Follow the Data with Dr. Frank
A history of the science and models of Dr. Frank as a means to assess his honesty and reliability in

Interesting take.
Dr. Frank Models Dr. Frank Modelsaka, Follow the Data with Dr. Frank (PhD) Over 48.1 million COVID cases and 777,000 total deaths in the US. Dr. Frank’s “models” predicted 1,500 deaths tops. How is someone who is off by more than a factor of 500 and climbing be even the least bit credible?3/15/20 “Our model ...

My concerns are climbing daily.
USDA APHIS | 2022-2023 Detections of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in Mammals The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites always use a .gov or .mil domain. Before sharing sensitive information online, make sure you’re on a .gov or .mil site by inspecting your browser’s address (or “location”) bar.

So much grifting...
Pillow-Guy’s Election-Denying, Redding-Welcomed BFF Refuted by Stanford Professor: ‘So much chaos’ – anewscafe.com 134 Pillow-Guy’s Election-Denying, Redding-Welcomed BFF Refuted by Stanford Professor: ‘So much chaos’ Posted on September 28, 2022 by Doni Chamberlain Some may call it a coincidence that in the middle of the Sept. 13 Shasta County Board of Supervisors public comment period — precisely as th...

The comments are the best.
Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 on Twitter “Mike Lindell’s “expert” to look for “election fraud” Doug Frank says he recently also had his phone seized at the airport: “As I came out of the potty, there they were - two guys standing there waiting for me.””

It amazes me how many people follow this grifter. He's been doing nothing but lying since 2020.
Dr. Frank Models Dr. Frank Modelsaka, Follow the Data with Dr. Frank (PhD) Over 48.1 million COVID cases and 777,000 total deaths in the US. Dr. Frank’s “models” predicted 1,500 deaths tops. How is someone who is off by more than a factor of 500 and climbing be even the least bit credible?3/15/20 “Our model ...

--47 million COVID cases and 762,000 deaths total deaths in the US. Dr. Frank’s “models” predicted 1,500 deaths tops. How is someone who is off by more than a factor of 500 and climbing be even the least bit credible?
3/15/20 “Our model is predicting about 70,000 cases, and fewer than 1,500 deaths…We won’t even know anyone who was affected”
--He goes on to make claims that it’s not going to be anywhere near as bad as an annual influenza season, which accounts for about 30,000-60,000 deaths in the US each year.
“Fewer people will die from COVID-19 than have already died from the common flu. (Something like a factor of ten.)”
3/21/20 “According my [sic] projections (which are working splendidly), next week the US is going to be at its worst.” See Fig 1.
3/22/20 “If after all the model predicts the pandemic here in the US, and yet our ‘experts’ in Washington didn’t, then there is gonna be some major egg on a lot of faces. I would love us to hand feed them this crow. Let’s all do it together, and demand accountability.
"By posting these NOW, later we will have credibility, and a leg to stand on for criticizing their irresponsible hype…Of course, LATER they will make one that fits…but they will have made that one AFTER the experiment. That is not science my friends, that is CYA.”
--How well did this work out? How come he isn't taking accountability for his false claims?
--What about his hype that this was nothing? Where is his credibility? What he has done wasn't science, it was propaganda. He tried to force the data to reflect the message he wanted to send. That’s anything but science.
“I think they WANT it to be bad. Go figure. If it were bad, I would say so.”
--He would say so? He never did, and kept perpetuating lies.
“So here is what happened: a) Covid arrived. B) It exploited the easy vectors…the people who are vulnerable. C) Now it struggles to spread any more…it has used up its easy vectors. d) So it fades out…
…In order to have a second wave: a) You need a new crop of easy vectors. b) You need a new source of infection. c) Unless the virus mutates substantially, it’s [sic] lost its previous vectors. d) So a larger second wave is very unlikely…The epidemic is essentially over in the US.”
--None of that was based on science. He went on to double down when it was clear he was wrong and started making up excuses to cover his tracks.
“If there was zero testing, there would be no ‘spike’ in reported cases. In fact, there would be ZERO reported cases…All of the other numbers [other than deaths] are far too vulnerable to all sorts of issues to make valid appraisals of the situation.”
“At this stage of the epidemic, reporting ‘cases’ to us will be meaningless unless a state also reports the sensitivity and specificity of the tests they are using…Yet another reason (I’ve been saying this all along) why ‘cases’ are the wrong way to track the progress of the epidemic…”
--The sensitivity and specificity of all of the tests when you made your claim was better than 98% and that data was easily found. You lied so many times to push your agenda.
--Cases and deaths clearly follow the same curves, yet you never backed down from your false claims. See Fig 2.
--He makes another odd claim, especially when he said he had “controls” that prevented him from watching the news to not be biased. If that is the case, how did he come up with these lies?
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-more-money-for-covid-cases/partly-false-claim-hospitals-get-compensated-15-more-when-they-admit-discharge-or-lose-a-patient-to-covid-19-new-york-city-hospitals-are-inflating-their-case-numbers-to-take-advantage-idUSKBN22I2KR
“The thing that is annoying us is that deaths are being attributed to Covid that are not really due to Covid…The inflated tally is no surprise; our financially strapped hospitals get larger reimbursements if a death is attributed to Covid.”
--Of course, there was plenty of really bad advice that could hurt people as well, such as “Wearing a mask actually *increases* your chance of picking up a virus.”
“Some of the newbies have been asking my why my initial forecasts were so low.”
--He blames it on “Simple. Garbage in, garbage out.” This led him to calculate 1,092 death in the US, and he placed his “original estimate of deaths in the US was between 500 and 1,500. My original assumptions were based upon my modeling of the situation in China, and the WHO discussion of those results.”
“’Trust the Epidemiologists.’ Every time I hear this, I just shake my head…”
--Should we trust a lying chemist instead? The only garbage was that which was coming out of his mouth and keyboard.
Someone who knew what they were doing made an initial estimate of over 500,000 deaths as a best-case scenario two days before Doug made his 1,500 death claim.
https://icemsg.wordpress.com/2020/03/13/500000/
Oddly, he still seemed to relish in the media attention, even when they called him out on lies.
8/6/20 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9213894577
8/18/20 https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9213894577
Listen to some of his nonsense here.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/dr-douglas-g-frank-coronavirus-modeling-and-baseball/id1505786278?i=1000479649175
https://savageminds.substack.com/p/dr-douglas-frank
Given his propensity to lies and being incredibly wrong in things outside of his field, even though he claims expertise, why do people believe him about election fraud? His “algorithm” on that has been debunked several times as well.
https://www.constellationpolitical.com/blog/dr-frank-analysis-wrong/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/16/douglas-frank/no-evidence-michigan-used-algorithm-manipulate-ele/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/12/how-people-who-should-know-better-abuse-math-bolster-election-fraud-lie/
https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/04/fact-check-2010-census-data-could-not-be-used-to-cast-votes-for-the-dead.html

They won't even know what lascivious means.

Mid 2020

If everything I say about COVID is wrong, maybe I should move on to election fraud, after all, I can say pretty much anything as a "trusted scientist" and nobody will know if I make things up.

7/19/2020 The pandemic is "seriously done" in OK.
But is it?

7/9/2020 Describing how using cases is useless.
But is it? Deaths seem to proportionately follow cases.

Minnesota model, 6/2/2020 versus actual data today.

3/15/20
Something to keep in mind, regarding the Covid-19 epidemic in the US.
Our model is predicting about 70,000 cases, and fewer than 1 ,500 deaths. Let's assume for a moment that we are correct.
There are about 330,000,000 people in the US. Only 70,000 Of them will be infected by the disease. That's one person out Of every 4700 people. If someone typically knows about 1000 people, then only one in five people will even *know* someone who became infected, and only one in 500 will know someone who died from it. And that person is probably an elderly person.
All of this stuff is going to pass the vast majority of us by. We wont even know anyone who was affected. And unless we live near one of the epicenters of the disease the likelihood is even far lower.
So you younger folks, don't be afraid. But be vigilant on behalf of our older population. You older folks, you are at very low risk of catching it, especially if you are careful. so be smart, and take care of yourself.
3/22/20
Science begins with humility, or one's own biases will interfere with the scientific method; you can't learn if you already know everything. I deliberately over-post a bit, to keep me honest, and so you can hold me accountable later.
Think of it. If after all this the model predicts the pandemic here in the US, and yet our "experts" in Washington didn't, then there is gonna be some major egg on a lot of faces. I would love us to hand feed them this crow. Let's all do it together, and demand accountability.
By posting these NOW, later we will have credibility, and a leg to stand on for criticizing their irresponsible hype. We can just show them the graphs... made weeks in advance... with timestamps on them.
Where is THEIR forecast graph that is actually working?
Of course, LATER they will make one that fits... but they will have made that one AFTER the experiment. That is not science, my friends, that is CYA.
Good night, and God bless you and keep you. Time for sleep.

3/24/20
Here is how the message goes:
"This is what *could* happen if we don't implement X. Ahhhh!!! Everybody do X."
Well, there also *could* be little green men on the back side of the moon.
The scientific and mathematical response to such drivel is:
What is *likely* to happen, based upon the *evidence*?
I've had the TV and radio off for over a week. There were just too many *could happen* messages. On all sides. Frankly, it is embarrassing to see my country acting like this. I would be in a really pissy mood by now if I were still listening. (My wife and you guys are keeping me current on the important stuff.)
I think I understand. I think our leaders want to scare us into doing what they think they need us to be doing. (Like scaring your kids to keep them out of the street.) They think they are doing it for our own good.
And while I think I understand this, and appreciate their intentions, I *abhor* this approach. It is dishonest, and in the long run it destroys the credibility of our government officials.
I would much prefer our leaders to tell us the truth, clean, rational, and simple. (Complete with graphs!) They can certainly explain the consequences if we don't act. I'm good with that. But then they need to trust us to do what is right. And to trust us to demand proper behavior from one another. That is what grown ups do. And that is what moral people do.
Perhaps they are taking this approach because they suspect we are not moral enough to make the right decisions? I pray they are wrong.
Each of us is responsible to do the right thing, or the whole experiment is a mess.
Please pray about it. And get your house in order.

3/22/20
Covid-19 "Quick History"
(With Dr Frank, is there such a thing as "quick?"
1 . I've been modeling epidemics for almost forty years. Since I teach advanced mathematics, I always pick a current, real-time application of the math my students are learning (good teaching pedagogy). Epidemics are ideal for calculus and differential equations.
2. This year, I started modeling the Covid-1 9 epidemic with my Calculus students back in December. It was a particularly good choice because one of my students' family lives near Wuhan, China (exchange student), so we had boots-on-the-ground. We developed a detailed model for which very accurately modeled the epidemic there and we learned a lot. I call this the "Model." It has multiple variables which are constrained by one another... it takes a lot of work, but it provided lots of good insight and taught us the relevant parameters.
3. As the epidemic started in other countries, I began applying the "Model" to them. S Korea, Iran, Italy, etc. It was working splendidly, but it takes a lot of effort. We are using data primarily from "Worldometers." The cutoff for their counts are midnight GMT. This makes the numbers tricky sometimes. Trust me, I reconcile them every day.
4. So as the number of countries kept expanding it was no longer feasible to use the "Model" to track each country. So, I used the parameters we'd developed in the "Model" to prepare a "Quick Look" model. Much simpler and faster. And I've been automating it to make it feasible. Some glitches along the way, as expected, but it's working great.
5. As the pandemic spread in the US, it was obvious that the "Model" was going to be a disaster, because the US is not a single epidemic. Also, states were changing testing protocols on a daily basis, and the numbers became useless for a few days. Garbage in, garbage out.
6. So I hid in my cave for two days and modeled about 30 states separately, then combined them all into what I call the "Big US Model." With this model, I can even predict the reported cases each day, as well as the anticipated deaths. Each day, I've been giving you the predictions for the next day, to keep me accountable. I
get my US data from multiple sources, which often disagree. So I use state DOH records as my ultimate authority. And I use midnight EST as my daily cutoff for US data by state, but midnight GMT as my cutoff for the entire country.
At each juncture, I've documented my thinking and progress here on fb. Those of you who have joined me on the journey understand that it has been a lot of work, but very fruitful. We can now predict what is going to happen with spooky accuracy.
As word got out, my computer (fb) is blowing up... this is good! We need calm and rationality in the midst of this mess.
The real power of my approach is that it is based upon REAL DATA, not speculation. I am meticulously following the scientific method. I have several controls in place, which allow you to keep me accountable.

3/29/20
Just added data.
Looks like my initial projections undershot a tad, but I'll leave well enough alone.
Looks like a peak to me.

Folks,
I just shared about a weeks worth of relevant (mostly?) history from my personal page, with the intention of sorting it into categories. This has been a long process, and 11m hoping that I can help newcomers catch up by organizing a few things.
My personal page is still public if anyone wants to track our progress further back. You know I am busy, so I might not get to it as soon as you wish otherwise.
All our welcome. There are lots of personal notes along the way, and live tried to leave those on my personal page for the most part.
Well, first a tad bid of sorting... then finish some international updates, then back to the US.
The "Big US Model" predicted about ten days ago that we would be "riding the peak" right now. Seems like we had it about right!
Have a great day, and God bless each and every one of you. Thank you for accompanying me on this journey. It has been quite a ride!

3/28/20
Phew! Looks like 11m tracking the right thing in my own
happening here...
Covid-19 in Ohio

3/27/20
So for now, I'd stick with testing anomaly; not an inflection point. But I am going to be paying attention tomorrow. My mom lives there, and she is vulnerable.
If the governor is trying to scare us; it is working. The initial projection of 115 is probably going to be low, because we are just only over the projected peak. Probably double. On a log scale, that is close. Let's pray the count stays low. Prayin' for you, Mom.
(You can see my personal biases at work here... gotta be extra careful. Go with the math; go with the math; go with the math...)

3/26/20
Covid-19 "USA Deaths Graph"
Leaving the last post up for accountability.
Frank Giordano noticed a discrepancy in my data, so I went back and reconciled. My totals were correct, but the daily numbers were off. Usually they settle by the next day (when I typically reconcile), but apparently some folks made some older reconciles as well. It's an issue with the world reporting numbers with GMT midnight as the cutoff, but the US reporting at various times. Somebody out there has a headache.
Here are the two reconciled graphs.. one smoothed,
one not.
My intial gut is that New York needs to be a sharper peak. But I will come back to this later. Right now, people are sending me state updates in a flurry...

3/26/20
And this is adding fifty state models together to produce a prediction for the total number of cases reported today. Not bad!
I've been leaving as many of the models alone, even if they are off a bit. And I've been wanting to adjust them DOWN.
Things are on target for our peak...
Peak Cases = 3/30
New Jersey. 3/28
Massachusetts. 3/31
Michigan. 3/28
Georgia, 4/01
Florida, 3/29
Arizona. 4/02
Connecticut. 3/29
North Carolina 3/30
Wyoming 3/2ö
Indiana. 8/29
Wisconsin, 3/27
Delaware, 4/02
Alabama, 4/02
Kentucky. 4/02
Virginia •3,129
Texas. i/26
Oklahoma, 3/31
Utah, 3/25
Vermont, 3/30
Kansas. 3/30
Iowa. 3/27
New Hampshire, 3/27
West Virginia 3/30
Montana, 3/26
South Dakota, 3128
New York. 3/30
Illinois. 4/06
Washington. 3/31
Mississippi 3/30
Louisiana, 3/28
Pennsylvania 3/30
California, 3/24
Colorado, 3/30
Tennessee, 3/28
South Carolina. 3/31
Missouri, 3/31
Ohio. 3/27
Maryland, 3/31
Arkansas 3/29
Maine 4/01
Nevada, 3/31
Oregon, 4/01
Hawaii, 3/29
Minnesota, 3/25
Rhode Island, 3/29
New Mexico, 327
Alaska 4/03
Idaho 3/30
Nebraska 3/29
North Dakota, 3/27

3/25/20
"Using Models"
Say you hold a fork in your hand, and walk around the house comparing it to everything around you. Pencils, glasses, books, etc. Every once in a while (especially in the silverware drawer) you discover some things that match. All the forks are not exactly the same, but they are similar enough that you say, "Aha! That's fork."
You get so good at this, that can recognize forks in an instant. You can even see a piece of silverware at the table partially covered with a napkin, and still immediately say, "That's a fork." Your mind has constructed a very useful model for "fork," and now you use it every day.
A few years ago, one of my students came rushing into class one time exclaiming, "Dr. Frank! I saw a parabola on the way to school today!" He'd seen a waterfall... and he was right (close enough). My
teaching was working! My student had learned to recognize the mathematics all around him, and it was helping him to understand Nature in deeper, more profound ways.
The famous physicist Richard Feynman once wrote, "If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in." That language is largely mathematics. We are all literally surrounded by mathematics. And because of my years of studying math & science, it is difficult for me to not see it everywhere I look. And it is
awe-inspiring and beautiful.
That is why I immediately recognize a binomial distribution, a sigmoid, or an exponential curve (among others). I simply can't help myself. These old friends are 'forks' to me by now.
After all this is over, I'm hoping that many of you have learned how to recognize more of the mathematics around you. That you will be able to recognize "bell curves" around you, and understand their remarkable utility and fascinating intricacies.

3/24/20
Here is how the message goes:
"This is what *could* happen if we don't implement X. Ahhhh!!! Everybody do X."
Well, there also *could* be little green men on the back side of the moon.
The scientific and mathematical response to such drivel is:
What is *likely* to happen, based upon the *evidence*?
I've had the TV and radio off for over a week. There were just too many *could happen* messages. On all sides. Frankly, it is embarrassing to see my country acting like this. I would be in a really pissy mood by now if I were still listening. (My wife and you guys are keeping me current on the important stuff.)
I think I understand. I think our leaders want to scare us into doing what they think they need us to be doing. (Like scaring your kids to keep them out of the street.) They think they are doing it for our own good.
And while I think I understand this, and appreciate their intentions I *abhor* this a roach. It is dishonest and in the long run it destroys the credibility of our government officials.
I would much prefer our leaders to tell us the truth, clean, rational, and simple. (Complete with graphs!) They can certainly explain the consequences if we don't act. I'm good with that. But then they need to trust us to do what is right. And to trust us to demand
proper behavior from one another. That is what grown ups do. And that is what moral people do.
Perhaps they are taking this approach because they suspect we are not moral enough to make the right decisions? I pray they are wrong.
Each of us is responsible to do the right thing, or the whole experiment is a mess.
Please pray about it. And get your house in order.

3/22/20
Science begins with humility, or one's own biases will interfere with the scientific method; you can't learn if you already know everything. I deliberately over-post a bit, to keep me honest, and so you can hold me accountable later.
Think of it. If after all this the model predicts the pandemic here in the US, and yet our "experts" in Washington didn't, then there is gonna be some major egg on a lot of faces. I would love us to hand feed them this crow. Let's all do it together, and demand accountability.
By posting these NOW, later we will have credibility, and a leg to stand on for criticizing their irresponsible hype. We can just show them the graphs... made weeks in advance... with timestamps on them.
Where is THEIR forecast graph that is actually working?
Of course, LATER they will make one that fits... but they will have made that one AFTER the experiment. That is not science, my friends, that is CYA.

3/22/20
Covid-19 "Quick History"
(With Dr Frank, is there such a thing as "quick?"
1 . l've been modeling epidemics for almost forty years. Since I teach advanced mathematics, I always pick a current, real-time application of the math my students are learning (good teaching pedagogy). Epidemics are ideal for calculus and differential equations.
2. This year, I started modeling the Covid-1 9 epidemic with my Calculus students back in December. It was a particularly good choice because one of my students' family lives near Wuhan, China (exchange student), so we had boots-on-the-ground. We developed a detailed model for which very accurately modeled the epidemic there and we learned a lot. I call this the "Model." It has
multiple variables which are constrained by one another... it takes a lot of work, but it provided lots of good insight and taught us the relevant parameters.
3. As the epidemic started in other countries, I began applying the "Model" to them. S Korea, Iran, Italy, etc. It was working splendidly, but it takes a lot of effort. We are using data primarily from "Worldometers." The cutoff for their counts are midnight GMT. This makes the numbers tricky sometimes. Trust me, I reconcile them every day.
4. So as the number of countries kept expanding it was no longer feasible to use the "Model" to track each country. So, I used the parameters we'd developed in the "Model" to prepare a "Quick Look" model. Much simpler and faster. And I've been automating it to make it feasible. Some glitches along the way, as expected, but it's working great.
5. As the pandemic spread in the US, it was obvious that the "Model" was going to be a disaster, because the US is not a single epidemic. Also, states were changing testing protocols on a daily basis, and the numbers became useless for a few days. Garbage in,
garbage out.
6. So I hid in my cave for two days and modeled about 30 states separately, then combined them all into what I call the "Big US Model." With this model, I can even predict the reported cases each day, as well as the anticipated deaths. Each day, I've been giving you the predictions for the next day, to keep me accountable. I get my US data from multiple sources, which often disagree. So I use state DOH records as my ultimate authority. And I use midnight EST as my daily cutoff for US data by state, but midnight GMT as my cutoff for the entire country.
At each juncture, I've documented my thinking and progress here on fb. Those of you who have joined me on the journey understand that it has been a lot of work, but very fruitful. We can now predict what is going to happen with spooky accuracy.
As word got out, my computer (fb) is blowing up... this is good! We need calm and rationality in the midst of this mess.
The real power of my approach is that it is based upon REAL DATA, not speculation. I am meticulously following the scientific method. I have several controls in place, which allow you to keep me accountable.