Category: Methodology

During the Pandemic “Experts” Suppressed the Open Continual Inquiry That Is Science

The governmental violation of the basic rights of citizens, especially the right of free speech, is the most painful and lasting legacy of the Covid-19 pandemic. To flourish in the future, it is worth our time to remember what happened and defend those who protected free speech and the pursuit of true science, which is a method of continual inquiry, not a body of fixed beliefs.

(p. C7) “Science,” the great theoretical physicist Richard Feynman wrote, “is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” The incorrigibly curious Feynman knew that skepticism and a willingness to assimilate new evidence propel the scientific endeavor. Yet by 2020, in response to a global pandemic, the dominant part of America’s political and media class had turned the imperative to “follow the science” into an expression of almost religious reverence for the judgment of experts. Many educated and otherwise intelligent Americans, meanwhile, made a single, bespectacled government scientist their idol: “In Fauci We Trust” read their lawn signs and bumper stickers.

Their faith was misplaced. Credentialed experts, especially those in the fields of epidemiology and public health, had tied themselves to badly flawed theories, closed their minds to new evidence and thrown the mantle of “science” over value judgments for which they had no special competence.

“An Abundance of Caution,” by the journalist David Zweig, documents the poor evidentiary basis for the prolonged school closures and attendant follies such as masking requirements and social distancing. Mr. Zweig distinguished himself throughout the pandemic by his willingness to question the assumptions of self-identified “Covid hawks.” When he dug into the epidemiological modeling papers whose projections seemed decisively to rule out the safety of opening schools, he found “a never-ending matryoshka doll” of citations, resting ultimately on an assumption conceded to be “arbitrary” by its initial author.

Mr. Zweig shows how evidence emerged early on—in March 2020—that the virus did not pose a serious threat to children. American public-health professionals remained largely impervious to this fact.

. . .

“In Covid’s Wake,” by the Princeton political scientists Frances Lee and Stephen Macedo, mostly remains within the idiom of polite academic prose, but they state with disarming plainness that “elite institutions failed us” by giving in to panic. Ms. Lee and Mr. Macedo marvel at how consensus plans—none of which would have required extended lockdowns—were thrown out before Americans ever began dying, in part because public-health experts were entranced by China’s harsh restrictions. American policymakers had sound advice ready at hand, but most of them took the view that safety outweighed individual liberties, economic activity and quality of life.

Where Mr. Zweig emphasizes incuriosity, Ms. Lee and Mr. Macedo stress the willful suppression of reasonable debate, including the unfortunate tendency to paint critics of lockdowns and mask mandates as racists, quacks and conspiracy theorists. Such conduct was especially evident on the question of Covid-19’s origins, as top scientists vilified anyone suggesting the virus may have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China. Credulous journalists, academics and other cultural arbiters, the authors remind us, embraced the effective censorship of those who questioned the official line.

. . .

Ms. Lee and Mr. Macedo catalog reams of data to show that, before the availability of vaccines, areas imposing the severest restrictions earned no discernible health benefits.

. . .

(p. C8) In 2024 the U.S. House’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic issued a genuinely impressive 500-page report, covering Covid-19’s origins, the fraud in pandemic-response programs and the effectiveness or otherwise of various interventions.

For the full review see:

Philip Wallach. “Failing the Pandemic Test.” The Wall Street Journal (Wednesday, April 19, 2025): C7-C8.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date April 18, 2025, and has the title “‘An Abundance of Caution’ and ‘In Covid’s Wake’: Failing the Pandemic Test.”)

The books under review are:

Macedo, Stephen, and Frances Lee. In Covid’s Wake: How Our Politics Failed Us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2025.

Zweig, David. An Abundance of Caution: American Schools, the Virus, and a Story of Bad Decisions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2025.

The over-500-page 2024 report issued by the House’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, and praised above, is:

Pandemic, Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus. “After Action Review of the Covid-19 Pandemic: The Lessons Learned and a Path Forward.” U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C., Dec. 4, 2024.

Development of IVF Took 10 Years of Trial and Error

If the Joy television movie accurately reflects the history of the development of IVF (in vitro fertilization) then it illustrates a couple of themes that are important. One is the frequent fruitfulness of trial-and-error experimentation. The other is that some medical entrepreneurs are motivated by having some form of ‘skin-in-the-game,’ in this case nurse Jean Purdy. (Support for the second theme is more speculative than for the first, since the evidence that the real Jane Purdy experienced endometriosis and infertility is circumstantial.)

(p. A10) “Joy,” . . . begins in 1968 and charts the 10-year journey of trial, error and more trial and error by an odd trio of pioneers: Bob Edwards (James Norton), a biologist and true-believer in the possibilities of IVF; Patrick Steptoe (Bill Nighy), a surgical obstetrician who is less than convinced but can be; and Jean Purdy (Thomasin McKenzie), a nurse who signs on as Bob’s assistant and, as we learn, has her own agenda regarding infertile women. (Edwards received the 2010 Nobel Prize in Medicine, his partners having passed away.)

Jack Thorne’s screenplay massages the IVF medical story into a personal one, mostly about Jean, who is portrayed as a critical member of the team and the one whose life reflects the social uproar over the mission—giving childless women a choice about becoming mothers.

For the full television review see:

John Anderson. “The Birth of a Medical Miracle.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, Nov 22, 2024): A10.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the television review has the date November 21, 2024, and has the title “‘Joy’ Review: The Birth of a Medical Miracle on Netflix.”)

A Few More Months of Life Is Front Page News for Pancreatic Cancer Patients

For those with late stage pancreatic cancer, half live less than a year and half live longer than a year, according to the front page WSJ article quoted below. But the article seems to be celebrating a patient who has survived 17 months on a new drug. The patient has a feeling, perhaps because of a lesion that they radiated, that the drug may stop working soon.

So let’s say that without the drug she might have expected roughly a year of life, and now with the drug she has gotten roughly 17 months of life. Sure 17 months is better than 12 months.

But are our expectations so low and our cancer progress so slow, that an extra five months of life is front-page news?

(p. A1) Pranathi Perati was running out of time to treat her stage-four pancreatic cancer when she found out she would get another shot: a clinical trial testing a new experimental drug.

Perati’s odds were slim—3% of late-stage pancreatic-cancer patients are still alive after five years. And half of all pancreatic-cancer patients live for less than a year after their diagnosis. For Perati, the drug, daraxonrasib from Revolution Medicines, has helped keep her alive for 17 months and counting.

. . .

(p. A4) The pill has given her some fatigue and mouth ulcers, but she feels better than she did with chemo. A lesion in her lung started progressing this past winter and was radiated, but her disease has been stable otherwise.

“Seventeen months is a lot of good time to buy,” she said. Still, Perati worries that her time on the drug might soon run out. She has started looking for more options. Her son is set to graduate high school this summer.

For the full story see:

Brianna Abbott. “Treatments Offer Hope On Pancreatic Cancer.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, March 1, 2025): A1 & A4.

(Note: ellipsis added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date February 28, 2025, and has the title “New Treatments Give Hope to Patients With One of the Deadliest Cancers.”)

It May Take a “Thorny Character” to Be “Willing to Challenge Entire Establishment Belief Systems”

The obituary quoted below misidentifies Richard Bernstein’s main contribution. Yes, it is noteworthy that he was probably the first diabetes sufferer to effectively and continually monitor his own blood glucose level. But his main contribution was that by careful self-monitoring and trial-and-error experimentation he discovered that his health improved when he cutback on both carbs and insulin.

The obituary writer quotes Gary Taubes, but either didn’t read his book or disagrees with it, because Taubes is clear about Bernstein’s main contribution.

I am halfway through Taubes’s book. It is long and sometimes deep in the weeds, but comes highly recommended by Marty Makary and Siddhartha Mukherjee, both of whom I highly respect. The book sadly highlights how mainstream medicine can be very slow to reform clinical practice to new knowledge.

(p. C6) Richard Bernstein was flipping through a medical trade journal in 1969 when he saw an advertisement for a device that could check blood-sugar levels in one minute with one drop of blood. It was marketed to hospitals, not consumers, but Bernstein wanted one for himself. He had been sick his entire life and was worried he was running out of time.

. . .

Since he wasn’t a doctor, the manufacturer wouldn’t even sell him a device. So, he bought one under the name of his wife, Dr. Anne Bernstein, a psychiatrist.

He experimented with different doses of insulin and the frequency of shots. He eased off carbohydrates. He checked his blood sugar constantly to see how it was reacting.

After experimenting for several years, he figured out that if he maintained a low-carb diet, he didn’t need as much insulin and could avoid many of the wild swings in his blood-sugar levels. By checking his blood sugar throughout the day, he learned how to maintain normal levels. It changed his life.

. . .

With his diabetes under control, he tried to spread the word and change the way the disease is treated. In the early years, he was dismissed by much of the medical establishment. His ideas went against accepted wisdom and he was, after all, not a doctor. In 1979, at the age of 45, he enrolled at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, where he received his M.D.

“I never wanted to be a doctor,” he told the New York Times in 1988. “But I had to become one to gain credibility.”

Bernstein went into private practice in Mamaroneck, N.Y., where he treated diabetics and continued to advocate for his ideas—to his patients, in articles, YouTube videos, letters to the editor, and writing books, including “Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution.”

. . .

Gary Taubes, the author of “Rethinking Diabetes,” said that it was Bernstein’s work that eventually led to the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial, a landmark study that demonstrated that diabetics could blunt the destructive effects of the disease by keeping their blood-sugar levels nearer normal. Released in 1993, the results led to the kind of self-monitoring and frequent shots of insulin that remains part of the standard treatment plan for Type 1 diabetes today—part of what Bernstein had been pushing for years.

This was only partial vindication for Bernstein. The medical establishment never fully embraced Bernstein or the strict low-carb diet that he prescribed, which some considered unrealistic.

Taubes said that Bernstein was a bit of a “thorny character” who was easy for the establishment to dislike. He also noted that’s something that comes with the territory when you spend your career telling people they’re wrong and you’re right.

“But often it’s the people who are not easy to like,” Taubes said, “who are the ones who are willing to challenge entire establishment belief systems.”

For the full obituary see:

Chris Kornelis. “A Diabetic Who Pioneered Self-Monitoring for Blood Sugar.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 10, 2025): C6.

(Note: the online version of the WSJ obituary has the date May 9, 2025, and has the title “Richard Bernstein, Who Pioneered Diabetics’ Self-Monitoring of Blood Sugar, Dies at 90.”)

Bernstein’s book mentioned above is:

Bernstein, Richard K., MD. Dr. Bernstein’s Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars. New York: Little, Brown Spark, 2011.

Taubes’s book mentioned above is:

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

Fraudulently Doctored Images and “Suspect Data” in Many Leading Cancer Research Papers

Charles Piller in his Doctored paints a damning picture of doctored images and suspect data rampant in the leading scientific literature on Alzheimer’s disease. Not only were leading scientists guilty of fraud, but the key institutions of scientific research (journals, universities, and government grant-making agencies) failing their oversight duty, and when outsiders stepped in to provide oversight, delayed and minimized their responses. Practicing and turning a blind eye to fraud matters, since Alzheimer’s patients are depending on this research. And researchers who do not commit fraud suffer because they appear to have worse research records than those compiled by the fraudsters. So the honest get worse academic appointments and fewer grants.

After reading Doctored I was depressed, but I at least hoped that this pathology was limited to this one (albeit an important one) area of medical research. But in the article quoted below, evidence is presented that there is substantial similar doctored images and suspect data in the field of cancer research.

A side issue in the quoted article is worth highlighting. In the absence of credible oversight from the institutions tasked with oversight, oversight is being done by competent volunteers, with the aid of A.I. These volunteers do not receive compensation for their work, and in fact are probably pay a price for it, since they alienate powerful scientists and scientific institutions. But if science is a search for truth, and truth matters for cures, they are doing a service to us all, and especially to those who suffer from major diseases such as Alsheimer’s and cancer.

On the connection with the Doctored book, it is worth noting that the article quotes Dr. Matthew Schrag, who is the most important source in Doctored. The article also quoted Elisabeth Bik, who does not have an MD like Schrag but has a PhD in microbiology, and who is another important source in Doctored.

(p. A1) The stomach cancer study was shot through with suspicious data. Identical constellations of cells were said to depict separate experiments on wholly different biological lineages. Photos of tumor-stricken mice, used to show that a drug reduced cancer growth, had been featured in two previous papers describing other treatments.

Problems with the study were severe enough that its publisher, after finding that the paper violated ethics guidelines, formally withdrew it within a few months of its publication in 2021. The study was then wiped from the internet, leaving behind a barren web page that said nothing about the reasons for its removal.

As it turned out, the flawed study was part of a pattern. Since 2008, two of its authors — Dr. Sam S. Yoon, chief of a cancer surgery division at Columbia University’s medical center, and a more junior cancer biologist — have collaborated with a rotating cast of researchers on a combined 26 articles that a British scientific sleuth has publicly flagged for containing suspect data. A medical journal retracted one of them this month after inquiries from The New York Times.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, where Dr. Yoon worked when much of the research was done, is now investigating the studies. Columbia’s medical center declined to comment on specific allegations, saying only that it reviews “any concerns about scientific integrity brought to our attention.”

Dr. Yoon, who has said his research could lead to better cancer treatments, did not answer repeated questions. Attempts to speak to the other researcher, Changhwan Yoon, an associate research scientist at Columbia, were also unsuccessful.

The allegations were aired in recent months in online comments on a science forum and in a blog post by Sholto David, an independent molecular biologist. He has ferreted out problems in a raft of high-profile cancer research, including dozens of papers at a Harvard cancer center that were subsequently referred for retractions or corrections.

From his flat in Wales, Dr. David pores over published images of cells, tumors and mice in his spare (p. A17) time and then reports slip-ups, trying to close the gap between people’s regard for academic research and the sometimes shoddier realities of the profession.

. . .

Armed with A.I.-powered detection tools, scientists and bloggers have recently exposed a growing body of such questionable research, like the faulty papers at Harvard’s Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and studies by Stanford’s president that led to his resignation last year.

But those high-profile cases were merely the tip of the iceberg, experts said. A deeper pool of unreliable research has gone unaddressed for years, shielded in part by powerful scientific publishers driven to put out huge volumes of studies while avoiding the reputational damage of retracting them publicly.

The quiet removal of the 2021 stomach cancer study from Dr. Yoon’s lab, a copy of which was reviewed by The Times, illustrates how that system of scientific publishing has helped enable faulty research, experts said. In some cases, critical medical fields have remained seeded with erroneous studies.

“The journals do the bare minimum,” said Elisabeth Bik, a microbiologist and image expert who described Dr. Yoon’s papers as showing a worrisome pattern of copied or doctored data. “There’s no oversight.”

. . .

Dr. Yoon, a stomach cancer specialist and a proponent of robotic surgery, kept climbing the academic ranks, bringing his junior researcher along with him. In September 2021, around the time the study was published, he joined Columbia, which celebrated his prolific research output in a news release. His work was financed in part by half a million dollars in federal research money that year, adding to a career haul of nearly $5 million in federal funds.

. . .

The researchers’ suspicious publications stretch back 16 years. Over time, relatively minor image copies in papers by Dr. Yoon gave way to more serious discrepancies in studies he collaborated on with Changhwan Yoon, Dr. David said. The pair, who are not related, began publishing articles together around 2013.

But neither their employers nor their publishers seemed to start investigating their work until this past fall, when Dr. David published his initial findings on For Better Science, a blog, and notified Memorial Sloan Kettering, Columbia and the journals. Memorial Sloan Kettering said it began its investigation then.

. . .

A proliferation of medical journals, they said, has helped fuel demand for ever more research articles. But those same journals, many of them operated by multibillion-dollar publishing companies, often respond slowly or do nothing at all once one of those articles is shown to contain copied data. Journals retract papers at a fraction of the rate at which they publish ones with problems.

. . .

“There are examples in this set that raise pretty serious red flags for the possibility of misconduct,” said Dr. Matthew Schrag, a Vanderbilt University neurologist who commented as part of his outside work on research integrity.

. . .

Experts said the handling of the article was symptomatic of a tendency on the part of scientific publishers to obscure reports of lapses.

“This is typical, sweeping-things-under-the-rug kind of nonsense,” said Dr. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, which keeps a database of 47,000-plus retracted papers. “This is not good for the scientific record, to put it mildly.”

For the full story, see:

Benjamin Mueller. “Cancer Doctor Is in Spotlight Over Bad Data.” The New York Times. (Fri., February 16, 2024): A1 & A17.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version has the date Feb. 15, 2024 [sic], and has the title “A Columbia Surgeon’s Study Was Pulled. He Kept Publishing Flawed Data.”)

Piller’s book mentioned in my initial comments is:

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

“A.I.s Are Overly Complicated, Patched-Together Rube Goldberg Machines Full of Ad-Hoc Solutions”

A.I. can be a useful tool for searching and summarizing the current state of consensus knowledge. But I am highly dubious that it will ever be able to make the breakthrough leaps that some humans are sometimes able to make. And I am somewhat dubious that it will ever be able to make the resilient pivots that all of us must sometimes make in the face of new and unexpected challenges.

(p. B2) In a series of recent essays, [Melanie] Mitchell argued that a growing body of work shows that it seems possible models develop gigantic “bags of heuristics,” rather than create more efficient mental models of situations and then reasoning through the tasks at hand. (“Heuristic” is a fancy word for a problem-solving shortcut.)

When Keyon Vafa, an AI researcher at Harvard University, first heard the “bag of heuristics” theory, “I feel like it unlocked something for me,” he says. “This is exactly the thing that we’re trying to describe.”

Vafa’s own research was an effort to see what kind of mental map an AI builds when it’s trained on millions of turn-by-turn directions like what you would see on Google Maps. Vafa and his colleagues used as source material Manhattan’s dense network of streets and avenues.

The result did not look anything like a street map of Manhattan. Close inspection revealed the AI had inferred all kinds of impossible maneuvers—routes that leapt over Central Park, or traveled diagonally for many blocks. Yet the resulting model managed to give usable turn-by-turn directions between any two points in the borough with 99% accuracy.

Even though its topsy-turvy map would drive any motorist mad, the model had essentially learned separate rules for navigating in a multitude of situations, from every possible starting point, Vafa says.

The vast “brains” of AIs, paired with unprecedented processing power, allow them to learn how to solve problems in a messy way which would be impossible for a person.

. . .

. . ., today’s AIs are overly complicated, patched-together Rube Goldberg machines full of ad-hoc solutions for answering our prompts. Understanding that these systems are long lists of cobbled-together rules of thumb could go a long way to explaining why they struggle when they’re asked to do things even a little bit outside their training, says Vafa. When his team blocked just 1% of the virtual Manhattan’s roads, forcing the AI to navigate around detours, its performance plummeted.

This illustrates a big difference between today’s AIs and people, he adds. A person might not be able to recite turn-by-turn directions around New York City with 99% accuracy, but they’d be mentally flexible enough to avoid a bit of roadwork.

For the full commentary see:

Christopher Mims. “We Now Know How AI ‘Thinks.’ It Isn’t Thinking at All.” The Wall Street Journal (Saturday, April 26, 2025): B2.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date April 25, 2025, and has the title “We Now Know How AI ‘Thinks’—and It’s Barely Thinking at All.”)

A conference draft of the paper that Vafa co-authored on A.I.’s mental map of Manhattan is:

Vafa, Keyon, Justin Y. Chen, Ashesh Rambachan, Jon Kleinberg, and Sendhil Mullainathan. “Evaluating the World Model Implicit in a Generative Model.” In 38th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). Vancouver, BC, Canada, Dec. 2024.

Director of the N.I.H. Was “Subject to Censorship by the Actions of the Biden Administration”

During the Covid-19 pandemic, I had an invited essay cancelled by the OECD in which I argued for freedom of speech in science, and especially for toleration of a diversity of views during the pandemic. So I have sympathy for the attacks Dr. Bhattacharya suffered during the pandemic and wish him well as the Director of the National Institutes of Health.

(p. B1) Dr. [Jay] Bhattacharya, who has a medical degree and is a professor of medicine but never practiced, burst into the spotlight in October 2020, when he co-wrote an anti-lockdown treatise, the Great Barrington Declaration. It argued for “focused protection” — a strategy to protect the elderly and vulnerable while letting the virus spread among younger, healthier people.

Many scientists countered that walling off at-risk populations from the rest of society was a pipe dream.

The nation’s medical leadership, including Dr. Francis S. Collins, who retired last week, and Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, then director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, denounced the plan. Referring to Dr. Bhattacharya and his co-authors as “fringe epidemiologists,” Dr. Collins wrote in an email that “there needs to be a quick and devastating takedown of its premises.”

Dr. Bhattacharya told senators on Wednesday [March 5, 2025] that he had been “subject to censorship by the actions of the Biden administration.” Past N.I.H. officials, he said, “oversaw a culture of cover-up, obfuscation and a lack of tolerance for ideas that differ from theirs.”

For the full story see:

Benjamin Mueller and Sheryl Gay Stolberg. “Guarded Nominee for N.I.H. Faces Sharp Questions on Vaccines and Research Cuts.” The New York Times (Thursday, March 6, 2025): A18.

(Note: bracketed date added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 5, 2025, and has the title “Guarded N.I.H. Nominee Faces Sharp Questions on Vaccines and Research Cuts.”)

George Church Is Optimistic About A.I., but in 2019 Also Was Optimistic He Would Reverse Aging in Dogs by 2022

Steve Lohr had an article in the NYT promoting the possibility that generative intelligence from A.I. will bring us scientific breakthroughs quicker. A new startup called “Lila” is trying to achieve this. George Church of Harvard is onboard.

Back on Sun., Dec. 8, 2019, 60 Minutes on ran a very optimistic segment in which Church says that through his lab’s work on gene editing, age reversal for dogs “might be a couple years away and then that takes another ten years to get through the human clinical trials” (Church as quoted in Pelley 2019).

In Lohr’s recent article, Church is quoted as saying “I think science is a really good topic for A.I.” (Church as quoted in Lohr, p. B5). The article describes science as basically a mechanical process of trial and error. Some science is like that, like when Gerhard Domagk had his lab crank through hundreds of chemicals to find one (Prontosil) that was a broad spectrum antibiotic. Maybe A.I. could more efficiently crank through a large set of possibilities. The only example of medical advance through A.I. in the article is that “Lila’s A.I. has generated novel antibodies to fight disease” (Lohr, p. B5).

A.I. can combine what is known in novel ways and produce text that is new, but is not necessarily sensible, correct, or useful, let alone a profound leap.

So it is not clear to me how well A.I. could help define and prioritize the possibilities. Lila scientists are feeding their A.I. program scientific literature, presumably weighting differing views by some bibliometric measures, like citations or journal rankings. But often a leap or breakthrough is at first rejected by the top journals, and not heavily cited by the establishment.

I do not see how A.I. could identify those early breakthroughs, much less be the source of them. And making and identifying such breakthroughs are key steps in scientific progress.

I was was pumped when I heard Church’s optimism in 2019 for longevity breakthroughs. But now it is more than five years later, and I have not seen claims of age reversal for dogs, let alone for humans. Maybe Covid delayed progress. Or maybe Church is not a good judge of what is required for scientific breakthroughs. This latter possibility seems more likely given Church’s hyper-enthusiasm for generative A.I.

Steve Lohr’s article is:

Lohr, Steve. “A.I. May Hasten Leaps in Science.” The New York Times (Thurs., March 13, 2025): B1 & B5.

(Note: the online version of the Steve Lohr article has the date March 10, 2025, and has the title “The Quest for A.I. ‘Scientific Superintelligence’.”)

A transcript of the 60 Minutes segment on Church is:

Pelley, Scott. “A Harvard Geneticist’s Goal: To Protect Humans from Viruses, Genetic Diseases, and Aging.” In 60 Minutes. CBS News, (Sun., Dec. 8, 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.

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

For the full review see:

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

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

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

The book under review is:

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

If Risks Are Low and Alternatives Few, Let Patients Try Therapies That Lack Proof of Efficacy

I like Dr. Shirvalkar’s decision process quoted below. He says that a patient should be allowed to take a therapy without proof of efficacy, if the costs and risks are low.

This decision process is consistent with my suggestion that the F.D.A. should stop mandating efficacy, and limit itself to only mandating safety, thus greatly reducing the costs of drug development.

(p. D7) Acetaminophen. Acupuncture. Massage. Muscle relaxants. Cannabinoids. Opioids. The list of available treatments for low back pain goes on and on. But there’s not good evidence that these treatments actually reduce the pain, according to a new study that summarized the results of hundreds of randomized trials.

. . .

Aidan Cashin, the paper’s first author and deputy director of the research group Center for Pain IMPACT at Neuroscience Research Australia, said the aim of the study was to identify which first-line treatments for low back pain had any specific effects beyond a placebo, which might merit further study and which may not be worth pursuing.

. . .

One limitation of the type of analysis that Dr. Cashin conducted was that it aggregated data from different studies and different populations in order to emulate one large trial. But in the process, a strong signal from one study that a treatment worked could be diluted amid noise from other studies that may not have been designed as well, he said.

. . .

The evidence for something like heat might be inconclusive, doctors said, but they would still recommend that patients try it. “It’s cheap, it’s accessible, it almost causes no harm,” Dr. Shirvalkar said.

For the full story see:

Nina Agrawal. “Low Back Pain Relief Is Stubbornly Elusive.” The New York Times (Tuesday, March 25, 2025): D7.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story was updated March 24, 2025, and has the title “What Works for Low Back Pain? Not Much, a New Study Says.” Where the versions differ, in the passages quoted above, I follow the online version.)