> 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.
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.