Babak Javid

@DocPriyamMD @bimald The irony of someone with Dr in their username, bio and @ preaching about others using the title "Dr". One has to love this site!

Medical Doctors: Hey, I'm the cardiologist keeping you alive, just call me Alex. PhDs: Please refer to me as Dr. Monica, I did my thesis on ancient pottery. Look, I know the word 'Doctor' comes from the Latin docere (to teach). I know academics had the title first and I have full respect for the grind. But why are they always the ones defending the title like their lives depend on it? If someone screams "Is there a doctor on the plane?!" absolutely nobody is looking for a Doctor of Philosophy

Transformative work from the @mbarnalab Ribo-Tweezer enables direct interrogation of ribosomal protein (RP) function in mature ribosomes, revealing that distinct RPs control unique translatomes and that RACK1 removal rewires translation and stem cell identity. Congrats to all!

@mbeisen @silvirouskin Don't worry it's not on arXiv!

@silvirouskin I hope you checked all your citations.

Working with my best friends and celebrating new preprint in PR 🔥 biorxiv.org/content/10.648…

@atukunda_luke @DDavidSteele1 @DrNeilStone I'm sure you're much cleverer than Mr Google, please educate me.

@javid_lab @DDavidSteele1 @DrNeilStone It's currently an outbreak, hasn't reached the level of an epidemic. Now Google can help you tell the difference

No Ebola won't be a pandemic But it is an epidemic and could be a dreadful one That's plenty bad enough

@DrNeilStone For one thing, the shape of the 2014 outbreak looks wrong if it's capturing all cases.

@DrNeilStone I can't recall the details, but I'm pretty sure the y axis for the 2014 outbreak is only for *confirmed* not suspected cases. I don't think there was GeneXpert for Ebola then (correct me if I'm wrong). In which case it's not exactly like for like.

Red line is the trajectory of the current Bundibugyo Ebola outbreak in DR Congo 🇨🇩 compared to other large outbreaks Not good Not good at all

@DDavidSteele1 @DrNeilStone How do you define epidemic (or lack thereof)?

@DrNeilStone Not an epidemic either. Stop being Chicken Little

@Christian_Oslo_ @DrNeilStone There's at least 130 suspected deaths (not confirmed because of the diagnostic challenge), so that's the absolute floor for how many are/ were sick. This isn't about "asymptomatic ebola" scaremongering.

@DrNeilStone what about actually sick people, and not just testet positive people?

🔴Ebola update 600 suspected cases This is not good

@kouk_nadene @DrNeilStone @merry123459 This is not going to be a global pandemic, and nor is @DrNeilStone claiming such. BUT it means we *are* in a high take-off local epidemic that will probably affect tens of thousands *and* be eventually brought under control by extreme measures. That's what's not good.

@DrNeilStone @merry123459 All that is needed for a global panic is for spread outside of Africa.

@LeastIDidThat @DrNeilStone I'd be verifiably crazy if I *wasn't* careful crossing the street or operating machinery. But then again, I'm sure you're going to tell me either (a) you treated someone with ebola without wearing PPE, or, more likely, (b) viruses are a hoax.

@javid_lab @DrNeilStone Oh. Just be careful crossing the street or operating machinery, Babak.

Few things in medicine scare me Few things in Infectious Disease medicine scares me Ebola scares me

@DrNeilStone Agreed. I remember the 2014 outbreak clearly and although we never got a case, just prepping for it and the couple of suspected cases that turned out not to be were pretty damn scary.

@parmita BTW, I'm not a skeptic about the general idea that efficacy needs to be demonstrated in animals. I don't think that's an absolute. It can be extremely helpful (imo), but will depend on disease and model. Tox testing of new chemical entities is a completely different issue.

@javid_lab Understood, since you’re A skeptic, I was hoping for more constructive feedback on how you see the feasibility of NAMs improving with these improvements.

We are sending our public comments to the FDA today, for the MOST IMPORTANT FDA GUIDANCE in modern drug development. We have prepared the following comments as an overview. We will also be sharing our official comment documents on our website, link will be posted TODAY!

@parmita I'll try, when I'm not in a meeting. But the purpose of sharing wasn't clear, with apologies.

@parmita I understand. I've submitted public comments (to the NIH), on matters I feel really strongly about and genuinely believe in. I applaud you doing so.

@javid_lab It’s a public comment that supports the FDA. It’s a public comment that creates a real scientific way to make NAMs happen.

@parmita You submitted a public comment that supports your stance.

@javid_lab ! You might find this interesting

@mbeisen I agree that rich citations would be hugely valuable (in fig 3c of X, they saw the same thing). I suspect it will only be realized when AI is writing all the papers, in which case, it will no longer be necessary.

All you people out here simping for the sanctity of citations, if you actually cared you would have demanded that we use the shift to digital publication to shift to rich citations that point to the specific part of the text you’re citing and describe why. In some cases you can reconstruct this from context, but mostly no. Instead we have a system where citation is at best a form of record keeping whose value is more a measure of scholarly commitment than a full reconstruction of the sources of ideas and information, and at worst (and all too often) a perfunctory exercise in feigning scholarship. I know there are fields where this tradition is stronger than in modern biology, but every single field across science has cooperated in the elevation of citation as a currency (a lot of the people in this broader conversation prominently tout their h-indexes) and this IMO is a way bigger threat to the integrity of scholarship than AI slop ever will be.

@AlexShtf @tdietterich Yes, but still...

@javid_lab @tdietterich As far as I understand, the requirement is not for everybody, but only for those who got "caught".

Attention @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated. 1/

@parmita @Banana_Oncology @Vulpescap Yes, I meant for your endeavor. Strategy working.

@javid_lab @Banana_Oncology @Vulpescap i am not doing publicity for ME. i am raising funds to build chips that cure diseases. but thanks.

this is the most exciting part that @javid_lab, @Banana_Oncology and @Vulpescap are missing. if i was rude to @Vulpescap, it's because you came after my company's credibility. but genuinely LEARN instead of arguing... October 27, 2025: FDA cleared SillaJen's IND for BAL0891 + immune checkpoint inhibitor combination based solely on efficacy data from Qureator's human vascularized organoid platform called vTIME this was loudly announced as the world's first FDA IND approval where the efficacy POC came entirely from human organoid data, no animal efficacy work it's a real precedent and it post-dates "since 2022." this is just the beginning, we will make every skeptic a fan once we industrialize this exact process. we are actively working on this right now.

@parmita @Banana_Oncology @Vulpescap But as we all know, polemic and outrageous statements are what garner engagement. And it works! I would never have replied to a post stating you work on NAMs, instead of bandying about the torture phrase. Good publicity for you. Well done.

@parmita @Banana_Oncology @Vulpescap I suspect genuinely new chemical matter will be a very different kettle of fish. And the science church is broad. I welcome folks working on non animal models, I started in purely human immunology. But I take exception that animal work is useless and "torture".