Category Archives: Noteworthy

Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics

Without doubt, the new Leiden Declaration on AI use is a clear step forward.

Without doubt, scientific results are always attributable to specific authors who take credit for their discovery and assume also responsibility.

Without doubt, revising my text by an AI (adding occasionally a point or removing one for being unqualified) benefits my programming and writing.

So AI support is indicated now not only in all recent papers but also for blog entries since March 2026.

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

A bookmarklet that highlights AI generated prose

As AI models are trained on vast amounts of text, including published, polished prose that uses professional typesetting, which is why they default to these more precise characters although they cannot be simply reached by a keyboard. Some examples are

  • Em Dash U+2014 Two hyphens (–) or special key commands Used to set off a phrase for emphasis or a sharp break in thought-like this.
  • En Dash U+2013 Hyphen (-) Used for ranges of numbers or dates (e.g., 1990-2000) or to join two names in a phrase.
  • " " Curly Quotes U+201C, U+201D Straight quotes (“) Typographically correct quotation marks used in formal writing.
  • ' ' Curly Apostrophe U+2018, U+2019 Straight apostrophe (‘) Typographically correct apostrophe.
  • Ellipsis U+2026 Three periods (…) A single character for an ellipsis.

A forensic caveat: these are heuristics, not proof. Smart-punctuation in any word processor produces identical glyphs from human input, and a model can be told to emit ASCII. The presence raises the prior; it does not establish AI provenance.

/* glyph-highlighter bookmarklet - add this single line as a bookmark */

javascript:(function(){var ID='glyphHL',ex=document.querySelectorAll('mark.'+ID);if(ex.length){ex.forEach(function(m){m.replaceWith(document.createTextNode(m.dataset.c))});document.body.normalize();['_'+ID+'s','_'+ID+'b'].forEach(function(i){var e=document.getElementById(i);if(e)e.remove()});return}var G={'\u2014':['em dash','U+2014','dash'],'\u2013':['en dash','U+2013','dash'],'\u2212':['minus','U+2212','dash'],'\u2010':['hyphen','U+2010','dash'],'\u2012':['figure dash','U+2012','dash'],'\u2015':['horizontal bar','U+2015','dash'],'\u201C':['left double quote','U+201C','quote'],'\u201D':['right double quote','U+201D','quote'],'\u2018':['left single quote','U+2018','quote'],'\u2019':['apostrophe / right single','U+2019','quote'],'\u2032':['prime','U+2032','quote'],'\u2033':['double prime','U+2033','quote'],'\u2026':['ellipsis','U+2026','ell'],'\u00A0':['no-break space','U+00A0','space','NB'],'\u2009':['thin space','U+2009','space','TH'],'\u202F':['narrow nbsp','U+202F','space','NNB'],'\u200C':['zero-width non-joiner','U+200C','space','ZWNJ'],'\u200D':['zero-width joiner','U+200D','space','ZWJ'],'\uFEFF':['BOM / zwnbsp','U+FEFF','space','BOM']};var cls='[\\u2014\\u2013\\u2212\\u2010\\u2012\\u2015\\u201C\\u201D\\u2018\\u2019\\u2032\\u2033\\u2026\\u00A0\\u2009\\u202F\\u200C\\u200D\\uFEFF]';var has=new RegExp(cls),rx=new RegExp(cls,'g');var s=document.createElement('style');s.id='_'+ID+'s';s.textContent='mark.'+ID+'{border-radius:2px;padding:0 1px;color:inherit;box-shadow:0 0 0 1px rgba(0,0,0,.2)}mark.'+ID+'.dash{background:#bcd0ff}mark.'+ID+'.quote{background:#ecc9ff}mark.'+ID+'.ell{background:#b8efe2}mark.'+ID+'.space{background:#ffd0c4;outline:1px dashed #b23b2e;display:inline-block;min-width:.5em;text-align:center}mark.'+ID+'.space::after{content:attr(data-x);font:9px/1 monospace;color:#b23b2e;vertical-align:super;margin-left:1px}';document.head.appendChild(s);var c={dash:0,quote:0,ell:0,space:0},nodes=[],w=document.createTreeWalker(document.body,NodeFilter.SHOW_TEXT,{acceptNode:function(n){if(!n.nodeValue||!has.test(n.nodeValue))return 3;var p=n.parentNode,t=p&&p.nodeName;if(t=='SCRIPT'||t=='STYLE'||t=='NOSCRIPT'||t=='TEXTAREA')return 3;if(p&&p.isContentEditable)return 3;return 1}});while(w.nextNode())nodes.push(w.currentNode);nodes.forEach(function(n){var f=document.createDocumentFragment(),v=n.nodeValue,last=0,m;rx.lastIndex=0;while((m=rx.exec(v))){var ch=m[0],i=m.index,g=G[ch];if(i>last)f.appendChild(document.createTextNode(v.slice(last,i)));var mk=document.createElement('mark');mk.className=ID+' '+g[2];mk.dataset.c=ch;mk.title=g[0]+' '+g[1];if(g[2]=='space')mk.dataset.x=g[3];mk.textContent=ch;f.appendChild(mk);c[g[2]]++;last=i+ch.length}if(last<v.length)f.appendChild(document.createTextNode(v.slice(last)));n.parentNode.replaceChild(f,n)});var tot=c.dash+c.quote+c.ell+c.space,b=document.createElement('div');b.id='_'+ID+'b';b.style.cssText='position:fixed;z-index:2147483647;right:12px;bottom:12px;background:#14161a;color:#fff;font:12px/1.5 system-ui,sans-serif;padding:8px 12px;border-radius:6px;box-shadow:0 2px 10px rgba(0,0,0,.3);max-width:240px';b.innerHTML='<b>'+tot+'</b> typeset glyphs<br>'+c.dash+' dash &middot; '+c.quote+' quote &middot; '+c.ell+' ellipsis &middot; '+c.space+' space/hidden<br><span style="opacity:.7">click the bookmarklet again to clear</span>';document.body.appendChild(b)})();

/* glyph-highlighter bookmarklet - readable source
 *
 * Highlights typeset Unicode glyphs that a plain keyboard does not produce.
 * Run once to highlight; run again on the same page to remove.
 *
 * Categories (CSS class + colour):
 *   dash   blue          em/en/minus/hyphen/figure dash/horizontal bar
 *   quote  purple        curly quotes, curly apostrophe, prime, double prime
 *   ell    teal          ellipsis
 *   space  red, dashed   no-break/thin/narrow spaces + zero-width chars (ZWJ/ZWNJ/BOM)
 *
 * Invisible characters carry a small superscript tag (NB, TH, ZWJ, ...) via ::after,
 * because they have no visible shape of their own.
 *
 * To install: minify to a single line and prefix with "javascript:" as a bookmark URL,
 * or use the one-liner already provided.
 */
(function () {
  var ID = 'glyphHL';

  // --- toggle off: if marks exist, unwrap them and remove injected nodes ---
  var existing = document.querySelectorAll('mark.' + ID);
  if (existing.length) {
    existing.forEach(function (m) {
      m.replaceWith(document.createTextNode(m.dataset.c)); // restore original char
    });
    document.body.normalize(); // merge split text nodes back together
    ['_' + ID + 's', '_' + ID + 'b'].forEach(function (id) {
      var el = document.getElementById(id);
      if (el) el.remove();
    });
    return;
  }

  // --- glyph table: char -> [name, codepoint, category, shortTag?] ---
  var G = {
    '\u2014': ['em dash', 'U+2014', 'dash'],
    '\u2013': ['en dash', 'U+2013', 'dash'],
    '\u2212': ['minus', 'U+2212', 'dash'],
    '\u2010': ['hyphen', 'U+2010', 'dash'],
    '\u2012': ['figure dash', 'U+2012', 'dash'],
    '\u2015': ['horizontal bar', 'U+2015', 'dash'],
    '\u201C': ['left double quote', 'U+201C', 'quote'],
    '\u201D': ['right double quote', 'U+201D', 'quote'],
    '\u2018': ['left single quote', 'U+2018', 'quote'],
    '\u2019': ['apostrophe / right single', 'U+2019', 'quote'],
    '\u2032': ['prime', 'U+2032', 'quote'],
    '\u2033': ['double prime', 'U+2033', 'quote'],
    '\u2026': ['ellipsis', 'U+2026', 'ell'],
    '\u00A0': ['no-break space', 'U+00A0', 'space', 'NB'],
    '\u2009': ['thin space', 'U+2009', 'space', 'TH'],
    '\u202F': ['narrow no-break space', 'U+202F', 'space', 'NNB'],
    '\u200C': ['zero-width non-joiner', 'U+200C', 'space', 'ZWNJ'],
    '\u200D': ['zero-width joiner', 'U+200D', 'space', 'ZWJ'],
    '\uFEFF': ['BOM / zero-width no-break space', 'U+FEFF', 'space', 'BOM']
  };

  // character class covering every key above
  var cls = '[\\u2014\\u2013\\u2212\\u2010\\u2012\\u2015\\u201C\\u201D\\u2018\\u2019' +
            '\\u2032\\u2033\\u2026\\u00A0\\u2009\\u202F\\u200C\\u200D\\uFEFF]';
  var has = new RegExp(cls);        // non-global: safe for .test()
  var rx  = new RegExp(cls, 'g');   // global: used to scan/split text

  // --- injected stylesheet ---
  var style = document.createElement('style');
  style.id = '_' + ID + 's';
  style.textContent =
    'mark.' + ID + '{border-radius:2px;padding:0 1px;color:inherit;box-shadow:0 0 0 1px rgba(0,0,0,.2)}' +
    'mark.' + ID + '.dash{background:#bcd0ff}' +
    'mark.' + ID + '.quote{background:#ecc9ff}' +
    'mark.' + ID + '.ell{background:#b8efe2}' +
    'mark.' + ID + '.space{background:#ffd0c4;outline:1px dashed #b23b2e;display:inline-block;min-width:.5em;text-align:center}' +
    'mark.' + ID + '.space::after{content:attr(data-x);font:9px/1 monospace;color:#b23b2e;vertical-align:super;margin-left:1px}';
  document.head.appendChild(style);

  // --- collect candidate text nodes ---
  var counts = { dash: 0, quote: 0, ell: 0, space: 0 };
  var nodes = [];
  var walker = document.createTreeWalker(document.body, NodeFilter.SHOW_TEXT, {
    acceptNode: function (n) {
      if (!n.nodeValue || !has.test(n.nodeValue)) return NodeFilter.FILTER_REJECT;
      var p = n.parentNode, t = p && p.nodeName;
      if (t === 'SCRIPT' || t === 'STYLE' || t === 'NOSCRIPT' || t === 'TEXTAREA') return NodeFilter.FILTER_REJECT;
      if (p && p.isContentEditable) return NodeFilter.FILTER_REJECT;
      return NodeFilter.FILTER_ACCEPT;
    }
  });
  while (walker.nextNode()) nodes.push(walker.currentNode);

  // --- wrap each matched glyph ---
  nodes.forEach(function (n) {
    var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
    var v = n.nodeValue, last = 0, m;
    rx.lastIndex = 0;
    while ((m = rx.exec(v))) {
      var ch = m[0], i = m.index, g = G[ch];
      if (i > last) frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(v.slice(last, i)));
      var mk = document.createElement('mark');
      mk.className = ID + ' ' + g[2];
      mk.dataset.c = ch;                 // original char, for clean restore
      mk.title = g[0] + ' ' + g[1];      // hover tooltip: name + codepoint
      if (g[2] === 'space') mk.dataset.x = g[3];
      mk.textContent = ch;
      frag.appendChild(mk);
      counts[g[2]]++;
      last = i + ch.length;
    }
    if (last < v.length) frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(v.slice(last)));
    n.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, n);
  });

  // --- count badge ---
  var total = counts.dash + counts.quote + counts.ell + counts.space;
  var badge = document.createElement('div');
  badge.id = '_' + ID + 'b';
  badge.style.cssText =
    'position:fixed;z-index:2147483647;right:12px;bottom:12px;background:#14161a;color:#fff;' +
    'font:12px/1.5 system-ui,sans-serif;padding:8px 12px;border-radius:6px;' +
    'box-shadow:0 2px 10px rgba(0,0,0,.3);max-width:240px';
  badge.innerHTML =
    '<b>' + total + '</b> typeset glyphs<br>' +
    counts.dash + ' dash \u00B7 ' + counts.quote + ' quote \u00B7 ' +
    counts.ell + ' ellipsis \u00B7 ' + counts.space + ' space/hidden<br>' +
    '<span style="opacity:.7">click the bookmarklet again to clear</span>';
  document.body.appendChild(badge);
})();

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

Südhof reloaded

Following the Lindau elogy there is a new Südhof paper in Neuroscience.

The biggest issue? Undisclosed self-interest. Südhof opens by admitting his own lab is under PubPeer scrutiny, then analyzes PubPeer as if providing neutral commentary. This is never adequately acknowledged as the primary driver of the piece. His attack on PubPeer commentors for income-dependent bias applies with greater force to himself.

The “income” claim misrepresents PubPeer’s structure. The assertion that PubPeer’s key proponents base their livelihood on comment success conflates a handful of individuals with the platform as a whole. PubPeer is a registered non-profit. The overwhelming majority of commentors are anonymous volunteers – I know only of a few exceptions Bik/Patreon, David/Dana Farber or Oransky/service fees. The characterization implies a structural commercial incentive that does not exist institutionally. Verdict – clearly wrong.

The Occam’s razor argument is logically invalid. He argues: if you wanted to fake a Western blot, you’d just load fake samples rather than manipulate images – therefore image manipulation is less likely. This is not my empirical experience: Image manipulation happens to rescue weak signals, fix failed loading controls, save time. The existence of an allegedly simpler path to fraud does not preclude the actual path taken. Applied consistently, this reasoning exculpates most detected fraud by construction.

“Minor issues with no bearing on main findings” is asserted without evidence. He repeats the Lindau argument as if established. The opposite is frequently documented: duplicated Western blots in result-critical panels, reused patient data across trials presented as independent cohorts, fabricated dose-response curves. No data are provided on PubPeer’s false positive rate, proportion of retractions later shown unjustified, or what fraction of flagged issues were peripheral vs. central to conclusions. Verdict – not a scientific argument

The proposed alternatives? Just a return control to the same failed system? eLife comments, Nature “Matters Arising”, and BioRxiv comments require formal authorship and pass through editorial gatekeeping by the same journals that sat on integrity concerns for years before PubPeer forced action. The history of that institutional failure is the reason PubPeer exists, and it goes entirely unaddressed.

Where Südhof is right. The description of the author-journal power imbalance is accurate and underappreciated. Journals recruit reviewers for free, make unilateral acceptance and retraction decisions, collect open-access fees, and provide authors no due process. A paper can be retracted without the authors having any formal right of appeal. COPE guidelines nominally govern this process but confer authority on journals, not authors.

(with AI support)

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

The EMA on Zandoriah

This story started by end of March 2026 – see also my arXiv preprint – with an email to the European Medical Association after examining some Iranian RCTs.

One of these was a teriparatide biosimilar that is under scrutinity by the EMA.

ASK-292796 – EMA Zandoriah / teriparatide received on 01/04/2026
Thank you for your message and your interest in the European Medicines Agency. Your request has been given the reference number ASK-292796.

Unfortunately there was no further response however.

So I repeated my email 6 weeks later

ASK-294576 – Zandoriah CHMP opinion received on 15/05/2026
Thank you for your message and your interest in the European Medicines Agency. Your request has been given the reference number ASK-294576.
We will reply to you as soon as we can. For complex queries, it may take longer to answer. In any case we will write back to you within 2 months from the date of receipt.
Please do not reply to this email, this is an automated response to confirm that we have received your request. If you need to contact us again about the same matter, please use the form on our website and mention the reference number.

Another 2 weeks later an EMA official (or an EMA bot) answered

The European Medicines Agency does not routinely request or receive individual patient-level datasets as part of its marketing authorisation applications. The Agency's evaluation is primarily based on the analyses and summaries provided by applicants, in line with the established regulatory framework. Please be informed that the European Public Assessment Report for this product will be published on the EMA website soon, it will contain the details of the assessment, including specific studies and types of data which served as the grounds for the CHMP Opinion.
With regards to your concerns raised, please note that we have a whistleblowing policy in place. Please check https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/about-us/how-we-work/external-whistleblowing-policy for further reference.
If you consider your concerns well-founded, you are welcome to submit full supporting and detailed evidence via the email reporting@ema.europa.eu so it can be properly assessed and acted upon as appropriate.

So I sent email number 3 to the reporting hotline.

Funnily, on the the next day, instead of a response, the EMA published numerous related Zandoriah documents including the anticipated market authorisation.

I am not an expert in reading these kind of official documents. Asking Claude for interpretation it says

A PK/PD comparability study was published but contains errors

The RMP (Module SII and SIII) names EudraCT 2019-004477-82 explicitly: an open-label, randomised, two-sequence, two-period crossover bioequivalence study in 60 healthy female subjects, comparing P044 20 µg vs Forsteo 20 µg single dose subcutaneous. This study has now been identified as Raykova et al. 2021 (Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 22:2, 235-243) by CinnaGen employees and their contracted CRO in Bulgaria. The paper states that the study “was approved by independent ethical committee ” naming neither the committee nor its approval number or date, contrary to ICMJE requirements. For a study conducted in Sofia, Bulgaria by a CRO contracted by an Iranian sponsor, and submitted to EMA as part of a marketing authorisation dossier, the absence of independently verifiable ethics oversight documentation is a material reporting deficit.

The EMA report states 60 subjects; the published paper reports 66 enrolled, 56 completers, 48 PK-evaluable. The figure 60 probably corresponds to the P044 safety population (Table 5, N=60), suggesting the RMP cited the treatment-specific safety denominator rather than the enrolled N. The sample size section states CV=25%, 80% power, alpha=5% → n=56 required; standard TOST calculation for those inputs yields only n=16, not 56. Reverse engineering shows n=56 corresponds to an intrasubject CV of approximately 49%. Either the stated CV or the stated sample size is wrong.

Eight of 56 completers (14%) were excluded post-hoc from PK analysis for pre-dose concentrations exceeding 5% of Cmax. With a teriparatide half-life of approximately 1 hour and a 3-day washout, pharmacokinetic carryover is impossible. The paper investigated all plausible causes and found none. This cluster of unexplained pre-dose signals is almost certainly what the EMA’s provisional negative opinion referred to in September 2021 when it cited “uncertainties about the way results from the study on distribution in the body had been analysed.” The first EMA application (Teriparatide Cinnagen) was withdrawn on 9 September 2021, two weeks after this paper appeared online. The second application (Zandoriah) received a positive initial opinion in March 2026 although the arithmetic mean of t½ for P044 (0.95h, SD 1.80h) has SD exceeding mean, which is inconsistent with a normal distribution for a strictly positive variable and indicates severe right-skew or extreme outliers in the population.

If teriparatide PK differs between sexes (there is published evidence that it does as body weight, renal function, and volume of distribution differ systematically), then the bioequivalence demonstrated in healthy young women (mean age 33, mean BMI 24) may not extend to the male patients or older postmenopausal women who are the actual clinical population. This is a limitation of the design and would normally appear in the discussion. It does not.

The serum calcium PD endpoint used in this study reflects transient PTH receptor activation in kidney and gut, not the osteoblast stimulation and bone matrix formation that defines teriparatide’s clinical value, which operates over months and is measurable only through bone turnover markers or BMD.

Structural comparability data - peptide mapping, circular dichroism, receptor binding, cell-based bioassay - are absent from the published paper and the EPAR assessment report that would contain them remains unavailable. Eight of 56 completers (14.3%) had pharmacokinetically impossible pre-dose elevations despite a 72-half-life washout, most plausibly explained by ELISA cross-reactivity with endogenous PTH(1-84), which would mean the measured PK curves partially reflect endogenous hormone rather than the biosimilar. If assay specificity for P044 differs even slightly from that for Forsteo - due to differences in aggregation state or degradation profile - the apparent bioequivalence is an assay artefact,

The only clinical efficacy data in the entire dossier is the Tabatabaei-Malazy 2018 RCT that I identified in my paper.

The CinnoPar RCT (Tabatabaei-Malazy 2018) remains formally part of the dossier

The RMP Module SIII states it explicitly: 104 patients randomised, 94 analysed, 6-month follow-up. This is the study with documented impossible CVs, cross-variable mean duplicates, a CONSORT flow claiming zero exclusions despite extensive exclusion criteria, and a Table 1 denominator inconsistency (counts consistent with N=43, percentages consistent with N=44). EMA accepted this study as contributing to the clinical comparability claim. None of the documents address the data integrity issues documented on PubPeer.

The safety exposure is thin and the risk assessment is anomalous. Table 15 of the RMP states 52 patients exposed to CinnoPar across the entire clinical trial programme. The RMP then lists Important Identified Risks: None; Important Potential Risks: None; Missing Information: None. This triple “None” against a 52-patient safety database is a regulatory anomaly. The Forsteo originator dossier covered over 2,800 patients.

So EMA authorised Zandoriah on a dossier that includes: (1) a published bioequivalence study with unclear ethical provenance and a sample size calculation that is arithmetically irreconcilable with its stated inputs; (2) a clinical RCT with documented forensic anomalies that remain unaddressed in the regulatory record. (3) There is also currently no publicly verifiable basis for assessing whether P044/CinnoPar/Zandoriah is structurally and functionally comparable to Forsteo at the molecular level.

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

The NEJM's peer review from beyond

Following up a recent PubPeer post the journals integrity officer Dawn Peters wrote to me "You may submit a Perspective or letter to the editor". So I wrote this letter.

NEJM papers forming the empirical backbone of the hygiene hypothesis contain important methodological weaknesses. The journal's role was active rather than passive: the Bach 2002 review (1) and the accompanying editorial (2) were clear endorsements published alongside the first prominent farm/endotoxin findings. The hypothesis was rarely framed to allow falsification, and was repeatedly reformulated - from "infections" to "endotoxin" to "microbial diversity" to "innate immunity." Later disclosures of editorial conflicts of interest make a retrospective methodological audit overdue.

Bach (1), cited nearly 3,700 times, built its central argument on figures whose source data cannot be verified. Figure 1A cites a source containing seroprevalence rather than incidence data. Figure 1B assigns incorrect country categories. Figure 3 combines disease and economic data from sources that do not contain the values shown. Figure 4 relies on an unpublished personal communication that has not been replicated. The ecological framing throughout is insufficient to support causal inference.

Braun-Fahrländer (3) pools farming and non-farming children whose endotoxin exposures differ twofold into a single smoothed curve. The smoothing span is changed selectively for the one outcome contrary to the main hypothesis, without justification. Fewer than one third of eligible participants provided complete data, with no analysis of non-completers. After correction for multiple testing, virtually the entire Table 2 collapses to a single marginal result.

Ege (4) excluded wheeze-enriched children from the PARSIFAL sample, reducing wheeze prevalence from 8% to 3%, without disclosure in the main paper. In the resulting sample, the farm-asthma association is non-significant. The SSCP normalization standard contained the same organisms highlighted as the paper's headline protective finding. In the paper's own final model, the GABRIELA diversity result is null (OR 1.01, p=0.93) - neither value reported in the abstract.

Stein (5) infers genetic equivalence between Amish and Hutterite children from principal-component analysis of common SNPs, a method not suited to detecting the rare founder variants that distinguish these populations. Shared ancestry is thus not established, and the paper's central contrast - attributing the four-fold asthma difference to farming environment rather than genetic background - is not warranted.

These concerns - unverifiable source data, undisclosed sample exclusions, selective analytical choices, and abstracts that omit null results from the papers' own final models - are documented on PubPeer and remain unaddressed. Taken together, they indicate that the hygiene hypothesis was not established on sound empirical foundations.

I now received this response

Dear Prof. Wjst:

I am writing about your recent letter to the editor. We sent your concerns to authors of the studies you referenced and reviewed the replies we received as well as the studies themselves. I am sorry to say that your letter was not accepted for publication. We believe that limitations you raise were adequately acknowledged by the authors in the published papers and/or were consistent with reporting practices at the time of publication.

Thank you for the opportunity to consider your letter.

Sincerely,

Eric Rubin, MD, PhD
Editor in -Chief

So the New England Journal of Medicine has resolved my concerns about five hygiene hypothesis papers by consulting the authors. One is deceased. The rest are retired. All confirmed their work was fine, a somewhat predictable outcome.

The NEJM calls this research integrity. I call it a new normal: where the bar for correcting the scientific record is the posthumous approval of those who created it. The new normal – figures citing the wrong sources, null results missing from abstracts, undisclosed sample exclusions and a key figure that rests on an unpublished personal communication that has never been replicated. This is an interesting new benchmark for a journal of the NEJM's standing.

One for the files.

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

There is no average patient

I am collecting material for an article questioning EBM (evidence based medicine) while coming across an interesting preprint by Zach Shahn “Trust me, I’m a doctor”.

Suppose that outcomes under usual care, e.g., collected from hospital health records, outperform the outcomes in both arms of a randomized experiment conducted in the same population. A textbook example concerning lung cancer patients comes from Hernan and Robins [2024], see also Sarvet and Stensrud [2025]. Then, Deaton and Cartwright's argument that one should trust their physician over a trial is validated. In this case, a next step is to find the criteria that physicians are using to make personalized decisions.

He continues to examine study settings in which a randomized trial is nested within an observational cohort, so that outcomes are observed under treatment, control, and usual care while I am following up here his reference to Sarveed & Stensrud Unfortunately the abstract of this paper is poor – it should have explained the two definitions of “harm” in personalized medicine. So I try it on my own.

Counterfactual harm – a patient is harmed if they received a treatment whose outcome is worse than what would have happened under the alternative – requires knowing unobservable potential outcomes / principal strata. The interventionist harm (the authors’ preference): a patient is harmed if their expected outcome under the assigned treatment is worse than under the alternative, conditional on their measured features which requires only experimentally identifiable quantities. The counterfactual approach is practically problematic because principal strata are metaphysical objects that can never be verified, require non-experimental data and partial identification. The interventionist approach is transparent, observable, and doesn’t coerce commitment to unverifiable metaphysics.

The paper does not explain how to do this in practice – I think this could be just a well-designed RCT with pre-specified effect modification analysis. The workflow would be; pre-register → stratified randomization → interaction-term analysis or causal forest → decision rule by argmax of expected outcome. You never need to ask “what would have happened to this patient under the other treatment” - you only ask “what does the evidence say about patients like this one.”

 

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

US demands on African countries in exchange for health aid

After dismantling USAID in January 2025, the Trump administration has been negotiating bilateral health agreements with over 30 countries, predominantly in Africa, under its “America First Global Health Strategy.” The deals tie what was previously humanitarian assistance to a bundle of strategic demands:

1. Personal health and genomic data

Ghana walked away from a $109 million deal after Washington demanded access to personal health data (Ärzteblatt, April 2026). In Zambia, the US demanded 10 years of access to national health and genomic data in exchange for only 5 years of funding, with no guarantee that Zambia would benefit from any vaccines or drugs developed from that data (IBTimes UK).

2. Mining concessions for US companies

A leaked State Department memo proposed explicitly using HIV aid for Zambia’s 1.3 million PEPFAR-dependent patients as leverage to extract access to copper, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth minerals (FPRI, March 2026). In the DRC, after demanding 20-year corporate tax exemptions, windfall tax waivers, and duty-free treatment for US imports, Washington secured a deal giving US firms right-of-first-offer on certain mining sites (Capital & Main, April 2026).

3. Recipient country co-financing

Zambia’s proposed deal required the country itself to contribute roughly $340 million in domestic health spending alongside the US offer of $1 billion over five years, sharply reducing the net benefit (Observer Research Foundation, March 2026).

4. Regulatory reforms favoring US investment

Several agreements include clauses requiring recipient governments to create favorable regulatory environments for US direct investment in mining and pharmaceuticals (Al Jazeera, April 2026).

So the strategic goal is to redirect African critical minerals - cobalt, copper, lithium, rare earths - into US supply chains and counter China’s dominance in African mining.

PEPFAR, long regarded as one of America’s most successful humanitarian programs (credited with saving over 26 million lives globally), is now being openly wielded as a negotiating tool. Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Ghana have rejected or walked out of talks; Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, and over a dozen others have signed agreements. Malawi’s Kayelekera uranium mine restarted and now shipping to the US.

Critics, including former USAID officials, have called the approach “coercion dressed in the language of strategy.”

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

The Stockholm declarations never worked

The 1972 Stockholm Declaration is considered a landmark in international environmental law, but it has not achieved its full potential to reverse ecological destruction.

Nice, that now also this paper finally appeared – it explains why also the Sabel and Larhammar 2025 Declaration will never work.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.252165

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

The Padua pipeline – how a sanctioned Iranian university publishes clinical data in an off topic Italian open access journal

I recently came across the European Journal of Translational Myology publishing papers outside the scope of the journal and outside the expertise of the editorial board.

Screenshot 12/6/26 in 2022 Iran was the most frequent country of origin according to https://journaltrends.com/

Editor-in-Chief Ugo Carraro (*1943, former University of Padua researcher) supported EJTM’s broadening from muscle physiology into general medicine, proposing a rename to “Myology, Mobility, Medicine”. The journal subsequently started to publish Iranian clinical papers across orthopedics, dentistry, psychiatry, COVID-19, and urology – not related to myology. In 2022, an Iranian author even published in EJTM a bibliometric study of Iranian output in EJTM itself – a self-referential feedback loop that normalizes the journal as a legitimate Iranian venue inviting further submissions.

The Cegolon bridge

Luca Cegolon (University of Trieste) is the structural intermediary between Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences (BMSU) and Italian academia. He holds at least six joint publications with Einollahi and Javanbakht spanning COVID-19, plasma exchange, ozone therapy, and kidney injury – all on Iranian data. Cegolon completed his PhD at Padua University Medical School, the same institution as Carraro. The Tehran-Trieste-Padua route therefore carries manuscripts from a sanctioned IRGC institution to a Pavia open-access publisher with no regulatory friction.

Javanbakht as serial off-topic submitter

Javanbakht’s EJTM papers cover kidney transplantation pharmacology (Suprotac tacrolimus), male fertility / varicocelectomy, and wrist tendon transfer surgery – none touching myology. The pattern is deliberate: EJTM is Scopus-indexed, open-access and has demonstrated tolerance for off-topic Iranian clinical submissions. The Suprotac APC was almost certainly paid by NanoAlvand Company, the product’s manufacturer, paying a trivially small marketing cost for a PubMed-citable Phase IV label.

The sanctions geography

From March 2013, OFAC regulations prohibited US-owned journals from handling manuscripts authored by Iranian government employees. Elsevier instructed its US editors to reject such manuscripts outright. OFAC sanctions also generated misunderstanding among editors in other countries, who rejected Iranian manuscripts for political rather than scientific reasons, further narrowing the accessible publishing landscape.

PAGEPress has no US ownership and no OFAC exposure. It accepts APC payments via Italian bank transfer (Banca Popolare di Sondrio), routable through European exchange offices without triggering US sanctions. It fills a structural niche created by the sanctions geography.
Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences (BMSU) was founded in 1994 as the primary medical institution operated by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps IRGC. The US Treasury designated it on under Executive Order 13382 (WMD proliferation) and again in 2017 under Executive Order 13224 (terrorism support). Foreign parties facilitating transactions for the entity are subject to US sanctions. Einollahi, Javanbakht, and their BMSU co-authors are employees of this designated institution.
Interpretation

The primary exchange is probably not financial but metric. For Cegolon, co-authorship with a high-volume Iranian clinical group accelerates publication output at a career stage where Italian Abilitazione Scientifica Nazionale metrics directly determine promotion. For BMSU and NanoAlvand, the European co-author provides editorial access, institutional legitimacy, and a sanctions-circumventing pathway to Scopus. The APC is the transaction cost; mutual bibliometric benefit is the structural incentive - legal, common, and largely misaligned with quality control.

Reactions

15/6/26 I received an email from Ugo Carraro that basically confirms that <EJTM3 has opened up since 2018 to publish any “Medicine” work>. Interestingly he adds that all

Ejtm papers end with the Disclaimer: All statements expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, nor those of the publisher, editors, or reviewers. Any product reviewed in this article or claims made by its manufacturer are not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

So he distances from the content – a strange move. Sure, as a liability device, it is a standard, boilerplate non-endorsement clause found across many journals. Under ICMJE and COPE norms, editors retain responsibility for what they accept, including registration requirements, scope fit, and conflict-of-interest handling. A publisher cannot contract out of that responsibility after the fact via a footer. The disclaimer does not address why a prospectively-unregistered, manufacturer-funded bioequivalence study was accepted in a myology journal. The authors responded with some AI generated appeasement while the publisher response is still missing.

 

 

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

Why Maxwell's statement proved too much

Having been working on the infamous Giuffre/Mountbatten/Maxwell photo, I came across now an email draft of a defense attributed to Maxwell that seems to confirm the authenticity of the photo "In 2001 I was in London when met a number of friends of mine including Prince Andrew. A photograph was taken as I imagine she wanted to show it to friends and family."

The media coverage was extensive and remarkably uniform. Continue reading Why Maxwell's statement proved too much

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

Genetic discrimination

Unfortunately with the decline of genomic research, there are some “hobbyist” researchers coming up with their own agenda. Three recent investigations lay out just how bad things have gotten – and how difficult it is to stop the damage once it starts.

The New York Times revealed that fringe researchers systematically deceived the NIH to gain access to genetic and brain-scan data from over 20,000 American children enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study. Using deliberately misleading applications, they extracted the data, shared it with unauthorized collaborators, and produced at least 16 papers purporting to rank racial groups by IQ. The papers have since been amplified millions of times on social media, cited by AI chatbots, and used as ammunition by white nationalists. The NIH eventually suspended the lead researcher and he was fired – yet his collaborators apparently retained copies of the data and kept publishing.

The Guardian then showed the problem is not limited to bad-faith actors inside the system. UK Biobank, which holds health records on 500,000 British volunteers, found that well-meaning researchers had accidentally posted sensitive datasets to GitHub dozens of times. One exposed file contained hospital diagnoses and birth details for 413,000 participants – enough to re-identify individuals with just a date of birth and one known medical procedure.

Harvard geneticist Sasha Gusev ties both stories together in a sharp Substack essay. His core point is simple: these systems were designed assuming everyone plays by the rules. They were not built for people who lie on their access applications, quietly pass data to friends, or treat a children’s health study as raw material for race propaganda. When something goes wrong, the response tends to be more paperwork, more committees, more strongly worded statements — none of which does much against someone who was never going to read them anyway. Gusev’s actual prescription: stick to what participants consented to, ban anyone who leaks data permanently, and when bad science appears, criticize it loudly in plain language where people can actually read it – not in a journal response that ten specialists will see.

The people who donated their data, often hoping to help find cures for cancer or diabetes, deserve at least that much.

 

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

Compliance Regeln

Was die Regeln ursprünglich sollten? Nach 9/11 und der Finanzkrise 2008 wurden die Compliance Regeln für Banküberweisungen massiv verschärft. Das Ziel war natürlich legitim: Terrorfinanzierung, Drogenhandel, Menschenhandel und Steuerflucht eindämmen. Die FATF (Financial Action Task Force) setzte globale Standards und die setzten die Banken unter enormen Compliance-Druck stellten.

Aber es wurde übertrieben und das Problem ist mittlerweile gut dokumentiert. Ich habe es selbst in Ostafrika nun erlebt. De-Risking trifft die Falschen. Nicht Kriminelle, sondern Entwicklungsländer, Diaspora-Überweisungen, NGOs und kleine Importeure werden abgeschnitten. Die Weltbank und der IWF haben das mehrfach kritisiert – gerade Überweisungen von Migranten in die Heimat (sog. “Remittances”) sind für viele Länder wirtschaftlich wichtiger als Entwicklungshilfe. Die Weltbank warnte explizit: Wenn der Trend anhält, könnten Menschen und Organisationen in volatileren Regionen vollständig vom regulierten Finanzsystem abgeschnitten werden – was paradoxerweise die Transparenz senkt, weil Transaktionen in unregulierte Kanäle abwandern.

Dazu sind die Compliance-Kosten sind explodiert. Banken geben laut Schätzungen weltweit über 200 Milliarden Dollar jährlich für Compliance aus – und trotzdem werden laut UNODC nur 1-2% krimineller Geldflüsse tatsächlich gestoppt. Der Aufwand ist also enorm, der Effekt gering. “Greylist”-Stigma trifft ganze Volkswirtschaften. Wird ein Land auf eine Grau- oder Schwarzliste gesetzt, ziehen sich Banken kollektiv zurück – nicht weil einzelne Transaktionen gefährlich sind, sondern aus Angst vor Haftung. False Positives sind derNormalzustand. >90% der Alerts sind Fehlalarme, es ist kein Randphänomen, sondern ein systemisches Problem.

Korruption und illegale Kapitalflucht aus Entwicklungsländern sind real – und schaden oft genau den Empfängerländern. Die EU-Geldwäscherichtlinien haben nachweislich einige große Skandale aufgedeckt. Das Kernproblem ist nicht die Intention, sondern die Architektur: Banken werden für Verstöße mit Milliardenstrafen belegt, aber nie dafür, dass sie legitime Transaktionen blockieren. Der Anreiz ist also systematisch verzerrt – lieber zu viel ablehnen als zu wenig. Solange diese asymmetrische Haftung nicht geändert wird, werden Überweisungen nach Afrika kompliziert bleiben. Oder wir laufen weiter mit Geldbündel durch die Gegend, tricksen mit gemeinsamen Kreditkarten, benützen Remitly oder Hawala – alles das, was Compliance Regeln eigentlich verhindern wollten.

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

Anti Diskriminierungs Fake

Die ZEIT berichtet von einer Präsentation der Bundesbeauftragten für Antidiskriminierung, Ferda Ataman, bei der BPK in Berlin

Viele Menschen in Deutschland glauben einer Studie zufolge an vermeintlich naturgegebene Unterschiede zwischen verschiedenen Ethnien und Kulturen. So stimmten zwei von drei Befragten der Aussage zu, dass bestimmte Kulturen “fortschrittlicher und besser” seien als andere, wie aus der Erhebung des Deutschen Zentrums für Integrations- und Migrationsforschung (DeZIM) hervorgeht. Knapp die Hälfte vertrat die Ansicht, dass gewisse Gruppen “von Natur aus fleißiger” seien als andere. 36 Prozent der Befragten stimmten der Aussage zu, dass es unterschiedliche “Rassen” gäbe.

Um eine solche Studie machen zu können, muss man:frau minimale Voraussetzungen in Testtheorie mitbringen. Basale Kenntnisse der Kulturwissenschaft, Genetik, Medizin oder Pädagogik schaden auch nicht. Leider fehlt dies aber den Leitern dieser “Studie” (download hier).

Oversampling ohne transparente Gewichtung. Die Studie überrepräsentiert bestimmte Gruppen absichtlich durch eine Vorklassifikation nach Vor- und Nachnamen aus Melderegistern. Das ist legitim – aber die Gewichtung wurde im aktuellen Bericht erstmals an Mikrozensus-Daten angepasst, was die Autoren selbst einräumen führt dazu, dass frühere Berichte “in einzelnen Zahlen leicht abweichen”. Zeitreihenvergleiche sind damit methodisch fragwürdig.

Selbstauskunft als einzige Datenquelle. Alle Kernvariablen – Einstellungen, Diskriminierungserfahrungen, Institutionenvertrauen – beruhen auf subjektiver Selbstauskunft. Es gibt keine Kreuzvalidierung mit administrativen Daten, Experimenten (Audit-Studien) oder objektiven Indikatoren.

Zirkuläre Operationalisierung von “Rassismus”. Das Instrument misst u.a. die Zustimmung zur Aussage, bestimmte Kulturen seien “fortschrittlicher und besser” als andere (66 % Zustimmung), und wertet dies als rassistische Einstellung. Eine derartig breite Definition schließt faktische Kulturvergleiche, zivilisationstheoretische Positionen und Alltagsurteile pauschal als “Rassismus” ein – das ist eine normative Vorentscheidung, keine empirische.

Konfundierung von Ursache und Wirkung. Der Bericht berichtet Korrelationen zwischen Diskriminierungserfahrungen und Institutionenvertrauen und formuliert daraus kausale Schlüsse (“gehen einher mit”, “führen zu”). Längsschnittdaten wären nötig, um Kausalrichtung zu bestimmen – das Panel ließe das zumindest ansatzweise zu, wird aber hauptsächlich im Querschnitt ausgewertet.

Selektiver Attrition-Bias. Die Gewichtung für Panel-Ausfälle erfolgt anhand von Merkmalen wie Selbstidentifikation und Einstellungen gegenüber verschiedenen Gruppen. Wer aus dem Panel ausscheidet, weil er das Thema Rassismus als irrelevant empfindet, wird weggewichtet – das strukturiert die Ergebnisse in Richtung der Ausgangshypothese.

Institutionelle Interessenlage. Das NaDiRa ist beim Deutschen Zentrum für Integrations- und Migrationsforschung (DeZIM) angesiedelt und wird vom Bundesministerium gefördert. Die Handlungsempfehlungen am Ende des Berichts sind das erklärte politische Ziel. Das ist kein Fehler per se, aber ein Faktor für die Interpretation.

Zusammenfassung. Die Studie ist kein Beleg für die Verbreitung von Rassismus in Deutschland, sondern eine Messung davon, wie viele Menschen bestimmten, normativ vordefinierten Aussagen zustimmen. Die Gleichsetzung von Zustimmungsraten mit “rassistischen Einstellungen” ist die Kernproblematik – sie folgt aus dem theoretischen Rahmen, nicht aus den Daten selbst.

“Garbabge in, Garbage out” – eine solche sensible Fragestellung in einem “online Tool” ohne vorherige ausführliche Validierung zu bearbeiten? Wo es so sehr auf Nuancen im Sprachgebrauch ankommt?

So ist nicht nur die PK sondern auch die Studie auch die Kernaussagen ein Musterbeispiel für politische Agenda aber nicht für eine validierte Aussage. Verständlicherweise kommt daher vielfache Kritik- Auszüge:

https://profile.zeit.de/2784058 … nicht jede Kultur ist gleich gut. Eine Kultur, in der es bspw. als normal gilt, dass junge Mädchen genitalverstümmelt, zwangsverheiratet und systematisch entrechtet werden, ist einer westlich liberalen Kultur moralisch unterlegen. Dasselbe gilt für kulturelle Prägungen, in denen Ehrengewalt, religiöser Fanatismus oder brutale Homosexuellenverfolgung als selbstverständlich gelten. Oder eine Kultur, die Massenmördern Märtyrerrenten zahlt und betont, wie ehrenvoll es sei, “Ungläubige” zu ermorden. Wer so tut, als dürfe man hier keine Wertung vornehmen, verwechselt Toleranz mit moralischer Beliebigkeit. Eine offene, rechtsstaatliche und freiheitliche Gesellschaft ist solchen Gesellschaftsmodellen überlegen, gerade weil sie individuelle Freiheit, körperliche Unversehrtheit und gleiche Rechte schützt, statt Unterdrückung als Tradition zu bemänteln.

https://profile.zeit.de/2965476 Damals gab es keine AfD und alles erschien aus heutiger Sicht gut. Ich werde das Gefühl nicht los, dass heute jeder vermeintliche Gutmensch fieberhaft unter jedem Stein einen Nazi sucht, um sich dann als der Bessere Bürger, sprich, auf der richtigen Seite der Brandmauer einsortieren zu können. Dieses platte und flache schwarz / weiß denken ist der Treibstoff der AfD

https://profile.zeit.de/2462818 Natürlich finde ich manche Kulturen besser als andere. Russland hat eine Kultur, die mehr von Machtdenken, Chauvinismus, und Gewalt geprägt ist, als andere. Ich halte Japan's Workoholic-Kultur und die Schönheitschirurgie-Obsession Korea's für problematisch. Ebenso Deutschland's Bürokratie und technische Innovationsfeindlichkeit, Amerikanische Waffen-Kultur und Überheblichkeit, oder eine Kultur, die Genitalverstümmelung gut heißt. Aus diesem Mix an problematischen Aspekten verschiedener Kulturen ergibt sich zwangsläufig, dass manche Kulturen Aggregat dem Wohl der Menschheit zuträglicher (und damit "besser") sind, als andere. Das anzuerkennen ist erst mal nicht rassistisch.

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026

Datenschutz in Bayern

“Wir haben nahezu einen Totalausfall der Datenschutzbehörden” sagt Max Schrembs.

netzpolitik.org: Du sieht auch bei Rechtsdurchsetzung des Datenschutzes Reformbedarf. Wo liegt hier das Problem?

Max Schrems: Eines der Probleme ist der nahezu Totalausfall der Datenschutzbehörden. Es gibt natürlich Ausnahmen, aber den meisten fehlt der politische Wille, es fehlen die budgetären Mittel oder das kompetente Personal. Die Leitungsposten der Behörden werden immer öfter nicht unabhängig, sondern politisch besetzt. Eine zweite Amtszeit gibt es nur bei einem wirtschaftsfreundlichen Kurs. Das führt dazu, dass es in Europa nicht mal bei 1,3 Prozent der DSGVO-Beschwerden überhaupt zu einem Bußgeld kommt. Inzwischen herrscht eine Logik des Rechtsbruches vor. In der juristischen Bubble interessiert die DSGVO keine Sau mehr, weil der Anwalt, der dich berät, mehr kostet als die potenzielle Strafe.

Ist das nicht reichlich übertrieben?

Zur Antwort hier meine Korrespondenz mit dem “Bayrischen Landesbeauftragten für den Datenschutz”.

Es geht um die Weitergabe der Namen/ Adressen aller 90.000 Ärztinnen und Ärzte an eine private Firma, die damit Emails mit Tracking Pixel für einen Fragebogen verschickt hat, ohne daß sie dafür je ein Einverständnis der Betroffenen hatte.

Die Antwort des Datenschutz Beauftragten vorab: “Ihre Vermutungen kann ich nicht nachvollziehen”.

Continue reading Datenschutz in Bayern

 

CC-BY-NC Science Surf , accessed 30.06.2026