7 ms·
FDA official demands removal of YouTube videos of himself criticizing vaccines
- NewJazz 1y agoThey wanted to archive something on YouTube and got hit with an infringement claim. Oldest trick in the book.
- timr 1y ago> They wanted to archive something on YouTube and got hit with an infringement claim. Oldest trick in the book. Without specific knowledge of whatever was removed, this is unfair speculation. As far as I know, Prasad's podcasts, videos, Twitter account, etc. are all still public. This article isn't specific about anything -- it doesn't even say the kind of requests that was made, let alone the particular content.
- NewJazz 1y agoThe information is available for now.... I never said the copyright claim is invalid. A court would need to decide on matters of fair use. The article specifically said this regarding the content: Creating the channel, Howard told Guardian in an interview, had been an attempt to “preserve” what these individuals had said during the early years of the pandemic, including comments that Howard said exaggerated the dangers of the Covid vaccine to children and – in some cases – minimized the risk of Covid infection, among other issues. “These videos were nothing more than collections of what other doctors said during the pandemic, including doctors who are extremely influential and who are now the medical establishment,” he said.
- timr 1y ago> The information is available for now.... OK, so you're speculating. And quoting Howard (the guy violating the copyright) is irrelevant. It's not a trick to defend your copyright. If he set up a channel of nothing but old Simpsons clips to "preserve" them, YouTube would take those down, too.
- NewJazz 1y agoYes, all archivers speculate that the original source of information will at some point become unavailable. On a long time horizon, they have often been correct.
- timr 1y agoOK, so you're speculating.
- ceejayoz 1y agoSure, in the same sense you're speculating that they don't have a time machine to prove their point. Not all speculation is of equal value.
- timr 1y ago> Sure, in the same sense you're speculating that they don't have a time machine to prove their point. That's called: I'm stating a current fact, and you're imagining a future that doesn't exist.
- ceejayoz 1y agoNo, you're speculating that the parent poster can't prove it with their time machine. That is a reasonable form of speculation. As was the parent poster's speculation.
- anigbrowl 1y agoSimply not true. Howard’s entire channel has now been deleted by YouTube, which cited copyright infringement.
- timr 1y agoI don't know YouTube's content review policies, and neither of us know the details of this case, but that is consistent with what they do when someone is a obvious repeat offender. You can't just say "simply not true" when you have no idea what happened.
- anigbrowl 1y agoYou: This article isn't specific about anything -- it doesn't even say the kind of requests that was made, let alone the particular content. Article: Youtube, [..] cited copyright infringement
- ChrisMarshallNY 1y agoPaging Ms. Streisand! Barbra Streisand, on the white courtesy phone!
- testfrequency 1y agoAll circuits are currently busy, please try again later
- baxtr 1y agoFor those wondering like me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- WillPostForFood 1y agoYou are assuming he is trying to suppress the information, and not just maintaining copyright on his podcast, which is entirely available on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6VZKYkoBLdPxtu7DHkCfLuCyloXh9dh_ https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6VZKYkoBLdPxtu7DHkCf...
- NewJazz 1y agoFor now...
- dfxm12 1y ago[flagged]
- WillPostForFood 1y agoPrasad is not in any way a conservative, he is a bay area liberal.
- timr 1y agoIn fact, it's why he was (temporarily) booted from the FDA -- the article didn't deign to mention the reason, though it definitely mentioned the outcome. Prasad was specifically attacked by Laura Loomer for being a "leftist", and resigned rather than cause trouble. Deeply ironic that the Guardian is now trying to attack from the left.
- nobodyandproud 1y agoWhy is it deeply ironic? Prasad is being called out for holding highly unscientific views that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. This similar to what Fauci and others were blamed for in early days of COVID: The confusing and dishonest message about masking. Why should Prasad be held to a different standard? At least with Fauci and his people, the intent was quite good.
- timr 1y ago> Prasad is being called out for holding highly unscientific views that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Which views were those, exactly? Remember, Loomer was attacking him for not approving an ineffective drug.
- nobodyandproud 1y agoThese things are not difficult to find: https://vaxopedia.org/2025/05/08/what-has-vinay-prasad-said-about-vaccines/ https://vaxopedia.org/2025/05/08/what-has-vinay-prasad-said-... Edit: For now.
- dylan604 1y agoHow does this person have standing to claim copyright? Did he make the recordings? Just because you're the person in the video does not make you the copyright holder.
- timr 1y agoPlenary Session was his podcast. He made the recordings. In fact, 99% of the content was him, alone, talking to the camera.
- NewJazz 1y agoYes he owns the copyright. But there may be a valid fair use claim. Some past judicial criteria: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
- derbOac 1y agoMy feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope. Basically even if the FCC official made the recordings, I think at some point copyright on certain materials should become moot because fair use becomes dramatically greater in scope. I know not everyone would agree with that but it's what I feel should be the case.
- NewJazz 1y agoThere's definitely a better fair use case than "archiving" and monetizing Kendrick's latest album. Courts would be more cautious denying fair use when policy is involved.
- gruez 1y ago>My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope. That's theoretically what "fair use" is supposed to cover.
- jMyles 1y agoI'm a little confused about exactly what is being claimed here - how do we know that Vinay is the one who made this "demand"? All the article says about this is: > When YouTube notified Howard of the demand request, it included an email address for Prasad, which is identical to the email address that is linked to Prasad’s now inactive podcast, called Plenary Session. What does "included an email address" mean exactly? The reason I ask is that, if he did actually issue such a demand, this strikes me as wildly out of character for him. I don't know Vinay super duper well, but I've been on several multi-hour calls with him, and I have always found him to be a very thoughtful and high-integrity scientist. It never occurred to me that he might have the hallmarks of a political operative, and certainly not a right-wing one. And he had thoughts about the nature of knowledge and the future of the internet that are consistent with what most of us here on HN observe. Moreover, the content that was removed in this case was not anything that he'd be ashamed of; it was all fairly reasonable observations, mostly about the collateral effects of lockdown policies and the lack of a scientific framework for measuring their impact. All of his more 'firebrand' content - especially his (IMO, warranted) criticism of Scott Gottleib and the underhanded influence of Pfizer at FDA, remain on the internet (much on his channels where, presumably if he was bothered by it, he'd remove himself). I'd really like to know for sure that he himself issued this demand. That will be a really disappointing thing to learn. Obviously whether it was him or just someone who put his email address on a takedown form, it's wrong for YouTube to capitulate to such a ridiculous demand.
- ceejayoz 1y ago> What does "included an email address" mean exactly? They tell you how to contact the reporter when you get a copyright strike. They encourage you to do it via a logged-in YouTube account; if you don't, there's a confirm your email step. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622 https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622 > It never occurred to me that he might have the hallmarks of a political operative… It's a political appointment.
- timr 1y ago> It's a political appointment. Could you try to be like, even 10% less knee-jerk partisan? It's an appointment in the FDA (which requires actual technical knowledge) and Prasad is a well-documented member of the political left, to the point where he was recently chased out of the FDA for being on the left.
- fuckyah 1y ago[dead]
- ranger_danger 1y agoAnyone have a working link to the video? The one linked in the article has been taken down.
- tim333 1y agoPerplexity thinks it's https://youtu.be/dHoO7SwVnWI https://youtu.be/dHoO7SwVnWI Which is a clip from https://youtu.be/SX-Lh7mnWYY https://youtu.be/SX-Lh7mnWYY I watched some. I mostly seems fairly reasonable but he goes on about taking legal action for giving some 14 yr old a vaccine without asking the parents which seems a bit over the top to me.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago[flagged]
- BoredPositron 1y agoThat's just how large communities operate, especially in heated environments. It's always been this way. That said your example really fails to demonstrate effective community interaction. The argument apparently had value to readers who naturally wanted to verify the claims. You're essentially expecting people on the verge of changing their views to simply take the word of someone challenging those views with a "trust me bro" approach. Rather than engaging meaningfully, you attempt to invalidate their perfectly reasonable request for sources in your response. After reading the linked thread I would also disengage and keep a red flag for your username in my mind.
- bigbadfeline 1y ago> That's just how large communities operate, especially in heated environments. Although this is only half true, you have a point - it does hold for the top social media sites which, curiously enough, end up in the same predicament. However, this is a phenomenon that needs analysis, explanation and fixing, not just stating as inevitable reality because reality-building has been a thing at least since Karl Rove. BTW, I did expect the downvoting of my unorthodox and out-of-band comment but I do appreciate your reply to it because in 90% of the cases downvoting is silent and no explanations are given. Looking at the number of downvotes, I see that I've touched a nerve here, pretty sure due to the mentioning of Agent Smith's gaslighting brigade. Again, I'm not blaming the HN maintainers or the community as whole, as you noted, there's nothing unique here compared to other big social media. > You're... expecting people... to simply take the word of someone challenging those views with a "trust me bro" approach. Not at all. I simply shifted some of the burden of proof to the challenger who would otherwise put the speaker in a highly asymmetrical resource trap, similar to a DoS attack. I gave enough justification for it, I could prove it with a 10 word sentence but... does this matter given that we don't use the same notation? As a result, a proof in my notation appears as "trust me bro" to you, and vice versa.
- gtirloni 1y agoThe non-MAGA people that voted for this, why did you?
- deepfriedchokes 1y agoI did not, but I think a lot of people are so desperate for change that any change at some point is better than the status quo. The DNC undermining Sanders in 2016 was a big mistake.
- croes 1y agoSnd Trump undermines the constitution, social security, government agencies etc. That‘s not change but destruction
- cosmicgadget 1y agoThank you for the answer, what did they want change from? And why would Trump - a former president - provide more change than Harris? It's strange to me because it seemed like the dominating issues should have been recovering from the economic destruction wrought by covid monetary policy and dealing with the overt Russian threat.
- anthem2025 1y agoBiden literally campaigned on “nothing will fundamentally change”. Why would people think his VP would suddenly be different. Add in her proven unpopularity and the fact that they didn’t run a primary and you have a perfect recipe for a total disaster.
- cosmicgadget 1y agoI mean VPs are typically selected to be very different from their running mate. Just think of Trump and Pence. Or Trump and the guy who called him "America's Hitler".
- 1y ago
- BrandoElFollito 1y agoSo this is Vinay Prasad. I did not know that guy (not to mention that I am French and I don't care) but now I know that Vinay Prasad is hiding something. Vinay Prasad may be a liar, because Vinay Prasad is hiding something. Vinay Prasad, a name to remember. Well wouldn't have happened if Vinay Prasad was whole enough to stand by his claims and not try to hide the idiocies Vinay Prasad said in the past. Hey, I actually learned Vinay Prasad by heart now!
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]