8 ms·

How much death and suffering does this guy have on his conscience? I’m so curious how someone goes from being a professor to a science denier? I simply can’t i

How much death and suffering does this guy have on his conscience? I’m so curious how someone goes from being a professor to a science denier? I simply can’t imagine that journey.

pwarner 4mo ago
The suffering is the point.
api 4mo ago
Death and suffering are “natural.” These people are all delusional ideologues. If reality does not match the ideology, reality must be wrong.
bickfordb 4mo ago
Results are fuzzy. He has a nice Malibu compound to go to after this lived experience
dboreham 4mo ago
Also interesting that there can be a giant asshole running a federal agency into the ground and I've never heard of him until now. Gives some scale to the problem. I also wonder what else is going on in government that falls below the widely reportable threshold.
- idiotsecant 4mo ago
  It's like saying that one of the seagulls at the beach is particularly noisy.
blindriver 4mo ago
[flagged]
- awakeasleep 4mo ago
  Is there a similar story behind that huntingtons therapy?
  - blindriver3 4mo ago
    [flagged]
- idiotsecant 4mo ago
  He's the opposite of data driven. Moderna did in fact include several studies together encompassing over 40 thousand patients over a diverse demographic group. In fact, they designed the study program only after the approval of the FDA was already given for it. It's a perfectly normal drug trial. This guy wanted his name in headlines and so he decided to just go ahead with 'vaccine bad' against the will of literally every expert the FDA employs to make these recommendations. This guy got fired for a good reason - he's an idiot.
  - blindriver3 4mo ago
    [flagged]
- SeanLuke 4mo ago
  Note that Prasad didn't reject their application: he prevented Moderna from even applying. Prasad overrode a phalanx of FDA career scientists who had studied and approved Moderna's study approach and were ready to review it. He did so suddenly and without warning: the FDA up to that point had not raised any concerns about Moderna's trial protocol. He didn't cite any safety or efficacy issues. This wasn't the only time he stepped in and overrode experts with seemingly no justification. Just the most prominent example. I think it's good he's gone.
  - blindriver3 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - Arainach 4mo ago
      > Don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
idiotsecant 4mo ago
I can definitely imagine it. It becomes so much easier to not worry about it when you have a comfortable pillow made out of lots and lots of money to rest your head on.
phyzix5761 4mo ago
I imagine at some point, after earnestly trying to help the American people with real science, these people get tired of working thankless jobs where they're up against monstrous bureaucracy and just want to do something that benefits themselves and their families. Sadly, and in part because our society rarely rewards beneficial work the way it does exploitation, these people find the path of least resistance to be this kind of journey.
- Gud 4mo ago
  Or perhaps he never did give a fuck?
  - xetera 4mo ago
    This seems a lot more plausible to me
  - phyzix5761 4mo ago
    We take comfort in fantasizing about a black and white world and condemn others without trying to understand what drove them to act this way. If, perhaps, we could understand the underlying causes we could remove them and prevent as much evil from arising in the future. But we first have to admit that cause and effect is real and applies to human behavior.
    - bluecheese452 4mo ago
      Dude just stop.
    - hilariously 4mo ago
      Cause? We don't care. Effect? We all are sicker and closer to the grave because these ghouls are preying on us. We don't care about the justifications for murdering the collective for personal gain, its just treason to humanity plain and simple.
      - phyzix5761 4mo ago
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
OrvalWintermute 4mo ago
[flagged]
- kstrauser 4mo ago
  1. That's not what ad hominem means. You can legitimately criticize people for their actions. All I see here are people saying his actions are wrong and incongruous with fact-based science. 2. There's nothing whatsoever wrong about asking questions. It becomes wrong when refusing to listen to the answers and dismissing all the ones you don't like because you don't like the person saying them. Ironically, that's ad hominem.
- joxdosba 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - OrvalWintermute 4mo ago
    [flagged]
- boxed 4mo ago
  Vaccine skepticism is on the same level as flat earthism. This is not an insult to your person, but this is the reality of the science. Trading a 0.1 micromort risk once for a 1000 micromort risk over your lifetime is a crazy good deal. Put another way: that's trading ~6 minutes for ~24 days of life. You do that for every vaccine. Some vaccines have worse trades depending on your situation, and some are far better trades. Look at these stats: https://boxed.github.io/micromort/?q=vaccine&scale=log&sel=vax%3Ayellow-fever-60 https://boxed.github.io/micromort/?q=vaccine&scale=log&sel=v... Note the LOG scale! You can switch to a linear scale, but then you can't even see there are multiple vaccine adverse risk data points, as they all collapse to one dot compared the the huge risks of the diseases they prevent.
  - modo_mario 4mo ago
    >Trading a 0.1 micromort risk once for a 1000 micromort risk I think like with that person that found their cancer to have some dna from an mrna vaccine in it the issue is when the prominent messaging is that there is no 0.1 micromort risk. There is no risk whatsoever and everyone who says so is a looney. Immediately you'll have thousands who say i told you so and harden their conviction.
oatmeal1 4mo ago
[flagged]
- no-name-here 4mo ago
  Is it reasonable to describe this as a “difference of opinion between scientists”? Per the OP article: * it was a Trump political appointee who had made a “shocking” decision to not even review the vaccine * it was despite the objections of the subject matter experts and career scientists * it was despite the submitted study results being exactly what the FDA had previously approved * the vote to go the opposite direction of him was unanimous I mean sure, you could find an odd scientist who doesn't believe in something that 99.999% of scientists agree on, appoint them as the political head of an agency to overrule the 99.999% of scientists, and call that a “difference of opinion between scientists”, but…
  - oatmeal1 4mo ago
    You identify the potential bias of only one side here. The revolving door between regulators and industry introduces potential biases of others in the opposite direction. If Prasad approved of the trial design and later decided it was insufficient then I would see things differently.
- jmye 4mo ago
  This is not a "difference of opinion" and framing it as such is intentionally and egregiously dishonest.
  - oatmeal1 4mo ago
    More histrionics.
    - jmye 4mo ago
      Ah, you're one of those - any disagreement and all you can do is complain about the other person's emotional state. Did you think you were saying something to add value, here? Did you think this was a cutting, insightful comment? Come on, make your buddies proud, "umadbro" me, next.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
jfengel 4mo ago
How much death and suffering does this guy have on his conscience? His what now?

How much death and suffering does this guy have on his conscience? I’m so curious how someone goes from being a professor to a science denier? I simply can’t imagine that journey.

pwarner 4mo ago

The suffering is the point.

api 4mo ago

Death and suffering are “natural.” These people are all delusional ideologues. If reality does not match the ideology, reality must be wrong.

bickfordb 4mo ago

Results are fuzzy. He has a nice Malibu compound to go to after this lived experience

dboreham 4mo ago

Also interesting that there can be a giant asshole running a federal agency into the ground and I've never heard of him until now. Gives some scale to the problem. I also wonder what else is going on in government that falls below the widely reportable threshold.

idiotsecant 4mo ago
It's like saying that one of the seagulls at the beach is particularly noisy.

blindriver 4mo ago

[flagged]

awakeasleep 4mo ago
Is there a similar story behind that huntingtons therapy?
- blindriver3 4mo ago
  [flagged]
idiotsecant 4mo ago
He's the opposite of data driven. Moderna did in fact include several studies together encompassing over 40 thousand patients over a diverse demographic group. In fact, they designed the study program only after the approval of the FDA was already given for it. It's a perfectly normal drug trial. This guy wanted his name in headlines and so he decided to just go ahead with 'vaccine bad' against the will of literally every expert the FDA employs to make these recommendations. This guy got fired for a good reason - he's an idiot.
- blindriver3 4mo ago
  [flagged]
SeanLuke 4mo ago
Note that Prasad didn't reject their application: he prevented Moderna from even applying. Prasad overrode a phalanx of FDA career scientists who had studied and approved Moderna's study approach and were ready to review it. He did so suddenly and without warning: the FDA up to that point had not raised any concerns about Moderna's trial protocol. He didn't cite any safety or efficacy issues. This wasn't the only time he stepped in and overrode experts with seemingly no justification. Just the most prominent example. I think it's good he's gone.
- blindriver3 4mo ago
  [flagged]
  - Arainach 4mo ago
    > Don't create accounts routinely. HN is a community—users should have an identity that others can relate to. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

idiotsecant 4mo ago

I can definitely imagine it. It becomes so much easier to not worry about it when you have a comfortable pillow made out of lots and lots of money to rest your head on.

phyzix5761 4mo ago

I imagine at some point, after earnestly trying to help the American people with real science, these people get tired of working thankless jobs where they're up against monstrous bureaucracy and just want to do something that benefits themselves and their families. Sadly, and in part because our society rarely rewards beneficial work the way it does exploitation, these people find the path of least resistance to be this kind of journey.

Gud 4mo ago
Or perhaps he never did give a fuck?
- xetera 4mo ago
  This seems a lot more plausible to me
- phyzix5761 4mo ago
  We take comfort in fantasizing about a black and white world and condemn others without trying to understand what drove them to act this way. If, perhaps, we could understand the underlying causes we could remove them and prevent as much evil from arising in the future. But we first have to admit that cause and effect is real and applies to human behavior.
  - bluecheese452 4mo ago
    Dude just stop.
  - hilariously 4mo ago
    Cause? We don't care. Effect? We all are sicker and closer to the grave because these ghouls are preying on us. We don't care about the justifications for murdering the collective for personal gain, its just treason to humanity plain and simple.
    - phyzix5761 4mo ago

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

OrvalWintermute 4mo ago

[flagged]

kstrauser 4mo ago
1. That's not what ad hominem means. You can legitimately criticize people for their actions. All I see here are people saying his actions are wrong and incongruous with fact-based science. 2. There's nothing whatsoever wrong about asking questions. It becomes wrong when refusing to listen to the answers and dismissing all the ones you don't like because you don't like the person saying them. Ironically, that's ad hominem.
joxdosba 4mo ago
[flagged]
- OrvalWintermute 4mo ago
  [flagged]
boxed 4mo ago
Vaccine skepticism is on the same level as flat earthism. This is not an insult to your person, but this is the reality of the science. Trading a 0.1 micromort risk once for a 1000 micromort risk over your lifetime is a crazy good deal. Put another way: that's trading ~6 minutes for ~24 days of life. You do that for every vaccine. Some vaccines have worse trades depending on your situation, and some are far better trades. Look at these stats: https://boxed.github.io/micromort/?q=vaccine&scale=log&sel=vax%3Ayellow-fever-60 https://boxed.github.io/micromort/?q=vaccine&scale=log&sel=v... Note the LOG scale! You can switch to a linear scale, but then you can't even see there are multiple vaccine adverse risk data points, as they all collapse to one dot compared the the huge risks of the diseases they prevent.
- modo_mario 4mo ago
  >Trading a 0.1 micromort risk once for a 1000 micromort risk I think like with that person that found their cancer to have some dna from an mrna vaccine in it the issue is when the prominent messaging is that there is no 0.1 micromort risk. There is no risk whatsoever and everyone who says so is a looney. Immediately you'll have thousands who say i told you so and harden their conviction.

oatmeal1 4mo ago

[flagged]

no-name-here 4mo ago
Is it reasonable to describe this as a “difference of opinion between scientists”? Per the OP article: * it was a Trump political appointee who had made a “shocking” decision to not even review the vaccine * it was despite the objections of the subject matter experts and career scientists * it was despite the submitted study results being exactly what the FDA had previously approved * the vote to go the opposite direction of him was unanimous I mean sure, you could find an odd scientist who doesn't believe in something that 99.999% of scientists agree on, appoint them as the political head of an agency to overrule the 99.999% of scientists, and call that a “difference of opinion between scientists”, but…
- oatmeal1 4mo ago
  You identify the potential bias of only one side here. The revolving door between regulators and industry introduces potential biases of others in the opposite direction. If Prasad approved of the trial design and later decided it was insufficient then I would see things differently.
jmye 4mo ago
This is not a "difference of opinion" and framing it as such is intentionally and egregiously dishonest.
- oatmeal1 4mo ago
  More histrionics.
  - jmye 4mo ago
    Ah, you're one of those - any disagreement and all you can do is complain about the other person's emotional state. Did you think you were saying something to add value, here? Did you think this was a cutting, insightful comment? Come on, make your buddies proud, "umadbro" me, next.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

jfengel 4mo ago

How much death and suffering does this guy have on his conscience? His what now?