Edit: For now.

timr 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

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 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

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 2 days ago | parent [-]

> 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/

	▲	nobodyandproud 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		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 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

kelipso 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This kind of blind belief in authority is concerning. You should probably examine your biases.

	▲	nobodyandproud 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I do see a strong bias, and it’s not the OP.

▲

nobodyandproud 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I won’t go that far, but as someone who always toes that freedom line: The nonsense have veered from the freedom to “swing one’s fist” to “my nose starts here”.

I’ll never endorse forcing vaccination, but that doesn’t mean I endorse willful misinformation.

Nor should I tolerate loss of access to a modern miracle, because of someone’s horribly misguided beliefs.

	▲	anthem2025 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		These people would willingly expose their child to diseases that cause death or lifelong health problems. They are not fit parents.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

mvdtnz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I read that vaxopedia link above and I didn't see anything I'd class as "anti-vaccine" viewpoints. He's critical of some particular use cases of the COVID vaccine and he's concerned about developing a culture where healthy young people are getting boosters needlessly. I am not well-informed enough to assess his viewpoints but he's clearly in favour of vaccines, with a handful of reasonable-sounding caveats.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]