[flagged]
+ 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?
He is saying that's because another pandemic is coming and there still isn't good evidence that masking reduces the spread of respiratory virus. There are a number of observational studies that show an effect which disappears when you consider only high quality RCTs.[0] Maybe now that Prasad has influence the USA will conduct some good research on the topic and we can get a definitive answer, which will be very useful when the next pandemic lands.
Despite that, it is a shame that Prasad has in other respects gone off the deep end as partially described in TFA.
[0] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
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.
https://www.drvinayprasad.com/p/yes-mrna-vaccine-science-sho...
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.
> None of these arguments can be characterized as "wants to defund mRNA research".
If I said "paying our mortgage is a dead-end, someone else can fund it, there are good alternatives to paying it, and therefore I'm de-prioritizing paying it"…
Would "I'm defunding our mortgage" be a substantially accurate summary of my position? (Yes.)
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 vaccines have made literally billions of dollars with which to do research.
It takes a lot of effort to find that much nuance.
The nuanced description for your position is "a pretty huge stretch".
Deprioritizing something enough becomes defunding pretty fast.
Like that five year old JIRA ticket that no one bothers with.
And right there, you acknowledge the difference. Have a nice day.
"I'm not murdering you, I'm just doing a very, very large blood draw!"
Do you find people fall for this often?
But I’m not a fascist trying to justify the total destruction of the CDC anti-vaxxer dipshits.
You're very pedantic and argumentative on multiple threads, but your pedantry only seems to run in one direction.
I posted evidence: there was a Wall-Street Journal editorial calling Prasad a liberal. He was attacked by the right for being a leftist. It's all extremely well-documented. It just wasn't enough of an ideological purity test for you, I suppose. I'm sorry that I can't post a binary dump of the man's brain.
(I've also personally listened to dozens of hours of the podcasts, so I know very well where he stands. You're more than welcome to do the same, since it's all out there -- don't take my word for it.)
> as if everyone in the bay area had the same political views? You're very pedantic and argumentative on multiple threads, but your pedantry only seems to run in one direction.
That's the weirdest way of saying "you defend your argument" that I think I've ever seen. Thanks?
That answer doesn't make a whole lot of sense, because I was asking you about a reaction to someone else's claim.
That's the weirdest way of saying "you defend your argument" that I think I've ever seen. Thanks?
It's not a compliment. Axe-grinding doesn't make for good discussion, and you seem far more reliant on rhetoric than would be needed if you just explained your point of view up front. It's getting into sealioning territory.
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.
You'll have to excuse me for not caring what a person who explicitly wants me dead thinks about political labels.
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.
Which views were those, exactly? Remember, Loomer was attacking him for not approving an ineffective drug.
Edit: For now.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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...
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Donald_...