78 Comments

Keep up the exposure. You are a much better journalist than any in the MSM.

Expand full comment

I testified before legislative committees (state and federal) and quickly learned that everything is for show. The idea that lawmaking bodies are genuinely interested in facts or truth is utterly false. Everything is rigged by special interests long before disinterested academics appear. Plus, the lawmakers are often too ignorant to learn from what we have to say. They read little and do so solely for the purpose of finding things that support their side or undermine their opponents' position.

Expand full comment

FDA, CDC and all other government alphabet agencies have been compromised.

Expand full comment

No kidding ?

Expand full comment

THANK YOU for standing up, for speaking up, and for sharing it widely, especially when official channels are so corrupted and untrustworthy.

Expand full comment

Thank you for your efforts to combat the inadequacies - and outright failures!- in our current system! I appreciate you and all the information you provide us.

Expand full comment

Hate to say it, but defund the FDA & CDC too.

Expand full comment

And the WHO. And don't sign that accord!

Expand full comment

I no longer hate to say it. We would all be better off besides saving the money.

Expand full comment

I agree with your analysis, in this specific case and likely many others. But one point is missing from your discussion: why are other physicians not speaking out in instances where the results of a trial or trials are insufficient to support claims of efficacy and/or safety, or when unvalidated surrogate end-points are adopted? And why would reputable physicians prescribe such inadequately tested drugs for their patients.

Expand full comment

Because most physicians are not trained to understand and evaluate the evidence underlying evidence-based medicine, none of them have the time to evaluate it, and all are terrified of practising the art as well as science of medicine, and will simply follow the latest treatment guidelines to the letter rather than thinking about whether an alternative would be more effective, or might have fewer side effects for their patients. The latter is not made easier by the number of lawyers desperate to take every doctor to court, and telling the judge that the patient's problem was caused by a slight departure from the American Association of Bought Expert Doctors latest treatment guideline.

Expand full comment

Most physician training in wrt to critical thinking and evaluation of the literature is inadequate, especially for generalists who certainly do not have the time to stay current with the entire medical literature. But the situation is, or should be different for specialists who have undergone many additional years of training and who treat a limited number of diseases, with and equally limited number of drugs. Shouldn't specialists, for example in hematology/oncology, be more able to comprehend the literature and select medications and procedures for their patients based on the evidence for their safety and efficacy? If not, what benefit do these specialists provide to society or their patients? While all of the points you have made regarding the inordinate burdens placed on physicians under the current system are valid, you seem to be absolving all doctors of responsibility for the present state of affairs.

Expand full comment

It is the specialists who are most in hock to the treatment guidelines trap. GPs can keep a patient on the same old medicine for 20 years, and if it works for them, why not?

Expand full comment

Have you ever worked in healthcare?

Expand full comment

20 years in pharma, clinical research, FWIW.

Your move.

Expand full comment

So not in patient care, dealing directly with providers taking care of patients. I did that for 28 years, and didn’t experience specialists being more beholden to treatment guidelines than primary care providers. Stan W is right.

Doctors should be able to think for themselves. Not all of them do. It depends on the doctor.

Specialists were more likely to want to try the latest thing, use medications off label, or in ways not consistent with guidelines.

Expand full comment

why did reputable physicians prescribe (and in fact demand) mRNA vaccines that were trialed for 2 months before the control group was obliterated?

Expand full comment

Because the AMA, a lobbying group, discredits them. How many Docs have tried to speak up in the last few years?

Expand full comment

Hi Vinay. Now you understand my frustration of speaking at FDA ad com meetings for 20 years. Members of public get 3-5 mins and most of the OPH speakers are some how affiliated to astroturf patient/disease awareness groups including the “patients” from their clinic trials. Of course, it’s only the successful ones and not those who dropped out. There is absolutely no interest in debate from a different point of view.

Today I am Consumer Rep on Psychopharmacologic Drugs Ad Com - and am often lone vote. Safety is NOT a priority and is often an afterthought or committee thinks it will get dealt with in post-market or with a REMs program.

I just presented at Wash U about the FDA ad com process and how FDA approval does not guarantee safety or efficacy using Rexulti antipsychotic for Alzheimer’s agitation. I was only NO vote and all but two public speakers supported approval despite the horrible data and double death rates. It is often Public Citizen and National Center for Health Research that offer a critical perspective.

Here’s my link to Rexulti FDA Ad com vote

Expand full comment

Thank you for the time and energy you invest in protecting us from our government and big pharma.

Expand full comment

You and all of us know that is NOT their goal.

Their goal is to ensure that they get lucrative paying jobs once they leave government with the pharmaceutical industry and they retire very rich.

Expand full comment

That is just the tip of the iceberg.

Gates wants 90 % of us dead.

Expand full comment

Thank you Dr. Prasad for your integrity, and your reporting. You are an important voice on the right side of history.

Expand full comment

thank you for taking time to do this even though nothing came of it, it is important that it is on the record, unless they are jiggering that too. the problem is not a scientific or medical one, but instead one of politics and greed. most if not all federal agencies are captured by those they are meant to regulate and seem shameless in their indulgence of industry, there needs to be a real shock to the system and a thorough housecleaning

Expand full comment

Dr Prasad,

Maybe 90% of the US population do not have any idea about what you are trying to say.

Expand full comment

And as long as they are getting a paycheck , going on vacations , and living in their cozy environments, they don’t even want to know

Expand full comment

You worry they are beholden to Big Pharma? The FDA and Big Pharma are a revolving door. And they wonder why no one trusts them???

Did they follow their own rules during Covid and allow Docs to repurpose drugs?? NOPE They and the AMA discredited them. There were "alternatives" and they knew that. Should have NEVER been EUA for jabs. At least some of us woke up. Sadly there are a lot that are still asleep!!

Expand full comment

Yes they actually prefer being asleep and are not receptive to any evidence to the contrary of their dreams.

Expand full comment

The YT link is worth watching. -very well stated counterposition. Given the imminent approval by the FDA, this will be yet another reason to distrust our supposed drug regulators. Look forward to another rise in insurance costs.

Expand full comment

Why bother with health insurance ?

The medical profession is out to make us sick so they can profit.

You have to be a sadist if you want to work in hospital, where 250,000 people die "accidentally" each year.

Expand full comment

Deja Vu...All Over again.... Isn't this EXACTLY what they did with mRNA (that basically did not work). mRNA did not give you immunity (maybe your immune system was boosted for a month or so) did not stop transmission (did not stop the spread). "they" say it made any infection less intense but my understanding ( sorry I'm an economist not an MD) is there are no clinical studies supporting that assertion. So 'they' ( don' cha' love the pronouns??) approved mRNA as a VACCINE by changing the definition of vaccine to 'somethin that created an immune response' rather than something that actually gives you immunity! That's a much lower hurdle - and a much less effective one. And we were locked up waiting for that to be approved and then Joe Biden who said he would NEVER make a vaccine mandate ( And some say Trump lies?) made it mandatory- or his FDA did. - basically the same thing. Fauci endorsed this whole process even knowing he had failed to make a vaccine for HIV. He still pushed for lockdowns until there was a vaccine. Why push to lock down people until there is a vaccine if you are an expert and know vaccines are hard to develop and that developing one might not be possible? The answer is ( seems to be) because you cheat. Fauci endorsed the Big Cheat changing the definition of a vaccine then knowing the hurdle was low and for that reason the vaccine likely would not be as effective as a 'real 'old rules' vaccine. But he promoted it and also endorsed draconian rules for forcing us ALL to get vaccinated. So this is arepeat of all that absurdity.

Since they did it once, they want to do it again. Approve something that creates a physiological response even thought that response is not sufficient to be life saving. It is sufficient to be check cashing promoting...excellent.

You may also recall some Mayor out West I believe who 'learned from the pandemic' and called the killing spree in the area a 'Public Health Crisis' and tried to use the pretext of a health crisis to impose rules usually not enforceable if there is not a medical crisis. This mayor wanted to use the pretext of a killing spree as a health crisis to impound the guns of all the people in that community. Fortunately the courts struck that one down. But make no mistake about it. Covid set a variety of precedents that we may yet see people 'uniquely' enforcing.

This particular Drug gambit is, as Artee Johnson (old SNL) might say...very interesting, but stupid.

.

Expand full comment

Scary to think that lowering standards is every a good thing. Also the FDA should be shut down as they are biased and do not want negative comments and all panel members should be cleared to have no financial incentive which clearly many do. Thank you Vinay for your continuing efforts.

Expand full comment

What else is new? They are captured along with most other agencies. Who do I trust? It certainly will never be FDA. I choose to listen to people like you when it comes to health questions and advice. Why do many automatically assume that the "experts" know what they are talking about rather than questioning a procedure and/or a product's safety and efficacy? We know in the long run letting someone else do our homework results in ignorance and reprehensible bowing down to "experts" who haven't put the well being of humankind first on their list.

Expand full comment