Yes, that's one scandal, from one person. It has nothing to do with Vinay Prasad, certainly nothing to do with the CDC, and whatever you think of the administration, connecting this event to "everything else" is political hackery.
How is it political hackery? There is a clear pattern of this administration appointing inept leadership to public health positions. The article is not C-SPAN dry, but it's not New York Post hackery either.
It's an article about a single corrupt individual. Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first.
I don't care what your opinions are of the administration. This is crappy journalism. I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan.
I don’t think these are ad hominem attacks. The article seems to just state the (perhaps biased) facts: people are calling it a clown show, Prasad was ousted, Prasad did gain popularity on social media as a COVID-skeptic. It doesn’t become an ad hominem just because you don’t like the way the facts are stated or the inferences your own brain makes.
Not "people" -- a single, unnamed, VC. It's right there in the article. Read it.
> Prasad was ousted
No, he wasn't. He voluntarily resigned pre-emptively after the WSJ editorials, then he was re-hired almost immediately. You are just misinformed. You'd know this if you read a better source.
>> Instead of just reporting the facts of the case (as was done by the Stat piece, which they're ripping off) they spend multiple paragraphs making ad hominem attacks about the CDC, Prasad, etc. Almost unbelievably, they put those things first.
Touché. I shouldn't have said "ad hominem attacks", because, while these arguments are certainly specious, and completely unrelated to the subject of the article, they're not strictly ad hominem.
I agree with your comment that my criticism is (and was) biased reporting.
> I'm even willing to entertain the notion that this is representative of a systematic staffing problem -- but not when the reporting is so obviously, viciously partisan.
I'm even willing to admit that water might be wet, but not when someone is standing in a swimming pool splashing it around.
What about the nearly everyone else in the administration that is also a blatantly corrupt, unqualified, and incompetent bootlicker, many of which are even self described Nazis?
I'm a scientist that works closely with the federal government granting agencies that fund my research. People I had interacted with were extremely competent and professional for decades under both Republicans and Democrats, and most of them have been purged and replaced with completely unqualified loyalists. This is unprecedented and a marked departure from the past.
I am at NIH so same… and while everything seems unprecendented these days it is really not. elections have consequences and there isn’t more proof than 2024. but sun will rise in the morning, we’ll vote in 2026 and 2028 and those elections will also have (hopefully different) consequences…
