large pharmaceutical companies, buy them for cheap and spin out a web of subsidiaries to bring them to market.

The venture is best known for a spectacular failure.

In 2015, Mr. Ramaswamy whipped up hype and investment around one of his finds, a potential treatment for Alzheimer’s disease being developed by one of his subsidiaries, Axovant. Two years later, a clinical trial showed that it did not work, erasing more than $1.3 billion in Axovant’s stock value in a single day.

Mr. Ramaswamy personally lost money on paper on the failure, but thanks to the savvy way he had structured his web of companies he and Roivant weathered the storm. Six products have won F.D.A. approval, and today Roivant has a market valuation of $8 billion.

Mr. Ramaswamy sold some of his Roivant stock to take a large payout in 2020, reporting nearly $175 million in capital gains on his tax return that year. But he is still one of the company’s largest shareholders.

If Mr. Ramaswamy recommends changes that speed up drug approvals through DOGE, that could be good news for Roivant, which is developing drugs that might come up for approval during Mr. Trump’s second term. The faster it can get medicines onto the market, the more valuable the company — and Mr. Ramaswamy’s stake in it — stands to become.

For the full story see:

Rebecca Robbins, Maureen Farrell and Jonathan Weisman. “From Ramaswamy’s High-Profile Perch, a Web of Potential Conflicts.” The New York Times (Thursday, January 16, 2025): A10.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 15, 2025, and has the title “Ramaswamy Has a High-Profile Perch and a Raft of Potential Conflicts.” At one point this entry was posted on March 30. I had not noted that another entry had been posted for March 30, so for consistency I moved this entry to April 23.)

Alternatives to Government F.D.A.: Private “High-Quality Third-Party Seals of Approval”

The many label inaccuracies found in the “2022 study” (Crawford et al. 2022) mentioned below would seem to bode ill for the supplement consumer. But if you look at the “new study” you will find that NONE of the 30 supplements they examined had “a third-party certification seal.” This leaves open the plausible possibility that prudent consumers could do well for themselves by limiting their supplement purchases to those with a private third-party certification seal. It would be very useful if someone does another study–this one to confirm or refute my hypothesis that supplements with third-party certification seals had many fewer label inaccuracies. Confirmation would be evidence that the consumer could do well without the F.D.A.’s governmental regulatory mandates.

The relevant quotation from the “2022 study” (Crawford et al. 2022) is:

“No product had a third-party certification seal (ie, naming the third-party company), such as BSCG (Banned Substances Control Group), NSF (National Sanitation Foundation)International, Informed Sport, or USP (US Pharmacopeia), presented on the label” (Crawford et al. 2022, pp. 3 & 5 [all of p. 4 was a table]).”

(p. D7) Supplements claiming to support immunity often contain vitamins and minerals necessary for the immune system. So it isn’t unreasonable to believe that these products could help you sidestep common viral infections or lessen symptoms once you’ve become sick.

In fact, some nutrients such as vitamins A, C, D and zinc are needed to protect against germs, and deficiencies in them raise your risk of becoming sick, said Dr. Mahtab Jafari, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of California, Irvine.

. . .

It’s hard to firmly state the benefits of immune system supplements because there are few high-quality randomized clinical trials, the gold standard of medical research, assessing their effectiveness, said Dr. Pieter Cohen, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School who studies dietary supplement safety.

And dietary supplements aren’t approved by the Food and Drug Administration before hitting the market.

This means companies can sell products containing ingredients that haven’t been rigorously tested to offer benefits, Dr. Cohen said, and they generally don’t have to prove to the F.D.A. that their products contain what they claim.

A 2022 study analyzing 30 supplements marketed to support the immune system found that more than half had inaccurate labels, 13 were misbranded and nine contained ingredients not listed on the label.

. . .

“You need to have a really healthy dose of skepticism when you’re pulling something off the shelf,” Dr. Ben-Aderet said.

But if you want to give supplements a try, check for high-quality third-party seals of approval from organizations such as U.S. Pharmacopeia or NSF, which test the quality of dietary supplements, Dr. Jafari said.

For the full story see:

Katie Mogg. “Supplements and Claims of Improved Immunity.” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 25, 2025): D7.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated March 3, 2025, and has the title “Can Vitamin C and Zinc Actually Boost Your Immune System?”)

The “2022 study” mentioned above is:

Crawford, Cindy, Bharathi Avula, Andrea T. Lindsey, Abraham Walter, Kumar Katragunta, Ikhlas A. Khan, and Patricia A. Deuster. “Analysis of Select Dietary Supplement Products Marketed to Support or Boost the Immune System.” JAMA Network Open 5, no. 8 (2022): e2226040-e40.