Nostalgia: A blast from my academic past

One in a while, I see echoes of what sprouted and grew from where I did my academic research (not my research per se). A NYT article (not paywalled) discusses a successful gene therapy treatment for ADA-SCID. That is a genetic  disease that leaves babies without a functioning immune system. Most of those babies die within a year of birth. 

The lab I did my dissertation research in was at the NIH, in the institute we called Giblets, the National Heart, Lung & Blood Institute. That lab worked a couple of other NIH labs that were developing gene therapy treatments for human genetic disease. The targeted disease was ADA-SCID. The first treatment procedure with human patients was done in 1990. 

I was in one of the key labs, but not directly involved in developing and administering the first human gene therapy protocol. I worked on peripheral research developing improved means to transfer genes into sick people. 

Cora Oakley, had ADA-SCID, 

but now she's cured

Here we are 35 years later and an apparently practical ADA-SCID gene therapy has finally arrived on the scene. 

Discussion about the first treatment protocol:

it was extremely complex, extremely expensive 

and not practical for widespread use

Progress is being made and gene therapy is becoming increasingly practical. Other targeted diseases include (1) sickle cell disease and β‑thalassemia, which is treated by stem‑cell gene addition and gene editing using CRISPR technology, and (2) hemophilia A and B, which is treated using virus (AAV)-based liver-directed gene therapy to increase blood clotting factor activity reduce or nearly eliminate spontaneous bleeding and the need for regular clotting factor infusions. 

There's still a long way to go, but gene therapy has gone a heck of a long way since 1990.

Regarding the end of the criminal prosecution of Trump

Prosecutors in Georgia dropped a criminal lawsuit against Trump claiming that it would be inconvenient. Specifically, prosecutors dropped the case because it allegedly would take years to litigate. The RICO criminal case against Trump was strong:

• Trump's team had fake electors forge and submit fraudulent documents to Congress and the National Archives dishonestly claiming to be the official Georgia results. This was straight up fraud.

• Kenneth Chesebro, a Trump lawyer, pleaded guilty to felony fraud for the fake elector scheme.

• Jenna Ellis, another Trump lawyer, pleaded guilty to felony perjury for making false statements about election fraud at a Georgia legislative hearing

• Sidney Powell and Scott Graham Hall, more Trump lawyers, pleaded guilty to tampering with voting machines in Georgia

• Trump didn't just tell Raffensperger to find 11,780 votes. He threatened to have Raffensperger prosecuted if he didn't find the votes. Raffensperger, who is a Republican and was a Trump supporter, has maintained that Trump was demanding that he illegally manufacture votes for Trump.

This lawsuit clearly was a viable RICO prosecution. The evidence of Trump crime is solid. If convicted, Trump probably could have easily gone to prison for a number of years.

Now Trump supporters are claiming that the prosecution was weaponized and bogus. That further erodes faith in both the rule of law and trust in government generally. For example, Fox News reports that Trump and allies describe the Georgia election case as a “witch hunt” and part of broader “lawfare” against him.

Once the statute of limitations for those crimes ends, apparently by January 2029, no further prosecution will be possible.

The core reason for the dismissal boils down to a purely subjective judgment by prosecutors. Did Trump, without explicitly stating it, instruct Georgia's Secretary of State to fictitiously or fraudulently produce enough votes to secure a victory in Georgia,” Or, did Trump genuinely believe that fraud had occurred, and was asking the Secretary of State to investigate to determine whether sufficient irregularities exist to change the election outcome. When multiple interpretations are equally plausible, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and should not be presumed to have acted criminally.

The ultimate question for whether the criminal prosecution against Trump should have been filed in the first place is simple: Are both interpretations equally plausible, or was Trump's track record sufficient to given him the benefit of a doubt about his own clearly false stolen election claims?

In his 2021 book, Integrity Counts, Georgia's Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, was unequivocal about his interpretation of Trump's phone call asking him to "find" 11,080 votes. Raffensperger wrote: "the president was asking me to do something that I knew was wrong, and I was not going to do that.”

Given Trump’s documented pattern of anti‑democratic conduct and the one‑sided benefits of this dismissal, it is reasonable to treat dismissing the prosecution as a partisan accommodation unless and until the people involved can clearly and convincingly show a nonpolitical justification that truly matches the gravity of the case. Whatever self‑described motives drove the decision to drop the prosecution here, the effect is indistinguishable from a partisan decision to shield a president from accountability for attempting to subvert a free and fair election.

Discussion

By the time the Georgia RICO indictment was filed in August 2023, the public evidentiary record that the 2020 election was not stolen was already massive, multi‑layered, and years old. In view of Trump's solid track record of chronic lying, coupled with the evidence of a free and fair 2020 election, did all the evidence warrant giving Trump the benefit of a doubt that he really believed the 2020 election was stolen?

Was dismissal of this criminal prosecution unwarranted, unjustifiable and completely partisan, or were there legitimate concerns that dictated dismissing a criminal case of such enormous gravity?

Has the rule of law been vindicated here, or subverted?

A damage assessment of MAGA authoritarianism

Context

Most experts on democracy and authoritarianism now consider America's liberal democracy to be under a major assault by MAGA authoritarianism. Last April, authoritarianism expert Steven Levitsky commented that the "US democracy will likely break down during the Second Trump administration in the sense that it will cease to meet standard criteria for a liberal democracy". He describes the current situation as America sliding into "competitive authoritarianism".

Another expert, Ruth Ben-Ghiat, framed Trump's second term as a new kind of coup that follows the classic authoritarian playbook. His demagoguery attacks institutions and foments irrational fear and anger to help him coax Americans into rejecting democracy:

He did a really good job of conditioning over and over. We've had eight years of this, Americans [learning] to see democracy as inferior to something else. That something else would be strongmen, rule by him.

The single most effective weapon that helped put MAGA authoritarianism in power is demagoguery. According to one expert assessment, the US is no longer a democracy. Instead, the US is ranked as an anocracy, meaning a regime that is neither fully democratic nor fully autocratic:

The USA is no longer considered a democracy and lies at the cusp of autocracy; it has experienced a Presidential Coup and an Adverse Regime Change event (8-point drop in its POLITY score).

Although Trump and allied MAGA elites and most of their rank and file supporters would strongly reject the assertion that they are authoritarian, or support authoritarianism, overwhelming evidence contradicts that. It is a false belief among the ignorant, but a lie among the elites.

A damage assessment

A simple, short assessment is impossible. MAGA damage is complex, multi-faceted, broad and deep. Three examples hint at the complexity and scope of MAGA's authoritarian damage.

1. In his first week in office in Jan. 2025, Trump fired 17 independent inspectors general (IGs) in a single night. IGs are watchdogs Congress created after Watergate to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in federal agencies. A federal judge ruled this violated federal law requiring 30-day notice to Congress, but the firings stood. A Senate investigation found these IGs had collectively identified billions in fraud and saved taxpayers enormous sums. By gutting oversight, Trump signaled that accountability is optional, which normalized corruption. Loyalty to him matters more than protecting the public interest or honest governance.

That the firings stood reflects the weakness in the rule of law that MAGA has created since Trump came of the scene in 2017.

2. Trump has openly politicized and weaponized the Justice Department by selecting Pam Bondi as attorney general. She is personally loyal to Trump, not the rule of law. Trump ordered her to prosecute his personal and political enemies. Trump loyalists carry out those orders. In 2025 Trump publicly urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate James Comey, Adam Schiff, and Letitia James, calling them “guilty” and demanding immediate action. The then DOJ brought weak, retaliatory indictments against them that judges later rejected as improper.

Comparing authoritarian abuses of power by Nixon and Trump indicates that Trump's abuses are qualitatively and quantitatively worse and more threatening to democracy.

3. Trump made systematic lying a political strategy. During his first term in office, he made over 30,000 false or misleading statements. That tactic has not changed since then. His relentless attacks on "fake news" and claims of a "stolen" 2020 election, which have been rejected by every court that heard them, led at one time to about 70% of Republicans to falsely believe that Biden's victory was illegitimate. That false belief directly led to Trump's 1/6 coup attempt. In addition, he sued media companies into settlements, and threatened to revoke broadcast licenses of networks he dislikes. His constant attacks on truth and press freedom corrodes the faith in truth that democracy needs to function.

Overall, MAGA has damaged American democracy using various avenues of attack. Collectively, MAGA tactics have eroded the rule of law, seriously damaged public trust in inconvenient facts and public interest-serving institutions, and pushed the United States away from liberal democracy toward a corrupt authoritarianism.

Discussion

Is the damage asserted here as real and serious as it is asserted to be? If not, why? What is the counter evidence sufficient to mostly or completely negate the damage assessment?

Regarding the morality of vaccination

Context

COVID-19 vaccines have demonstrated strong efficacy and an excellent safety profile. Clinical trials showed mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna) were over 90% effective against symptomatic COVID-19 and nearly 100% effective against severe disease. Real-world studies confirmed high protection against hospitalization and death. The vaccines have saved millions of lives.

Despite persistent criticisms that COVID vaccines are toxic or ineffective, overwhelming clinical safety and efficacy data proves that the vaccines are very safe and highly effective. Serious adverse events are rare. Myocarditis/pericarditis occurs primarily in young males after mRNA vaccination but is rare, with most patients recovering fully. Anaphylaxis occurs at about 5 cases per million doses. Vaccine-related fatalities are extremely rare and difficult to quantify. Fatality from anaphylaxis occurs at rates of approximately 0.02–0.04 per million doses.

False and irrational anti-vaccine propaganda and misinformation have been significant in the US for years. The COVID epidemic greatly amplified the problem. Growing numbers of Americans are refusing to get vaccinated because they believe the false information is truth, and the actual truth is false. The percentage of Americans who falsely believe COVID vaccines caused "thousands of deaths" rose from 22% in 2021 to 28% by July 2024. Those believing it's safer to get infected than vaccinated more than doubled from 10% to 22%.

A moral analysis

If one accepts the scientific evidence that COVID vaccines and all vaccines generally are safe and effective (which they are), what moral judgment, if any, can one cast on people who refuse to get vaccinated? Their refusal is despite publicly available, accurate information proving that vaccines are safe. Does the fact that because probably nearly all of those people have been deceived by anti-vaccine propaganda or crackpot theories, they are excused for whatever adverse outcomes their false belief causes?

Putting the question in harsher terms better highlights the moral question:

Adults are adult. They are responsible for their beliefs, actions and inactions. False vaccine belief and refusal to get vaccinated sometimes hurts or kills the false belief believer or other people. Keeping one's demagoguery, crackpottery and lunacy to ones-self is fine. But when it crosses a line into matters that can affect or even kill others, there is no compelling reason to excuse what is irrational. The US is still a mostly free county. Americans still have access to accurate information. That some people choose to believe liars, crackpots or idiots is entirely their choice. The consequences of acting or failing to act because of their false beliefs dose not free them from moral implications of their actions and inactions.

Discussion

Is there such a thing as an epistemic responsibility or duty to form beliefs rationally (based on available evidence) when false beliefs lead to significant harm or death of others? Is that a legitimate moral imperative or duty? Does irrational distrust of government excuse false vaccine belief that causes serious harm or death to others?

Is this a persuasive argument?

Vaccine refusal isn't purely self-regarding.[1] Unvaccinated individuals are known to sometimes serve as vectors for disease transmission to immunocompromised people, infants, and others. The measles outbreaks of 2024-2025 demonstrate this concretely—children were being hospitalized and dying because of parental decisions based on misinformation. When a person's epistemically negligent beliefs kill other people's children, e.g., "I was confused by the information" is not exculpatory. We don't excuse financial fraud because the perpetrator "genuinely believed" their scheme was legitimate. We hold adults accountable for what they should have known. Why should we excuse easily preventable failure to get vaccinated?

Even if it were rarely provable, would it be good to have laws that made unvaccinated people financially responsible for economic, physical and emotional loss they are proven to cause to others (or their estates if they die) who they infect? Would the good, incentivizing more people to get vaccinated leading to less death and harm, outweigh whatever bad there might be?

Footnote:

1. An anti-vaccine crackpottery believer who was a father with a family got infected. The infection killed him, and his family mourned. His daughter says he was brainwashed by the stuff that he was seeing on YouTube and social media. He said: 'A lot of people will die more from having the vaccine than getting Covid'. He was wrong.

An unvaccinated healthcare worker set off a COVID-19 outbreak at a Kentucky skilled nursing facility in March 2021. The outbreak infected 26 residents, 18 of whom were fully vaccinated. Three residents died, one vaccinated, two unvaccinated. The CDC published this case as evidence for why vaccinating all health care staff is critical.