6 ms·

Prasad is not in any way a conservative, he is a bay area liberal.

timr 1y ago
In 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 ago
  Why 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 ago
      These 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.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - timr 1y ago
        You're quoting this like it's some kind of indictment, but...it isn't controversial. There's nothing there that's surprising, and it's why he was hired into the role. Nobody is trying to memory-hole this. Prasad is not "anti-vaccine". He's been explicit that he thinks the Covid vaccine was approved for children without sufficient evidence [1]; he thinks that healthy children don't need it, that there's a documented side-effect that may abrogate any positive effect from vaccination [2]; that some of the vaccines on the childhood schedule are excessive [3]; and that ACIP has historically done a very poor job of reviewing vaccines. You can have legitimate debates over any of these points, but they're not wacko "anti-science" conspiracy theories that remove a person from polite society. [1] Because it was. It was a joke of an approval, based on extremely weak surrogate endpoints (i.e. antibody titre) [2] Myocarditis, particularly in boys. This is just a fact. [3] I actually don't know which ones he thinks are excessive, but you'll note that he says children should get the MMR vaccine.
        nobodyandproud 1y ago
        Transparency is paramount here. That excludes: Misinformation, lies of omission, and obfuscation. He chose to make to make public statements, relying on his credentials. He’s now using copyright to obfuscate his publicly made positions. If anyone is treating it like an indictment, it’s Prasad and his supporters. If you’re bringing up myocarditis facts, then don’t omit a key fact: Actual covid increased the chances of myocarditis by seven times the two-dose regiment of the mRNA vaccine: 82% vs 12%. I do agree a legitimate debate can be had, but not with someone who willfully chooses to cherry-pick their facts.
        timr 1y ago
        > If you’re bringing up myocarditis facts, then don’t omit a key fact: Actual covid increased the chances of myocarditis by seven times the two-dose regiment of the mRNA vaccine: 82% vs 12%. I do agree a legitimate debate can be had, but not with someone who willfully chooses to cherry-pick their facts. Indeed. Cherry-picking stats is bad...particularly when you do it, name specific numbers, and then don't cite your sources so that other people can verify them. I don't know where you got that number, because the rate of myocarditis from either vaccine or virus is nowhere near that high. But the likely source is that you're mis-remembering a paper that blurred together men, women, adults and children in a statistically invalid mix. Here's an accurate summary of the current data: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9880674/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9880674/
- NewJazz 1y ago
  Guardian is merely reporting facts. Odd that you perceive that as an attack...
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  Laura Loomer is an outright fascist who thinks that we should kill 50 million+ hispanic people in the US. Yes, fascists will often refer to people who aren't quite as murderous as they are as leftists. You'll have to excuse me for not caring what a person who explicitly wants me dead thinks about political labels.
DrillShopper 1y ago
[flagged]
- theoreticalmal 1y ago
  > My brother in Christ, he's bottoming for Trump. These two clauses cannot possibly both be sincerely held.
  - majormajor 1y ago
    Are you suggesting you think Christians couldn't oppose Trump? It's hard for me to see how anyone who's read the words of Jesus (not the words of Paul, or Moses, but of Jesus Christ) could sincerely support Trump.
    - pstuart 1y ago
      I have a friend who is a devout evangelical (son of a preacher) and seems to be a follower of Christ -- who has voted for Trump every time. I'm trying to find consensus with him and so far he's revealed that he holds no love for Trump (not even giving the line about him being a flawed vessel but still a gift from God). He states he votes based on policy (which is an admirable thing in voting) and that he's a single-issue voter (not so admirable). The policy? Immigration. He believes that the Dems intentionally open the flood gates to migrants in order to create more Dem voters. He cites how Dems have advocated for letting non-citizens vote as proof. And it's true, Dems have advocated for area residents to vote in some local elections in CA and NY. When I pointed out the nature of those elections, and that Dems are always trying to increase voting participation across the board), as well as the fact that a majority of these new arrivals are effectively religious and conservative, he switches the conversation. He's for single-payer health care and likely is for other "liberal" ideas, so I continue to try and engage with him on this in a gentle manner. I know that telling somebody to change their beliefs is a fool's errand, but seeds of doubt and providing new information might possibly let him arrive at a new conclusion on his own terms.
      - 1y ago
NewJazz 1y ago
No evidence for this claim.
- WillPostForFood 1y ago
  https://archive.is/BH7Y2 https://archive.is/BH7Y2
  - NewJazz 1y ago
    At what point in the article is the man's party affiliation discussed?
    - WillPostForFood 1y ago
      At one point in the comments did I mention party affiliation?
      - NewJazz 1y ago
        You used the term SF liberal. That implies democratic party affiliation. Neither the strings "liberal" or "democr" appear in the article you linked. The word "conservatives" appears once, and it is in the context of the dude aligning himself with conservatives...
gdulli 1y ago
[flagged]
- panny 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - majormajor 1y ago
    Citation needed on your definition of adequate testing, gene therapy products, etc. The whole right-wing hysteria is so ridiculous especially considering the real profit-seeking-grift that happened with Aduhelm, for instance, was primarily opposed by and investigated by Democrats. Like, we have receipts on who's looking out for things getting approved despite bad test results. And it's not the people currently claiming they are.
    - timr 1y ago
      Funny that you mentioned Aduhelm, because Prasad has many, many videos blasting the FDA for approving that mess. > The whole right-wing hysteria is so ridiculous especially considering the real profit-seeking-grift that happened with Aduhelm, for instance, was primarily opposed by and investigated by Democrats. This is just revisionist history. Aduhelm was rubber-stamped by Peter Marks' CBER, under Biden: https://www.statnews.com/2021/06/22/documents-reveal-fda-unprecedented-aduhelm-decision/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/06/22/documents-reveal-fda-unp... (Marks started at the FDA under Obama, BTW.) Outside reviewers had recommended rejecting the drug as early as November 2020. The FDA's own statisticians agreed.
    - panny 1y ago
      >Citation needed Okay, here is the president of Bayer Pharacutical division calling the covid mRNA a gene therapy, because it is: https://youtu.be/IKBmVwuv0Qc?t=507 https://youtu.be/IKBmVwuv0Qc?t=507 And here is the definition of vaccine being rewritten to include mRNA gene therapies: https://archive.is/xLu6u https://archive.is/xLu6u https://archive.is/BQStN https://archive.is/BQStN It's only a vaccine if you like redefining words to mean whatever you want them to mean.
majormajor 1y ago
The lines in certain areas have obviously broken down where the far-right has seized and expanded what used to be a loony-lefty-hippie distrust of vaccines. He's being used by conservatives and appears to be following their playbook.
rcpt 1y ago
+ He's still talking about masking in 2025. + He wrote articles comparing the US COVID response 1940s Germany. + He wants to defund mRNA research. I don't know man. Given that he's a doctor and all his publicly stated views lie right in the middle of maga it's hard to call him a liberal. Is there something about taxes or something that leads you to believe he's actually a Democrat?
- timr 1y ago
  "If he doesn't believe exactly what I believe then he's not a True Scotsman." I'm not going to scan every word the man has ever said or written to defend against the assertions you're just throwing out there without proof, but "talking about masking" is not a thought crime, and talking critically about our reaction to Covid is something that should be within the scope of reasonable conversation on the left. Also, no, he doesn't want to defund mRNA research. You're talking about Kennedy.
  - rcpt 1y ago
    Alright you don't have to "scan every word" but at least read a little bit about the guy https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/yes-mrna-vaccine-science-should-be https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/yes-mrna-vaccine-science-sho...
    - timr 1y ago
      Did you read it? It doesn't say what you think it says. To wit: he says that the mRNA cancer vaccines are a scientific dead end, that the existing mRNA vaccines' research can be funded by industry, there are good alternatives, and that the technology has been tainted in the public mind. Therefore he supports de-prioritizing the public research. None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research". As someone who largely agrees with all of those points, if you came to me tomorrow and said "here's a promising new application for mRNA technology that industry won't support", then I'd consider funding it. I'm so sick of people treating nuanced arguments like bingo cards.
      - 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bdcravens 1y ago
RFK Jr. also initially ran as a Democrat until he suspended that version of his presidential campaign in October 2023 and ran as an independent.
- NewJazz 1y ago
  He never had a chance for the nomination.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  Trump himself was a Democrat from 2001-2009, lest anyone forget[1]. He only resorted to the Republican Party after being rejected by everyone else first. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_...
UncleMeat 1y ago
If the key output of a political figure is to promote policies with conservative valence, what's the difference? Maybe at home he thinks to himself "progressive taxation systems are great" and "subsidizing solar energy is good." Good for him if true. But the thing I care about is how people like him impact society and his impact is to promote weird antivax shit that has completely smitten the reactionary right.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
anthem2025 1y ago
[flagged]

timr 1y ago

In 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 ago
Why 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 ago
    These 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.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - timr 1y ago
      You're quoting this like it's some kind of indictment, but...it isn't controversial. There's nothing there that's surprising, and it's why he was hired into the role. Nobody is trying to memory-hole this. Prasad is not "anti-vaccine". He's been explicit that he thinks the Covid vaccine was approved for children without sufficient evidence [1]; he thinks that healthy children don't need it, that there's a documented side-effect that may abrogate any positive effect from vaccination [2]; that some of the vaccines on the childhood schedule are excessive [3]; and that ACIP has historically done a very poor job of reviewing vaccines. You can have legitimate debates over any of these points, but they're not wacko "anti-science" conspiracy theories that remove a person from polite society. [1] Because it was. It was a joke of an approval, based on extremely weak surrogate endpoints (i.e. antibody titre) [2] Myocarditis, particularly in boys. This is just a fact. [3] I actually don't know which ones he thinks are excessive, but you'll note that he says children should get the MMR vaccine.
      - nobodyandproud 1y ago
        Transparency is paramount here. That excludes: Misinformation, lies of omission, and obfuscation. He chose to make to make public statements, relying on his credentials. He’s now using copyright to obfuscate his publicly made positions. If anyone is treating it like an indictment, it’s Prasad and his supporters. If you’re bringing up myocarditis facts, then don’t omit a key fact: Actual covid increased the chances of myocarditis by seven times the two-dose regiment of the mRNA vaccine: 82% vs 12%. I do agree a legitimate debate can be had, but not with someone who willfully chooses to cherry-pick their facts.
        timr 1y ago
        > If you’re bringing up myocarditis facts, then don’t omit a key fact: Actual covid increased the chances of myocarditis by seven times the two-dose regiment of the mRNA vaccine: 82% vs 12%. I do agree a legitimate debate can be had, but not with someone who willfully chooses to cherry-pick their facts. Indeed. Cherry-picking stats is bad...particularly when you do it, name specific numbers, and then don't cite your sources so that other people can verify them. I don't know where you got that number, because the rate of myocarditis from either vaccine or virus is nowhere near that high. But the likely source is that you're mis-remembering a paper that blurred together men, women, adults and children in a statistically invalid mix. Here's an accurate summary of the current data: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9880674/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9880674/
NewJazz 1y ago
Guardian is merely reporting facts. Odd that you perceive that as an attack...
UncleMeat 1y ago
Laura Loomer is an outright fascist who thinks that we should kill 50 million+ hispanic people in the US. Yes, fascists will often refer to people who aren't quite as murderous as they are as leftists. You'll have to excuse me for not caring what a person who explicitly wants me dead thinks about political labels.

DrillShopper 1y ago

[flagged]

theoreticalmal 1y ago
> My brother in Christ, he's bottoming for Trump. These two clauses cannot possibly both be sincerely held.
- majormajor 1y ago
  Are you suggesting you think Christians couldn't oppose Trump? It's hard for me to see how anyone who's read the words of Jesus (not the words of Paul, or Moses, but of Jesus Christ) could sincerely support Trump.
  - pstuart 1y ago
    I have a friend who is a devout evangelical (son of a preacher) and seems to be a follower of Christ -- who has voted for Trump every time. I'm trying to find consensus with him and so far he's revealed that he holds no love for Trump (not even giving the line about him being a flawed vessel but still a gift from God). He states he votes based on policy (which is an admirable thing in voting) and that he's a single-issue voter (not so admirable). The policy? Immigration. He believes that the Dems intentionally open the flood gates to migrants in order to create more Dem voters. He cites how Dems have advocated for letting non-citizens vote as proof. And it's true, Dems have advocated for area residents to vote in some local elections in CA and NY. When I pointed out the nature of those elections, and that Dems are always trying to increase voting participation across the board), as well as the fact that a majority of these new arrivals are effectively religious and conservative, he switches the conversation. He's for single-payer health care and likely is for other "liberal" ideas, so I continue to try and engage with him on this in a gentle manner. I know that telling somebody to change their beliefs is a fool's errand, but seeds of doubt and providing new information might possibly let him arrive at a new conclusion on his own terms.
    - 1y ago

NewJazz 1y ago

No evidence for this claim.

WillPostForFood 1y ago
https://archive.is/BH7Y2 https://archive.is/BH7Y2
- NewJazz 1y ago
  At what point in the article is the man's party affiliation discussed?
  - WillPostForFood 1y ago
    At one point in the comments did I mention party affiliation?
    - NewJazz 1y ago
      You used the term SF liberal. That implies democratic party affiliation. Neither the strings "liberal" or "democr" appear in the article you linked. The word "conservatives" appears once, and it is in the context of the dude aligning himself with conservatives...

gdulli 1y ago

[flagged]

panny 1y ago
[flagged]
- majormajor 1y ago
  Citation needed on your definition of adequate testing, gene therapy products, etc. The whole right-wing hysteria is so ridiculous especially considering the real profit-seeking-grift that happened with Aduhelm, for instance, was primarily opposed by and investigated by Democrats. Like, we have receipts on who's looking out for things getting approved despite bad test results. And it's not the people currently claiming they are.
  - timr 1y ago
    Funny that you mentioned Aduhelm, because Prasad has many, many videos blasting the FDA for approving that mess. > The whole right-wing hysteria is so ridiculous especially considering the real profit-seeking-grift that happened with Aduhelm, for instance, was primarily opposed by and investigated by Democrats. This is just revisionist history. Aduhelm was rubber-stamped by Peter Marks' CBER, under Biden: https://www.statnews.com/2021/06/22/documents-reveal-fda-unprecedented-aduhelm-decision/ https://www.statnews.com/2021/06/22/documents-reveal-fda-unp... (Marks started at the FDA under Obama, BTW.) Outside reviewers had recommended rejecting the drug as early as November 2020. The FDA's own statisticians agreed.
  - panny 1y ago
    >Citation needed Okay, here is the president of Bayer Pharacutical division calling the covid mRNA a gene therapy, because it is: https://youtu.be/IKBmVwuv0Qc?t=507 https://youtu.be/IKBmVwuv0Qc?t=507 And here is the definition of vaccine being rewritten to include mRNA gene therapies: https://archive.is/xLu6u https://archive.is/xLu6u https://archive.is/BQStN https://archive.is/BQStN It's only a vaccine if you like redefining words to mean whatever you want them to mean.

majormajor 1y ago

The lines in certain areas have obviously broken down where the far-right has seized and expanded what used to be a loony-lefty-hippie distrust of vaccines. He's being used by conservatives and appears to be following their playbook.

rcpt 1y ago

+ He's still talking about masking in 2025. + He wrote articles comparing the US COVID response 1940s Germany. + He wants to defund mRNA research. I don't know man. Given that he's a doctor and all his publicly stated views lie right in the middle of maga it's hard to call him a liberal. Is there something about taxes or something that leads you to believe he's actually a Democrat?

timr 1y ago
"If he doesn't believe exactly what I believe then he's not a True Scotsman." I'm not going to scan every word the man has ever said or written to defend against the assertions you're just throwing out there without proof, but "talking about masking" is not a thought crime, and talking critically about our reaction to Covid is something that should be within the scope of reasonable conversation on the left. Also, no, he doesn't want to defund mRNA research. You're talking about Kennedy.
- rcpt 1y ago
  Alright you don't have to "scan every word" but at least read a little bit about the guy https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/yes-mrna-vaccine-science-should-be https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/yes-mrna-vaccine-science-sho...
  - timr 1y ago
    Did you read it? It doesn't say what you think it says. To wit: he says that the mRNA cancer vaccines are a scientific dead end, that the existing mRNA vaccines' research can be funded by industry, there are good alternatives, and that the technology has been tainted in the public mind. Therefore he supports de-prioritizing the public research. None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research". As someone who largely agrees with all of those points, if you came to me tomorrow and said "here's a promising new application for mRNA technology that industry won't support", then I'd consider funding it. I'm so sick of people treating nuanced arguments like bingo cards.
    - 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

bdcravens 1y ago

RFK Jr. also initially ran as a Democrat until he suspended that version of his presidential campaign in October 2023 and ran as an independent.

NewJazz 1y ago
He never had a chance for the nomination.
CamperBob2 1y ago
Trump himself was a Democrat from 2001-2009, lest anyone forget[1]. He only resorted to the Republican Party after being rejected by everyone else first. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_...

UncleMeat 1y ago

If the key output of a political figure is to promote policies with conservative valence, what's the difference? Maybe at home he thinks to himself "progressive taxation systems are great" and "subsidizing solar energy is good." Good for him if true. But the thing I care about is how people like him impact society and his impact is to promote weird antivax shit that has completely smitten the reactionary right.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

anthem2025 1y ago

[flagged]