44 Comments

As a Democrat, will you still vote for Harris? Remember when she was hesitant about the Trump vaccine, then changed her mind after Biden was installed? Science! Imagine how “my body my choice” lefties would have reacted if Trump mandated the jabs. Congrats to Fauci for getting COVID a third time after six boosters.

Expand full comment

What are you talking about? I'm not a huge Kamala fan, but she received her first dose of the vaccine in 2020, well before Biden was "installed" (whatever that means).

Regulatory agencies did delay the covid vaccine, which is definitely an area where one could arguably criticize their actions. Politicians take cues from medical authorities (which yes, can be captured by politics as well).

Expand full comment

She publicly, on camera, said I don't trust what Trump came up with. And this is from Politico, no less.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/05/kamala-harris-trump-coronavirus-vaccine-409320

Expand full comment

Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris said she wouldn’t take President Donald Trump’s word on the reliability of any coronavirus vaccine released before the election. “I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump” on the reliability of a vaccine, Harris said. The California senator, however, added that she would trust a “credible” source who could vouch that a vaccine was safe for Americans to receive.

read the article.....sort of a reasonable statement to make when Trump pretended the virus didn't exist/was going to suddenly disappear and was regularly contradicting doctors

Expand full comment

What are you talking about? Do your homework. When Trump was president, Kamala said in a debate, “But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it [the vaccine]. I’m not taking it.”

#WeBelieveInScience

Expand full comment

And she didn’t receive her first vaccine until after Biden was elected.

Expand full comment

the vaccine wasn't authorized until Biden was elected.....

Expand full comment

Kamala undermined trust in the vaccine when it suited her politically.

Expand full comment

she undermined trust in Trump (rightfully so, as he had been making spurious claims about the pandemic that were completely detached from reality throughout the entire year), while simultaneously saying she would take the vaccine if medical authorities issued such guidance

Expand full comment

Do you even read the article you post? 'If the public health professionals, if Dr. [Anthony] Fauci, if the doctors tell us that we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely,” Harris said during the live debate in Salt Lake City, when she was asked if Americans should take a vaccine, if the Trump administration were to approve one either before or after the election. “But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it. I’m not taking it.”'

Expand full comment

Can you read? She said she won’t take it if Donald Trump says to take it. It’s not like Trump was personally developing the vaccine.

It doesn’t get much more anti-science than that.

(As if Fauci was a reliable source)

Expand full comment

I'm not sure how to answer this post because you seem to be willfully ignoring the reality, here. Given Trump's obvious detachment from science (see his repeated assertions that covid would disappear throughout 2020) and political interest in seeing the vaccine pushed out, there was a concern on her part that the vaccine would be pushed out without proper evaluation (of course, this didn't happen).

These concerns are not so different than those which you probably voice about the booster approvals under the Biden administration...(except in this case there would ostensibly be no substantial original data on the primary series).

Expand full comment

Personally I doubt if most of the big fish got anything more than a photo op, let alone a risky injection.

Expand full comment

I wish the media would look into the details of this because I am genuinely curious which it is:

1) Everyone who works for the Harris campaign comes from the small fraction of people who got the latest booster.

2) They are not actually enforcing this at all.

3) They are ostensibly enforcing it but treating the original series and/or any booster as "up to date" even though it's not.

I can't tell which is worse. But I think (3) is most likely, and probably the worst (as it represents both ignorance AND virtue signaling at the same time.)

Expand full comment
Aug 20Edited

I'm also going with #3 for the reasons you noted, and because this campaign wrongly assumes that anyone who opted out of all covid shots is a MAGA fascist and unsuitable for employment within the Harris regime. So it's a litmus test.

Expand full comment

Good point

Expand full comment

The American people seem to have forgotten the fact that they DID NOT vote for Harris, she was appointed by the “party “! She was selected and the Democratic Party has absolutely broken the constitutional system for the election of a candidate!!! Scientific “consensus “ has abandoned the scientific principles and instead uses fear and propaganda to justify their lies! This is simply another way to control the American people and very dangerous for us all!

Keep up the good fight Vinay!

Expand full comment

Dr Prasad, it’s the CDC’s fault not other organizations following medical advice. You need to go after the CDC…the root of the misinformation

Expand full comment

Keep up Vinay-both Scientific American and Nature have told us because her mother was a cancer researcher she brings a “lifelong familiarity with science” to her campaign- an Econ major at Howard who went to law school. I am sure this campaign knows exactly what it is doing.

Expand full comment

Vax mandate was one of the reasons I switched my party to Republican. Another reason being social media censorship of Covid-related info by Biden administartion.

Expand full comment

"Harris administration is recommending an anti-science medical intervention"??? Forget anti-science. I would be satisfied with Anti-Bat-$hit-Crazy. It's not a high bar.

Expand full comment

Can masking be far behind ?

Expand full comment

The blog and comments are rife with controversy. Masking little kids is stupid and unhealthy. How did generations of kids grow up in the past? Natural immunity. Mandating vaccines is also unwarranted. The entire subject of vaccines should be viewed in terms of effectiveness. Highly effective -- MMR, Hepatitis, polio. To weakly protective -- flu and Covid. Nevertheless, politicizing this issue has been just as counterproductive.

Expand full comment

The powers that be have decided not to rank vaccines based on their safety and effectiveness because then people will start asking questions. So they are stuck with the untenable mantra that "ALL recommended vaccines are EQUALLY safe, effective, and necessary."

Expand full comment

Let's be honest- this is the policy of plenty of hospitals and pharmaceutical companies....why are we expecting more from our politicians? Between this and the Walz article about his irrational response to the pandemic (which was clearly guided by misguided health authorities), these observations and thoughts are tending toward frivolous "gotchas" as opposed to thoughtfully tackling meaningful issues with insight.

Expand full comment

Don't expect anyone who is already committed to care. People who are part of the DNC rainbows & genocide cult are still quarantining when they get COVID in 2024. Someone I know in a professional context that fits this bill was having Zoom dinners with their family in the other room because they picked up the 'vid on an airplane on the way home.

Social isolation is devastating to the immune system. But you know, the vaccines will save us.

Face fucking palm.

And they wonder why the medical systems are so backlogged. If you have everyone coming in for the common cold, basically, what do you expect?

Thanks to the anti-science pro-corporate insistence on a singular solution, now patients with real life threatening diseases are second to those who can help Pfizer make a quick buck with drugs that don't really do shit.

Expand full comment

I’m hoping it’s just an oversight, but in any case..... who’s gonna tell them? They’re unlikely to believe someone like me, with no scientific background. The CDC is at fault.

Expand full comment

And the point here is what? Don’t vote democratic? We are grateful for the education, but it should not be weaponized to demonize a campaign that is simply trying to get someone elected. I bet hundreds of others may be equally uninformed. She’s running for president, not chief scientist. Finally, if VP is so picky about facts, get them straight. There is no “Harris administration”. This is from her campaign, not her position as president or VP. Bottom line, who cares?

Expand full comment

How about a recent vasectomy or an abortion? Maybe I can hit one of the portable clinics on my way to the DNC (thank goodness I have an ID to gain permission to get behind those walls!).

Expand full comment

Sad, but true.

Expand full comment

I am disappointed that Vinay may be a proponent of Trump. It appears that he is deciding to vote for Trump due to a single issue, not the aggregate. I believe in research that has good data and is well analyzed. I totally agree that a significant portion of studies published in medical journals are flawed resulting in hurting our population, as Vinay has pointed out on multiple occasions. I commend him. But there are also many studies that are done well and have helped our patients. I see little discussion on those papers in this series. As a researcher who works with several well known researchers, I believe in the effectiveness of the COVID and flu vaccines. Which sectors of the US population get a booster and how often is still being investigated. Experts differ in their opinions. Given the existing research, that is to be expected.

Expand full comment

Whoa, you don’t know who Vinay is voting for, just as you don’t know who I am voting for. Critiquing or criticizing policy views don’t dictate the lever pull. There are people who disagree or agree with policy on either side but that does not make them Maga or socialist. Neither does discussing it because it’s the discussion that is most important.

After watching the first night of the DNC convention (I did watch parts of the RNC as well) I came away more frustrated by the out right lying and memory holing of Biden Harris on COVID policy. Their non evidence policy was more anti-democratic than anything Trump is accused of. Unjustified mandates, closing businesses, massive handouts that have left us with inflation. These were glossed over and inflation passed off as corporate greed. Inflation is too much money chasing after too few goods. The trillions released by the admin added to this. It’s not just the B-H COVID non science that has tainted my view of Dems (and the GOP) it’s everything else they push as they pander to voters: all the money for giving and forgiving. That comes from somewhere.

Expand full comment

I am as massive a critic of the covid policies enacted over the past 4 years as anyone, but more anti-democratic than attempting to steal an election? Let's try to be serious, here.

Inflation is the result of the pandemic and not constrained to political actions taken by the US (or by the democrats....Joe Biden didn't take over until January 2021, you may remember).

VPs focus on the left regarding these critiques is only natural, at least in its nascence, as they have been in control for the past 4 years and the overwhelmingly regulatory and policy malfeasance has transpired under their auspices / is associated with the political leanings of the left. I would not expect that VP would vote for Trump based on his general sensibilities, though he has seemingly become a bit hyper-focused on covid policies because they intersect with his interests (while in reality and in general there is a much greater wealth of anti-science rhetoric and policy on the right than the left).

Expand full comment

Milton Friedman has said something very simple and powerful (paraphrasing): "Our total burden of taxation in any year is not what we pay IRS etc. It is what the government spends."

Because all that government spending will be paid by taxpayers sooner or later, directly (via taxes) or indirectly (via inflation).

Expand full comment

I said may. I bet he doesn't tell us who he voted for. I would not in his position.

Expand full comment

Who cares who he votes for? I dont. I want to have policy discussions. End.

Expand full comment

I agree. I wish VP had not brought it up.

Expand full comment

Just a reminder: There *is* a third person running in this race no matter how much the media refuse to mention it. RFK Jr.

But Vinay is in California. It doesn't matter at all who he votes for or even if he votes. Unless RFK Jr. manages an upset in Cali, it's going to go for the Dems. It always does. So he *should* criticize the Dems if he wants to have any sway in future elections because it's the only way to sway who's on the ticket before the election happens.

Expand full comment

Every time I read or hear the words “I believe” and “experts”, my skin crawls. ‘Nuf said.

Expand full comment

I am not at all disappointed in Vinay. Vinay speaks about healthcare issues, and is very qualified to do so. If those issues are important to him, as is the poor handling of the COVID times, and that is what influences his vote, then I am all for it. I am guessing that you have not read any of his papers or listened to any of his YouTube posts. I would like to see your information on the effectiveness of flu vaccines as well as COVID vaccines so that we can compare it to Vinay's evidence.

Expand full comment

I am an avid follower of VP. I work with many in the Open Science movement to improve the scientific rigor of studies in biomedical journals. As a scientist I believe you can look at the methodology of studies that concluded pro and con for the vaccines. If you have not been educated to analyze data, perhaps you can ask a colleague who has. I love that VP is teaching this audience how to evaluate research methods. Of course, it is very complicated and he cannot go into the "weeds" nor is he one an internationally recognized economist who does. That economist is a perfectionist. He has educated me, but I have a lot to learn. Sigh.

Expand full comment

“As a researcher who works with several well known researchers, I believe in the effectiveness of the COVID and flu vaccines”

Can you explain why, other than that you work with well-known researchers?

Have you or anyone else studied cumulative outcomes after 45 years of annual flu vaccines?

Expand full comment

Great question Dr. X. There is a saying among physicians: "A good physician knows his limitations. A really good physician knows WHO to ask for help." I practiced frontline medicine for 35 years. It is only in the last 10 years that I began my second career in health policy with a focus on patient safety. I am not an epidemiologist. Don't trust my analysis of the research on vaccinations. I was fortunate to get a well known economist to be the senior economist on my research projects. I have learned a great deal from him. But I will never be the expert methodologist that he is. I trust researchers, like him, whose studies have been validated by further good studies or by replication/reassessment studies. Research by John Ioannidis, MD has stood the test of time. It has been evaluated by other highly regarded methodologists over decades. He is one of the most cited scientists in the world . He is a leader in the Open Science Movement. I recommend you google him to see what he thinks of the research on COVID and flu vaccines. He is not omniscient. When there is no existing good data that is well analyzed that answers a specific question, I am sure he has made some incorrect hypothesis. But when new good research comes in, I have seen him change his opinion. He is not arrogant. I trust him and others like him more than I trust me or scientists whose research has not been validated.

Expand full comment