| ▲ | epistasis 3 hours ago | |
Prasad, to the extent he had a reputation before, was for critiquing the scientific practice as inadequate, which would hope that he'd bring the idea of rigor to his stint at the FDA. Instead, we see quite the opposite: - This baffling Moderna decision, which is so bad that many in the industry assumed it was from a failed bribe solicitation - Linked in this article is the "truly evil" decision requiring sham brain surgery in the placebo arm for a Huntington Disease trial https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/06/truly-evil-fda-reject... - Prasad holding a defamatory PR event about the company producing the HD candidate treatment, and only talking "on background" to hide his identity, which is sleazy and unethical "The criticism apparently struck a nerve with Prasad. The FDA held a press briefing later Thursday in which an unnamed “senior FDA official”—who identified himself as a hematology-oncologist—launched into a diatribe against UniQure, saying its “failed therapy” was supported by “distorted and manipulated” data. As for Woodcock’s comments, the official said he “expect[s] better” from her." https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/03/trumps-divisive-fda-v... - His first ouster and reinstatement last year, over a unilateral Duchenne muscular dystrophy decision, severely lacking in scientific rigor and analysis - Lied on his CV about being on a highly prestigious council he was not on (The Cancer Letter is not a random YouTube channel, it's high quality cancer research journalism) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCASAb7J-LE&t=41 As is often the case with such contrarians and critics, their own critiques apply most aptly to themselves. | ||
| ▲ | dogmatism an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |
Nah, by 2021 Prasad's reputation had gone into the shitter I actually think he's just grifting and the notoriety he achieved went to his head. His pre-2020 takes were better reasoned and at least worth engaging with. I could see his takes shifting with popular misinformation ideas in real time as it contributed to his success IMO this is worse than if he were just wrong. I think he knows better, but then he talked himself into a box, and doesn't have the people and political skills to survive on a bigger stage. | ||
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> Lied on his CV about being on a highly prestigious council You called this “minor CV fibbing” above. If he was lying about this when he applied for tenure, wouldn’t that be Cause? | ||