Episode 285 - What RFK Jr. Gets Right/Wrong About Vaccines (w/ Dr. Vinay Prasad)

Prasad agrees with RFK that vaccine manufacturers should be liable for alleged harms. The rationale for that prohibition (as I understand it, at least, correct me if I'm wrong), is that there are so many people willing to bring slapp-style lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers that no company will have a financial incentive to manufacture vaccines, which is bad if you think vaccines are important. This is why I can't stand Prasad. He speaks with confidence and authority and a Bay-Area-esque kumbaya charm but has very few actual good ideas to contribute. At best, I don't learn anything when I listen to him, and at worst I am misinformed by him. If you agree with him that the no-fault compensation program should be dismantled and vaccine manufacturers should be liable for alleged harms, you're in effect saying you don't want there to be any affordable, widely distributed vaccines. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, @Debunk_the_funk, by contrast, does a great job of responding to this and RFK's (and Prasad's) other bad ideas. Too bad he wasn't on the guest radar.

Jonathan Levin

Robert can you please link the Gardasil study with the 2.3% figure? I've looked for it but I only find the one that shows both arms with a 2.3% increase: Gardasil as well as "AAHS Control or Saline Placebo". I figure there is something fishy about combining AAHS and saline placebo at that level of analysis.. why not separate them out?? Maybe there is a follow-up that I'm missing.

Love your answer. You are much more articulate in your review of this epi, than any comments I've seen so far! Peace.

A few things about this guest. 1) Prasad speaks too often with authority that is unearned. He has a weak knowledge base when it comes to covid and vaccines in general. He is an oncologist; like RFK Jr., he is a tourist in the fields of virology and immunology and vaccines. Unlike RFK Jr., however, Prasad is not well read on that science. Or very curious about what he doesn't know. 2) He claims to be a centrist on questions of science, which is meaningless. Advocate for the truth and stop sitting on (political) fences. 3) He is a hypocrite. He trumpets evidence-based medicine (that is, RCTs as the scientific gold standard), but is confident enough in poorly designed, nonrandomized observational studies--studies without proper controls--to have them stand as authoritative proof that vaccines are not linked to a host of bad health outcomes. Autism is but one of those outcomes. Gardasil, by the way, was, as Prasad said, the one vaccine that was tested against a saline placebo. 2.3 percent of the Gardasil arm got autoimmune disorders after taking the vaccine. NONE did in the placebo arm. Does he know this? Is he ignorant or is he dishonest? 4) He refuses to submit his ideas to criticism, preferring to style himself a self-anointed Fact Checker of the Month for hire. RFK JR. politely asked Prasad to discuss the errors in that wretched fact check article Brie briefly mentioned; Prasad didn't have the decency to reply to that invitation. 4) Prasad consorts with and gives cover to venal sophists like Paul Offit. He should be fact checking that liar full-time. (Read The Real Anthony Fauci to get a vivid sense of who Offit really is.) 5) Prasad shamelessly says, over and over again, that RFK Jr. is "actually" right about some things, "surprisingly," he says. As though we should care that Prasad "sympathizes" with some points or that RFK Jr. "deserves credit" sometimes. Why is he surprised to hear the truth? What does it say about Prasad that he so slimily and haughtily concedes in this way to facts, and does so so reluctantly?

Sister Brie darlingest, as an admitted metal illiterate, I must say today's outro slayed and slayed! It also accurately presaged the tenor of the listener comments, ringing through my head as I read them!! Your outros are sheer genius! Keep the faith...

Great job by Brie, doing substantial homework and moving this conversation forward productively despite some omissions. Dr. Prasad is much more fair-minded than most vax promoters, but on many issues seems to lazily default to his instinctive desire to find middle ground, even where he could easily do more detailed research that would rebut some of the generalities which he instinctively resorts to. One example: Nigeria is far from the only example of correlation between Ivermectin use and low Covid 19 mortality. In numerous African countries, and several Indian states, Ivermectin distribution was the most obvious variable, among relatively similar populations, which displayed hugely different signals in Covid 19 mortality. Another example: on RFJ Jr’s comment on Ivermectin trials, Pierre Kory (who can only be labelled “Right-Wing” in the post-hoc fabricated way that is alleged of Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi) has published an entire book detailing “designed to fail” tactics, including the fact that all those tactics did not succeed in erasing Ivermectin’s benefit, but merely in reducing it below the arbitrary threshold of 95% likelihood (which itself was narrowed by means of suppressing the numbers of patients enrolled). More broadly, Dr. Prasad’s putting the “burden of proof” on RFK Jr. and like-minded critics, seems wrong to me. After millennia of our highly complex immune systems having co-evolved with viruses, why shouldn’t the burden of proof be borne by the people who have ever-more intensively amassed money and power by means of re-designing these immune systems ever-more abruptly. Most broadly, in a political context, now that so many lies have been exposed, and so much money has been not only sucked out by Big Pharma, but also reinvested in “incentivizing” public health authorities and researchers, it seems very naïve: 1. to use so much gentle-cum-neutral language to characterize the people who have made non-optimal policy choices, and 2. to imply that better trials and safety monitoring can be established without seizing power from those people.

Does anyone care to explain to me in simple terms why people don't like this guest ?

I think she probably did because he might be one of the only “big” doctors to be willing to even discuss this. BJG is human too and she is so smart. This should be a place to discuss and hopefully make things clearer. I don’t think RFK is a good faith person. But his views need to be dealt with because a lot of people have them and how can we explain what we are advocating if we don’t even understand what he’s saying. I’m just saying she could have picked another doctor to analyze this. This guy seems ableist. To me, not shutting down for some time would have been nuts. For older folks. And adults in general!

Kimi Ramos

I totally agree that this was a great episode. It is really refreshing to hear these issues be addressed in a way that is reasonable, open minded, intelligent, etc. and not super polarized and politicized, which makes arguments from either side seem biased and suspect. That kinda shit is super frustrating and annoying. And, since trump anyway, been the primary strategy for voices from either side of the duopoly and their lapdog mouthpieces in the media. Way to go with another awesome episode, B! You have been totally crushing it!! As clever as the song title for the outro music was...Nu metal? Really? Ugh.....

For sure. I'm logging on to unsubscribe. This guy has proven himself dangerous and deceptive. Why go to him about RFKs claims? Just foolish and I'm out.

Corn Slurry

I am also of the "more seasoned" end of the listening pool. Seems we are outnumbered by those who buy whatever the Govt Approved Science gods are selling. Peace.

None of these "Experts" will debate RFK Jr. face to face. They prefer to attack without anyone opposing them. Why is that?

I think this is another instance of your contrarian instincts getting the better of you.

Eric

When the Youtube gets released, you can share it. Even though it's an unlisted video people can still watch it if you link it

Michael Martin

I really respect you. You obviously have so much integrity and hold yourself to such high standards to take a look at all sides of issues that I’m sure take so much energy. He has a very well thought out explanation of this “controversy”. He is controversial himself, in terms of school shut downs and masking. As one of your older folk listeners, I find him really ableist and I wonder who else might be feeling this and just bristling. Keep the faith!🙏🏼

Kimi Ramos

Can you please make this episode free?? I would really like to send this to some family members who are very anti-vax. And i feel like this is a great bridge between where they are , and where science is

Thanks for a sane reasonable conversation. Brie kills it with the outro music every episode

A great interview! Cancelling RFK Jr only enhances the image that he is a renegade truth-seeker being victimized by the dominant woke establishment. However if he is engaged as Prof. Prasad suggests then his claims can be refuted accordingly. RFK Jr himself has on multiple occasions stated that if someone shows him evidence that he has a wrong view on something then he will reconsider his position. Whether this is true can be tested easily. But the lack of response to the offer of Joe Rogan about a debate on his platform on RFK JR's claims is a clear indication that leading figures on the Left who purport to be pro-science and accuse him of falsehoods are actually just engaging in moral posturing.

Nathan Ngumi