Science – Page 2 – artdiamondblog.com

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).

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.

Pasteur Saw That “Germs Were Everywhere in the Air”

The passages quoted below show how Pasteur respected his audience by finding a clear and compelling way to communicate that “germs” float in the air. The essay quoted below is adapted from Zimmer’s recently released Air-Borne book.

In other parts of Air-Borne, Zimmer discusses how the W.H.O. and the C.D.C. ignored the implications of the findings of Pasteur and others, relevant to the air-borne (aerosol) spread of diseases such as Covid-19.

(p. D8) On the evening of April 7, 1864, in an amphitheater filled with Parisian elites, Pasteur stood surrounded by lab equipment and a lamp to project images on a screen. He told the audience it would not leave the soiree without recognizing that the air was rife with invisible germs. “We can’t see them now, for the same reason that, in broad daylight, we can’t see the stars,” he said.

At Pasteur’s command, the lights went out, save for a cone of light that revealed floating motes of dust. Pasteur asked the audience to picture a rain of dust falling on every surface in the amphitheater. That dust, he said, was alive.

Pasteur then used a pump to drive air through a sterile piece of cotton. After soaking the cotton in water, he put a drop under a microscope. He projected its image on a screen for the audience to see. Alongside soot and bits of plaster, they could make out squirming corpuscles. “These, gentlemen, are the germs of microscopic beings,” Pasteur said.

Germs were everywhere in the air, he said — kicked up in dust, taking flights of unknown distances and then settling back to the ground, where they worked their magic of fermentation. Germs broke down “everything on the surface of this globe which once had life, in the general economy of creation,” Pasteur said.

“This role is immense, marvelous, positively moving,” he added.

The lecture ended with a standing ovation. Pasteur’s hunt for floating germs elevated him to the highest ranks of French science.

For the full essay see:

Zimmer, Carl. “He Showed That Germs Floated in Air.” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 18, 2025): D8.

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

(Note: the online version of the essay was updated Feb. 18, 2025, and has the title “Louis Pasteur’s Relentless Hunt for Germs Floating in the Air.”)

Zimmer’s essay, quoted above, is adapted from his book:

Zimmer, Carl. Air-Borne: The Hidden History of the Life We Breathe. New York: Dutton, 2025.

90% of Biomedical Articles Are “Either Misleading, Wrong or Completely Fabricated”

The right to health freedom is primarily an ethical issue. But the uncertainty and unreliability of much medical “knowledge” (as argued in the book reviewed in the passages quoted below) seems to strengthen the case for patient self-determination.

(p. A15) The largest repositories of biomedical research in the U.S. and Europe, PubMed and Europe PMC, contain 84 million articles between them, and add a million more each year. According to recent estimates, up to 90% of those papers—75 million total—contain information that’s either misleading, wrong or completely fabricated.

Over the past 20 years, certain branches of science have endured a so-called reproducibility crisis, in which countless papers have been exposed as shoddy if not bogus. Sometimes these revelations are merely embarrassing, but in biomedical research, incorrect publications can cost lives as doctors and drugmakers rely on them to treat patients.

In “Unreliable: Bias, Fraud, and the Reproducibility Crisis in Biomedical Research,” Csaba Szabo—a physician with doctorates in physiology and pharmacology—dissects the ways he’s seen research go wrong in his 30 years in academia and industry: data manipulation, poor experimental design, statistical errors and more.

. . .

The biggest problem, however, lies with scientists who strive to do good work but feel pressured to cut corners. Scientists cannot work without grant money, but of the 70,000 applications the National Institutes of Health receive each year, only 20% get funded. Leading journals reject up to 99% of papers submitted, and only one in 200 doctoral graduates ever becomes a full professor. Even with tenure, professors can suffer salary cuts or have their labs handed to higher-performing colleagues if they don’t keep pulling in cash. Some sadistic research professors even pit their graduate students against each other in “dogfights”—they run the same experiment, but only the first to get results publishes. No wonder researchers massage data or fudge images: Forget “publish or perish.” It’s “fib or forgo your career.”

. . .

Given this tsunami of mistakes, the author points out that cynical types have suggested we treat all biomedical research as fraudulent unless proved otherwise. The cost is staggering: The U.S. wastes tens of billions of dollars annually on useless research, shortening or even costing patient lives. Most scientists can’t even reproduce their own data half the time, and the number of papers retracted rose to 10,000 in 2023 from 500 in 2010.

. . .

Most importantly, Dr. Szabo calls for systematic changes in how science gets done.

. . .

Above all, he despises the broken status quo, where “everybody acts politely . . . keeps their mouths shut, and acts like the whole process is functioning perfectly well.”

For the full review see:

Sam Kean. “Bookshelf; Reaching For Results.” The Wall Street Journal (Tuesday, March 24, 2025): A15.

(Note: ellipses between paragraphs added; ellipsis internal to paragraph, in original.)

(Note: the online version of the review was updated March 24, 2025, and has the title “Bookshelf; ‘Unreliable’: Reaching for Results.”)

The book under review is:

Szabo, Csaba. Unreliable: Bias, Fraud, and the Reproducibility Crisis in Biomedical Research. New York: Columbia University Press, 2025.

Vindication is Sweet, Even 60 Years Too Late

When I was a child my mother would stick an oral thermometer in my mouth. When she returned she would always be annoyed with me, saying that I didn’t have it in right, because my temperature was too low. She would say with irritation: ‘Now this time do it right!’ So I would feel discouraged and would give the thermometer a hard jab into my mouth until it hurt. But my temperature would still be too low.

The story below suggests, decades too late for me, that maybe it wasn’t my fault. Maybe the official mandated “normal” temperature of 98.6 was wrong!

(p. D6) We seem to be getting cooler. Since 1851, when the standard was set at 37 degrees centigrade, or 98.6 Fahrenheit, the average human body temperature has steadily declined.

. . . . The analysis is in eLife.

. . .

. . . improvements in sanitation and improved dental and medical care have reduced chronic inflammation, and the constant temperatures maintained by modern heating and air conditioning have helped lower resting metabolic rates. Today, a temperature of 97.5 may be closer to “normal” than the traditional 98.6.

For the full story see:

Nicholas Bakalar. “Is 98.6 No Longer ‘Normal’?” The New York Times (Tuesday, January 21, 2020): D6.

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

(Note: the online version of the story was updated Jan. 21, 2020 [sic], and has the title “Body Temperature 2.0: Do We Need to Rethink What’s Normal?”)

The academic paper in eLife, mentioned above, is:

Protsiv, Myroslava, Catherine Ley, Joanna Lankester, Trevor Hastie, and Julie Parsonnet. “Decreasing Human Body Temperature in the United States since the Industrial Revolution.” eLife 9 (2020): e49555.