Category: Science

“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.

Plenty in Science Still “Just Doesn’t Make Any Sense”

In my Openness book, I argue against those who see a future of inevitable stagnation. One argument for inevitable stagnation says that entrepreneurs build their innovations on science and we have run out of new knowledge to learn in science.

But whenever we keep our eyes open and observe more closely, or in new areas, we see what we cannot yet explain. The passages quoted below give another example. So we still have a lot to learn in science.

(Of course I also point out in the book that much entrepreneurial innovation is not tied to current advances in science–and is done by entrepreneurs who do not know, or who do not hold in high esteem, the current conclusions of mainstream scientists.)

(p. A14) On Dec. 24 [2024], NASA’s Parker Solar Probe swooped closer than it ever had before to the sun, just a few million miles above its blazing hot surface.

The team behind the mission waited nervously, trusting that the probe would survive the encounter. Then, a few minutes shy of midnight on Thursday [Dec. 2?, 2024], Parker phoned home.

. . .

. . ., there was some fear that the probe might not survive this time. Parker’s heat shield is designed so that the front of the vehicle can withstand facing the blistering heat of the sun’s outer atmosphere, which reaches millions of degrees, while the back, which contains the probe’s sensitive instruments, sits at a comfortable 85 degrees Fahrenheit.

“Literally one side is at a temperature that is unfathomable,” Joseph Westlake, the director of heliophysics at NASA, said. “And the back of it is a hot, sunny day.”

. . .

Parker’s data will . . . help scientists understand how the sun’s outer atmosphere, known as the corona, can be hundreds of times hotter than the solar surface below it.

“It’s like if you were standing next to a bonfire and you took a couple of steps back, and all of a sudden it got hotter,” Dr. Westlake said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”

For the full story see:

Katrina Miller. “After Silence, Solar Probe Signals Earth of Survival.” The New York Times (Sat., December 28, 2024): A14.

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

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Dec. 30, 2024, and has the title “After Days of Silence, NASA’s Parker Solar Probe Phones Home.”)

My book mentioned in my initial comments is:

Diamond, Arthur M., Jr. Openness to Creative Destruction: Sustaining Innovative Dynamism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

. . .

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

For the full story, see:

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

(Note: ellipses added.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).