Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Politics

A self-proclaimed EBM expert rushes to kiss RFK Jr.’s conspiracy-spewing posterior

He claims to be a “not antivax” expert in evidence-based medicine, but COVID-19 contrarian Dr. Vinay Prasad sure seems eager to kiss antivax conspiracy monger Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s posterior—and embrace his MAHA agenda.

Remember a week and a half ago, when in my post about why RFK Jr. will be such a catastrophe for public health and biomedical research as Secretary of Health and Human Services, I said that I’d try to post more regularly? I’m half tempted to insert this scene from a forty-year-old Arnold Schwarzenegger movie:

Remember when I said I’d post more regularly? I lied…

Of course, I didn’t lie. Really, I didn’t. I meant it at the time. It’s just that, once again, life intervened. In any case, in the ten days since I last posted, a lot has happened, or, as John Oliver would say, it has been a busy week. Since RFK Jr.’s nomination was announced, we now know most of the rogues’ gallery of grifters, antivaxxers, MAGA opportunists, and a Fox News pundit, who will be running the various agencies that fall under HHS. For example, does anyone remember Dr. Dave Weldon? I almost didn’t, because I hadn’t thought about him in years. It turns out that Weldon is a real blast from the antivax past, a Representative from Florida who, along with Indiana Rep. Dan Burton, was one of the main go-to Congressmen for the antivax movement in the late 1990s and early 2000s. He was voted out of office 16 years ago, but he’s back, this time nominated to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Yes, if Weldon can win confirmation, there will be diehard “thimerosal in vaccines causes autism” antivax conspiracy theorist in charge of the CDC, reporting to a diehard “thimerosal in vaccines causes autism”—in reality just “vaccines cause autism” conspiracy theorist—boss, RFK, Jr.

I could go on but will just list the rogues’ gallery that is Donald Trump’s health nominees that we know of so far:

You get the idea.

Obviously, any self-respecting physician who views himself as all about the science and evidence with respect to healthcare should be appalled at these choices. At best (Dr. Nesheiwat), they’re lightweights and ideologues, while at worst (RFK Jr., Dave Weldon), they’re hardcore antivaxxers, with some in between (Makary, Bhattacharya). UCSF medical oncologist and COVID-19 contrarian Dr. Vinay Prasad thinks he’s all about the evidence and science when it comes to medicine and health, so much so that he loves to remind you of just how devoted he is to evidence-based medicine, in comparison to everyone else who just doesn’t EBM as good as he does. Moreover, as he will happily and contemptuously tell you, unlike us “skeptics,” he doesn’t waste his time dealing with trifling quackery like homeopathy and antivax, because to him they’re so easy to debunk that it would be a waste of his planet-sized brain to bother, just as much as it would be a waste of LeBron James’ talent to dunk on a 7′ hoop. Too bad he can’t see how much his contempt for us mere “skeptics” has predisposed him to falling for the very failures in reasoning we skeptics try to teach people not to fall for.

I’ll now quote a song that is, shockingly (well, to me, anyway) nearly a quarter century old, “Oops…I did it again,” because—oops!—Dr. Prasad did it again, sucking up to RFK Jr. I realize that Prasad’s done this at least once before, when he mentioned that he thought RFK Jr. had some “good ideas” and even fell for RFK Jr.’s “no saline placebo” gambit, an antivax trope so hoary that debunking it felt like wiping dinosaur dung off of an old rotting chestnut. But, hey, I guess Prasad’s gonna Prasad. His planet-sized brain has bigger fish to fry, apparently. In any event, behold Dr. Prasad kissing RFK Jr.’s posterior so embarrassingly fiercely that he likely could see RFK Jr.’s uvula from the inside. His brown nosing RFK Jr. came in the form of a Substack entry that I’ve been meaning to get to for a week now:

  • Do other countries do it? A simple litmus test for RFK Jr’s ideas. (“A simple litmus test for RFK Jr’s ideas is do other, sensible nations do it that way.”) Seriously, Dr. Prasad is obsessed with the false concept that there is only one “right” way to do something, failing to acknowledge that, depending upon the circumstances, there can be more than one way to skin a cat.

There are, of course, several other posts by Prasad and his cronies at Sensible Medicine that I would like to take on, but let’s dissect this one first, which is an obvious example of Dr. Prasad sucking up to RFK Jr. Basically, he searches the world desperately to find countries that do a few things that RFK Jr. supports and concludes that this must mean that RFK Jr. is not wrong about those things. As you read, you’ll also note that he’s obsessed with “correctness,” as if there is one way to do things. As I like to say, contrary to Dr. Prasad’s apparent belief, the current CDC-recommended vaccine schedule is evidence-based and science-based; it’s just that it isn’t just evidence- and science-based. One has to take into account real world conditions and what is feasible.

In fairness, I will start by emphasizing the one area about which Dr. Prasad is “bold” enough to disagree with RFK Jr., as I believe in starting positive and giving credit where credit is due:

The MMR vaccine is not linked to autism based on my reading of the literature, with studies excluding an OR of 1.02 or higher, which is quite stringent. All European countries recommend MMR vaccines. Japan says a single dose of MMR. No country that I am aware of us says don’t give it because of autism. Here I think if RFK Jr wants to discourage MMR— that is a bridge too far because no one does that.

Bravo, Dr. Prasad! At least he can admit that there is no evidence that MMR vaccine increase the risk of autism. But what does Dr. Prasad mean by its being “a bridge too far” if RFK Jr. “wants to discourage MMR”? After all, it is inarguable that RFK Jr. does want to do exactly that: Discourage, if not outright ban, the MMR vaccine! He’s been portraying the MMR as poison causing autism dating back at least 15 years, and he’s “discouraged MMR” before—and fairly recently, too! Dr. Prasad apparently conveniently forgets—or, less likely, is completely unaware of—what happened in Samoa in late 2019, around the time that the first cases of a mysterious novel viral pneumonia were being reported in Wuhan China. I don’t forget. I remember very well how RFK Jr. tried to persuade Samoan officials that the MMR vaccine was dangerous—in the middle of a deadly measles outbreak that killed over 70 children, too! He even wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Samoa blaming the outbreak not on low MMR uptake among Samoan children, but rather on the vaccine itself! He also met with local antivaxxers and helped them stoke fear of the vaccine. Given that (relatively recent) history, what makes Dr. Prasad conclude that RFK Jr. has reformed himself and won’t try to do the same thing now for the entire US?

Please, Dr. Prasad, my brain is not the size of a planet, like yours. I’m just a humble physician-scientist-skeptic who’s been following RFK Jr.’s activities closely for nearly two decades. Perhaps in that time I missed something and need educating that only your genius can provide! Perhaps you can also, while you’re at it, explain why you can’t find it in yourself to condemn RFK Jr. for promoting another antivax propaganda film disguised as as documentary, VAXXED III: Authorized to Kill, which is the second sequel to Andrew Wakefield and Del Bigtree’s VAXXED, which I described as antivax propaganda at its most pernicious.

Let’s move on to other areas. Unsurprisingly, Dr. Prasad doesn’t think that RFK Jr. is wrong to object to the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine:

Switzerland and Austria do not recommend hep B vaccination for low risk babies AT BIRTH. In the USA all mothers are screened for Hep B, and there could be some compromises here, as RFK Jr. does not like this vaccine at Birth.

In fact there are lots of differences in global vaccination schedules. You can find that here is a way to compare. schedules.

The point here is that an honest scientists would admit that we have no idea which country has the correct schedule, and some childhood vaccines should re-enter the overton window for debate.

This is just a rehash of a bad argument that Dr. Prasad has made before. To repeat: There are sound scientific and epidemiological rationales to recommend vaccination against hepatitis B shortly after birth, including maternal transmission to the newborn and the observation of hepatitis B transmission in school and daycare settings. Once again, if Dr. Prasad had done the least bit of research or engaged in the slightest bit of intellectual honesty, he would have acknowledged the reasons why the CDC recommends a birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine. Yes, it is true that not all countries have chosen that strategy, but the US has, and there are very defensible scientific reasons to have adopted it. Moreover, it’s not the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine per se to which RFK Jr. objects. Like all antivax attacks on the birth dose, RFK Jr’s attack is a feint to hide his objection . Criticizing the birth dose is just an easy way to misdirect parents into wondering why we are vaccinating newborn babies against a disease that is primarily transmitted sexually or by needle sticks and sharing needles. It’s primarily a moral argument, much as objections to HPV vaccines given to preadolescent girls based on claims that such vaccination will encourage promiscuity are moral, not scientific, arguments. The idea is that my baby or child isn’t at risk because my child doesn’t have premarital sex, share needles, or engage in what I consider morally dubious high risk behavior. The subtext, of course, is that those “dirty vaccines” should be reserved for people who need them because they are dirty too.

Prasad also does love him some straw men:

Moreover, doctors who say “vaccines save lives” ‘all vaccines are safe and effective” are usually idiots. They haven’t studied the topic or even thought about it for 1 second. Some vaccines are vital. Some are debatable, and some were net harmful (mrna for young men during covid). Vaccines are like drugs. We need better evidence.

Notice the conflation? Sure, lots of doctors say, “Vaccines save lives,” because as a group, in particular, the CDC-recommended schedule and the evidence-based schedules of other countries, vaccines do save lives—a lot of lives. This can be true, even if not all vaccines are safe and effective. The reason is that vaccines that aren’t safe and effective tend to fall rapidly out of usage, if they make it into the recommended vaccine schedules of various nations at all. As for the straw man I’m hard pressed to find an evidence-based doctor who would ever say that all vaccines are safe and effective. Seriously, I challenge Dr. Prasad to point me to a direct quote from a legitimate vaccine advocate, scientist, researcher, or physician stating that “all vaccines are safe and effective.” He’s set fire to a straw man large enough for the glow to be seen by the crew of the International Space Station as they orbit overhead.

Next up, Dr. Prasad can’t resist Prasading again and going all EBM fundamentalist on us once again to undermine the childhood vaccination schedule. Behold this gem:

A simple way to answer definitively which childhood immunization schedule is best is a cluster RCT in the USA. Randomize different provinces or states or counties to different schedules. This would allow to assess for even additive or combined side effects, a claim that vaccine hesitant folks have made for years. RFK Jr. should do this.

Really, Dr. Prasad? It’s just that easy? How could it be that vaccine experts were so stupid and clueless not to have thought of such an obvious trial? Tell you what: Why don’t you write up an outline of a protocol to describe just how you would go about randomizing different states (or counties within states) to different vaccine schedules? Besides this whole approach being unethical given that, through many epidemiological studies and other lines of evidence, we already know that the current vaccine schedule is safe and effective, is Dr. Prasad unaware that the CDC can’t order individual states to do anything with respect to their vaccine schedules. The CDC advises; the states decide whether to use the CDC-recommended schedule or not. It is obviously true that nearly all states do use the CDC-recommended schedule, but they don’t have to. Think about it, though. How would Dave Weldon (assuming he’s confirmed as CDC Director) and/or RFK Jr. persuade individual states to subject themselves to whatever randomization process that Dr. Prasad—or an RFK Jr. sycophant, toady, or lackey like him—might come up with? Some red states would likely object to being randomized to a schedule with more vaccines or vaccines given earlier; some blue states would likely object to being randomized to a schedule with fewer and later vaccines.

It should be quite obvious that Dr. Prasad’s proposal is deeply unserious and that, unless he’s an utter ignoramus, surely he must know it. It’s just there to fool the rubes. Of course, he can always prove me wrong. He can write a detailed abstract or summary of his proposed trial on his Substack describing exactly how such a trial would be carried out, complete with statistical justification and power calculations. I suspect, however, that he will not. It’s far easier to sound scientifically profound by proposing a vague, likely incredibly expensive and definitely unfeasible, “cluster randomization” trial at the state or county level that will never be done. Of course, such a trial is not meant ever to be done. It’s meant to cast fear, uncertainty, and doubt on the childhood vaccine schedule.

As for what is the “correct” schedule, there is no one single “correct schedule”! Indeed, let me quote a debate that I discussed once before in which reasons why different countries might choose different schedules, reasons that are entirely science- and evidence-based, but also have to take into account local considerations, are discussed.

In Europe and the US:

In nearly every jurisdiction, decisions regarding vaccine schedules are made by formal advisory bodies consisting of experienced practitioners, public health officials, vaccinologists, and epidemiologists. Available data are reviewed, burden of disease assessed, and practical considerations for vaccine delivery evaluated to produce an appropriate schedule for each country. Thus, expert advisory bodies may develop differing recommended schedules, based on local, regional, or national considerations. For example, the second dose of MMR vaccine is routinely given in Germany at 15-23 months of age, while in the US it is administered at 4 to 6 years. Strong trial generated evidence shows that two doses separated by at least 28 days and the first dose administered on or after the first birthday will produce measles immunity in 99% or more of people. The timing of the second dose varies in each country based on the ability to provide the earliest possible second dose that will minimise the burden of measles. Ongoing surveillance of measles cases ensures that the timing of doses remains appropriate to the epidemiology of disease.

In contrast, in Africa:

Consider also the primary vaccination schedule for infants. The EPI schedule recommends immunisation at 6, 10, and 14 weeks in central Africa based on the early burden of vaccine preventable diseases and the need for efficient vaccine delivery when infants are most accessible. In contrast, the primary schedule in North America and much of Europe is 2, 4, and 6 months; in these populations, the lower risk of acquisition of many infectious diseases and better access to care permit vaccination to be incorporated into established well child visits through the first six months of life.

So in other words, it’s important in Africa to get children fully immunized as early as is practical because they are more at risk, which might result in a different schedule because African babies aren’t available for well child visits at 2, 4, and 6 months. These are the sorts of local considerations that result in differences in vaccine schedules, even though all the public health officials responsible for producing these vaccine schedules are looking at more or less the same scientific evidence. Antivaccine warriors never seem to understand that and try to paint any differences in vaccine schedules between nations as evidence of how “unscientific” the process is. This is, of course, nonsense. It is no more unscientific than science-based medicine. The process of selecting vaccines and deciding upon their best timing is a process that is based in science, but this isn’t a perfect world, which means it can’t be based only in science. Other considerations, as I have discussed, come into play and are inextricably linked to the science. The overall goal is to produce the most scientifically rigorous and defensible vaccine schedule possible given the other constraints that impact the decision-making process and the prevalence of specific vaccine-preventable diseases in the countries deciding on a vaccine schedule.

Dr. Prasad, being the EBM fundamentalist that he is, thinks that there must be only one “correct” vaccination schedule and that variability is a sign of the vaccine schedule being unscientific. It’s bullshit, again, deeply unserious and ignorant.

Much of the rest of the post consists of examples where countries do things differently than we do. One is fluoridation:

I am working on a longer essay describing the evidence for fluoride on caries and the papers that claim a decline in cognitive function, but here is the litmus test. Germany, Norway and Sweden don’t put fluoride in water.

Again, we can debate the policy, but it is not conspiracy theory.

Notice that Dr. Prasad neglects to mention things in that Wikipedia article that he cites. For example, while Germany doesn’t fluoridate its public water, it does encourage the use of fluoride toothpaste, as well as fluoride tablets and mouthwashes. Moreover, it fluoridates its salt. In Norway, the Norwegian Directorate of Health has stated that there is no need for water fluoridation due to the low prevalence of dental caries and the availability of fluoride through other means, such as toothpaste and professional dental treatments. Ditto Sweden, which also encourages fluoride tablets, toothpaste, and mouthwashes. To say that these countries “don’t fluoridate their water” without mentioning that they get fluoride to their children and adults by other means is profoundly deceptive. Moreover, as Steve Novella recently discussed and Grant Ritchey discussed din 2015, water fluoridation is safe and effective for preventing dental caries, and most of the objections to it from people like RFK Jr. are conspiracy theories. Not all countries fluoridate their water, but most advanced countries recognize the importance of fluoride when it comes to dental health. Moreover, as he kisses RFK Jr.’s behind, Dr. Prasad surely must know that RFK Jr. is not objecting to water fluoridation based on science or a desire to change strategy and start fluoridating salt or encouraging fluoride tabs or pastes. He’s doing it because he incorrectly views it as poison.

A couple more examples speed by:

Banning pesticides

Some pesticides that RFK Jr wants to ban are banned in the European Union.

Food additives

Some food additives that RFK Jr wants to ban are banned in Europe.

He also goes on about raw milk, which increases the risk of foodborne illness, arguing that because other countries allow the sale of raw milk, RFK Jr. isn’t a nutjub for proposing it. That’s nice. Again, ask yourself this: Are RFK Jr.’s concerns about these issues based in science? For example, he demonizes glyphosate, incorrectly blaming it for the obesity epidemic based on really, really bad science. Does Dr. Prasad think that science is sound? Maybe he isn’t as science- and evidence-based as he proclaims himself to be ad nauseam.

Much of the rest of the post trots out Dr. Prasad’s standard deceptive attacks on masking children, COVID-19 vaccines, and the like, topics I’ve discussed many times before. The only thing that he mentions that RFK Jr. supports that might be worth a conversation is finding a way to slow or minimize the revolving door between the FDA and pharma. Unfortunately, with RFK Jr., you can’t discuss the few reasonable ideas that he has and reforms that he supports without being buried in the antivax conspiracy theories and pseudoscience. It’s the whole package, and if Dr. Prasad thinks he can pick and choose, he’s even more deluded than RFK Jr.

He must be, to write something like this to conclude his post:

Just because another nation does it differently does not mean they are correct. That’s true, but it does mean, it is not a crazy idea to discuss it. The media is covering RFK Jr. poorly and unfairly. They resort to appeal to authority and— just like for COVID19— they seem incapable of asking what is happening in other countries. My simple rule makes sense. If other nations are doing it, we should be able to discuss it, and RFK Jr should not be called a conspiracy theorist for holding that view.

This take seems reasonable, but only if you ignore everything about the last 20 years of RFK Jr.’s antivax activism and conspiracy mongering, as well as his two-decade history of being rabidly antivax and pro-quackery. It’s not just enough to point to “the way other countries do it” to justify a policy. You have to look at the reasons for the policy, and that’s where RFK Jr. reveals himself to be an antivax conspiracy mongered and quack.

But at least Dr. Prasad was willing to state, wimpily, that RFK Jr. is wrong about MMR causing autism. Small victories, I guess, although I rather suspect that, given the chance for a government position under RFK Jr. and the attendant power and grift that come with it, Dr. Prasad would soon enough start to have “doubts” about the evidence showing no link between MMR and autism. He is, above all, an influencer captured by his audience, as well as a flagrant opportunist.

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

61 replies on “A self-proclaimed EBM expert rushes to kiss RFK Jr.’s conspiracy-spewing posterior”

There is another factor to consider w.r.t. different countries’ vaccination schedules. Certain diseases are endemic in some areas but not in others. In South Africa, we use B.C.G. against tuberculosis as it is a real problem here. Would Prasad then say that the US also put B.C.G. on its vaccine schedule? I doubt it. TB is not as much a problem there.

And yet another thing is money. Over here HPV vaccine was for many years not on vaccine schedule, only “recommended” because all vaccines on the vaccine schedule are available free for any child – and HPV vaccine is quite expensive. Meningococcus vaccine is still only “recommended” – but at least the pneumococcal one has been added to the schedule.
And don’t even get me started on the cost of Shingrix, which, because it is aimed at adults, will always be only recommended.

I could add that people who should know better have tried to politicize science and spread doubt about scientific facts, because they don’t fit their political agenda.

Politics always comes first, and conservative politics has drawn more and more of the public to the anti-vax side because evidence, reason and honesty are anathema.

Idw, Senate, and Matt, I sense your frustrations. Whether by ignorance or influenced by bad actors, the public is just not listening to your alarm bells about the danger to public health that Trump and Kennedy pose. The people won’t allow you to save them.

Maybe it’s time to say screw them! Let them learn the had way. Yeah yeah yeah, some innocent people might also get hurt; yet, maybe if more of those ‘innocent’ folks had not stayed home and voted for Harris instead we would’ve all been in a better predicament. When I say ‘all’, that includes pharma.

@Fred Robert Kennedy Jr has not even started, so he cannot hae damaged public health yet

RFK Jr. has not started as Secretary, and may never be appointed, but he had already damaged public health by, for decades, promoting anti-vaccine misinformation and working directly to put children at risk.

You realize high marks means 47% think he’s a good choice, according to your article?

This is more “most of the nominees are horrible and people who don’t know Kennedy think he might be least worse than a Russian Asset in National Security” thing, not a ringing endorsement.

Dunno, Dorit. Let’s put things in perspective:

After his election pledge to tear down the establishment, Trump won with an electoral college landslide, winning all the swing states. He also won the popular vote. Heck, his victory saw all states shifting red over the last election. Trump then goes on to make his cabinet picks and Kennedy turns out to be his most popular.

Dorit, considering the preceeding points, I think it’s fair to conclude that the voters are loving Kennedy. The Senators, especially Republican ones, are likely noting this and considering that it would be extremely foolhardy to upset their constituency and the President-elect by torpedoing Kennedy’s confirmation.

Dorit, I am thinking you guys will need to put the defamation in turbo drive to sway the public and the Senators against Kennedy. Just calling him an antivaxx loon and rehashing some of his crazy antics isn’t cutting it. Seriously, are there no pictures of Kennedy drowning kittens. Maybe you should consider photoshopping some. Just my two cents.

There is no point in engaging a serial liar. He just blusters and lies again. You might as well try debating a chair leg.

Chris, is that also your suggested line of inquiry for the upcoming Hearing? Looks like I might not be so far off with my parody

OK, let’s try this again using specifics. Chris, we are told that the vaccine-autism studies in children are robust and exhaustive, completely debunking the claim of a link. Kennedy counters and argues that only one vaccine, MMR, and vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, have ever been studied for their role in autism. I know of another study that looked at antigens, but that’s not really a vaccine ingredient or vaccine. Chris, is Kennedy’s claim correct, and, if not, can you kindly cite any study that contradicts it?

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/vaccines-and-autism-is-the-science-really-settled/

Robert Kennedy Jr has been pro abortion, at least until now. GOP senators would press him on this

I’ve been thinking about this. His longtime pro-abortion stance might very well be what tanks his nomination. Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the thing that sinks RFK Jr.’s nomination was his support for choice, rather than his antivax activism and nuttery?

I don’t think so either, but I’ll take what I can get if I can get it.

After his election pledge to tear down the establishment, Trump won with an electoral college landslide, winning all the swing states. He also won the popular vote.

As has been pointed out, Trump’s victory was not a “landslide.” He didn’t even manage to win a majority of the popular vote, and he only beat Kamala Harris by around 1.5%. As for his Electoral College victory, even that is one of the lower margin EC victories in recent history, hardly impressive.

Yes, there was a shift to Trump, but because the country has been so closely divided it didn’t take that much of a shift for Trump to eke out a victory.

Also a factor was almost three million voters blocked from voting, many for trying to vote while black. BBC journalist Greg Palast has tracked this for over two decades, without the Democratic leadership daring to do much about the problem. Of course, if the suppression was aimed at a genuine landslide for the D’s it wouldn’t change the national result. (One of many reasons I’m independent, not a D.) http://www.gregpalast.com Palast’s new documentary Vigilantes Inc. is focused on suppression in Georgia. Highest recommendations. Maybe if there are future historians examining the fall of the American Empire they will be able to include this as one of the many factors.

Oh man, I see Trump’s margin of victory is a real sore point here. OK, maybe it wasn’t quite a landslide and Harris did well to come in a close second. She shouldn’t hang her head. Consider also all the candidates she beat in the Democratic primaries to even get the nod. Wait! Nevermind.

OK, we can keep supporting our guys and trade insults and ad-homs back and forth but where does it get us? With Kennedy’s nomination, why don’t we ever get a comprehensive take on his full vaccination stance? Sure we hear criticisms of his thimerosal argument and even charges about his role in the Samoa measles outbreak, but that’s pretty much it! What about his bigger arguments that vaccines are not properly tested and the vaccine-autism science is incomplete?

Funny, Kennedy has repeatedly challenged his fiercest critics (I am looking at you Offit and Hotez) to open public debates on such matters, but they always refuse. This is the reason I am relishing the prospect of a Confirmation hearing; his critics will be forced to step up to the plate. Will they? Is their trepidation behind the obsession to fry Kennedy in the media before the Hearing?

Oh man, I see Trump’s margin of victory is a real sore point here. OK, maybe it wasn’t quite a landslide and Harris did well to come in a close second.

Oh man, I see that our pointing out that Trump’s margin of victory was nowhere near the “landslide” that you proclaimed it to be is a sore point with you. Too bad, so sad…

“Funny, Kennedy has repeatedly challenged his fiercest critics (I am looking at you Offit and Hotez) to open public debates on such matters,”

There is no point in engaging a serial liar. He just blusters and lies again. You might as well try debating a chair leg.

What about his bigger arguments that vaccines are not properly tested and the vaccine-autism science is incomplete?

He doesn’t have any valid arguments for either of those since the data and years of research are against him on both. If you’re trying to imply that nobody is currently testing vaccine — you’re as dishonest as junior and the rest of the no-nothing anti-vaxx folks. (That’s been the indication of all your posts, so nothing new there.)

Fred What if Robert Kennedy lies during the debate ? How do you do a fact check during a debate ? This applies to all participants, of course.

Fred What if Robert Kennedy lies during the debate ? How do you do a fact check during a debate ? This applies to all participants, of course.

Supeona experts to rebut his ‘lies’. I have a feeling though that Kennedy might actually be the one bringing experts to defend his ‘lies’.

Also, how does you providing a MMR study satisfy my request for a non-MMR or thimerosal study? Chris also didn’t bother to answer. Actually, I am not disappointed at all and was fully anticipating that you would fail the request.

https://www.einpresswire.com/article/535022586/following-ican-lawsuit-cdc-removes-claim-vaccines-do-not-cause-autism-from-its-website

PS: The CDC still claims that ‘vaccines’ do not cause autism, but Bigtree’s exposition also stands.

“Also, how does you providing a MMR study satisfy my request for a non-MMR or thimerosal study? Chris also didn’t bother to answer.”

I did, but it is in moderation. Basically I said that JD Handley is an unqualified joke who has been mentioned on this blog often (try using the search function at the top of this page). Plus vaccines have nothing to do with autism.

And I listed a bunch of studies that showed the genetic cause for many types of autism (which is not one neurological condition but hundreds, just like cancer). Here you go (using “autism genetics spark” in PubMed):
PMID: 33004838
PMID: 39138864
PMID: 38958063
PMID: 36841830
PMID: 31452935
PMID: 36350923
PMID: 33874999
PMID: 34328611
PMID: 29420931

I would hope Orac that when you sit down with your handlers from big Pharma who wave subtly and maybe not so subtly grant money in your face that you ponder the concept of Noble corruption. You know what you are doing is wrong, unfair, biased, and ultimately unpersuasive to all but your toadies. Yet it serves a greater cause. To energize your militant base. You are not convincing anyone. If anything you are predictable too predictable to convince anyone of anything. We get it, you don’t like Trump. What a surprise!

Anti-vaccine activists really like to imagine that those calling out misinformation are paid by Pharma to do so, while ignoring the fact that their leaders are directly paid for their work promoting anti-vaccine misinformation.

I guess it helps make them feel righteous, even if it’s as false as their rest of what their leaders feed them.

Fred Actually read the study
Danish population registries were used to link information on MMR vaccination, autism diagnoses, other childhood vaccines, sibling history of autism, and autism risk factors to children in the cohort.

“ Dorit, I am thinking you guys will need to put the defamation…”

Defamation? You need a dictionary. Stating facts about his stance and what he’s said isn’t defamation.

Did you notice that Trump nominated many people from Wall Street ? Your definition of establishment seems to be “everyone who actually know something”.

“After his election pledge to tear down the establishment, Trump won with an electoral college landslide, winning all the swing states. He also won the popular vote.”

As noted, he barely won the popular vote, and it is still less than 50%. Since a confirmed felon barely won against an extremely qualified woman of color proves the USA is still a misogynist racist country.

Do enjoy your much more expensive produce from Mexico. Starting in January fresh fruits and veggies will be 25% more expensive.

What parody?

Questions I would ask would include:

Please outline your medical education?

Please list your PubMed indexed studies.

Which vaccine is good and useful?

What can you tell us about the Belmont Report?

He also goes on about raw milk, which increases the risk of foodborne illness, arguing that because other countries allow the sale of raw milk, RFK Jr. isn’t a nutjub for proposing it

If RFK Jr can guarantee the same level of testing and hygiene that I expect we see inthose European countries then maybe he has a point. The last time I looked, I believe the sale of raw milk was illegal in all provinces in Canada, which country did not appear in his table.

In Canada and the USA I believe ~50% of chicken flocks will have some salmonella infection. We refrigerate eggs to help prevent infection. In the EU it looks like more stringent hygiene standards means that flocks are salmonella free and eggs tend not to be refrigerated.

Dr. Prasad needs to get out more.

Talking about eggs, there is one more reason for the differences. In the US, eggs are washed (the idea was that it makes them more hygienic), which actually removes a protective layer from the egg and then you need to refrigerate it or it goes bad very quickly.

I only wash them when they have poop on them. 😅
I think they keep well in the fridge even if washed but I put washed ones in separate cartons and use first. I only have six chickens so that works for me. All my eggs are much fresher than anything from the store and mine are truly free range.

Anti-vaxxers love to say the vaccine schedule should not be “one-size fits all” and then ignore or (as here w/ Prasad) misrepresent the fact that globally the vaccine schedule is not one-size-fits all. They just make sh*t up.

IKR? Prasad acts as if there is only One True Evidence-Based Vaccine Schedule, when in fact there’s a reason (actually many) why different countries have different vaccine schedules and those differences don’t make the schedules any less evidence-based. They take into account disease risk and burden locally, for instance, as well as how the healthcare system in the country works.

This in my view is in fact part of the mindset of anti-vaxxers that they owe nothing to the rest of society. For many vaccines to work at protecting the vulnerable most people need to be vaccinated.

Of course if you don’t have the facts on your side, you are compelled to make things up or change your stance.

In a clear case of FAFO, the Pathetic Paramedic, Harry Fisher, has announced that he’s been fired from his job, in part for his social media spewings (Harry is notorious for interrogating patients and family on emergency runs as to patients’ Covid vaccination status, and blaming the vaccine for all sorts of bad stuff).

Another martyred prophet. So sad.

More from the land of MA-ha-ha: Pierre Kory and A MIdwestern Doctor reveal the horrors of treating high blood pressure. Pierre on Twitter:

“We have it backwards! High BP is a symptom not a cause of arterial damage. Did you know:
•There’s no evidence aggressively lowering blood pressure saves lives
•BP meds have a lot of side effects—including death
@MidwesternDoc’s article is mind blowing”

Truly, these wackaloons have to keep coming up with ever more outrageously stupid stuff to hold the attention of their devotees/subscribers.

I am very happy about the appointment of Jay Bhattacharya. He is an honest man, never sold vitamins or endorsed viral pandemic emergency kits, a true scholar and a gentleman. Also a diverse hire, an immigrant and a well published academic. Jay is the best appointment so far and Gaetz was the worst

“ He is an honest man, never sold vitamins or endorsed viral pandemic emergency kits, a true scholar and a gentleman. ”

You have no clue of the meanings of honest (we already knew that from your comment history), scholar, or gentleman.

There is something to be said for the old aphorism that you are known by the company you keep.

Being anti-vaccine adjacent is really no better than being anti-vaccine.

By the same logic, most of the country is “extreme far right” to you, and you are sometimes wondering why the people seem so reluctant to answer your insistent questioning on how they voted in the last election

LOL.

I know you have written some seriously stupid posts in the past, but this one is right up there. It is full of assumptions on your part that have no evidence to support them.

However, to put your mind at rest, I have not asked anyone how they voted in the last election or, indeed, any other election. It is not something I do.

Indeed. There’s an old joke that applies: You know what they call a table with five people including one fascist sitting at it? A table with five fascists sitting at it.

I was just thinking… Science is catching up with my opinions. Soon after January 20, 2025 my thoughts will be solidly backed by science. Being pro-science, like I always was, will be exciting again

Unless you’ve changed them science is not catching up with your opinions, and in your posting history here your comments have shown you to be as far from pro-science as can be imagined.

No, your thoughts will be backed up by Trump/Kennedy/quack science. A regime change does not change the actual science.

Science always evolves. A regime change will expose shortcomings in the old science and will usher in new, evidence based science. The humanity will mightily benefit.

Yes, science does evolve. The bullshit you believe, however, is not science based: it’s based on denying whatever the current science says.

I’m curious about the ‘revolving door’ between the FDA and Big Pharma. I hear this a lot. But it is really a concern, or just a good sound byte?

I know in some situations, you want to make sure that there isn’t even the appearance of a conflict of interest. For example, authors of a study will state what could be a potential conflict of interest, just to make sure they are up front about it.

But for employees and appointees of the FDA, is that the same standard we are looking for? People should be hired that are competent to hold the position. People who have familiarity with the subject matter are likely to be working in the industry. These are people would know the subject matter and would know how pharmaceutical companies operate and know about pharmaceutical research.

People who are appointed to the USPTO are going to be intellectual property lawyers. And they are going to have represented clients that apply for patents. That doesn’t mean there are conflicts of interest. They are merely the group of people that have subject matter expertise and experience.

And these people are done working at the FDA, where else are they going to work? You could say that these people can’t work for a pharmaceutical company for X months/years after working at the FDA, but that wouldn’t quell the suspicion (they can just say that these people are getting paid off so much that X months/years doesn’t matter). In the private section, the analogous thing would be like a non-compete agreement. But these are generally considered bad things.

It’s easy to say there shouldn’t be a revolving door. But the real-world is not so simple. Where are you going to find people that are qualified in the subject matter and willing to take the job?

And, on the other hand, why are people that are concerned about bias towards pharmaceutical companies unconcerned about stacking the FDA with bias against pharmaceutical companies?

“And, on the other hand, why are people that are concerned about bias towards pharmaceutical companies unconcerned about stacking the FDA with bias against pharmaceutical companies?”

I guess one answer would be “it depends.” The purpose of the FDA is to protect US citizens from adulterated food (read Deborah Blum’s book “The Poison Squad”) and dangerous medical devises including pharmaceuticals.

For the later, read Orac’s tribute to a long time FDA employee: https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2015/08/10/a-tribute-to-dr-frances-oldham-kelsey-a-woman-who-made-a-difference/

<

blockquote>I’m curious about the ‘revolving door’ between the FDA and Big Pharma. I hear this a lot. But it is really a concern, or just a good sound byte?</ blockquote>

It is mostly a good sound bite. It also makes things look bad.

The reality is quite different. The FDA and pharmaceutical companies are in fact competing for people with the same skill set and, as you indicate below, people with the right skill set who leave one organisation will be snapped up by the other. Pharmaceutical companies have ups and downs depending on how many new products they are bringing to market, so employment always has a level of uncertainty. People move between pharmaceutical companies all the time, but the people who are complaining about the “revolving door” never complain about that.

There are lots of pharmaceutical companies competing with each other, so the idea that they would all get together to undermine the regulator for a single company’s benefit is nonsense. What turns this into a conspiracy theory is the component that assumes when people change jobs, they maintain full loyalty to their previous employer, who is no longer paying them. As someone who has worked for the Australian Government, the US Government, a US University and now an Australian University I know this is not high on the priority list when I changed jobs.

And, on the other hand, why are people that are concerned about bias towards pharmaceutical companies unconcerned about stacking the FDA with bias against pharmaceutical companies?

Mostly because these people have an ideological objective. Therefore, decisions that support their ideology are correct and those that go against their ideology are wrong. Therefore, a regulator that banned the things they are opposed to and approved the things they support would, in their view, be perfect. A lot of ideological arguments are not internally consistent, because they are not based on evidence, but on wishes.

Regarding the HPV vaccine, “The subtext, of course, is that those “dirty vaccines” should be reserved for people who need them because they are dirty too.”
There is another possible subtext, which is that the “dirty” people deserve to suffer, and by removing the consequences for “immoral” behavior we are encouraging it. It would not be the first time that somebody believed sex or a particular kind of sex is supposed to be punished with STIs.

Yes, I’m back.
Here are a few points I’d like to make as part of my reentry:
1) If vaccines don’t work, as per RFK the Lesser, why am I one of the youngest Americans you will encounter who contracted poliomyelits right here in the big city? Hint – I was born during the last major polio outbreak, just before the vaccine went into widespread use.
2) Vaccines cause autism? I am autistic, but had no vaccines in early childhood. They didn’t exist.
3) Anthony Fauci is a f**king hero, the only public voice in the Reagan administration who spoke up for my HIV patients when I was treating them.
4) Dr Oz is an out and out quack, full stop.
5) The rest of the HHS prospects are a bunch of medical/scientific lightweights, at best.
6) “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” – H.L. Mencken. To which I might add “the knowledge” and “the kindness”.
7) Where does “Make America healthy AGAIN” come from? I’m over 70 and I can’t remember a time when America was healthier than it is now. Tobacco, alcohol, lead paint, big marbled cuts of meat, lots of pesticides, salads derided as ‘rabbit food’, coal smoke, dirty auto exhaust, leaded gasoline….
Orac, I’ve been away from this comments section too long. I kind of miss Greg though.

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from RESPECTFUL INSOLENCE

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading