Scott Alexander's April 2026 links roundup covers diverse topics including Venn diagram complexity, flag desecration laws, AI developments, political analysis, scientific studies, and various cultural curiosities.

A detailed insider look at Phase I clinical drug trials, revealing how the system's structure encourages participants to routinely lie about their medical history and symptoms to continue participating.

Scott shares an open letter urging the NIH to spend $5 billion in allocated but unspent research funds before the fiscal year deadline.

Scott Alexander and 1DaySooner outline potential positive health policy initiatives that could emerge under three key Trump administration health appointees: Jim O'Neill, Marty Makary, and Jay Bhattacharya.

Scott Alexander examines the surprisingly broad effects of GLP-1 drugs like Ozempic, exploring their mechanisms and speculating on why they seem to impact so many different conditions.

Scott Alexander challenges Robin Hanson's claim that medicine doesn't work by analyzing health insurance studies and presenting evidence of medicine's effectiveness.

Scott Alexander updates on Lumina probiotic, discussing FDA trials, effectiveness, potential risks, and his nuanced stance on the product.

Scott Alexander announces the winners of ACX Grants 2024, covering a diverse range of projects from medical research to policy advocacy.

Scott Alexander examines a study challenging ketamine's effectiveness as an antidepressant, discussing potential confounding factors and maintaining his belief in ketamine's utility despite the study's results.

The post challenges the notion that effect sizes below 0.50 for medications are clinically insignificant, using antidepressants as a case study and comparing them to other common drugs.

Scott Alexander reviews a book critiquing Institutional Review Boards, arguing they now harm medical research more than they help.

Scott Alexander critiques Ben Hoffman's arguments about Vitamin D dosing, maintaining that it is primarily a bone-related chemical with limited evidence for other benefits.

Scott Alexander proposes using high-dose oral progesterone as a potential low-cost alternative to Zulresso for treating postpartum depression, based on pharmacological research.

Scott Alexander shares the second half of ACX Grants, presenting 59 diverse project proposals seeking funding or support.

Scott Alexander responds to comments on his ivermectin article, discussing criticisms, the worms hypothesis, vaccine skepticism, and journalism quality.

Scott Alexander analyzes ivermectin studies for COVID-19, finding most positive results likely due to methodological flaws, fraud, or confounding by parasitic infections.

Scott Alexander examines the current research on Long COVID, analyzing its prevalence, symptoms, and potential impacts to assess personal risk and societal implications.

Scott Alexander reviews comments on his posts about aducanumab and the FDA, acknowledging some mistakes while defending his overall critique of FDA conservatism.

Scott Alexander corrects and expands on the story of Omegaven, a life-saving infant nutritional fluid, using it to illustrate systemic issues with medical regulation and drug approval.

Scott Alexander explains how the vastly higher doses taken by recreational drug users compared to psychiatric patients lead to misconceptions about drug safety in clinical settings.

Scott Alexander examines the treatment for progeria and its potential implications for understanding and treating normal aging processes.

Scott Alexander investigates the optimal dosage of Lexapro, comparing it to other antidepressants and exploring the reasons behind its effectiveness at lower doses.

Scott Alexander explores the history and mechanism of DNP, a dangerous but effective weight-loss drug, and discusses recent developments in safer mitochondrial uncoupling agents.

Scott Alexander critically examines a new theory on antidepressant mechanisms, expressing skepticism while acknowledging its potential significance if proven true.

Scott Alexander critically evaluates the evidence for Vitamin D's role in COVID-19 prevention and treatment, ultimately leaning towards skepticism while acknowledging the low risk of supplementation.