Elders Can Catalyze Progress

Max Planck is oft-quoted as saying that new theories do not triumph by convincing their opponents but by their opponents dying off and a new generation taking over. The claim is plausible but some evidence suggests it is false (Hull et al. 1978; Diamond 1980).

Our elders may sometimes be obstacles to progress, but they also may sometimes instead be catalysts of progress.

Those who deviate from mainstream views often suffer in terms of job security and career advancement. So most tone down their deviations and swim with the current.

But when you retire, your money and your time are your own. The penalties of deviation are fewer. And some, when they retire, want to take advantage of a last chance to make the world better. So to pursue their ikigai they swim toward progress, not toward prudence.

Take Ira Long who died recently. She had been an organic chemist. When she retired she wanted to take more direct action to do good. The AIDs epidemic was in full swing, so she contributed her expertise to the AIDs activists who stood up against the FDA to save lives by making new therapies available sooner.

Those involved with both sides of the conflict, say that Iris Long made a difference:

(p. 30) Iris Long, a chemist whose knowledge of the intricacies of pharmaceutical clinical trials and the Food and Drug Administration’s approval process made her a transformational figure in ACT UP, the militant political action group dedicated to ending the AIDS crisis, died on April 4 [2026] in Astoria, Queens.

. . .

By 1987, when Dr. Long first attended a meeting of ACT UP, the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, she had retired from her work as an organic chemist. She was looking to help people directly, rather than in a laboratory. She was not politically active, didn’t know anyone with AIDS and wasn’t even sure she had ever met anyone who was gay.

“God, the epidemic was getting so bad, and she thought she could help,” Jim Eigo, a writer and leading ACT UP member who worked closely with Dr. Long, said in an interview.

. . .

“She was their scientific North Star,” Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said in an interview. “She told them that if you’re going to interact with the scientific community, you’re going to have to understand the science.”

. . .

Her guidance, Mr. Eigo said, empowered key ACT UP members, including Mark Harrington, to communicate with researchers and officials at the F.D.A. and other government agencies on a more equal, and therefore less confrontational, footing.

“They became so expert,” said Peter Staley, a prominent member of ACT UP, “that I witnessed some shocking conversations between Mark Harrington and Fauci talking about his lab work, and Fauci would just look stunned by Mark’s questions.”

. . .

Dr. Long, Mr. Eigo and Garry Kleinman, another ACT UP member, made a presentation to New York University doctors who were conducting clinical trials for AIDS drugs. The meeting soon led the F.D.A. to adopt parallel drug trials — with the result that patients who had exhausted azidothymidine, or AZT, the first drug approved to treat AIDS, could now take another drug (initially ganciclovir) that had passed the agency’s safety trials even while it was still being tested for effectiveness.

. . .

. . . Dr. Long knew that her background could be useful to the group. Her research had focused on a class of antiretroviral drugs called nucleoside analogues — altered sugar molecules trained to lure diseased cells away from healthy cells — of which AZT was one.

“She fully recognized that this would be one of the biggest epidemics in the history of mankind, and that not enough people were stepping up,” Mr. Staley said.

At an early meeting, Dr. Long was speaking to a large group that was growing restless with her presentation. She was not a gifted speaker — although she was better in small groups — but the activist Vito Russo rose to her defense.

“Shut up and listen!” he shouted, according to Mr. France’s book. “Listen! I don’t think any of you paid Iris Long the respect you should. There is no one doing any work in ACT UP that has a greater chance of doing real good for people with AIDS.”

. . .

“I was always a laboratory person, and now, interacting with people, it was completely different and something I had never done before,” she told the ACT UP Oral History Project in 2003. “I was not a joiner before, at all. But I was a fighter-type person that would fight for somebody’s rights.”

The AIDs activist rebellion is an important proof-of-concept. The concept is that the FDA should allow patients more choice of what medicines they consume. (Or another way to say it is that the power of the FDA to restrict free choice should be limited.) This is one of the rare cases where those with urgent ‘skin-in-the-game’ succeeded in speeding up or unbinding the regulatory process, in order to save lives (see Bhidé 2017).

While waiting for more libertarian policies, those with limited longevity may infer from the AIDs example that guerilla activist tactics can be justified and effective (see Thierer 2020, Tusk 2018).

Other cases where those who quit their jobs, or retired from them, swam toward progress can be found in in Richard Harris’s Rigor Mortis exposé. Contaminated cell lines are apparently endemic in medical research, undermining the reproducibility and clinical usefulness of much research. Scientists using the cell lines do not have the time or incentive to investigate this. If they discovered that their cell lines were contaminated, their past research and future careers could be jeopardized.

So to identify the contamination it takes the rare mission-oriented persons who are free of (or who have freed themselves from) perverse incentives.

Roland Nardone, at the age of 77, “was asked what he intended to do with the rest of his life” (Harris 2017, p. 96). He embarked on a “ten-year quest to straighten out . . . [the] glaring problem” of “bogus cell lines” (Harris 2017, pp. 96-97).

Amanda Capes-Davis “quit her job” at an institute in Sydney, Australia “to devote her full attention” to identifying contaminated cell lines (Harris 2017, pp. 97-98).

Christopher Korch “retired from academic, spends his energy, . . . , trying to untangle decades of bungled science surrounding cell cultures” (Harris 2017, p. 102).

Those with their own resources are less constrained to conform, and so pay a lower price when they choose to catalyze progress. This group includes the retired, as well as self-made entrepreneurs, the inheritors of wealth, or the occupiers of sinecures. PalmPilot founder and neuroscientist Jeff Hawkins (2021) is an example, as are some of the Victorian gentlemen scientists (see Champlin 1994; Harris 2017, pp. 169-170; Knell 2000; Maddox 2017; Repcheck 2004; Rudwick 1985).

The Iris Long obituary quoted above is:

Richard Sandomir. “Iris Long, 92, Chemist, Virus Expert And Science Mentor to AIDS Activists.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., April 19, 2026): 30.

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

(Note: the online version of the article has the date April 17, 2026, and has the title “Iris Long, Scientific Mentor to AIDS Activists, Dies at 92.”)

Bibliography of Other Articles and Books Mentioned above:

Bhidé, Amar. “Constraining Knowledge: Traditions and Rules That Limit Medical Innovation.” Critical Review 29, no. 1 (Jan. 2017): 1–33.

Champlin, Peggy. Raphael Pumpelly: Gentleman Geologist of the Gilded Age. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1994.

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. “Age and the Acceptance of Cliometrics.” Journal of Economic History 40, no. 4 (Dec. 1980): 838–41.

France, David. How to Survive a Plague: The Inside Story of How Citizens and Science Tamed Aids. New York: Knopf, 2016.

Harris, Richard. Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions. New York: Basic Books, 2017.

Hawkins, Jeff. A Thousand Brains: A New Theory of Intelligence. New York: Basic Books, 2021.

Hull, David L., Peter D. Tessner, and Arthur M. Diamond, Jr. “Planck’s Principle: Do Younger Scientists Accept New Scientific Ideas with Greater Alacrity Than Older Scientists?” Science 202 (Nov. 17, 1978): 717–23.

Knell, Simon J. The Culture of English Geology, 1815-1851. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Ltd, 2000.

Maddox, Brenda. Reading the Rocks: How Victorian Geologists Discovered the Secret of Life. New York: Bloomsbury USA, 2017.

Repcheck, Jack. The Man Who Found Time: James Hutton and the Discovery of Earth’s Antiquity. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books Group, 2003.

Rudwick, Martin J. S. The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.

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

Tusk, Bradley. The Fixer: My Adventures Saving Startups from Death by Politics. New York: Portfolio, 2018.

Federal Government Should Respect Citizens by Being Honest About Vaccine Side-Effects

I believe that some vaccines are among the most effective medical interventions to save lives. But I also believe in free choice, and that the government should be transparent in admitting the side-effects that occur, to varying degrees, with all vaccines. So I was puzzled and annoyed by the article quoted below on a CDC panel vote to withdraw support for immediate vaccination of neonates against hepatitis B. One of those seeking withdrawal of support for the vaccine cited “vaccine-injury claims paid out by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program” as evidence of side-effects. Then we get to the part that puzzles and annoys me: “the federal government has said that such settlements shouldn’t be used to draw conclusions about vaccine safety.”

Why not? It’s not the only relevant evidence, but it is relevant evidence. Why should we exclude it? Because it goes against the federal government’s status quo mandate? If there is a better reason, the article does not mention it.

(p. A1) A key vaccine panel at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention voted 8-3 to nix a recommendation that all newborns be given a first dose of hepatitis B vaccine.

. . .

(p. A4) The newly appointed acting director of the drugs division at the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, suggested to the panel that hepatitis B vaccines shouldn’t be given to children at all. She pointed to other countries including Denmark that don’t recommend the hepatitis B vaccine for all newborns. CDC scientist Adam Langer said many of those other countries including Denmark have national health systems, in which it is easier to screen and track infected mothers.

[Mark Blaxill, a longtime antivaccine activist who now works at the CDC] argued that vaccine-injury claims paid out by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program showed that the hepatitis B vaccine causes harm. But the federal government has said that such settlements shouldn’t be used to draw conclusions about vaccine safety.

For the full story see:

Liz Essley Whyte and Sabrina Siddiqui. “Vaccine Panel Nixes Hepatitis B Guidance.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Dec. 6, 2025): A1 & A4.

(Note: ellipsis added; the words in brackets are from a couple of paragraphs earlier in the article.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date December 5, 2025, and has the title “CDC Panel Remade by RFK Jr. Votes to Alter Hepatitis B Vaccine Guidance.”)

Thomas Jefferson Thanked Edward Jenner for Advocating Vaccine

As a classical liberal, and an advocate for faster innovation, I am sympathetic to much in the health freedom movement. But I think some in the movement are making a mistake in being opposed to all vaccines. Some vaccines have done some harm, but overall the best vaccines are some of the greatest advances in medicine. I like Thomas Jefferson’s statement in the passage from the review quoted below.

(p. C8) In the 1780s Thomas Jefferson was serving as a diplomat in France when the Marquis de Lafayette brought him a message of unwelcome news from Virginia: His young daughter Lucy had died of whooping cough. The letter did not spare the absent father the grim truth: “Her sufferings were great.” Jefferson ultimately buried four of his children (including two girls named Lucy). He knew what he was saying when he wrote appreciatively to Edward Jenner, the English physician who discovered vaccination, that “medicine has never before produced any single improvement of such utility.”

For the full review see:

Kyle Harper. “Sickness And Civilization.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Jan. 24, 2026): C7-C8.

(Note: the online version of the review has the date January 23, 2026, and has the title “‘The Great Shadow’: Sickness and Civilization.”)

The book under review is:

Bauer, Susan Wise. The Great Shadow: A History of How Sickness Shapes What We Do, Think, Believe, and Buy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2026.

We Do Not See the Benefits That Regulations Block

We owe to Henry Hazlitt the insight that we do not see what wonders would be, if the government was less active. We see the bridge that the government builds with our tax money. But we do not see the refrigerators, televisions and vacations that the taxpayers would have had if they had not been taxed to build the bridge. The same insight applies to government regulation.

The CEO of Oura, an increasingly popular ring that collects health data, has penned a brief op-ed, telling us a couple of features that Oura would now have if they were regulated less:

With a reformed regulatory structure, Oura customers could already be benefiting from a range of advanced features, including screening for high blood pressure. Hypertension is one of the most significant risk factors for heart disease and stroke, while high blood pressure in pregnancy can signal pre-eclampsia, a complication that endangers mother and baby. Another primed capability, sleep-apnea detection, would give users an early-warning tool for a condition that often goes undiagnosed and can lead to serious complications.

The CEO of Oura’s op-ed is:

Tom Hale. “With Less Regulation, Your Oura Ring Could Do More.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., December 20, 2025): A11.

(Note: the online version of the op-ed has the date Dec. 19, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

Henry Hazlitt’s great little book, mentioned in my comments, is:

Hazlitt, Henry. Economics in One Lesson. Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 1952.

FDA Worked Better and Much Cheaper Before 1962 Expansion

Before 1962, the FDA regulated for drug safety, but not for drug efficacy. If the FDA returned to regulating only for safety, that would imply that Phase 3 randomized clinical trials would no longer be mandated. Phase 3 trials are usually more expensive than the Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials combined. They cost a lot more, and usually take a lot longer. If the FDA no longer mandate Phase 3 trials we will have more drug innovation, more quickly, and have much lower costs. And we will have more freedom.

(p. A13) From 1938 through 1962, the Food and Drug Administration required proof of safety before drug approval but not proof of efficacy. The approach was abandoned due to a significant misunderstanding of the thalidomide tragedy—when thousands of babies outside the U.S. were born with severe birth defects.

The issue with thalidomide was a failure of safety, not efficacy. But under pressure to react, Congress required, through the Kefauver-Harris Amendments of 1962, proof of efficacy before granting marketing approval. The new rule addressed a problem that didn’t exist and, in doing so, imposed a substantial new cost burden.

Before 1962, developing a drug took about two years. Now it takes 12 to 14 years. Since 1975 real development costs have risen about 7.5% a year, roughly doubling every decade. Today, we estimate that bringing one successful drug to market costs about $9 billion on average.

For the full commentary, see:

Charles L. Hooper and Solomon S. Steiner. “Deregulation Can Make Medications Cheaper.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., Oct. 18, 2025): A13.

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date Oct. 17, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

Attia Makes Case for Optimism That Rapamycin Can Extend Human Lifespans

Dr. Peter Attia gives a clear summary of the state of knowledge about the promising supplement rapamycin. (The YouTube clip above, posted by 60 Minutes, is from the CBS 60 Minutes episode that first aired on Sun., Oct. 26, 2025.)

We Need to “Tolerate Heterodox Smart People” if We Want to Achieve Big Things

Peter Thiel is often quoted as having said many years ago that “We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters” (as quoted in Lewis-Kraus 2024), a reference to the original limit to the length of a tweet on Twitter. The quotations below are all from the more recent Peter Thiel, who was having a conversation with NYT columnist Ross Douthat. He still believes that we are not boldly pursuing big goals, the only exception being A.I. Is the constraint that big goals are impossible to achieve, or do we lack people smart enough or motivated enough to pursue them, or do we regulate motivated smart people into discouraged despair?

(p. 9) One question we can frame is: Just how big a thing do I think A.I. is? And my stupid answer is: It’s more than a nothing burger, and it’s less than the total transformation of our society. My place holder is that it’s roughly on the scale of the internet in the late ’90s. I’m not sure it’s enough to really end the stagnation. It might be enough to create some great companies. And the internet added maybe a few percentage points to the G.D.P., maybe 1 percent to G.D.P. growth every year for 10, 15 years. It added some to productivity. So that’s roughly my place holder for A.I.

It’s the only thing we have. It’s a little bit unhealthy that it’s so unbalanced. This is the only thing we have. I’d like to have more multidimensional progress. I’d like us to be going to Mars. I’d like us to be having cures for dementia. If all we have is A.I., I will take it.

. . .

And so maybe the problems are unsolvable, which is the pessimistic view. Maybe there is no cure for dementia at all, and it’s a deeply unsolvable problem. There’s no cure for mortality. Maybe it’s an unsolvable problem.

Or maybe it’s these cultural things. So it’s not the individually smart person, but it’s how this fits into our society. Do we tolerate heterodox smart people? Maybe you need heterodox smart people to do crazy experiments.

. . .

I had a conversation with Elon a few weeks ago about this. He said we’re going to have a billion humanoid robots in the U.S. in 10 years. And I said: Well, if that’s true, you don’t need to worry about the budget deficits because we’re going to have so much growth, the growth will take care of this. And then — well, he’s still worried about the budget deficits. This doesn’t prove that he doesn’t believe in the billion robots, but it suggests that maybe he hasn’t thought it through or that he doesn’t think it’s going to be as transformative economically, or that there are big error bars around it. But yeah, there’s some way in which these things are not quite thought through.

For the full interview, see:

Douthat, Ross. “Are We Dreaming Big Enough?” The New York Times, SundayOpinion Section (Sunday, June 29, 2025): 9.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the interview has the date June 26, 2025, and has the title “Peter Thiel and the Antichrist.”)

Peter Thiel’s yearning many years ago for flying cars was quoted more recently in:

Lewis-Kraus, Gideon. “Flight of Fancy.” The New Yorker, April 22, 2024, 28-39.

Adjuvants Did Not Arise from Theory, but from Open-Eyed Trial-And-Error Experimentation

Sometimes you see journalists, commentators, or politicians saying that ordinary people should not use trial-and-error experiments with health treatments, but instead listen to the advice of certified scientists. Listen to the “science” we hear. But many of the most common practices in medicine originated with ordinary trial-and-error experiments of the sort that can be conducted with little if any certified expertise.

Consider adjuvants. An adjuvant “helps” the primary therapy; aluminum can be an adjuvant to a vaccine or, with cancer, radiation can be an adjuvant to a surgery. As the passages quoted below show, the first vaccine adjuvants were not discovered through the theorizing of a certified genius. A motivated alert and practical veterinarian wanted to protect horses from disease. He noticed that a horse vaccine worked better when, by chance, the horse also had an infection at the vaccination site. He speculated that the inflammation from the infection aroused the immune system. So why not try deliberately causing inflammation? He tried different substances, landing on tapioca as the best of what he tried. Others later found aluminum to be more reliable.

Maybe what often matters most for medical progress is a sense of open-eyed urgency and a persistent willingness to engage in trial-and-error experimentation. The uncertified can have those traits. When they do, we should not ridicule, ban, or cancel them.

(p. A14) The origins of added aluminum in vaccines can be traced back nearly a century. In a stable on the outskirts of Paris, a young veterinarian had made a peculiar discovery: mixing tapioca into his horses’ diphtheria vaccines made them more effective.

The doctor, Gaston Ramon, had noticed that the horses who developed a minor infection at the injection site had much more robust immunity against diphtheria. He theorized that adding something to his shots that caused inflammation — ingredients he later named adjuvants, derived from the Latin root “to help” — helped induce a stronger immune response.

After testing several candidates — including bread crumbs, petroleum jelly and rubber latex — he found success with a tapioca-laced injection, which produced slight swelling and far more antibodies.

Tapioca never caught on as an adjuvant. But in 1932, a few years after Dr. Ramon’s studies were published, the United States began including aluminum salts in diphtheria immunizations, as they were found to invoke a similar but more reliable effect.

Today, aluminum adjuvants are found in 27 routine vaccines, and nearly half of those recommended for children under 5.

This extra boost of immunity is not needed in all types of vaccines. Shots that contain a weakened form of a virus, like the measles mumps and rubella shot, or created with mRNA technology, like the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines, generate strong enough immune responses on their own.

But in vaccines that contain only small fragments of the pathogen, which would garner little attention from the immune system, adjuvants help stimulate a stronger response, allowing vaccines to be given in fewer doses.

Scientists believe that aluminum salts work in two ways. First, aluminum binds to the core component of the vaccine and causes it to diffuse into the bloodstream more slowly, giving immune cells more time to build a response.

It’s also thought that aluminum operates more directly, enhancing the activity of certain immune cells, though this mechanism is not fully understood.

For the full story see:

Teddy Rosenbluth. “Aluminum in Vaccines Is a Good Thing, Scientists Say.” The New York Times (Sat., January 25, 2025): A14.

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

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 24, 2025, and has the title “Yes, Some Vaccines Contain Aluminum. That’s a Good Thing.”)

Norma Swenson Defended Health Freedom for Women

A recurring question raised by my libertarian and classical liberal friends is: how can we persuade others of the value of freedom? One answer is to especially seek conversation with those who strongly object to losing their freedom in some part of their life that they value. As I read the obituary of Norma Swenson, co-author of the book Our Bodies, Ourselves, I thought I recognized her as a libertarian fellow-traveler. She passionately sought for herself and other women to have greater freedom in making their own medical decisions.

Today, born out of outrage over the government’s over-reaching Covid controls, a “health freedom” movement has grown and organized, seeking more broadly (though not always consistently) for all adults to be able to make their own medical decisions.

Libertarians and classical liberals should let those seeking health freedom know that we are with them, in principle and in practice. Many of my own blog entries defend health freedom, for instance here and here.

(p. B11) Norma Swenson was working to educate women about childbirth, championing their right to have a say about how they delivered their babies, when she met the members of the collective that had put out the first rough version of what would become the feminist health classic “Our Bodies, Ourselves.”

. . .

She . . . [knew] quite a bit about the medical establishment, the paternalistic and condescending behavior of male doctors (only 6 percent of incoming medical students were women in 1960) and the harmful effect such behavior had on women’s health. She had lived it, during the birth of her daughter in 1958.

. . .

She would go on to help make “Our Bodies, Ourselves” a global best seller.

. . .

The author Barbara Ehrenreich called it a manifesto of medical populism.

. . .

It was her daughter’s birth that had made Ms. Swenson an activist. She wanted to deliver the baby naturally, without medication. Her decision was such an anomaly that residents at the Boston Lying-In Hospital gathered to watch her labor. It went swimmingly.

But Ms. Swenson, who was in a 12-bed ward, was surrounded by women who were suffering. They were giving birth according to the practices of the era: with a dose of scopolamine, a drug that induced so-called twilight sleep and hallucinations, followed by a shot of Demerol, an opioid.

She remembered the women screaming, trying to climb out of their beds, calling for their mothers and cursing their husbands before being knocked out by the Demerol, their babies delivered by forceps.

It was barbaric, she thought. “These women weren’t being helped,” she said in 2018, “they were being controlled.”

For the full obituary, see:

Penelope Green. “Norma Swenson, 93, an Author Of ‘Our Bodies, Ourselves.” The New York Times (Friday, June 20, 2025): B11.

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

(Note: the online version of the obituary was updated June 16, 2025, and has the title “Norma Swenson, an Author of ‘Our Bodies, Ourselves,’ Dies at 93.”)

The most recent edition of the book co-authored by Norma Swenson is:

Boston Women’s Health Book Collective. Our Bodies, Ourselves. New York: Atria Books, 2011.

F.D.A. Approves Vertex’s Nonaddictive Drug to Block Pain

Ann Case and Angus Deaton’s Deaths of Despair is a depressing but important book. I have read parts of it but plan to read it from cover to cover soon. They document and analyze a substantial group of Americans, mostly whites without college degrees, who die from alcohol, narcotics, or suicide. Starting in the 1990s their numbers grew. Part of the problem for some of the despairing is having jobs that give them hope for a better future, jobs that at least allow them to securely start and raise a family.

The growth in narcotics use is thoughtfully described in an earlier book, Dreamland by Sam Quinones. In some of the book Quinones writes about the same non-degree despairing whites as Case and Deaton, but he also in other parts of the book, discusses rising narcotics use among the better-off. His is a thoughtful complex narrative, involving diverse victims and diverse causes.

One component is that, from desire for euphoria, or to end pain, people start using narcotics that are addictive. Then they must fight, or succumb to, the addiction for the rest of their lives. For those drawn in by a desire to end pain, the news in the passages quoted below is important–the approval of suzetrigine, a drug that blocks some kinds of pain without being addictive. Quinones in his 2015 book reports his conversation with an expert who was pessimistic that such a drug would ever be possible (pp. 311-312).

A second reason suzetrigine is of interest is that it is being brought to market by Vertex, a firm that I have discussed in earlier blog entries, most recently here. Vertex was a once-small innovative mission-oriented start-up that got big. The continuing question is whether the big Vertex can sustain its earlier innovative culture.

(p. A11) The Food and Drug Administration approved a new medication Thursday [Jan. 30, 2025] to treat pain from an injury or surgery. It is expensive, with a list price of $15.50 per pill. But unlike opioid pain medicines, it cannot become addictive.

That is because the drug, suzetrigine, made by Vertex Pharmaceuticals and to be sold as Journavx, works only on nerves outside the brain, blocking pain signals. It cannot get into the brain.

Researchers say they expect it to be the first of a new generation of more powerful nonaddictive drugs to relieve pain.

To test the drug, Vertex, which is based in Boston, conducted two large clinical trials, each with approximately 1,000 patients who had pain from surgery. They were randomly assigned to get a placebo; to get the opioid sold as Vicodin, a widely used combination pain medicine of acetaminophen (Tylenol) and hydrocodone; or to get suzetrigine.

. . .

Suzetrigine eased pain as much as the combination opioid. Both were better than the placebo at relieving pain.

For the full story see:

Gina Kolata. “F.D.A. Approves a Non-Addictive Opioid.” The New York Times (Sat., February 1, 2025): A11.

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

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Jan. 30, 2025, and has the title “F.D.A. Approves Drug to Treat Pain Without Opioid Effects.”)

The Case and Deaton book, cited in my introductory comments, is:

Case, Anne, and Angus Deaton. Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2020. Reprint, pb 2021 (with new preface).

The Quinones book, cited in my introductory comments, is:

Quinones, Sam. Dreamland: The True Tale of America’s Opiate Epidemic. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2015.