Dr. Prasad made a number of important points, including emphasizing the folly of the prolonged pandemic-related school closures, the questionable wisdom of vaccine mandates, and the unfortunate failure of vaccine manufacturers to study important aspects of their efficacy. However, his presentation seemed distorted and one-sided, Listing …
Dr. Prasad made a number of important points, including emphasizing the folly of the prolonged pandemic-related school closures, the questionable wisdom of vaccine mandates, and the unfortunate failure of vaccine manufacturers to study important aspects of their efficacy. However, his presentation seemed distorted and one-sided, Listing just a few examples:
1: Yes, the FBI and DOE believe (with moderate-low confidence) that Covid originated from lab escape, but the majority of the intelligence community believe that Covid came from a wild source, as does the large majority of the virology community.
2: Lack of statistical proof in several studies that masks were effective for reducing Covid spread does not prove that masks were NOT effective. In fact, there's strong empirical evidence for their efficacy, and Prasad's discounting of mechanistic reasoning (masks certainly block most virus-containing particles) seems disingenuous.
3: Collins and Fauci made several mistakes early in the pandemic, but treating them as criminals seems borderline dishonest. Arguing that as head of NIAID Fauci was inherently protected from criticism by virologists is quite a stretch; does Prasad really believe that a peer-reviewed grant proposal would be disqualified from funding because Fauci got mad at the investigator?
In summary, Prasad came off as a fluent debater, not primarily a seeker of truth, though when challenged by Mounk about specific events or facts, he provided accurate information.
Dr. Prasad made a number of important points, including emphasizing the folly of the prolonged pandemic-related school closures, the questionable wisdom of vaccine mandates, and the unfortunate failure of vaccine manufacturers to study important aspects of their efficacy. However, his presentation seemed distorted and one-sided, Listing just a few examples:
1: Yes, the FBI and DOE believe (with moderate-low confidence) that Covid originated from lab escape, but the majority of the intelligence community believe that Covid came from a wild source, as does the large majority of the virology community.
2: Lack of statistical proof in several studies that masks were effective for reducing Covid spread does not prove that masks were NOT effective. In fact, there's strong empirical evidence for their efficacy, and Prasad's discounting of mechanistic reasoning (masks certainly block most virus-containing particles) seems disingenuous.
3: Collins and Fauci made several mistakes early in the pandemic, but treating them as criminals seems borderline dishonest. Arguing that as head of NIAID Fauci was inherently protected from criticism by virologists is quite a stretch; does Prasad really believe that a peer-reviewed grant proposal would be disqualified from funding because Fauci got mad at the investigator?
In summary, Prasad came off as a fluent debater, not primarily a seeker of truth, though when challenged by Mounk about specific events or facts, he provided accurate information.