FDA official demands removal of YouTube videos of himself criticizing vaccines
When YouTube notified Howard of the demand request, it included an email address for Prasad, which is identical to the email address that is linked to Prasad’s now inactive podcast, called Plenary Session.
What does "included an email address" mean exactly?
The reason I ask is that, if he did actually issue such a demand, this strikes me as wildly out of character for him. I don't know Vinay super duper well, but I've been on several multi-hour calls with him, and I have always found him to be a very thoughtful and high-integrity scientist.
It never occurred to me that he might have the hallmarks of a political operative, and certainly not a right-wing one. And he had thoughts about the nature of knowledge and the future of the internet that are consistent with what most of us here on HN observe.
Moreover, the content that was removed in this case was not anything that he'd be ashamed of; it was all fairly reasonable observations, mostly about the collateral effects of lockdown policies and the lack of a scientific framework for measuring their impact.
All of his more 'firebrand' content - especially his (IMO, warranted) criticism of Scott Gottleib and the underhanded influence of Pfizer at FDA, remain on the internet (much on his channels where, presumably if he was bothered by it, he'd remove himself).
I'd really like to know for sure that he himself issued this demand. That will be a really disappointing thing to learn.
Obviously whether it was him or just someone who put his email address on a takedown form, it's wrong for YouTube to capitulate to such a ridiculous demand.
What does "included an email address" mean exactly?
They tell you how to contact the reporter when you get a copyright strike. They encourage you to do it via a logged-in YouTube account; if you don't, there's a confirm your email step.
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807622
It never occurred to me that he might have the hallmarks of a political operative…
It's a political appointment.
It's a political appointment.
Could you try to be like, even 10% less knee-jerk partisan?
It's an appointment in the FDA (which requires actual technical knowledge) and Prasad is a well-documented member of the political left, to the point where he was recently chased out of the FDA for being on the left.
It's an appointment in the FDA…
That does not make it non-political. The FDA has both political appointees and civil service roles, just like other government agencies. https://www.opm.gov/frequently-asked-questions/political-app...
Prasad is a well-documented member of the political left
lmao
Being on Loomer's shitlist is not "documentation".
That does not make it non-political. The FDA has both political appointees and civil service roles, just like other government agencies. https://www.opm.gov/frequently-asked-questions/political-app...
OK, so which one is this position? Do you actually know?
(Google tells me that the position of CBER director is officially non-political, though since Peter Marks was forced to resign, it's now "more political than before".)
lmao
Yeah, you're not being partisan at all. I tell you that Prasad is a liberal (an extremely well-documented fact), and your response is..."lmao".
OK, so which one is this position? Do you actually know?
Yes, we do. His role is not a civil service one.
I tell you that Prasad is a liberal (an extremely well-documented fact), and your response is..."lmao".
Go on, document it.
Yes, we do. His role is not a civil service one.
Incorrect. I just looked it up. It's a civil service appointment.
Go on, document it.
He's said many, many times on his podcast(s), twitter and elsewhere that he's on the left, and that he voted for Sanders. So sure, I could dig each one of those up for you, or you could actually believe it when people on the right attack him for being a "lefist". Like this, for example:
Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/vinay-prasad-is-a-bernie-sanders...
Incorrect. I just looked it up. It's a civil service appointment.
I think you're mixing up "requires Senate confirmation" and the much broader "political appointee", but I'd welcome the cite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_...
According to the United States Office of Government Ethics, a political appointee is 'any employee who is appointed by the President, the Vice President, or agency head'.
(That'll be Makary.)
"Vinay Prasad Is a Bernie Sanders Acolyte in MAHA Drag"
A WSJ oped is not documentation.
that he voted for Sanders
Yeah, that's not proof either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanders%E2%80%93Trump_voters
I think you're mixing up "requires Senate confirmation" and the much broader "political appointee", but I'd welcome the cite.
I'm not mixing it up. It's a civil role.
Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER since circa 2012. He was a civil servant. Nothing about the position has changed since he left. He resigned, and Makary recruited Prasad.
By your standards of "appointment", every job in my life has been a political appointment by my boss.
Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER since circa 2012.
Peter Marks was dismissed by RFK over vaccines.
Nothing about the position has changed since he left.
I can't dispute this, so what conclusion is left other than Prasad will keep his job to the extent that he agrees with RFK on vaccines.
Anyway, it seems to me that the subtext here is that nobody can serve in this administration or they get attacked for being on the wrong side by partisan hacks. I'm actually happy that someone as competent as Prasad made it to a position of power -- it's one of the few bright spots in government right now. He's someone who has made a lot of enemies by standing up to pharma corruption, and I don't know if any other administration would ever have given him the kind of authority needed to clean house.
But the other commenter is trying to spin this simple fact as a "political appointment", when every job is "you serve at the pleasure of your boss".
Simple fact: That's false.
Unionized employees. Montana's "Wrongful Discharge in Employment Act". Bosses whose "pleasure" includes firing the newly pregnant employee for that reason. Etc.
Only government work has had this strange notion of perma-employment
Similarly incorrect. Tenure's a thing, even at private universities. For fairly similar reasons, even.
So you pile up corrupt morons like Peter Marks and Ashish Jha…
Marks was fired (well, forced to resign); he had some civil service protection (having been hired as a non-political appointment first), but not for the role he was in. Jha was a political appointment, and thus not subject to civil service protections; his position was done away with entirely after the work was done.
You are citing successful removals to claim people can't be removed, which is… a bit interesting.
Marks resigned, Prasad was hired. Same position. Arguing that he can be fired is...true, I suppose (in the same way that Marks was "fired"), but non-responsive.
the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political"
Correct, but "non-responsive", as you say.
You have spent a lot of words arguing about anything other than the core point: the fact that Prasad was hired into Marks' old position does not suddenly make the position "political".
You have spent a lot of words arguing with the definition of "political appointee". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_...
Prasad and Marks are/were both political appointees because they were appointed to their roles by the President, Vice President, or a Federal agency head. In such a role, they lack certain protections (including around firing) a civil service role would possess. It's really quite simple.
Here's the exact definition:
The definition of “appointee” in the Executive Order covers “every full-time, non-career Presidential or Vice-Presidential appointee, non-career appointee in the Senior Executive Service (or other SES-type system), and appointee to a position that has been excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character (Schedule C and other positions excepted under comparable criteria) in an executive agency.” Executive Order, sec. 2(b). However, “[i]t does not include any person appointed as a member of the Senior Foreign Service or solely as a uniformed service commissioned officer.”
So basically, there's a lot of nuance there, and your wikipedia quote is wrong. Perhaps you should change it to be more accurate (EDIT: nevermind. Did it for you!)
[1] https://www.oge.gov/Web/oge.nsf/Legal%20Docs/4EAB053F755BE59...
[2] Which, I should note, is a definition made by an executive order. LOL.
EDIT: OK, I have now followed this all the way to Wikipedia's stated source for political appointments ("The Plum Book", 2020 edition[3]), and I do not see this position anywhere in the book. Starts at page 79.
I'm sure you'll find a way to argue about it, but it seems that you are truly, definitively wrong...but who knows, since it changes every four years anyway.
[3] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2020/pdf/GP...
I’m shocked.
EDIT: and finally, finally, here's the public job listing for the CBER[1]. It's a competitive hiring position, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act (2016)[2].
It's not a political appointment. Full stop, end of discussion.
[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/182615/download
[2] https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/selected-amendmen...
I'm not mixing it up. It's a civil role.
You said you looked it up. Should be an easy cite.
Peter Marks was the prior head of CBER. He was a civil servant.
Those aren't mutually exclusive statuses. Some State Department ambassadors are long-term civil servants; others are political appointees.
https://www.newsweek.com/who-vinay-prasad-rfk-jr-taps-pharma...
Prasad's new role has traditionally been held by an FDA career scientist
By your standards of "appointment", every job in my life has been a political appointment by my boss.
If you were appointed by Federal agency heads, sure. They're the encyclopedia's standards, not mine.
Basically even if the FCC official made the recordings, I think at some point copyright on certain materials should become moot because fair use becomes dramatically greater in scope. I know not everyone would agree with that but it's what I feel should be the case.
Copyright is unwavering. The law says that the author/owner gets exclusive use of that content for a really fucking long time (something like life + a century, thank you Disney lobbyists). Full stop.
The courts recognize that that lack of nuance is unreasonable. Therefore, they have ruled that copyright law doesn't apply if the use is "fair," hence the phrase "fair use." There's no hard-and-fast way to know if something is fair use. You're basically betting that if you ever get sued, the court will be on your side. There are axioms that the court has given (for instance, if you are making money from your use, it's less likely to be fair) that help you guess if the ruling leans in your favor.
The reason for these exemptions is that it's in the public's interest for certain kinds of expression to transcend copyright, such as news and satire. (This is also where the folks belief that you can't get in trouble if it's a parody come from.)
"Clearance and Copyright," and "Free Culture" are both great books to learn more about this. The author of the latter, Larry Lessig, is the guy who fought Disney's copyright lobby in court. His experience inspired that book, and also inspired him to found the Creative Commons.
All of that is to say that there are carve outs to copyright where the public interest overrides the private content monopoly, and a public official speaking in an unflattering way certainly qualifies.
[update] apparently those axioms were actually codified into law in 1976, but they are still merely defensive - nudges for how the court might rule, not protections in their own right.
Where does YouTube get off taking them down? That's way out of line for Google.
Meanwhile, move them over to PeerTube or something.
(I've been blocked on FOIAs in Illinois by state and locals claiming wild copyright claims)
In fact, a state Rep in California (R) tried that after his bragging was caught by an open mic, he graphically bragged to a colleague about having sex with a lobbyist and then claimed copyright on that "work" and his own name.
That went nowhere, of course.
It is of course immaterial that someone later becomes a government employee. If we were to pass a law along these lines, then any expert who later becomes a government employee would not be entitled to the protection of prior intellectual property.
Barack Obama penned many items prior to the commencement of his government employment. His interest in those pieces where he discussed topics relevant to his interests or expertise in constitutional law is not abridged because he entered public service.
In this case with Prasad, there is other nuance, but none of it material to that specific point.
A much more fruitful focus would be on the doctrine of fair use and the examination of the credentials and claims of those who do enter public service.
My feeling is when someone becomes a public official, the rules change (or should change) due to public accountability and power. If you put something out in the public that's relevant to your position, I think the fair use of that material increases dramatically in scope.
That's theoretically what "fair use" is supposed to cover.
Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively.
That's why it would be good to have some specifics, as opposed to...the parade of generalities and thinly veiled character attacks in this article.
Yes, you're allowed, with specific rules, to make samples for criticism, parody, etc. You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving". So it really matters a lot what was actually done here, and that is what we don't know.
You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving"
Seems like you are though. What is the legal limit for a video that’s critical of a public figure based on that person’s statements about the thing that they are in charge of? If they talk real slow or use run-on sentences am I legally obligated to make sound bites to approximate my interpretation of their opinion? Like if a public figure says something but takes a while to say it, I’m not allowed to criticize it in full because it is long?
Regardless, what YouTube chooses to enforce and what is legally "fair use" are two different things.
“It’s really important to remember [Prasad’s] past words in order to gauge his current and future credibility, and that was the mission of my YouTube channel, to record what these doctors [Prasad and others] said,”
The condition to believe that the owner of the YouTube channel was in violation of fair use would be to believe that he was lying with the above statement, which there doesn’t seem to be any reason to believe. It’s literally criticism, of a public figure no less.
It's one of the oldest dodges of copyright law there is. You learn about this in high school journalism class (do they even teach that anymore?)
I can only go off the description of the content from the article and what the person that made the videos said, so I would appreciate more detail from somebody that’s sure that this was the same thing as uploading every episode of South Park.
I personally run into trouble with the “this is the same thing as uploading every episode of South Park” angle with all the “a public figure in charge of pubic health using possibly spurious claims of copyright infringement in scrubbing his public statements about his positions on public health” and the “dozens of views” stuff, but again I have not watched these videos and you have so
Edit: also wait you learned about South Park YouTube rips in high school journalism class? And your takeaway was that archiving things is inherently to be distrusted? In journalism class? Like your journalism teacher told you that collecting information from primary sources and disseminating it in an organized way for the purpose of public good was the same thing as pirating a TV show for clout or profit? That is what they taught you in your school? I am not in high school but I would guess that no they do not teach that, like at all, ever. Like that is not a thing any journalism teacher should have ever taught. That is so antithetical to the concept of journalism that I can’t imagine what a “the opposite of journalism” class would be but it sounds dumb as hell. A class called “Journalism” that teaches you to only say what your subject wants you to say sounds like a machine to intentionally manufacture a stupid human being
Some past judicial criteria:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
It's strange to me because it seemed like the dominating issues should have been recovering from the economic destruction wrought by covid monetary policy and dealing with the overt Russian threat.
And why would Trump - a former president - provide more change than Harris?
Famously, Kamala Harris said in an interview on The View that she was a biggest part of the impactful decisions in the Biden administration AND that there’s nothing she would have done differently! https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/video/kamala-harris-...
Making matters worse, when she went on Colbert she said nothing would change other than she would be president rather than Biden: https://youtu.be/6eZw3GzmPGc?feature=shared
Trump has already done many things very differently than in his own first term, and undoubtedly different from the prior administration.
Trump has definitely done many things differently but the rhetoric wasn't any different in the campaign - immigration, transgender athletes, and the bigliest prosperity you have every seen.
I just skipped through the Colbert one but I didn't hear her say nothing would change.
At the 30s mark:
Colbert: “under a Harris administration, what would the changes be, and what would stay the same?”
Harris: “sure, we’ll obviously I’m not Joe Biden, and so, uhm, that would be one change, but also it is important to say with 28 days to go I’m not Donald Trump and so when we think about the significance of what this next generation of leadership looks like were I to be elected president, it is about frankly, I love the American people…”
So the only thing she said would change under Harrris administration is that she would be president, and then she deflected into aspirational outcomes with no specific ideas as to how to accomplish.
Further, The View interview was on 10/8/2024 and the Colbert interview one day later. So she even had a chance to originate a recover from the “no change” statement.
aspirational outcomes with no specific ideas
That's typical for this interview format, no? I mean, you can be critical of the lack of information density but we're talking about her agenda relative to Biden's - and, to an extent, the status quo Trump created (inflation, diminished foreign influence) since that dictated much of what Biden could do.
Why would people think his VP would suddenly be different.
Add in her proven unpopularity and the fact that they didn’t run a primary and you have a perfect recipe for a total disaster.
IMHO, the elephant in the room is capitalism, but it’s like the church, so sacrosanct you aren’t allowed to question it, so instead people take their anger out on those with less power.
Trump tried hard to be perceived as an outsider candidate when trying to return to office. Logically, that makes no sense, but I'm sure their research showed it was important.
I did not, but I think a lot of people are so desperate for change that any change at some point is better than the status quo.
This was a common argument in some of the poorest and most EU-dependent parts of the UK (these generally voted for Brexit). Well, they got change, alright.
Barbra Streisand, on the white courtesy phone!
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6VZKYkoBLdPxtu7DHkCf...
Vinay Prasad may be a liar, because Vinay Prasad is hiding something.
Vinay Prasad, a name to remember. Well wouldn't have happened if Vinay Prasad was whole enough to stand by his claims and not try to hide the idiocies Vinay Prasad said in the past.
Hey, I actually learned Vinay Prasad by heart now!
They wanted to archive something on YouTube and got hit with an infringement claim. Oldest trick in the book.
Without specific knowledge of whatever was removed, this is unfair speculation. As far as I know, Prasad's podcasts, videos, Twitter account, etc. are all still public.
This article isn't specific about anything -- it doesn't even say the kind of requests that was made, let alone the particular content.
I never said the copyright claim is invalid. A court would need to decide on matters of fair use.
The article specifically said this regarding the content:
Creating the channel, Howard told Guardian in an interview, had been an attempt to “preserve” what these individuals had said during the early years of the pandemic, including comments that Howard said exaggerated the dangers of the Covid vaccine to children and – in some cases – minimized the risk of Covid infection, among other issues.
“These videos were nothing more than collections of what other doctors said during the pandemic, including doctors who are extremely influential and who are now the medical establishment,” he said.
The information is available for now....
OK, so you're speculating.
And quoting Howard (the guy violating the copyright) is irrelevant. It's not a trick to defend your copyright. If he set up a channel of nothing but old Simpsons clips to "preserve" them, YouTube would take those down, too.
Not all speculation is of equal value.
Sure, in the same sense you're speculating that they don't have a time machine to prove their point.
That's called: I'm stating a current fact, and you're imagining a future that doesn't exist.
Howard’s entire channel has now been deleted by YouTube, which cited copyright infringement.
Which is a clip from https://youtu.be/SX-Lh7mnWYY
I watched some. I mostly seems fairly reasonable but he goes on about taking legal action for giving some 14 yr old a vaccine without asking the parents which seems a bit over the top to me.