timr

38 ms·

571.
by timr 1y ago
I actually agree with you (I mean, you're just stating facts). But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss". O
572.
by 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. Pra
573.
by 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.
574.
by timr 1y ago
Google "fair use rule". It's not a simple answer, but no, you're not just allowed to cut together clips of someone else's work. Regardless, what YouTube chooses to enforce and what is legally "fair use" ar
575.
by timr 1y ago
> Deprioritizing something enough becomes defunding pretty fast. And right there, you acknowledge the difference. Have a nice day.
576.
by timr 1y ago
It's literally the definitions of the words.
577.
by timr 1y ago
Defunding == "taking all the money away". Deprioritizing == "giving priority to something else". It isn't hard to be nuanced. Particularly in this case, when you realize that the manufacturers of the mRNA Covid vacc
578.
by 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,
579.
by timr 1y ago
I'm not going to dig through every hour of his podcast to find all the times that he said himself that he is on the left and voted for Sanders . If you're that motivated, you can easily go listen to him, and then you might actual
580.
by 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
581.
by timr 1y ago
> Yes, we do. His role is not a civil service one. Incorrect. I just looked it up. It's a civil service appointment. > Go on, document it. He's said many, many times on his podcast(s), twitter and elsewhere that he's on
582.
by timr 1y ago
> That does not make it non-political. The FDA has both political appointees and civil service roles, just like other government agencies. https://www.opm.gov/frequently-asked-questions/political-app ... OK, so which
583.
by 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 le
584.
by 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.
585.
by timr 1y ago
> Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively. That's why it would be good to have some specifics, as opposed to...the parade of general
586.
by timr 1y ago
OK, so you're speculating.
587.
by 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 Adu
588.
by 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 Simp
589.
by 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&q
590.
by 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, vid
591.
by timr 1y ago
Plenary Session was his podcast. He made the recordings. In fact, 99% of the content was him, alone, talking to the camera.
592.
by timr 1y ago
I named several in my original comment. The big, blinking, obvious YoY change for anyone here is tech employment.
593.
by timr 1y ago
And again, even if you assume that all of that is true, you're still making a leap of logic that these changes are because of the tariffs.
594.
by timr 1y ago
whoops. fixed.
595.
by timr 1y ago
I'm not ignoring it, but I’m not falling into a post hoc fallacy, either. I'll put it this way: if I were ignoring it, I'd be ignoring one more data point than you are in cherry-picking a single example.
596.
by timr 1y ago
Even assuming that there were no other federal, state or local YoY differences [1] that could explain this change (and that the numbers are right as presented in the first place), New York City private sector employment is nothing like mo
597.
by timr 1y ago
It's not just the EU. Nearly every first-world country has done the same. The US was the fringe player in this debate. The Covid vaccines for children (and especially infants) were approved with essentially no proof of effectiveness be
598.
by timr 1y ago
> This is already happening with covid vaccinations, in that only some age groups are getting approval. The decision is not being made according to safety, but justified with economics. I don't recall the FDA doing that before. Inco
599.
by timr 1y ago
> Ah so they're nitpicks when I call out your misrepresentations, but somehow they're still material to your overall point? They're nitpicks. Let's say I grant you that Mpox and Dengue are not really on the recommende
600.
by timr 1y ago
It's nitpicking. Mpox and Dengue are the two easiest ones to rebut (still not on the WHO schedule!), but there are 9 major differences between the core schedules.

More ›