Skeptics Guide #1059

The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe Skepticast #1059 October 23rd 2025 Segment #1. What’s the Word Peristalsis Segment #1. News Items News Item #1 – Dimming the Sun https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251021083631.htm News Item #2 – LLMs Will Lie to be Helpful https://theness.com/neurologicablog/llms-will-lie-to-be-helpful/ News Item #3 – Should We Stop Quest for Superintelligence https://www.barrons.com/news/celebrities-ai-giants-urge-end-to-superintelligence-quest-3d3e04eb?mod=article_inline News Item #4 – CT Ghost https://www.courant.com/2025/10/22/cts-famous-ghost-is-the-white-lady-of-easton-seen-her-why-a-paranormal-investigator-is-asking/ Segment #2 Who’s That Noisy Segment #3. Your Questions and E-mails Question #1: COVID Vaccines I saw this article referenced in a typical online argument: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/10/6/ofad209/7131292 The commenter extracted the following one-line quote: “The risk of COVID-19 also increased with time since the most recent prior COVID-19 episode and with the number of vaccine doses previously received…” I've studied the article carefully (I have a PhD and although I'm primarily a SW-engr/data scientist, I work in neuroscience research, am scientifically literate, and am qualified to read articles of this sort) and I don't believe the quote was out of context. The article and its data really do reveal the implied pattern (Fig. 2 & caption, and then a paragraph in the Discussion). The authors admit the unexpected pattern in in the paper. The quote above isn't out-of-context or disingenuous. IMO, the authors' speculations as to possible explanations for the surprising pattern are fairly unconvincing (or at least rather weak): more-dosed individuals *might* also be in higher risk categories. Even they, in the same paragraph, admit and explain the unlikelihood of this explanation (those willfully getting fewer doses should be expected to be a higher risk cohort as well, even though that implies the opposite pattern). They pointed to other studies finding the same result. The speculation at that point in the paper gets pretty nuanced: specific features of the antibodies and immune response. Ultimately, I don't see a very good explanation for this pattern in the paper. The pattern appears to be valid, so a response should be something other than "the conclusion isn't correct", such as perhaps despite a higher infection rate, the infections are less severe with lower hospitalization or lower death or lower long Covid risk. But that is all speculation. There's no data implying such facts. How would you counter this argument when confronted with it? Keith Wiley Seattle, WA Segment #5. Science or Fiction Each week our host will come up with three science news items or facts, two genuine, one fictitious. He will challenge our panel of skeptics to sniff out the fake – and you can play along. Theme: Human Flatulence Item 1: Greater than 99% of flatulence is comprised of odorless gasses. Item 2: Up to 50% of human flatulence is comprised of hydrogen gas, which is flammable. Item 3: There are several approved tests for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in flatulence as an early screen for colorectal cancer. Segment #6. Skeptical Quote of the Week “By all means let us agree that we are pattern-seeking mammals and that, owing to our restless intelligence and inquisitiveness, we will still prefer a conspiracy theory to no explanation at all.” Christopher Hitchens