There have been a lot of dubious medical research papers published over the years. Famously, there was the 1998 case series that kicked off what would become an entire movement of vaccine skepticism by falsely linking them to autism. Before that, there was a whole slew of research bought and paid for by the sugar industry designed to “downplay the risks of sugar and highlight the hazards of fat,” according to NPR.

Rarely, however, are studies so heavily, and intentionally, fictionalized as a paper that quietly popped up in some small corners of the Internet in early 2024.

Researcher tests AI hypothesis

Almira Osmanovic Thunström, medical researcher at the University of Gothenburg, knew that Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude, Google Gemini, etc. draw from an expansive knowledge base they’re trained on.

Training data can include anything and everything from books to Reddit posts to song lyrics to articles published in reputable medical journals.

Crucially, hundreds of millions of people log into these AI services every year to ask about symptoms and receive medical advice. It’s the natural evolution of the “Just check WebMD” approach. Thunström wanted to see if she could effect the output of these LLMs by planting bogus ideas into their training data.

So, she made up a disease. She called it “Bixonimania,” which includes symptoms such as sore, itchy eyes and discolored eyelids. Then, she fabricated an entire research study around the condition and uploaded a “preprint” of the paper to a couple of servers—a preprint being a version of the research paper that has not yet undergone peer review, but is still made available for the public to read.

Finally, with the seeds planted, and the false study publicly available for anyone (or anything) to see, Thunström waited to see if LLMs would begin spitting out “Bixonimania” as a diagnosis.

Fake disease finds serious legs in AI chats

If the experiment sounds ethically dubious, that’s fair, but Thunström made every effort to make it clear that the findings were completely false. Not only did she collaborate heavily with an ethics consultant on the experiment, she left plenty of breadcrumbs along the way.

For starters, the lead author of the study is listed as “Lazljiv Izgubljenovic,” a person who does not exist. Translated from Slovenian, the name means “The Lying Loser.”

Second was the name of the disease itself, which was chosen to be ridiculous sounding. “I wanted to be really clear to any physician or any medical staff that this is a made-up condition, because no eye condition would be called mania—that’s a psychiatric term,” Thunström said per Nature.com.

Early in the paper, the text “this entire paper is made up,” appears. As does a note that all of the fifty so-called “participants” were completely fictional. Toward the end, Thunström thanks such esteemed colleagues as “Professor Maria Bohm at The Starfleet Academy … onboard the USS Enterprise” and partners like “the Professor Sideshow Bob Foundation.”

Despite the warnings, and the fact that (nearly) any qualified human reading the paper would know it was a fake, it began showing up in search results and even had the authority to appear on Google Scholar.

AI chatbots began spitting out “Bixonimania” as a possible diagnosis to users within just a few weeks—users who were probably suffering from eye irritation due to too much screen exposure. Thunström even has the screenshots to prove that certain models, including Microsoft Copilot and Google Gemini, still refer to the disease as a “recently” proposed or described condition.

Then something even stranger happened.

“Bixonimania” gets cited by other research papers

The “Bixonimania” paper was never peer-reviewed or published in an official journal, for obvious reasons. But, soon enough, it was referenced and cited in a new paper that was peer-reviewed.

“Bixonimania is an emerging form of POM [periorbital melanosis] linked to blue light exposure; further research on the mechanism is underway,” the authors confidently wrote.

The papers referencing the made-up disease were later retracted.

More than just AI trickery

The TL;DR? People rarely read beyond the headline. In fact, one study (a real one!) found that more than 75% of people who share an article online haven’t even read it. Most of us trust anything that appears in a medical journal.

You’d think physicians and researchers would be more thorough, but the truth is they’re just as susceptible to time crunches, lapses of focus, and even taking shortcuts in their work from time to time. In other words, they’re only human.

This fascinating experiment isn’t just about how a researcher managed to fool AI, it speaks to bigger problems with how we use the technology and our daily media habits.

“The solution isn’t just better filters. It’s better habits, better norms, and better expectations around how we read, verify and cite. Human‑centred resilience has to come first,” an astute commenter wrote.

“This expose has huge implications for academia and ‘googling your symptoms’. I was/am worried about being the one taking the hit for a controversial experiment of this sort. It was done with very high guardrails and ethical considerations, I hope everyone reading will take that in to account,” Thunström elaborated on LinkedIn.

She recently decided to retract the papers and keep them private somewhere curious users can read them, but they’ll no longer be crawled by LLMs.

“The bixonimania experiment was never about exposing LLMs as flawed tools, or arguing they have no place in medicine. They do. It was about demonstrating that any system can be infiltrated and that researchers who blindly cite AI-generated references really should read what they’re quoting. I know this firsthand,” she says in another LinkedIn post, adding that she herself has been duped by AI-generated summaries of her own research papers.

“The failure wasn’t the system. It was how I used it.”

Ifrah Mansour is no stranger to conflict.

A Somali refugee and current resident of Minneapolis, the multimedia artist and activist draws on her lived experiences to create work that explores trauma, displacement, and resilience. But like so many of the guests on Freedom to Thrive, an award-winning podcast produced by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), Mansour doesn’t want to focus only on trauma; she also wants to celebrate the unexpected beauty she’s found during difficult experiences.

“One of the beautiful things about tragedies is that it activates hearts, and courageous people are born,” she says. For example, Mansour has noticed more Minnesotans than ever are reaching out to help the vulnerable, after the anti-immigrant crackdowns carried out by the Department of Homeland Security. “They are bringing food, they’re bringing extra clothes, they’re walking with people, and it’s just really beautiful.”

Hector Flores, co-founder of the Las Cafeteras and host of Freedom to Thrive, agrees with her. A child of immigrants himself, he has also seen how hope and hardship often live side by side.

Flores comes from a family with mixed status and is highly aware of the challenges immigrants and refugees in his community face, and how they’re affected by people’s misconceptions. “People want to know about trauma all the time, but we’re more than just undocumented,” he says. “We’re artists, singers, creatives … there’s so much richness in the culture.”

At its core, Flores’ comment is exactly what the Freedom to Thrive podcast is all about: Celebrating immigrants as complex, dynamic individuals, and challenging the dominant narrative that too often reduces them to symbols of hardship.

Launched in 2024, Freedom to Thrive explores heritage, resilience, community, and the ways art and comedy can spark social change. Now in its second season, the podcast continues to feature conversations with immigrants, policymakers, artists, musicians, activists, and more. Recent guests have included comedian Mo Amer, Grammy Award-winning singer Lila Downs, and Pulitzer Prize-winning author Viet Thanh Nguyen.

Where the first season focused on individual stories of identity and belonging, Flores says his goal for season two, where he joins as host, is to “take it to the next level” — using storytelling to highlight “the fact that we’re more similar than different.”

One recent podcast episode drives this point home. In December, Flores interviewed Bryan Andrews, a rising country music star and rural Missouri native who frequently uses his platform to speak about issues affecting immigrant families. At the heart of his message and his songwriting, Andrews says, is the idea that small-town Americans and the rest of the country, including immigrants, have more in common than they realize.

“It doesn’t matter where you’re from,” Andrews says on the podcast. “We’re all trying to make a living and we’re tired of getting railroaded by corporate greed or by politicians who don’t care.”

Rural Americans, Andrews says, are often stereotyped as racist and misogynistic but “the overwhelming majority of people in my home town have love in their hearts.” Media stereotypes often amplify differences and divide, he says, but at the end of the day, “we’re all in this together.”

Flores, who was raised in a working-class immigrant neighborhood in East Los Angeles, had similar thoughts. He says he often sees its residents stereotyped as wealthy, consumerist, and status obsessed. “That exists, but that’s not my life, that’s not my community,” he says. Like small-town Americans, people in the city “just want to work hard and take care of their families. We all want the same thing.”

Although the podcast tackles some heavy issues, each episode’s ultimate focus is how personal and collective struggles can be healed through art, driving home a message of hope and resilience: 

Mansour’s episode about her experiences in Minnesota is just one of many examples. Flores asks her,

“What gives you hope for the people creating a home here?”

“The love I feel from other Minnesotans. It is trumping any hate we’re experiencing,” she replies.

CTA: Stream all episodes now on the Freedom to Thrive YouTube channel or the website, here. 

The podcast has been nominated for a Webby in the “Belonging & Inclusion” category. You can vote for it to win until Thursday, April 16!

This article is part of Upworthy’s “The Threads Between U.S.” series that highlights what we have in common thanks to the generous support from the Levis Strauss Foundation, whose grantmaking is committed to creating a culture of belonging. 

On February 1, 2003, a tragic reminder of how delicate life is struck those watching the landing of Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-107). Commander Rick D. Husband, Pilot William C. “Willie” McCool, and mission specialists David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Michael P. Anderson, Laurel B. Clark, and Ilan Ramon were selected for Columbia’s 28th mission. The mission involved orbiting Earth while conducting experimental research.

What they didn’t know was that, during liftoff, a piece of insulation foam had compromised one of the shuttle’s heat shields. Upon reentry, with just 16 minutes remaining before they were expected to touch down, the shuttle met its fatal end.

Many have recently taken a renewed interest in astrophysics, inspired by the awe of the Artemis II mission. Astronauts who devote their lives to space exploration are nothing short of magnificent. It’s a pursuit defined by equal parts devotion, incredible bravery, and the ability to see the big picture, quite literally. As astronaut Neil Armstrong famously put it, even “small steps” in this realm are “giant leaps for mankind,” a reminder of the importance of perspective within the smallest scientific details.

Mission specialist Brown had sent an email just one day before the crew was set to land, and his aerial view of our tiny blue marble of a planet clearly gave him perspective.

A Reddit user who said they were related to Brown shared the email and wrote, “I had a family member on Columbia, Dave Brown. We were at the launch and the disaster was put in a very different perspective for us, even though I didn’t know him that well. He emailed the family regularly and the day before reentry sent a very impactful email to us that became much more so after the incident.”

“Friends,It’s hard to believe but I’m coming up on 16 days in space and we land tomorrow.

I can tell you a few things:

Floating is great – at two weeks it really started to become natural. I move much more slowly as there really isn’t a hurry. If you go too fast then stopping can be quite awkward. At first, we were still handing each other things, but now we pass them with just a little push.

We lose stuff all the time. I’m kind of prone to this on Earth, but it’s much worse here as I can now put things on the walls and ceiling too. It’s hard to remember that you have to look everywhere when you lose something, not just down.

The views of the Earth are really beautiful. If you’ve ever seen a space IMAX movie that’s really what it looks like. What really amazes me is to see large geographic features with my own eyes. Today, I saw all of Northern Libya, the Sinai Peninsula, the whole country of Israel, and then the Red Sea. I wish I’d had more time just to sit and look out the window with a map but our science program kept us very busy in the lab most of the time.

The science has been great and we’ve accomplished a lot. I could write more about it but that would take hours.

My crewmates are like my family – it will be hard to leave them after being so close for 2 1/2 years.

My most moving moment was reading a letter Ilan brought from a Holocaust survivor talking about his seven-year-old daughter who did not survive. I was stunned such a beautiful planet could harbor such bad things. It makes me want to enjoy every bit of the Earth for how great it really is.

I will make one more observation – if I’d been born in space I know I would desire to visit the beautiful Earth more than I’ve ever yearned to visit space. It is a wonderful planet.

Data from the mission

While these precious lives were ended far too soon, their work was not in vain. NASA was able to salvage much of the data collected during the mission.

One of many examples was video footage that appeared to show a new, unexplained lightning-like phenomenon. In an article for New Scientist, Maggie McKee explains that researchers who pored over the footage saw a reddish glow unlike anything astrophysicists had seen at the time: “The glow occurred about 150 kilometres above the ocean near Madagascar and does not appear to be linked with thunderstorms.”

View this post on Instagram A post shared by rocket enthusiast (@rocket.enthusiast)

A post shared by rocket enthusiast (@rocket.enthusiast)

Similar to the tragic end of the Space Shuttle Challenger (STS-51L) mission, astrophysicists, as all good scientists do, find a way to carry on. They use these experiences to deepen their understanding and to advance science beyond what once seemed possible. In the words of Isaac Newton, “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

Ever wake up in the morning unsure of what you want to get out of the day? One day rolls into the next, and it’s easy to lose track of time and go on through our daily routines without any real purpose. That’s why, if we want to achieve our dreams and live the best life possible, it’s important to have a clear idea of what we’re working towards and to affirm it every morning. 

Dr. Cindra Kamphoff, a certified mental performance coach who has worked with the Minnesota Vikings, USA Track & Field, and several Fortune 100 and 500 companies, created a 4-minute practice you can do every morning to have a successful day. She calls it the GRIT morning routine. “This simple GRIT routine gets my day started on the right foot!” she wrote on LinkedIn.

How to start your day using Dr. Cindra Kamphoff’s GRIT morning routine

To perform the GRIT routine, Kamphoff says that you should focus for one minute on each of the........

© Upworthy