Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 173 posts

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#41

Post by dogmatism »

epistasis wrote: post #22
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not the type that would usually violate tenure How can one tell whether he has tenure?

For normal research universities, like UCSF, the titles of Professor and Associate Professors have tenure. Assistant Professors are tenure-track, meaning that they have the chance to get tenure. Prasad has the title of Professor.

One can make the argument that Prasad has his title of Professor due to the stature he gained with his ill-founded contrarianism and subsequent notoriety. He was promoted in 2022 at the somewhat astonishing age of 39, at a time when his actual scientific output was not particularly high

The whole thing is kind of fascinating. Some of his "skeptic" fellow travelers like Cifu and Mandrola still carry water for him. Presumably he has a champion in Bob Wachter who also likes to fly the "contrarian" flag.

COVID really brought out a lot of crazies from UCSF and Stanford

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#42

Post by dogmatism »

epistasis wrote: post #17
Zhenya wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious why you claim he’s a fraud, I just learned about him from this thread.

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 s…

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.

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#43

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

nfw2 wrote: post #29
epistasis wrote: post #4

The subversion of scientific expertise to replace it with podcasters and political sycophants is one of the biggest disasters of the current years. The very concept of merit has been destroyed and replaced with judgement calls on celebrity (necessary for leadership role) and subservience to the political whims of the last 15 minutes (and you had better switch in the next 15 minutes or you're out).

One thing that's particularly frustrating about all this is that any conversation with the growing contingency of distrustful people has been made very difficult by what I would call poor, avoidable, and illiberal decisions made by the federal government during COVID. (TBF, decisions during a crisis are always hard.) Lab leak theory was dismissed and actively suppressed. Inflated claims were made a priori about absol…

Having lived through it myself, I found the government’s actions extremely mild when compared to something like what ICE has been up to. Zero people were directly killed by authorities because of Covid noncompliance.

From my perspective, it’s hysteria borne out of the difference in requirements for urban health policy vs. rural health policy, and the fact that rural people quite often travel through urban areas (e.g. airports).

Talk to anyone from Wyoming and ask what Covid was like during the worst days, and then talk to an ER doctor who worked in New York City.

Cynically, I want to blame it on the absurd lack of empathy of rural Americans and a complete lack of ability to imagine day-to-day lifestyles that do not match their own.

Were there a few scandals? For sure, I will not deny that. But I have the distinct urge to invent time travel for the hemmers, hawers, and devil’s advocates and transport them to New York Presbyterian in April of 2020.

Edit: I also have to credit rightwing media, of course, for capitalizing on the opportunity to manufacture a wedge issue that every American had an armchair opinion of. Chicken and egg, of course, but media ghouls will be media ghouls.

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#45

Post by baggachipz »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #3

Sounds like at least one step toward putting science back in charge.

> While unanimous support from the advisors is a positive sign for the vaccine’s fate, the FDA ultimately decides whether to grant approval. The agency has set a deadline for a decision by August 5.

They'll just ban it again. Science got a temporary victory but I predict it won't matter.

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#46

Post by shusaku »

comrade1234 wrote: post #5

Is this the one that's a flu/Covid combo? I live in Europe and have been looking forward to it - especially since the flu part covers way more variants than traditionally - no longer a need to depend on flawed predictions as to what variants will be predominant. Also no longer a need for two sore arms.

Interesting. I wonder if the variant limits us now capped by how much you can pack in the vaccine, or how good a on the body does priming for a bunch of stuff at once.

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#47

Post by chrsw »

baggachipz wrote: post #45
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #3

Sounds like at least one step toward putting science back in charge.

> While unanimous support from the advisors is a positive sign for the vaccine’s fate, the FDA ultimately decides whether to grant approval. The agency has set a deadline for a decision by August 5. They'll just ban it again. Science got a temporary victory but I predict it won't matter.

It won't. Many people here in the US don't believe in science any more and they definitely think mRNA technology is some kind of conspiracy.

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#48

Post by aussieguy1234 »

thecompilr wrote: post #37
aussieguy1234 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That might be true for some of them, but unfortunately I know a few anti vaxxers who also happen to be atheists. They just believe all the various conspiracy theories about vaccines.

If you were able to trace some of these conspiracy theories to their source, you'd find some of these religious folks behind them. Any category of person could potentially fall for them, including atheists.

Re: FDA advisors unanimously vote to approve Moderna's mRNA after agency drama

#49

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

nfw2 wrote: post #29
epistasis wrote: post #4

The subversion of scientific expertise to replace it with podcasters and political sycophants is one of the biggest disasters of the current years. The very concept of merit has been destroyed and replaced with judgement calls on celebrity (necessary for leadership role) and subservience to the political whims of the last 15 minutes (and you had better switch in the next 15 minutes or you're out).

One thing that's particularly frustrating about all this is that any conversation with the growing contingency of distrustful people has been made very difficult by what I would call poor, avoidable, and illiberal decisions made by the federal government during COVID. (TBF, decisions during a crisis are always hard.) Lab leak theory was dismissed and actively suppressed. Inflated claims were made a priori about absol…

There are many people who say they view any sort of paternalistic behavior with suspicion. But one obvious example of paternalistic behavior would be banning vaccines that people want to receive based on vague concerns of unproven harm. An even better example might be creating a site called realfood.gov, instructing the American people that only some kinds of food are "real" and you should ideally only eat "real" food.

So if someone says they oppose paternalism in public health and yet supports the Trump administration's public health efforts, I'm not sure how to avoid the conclusion that they're lying.

Post reply on HN