Keynote cancelled

[jimbogumbo]

https://www.thefp.com/p/disinvited-from-medical-conference

[dismalist]

Same as with the Anthros and anybody else: Found a new organization. Competition enlivens the discussion.

[Wahoo Redux]

Hmmm...I sampled his articles linked in his editorial.  They certainly swayed against scientific advice as I understand it.  It seems like he might be one of those contrarians who will always find a way to challenge the dominant paradigm, and he does not give much leniency for other scientists who were negotiating the sudden onset of the pandemic, but I did not see anything overwhelmingly alarming or prejudicial in his stuff.

I wonder if we have any biologists or medical faculty who could shed some light?   

[marshwiggle]

Hmmm...I sampled his articles linked in his editorial.  They certainly swayed against scientific advice as I understand it.  It seems like he might be one of those contrarians who will always find a way to challenge the dominant paradigm, and he does not give much leniency for other scientists who were negotiating the sudden onset of the pandemic, but I did not see anything overwhelmingly alarming or prejudicial in his stuff.

I wonder if we have any biologists or medical faculty who could shed some light?   

But wasn't his scheduled talk completely unrelated to covid? That was my impression, although I stand to be corrected. I'm pro-vaccine, and was in favour of lockdowns, mask mandates, etc., and have seen lots of annoying anti-vaxxers, but that doesn't matter if they're talking about some other topic where they have specific expertise. The fact is, all of us have our hobby horses, but generally have lots of other topics which we can discuss quite rationally.

[Puget]

Hmmm...I sampled his articles linked in his editorial.  They certainly swayed against scientific advice as I understand it.  It seems like he might be one of those contrarians who will always find a way to challenge the dominant paradigm, and he does not give much leniency for other scientists who were negotiating the sudden onset of the pandemic, but I did not see anything overwhelmingly alarming or prejudicial in his stuff.

I wonder if we have any biologists or medical faculty who could shed some light?   

But wasn't his scheduled talk completely unrelated to covid? That was my impression, although I stand to be corrected. I'm pro-vaccine, and was in favour of lockdowns, mask mandates, etc., and have seen lots of annoying anti-vaxxers, but that doesn't matter if they're talking about some other topic where they have specific expertise. The fact is, all of us have our hobby horses, but generally have lots of other topics which we can discuss quite rationally.

Really? You'd trust a doctor who was extremely wrong about an area of medical science to be right about another area of medical science? Sure, MDs are somewhat specialized, but the level of out of touch with the evidence that this guy was/is should make anyone question his basic scientific reasoning skills and judgment.

[apl68]

Hmmm...I sampled his articles linked in his editorial.  They certainly swayed against scientific advice as I understand it.  It seems like he might be one of those contrarians who will always find a way to challenge the dominant paradigm, and he does not give much leniency for other scientists who were negotiating the sudden onset of the pandemic, but I did not see anything overwhelmingly alarming or prejudicial in his stuff.

I wonder if we have any biologists or medical faculty who could shed some light?   

But wasn't his scheduled talk completely unrelated to covid? That was my impression, although I stand to be corrected. I'm pro-vaccine, and was in favour of lockdowns, mask mandates, etc., and have seen lots of annoying anti-vaxxers, but that doesn't matter if they're talking about some other topic where they have specific expertise. The fact is, all of us have our hobby horses, but generally have lots of other topics which we can discuss quite rationally.

Really? You'd trust a doctor who was extremely wrong about an area of medical science to be right about another area of medical science? Sure, MDs are somewhat specialized, but the level of out of touch with the evidence that this guy was/is should make anyone question his basic scientific reasoning skills and judgment.

Is he really as bad as all that, though?  I don't see him advancing any conspiracy theories, or anti-vaxxing, or advocating quack remedies.  He's not in favor of most mask mandates, which do have a limited record of success. He has reservations about mandating that all school children should have two doses of the latest vaccine--not the dominant view in the U.S., but there are scientists and policymakers elsewhere who seem to share the same reservations.  Is that level of disagreement enough to cancel somebody over?

[marshwiggle]

Hmmm...I sampled his articles linked in his editorial.  They certainly swayed against scientific advice as I understand it.  It seems like he might be one of those contrarians who will always find a way to challenge the dominant paradigm, and he does not give much leniency for other scientists who were negotiating the sudden onset of the pandemic, but I did not see anything overwhelmingly alarming or prejudicial in his stuff.

I wonder if we have any biologists or medical faculty who could shed some light?   

But wasn't his scheduled talk completely unrelated to covid? That was my impression, although I stand to be corrected. I'm pro-vaccine, and was in favour of lockdowns, mask mandates, etc., and have seen lots of annoying anti-vaxxers, but that doesn't matter if they're talking about some other topic where they have specific expertise. The fact is, all of us have our hobby horses, but generally have lots of other topics which we can discuss quite rationally.

Really? You'd trust a doctor who was extremely wrong about an area of medical science to be right about another area of medical science? Sure, MDs are somewhat specialized, but the level of out of touch with the evidence that this guy was/is should make anyone question his basic scientific reasoning skills and judgment.

Is he really as bad as all that, though?  I don't see him advancing any conspiracy theories, or anti-vaxxing, or advocating quack remedies.  He's not in favor of most mask mandates, which do have a limited record of success. He has reservations about mandating that all school children should have two doses of the latest vaccine--not the dominant view in the U.S., but there are scientists and policymakers elsewhere who seem to share the same reservations.  Is that level of disagreement enough to cancel somebody over?

I've had a doctor who was obese. There are doctors who smoke. All kinds of medical professionals don't follow all of the well established "best" practices for their personal health. That doesn't make me reject their advice to me. I don't always follow all of the best practices for productivity in my professional life; that doesn't mean I have no value as an instructor.

Jesus isn't doing any speaking engagements right now, so we're pretty much out of luck at having only perfect people deliver them.

[kaysixteen]

Yes, but there is a diff between being 'perfect', vs being a real *or perceived* vaccinidiot.   One can hardly fault a med conference for not wanting to be associated with such a doc.

[Wahoo Redux]

Yes, but there is a diff between being 'perfect', vs being a real *or perceived* vaccinidiot.   One can hardly fault a med conference for not wanting to be associated with such a doc.

It's a little bit like the American Anthropology Association cancelling a panel of questionable scientific merit.

[secundem_artem]

I followed some of this discussion on Twitter and was generally aware of Prasad's position/reputation.  And I'm a former member of the organization that withdrew his invitation.

What all of this boils down to is that Prasad's positions on many/most of the recommendations related to the Covid pandemic fly in the face of what most members of the sponsoring organization believe to be good clinical/public health practice.

Bringing Prasad to that organization would be about the same as having Salt Bae be the keynoter at a Vegan conference.

And for those who just want to have a debate - I don't know that a keynoter is the way to do that.  I've sat on panels which were specifically set up to have a debate.  That may have been a better way to do this.

Personally, I think Prasad is just another physician on the grift making money from being deliberately controversial and hiding under an academic position.  Anybody remember Dr. Oz?  Oprah's favorite quack?

[marshwiggle]

I followed some of this discussion on Twitter and was generally aware of Prasad's position/reputation.  And I'm a former member of the organization that withdrew his invitation.

What all of this boils down to is that Prasad's positions on many/most of the recommendations related to the Covid pandemic fly in the face of what most members of the sponsoring organization believe to be good clinical/public health practice.

Bringing Prasad to that organization would be about the same as having Salt Bae be the keynoter at a Vegan conference.

And for those who just want to have a debate - I don't know that a keynoter is the way to do that.  I've sat on panels which were specifically set up to have a debate.  That may have been a better way to do this.

If this was the case, (and if the anthro panel was a similar one), how is it that all of these conference organizing committees are made up predominantly of rebels who want to use the conferences to raise these unpopular views? Wouldn't organizers typically be people with fairly mainstream beliefs and sensibilities?

[secundem_artem]

It's not quite clear from what I have read online, but it seems that the invite was a decision made by the exec director of the organization involved.  They have made it crystal clear that their board was not responsible for sending the invitation.  It seems it was the rank and file membership who lost their merde over the invitation and the board acceded to their wishes.  I think the exec has some 'splainin to do.