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.

Fascinatingly bad genetics

Incels and misogynists seem to have missed out on a lot of genetics, so they freely make it up as they go along.

[Theory] if you have a daughter, you areren’t a real man (100% male). you’re 1% female.
the fact that your daughter was a fetus inside your mother, which is because she was originally a sperm in your testicles, means there was a foid in your testicles,therefore not all of your body was male because there was a part of your body that was female. now before you think this means mothers with sons aren’t 100% male, that argument doesnt work and its different because the male fetus was originally a sperm in the dad’s balls and therefore came from the dad’s balls originally NOT the mom’s womb, thus it was part of the dad’s body NOT the mom’s body. therefore,if you have a daughter, you aren’t 100% male. you’re 99.9% male and 1% female, Real men can only have sons. and it’s also cucked to have a daughter because you raise her for 18 years to become a slut who has sex with dozens of chads but that’s just water is wet the sky’s biue grass is green.
“BRB forcibly removing my X chromosomes from my body:”
The other prevailing theory is that the foid’s egg selecively bars X or Y from entering in through the walls, depending on her own femininity/masculinity. But since slightly more males are born than females, even Y chromosome sperm seem to be physically faster and more powerful than X chromosome sperm, mirroring ‘what we see IRL in terms of physiality. Given that, it seems that a more testosteroned or hypermasculine male will produce, if not more Y chromosome sperm, a least Y chromosome sperm with greater mobilty and physical strength
this doesn’t surprise me. why would hypermasculine men have daughters?

Your daughter (or your son) was not a fetus inside your mother. I think this is this guy’s foundational error: he thinks women are like matryoshka dolls, carrying a nested series of their descendants in their ovaries. That’s not true, as I don’t need to tell you. It’s fascinating to see that this antiquated notion is still festering in the brains of certain benighted individuals.

If that’s your model, though, it doesn’t make sense to claim that a male fetus was originally a sperm in the dad’s balls, because he would also have been an ovum in your grandmothers ovary.

He’s also deeply misogynistic, as you can tell by the fact he is calling women foids, and also thinks that having a whiff of feminine biology is a terrible condition. He doesn’t seem to be aware that 51% of all babies born are male, which would imply that most people would be half and half.

There’s a grain of truth in the Y chromosome sperm seem to be physically faster and more powerful than X chromosome sperm. Statistically, Y-bearing sperm are faster, but they’re also weaker — X-bearing sperm last longer.

But really these are all bad claims badly justified. I will assure you that no student of my university who has taken genetics would ever say something so stupid.

What’s up with 3I/ATLAS now?

There’s nothing new. It’s a big space rock passing through empty space, not even coming close to us or interacting in any significant way with anything in the solar system.

That’s all the 3I/ATLAS news. Bye!

Oh, but wait, we can rely on Avi Loeb to invent news. Apparently, some “experts” are alarmed!

3I/ATLAS Alarms Experts—NASA, Avi Loeb, Nostradamus and Baba Vanga Clash Over Earth’s Fate

I am amused that the A-team for studying an astronomical body is Avi Loeb, Nostradamus, and Baba Vanga (a Bulgarian psychic). Do not downplay the importance of AI in interpreting images of the body. Here’s a rather speculative reconstruction of 3I/ATLAS.

Yeah, right.

Loeb restrained himself and did not post that image. Instead, he posted an picture of an antimatter-propelled spaceship.

For a little sanity, let’s see what real scientists think of that idea.

Mainstream scientists [Loeb is not one] have met the claim with skepticism. Dr. Samantha Lawler, an astrophysicist at the University of Regina, told EarthSky: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence presented is absolutely not extraordinary.” NASA officials, cited by The Guardian, said 3I/ATLAS “behaves like a natural comet in all observable ways.” Astronomers emphasize that non-gravitational acceleration is typical in icy bodies when sublimating gases create jets that push them slightly off course.

Cosmologists have also dismissed the antimatter theory as inconsistent with known cosmic distributions. Studies published on arXiv indicate that if antimatter concentrations of that scale existed, they would produce gamma-ray backgrounds already detectable by instruments such as Fermi. Loeb himself acknowledged the contradiction, writing that large antimatter bodies “should have been destroyed soon after the Big Bang.”

Loeb is a crackpot, and a high-ranking member of the Harvard faculty. What does that say about Harvard?

Kim Kardashian news

I’m sure you’ve all been waiting to hear what Kim Kardashian has been up to. Apparently, she has landed a leading role on a new television series (honestly, I didn’t need to read the review to know I have no interest in watching it), but I did learn something new. Kardashian is a moon landing denier! I shouldn’t be surprised, since she was married to Kanye West, but I’m supposed to keep track of looney conspiracy theories and missed that one.

Fortunately, NASA shut her down this time.

But it’s one thing to purchase a billionaire’s (breathable and stylish, hand to God!) product and another to buy into the skewed version of reality they’re promoting. We can laugh at the conspiracy-minded lunacy Kardashian touted on a recent episode of “The Kardashians,” but the fact that NASA had to publicly and officially refute what she said tells us plenty about the times in which we’re living. NASA does a lot more than plant flags on lunar surfaces. It undertakes vital scientific research that is at risk of being defunded under an administration more devoted to bathroom renovations than functional progress.

But I have something to add to the legend of Kim Kardashian. NASA may have rebuffed her, but guess who wants her to join his “research team”?

Kim Kardashian is welcome to join my research team on 3I/ATLAS
— Avi Loeb

Is anyone surprised? She has negative research qualifications, but she is loaded with empty PR potential, which is all dear Avi wants. Sign her up!

I don’t know if I’m ready to teach genetics again

I always wonder where they get their unwarranted confidence from. This person seems to have confuse the Y chromosome with the entire genetic complement, or something. I don’t want to have to untangle their thinking right now.

That’s not how DNA works. Your brother would have his father’s DNA and his mother’s DNA. You, as a girl, would have your mother’s DNA and your father’s mother’s DNA. You have only half of your father’s DNA. You do not have your father’s father’s DNA.
And this is why (if one’s father has any brothers) it’s difficult to prove a girl’s paternity. All the brothers would have the same X chromosome so any brother could be the father. It’s been pivotal in the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemmings controversies.

You don’t necessarily have the same X chromosome as your brother. It’s not hard to figure out a girl’s paternity because there are all these autosomes. I think someone got a vague hint of how sex is inherited and garbled everything up beyond that. But they still get to tell someone else they don’t understand how DNA works!

The illogical logic of Avi Loeb and the 3I/ATLAS clown show

Avi Loeb is playing games with his peculiar interpretation of interstellar object 3I/ATLAS. He keeps suggesting that this interesting, carbon-rich, and very old rock is an artificial construct built by a distant civilization, that it is a probe sent to examine our solar system, and that it could be a “Trojan horse” that will do something, who knows what, when it arrives.

Reading some his justifications for that claim, I am forced to conclude that he is an idiot putting on a display to get attention.

Worse, he’s a bad scientist whoring irrational claims and calculations that he has to know are invalid. I am not an astronomer, but I do understand logic a little bit, and seeing him derive extravagant conclusions from mundane observations hurts, especially since he’s using them to obscure the really interesting (and entirely natural) interpretations of the data.

For instance, he’s on the record for inferring the probability that 3I/ATLAS is an alien space probe on the basis of “anomalies” that turn out to not be anomalous at all, just unique properties of an interstellar comet.

As of now, I assign a 30–40% likelihood that 3I/ATLAS does not have a fully natural origin, based on its seven anomalies that I listed here. This low-probability scenario includes the possibility of a black swan event akin to a Trojan Horse, where a technological object masquerades as a natural comet.

Show your work, Avi. How did you calculate that 30-40% likelihood? I think he got it by fumbling about in his rectum and pulling out a squishy number that he likes because it fits his presuppositions. There is nothing in his list of seven “anomalies” to warrant that degree of estimation. They aren’t even anomalies, he’s just looking at the brute facts of its existence and declaring that the details are improbable. Of course they are! It’s a unique object in space!

I tried looking at his list. I am unimpressed.

Anomalies that could be alleviated or explained away with upcoming data:

1. Size: The diameter of 3I/ATLAS is larger than 5 kilometers, making its minimum mass of 33 billion tons, larger by a factor of a thousand to a million than the mass of the second and first interstellar objects (as derived here).

OK, it has a size. That is not anomalous. Call me when you observe an object that is massless–that would be anomalous. I don’t see how finding that it has a mass of 33 billion tons makes it more likely to be artificial than if it had a mass of 3 billion tons or 333 billion tons.

I also don’t see how more data would explain away the mass.

It’s also a fuzzy blob far away and hard to resolve. The size is subject to revision, so how do you conclude anything from a measurement with so much variability?

Initial estimates suggested 3I/ATLAS might be up 20 kilometers (12 miles) across—very big for a comet—but most astronomers now think it is much smaller. “It’s probably somewhere in the range of one or two kilometers,” says John Noonan at Auburn University in Alabama. That would be somewhat comparable in size to our first two interstellar visitors: 1I/ʻOumuamua, which was discovered in 2017 and was up to about 400 meters (0.25 mile) long, and 2I/Borisov, which was found in 2019 and was about one kilometer (0.6 mile) wide.

It doesn’t matter — any number you attach to it will be used by Loeb to claim it is probably artificial.

2. Jet: The Hubble image of 3I/ATLAS showed a forward jet of scattered sunlight — 10 times longer than it is wide, pointing towards the Sun (as discussed here). A weak tail showed up only at the end of August (as reported here).

Yes? It’s apparently a carbon-rich object, and gasses are sublimating off of it and spewing in the direction of the heat source, the Sun, that is thawing them, making an anti-tail. How does that make it more likely that it is artificial? It has a chemical composition is what that tells me.

3. Unusual chemical composition: the plume of gas around 3I/ATLAS showed much more nickel than iron (as discussed here and here), as in industrial nickel alloys. Unlike solar system comets, the plume contained mostly carbon dioxide and not water (as reported here and here).

Note the dishonest trick he’s pulling here, comparing it to “industrial nickel alloys.” These are estimates of the composition of the comet made from the spectroscopy of the diffuse cloud of gas surrounding it, not a determination that it’s made of metal alloys.

It actually is an interesting difference — its composition differs from more familiar comets found in our solar system. That composition also seems to be changing over time, which is somewhat odd, but explainable.

To make sense of this mystery, scientists turned to chemistry — specifically, to organometallic compounds, which are molecules containing both metal atoms and carbon-based groups.

In particular, they looked at compounds called carbonyls: nickel tetracarbonyl (Ni(CO)₄) and iron pentacarbonyl (Fe(CO)₅). Both can form under cold, low-pressure conditions, like those found in the outer reaches of a protoplanetary disk — the birthplace of comets and planets alike.

These carbonyls are highly volatile, meaning they can sublimate (turn from solid to gas) at relatively low temperatures. Nickel tetracarbonyl is more volatile than its iron counterpart, meaning it will vaporize first as the comet warms up.

This neatly explained what the VLT was seeing. When 3I/ATLAS was still far from the sun, only nickel tetracarbonyl had begun to sublimate, filling the coma with nickel. As the comet drew closer, the temperature crossed the sublimation threshold for iron pentacarbonyl — and suddenly, iron began to appear. The Ni/Fe ratio plummeted, not because the amount of nickel was decreasing, but because iron was finally joining the show.

Now, though, somebody needs to explain to me how being composed of volatile organometallic compounds is a signature of artificial manufacture.

4. Polarization: the light from 3I/ATLAS showed extreme negative polarization (as reported here).

I read the paper, and I must admit, the topic is beyond me. It does say that 3I/ATLAS has distinct, unique polarization properties and that “Its polarimetric characteristics provide novel insights into the dust properties of interstellar objects, suggesting that ISOs may encompass a broader diversity than previously recognised,” but does not even come close to implying that this is a marker of artificiality.

Anomalies that will remain puzzling forever:

5. The trajectory of 3I/ATLAS is aligned with the ecliptic plane of planets around the Sun to within 5 degrees (0.2% likelihood), as discussed here.

It has a trajectory. That is not anomalous. Every object moving through space has one. Yes, this trajectory is roughly similar to the ecliptic plane, but so what? 3I/ATLAS is very old, between 3 and 14 billion years old, is Loeb suggesting that aliens aimed their space probe at a condensing protosystem before the planets existed in order to tour potential planets?

6. The arrival time of 3I/ATLAS was optimized to pass near Mars, Venus and Jupiter (0.005% likelihood), as discussed here.

“optimized”…such misleading language, implying intent behind its trajectory. Here’s what that trajectory looks like:

Ooooh. Does that look like a pre-planned course to you? It does to Avi Loeb.

7. The arrival direction of 3I/ATLAS is aligned to within 9 degrees with the “Wow! Signal” from August 15, 1977 (0.6% likelihood), as discussed here.

The “wow” signal was a brief, unexplained, unrepeated pulse of radio signal noise. It got SETI researchers very excited for a while, but there’s no reason to think it is a message from space aliens, and Loeb is making an exceptionally tenuous connection between it and 3I/ATLAS. A 9 degree difference is an immense difference in location at the astronomical distances we’re talking about.

You know, as an atheist I read far too much nonsense from religious apologists claiming to have proof of their god’s existence — bizarre non sequiturs about physical constants and numerological coincidences, collections of anecdotes that are supposed to add up to evidence, and a tiny set of permutations on the same old arguments that even in their best interpretations don’t make up a justification for their beliefs. Reading Avi Loeb’s work gave me a strong sense of deja vu. It’s the same thing! A good analysis of a phenomenon should lead one to a minimal conclusion, but everything Loeb does ends up supporting the remarkable interpretation that God Aliens exist, and they want to talk to you, and this tiny fragment of data is how they shout at you, Occam’s Razor be damned.

I’m going to say it: Loeb has gone batty, and all this noise he makes is nothing but a dedicated (and successful!) effort to get his name in the tabloids. He’s the Percival Lowell of our generation, a scientist who did good work but whose reputation was poisoned by his irrational pursuit of astronomical phantasms, the Martian canals in one case and this alien obsession in Loeb’s.

I have evidence that spiders are posting on the internet

This ‘person,’ David Love, is definitely a spider.

Female spiders possess structures in their reproductive tracts called spermathecae that are used to store sperm. Humans lack them, and in fact, the human female reproductive tract is hostile to the survival of sperm. From this, I am forced to surmise that David Love is, in fact, a spider — and further, a female spider.

Alternatively, many other invertebrates have spermathecae, so it’s possible that he is instead a hermaphroditic earthworm.