They’re against science and free speech

No one will be surprised to learn that RFK jr is trying to bias the scientific literature. He’s upset that the journal Toxicology Reports had killed an article that supported his weird belief that childhood vaccines are causing Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, so he pressured them to restore it.

Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary, is demanding answers from a medical journal that recently removed a paper suggesting a link between vaccines and infant death, saying their decision was “of great interest to me”.

Public health advocates immediately criticized the move, and said Kennedy appeared to be trying to intimidate and influence the journal’s editorial process. The journal Toxicology Reports had removed the paper this spring after editors determined it was so seriously flawed it could harm patients and pose a risk to public health.

This is patent meddling in the publication of scientific ideas. David Gorski commented on it.

Dr David Gorski, a surgical oncologist who has written extensively about the antivaccine movement, pointed out in a post that Kennedy has portrayed himself as pro-free speech, but that he was “apparently using the power of his position” to put pressure on an editorial decision by a private publisher.

“To antivaxxers, it’s free speech for me, but not for thee,” Gorski wrote on X.

I’m interested in that bit about how the paper was “seriously flawed”. The first clue is that the paper is yet another example of VAERS cherry-picking, a common tactic by vaccine deniers to scavenge through reports of vaccine effects to find isolated examples that they they then assemble into fanciful fairy tales of statistical significance, and that’s what this paper is.

The paper raised concern among scientists soon after it was published in 2021 by Neil Z Miller. It used reports made in the federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to find what Miller said were “unusual patterns and safety signals highly suggestive of a causal relationship” between vaccination and Sids. VAERS is a vaccine safety monitoring program where anyone can submit a report about any suspected adverse health event that happens after a vaccination.

The second clue is that the author is Neil Z Miller. They can stop right there — Miller has an entry in the Encyclopedia of American Loons. He’s not a scientist, not a doctor, and has no qualifications whatsoever, and all he does is comb through diverse data to assemble “evidence” supporting his a priori conclusion that vaccines are bad, mmmK?

Neil Z. Miller is a “medical research journalist”, “health pioneer”, “independent researcher” (yes, that means exactly what you think it means) and Director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute, an anti-vaccine organization listed here (and Miller has a long history in various altmed and antivaxx organizations). Gary S. Goldman is an “independent computer scientist” affiliated with WAVE – World Association for Vaccine Education, another anti-vaxx organization, and President and Founder of Medical Veritas, a rabidly anti-vaccine “journal” (listed here) that is into HIV/AIDS denialism as well, having published dubious “reanalyses” of autopsy results of victims of AIDS. Neither Miller nor Goldman have any qualifications that would lead one to think that they have any special expertise in epidemiology, vaccines, or science. But they have google and are not afraid to use it.

Together they have actually managed to publish a paper or two in obscure journals, where they completely misunderstand data in favor of their cherished hypotheses. In “Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?” they “found” that nations requiring the most vaccines tend to have the worst infant mortality rates, and their cherry-picking of data and speculation needed to reach that conclusion are rather painful – quite simply yet another poorly planned, poorly executed, poorly analyzed study that is poorly done exactly because it needs to be in order to show what the authors want it to show, namely that vaccines cause autism, a hypothesis so thoroughly falsified as any in the history of science. The study was of course praised in the venues you’d suspect, and where the assessment of the methodology used in the study is determined by whether it supports the conclusions the praiser wants it to show. Indeed, it was even praised at NaturalNews in a long post written by … Miller himself.

That paper should not have been accepted in the first place, and now we have RFK jr stepping in to push for its publication. And what qualifications does RFK jr have to assess scientific papers? Also none whatsoever.

You have my permission to be horrified

In case you’ve ever wondered how to use a menstrual cup, don’t ask AI. They might give you a nightmare illustration.

But wait! There’s more! I decided to ask the Google AI to explain the diagram. It didn’t see any problem.

AI Overview
• This 3D medical animation illustrates a medical-grade silicone menstrual cup inserted into the vaginal canal to collect rather than absorb menstrual flow.
• The visualization highlights the proper sagittal view placement, emphasizing a comfortable position below the cervix and angled towards the sacrum.
• It serves as a reusable, eco-friendly alternative to traditional period products like pads and tampons, capable of being worn for 8–12 hours.

Now you know. Just punch the cup into the bladder and through your cervix to completely replace your uterus.

The loons have been handed the control of science

I lost all respect for Matt Ridley years ago, when I wrote:

Matt Ridley is definitely a smart guy, and he also writes well. I enjoyed some of his earlier books, like The Red Queen and Genome, but I became less appreciative as he became more openly libertarian, and espoused a Whiggish view of the world that was only a rationalization for why he was so wealthy and privileged (he’s kind of the British version of Pinker, only worse). He’s the 5th Viscount Ridley, don’t you know, he is to the manor born (Blagdon Hall, Northumberland, specifically), he’s a member of the House of Lords, he endorsed Brexit, he owns coal mines, he used to own a bank, but he ran it into the ground and it was taken away from him and nationalized. On climate change, he’s argued that global warming is going to be a net benefit, increasing rainfall and the growing season, and that human ingenuity will overcome any minor disruptions. He even coauthored a book with Anthony Watts and Bjorn Lomborg and a host of the usual denialist suspects, Climate Change: The Facts 2017, which ought to alarm anyone who wants to think he’s just being objective. I guess that comes of owning coal mines and being an enthusiastic endorser of fracking — when your prosperity is a product of spewing as much fossil carbon into the atmosphere as you can, your very smart brain will work very hard to find excuses.

At this point, he is an irredeemable kook — but a well-connected and wealthy one, who gets invited to all kinds of events hosted by the corrupt, criminal kooks in charge of the US government. He was recently invited to address the NIH on the “lab leak” hypothesis, the discredited conspiracy theory that China intentionally engineered the COVID virus to wreak havoc on the West, but accidentally released into their home territory of Wuhan. It’s absurd. No one who knows anything about virology or molecular genetics thinks it is at all plausible, or credits it as valid in the face of all the evidence that it originated naturally from wild populations, or zoonosis.

Nevertheless, Ridly got invited to present his innuendo, lack of evidence, and leaps of illogic at a major meeting of the formerly prestigious NIH.

Must Trump get his face put front and center of everything?

Don’t trust me that the “lab leak” is a garbage hypothesis? Larry Moran and Lindsay Beyerstein both shredded these “lab leak” claims years ago, but conspiracy theories seem to be invulnerable to little things like evidence and reason.

Add another critic to the long list of knowledgeable scientists who find Ridley risible: Angela Rasmussen. She gives five really strong reasons why the “lab leak” nonsense is wrong, and also seems to have even less respect for Ridley and Bhattacharya than I do.

I don’t know Ridley’s motivation besides being a pompous literal coal baron who led the UK into the 2007 financial crisis with the first run on a British bank in 130 years, and who expects to be taken seriously despite the fact that he seems like a foppish secondary antagonist in a forgettable Dr. Who episode. Unfortunately, Ridley is taken seriously by his fellow pompous, insubstantial windbags, and even more unfortunately, they are the windbags in charge who invited him.

It is no mystery why Podcast Jay [Bhattacharya] rolled out the red carpet for the distinguished Viscount despite his lack of qualifications or relevant expertise on the topic. He knows that Matt Ridley is writing fiction. He shows up to launder conspiracist lies through an indignant upper class British accent in service of Bhattacharya’s ultimate goal: to declare all NIH research reckless, dangerous, and absolutely the worst thing we could possibly do. Better redirect the money for these irresponsible Alzheimer’s, HIV, and diabetes treatments to the White House. President Donald Trump and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought will know what to do with all those funds.

I don’t see enough news and criticisms of Bhattacharya — he’s in charge of the NIH, he’s an idiot, he’s busy dismantling the American scientific institutions, but mostly what gets into the press are the disastrous decisions of the bigger fools in the cabinet. Make no mistake, though, he’s one of the nastier parasites gnawing at the foundations of our science establishment.

And now he invited Ridley to speak. The Ridley who makes these kinds of ludicrous accusations:

You can tell what kind of man he is by the people he lumps together as enemies with Hamas: a couple of credible, qualified scientists and trans people. His right-wing politics are showing.

I can’t compete with that!

Ken Ham is going to be at a benefit dinner. If you want to join him, you’ll have to pay.

$30,000 to sit at a trough with that pig-ignorant liar and fraud Ken Ham? To benefit a ghastly Christian school that promotes ignorance to the children of rich dopes? Jesus, I’m in the wrong business.

I have a counter-offer. Come to Morris, Minnesota and we can have a hearty Midwestern breakfast at Don’s Cafe. I’ll pay since you have to go to all the trouble of getting here. We’ll have a pleasant and interesting conversation, and maybe afterwards I can take you on a tour of a real college, the University of Minnesota Morris.

That’s the best deal I’ve got. I’ll also apologize for the fact that the USA has become the Upside-Down.

Drop me an email and let me know when you’re coming down.

The obvious comparison

Too on-the-nose? I don’t think so. Lysenko was put in charge of Soviet agriculture after declaring that Mendelian genetics was false, and that his Lamarckist delusions were the future of science. Robert F. Kennedy Jr rejects germ theory and immunology to promote his “miasma theory” bullshit. Lysenko came to power in the 1920s, RFK Jr a hundred years later.

It’s about time we noted the parallels between the two charlatans.

Lysenko’s views and actions have a resonance today when considering the activities of Robert F Kennedy Jr, who was appointed by Donald Trump as secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services in February 2025. Of course, Trump has repeatedly sought to impose his own agenda on US science, with his destructive impact outlined in a detailed report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in July 2025.

Lysenko set Soviet science back by decades. We should ask how far the similarities will go. It’s not reassuring.

Lysenko retained his position after Stalin died, and was reappointed by Kruschev. His scientific influence was waning — that none of his methods worked led to disaffection in the scientific community, if not so much in the political community. He wasn’t denounced until the mid-1960s (remember Sakharov?) and lingered on in retirement until his death in 1976.

If the parallels hold, let’s hope they don’t, we’re going to be wrestling with the ideological garbage RFK jr infused into American science until the 2060s.

Avi Loeb is nuts

I’ve been watching the trainwreck named Avi Loeb for a while now, and it’s become obvious that he’s shredding his own reputation, that of Harvard astronomy, and of good science in general. He really ought to step down and retire to pursue his weird hobby — maybe he could get a special on Netflix? Anyway, Rebecca Watson summarized his current record for triumphant farts, and that’s a good thing, because I’m too tired of him to do it myself.

Hey, while I was thinking of YouTube, I figured maybe I’d do a livestream on Saturday afternoon. Would anyone be interested?

How does this nonsense persist?

I keep seeing lies about biology like this on social media. This is all wrong.

A man’s DNA can stay in a woman for years sometimes. The DNA of other men can even affect her next child’s physical features or mental traits especially if the women had a child with another man or even a miscarriage or abortion. This was probably well know by the ancients or modern day religions like Islam which is why they would strongly prefer to marry and have children with virgins. So let it be known fellas, the more your girl slept around before you met her the more men’’s DNA is flowing through her like ghosts of the past, and her 🐱 is the cemetery gates

I have embryology textbooks all over the place, and this is what they have to say.

Sperm can survive in a man’s testicles for a few months. That’s a pleasant environment for a sperm cell, but even there they’re undergoing a slow process of maturation, and are eventually going to be broken down and resorbed. That’s the maximum longevity for these cells.

A woman’s reproductive tract is warm and moist and allows for limited survival, but is adapted to protect her from infections by maintaining a mildly acidic environment. It’s a somewhat hostile place that has to tolerate foreign cells, but not for long — sperm will last for 3-5 days, not years.

You may have heard of a phenomenon called microchimerism, in which fetal cells, shed during pregnancy, persist for years. These are somatic cells, not sperm cells. Sperm cells are highly specialized and have minimized their cytoplasm and cannot survive for that long.

The textbooks usually mention that sperm can survive for about an hour outside of a human body. That’s optimistic (or pessimistic, if you want to avoid pregnancy). Evaporation or absorption of the surrounding fluid is going to kill the little fuckers pretty fast.

It’s clear how these bad ideas get around — the hint is in the text. The “ancients” or “religion” are terrible sources of information, since none of them had anything but the vaguest notion of how reproduction or inheritance work, and didn’t even know about the existence of cells until, at best, three hundred years ago. Another obvious source is a cultural bias favoring virginity (a bogus concept already), and this is an attempt to rationalize that belief with made-up “facts”.

No nervous system interference there at all, thank you very much

Remember this guy? A local chiropractor put up signs all around town touting “The Cancer Cure” (but taking care not to promise one, since he’s only a chiropractor). Those signs suddenly disappeared shortly after I complained, but it’s typical of these fringe wellness quacks — publicly veiling their promises while implying miracles. These guys are still in operation, of course, and still making bizarre claims, like that chiropractic allows the body to heal itself by removing any nervous system interference.

You won’t be surprised to learn that, on the national scale, chiropractors are generally big fans of Robert Felching Kennedy Jr.

When Kennedy ran an anti-vaccine non-profit before running for president, chiropractors were hefty donors. In 2019, for instance, they donated nearly half a million dollars to the cause — about a sixth of the organization’s revenue that year. When Kennedy created the MAHA Alliance super PAC for his presidential candidacy, more than half of its initial donors were chiropractors. And when Kennedy’s nomination to lead HHS seemed like it was on the rocks, a raft of chiropractors signed a letter of support for him.
WASHINGTON, DC – NOVEMBER 13: U.S. President Donald Trump, shakes hands with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. alongside Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Scott Turner (L) after Trump signed the "Fostering the Future" executive order the East Room of the White House on November 13, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Many of Kennedy’s most ardent chiropractic supporters are now at the forefront of his Make America Healthy Again movement, posting on social media and finding TikTok virality in a bid to spread his agenda to a larger audience and recruit more disciples. Their passion for Kennedy is palpable.

To be fair, not all chiropractors are on the MAHA train.

“RFK Jr. is a natural fit, because those people who believe in that vertebral subluxation myth are the same ones who think, ‘No, you don’t need vaccines because we can just align your spine so that your body can heal itself,’” says Aaron Kubal, a chiropractor based in Minnesota who does not subscribe to the spine theory and has gone viral online for his videos debunking MAHA-aligned chiropractors.

“align your spine so that your body can heal itself” sounds like what our local chiropractor, Christopher Wollner, preaches. I wonder if he’s a MAGA/Trump voter? Because that kind of unscientific idiocy meshes perfectly with that brand of political idiocy. It’s totally free of any nervous system interference, after all.

Don’t trust anything from the Anhui Vocational College of Press and Publishing

Back in the day, when I was writing papers, it was a grueling, demanding process. I’d spend hours in the darkroom, trying to develop perfect exposures of all the images, and that was after weeks to months with my eyes locked to the microscope. Even worse was the writing; in those days we’d go through the paper word by word, checking every line for typos. We knew that once we submitted it, the reviewers would shred it and the gimlet-eyed editors would scrutinize it carefully before permitting our work to be typeset in the precious pages of their holy journal. It was serious work.

Nowadays, you just tell the computer to write the paper for you and say, fuck it.

That’s the message I get from this paper, Bridging the gap: explainable ai for autism diagnosis and parental support with TabPFNMix and SHAP, which was published in one of the Nature Publishing Group’s lesser journals, Nature Scientific Reports, an open-access outlet. Now I can’t follow the technical details because it’s so far outside my field, but it does declare right there in the title that they have an AI tool for autism diagnosis that is explainable, which implies to me that it generates diagnoses that would be comprehensible to families, right? This claim is also emphasized in the abstract, before it descends into jargon.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a complex neurodevelopmental condition that affects a growing number of individuals worldwide. Despite extensive research, the underlying causes of ASD remain largely unknown, with genetic predisposition, parental history, and environmental influences identified as potential risk factors. Diagnosing ASD remains challenging due to its highly variable presentation and overlap with other neurodevelopmental disorders. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial for timely intervention, which can significantly improve developmental outcomes and parental support. This work presents a novel artificial intelligence (AI) and explainable AI (XAI)-based framework to enhance ASD diagnosis and provide interpretable insights for medical professionals and caregivers…

Great. That sounds like a worthy goal. I’d support that.

Deep in the paper, it explains that…

Keyes et al. critically examined the ethical implications of AI in autism diagnosis, emphasizing the dangers of dehumanizing narratives and the lack of attention to discursive harms in conventional AI ethics. They argued that AI systems must be transparent and interpretable to avoid perpetuating harmful stereotypes and to build trust among clinicians and caregivers.

So why is this Figure 1, the overall summary of the paper?

Overall working of the framework presented as an infographic.

You’d think someone, somewhere in the review pipeline, would have noticed that “runctitional,” “frymbiai,” and “Fexcectorn” aren’t even English words, that the charts are meaningless and unlabeled, that there is a multicolored brain floating at the top left, and that “AUTISM” is illustrated with a bicycle, for some reason? I can’t imagine handing this “explanatory” illustration to a caregiver and seeing the light of comprehension lighting up their eyes, which don’t exist in the faceless figure in the diagram, and perhaps she is more concerned with how her lower limbs have punched through the examining table.

This paper was presumably reviewed. The journal does have instructions for reviewers. There are rules about how reviewers can use AI tools.

Peer reviewers play a vital role in scientific publishing. Their expert evaluations and recommendations guide editors in their decisions and ensure that published research is valid, rigorous, and credible. Editors select peer reviewers primarily because of their in-depth knowledge of the subject matter or methods of the work they are asked to evaluate. This expertise is invaluable and irreplaceable. Peer reviewers are accountable for the accuracy and views expressed in their reports, and the peer review process operates on a principle of mutual trust between authors, reviewers and editors. Despite rapid progress, generative AI tools have considerable limitations: they can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons we ask that, while Springer Nature explores providing our peer reviewers with access to safe AI tools, peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.

If any part of the evaluation of the claims made in the manuscript was in any way supported by an AI tool, we ask peer reviewers to declare the use of such tools transparently in the peer review report.

Clearly, those rules don’t apply to authors.

Also, unstated is the overall principle to be used by reviewers: just say, “aww, fuck it” and rubber-stamp your approval.