Category: Science

“Nothing Is Incontrovertible in Science”

Somewhere we should start a Hall of Fame for those who had the courage to take the ill will from the enforcers of the “new religion” of global warming. Among its honorees would be Michael Crichton, Freeman Dyson, and (see below) Ivar Giaever. Science is not a body of doctrine; science is a process of inquiry.

(p. B12) Ivar Giaever might not have won the Nobel Prize in Physics if a job recruiter at General Electric had known the difference between the educational grading systems of the United States and Norway.

It was 1956, and he was applying for a position at the General Electric Research Laboratory in Schenectady, N.Y. The interviewer looked at his grades, from the Norwegian Institute of Technology in Trondheim, where Dr. Giaever had studied mechanical engineering, and was impressed: The young applicant had scored 4.0 marks in math and physics. The recruiter congratulated him.

But what the recruiter didn’t know was that in Norway, the best grade was a 1.0, not a 4.0, the top grade in American schools. In fact, a 4.0 in Norway was barely passing — something like a D on American report cards. In reality, his academic record in Norway had been anything but impressive.

He did not want to be dishonest, Dr. Giaever (pronounced JAY-ver) would say in recounting the episode with some amusement over the years, but he also did not correct the interviewer. He got the job.

He proceeded to spend the next 32 years at the laboratory, along the way developing an experiment that provided proof of a central idea in quantum physics — that subatomic particles can behave like powerful waves.

. . .

Though Dr. Giaever later earned a doctorate in theoretical physics, in 1964, from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., he had not yet completed that degree when he came up with the experiment that would earn him his share of the Nobel. Indeed, as he admitted in his Nobel lecture, he did not fully understand the ideas behind the experiment when he first started working on it. He was, after all, a mechanical engineer, steeped in how things work in classical physics, which deals with real-world objects. Quantum physics, on the other hand, predicts what happens in the weird subatomic world.

. . .

Dr. Giaever prided himself on his common-sense approach to science, but not all his ideas were welcomed by his peers. He became a prominent denier of climate change, referring to the science around it as a “new religion.” (“I would say that, basically, global warming is a nonproblem,” he said in a 2015 speech.) He based his opposition, in part, on his belief that it is impossible to track changes in the Earth’s temperature and that, even if it could be done, the temperature changes would be insignificant.

When the American Physical Society announced in 2011 that the evidence for climate change and global warming was incontrovertible, he resigned from the society in disgust, saying: “‘Incontrovertible’ is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.”

For the full obituary, see:

Dylan Loeb McClain. “Ivar Giaever, 96, ‘D’ Student Who Won Nobel Prize.” The New York Times (Thursday, July 10, 2025): B12.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the obituary was updated July 9, 2025, and has the title “Ivar Giaever, Nobel Winner in Quantum Physics, Dies at 96.”)

A.I. Hastens Search for Antibiotic Peptides in Extinct Species

In an earlier entry I commented on the use of A.I. to seek antibodies by George Church’s startup Lila. Now it appears that César de la Fuente is employing a similar approach. In both cases A.I. is being used to more efficiently do repetitive well-structured tasks. This is not the highest creative level of human intelligence, but it can free time for humans to exercise the highest level of human intelligence.

(p. A3) Buried in the DNA of the long extinct woolly mammoth is a compound that scientists hope will one day yield a lifesaving antibiotic.

In experiments, mammuthusin, as the compound is called, has eradicated superbugs—bacteria that are resistant to today’s antibiotics and cause infections that are hard to treat—says César de la Fuente, the bioengineer who helped discover the molecule.

. . .

To help combat superbugs, doctors say we need new antibiotics with novel chemical structures or mechanisms of action. But only a handful of such drugs has entered the market over the past several decades.

De la Fuente is banking on artificial intelligence to help end this dry spell. He and his collaborators have built deep-learning algorithms to comb through enormous genetic databases to find peptides, or protein fragments, that have antibacterial properties. They have used this method to analyze animal venoms, the human microbiome and archaea, an underexplored group of microorganisms. They have also mined the genetic codes from fossils of long-extinct animals and humans, including Neanderthals and Denisovans. “This deep-learning model has opened a window into the past,” de la Fuente says.

. . .

When the algorithms identify a new peptide with antibiotic potential, de la Fuente and his team use robots to manufacture the compound in their lab and then test it in mice infected with bacteria. So far, a few hundred peptides made in de la Fuente’s lab have safely and effectively cured sick mice.

One of them was mammuthusin, identified in the genetic code of Mammuthus primigenius, a species of mammoth that last roamed the Earth about 4,000 years ago. The researchers discovered the peptide after mining a National Center for Biotechnology Information database of DNA sequencing data obtained from the fossils of extinct animals. In experiments, mammuthusin was as potent as polymyxin B, an antibiotic often used as a last resort for serious infections, according to a paper published in the journal Nature in June [2024]. The mammoth peptide effectively eradicated a type of bacterium that the World Health Organization has designated a critical pathogen because of its resistance to many common antibiotics.

For the full story, see:

Dominique Mosbergen. “Search for New Antibiotics Turns Back Time.” The Wall Street Journal (Weds., May 28, 2025): A3.

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

(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 24, 2025, and has the title “A Search for New Antibiotics in Ancient DNA.” In the original of both the online and print versions, Mammuthus primigenius appeared in italics.)

The academic article published in Nature Biomedical Engineering in June 2024, and mentioned above, is:

Wan, Fangping, Marcelo D. T. Torres, Jacqueline Peng, and Cesar de la Fuente-Nunez. “Deep-Learning-Enabled Antibiotic Discovery through Molecular De-Extinction.” Nature Biomedical Engineering 8, no. 7 (July 2024): 854-71.

My Email Response to George Church on A.I. and Longevity

On May 17 I ran an entry commenting on George Church’s over-optimism about the use of A.I. to replicate the scientific method, and expressed wistful disappointment that Church’s longevity project had not advanced as quickly as 60 Minutes implied it would in 2019.

On May 20, Church sent me a cordial email disputing some of what I wrote in my entry. I responded to him on May 22, and asked him if he would mind if I ran his email and my response on my blog. He never responded to that request, so I will not reproduce his email here. But I see no harm in my including below the links he sent me. And then I will follow with my email response to him.

Here are the links that Church thought I should ponder:

2024 pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10909732 (see Fig 1b)
2022 rejuvenatebio.com/animal-health-pipeline
2022 rejuvenatebio.com/pipeline
2023 biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.11.13.566787v1.full

Here is my email response to Church:

Dear Prof. Church,

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my blog post. I appreciate the links you sent. The first link gives us the good news of progress toward increasing the lifespan of mice and in reducing their frailty, which could be interpreted as one part of reversing their aging. The fourth link also gives good news of the proof-of-concept of a new factor at the cell level that may be able to rejuvenate cells without the cancer of the Yamanaka factors.

But on 60 Minutes in 2019 you said age reversal was already “available to mice.” And you said the “veterinary product might be a couple years away and then that takes another 10 years to get through the human clinical trials.” That is not exactly a promise, but it does sound like a hopeful prediction. And I will admit that the timing matters to me. If your 60 Minutes prediction was right there’s a good chance I might live to see it; if it takes twice that long, I almost certainly will not.

In re-reading my post, I see a couple of revisions I would make. I would add that I wish you well in what you are trying to do, and strongly and sincerely hope that you succeed (whether through A.I or by other means). And I would add that I believe Elon Musk said that being overly optimistic is one way that great innovators push themselves toward great goals.

I appreciate your “fact checking” offer. I have a comment apropos that. You say that “The Lohr article doesn’t say “feeding” or “literature”. “ Here is the relevant exact quote from the Lohr article:

Lila has taken a science-focused approach to training its generative A.I., feeding it research papers, documented experiments and data from its fast-growing life science and materials science lab. That, the Lila team believes, will give the technology both depth in science and wide-ranging abilities, mirroring the way chatbots can write poetry and computer code.

So the Lohr article does say “feeding.” It doesn’t say “literature,” but does say “research papers” which I take to be the same thing. I appreciate that Lila also is collecting new data. But is it some generative intelligence in Lila that is identifying the new data to seek or is it George Church and his team?

I agree that A.I. can help crank through possibilities that have already been defined. I am dubious that A.I. can come up with the possibilities as well as George Church and his team can. It may seem harmless that A.I. is being over-hyped. But as an economist it is my job to notice that funding is scarce, so funding spent on A.I. is funding not spent on other inputs to science.

I fear that I may come across as a privileged spectator complaining about the bloodied combatant in the arena. But a big part of my research is aimed at reducing the regulations that burden medical entrepreneurs. For instance, I am working on a paper supporting Milton Friedman’s suggestion that the F.D.A. should just regulate for safety and stop regulating for efficacy. Without Phase 3, more can be tried, more quickly and more cheaply.

If you are willing, I would like to paste your response (or an edited version if you prefer) at the end of my original post. Let me know if that is OK.

Thanks!

Art

One Third of Near-Death Multiple Myeloma Patients Are Cured by a New CAR-T Immunotherapy

Many consider immunotherapy to be the most promising current approach to curing cancer. One way to implement immunotherapy is to develop CAR-T cells. But there apparently are many ways to develop a CAR-T cell and which, if any, will work is a matter of trial-and-error.

It seems overly-cautious for regulators to require that the most innovative and promising therapies must first be tried on the patients nearest to death, and so least likely to respond. Why not allow patients at earlier stages to volunteer to try the new therapies earlier? They would be taking a bigger risk, but also would have the possibility of a bigger benefit. They would avoid the suffering from current treatments that are known to have major side-effects, and also are known to only extend life for short periods of time; and they would gain a shot at a real long-term cure.

(p. A18) A group of 97 patients had longstanding multiple myeloma, a common blood cancer that doctors consider incurable, and faced a certain, and extremely painful, death within about a year.

They had gone through a series of treatments, each of which controlled their disease for a while. But then it came back, as it always does. They reached the stage where they had no more options and were facing hospice.

They all got immunotherapy, in a study that was a last-ditch effort.

A third responded so well that they got what seems to be an astonishing reprieve. The immunotherapy developed by Legend Biotech, a company founded in China, seems to have made their cancer disappear. And after five years, it still has not returned in those patients — a result never before seen in this disease.

These results, in patients whose situation had seemed hopeless, has led some battle-worn American oncologists to dare to say the words “potential cure.”

. . .

The new study, reported Tuesday [June 3, 2025] at the annual conference of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and published in The Journal of Clinical Oncology, was funded by Johnson & Johnson, which has an exclusive licensing agreement with Legend Biotech.

. . .

The Legend immunotherapy is a type known as CAR-T. It is delivered as an infusion of the patient’s own white blood cells that have been removed and engineered to attack the cancer. The treatment has revolutionized prospects for patients with other types of blood cancer, like leukemia.

Making CAR-T cells, though, is an art, with so many possible variables that it can be hard to hit on one that works.

. . .

The . . . study took on a . . . challenge — helping patients at the end of the line after years of treatments. Their immune systems were worn down. They were, as oncologists said, “heavily pretreated.” So even though CAR-T is designed to spur their immune systems to fight their cancer, it was not clear their immune systems were up to it.

Oncologists say that even though most patients did not clear their cancer, having a third who did was remarkable.

To see what the expected life span would be for these patients without the immunotherapy, Johnson & Johnson looked at data from patients in a registry who were like the ones in its study — they had failed every treatment. They lived about a year.

. . .

. . ., the hope is that perhaps by giving it earlier in the course of the disease, it could cure patients early on.

Johnson & Johnson is now testing that idea.

Dr. Kenneth Anderson, a myeloma expert at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who was not involved with the study, said that if the treatment is used as a first-line treatment, “cure is now our realistic expectation.”

For the full story, see:

Gina Kolata. “From No Hope to Potential Cure for Deadly Blood Cancer, Study Shows.” The New York Times (Thurs., June 5, 2025): A18.

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

(Note: the online version of the story was updated June 5, 2025, and has the title “From No Hope to a Potential Cure for a Deadly Blood Cancer.”)

The academic article on the new cure is:

Jagannath, Sundar, Thomas G. Martin, Yi Lin, Adam D. Cohen, Noopur Raje, Myo Htut, Abhinav Deol, Mounzer Agha, Jesus G. Berdeja, Alexander M. Lesokhin, Jessica J. Liegel, Adriana Rossi, Alex Lieberman-Cribbin, Saad Z. Usmani, Binod Dhakal, Samir Parekh, Hui Li, Feng Wang, Rocio Montes de Oca, Vicki Plaks, Huabin Sun, Arnob Banerjee, Jordan M. Schecter, Nikoletta Lendvai, Deepu Madduri, Tamar Lengil, Jieqing Zhu, Mythili Koneru, Muhammad Akram, Nitin Patel, Octavio Costa Filho, Andrzej J. Jakubowiak, and Peter M. Voorhees. “Long-Term (≥5-Year) Remission and Survival after Treatment with Ciltacabtagene Autoleucel in Cartitude-1 Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma.” Journal of Clinical Oncology https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO-25-0076.

During Covid-19 “Bureaucratic Authorities Erred in Pretending . . . Certainty”

(p. A13) Adam Kucharski, a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, takes the reader on a fascinating tour of the history of what has counted as proof.

. . .

What should we do, . . ., when a mathematical proof of truth is unavailable, but we must nonetheless act?

This leads us to a discussion of probability and statistics, and of pioneers such as William Gosset, a brewer at Guinness who figured out how to quantify random errors in experiments, and Janet Lane-Claypon, an English scientist who first thought to investigate confounding factors while analyzing children’s health. Some innovations, though, have hardened into unhelpful dogma. The scientific notion of “statistical significance” relies, Mr. Kucharski explains, on a wholly arbitrary cutoff, which incentivizes researchers to massage their data. Such issues, he says, can be hard for scientists, let alone the laity, to understand.

Mr. Kucharski speaks from experience, since he was one of the experts first called upon by the British government for advice on the Covid-19 pandemic. He explains brilliantly the fragmentary and confusing nature of the data then available, and the provisional conclusions they led to. As a public face of this effort, Mr. Kucharski was bombarded daily with abusive and threatening messages from angry citizens who simply didn’t believe what they were being told.

The lesson Mr. Kucharski draws isn’t that he and his colleagues were right (though they largely were), but that bureaucratic authorities erred in pretending there was certainty when all that was possible at the time was messy and provisional. Notoriously, in March 2020 the World Health Organization tweeted “FACT: #COVID19 is NOT airbone.” (As it turns out, it was, and it is.) The author regrets, too, that politicians claimed to be “following the science,” because science can never tell you what you should do.

For the full review see:

Steven Poole. “Bookshelf; Finding Truth In Numbers.” The Wall Street Journal (Friday, June 6, 2025): A13.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the review has the date June 5, 2025, and has the title “Bookshelf; ‘Proof’: Finding Truth in Numbers.”)

The book under review is:

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

If Universities Disbanded Would Learning and Discovery Cease?

The university is a medieval institution that in many ways in recent decades has become less efficient and less supportive of diversity of ideas. some analysts are calling for fundamental change in universities, maybe even the defunding of universities and the creation of alternative institutions to carry out the legitimate functions of universities. See Richard Vedder’s recent book Let Colleges Fail.

What are those functions? The two most important are 1) educate and 2) create new knowledge. Some, e.g., Christensen and Eyring in The Innovative University, identify a third function as providing a memorable and enjoyable early-adulthood experience of peer-camaraderie.

If universities were disbanded, could these functions be well-done by other institutions? Philip Hamburger in a passage quoted below points out that a huge store of diverse knowledge is now available on through the internet. Some of it is especially designed to help teach a variety of subjects at a variety of levels. With a basic knowledge of reading and of how to access the internet, the dedicated autodidact is not limited in what he can learn.

If universities were disbanded, could the creation of new knowledge continue? Here there is even greater uncertainty, but we have some proofs of concept of how alternative institutions and activities might fill the gap. In the early days of the Royal Society many of the members were not associated with any university. Many members pursued science in their spare time, with their own funds.

New forms of peer review could be tried that might allow anyone the chance to participate as citizen scientists. The new Journal of the Academy of Public Health will publish peer review comments along with the original article. Many scholars and citizen scientists are finding Substack a fruitful platform for publishing their ideas. Substack calls itself “a new economic engine for culture.”

Much science has been done, and can still be done, in entrepreneurial ventures and in industry. Terence Kealey documented the history and made the case. More science would be done by those seeking practical applications, and less by those seeking useless, but pretty, theory. Milton Friedman condemned NSF funding of economics, because it made economics too mathematical.

Science would be more highly valued and would produce more value.

(p. A15) Academic institutions think they have a problem and that its name is Donald Trump. But he’s only the beginning of their problems. The difficulties are systemic, not only legal or political, and that means it’s time to reconsider what higher education should look like.

. . .

. . ., although today the immediate threat comes from the Trump administration, academic institutions are fragile because knowledge is now available through the internet and artificial intelligence. For balanced inquiry, even academics increasingly look outside their universities.

For the full commentary see:

Philip Hamburger. “Don’t Just Fix Higher Education, Reconstitute It.” The Wall Street Journal (Tues., June 3, 2025): A15.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 2, 2025, and has the same title as the print version.)

The sources mentioned in my comments are:

Christensen, Clayton M., and Henry J. Eyring. The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the inside Out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2011.

Friedman, Milton. “An Open Letter on Grants” Newsweek, May 18, 1981, 99.

Kealey, Terence. The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996.

Vedder, Richard. Let Colleges Fail: The Power of Creative Destruction in Higher Education. Oakland, CA: Independent Institute, 2025.

“Gold Standard” RCT Studies Do Not Always Agree on Broad Issues

Randomized double-blind clinical trials (RCTs) are usually labeled the “gold standard” of medical evidence. But any given clinical trial can be done in an infinite number of ways. The length and duration of the RCT can vary. The eligibility requirements can vary. The definition of the placebo or comparison treatment can vary.

So on the broad issue of whether red meat is good for the heart, an RCT that compares the heart effects of red meat versus the heart effects of chicken, can yield different results than an RCT that compares the heart effects of red meat versus the heart effects of a plant-based diet.

Both RCTs might be competently done, involving no dishonesty or fraud.

We tend to overgeneralize the results of an RCT, for instance saying “red meat is heart healthy,” or “red meat is not heart healthy.” Whereas all we are justified in saying is “red meat is equally heart healthy as chicken” and “read meat is less heart healthy than a plant-based diet.”

Since RCTs are expensive and time-consuming, physicians and patients will often have to choose between treatments where no RCT has been done where the researchers made the choices that are most relevant to the patient’s situation.

And in an environment where RCT costs are high and funding is scarce, are researchers to be condemned if among the myriad varying ways of setting up the RCT, they choose the ways most likely to yield the results that will be appealing to their funder?

The article quoted below, in passages I did not quote, assumes this is only an issue with industry-funded research. But government funding review panels also have preferred outcomes. For example, Charles Piller in Doctored has recently documented that government funders have been more likely to fund RCTs that support the amyloid hypothesis of the cause of Alzheimer’s.

So is there hope for those who want to take effective action against dire disease? Yes, we can recognize that not all sound actionable evidence comes from RCTs. We can stop mandating Phase 3 trials, so that a more diverse assortment of plausible therapies can be explored. We can encourage diverse, decentralized funding sources.

(p. D6) In a review published last week in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, scientists came to a concerning conclusion. Red meat appeared healthier in studies that were funded by the red meat industry.

. . .

Past research funded by the sugar industry, for instance, has downplayed the relationship between sugar and health conditions like obesity and heart disease. And studies funded by the alcohol industry have suggested that moderate drinking could be part of a healthy diet.

Miguel López Moreno, a researcher at Francisco de Vitoria University in Spain who led the new analysis, said in an email that he wanted to know if similar issues were happening with the research on unprocessed red meat.

. . .

Dr. Moreno and his colleagues found that the trials with funding from the red meat industry were nearly four times as likely to report favorable or neutral cardiovascular results after eating unprocessed red meat when compared with the studies with no such links.

. . .

These differing results may have stemmed from how the studies were set up in the first place, Dr. Tobias wrote in an editorial for the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that accompanied the new study.

Individual nutrition studies can be good at showing how the health effects of certain foods compare with those of other specific foods. But to demonstrate whether a particular food, or food group like red meat, is good or bad for health in general, scientists must look at the results from many different studies that compare it to all possible food groups and diets.

The new review showed that, on the whole, the industry-funded red meat studies neglected to compare red meat to the full range of foods people might eat — including food we know to be good for the heart like whole grains or plant-based protein sources such as tofu, nuts or legumes. Instead, many of the studies compared unprocessed red meat to other types of animal protein like chicken or fish, or to carbohydrates like bagels, pasta or rice.

The independently funded studies, on the other hand, compared red meat to “the full spectrum” of different diets — including other types of meat, whole grains and heart-healthy plant foods like soy products, nuts and beans — Dr. Tobias said. This more comprehensive look offers a fuller picture of red meat’s risks or benefits, she said.

. . .

A spokeswoman for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said in an email that “beef farmers and ranchers support gold standard scientific research,” and that both animal and plant sources of protein can be part of a heart-healthy diet.

For the full story see:

Caroline Hopkins Legaspi. “Eyes on the Outcomes Of Red Meat Research.” The New York Times (Tues., May 27, 2025): D6.

(Note: ellipses added.)

(Note: the online version of the story has the date May 20, 2025, and has the title “Is Red Meat Bad for Your Heart? It May Depend on Who Funded the Study.”)

The academic article co-authored by Moreno and mentioned above is:

López-Moreno, Miguel, Ujué Fresán, Carlos Marchena-Giráldez, Gabriele Bertotti, and Alberto Roldán-Ruiz. “Industry Study Sponsorship and Conflicts of Interest on the Effect of Unprocessed Red Meat on Cardiovascular Disease Risk: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 121, no. 6 (June 2025): 1246-57.

Some other articles discussing cases where industry funding is alleged to have funded biased research are:

Anahad O’Connor. “Sugar Backers Paid to Shift Blame to Fat.” The New York Times (Tues., Sept. 13, 2016): A1 & ?.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Sept. 12, 2016, and has the title “How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat.”)

Alice Callahan. “Is Fake Meat Superior to the Real Thing?” The New York Times (Tues., Feb. 18, 2025): D7.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date Feb. 17, 2025, and has the title “Is Fake Meat Better for You Than Real Meat?”)

Roni Caryn Rabin. “U.S. Wooed Alcohol Industry for a Drinking Study.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., March 18, 2018): 1 & ??.

(Note: the online version of the story has the date March 17, 2018, and has the title “Federal Agency Courted Alcohol Industry to Fund Study on Benefits of Moderate Drinking.”)

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.”)

Nicholas Wade Highlighted That Early Email to Fauci Supported Lab-Leak Origin of Covid-19

Distinguished science journalist Nicholas Wade was one of the first and the few to early-on risk being canceled by providing evidence in favor of the lab-leak origin of Covid-19.

(p. A13) They told the world that the Covid-19 virus clearly couldn’t have been manipulated in the laboratory. But what they actually thought at first sight was that it had been.

The letter from five virologists published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020, was the single most influential statement in capturing the public narrative about the origin of SARS-CoV-2. Here was an authoritative statement from leading experts assuring the public that in terms of the virus’s origin “we do not believe that any type of laboratory-based scenario is plausible.”

But that’s the exact opposite of what these experts thought after taking their first look at the virus. A large batch of emails exchanged with Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was made available this week to BuzzFeed and the Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act. For the most part the emails concern meeting arrangements or messages from cranks and have been redacted of any meaningful information. But one significant email escaped the censor’s black marker.

On Jan. 31, 2020, shortly after the SARS-CoV-2 genome had been decoded, Kristian Andersen, the five virologists’ leader, emailed Dr. Fauci that there were “unusual features” in the virus. These took up only a small percentage of the genome, so that “one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”

Mr. Andersen went on to note that he and his team “all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory.” It isn’t clear exactly what he meant by this striking phrase. But anything inconsistent with an evolutionary origin has to be man-made.

For the full commentary see:

Nicholas Wade. “Fauci Email Bolsters the Lab-Leak Theory.” The Wall Street Journal (Monday, June 5, 2021 [sic]): A13.

(Note: the online version of the commentary has the date June 4, 2021 [sic], and has the same title as the print version.)

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.