@efdavis419
Account based inUnited States
About this account
- Account based in
- United States
- Connected via
- United States Android App
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Endorsing truth in science and medicine. Biology/Exp. Psychology degrees. Pharma Industry and healthcare data experience. FIGHT THE ANTI-SCIENCE MADNESS!
San Diego, CA
Joined June 2024
- Tweets3.9K
- Following233
- Followers625
- Likes2.3K
From the Science is Still Cool, Misinformation Isn't Department: Profound Autism ... Lots of Genes, Lots of Proteins, Lots of Interactions
Progress continues to be made in figuring out autism. This recently announced work should have a huge impact on learning about the links between genes, proteins and the impact on neurological developmental processes.
npr.org/2026/09/04/nx-s1-595…
efdavis retweeted
Face it -- this entire time you've been making claims this method was invalid, "commissioned" to "hide vaccine harms", designed to hide vaccine harms, along with all of the usual speculative accusations and allegations against the authors and pretty much the entire scientific community, imputing mal intent and corruption to all of these studies and all of those who have used them.
All I've done throughout is explain and prove by rigorous and transparently described simulation that this method is valid, has excellent operating characteristics, is robust, and able to separate true vaccine harm from age bias, showing good power to detect reasonable effect sizes in realistic and rigorously designed simulations, and robust to reasonable bin sizes.
I've shown it again and again and again, even using your own simulation settings and your own age distribution -- showing my prior results were not an artifact of my choice of age distribution, and showing that in spite of what you claimed making bins narrower does NOT "hide harm" or lose all power -- it retains consistent power through a broad range of choices, with low bias and low type 1 error.
Not sure how much more I can do to show it, and not sure how much better the method can be that it shows to be in the simulations.
Yet you keep misrepresenting the method and its performance again and again, and now most recently doing pathological simulations based on a foolish choice that introduced instability, and passed off the results as providing your false narrative about the method having low power or manipulable to "hide harm", when in fact it was all due to your naive simulation design. Again, more deception and misleading in pushing your (false) narrative.
And yes, you did mislead (or at least were not transparent) by not presenting the null simulation results and presenting type 1 error alongside the power calculations.
I definitively proved that by simply running your simulation while fixing the dose distribution to have reasonable variability instead of artificially making each child get vaccinated on exactly the same day, the foolish design choice that induced the pathological behavior you falsely attributed to the method, and used to disparage the scientific community as corrupt.
And now that you know your simulations were wrong and your post misrepresented the performance of the method and you posted it all over twitter blithely suggesting this was evidence "science continues to try to hide vaccine harm?"
THAT is the lie -- that you have repeating and continuing from the start of this entire discourse -- misrepresenting the method and the simulations and continuing to push your narrative, full of insults and speculative accusations, even when the evidence definitively shows you were wrong, and forwarding to all of those who would uncritically believe your framing and narrative.
You are saying I lied? I did not "lie" -- I simply pointed out your "debunk" failed because of two statistical errors -- errors you did make. That is exactly what happened. And I linked the full report that fairly and completely explained what those errors were and how they led to your false claims.
And still, you won't admit your claims were false and accusations misguided, even when it is clearly shown every which way -- even with your own simulations.
And now you use your latest accusation -- that I am "lying" -- as an excuse not to own up what the scientific evidence shows -- that this method is fine, it is valid, and actually has excellent operating characteristics for addressing this question of whether vaccines increase risk of SIDS immediately after vaccination -- in fact it is ideally designed specifically for that question.
But you won't acknowledge the substance, will you? Continue to accuse, and change the subject?
efdavis retweeted
Part 2 of 2
5) Siri ends by saying that he's going to let the forthcoming “immunologists and AIs" tell us what could go wrong. Wow, this might be the first time he acknowledges his own lack of understanding, if not his demonstrated incompetency, in all matters scientific. Note, they will tell us what could go wrong but no mention of what could go right. He uses the term " forthcoming” like they are already lined up at the door. As for immunologists, all of them or just the ones he can find to question this approach? I bet they won't be credentialed immunologists either. Oh, and the "AIs” are very obedient. This is groundbreaking work and AI will speculate about dangers if you ask them to. Remember the scene in Oppenheimer where we learn that there was that ever-so-slight chance that the testing of the atomic bomb would set off a chain reaction that would destroy the planet? That's not the case with this new technology that will undergo structured and gated testing before it becomes a marketed vaccine. Let's celebrate the accomplishment and its potential. It came from extensive empiricism and foundational research that advanced our body of knowledge. Science IS cool (law is necessary).
efdavis retweeted
Part 1 of 2
From the Science is Still Cool, Misinformation (and messy legal seagull droppings) Isn't Department:
Stanford Researchers Identify Approach to Creating a Broad Respiratory Vaccine
Please follow this link to read about the fascinating work done at Stanford Medical on research that may be applicable for creating a broad respiratory vaccine. What follows is an analysis of legal seagull Aaron Siri’s droppings that he posted to be a buzzkill about it.
med.stanford.edu/news/all-ne…
You can often tell a lot about how well someone understands a topic, and what views they want to invoke in others, by their communication style. Here, Aaron Siri, in a short, 2 sentence post, gives a prime example that we can quickly analyze. Let's get to it:
1) Siri’s post is his comments on a posting from a science writer, Nina Bai, at Stanford Medicine (note, it isn't a reply). She holds a Masters in scientific writing from Johns Hopkins University and is highly published. Her article is a scientific public relations piece describing what may be a breakthrough in vaccine technology. She is describing a technology in a research, not development, stage. We do not know if this research will lead directly to a vaccine candidate, but it certainly could. Siri provides the lead-in to the article only which is meant to be provocative to encourage the reader to continue. SIRI CHOSE NOT TO QUOTE ANY SCIENCE FROM THE ARTICLE AND HE IMMEDIATELY STARTS TO LEAD YOU DOWN A BIASING PATHWAY.
2) In Siri's first sentence, we get the phrase “new type of vaccine". Remember, this is not a product and Siri has shown repeatedly in the past that he wants us to not trust "new things”. He's putting us on a path that we aren't on yet.
3) Next, he tells us what this approach doesn't do. It does not introduce antigens that create adaptive immunity. There are other vaccine types, such as the mRNA vaccines, that also don't directly introduce an antigen. Siri could have pointed out that we need multiple vaccines for different diseases and strains because introducing antigens leads to very specific, not broad, immunity. He uses the phrase “adaptive immunity" knowing most readers don't know what this means. However, he implies that this new approach doesn't lead to adaptive immunity when indeed it does. In effect, he's leading you to believe … no antigen, no adaptive immunity.
4) Now we find out, in the same sentence. that the new approach "would keep your innate immune system active for months”. This ends the first sentence. A well-known vaccine critic has now told us this new approach differs from the old and it will keep our innate immune system active for months (by the way, he uses the term instead inappropriately). It sounds kind of like a warning, doesn't it? We have an analog with the COVID-19 spike protein, produced by mRNA vaccines, persisting for extended periods in certain individuals. Anti-vax folks have put that out there as a disastrous consequence even though there is limited proof. What Siri doesn't share from the article is that a long lasting innate immune system activation from the BCG tuberculosis vaccine already used provokes a benefit against a broader group of pathogens. THIS WAS A KEY OBSERVATION THAT LED TO HYPOTHESIS FORMULATION AND TESTING. SCIENCE!
To summarize, Siri sentence #1 is written in a way to lead us to believe that we're in the process of developing a new vaccine that doesn't do what the older vaccines do and it does something else that could be bad. We can now quickly analyze sentence #2
The following is an edited version of my previous 2 part response to a misleading post on follow up studies. Please subscribe to my sub stack if you find it informative.
open.substack.com/pub/erlefd…
Part 2 of 2
To conclude, the real main issue that needs to be clarified to quiet down the nonsense must be addressed. Why are experiments valued so much to determine causality? Due to the controlled nature where results observed can be reliably linked to what was controlled during the experiment and no other factors. ONCE THIS EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL IS LOST, WE CAN NO LONGER ATTRIBUTE THE RESULTS SOLELY TO OUR MANIPULATION OF THE GROUPS. The implication of this is that our possibly significant outcome will likely be questioned due to all the factors that crept in over time. Some of these factors may have been observed and attempts at adjustment can be made (most likely unsuccessfully), others will be speculative. So much for a controlled experiment to “test the schedule". What's the alternative? We have observational data that is very detailed. While we are not exerting control, we have the advantage of using longitudinal data from sources with 10s of millions of patients where treatment exposure and outcomes can be observed. Examples and details of Real World Evidence will be provided in a future post.
Part 1 of 2
I'm introducing a new regular feature to explicitly expose erroneous and often egregious misinformation coming from a particular lawyer and often repeated by the Children-Harming Deceivers group and the Fig Free TV producer guy who’s fiction is sometimes loosely based on a true story. Here's episode 1 of …
Revealing the Hot AirOn Seri-ous Health Issues Coming from a Legal Seagull (no, not eagle)
Today the seagull has flown over and dropped on you a statement about the inadequacy of vaccine follow-up studies. His argument is that they are worthless because they take a long time and they are underpowered anyway. If you think these droppings look good on you, please look more closely.
He says “When you’re injecting a baby, to know whether they have … disorders … you’re not going to know that until a few years after vaccination.” First, the sloppy language. He says “have disorders" in the present text or does he mean develop or display the disorder? If they have the disorder, I'm thinking it's genetic. Then a "few years after vaccination”. Why choose vaccination as the reference point? It might also be a few years after they first walk or go potty on their own.
Statements apparently linking follow-up studies to the time until onset is then made “These trials are patently insufficient” “ … even if they're properly controlled … they're almost always underpowered.”
The seagull has now crashed and burned revealing for the umpteenth time a complete lack of knowledge on scientific research. The technical term "properly powered” is used as if everyone knows what it means. When a researcher wants to perform an experiment, they want to enroll enough subjects so that when they test for the endpoint, they will find a significant result with a preset and high probability of the result not being the result of chance". They also don't want the effect to be significant but not meaningful. For example, if someone showed me a study indicating that my 2 glasses of wine will reduce my life by 2 days, I'm opening another bottle. This situation is overpowering where you add more subjects to ensure that a small outcome difference will test significant. Remember, every difference is significant when you look at an entire population.
In its last breath before dying, the seagull squawks
“Even if you viewed safety for 5 years with a placebo control, if you’ve only got 147 kids, that’s not properly powered to detect virtually anything. It’s useless.” We're now provided some hard numbers 147 kids and 5 years. First, statistical power is not based upon the time it takes to get to the endpoint that you are testing. It is based upon the expected difference between test and control. I'm not sure if the 147 is total or per group but it doesn't matter. Is 147 enough for a trial? Let's see.
I'm a researcher studying the hypothesis that exposure to tweets on X leads to excessive nose-picking behavior in toddlers. This is based upon anecdotal reports and an exploratory study. I'm going to do a placebo- controlled study where 1 group of children is exposed to tweets for 2 hours and the other group receives no exposure. Based upon my existing knowledge, I'm guessing about 5 nose-picking episodes over the next 6 hours in the control group and about 6.5 in the X group. I know 148 subjects are available but is that enough? Figure 1 below shows a tool that can provide the answer.
I use the tool and it shows me that with 148 subjects, a difference of 1.38 will test significant at the 5% chance level 80% of the time (see Figure 2). I'm good to go. Note that I also had to specify a +/- value to indicate how different I expect the toddlers to be. Of course, there are caveats with inferential tests that require attention and researchers know this.
Using the Measles mortality decline prior to vaccine availability is a terrible way to try to prove that vaccines don't save lives. What's even worse is when a lawyer tries to say that catching measles is beneficial to your health. Here's why it pays to ignore this nonsense.
open.substack.com/pub/erlefd…
efdavis retweeted
You get an "Amen!" from me on this Sunday morning! I'm even going to throw in a "hallelujah!" as well. I learned that my favorite professor from college passed away recently (Prof. Carl George, Union College NY). Prof George, a biologist specializing in marine ecology, was instrumental in instilling in me a sense of wonder over both what we experience in the natural world and how we can be inspired to create and learn from it when we see such things as Fibonacchi sequences. He could see things as an object with characteristics and as the result of processes at the same time. He was the ever-learning and discovering "Curious George" to me. He told me that I could "get there" as well. I'm still working on it. I feel sad for the cynics and skeptics that show anger and doubt over discoveries that others of us are marvelling over.
From the Science is Still Cool, Misinformation Isn’t Department: Leapin’ Lizards, Look at the Lessons We’re Learning from Llamas open.substack.com/pub/erlefd…
Hi boys and girls. Before hitting that "post" button, please remember that X and other social media can make you look like a real ass. Even if you are a distinguished Doctor. Respect and careers can go down the toilet when you misbehave. Case in point below. If your one of the 5.4 thousand who follow this guy, or like his postings or retweet him, perhaps you should reconsider. Here are my comments on his post:
I'm very optimistic that you can work on your critical thinking skills. There are great classes you can take, but I'll try to offer some examples of what you might learn:
1) "People seem to have no critical thinking skills." If you were thinking about the impact of what you write, you would realize that starting a post with a general insult to "people" comes across as arrogant and undermines the argument that you are about to make.
2) "Vaccines make billions of dollars a year." OK, so do lots of things, I'm listening
3) "They are highly incentivized." This is highly ambiguous. Who gets what incentives? Are incentives always a bad thing? Your paycheck gives you an incentive to go to work.
4) "They are the only intervention with full liability shields." Demonstrably false statement. There is a system that has paid out billions of dollars to claimants who claim vaccine-related injuries. It's funded based upon vaccine doses produced. Claim for harm --- Review of claim validity --- decision and pay out , is a liability system. Also, there is a path to get cases into the regular court system.
5) "All people who have side effects are silenced and dismissed." Except for the 12,000+ who have received payouts. 696 in 2025 (data incomplete) with average claimant award of $145,000. Of course, attorneys pocket about $57,000+ per case
6) "Despite side effects being a common occurrence in every pharmaceutical". Beware these sweeping, data free statements. First, side effects (caused by treatment) or adverse events (reported as possibly related)? There are certain drugs where it is hard to find an adverse event that is significantly different from placebo control.
7) "for some reason, people deny the reality that they occur with vaccines." What people? I've never met anyone who denies that vaccines have some effects. Why use "for some reason"? If these people do exist, maybe you could think about what those reasons might be? And, td they deny it or do they merely not consider it and think about it. Those are 2 very different things.
8) "Every doctor who has ever even so much as questioned a vaccine is destroyed. And I mean viciously." Wow! Is this the Fargo put him in the woodchipper type thing or The Sopranos "chop off one finger at a time approach"? Do tell. And, by the way, there are laws that protect legitimate whistleblowers as long as they are acting in good faith.
9) "And they do so with absolutely nothing to gain." Isn't doing the right thing self-rewarding? And there are clearly some who gain attention. There are others who feel that they were treated unfairly and acting out of spite and revenge.
10) "Why would any doctor sacrifice a lucrative and high competitive career for a lie that brings no benefit whatsoever?" What is a "high competitive" career? "for a lie" this is ambiguous. Who's lie? "brings no benefit" see #9 above
11) "The "experts" who push vaccines refuse to debate the subject" Why experts in quotes? You deny the existence of subject matter expertise in the world? "who push vaccines" do all of these experts push vaccines? What is meant by push? Pushing the plunger on the needle while injecting it? "Refuse to debate the subject" with whom? Is this necessarily a bad thing? And what exactly is "the subject"?
12) "the sheeple who have zero scientific or clinical experience defend vaccines like they are experts" "Sheeple"? Another insult with a silly word. Didn't Barbara Streisand sing about them?
"Sheeple Sheeple who need sheeple Are the luckiest sheeple in the world"
"zero scientific or clinical experience defend vaccines like they are experts" how is it possible to be like an expert if you have no knowledge of the subject? What about people on the opposite side of the argument? They are all brilliant, true experts? And the quotes are gone from "experts" now. I'm so confused!
13) "Do you not see how none of this makes any logical sense?" Oh, but I do see. Your post makes no logical sense!
14) "Stop being retarded." Ah, the coup de grace. If readers have reached this point in your post, they get the big reveal. By saying "Stop being retarded" you intend with an insensitive insult hurled unjustifiably against some group of people who you obviously consider inferior. How does this help them or enhance the image of yourself as a credible source? I just spent a good deal of time attempting to help you with your logic and writing and I believe in you. Although you are starting near 0 in this place, I'm convinced that you can make steady progress. I think some day, you'll look back at this post and think "I can't believe I ever wrote something like that. I'm so glad I don't anymore. I'm so much more impactful and respected today". YOU CAN DO IT!
People seem to have no critical thinking skills.
Vaccines make billions of dollars a year. They are highly incentivised. They are the only intervention with full liability shields. All people who have side effects are silenced and dismissed. Despite side effects being a common occurrence in every pharmaceutical, for some reason, people deny the reality that they occur with vaccines.
Every doctor who has ever even so much as questioned a vaccine is destroyed. And I mean viciously. And they do so with absolutely nothing to gain. Why would any doctor sacrifice a lucrative and high competitive career for a lie that brings no benefit whatsoever?
The "experts" who push vaccines refuse to debate the subject, and the sheeple who have zero scientific or clinical experience defend vaccines like they are experts.
Do you not see how none of this makes any logical sense?
Stop being retarded.
Are you receiving misinformation from IRS tax-exempt organizations that claim to be educating you? Here are some of my thoughts:
open.substack.com/pub/erlefd…
No one should be giddy and celebrating the change to the CDCs website autism-vaccination disinformation. Where do we go from here and how do we get back to a place where we can expand our body of knowledge? My take ...
open.substack.com/pub/erlefd…
Science is still cool. Nobel Laureates have done incredible things to advance Physiology and Medicine. Here's my take!
open.substack.com/pub/erlefd…
Muscats2 and JanetNe need to learn that a partisan hearing can be very disconnected from the truth. They are terrified of true public dialog with anyone who can expose them. They hide behind their BLOCK button. Public zoom to discuss your views anyone? Run away!
It's really time for @SecKennedy to resign or be fired. He's alienated those that he needs to work with and he still believes you can cherry pick your science. Once a trial lawyer, always a trial lawyer. Read my substack here:
substack.com/@erlefdavis/not…
efdavis retweeted
This is slanderous and utterly irresponsible talk coming from a Secretary of Health and Human Services. It is conduct unbecoming for the office he holds and is grounds for impeachment.
efdavis retweeted
I don’t know a single doctor who went to med school to keep people sick. This is remarkably ignorant and frankly insulting. Despite his bravado, the HHS Sec knows remarkably little about health and healthcare in the US.
efdavis retweeted
Of all RFK Jr's dangerously wrong opinions - his attack on HPV vaccines is the worst (and that really is saying something)
HPV vaccines like Gardasil PREVENT cancer - so effectively that cervical cancer is on the way to ELIMINATION in places like Scotland, Sweden and Australia.
RT @jakescottMD: If anyone's still wondering whether vaccines were tested against placebo:
Our living database now includes 1,267 controll…
This quoted post is unavailable.