3 ms·

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 oth

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/
        nobodyandproud 1y ago
        That tells me you didn’t look. Meanwhile, your citation is distinctly ignoring what happens when someone actually has covid. Context matters, and your citation ignores it or wasn’t intended to cover it. The very definition of cherry picking: Either your choice of citation, or the study itself.
    - anthem2025 1y ago
      [flagged]

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/
      - nobodyandproud 1y ago
        That tells me you didn’t look. Meanwhile, your citation is distinctly ignoring what happens when someone actually has covid. Context matters, and your citation ignores it or wasn’t intended to cover it. The very definition of cherry picking: Either your choice of citation, or the study itself.
  - anthem2025 1y ago
    [flagged]