Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag
Dr. Prasad was named by Marty Makary, the Food and Drug Administration commissioner, as head of the agency's biologics division in May, and last month as its chief medical and scientific officer. More on why he was tapped to these posts later. But it isn't an exaggeration to say that Dr. Prasad wields more power than Anthony Fauci ever did at the National Institutes of Health.
Vinay Prasad.
Like Dr. Fauci, Dr. Prasad thinks he knows what's best for people, and that it's government's job to make it happen. 'I favor a strong regulatory state,' he proudly professes. And just as Dr. Fauci slowed experimental HIV treatments during the 1980s by rigidly adhering to strict trial protocols, Dr. Prasad is now scuttling potentially life-saving therapies.
In recent weeks, the FDA has rejected three therapies for debilitating diseases that have shown promise in clinical trials. The agency has also forced off the market a gene therapy that can slow the degenerative loss of muscular function in young boys with certain genetic mutations. Behold America's strong and arbitrary regulatory state at work.
If you read Dr. Prasad's paper—or follow his smash-mouth Substack and X.com feeds—the FDA's recent actions are no surprise. Dr. Prasad has long criticized the FDA for approving too many treatments that, in his view, provide only marginal benefits. He's also lambasted President Trump's first-term 'right to try' law, which lets terminally ill patients try experimental drugs not yet approved by the FDA.
'It is crucial to question whether non-curative therapies . . . are worth it,' Dr. Prasad wrote in a 2021 paper about an FDA-approved cell therapy for multiple myeloma. The therapy reduced disease progression or death by half in patients with advanced cancers who hadn't responded to already approved therapies. Impressive.
But Dr. Prasad complained that the treatment was pricey (then $419,500 for a course) and may 'only delay inevitable progression' in some patients. In other words, sick patients should just give up and die. Got that?
In 2016 he wrote an op-ed titled 'The case for rationing: Why we should limit public spending on cancer drugs.' He exalted the United Kingdom's socialized health system for restricting access to new treatments until they demonstrate a high degree of efficacy in multiple trials and that their benefits—as determined by the government—exceed their costs.
Such government rationing is why survival rates for hard-to-treat cancers are much lower in the U.K. than in America—and why British patients with the financial means cross the pond to receive innovative and often life-saving treatments. Tough luck to Brits of average means.
Of course, Dr. Prasad insists he really has patients' best interests at heart. Why would terminally ill patients want to waste their precious remaining time on earth schlepping to hospitals for treatments that may not cure them when they could be preparing for their deaths?
That's the gist of his 2022 paper, which estimated patients with advanced cancers spend 16 more hours a month accessing and receiving novel treatments than if they accepted hospice or home palliative care. 'Time is a valuable resource for people who have cancer,' the paper noted. Yes, and that's why they want to continue living.
He has also argued that 'genome-informed cancer medicine'—treatments targeted based on a patient's genes or tumor mutations—'is mostly hype,' no matter that such treatments have produced most recent improvements in cancer survival.
Take CAR T-Cell therapies that re-engineer a patient's immune cells to target proteins on tumor cells. Such therapies can cure aggressive cancers that not long ago carried a death sentence, though Dr. Prasad has hyped their side effects. He has done the same for Sarepta Therapeutics' Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene therapy, which the agency this month forced off the market after two patients in the advanced stages of the disease died from apparent side effects.
The deaths look to have been a pretext for Dr. Prasad to deep-six the drug, which he had previously criticized as too costly for its benefits. Most treatments carry rare, life-threatening side effects, but doctors and patients can weigh their risks against their benefits. Perhaps Dr. Prasad doesn't trust people to do so any more than Dr. Fauci did.
Dr. Prasad found common cause with Dr. Makary and conservatives in opposing paternalistic Covid policies including vaccine mandates and school shutdowns. But his other positions are at odds with Dr. Makary's stated support for more flexible reviews of drugs that treat rare and deadly diseases and the MAHA ethos of patient empowerment.
Dr. Makary in spring 2021 lambasted the FDA for using the 'eternal excuse of safety' to pause the Johnson & Johnson Covid vaccine after a rare blood-clotting side effect cropped up, mostly in middle-aged women. 'This is a life-saving medication,' he then wrote. 'What ever happened to giving people the data and letting them make their own health decisions?'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
28 minutes ago
- Time of India
Why the Ghislaine Maxwell case still matters, even if you're tired of hearing her name
When was convicted in December 2021 for facilitating 's sex trafficking ring, the moment felt like a closing chapter. Yet, more than three years later, her story refuses to fade. In fact, it's increasingly front and center, raising questions about privilege, justice, and whether the authorities can or will ever unearth the full scope of what happened. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Accountability that must mean something Maxwell's 20‑year sentence was meant to be a decisive statement: no one, regardless of wealth or connections, is above the law. Judge Alison Nathan made that crystal clear during sentencing, saying Maxwell wasn't being punished as a stand-in for Epstein, but for her own calculated role in grooming and deceiving underage victims. Yet, her conviction has been upheld on appeal reinforcing the legitimacy of the verdict and efforts to argue that she was shielded by Epstein's 2007 plea deal have repeatedly failed. Some still say she was made a scapegoat after Epstein died, but courts haven't bought it. Ghislaine Maxwell wasn't just a side character in the Jeffrey Epstein saga, she was central to how the whole operation worked. While Epstein may have been the face of the abuse empire, Maxwell was often the one pulling the strings behind the scenes, smoothing over the ugliness with charm, British polish, and a Rolodex full of high-society connections. Born into wealth as the daughter of media mogul Robert Maxwell, Ghislaine had always been part of elite circles. After her father's mysterious death and financial scandal, she moved to New York and became a fixture in the Manhattan social scene—where she met Epstein. Their relationship started as romantic, but even after that fizzled, they remained deeply entwined both personally and professionally. Maxwell's role, according to dozens of victims and federal prosecutors, went far beyond simply being Epstein's ex. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now She was allegedly the recruiter, the groomer, and sometimes even the enforcer. Many women who came forward described her as the one who first approached them with promises of legitimate work, like massage gigs or modeling. She'd often pretend to take them under her wing, only for things to turn coercive once Epstein entered the picture. In court, she was accused of normalizing sexual abuse, manipulating girls into silence, and even participating in the acts herself. What makes it all worse is the way Maxwell used trust to gain access. She was often described as sophisticated and nurturing, someone who made victims feel safe. That false sense of security is what allowed her to facilitate a system of exploitation that allegedly spanned decades, with some victims as young as 14. In 2021, Maxwell was convicted on several charges, including sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. She's now serving a 20-year sentence. A modern history student, an Oxford graduate Ghislaine Maxwell's educational background is just as elite as the social circles she moved in. Born into privilege as the daughter of British media tycoon Robert Maxwell, she had access to some of the best schools money could buy, and she took full advantage of that early on. She started her education in the UK at Headington School, a prestigious all-girls private school in Oxford. It's the same school that counts Emma Watson (of Harry Potter fame) as an alum, so you get the idea, it's upscale, academic, and built for the well-connected. From there, Ghislaine went on to Balliol College at Oxford University, one of the oldest and most respected colleges in the world. She studied modern history and graduated with a degree in the early 1980s. Now, graduating from Oxford is no small feat, and it placed her firmly in Britain's intellectual and social elite. But like a lot of people in those upper-crust circles, her education was as much about networking as it was about knowledge. Oxford gave her connections some of which she likely drew on later when she entered high society in both the UK and the U.S. Interestingly, despite her academic background and degree in history, Maxwell didn't exactly pursue a career in academia or the public sector. She floated into her father's media empire for a while and later moved to the U.S., where her social life seemed to take center stage, especially once she connected with Jeffrey Epstein. Vaulted into relevance again Recently, Maxwell was transferred to a minimum-security federal prison camp in Texas a move her accusers condemned as preferential. Why does this matter? Because it signals she may still be negotiating with authorities. Reports say she's been questioned by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and offered testimony in exchange for clemency. That makes her a potentially powerful witness and that prospect is stoking political and legal backlash. The secrets Epstein took to his grave One of the enduring mysteries of the Epstein scandal is who else knew what and when. Maxwell, as one of only two people convicted for the criminal enterprise, may be one of the only living witnesses with real insight. Investigators and former prosecutors believe her testimony could implicate powerful figures possibly including politicians, financiers, or royalty. If she cooperates, fresh revelations may finally crack open the shadowy world Epstein and Maxwell inhabited. Why society still needs to listen Maxwell's case isn't just about one woman's crimes, it's about how society fails victims, how power shields abusers, and how complicity often looks like silence. Maxwell leveraged charm, privilege, and elite social circles to sustain exploitation and for years, her reputation shielded her behavior from scrutiny. Her fall was dramatic, but it also forces us to confront uncomfortable truths about wealth, gender, and influence. Survivors still haven't been heard fully Even now, survivors including Virginia Giuffre (who tragically passed away in April 2025) remain at the heart of this story. Families like hers argue any leniency toward Maxwell is a betrayal not just to the survivors but to the cause of justice. Giuffre's statements before she died are still some of the most powerful testimony to Maxwell's cruelty. A political flashpoint, not a closed case Now we come to the political dimension: speculation surrounds whether Donald Trump might pardon Maxwell or leverage her testimony for political gain. His MAGA allies are fueling the idea that she could expose a broader network of shared connections. Right-wing commentators portray Maxwell both as a potential whistleblower and a victim but many observers see these efforts as cynical political tactics. Why we're still talking about it If you've tuned out, here's why this case refuses to vanish: Justice isn't complete: Epstein died in custody, but Maxwell lives and could speak. Elite networks still intact: Unanswered questions remain about who else may have enabled or protected abuse. Systemic lessons: The case highlights shortcomings in policing, prosecuting, and protecting survivors. This isn't just another celebrity scandal. It's a cultural reckoning wrapped in a legal drama that keeps revealing new stakes. Whether you're exhausted by simply watching from afar, the Maxwell saga matters—not just for the past, but for how society chooses to confront privilege, power, and justice.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Free Palestine protest: WikiLeaks' Julian Assange joins thousands in march across Sydney Harbour Bridge - Zohran Mamdani shares video
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (AP) Thousands of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, marched across the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Sunday, braving heavy rain and winds, to call for an end to the war in Gaza. Assange, who returned to Australia last year following his release from British prison, was seen surrounded by family and walking alongside former Australian foreign minister and New South Wales premier Bob Carr. Assange however, did not address the crowd or speak to the media. New York City mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani took to X to share a video of the Sydney protest, stating: 'Over 300,000 people in rain marched across Sydney Harbour Bridge today in solidarity with Gaza. Israel has been exposed — and its crimes will never be forgotten.' New South Wales Police said hundreds of extra personnel had been deployed across Sydney to manage the large-scale demonstration, which drew participants chanting slogans such as 'ceasefire now' and 'free Palestine.' Australia's Labor Party MP Ed Husic also attended the rally and urged his ruling party, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, to officially recognise a Palestinian state. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Ngo Quyen: Unsold Furniture Liquidation 2024 (Prices May Surprise You) Unsold Furniture | Search Ads Learn More Undo While Australia has called for an end to the war in Gaza, it has yet to make a formal move towards recognising Palestine. However, in a joint statement with more than a dozen other nations on Tuesday, Australia expressed its 'willingness or positive consideration... to recognise the state of Palestine as an essential step towards the two-State solution.' International pressure has been mounting over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. In recent weeks, countries including France, Britain, and Canada have signalled their intention to diplomatically recognise a Palestinian state.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Why the UK's Online Safety Act is raising concerns about free speech
The enforcement of a new law to promote online safety in the United Kingdom has attracted widespread criticism from politicians, tech companies, digital rights advocacy groups, free-speech campaigners, and content creators, among others. Certain provisions of the UK's Online Safety Act (OSA) took effect on July 25. These provisions require companies behind websites that are accessible in the UK, to shield minors from harmful content including pornography and material related to self-harm, eating disorders, or suicide. It also requires them to give minors age-appropriate access to other types of content pertaining to bullying and abusive or hateful content. To comply with these provisions of the OSA and stay online in the country, platforms have implemented age verification measures to check the ages of users on their services. This includes social media platforms Reddit, Bluesky, Discord, and X; porn websites like Pornhub and YouPorn; and sites like Spotify which is also requiring users to submit face scans to access explicit content. In response, VPN apps have become the most downloaded on Apple's App Store in the UK over the past few weeks. Proton VPN experienced an 1,800 per cent spike in UK daily sign-ups, according to a report by BBC. Since the UK is one of the first major democratic countries after Australia to impose such strict content controls on tech companies, it has become a closely watched test case and might influence online safety regulation in other countries like India as well. 'Since 25th July, users in the UK have certainly experienced a different version of the internet than that they were previously used to,' Paige Collings, Senior Speech and Privacy Activist, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told The Indian Express. 'The OSA was first introduced in 2017 and politicians debated this legislation for more than four years and under four different Prime Ministers. Throughout this time, experts from across civil society, academia, and the corporate world flagged concerns about the impact of this law on both adults' and children's rights, but politicians in the UK decided to push ahead and enact one of the most contentious age verification mandates that we've seen,' she added. In an attempt to make the UK the 'safest place' in the world to be online, the Online Safety Act was signed into law in 2023. The sweeping legislation includes provisions that place the burden on social media platforms and search services to take down illegal content as well as adopt transparency and accountability measures. However, according to the British government's own website, the most stringent provisions in the OSA are aimed at enhancing the online safety of children. These provisions apply to any website that 'is likely to be accessed by children', even if the companies that own these sites are located outside the country. Companies had until April 16 to assess and determine if their websites were likely to be accessed by children based on guidance published by the Office of Communications (Ofcom), which is the regulator overseeing the implementation of OSA. The deadline for companies to complete their assessment of the risk of harm to children was July 24, 2025. Sites that fall within the scope of the Act must take steps to prevent under-18 users from seeing harmful content which is defined in three categories, as per the OSA: – Primary priority content: Pornographic content; Content which encourages, promotes or provides instructions for suicide; self-harm; or an eating disorder or behaviours associated with an eating disorder. – Priority content: bullying content; abusive or hateful content; content which depicts or encourages serious violence or injury; content which encourages dangerous stunts and challenges; and content which encourages the ingestion, inhalation or exposure to harmful substances. – Non-designated content: This is any type of content that presents a material risk of significant harm to an appreciable number of children in the UK as long as the harm does not stem from the content's potential financial impact; the safety or quality of goods featured in the content; or the way in which a service featured in the content may be performed. Online service providers in-scope of the Act can address these risks by implementing a number of measures, which includes, but is not limited to: – Robust age checks: Services must use 'highly effective age assurance to protect children from this content. If services have minimum age requirements and are not using highly effective age assurance to prevent children under that age using the service, they should assume that younger children are on their service and take appropriate steps to protect them from harm.' – Safer algorithms: Services 'will be expected to configure their algorithms to ensure children are not presented with the most harmful content and take appropriate action to protect them from other harmful content.' – Effective moderation: All services 'must have content moderation systems in place to take swift action against content harmful to children when they become aware of it.'
