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.

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.

[flagged]