Vivek Ramaswamy - US Presidential candidate.

[someone]

On 8/5/2023 at 3:41 PM, ravishingravi said:

On the question of his religion, 

 

 

 

Good answer. Now, can similar question be asked in India?

 

Our politics is full of Hinduphobia, and many politicians practice intolerance.

 

[ravishingravi]

13 minutes ago, someone said:

 

Good answer. Now, can similar question be asked in India?

 

Our politics is full of Hinduphobia, and many politicians practice intolerance.

 

 

We will get there. Its a long journey but I think it is going in the right direction. The model in my view should judeo christian = sanatani / hinduism. I reckon it would be great to get to this place in our discourse where whatever your belief system, the core ethos of the land should be imbibed in sanatana dharma. 

[someone]

19 minutes ago, ravishingravi said:

 

We will get there. Its a long journey but I think it is going in the right direction. The model in my view should judeo christian = sanatani / hinduism. I reckon it would be great to get to this place in our discourse where whatever your belief system, the core ethos of the land should be imbibed in sanatana dharma. 

 

How can you forget the past? It's only after 2014, where Hindu beliefs can be forefront and politicians are free to express about it. Thus, the default state of Indian politics is still being the apologetic, and defensive of dharmic culture and history.

 

And still the main issue is do a certain community actually respect Hinduism? Will they ever answer such questions or show their support for the dharmic nature of our country, just like how Vivek had to with the judeo christian.

[ravishingravi]

22 minutes ago, someone said:

 

How can you forget the past? It's only after 2014, where Hindu beliefs can be forefront and politicians are free to express about it. Thus, the default state of Indian politics is still being the apologetic, and defensive of dharmic culture and history.

 

And still the main issue is do a certain community actually respect Hinduism? Will they ever answer such questions or show their support for the dharmic nature of our country, just like how Vivek had to with the judeo christian.

 

Yeah but it wont change in 8 years. This is years of backlog we are talking about. In 2014, did you imagine an Indian PM doing bhoomi pujan for Ram temple. If I told you in 2010 that this could happen, no one would believe me. I am sure there are frustrations and I have them too. But lets also cognizance of the change that has happened.

[ravishingravi]

Balaji Srinivasan had mentioned in an interview that the future will be Indians vs China. Not Indian vs China. And you can see great evidence of that. Indian are rising through the leadership corridor across continents. 

 

Vivek will be a major major player in GOP unless something goes terribly wrong. I dont recall seeing a candidate so authentic, intelligent and clear in his fundamentals. This will be the new generation of politicians. 

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

@coffee_rules @ravishingravi

 

Unfortunately, conviction and clarity of thought based on false premises can be dangerous for the public. 

 

https://www.statnews.com/2023/07/31/vivek-ramaswamy-wants-to-gut-the-fda-his-claims-dont-hold-up-to-scrutiny/

Just so we are all sure, Statnews brings issues in medicine in an accessible form to the general public.  It is run by real, trained experts in biomedicine and pharmaceuticals. Their reporting is grounded in scientific thinking, not any ideology.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Excerpts:

His worst example is going after the Covid vaccines. He speaks about Covid vaccines being “pushed through under political circumstances in less than a year” to make it sound as if they weren’t studied. These products were studied in some of the biggest approval trials I’ve ever seen, and Ramaswamy certainly knows that. There were tens of thousands of patients in each pre-approval study, with hard impacts measured on infection and for some vaccines hospitalization. Yes, this was unprecedented, but we were in a global crisis.

 

Ramaswamy goes on to falsely blame the FDA for Covid vaccine mandates. However you feel about the jab requirements, these were not set by the FDA. The FDA’s role is to determine the efficacy and safety of vaccines, or drugs. Whether or not vaccines or drugs should be required is a policy decision made by other government officials, scientific bodies, and, yes, even the private sector.

 

There is a libertarian fantasy that keeps coming up — it emerged in the early days of the last administration before Trump made Scott Gottlieb the FDA commissioner — that we’d basically be better off without an FDA. What we really need the FDA to do, the argument goes, is ensure drugs are “safe” without worrying about efficacy. Ramaswamy seems to be arguing that this is the case. But let’s not forget he came onto the scene trying to develop an Alzheimer’s drug that had been abandoned by one of the large pharmaceutical companies. In his public comments, he seemed very convinced it would be effective.

 

When his company, Axovant, did the trials that were mandated by the FDA, it was very clear the medicine was not effective. I don’t think allowing Ramaswamy to have sold that medicine without proving it worked would have been a good idea.

(B2C comment: Reeks of clarity of thought emanating from a personal vendetta)

 

 

I do want to give Ramaswamy credit for something in this debate.  “Everybody in the pharma industry, it’s a quiet little adage,” he said. “They say, oh, no, FDA never forgets. You can’t criticize them or they’ll penalize you for the drugs that you’re applying to advance.”

People definitely say this. And there is some truth to it. I do think there are examples where the FDA seems to be being extra careful with companies that in the past did something it thought was unwise. I’m not sure that this is something one can get rid of when regulators are people who have past experience with the people they are regulating. It may well be one impediment to right to try — that drug companies are afraid to make medicines available because of the FDA.

 

But is it a reason to “gut” the FDA? Absolutely not. Back in my early days of biotech reporting, I wrote a series of investigative pieces about a company developing an artificial oxygen-carrying substitute for human blood. The product got pretty far along in testing and was even being considered for use by the U.S. military to treat critically wounded soldiers. There was one big problem: The experimental blood substitute caused terrible kidney damage, including cases of kidney failure. The company was suppressing this safety information. I think about this when I hear people like Ramaswamy advocating for the dismantling of the FDA.

Ramaswamy suggests that because he once ran a drug company, but is now a “free man,” running for president, he speaks the truth about the FDA. The implication is that people still attached to the biotech and pharmaceutical industry secretly hate the FDA and are afraid to criticize the agency. The truth is that by an overwhelming majority, people who work to develop and sell medicines respect the FDA and oppose any effort to get rid of it. An FDA approval helps them sell drugs.

 

Ramaswamy is a free markets guy, but he conveniently forgets to mention that allowing unsafe or ineffective products to reach the market is bad for business. Ramaswamy said the FDA is hostile to patients, but that’s illogical when you consider that more new drugs are being approved than ever before.

He may take issue with drug pricing, but again, the FDA doesn’t set drug prices.

 

One of the hallmarks of Ramaswamy’s early run for the presidency has been his flippant criticism of government agencies he doesn’t like. He’s promised to defund the Department of Education, shut down the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and radically rework the Federal Reserve. So, from that perspective, I guess it was only a matter of time before the FDA landed in his cross hairs.

 

I understand that lots of people dislike regulation and have a dim opinion of bureaucrats and view it all as the deep state. But I really question how many people really want to live in a world where medicines go completely unregulated.

 

I get that it’s red meat for a certain segment of the Republican base, but this feels like the kind of discussion that just leads us to never solve any of our actual problems.

 

 

[coffee_rules]

17 hours ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

@coffee_rules @ravishingravi

 

Unfortunately, conviction and clarity of thought based on false premises can be dangerous for the public. 

 

https://www.statnews.com/2023/07/31/vivek-ramaswamy-wants-to-gut-the-fda-his-claims-dont-hold-up-to-scrutiny/

Just so we are all sure, Statnews brings issues in medicine in an accessible form to the general public.  It is run by real, trained experts in biomedicine and pharmaceuticals. Their reporting is grounded in scientific thinking, not any ideology.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Excerpts:

His worst example is going after the Covid vaccines. He speaks about Covid vaccines being “pushed through under political circumstances in less than a year” to make it sound as if they weren’t studied. These products were studied in some of the biggest approval trials I’ve ever seen, and Ramaswamy certainly knows that. There were tens of thousands of patients in each pre-approval study, with hard impacts measured on infection and for some vaccines hospitalization. Yes, this was unprecedented, but we were in a global crisis.

 

Ramaswamy goes on to falsely blame the FDA for Covid vaccine mandates. However you feel about the jab requirements, these were not set by the FDA. The FDA’s role is to determine the efficacy and safety of vaccines, or drugs. Whether or not vaccines or drugs should be required is a policy decision made by other government officials, scientific bodies, and, yes, even the private sector.

 

There is a libertarian fantasy that keeps coming up — it emerged in the early days of the last administration before Trump made Scott Gottlieb the FDA commissioner — that we’d basically be better off without an FDA. What we really need the FDA to do, the argument goes, is ensure drugs are “safe” without worrying about efficacy. Ramaswamy seems to be arguing that this is the case. But let’s not forget he came onto the scene trying to develop an Alzheimer’s drug that had been abandoned by one of the large pharmaceutical companies. In his public comments, he seemed very convinced it would be effective.

 

When his company, Axovant, did the trials that were mandated by the FDA, it was very clear the medicine was not effective. I don’t think allowing Ramaswamy to have sold that medicine without proving it worked would have been a good idea.

(B2C comment: Reeks of clarity of thought emanating from a personal vendetta)

 

 

I do want to give Ramaswamy credit for something in this debate.  “Everybody in the pharma industry, it’s a quiet little adage,” he said. “They say, oh, no, FDA never forgets. You can’t criticize them or they’ll penalize you for the drugs that you’re applying to advance.”

People definitely say this. And there is some truth to it. I do think there are examples where the FDA seems to be being extra careful with companies that in the past did something it thought was unwise. I’m not sure that this is something one can get rid of when regulators are people who have past experience with the people they are regulating. It may well be one impediment to right to try — that drug companies are afraid to make medicines available because of the FDA.

 

But is it a reason to “gut” the FDA? Absolutely not. Back in my early days of biotech reporting, I wrote a series of investigative pieces about a company developing an artificial oxygen-carrying substitute for human blood. The product got pretty far along in testing and was even being considered for use by the U.S. military to treat critically wounded soldiers. There was one big problem: The experimental blood substitute caused terrible kidney damage, including cases of kidney failure. The company was suppressing this safety information. I think about this when I hear people like Ramaswamy advocating for the dismantling of the FDA.

Ramaswamy suggests that because he once ran a drug company, but is now a “free man,” running for president, he speaks the truth about the FDA. The implication is that people still attached to the biotech and pharmaceutical industry secretly hate the FDA and are afraid to criticize the agency. The truth is that by an overwhelming majority, people who work to develop and sell medicines respect the FDA and oppose any effort to get rid of it. An FDA approval helps them sell drugs.

 

Ramaswamy is a free markets guy, but he conveniently forgets to mention that allowing unsafe or ineffective products to reach the market is bad for business. Ramaswamy said the FDA is hostile to patients, but that’s illogical when you consider that more new drugs are being approved than ever before.

He may take issue with drug pricing, but again, the FDA doesn’t set drug prices.

 

One of the hallmarks of Ramaswamy’s early run for the presidency has been his flippant criticism of government agencies he doesn’t like. He’s promised to defund the Department of Education, shut down the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and radically rework the Federal Reserve. So, from that perspective, I guess it was only a matter of time before the FDA landed in his cross hairs.

 

I understand that lots of people dislike regulation and have a dim opinion of bureaucrats and view it all as the deep state. But I really question how many people really want to live in a world where medicines go completely unregulated.

 

I get that it’s red meat for a certain segment of the Republican base, but this feels like the kind of discussion that just leads us to never solve any of our actual problems.

 

 

 

Don't know why you tagged me, but I waa only refuting the claim that he is bad because he is a Republican. His views might not be 100% factual, but he has to pander to some voters to form a alliance. His core voters/supporters are those who like the word career politicians and "draining the swamp" kind of arguments. Anti-illegal-immigration. The kind of crowd that the nation calls them racist and white supremacist.  I like him for his anti-wokeism and  because he is anti-left or extreme-left that the democratic party has turned into.  

nd am

Yes, some of his claims on FDA/Covid mandates are populist and will find favor with some of the RW crowd in US. Looks like all such people are in FL or South now.!

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

52 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

Don't know why you tagged me, but I waa only refuting the claim that he is bad because he is a Republican. His views might not be 100% factual, but he has to pander to some voters to form a alliance. His core voters/supporters are those who like the word career politicians and "draining the swamp" kind of arguments. Anti-illegal-immigration. The kind of crowd that the nation calls them racist and white supremacist.  I like him for his anti-wokeism and  because he is anti-left or extreme-left that the democratic party has turned into.  

nd am

Yes, some of his claims on FDA/Covid mandates are populist and will find favor with some of the RW crowd in US. Looks like all such people are in FL or South now.!

 

I tagged you because, in a previous post on this thread, I refuted your claim that he wanted to gut the FDA, but now it appears that you are correct in that claim. 

 

Ashte guru. 

[ravishingravi]

On 8/7/2023 at 9:18 PM, BacktoCricaddict said:

@coffee_rules @ravishingravi

 

Unfortunately, conviction and clarity of thought based on false premises can be dangerous for the public. 

 

https://www.statnews.com/2023/07/31/vivek-ramaswamy-wants-to-gut-the-fda-his-claims-dont-hold-up-to-scrutiny/

Just so we are all sure, Statnews brings issues in medicine in an accessible form to the general public.  It is run by real, trained experts in biomedicine and pharmaceuticals. Their reporting is grounded in scientific thinking, not any ideology.

 

---------------------------------------------------

Excerpts:

His worst example is going after the Covid vaccines. He speaks about Covid vaccines being “pushed through under political circumstances in less than a year” to make it sound as if they weren’t studied. These products were studied in some of the biggest approval trials I’ve ever seen, and Ramaswamy certainly knows that. There were tens of thousands of patients in each pre-approval study, with hard impacts measured on infection and for some vaccines hospitalization. Yes, this was unprecedented, but we were in a global crisis.

 

Ramaswamy goes on to falsely blame the FDA for Covid vaccine mandates. However you feel about the jab requirements, these were not set by the FDA. The FDA’s role is to determine the efficacy and safety of vaccines, or drugs. Whether or not vaccines or drugs should be required is a policy decision made by other government officials, scientific bodies, and, yes, even the private sector.

 

There is a libertarian fantasy that keeps coming up — it emerged in the early days of the last administration before Trump made Scott Gottlieb the FDA commissioner — that we’d basically be better off without an FDA. What we really need the FDA to do, the argument goes, is ensure drugs are “safe” without worrying about efficacy. Ramaswamy seems to be arguing that this is the case. But let’s not forget he came onto the scene trying to develop an Alzheimer’s drug that had been abandoned by one of the large pharmaceutical companies. In his public comments, he seemed very convinced it would be effective.

 

When his company, Axovant, did the trials that were mandated by the FDA, it was very clear the medicine was not effective. I don’t think allowing Ramaswamy to have sold that medicine without proving it worked would have been a good idea.

(B2C comment: Reeks of clarity of thought emanating from a personal vendetta)

 

 

I do want to give Ramaswamy credit for something in this debate.  “Everybody in the pharma industry, it’s a quiet little adage,” he said. “They say, oh, no, FDA never forgets. You can’t criticize them or they’ll penalize you for the drugs that you’re applying to advance.”

People definitely say this. And there is some truth to it. I do think there are examples where the FDA seems to be being extra careful with companies that in the past did something it thought was unwise. I’m not sure that this is something one can get rid of when regulators are people who have past experience with the people they are regulating. It may well be one impediment to right to try — that drug companies are afraid to make medicines available because of the FDA.

 

But is it a reason to “gut” the FDA? Absolutely not. Back in my early days of biotech reporting, I wrote a series of investigative pieces about a company developing an artificial oxygen-carrying substitute for human blood. The product got pretty far along in testing and was even being considered for use by the U.S. military to treat critically wounded soldiers. There was one big problem: The experimental blood substitute caused terrible kidney damage, including cases of kidney failure. The company was suppressing this safety information. I think about this when I hear people like Ramaswamy advocating for the dismantling of the FDA.

Ramaswamy suggests that because he once ran a drug company, but is now a “free man,” running for president, he speaks the truth about the FDA. The implication is that people still attached to the biotech and pharmaceutical industry secretly hate the FDA and are afraid to criticize the agency. The truth is that by an overwhelming majority, people who work to develop and sell medicines respect the FDA and oppose any effort to get rid of it. An FDA approval helps them sell drugs.

 

Ramaswamy is a free markets guy, but he conveniently forgets to mention that allowing unsafe or ineffective products to reach the market is bad for business. Ramaswamy said the FDA is hostile to patients, but that’s illogical when you consider that more new drugs are being approved than ever before.

He may take issue with drug pricing, but again, the FDA doesn’t set drug prices.

 

One of the hallmarks of Ramaswamy’s early run for the presidency has been his flippant criticism of government agencies he doesn’t like. He’s promised to defund the Department of Education, shut down the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and radically rework the Federal Reserve. So, from that perspective, I guess it was only a matter of time before the FDA landed in his cross hairs.

 

I understand that lots of people dislike regulation and have a dim opinion of bureaucrats and view it all as the deep state. But I really question how many people really want to live in a world where medicines go completely unregulated.

 

I get that it’s red meat for a certain segment of the Republican base, but this feels like the kind of discussion that just leads us to never solve any of our actual problems.

 

 

 

So I ask myself few questions.

 

1) Is he completely wrong on FDA's rather adhoc policies on testing ? He partially right especially on false discourse on covid vaccines and mandated. That's a rabbit hole and unfortunately too much material is now in public discourse. 

 

2) Is there distrust of FDA

I think not really. Apart from covid, this institution is no more corrupt than any other. 

 

 

 3 ) Can he close FDA without consensus ? No. Not even through executive order. But I think it's good to stress test these institutions. 

 

4) Can FDA influence pricing ?

The article is disengenous and again confirms why many have lost faith in institutions. As a key player in patenting and extending the exclusivity of products, FDA plays a key role directly or indirectly in pricing of  products.

 

I think he is trying to latch on to this very transparent moment where authorities pushed their command down our throats with no recourse. 

 

https://twitter.com/ProfFeynman/status/1688474672621322241?t=ysqd1j0QLTMaDoDvzqqujg&s=19

1/1Skip AdContinue watchingafter the adVisit Advertiser websiteGO TO PAGE

 

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by ravishingravi

[coffee_rules]

Glad he clarified. Wondering if he was another lunatic truther. Believes Saudis complicit in 9/11

 

 

 

 

Vivek is outlining how the CIA glossed over the role of the Saudis in helping the 9/11 perpetrators .

For legit questioning, he’s being labeled by the Democrats as a conspiracy kook

Exactly how politics works in India if you question China/Pakistan role in terror incidents. https://t.co/a86N3Vf5YD

— Savitri Mumukshu - सावित्री मुमुक्षु (@MumukshuSavitri) August 9, 2023

We

[gattaca]

7 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Glad he clarified. Wondering if he was another lunatic truther. Believes Saudis complicit in 9/11

 

 

 

 

Vivek is outlining how the CIA glossed over the role of the Saudis in helping the 9/11 perpetrators .

For legit questioning, he’s being labeled by the Democrats as a conspiracy kook

Exactly how politics works in India if you question China/Pakistan role in terror incidents. https://t.co/a86N3Vf5YD

— Savitri Mumukshu - सावित्री मुमुक्षु (@MumukshuSavitri) August 9, 2023

We

He believes the govt didn’t let public know all the details. He is going to disband FBI mentioned. He has good talking points but he is still polling at 2 percent two low to even make impact. Trump will be the nominee.

[Ranvir]

He won't win. Likewise an Indian Christian will never become prime minister of India. Rishi Sunak is also set for defeat. People are only tolerant up to a certain level and that goes throughout the world. 

[Lone Wolf]

2 hours ago, Ranvir said:

He won't win. Likewise an Indian Christian will never become prime minister of India. Rishi Sunak is also set for defeat. People are only tolerant up to a certain level and that goes throughout the world. 

We know Sunak won't win also this guy as well...  Doesn't change the fact that guy is very articulate & well groomed than most others out there. 

[BacktoCricaddict]

On 8/10/2023 at 7:13 AM, coffee_rules said:

Glad he clarified. Wondering if he was another lunatic truther. Believes Saudis complicit in 9/11

 

 

 

 

Vivek is outlining how the CIA glossed over the role of the Saudis in helping the 9/11 perpetrators .

For legit questioning, he’s being labeled by the Democrats as a conspiracy kook

Exactly how politics works in India if you question China/Pakistan role in terror incidents. https://t.co/a86N3Vf5YD

— Savitri Mumukshu - सावित्री मुमुक्षु (@MumukshuSavitri) August 9, 2023

We

 

He was taken totally out of context with the 911 comments. Good on him to clarify. But, even with his clarification, people have already made up their minds about him and will believe what they want to believe.

[goose]

I’m not American or an Indian citizen but the increasing use of the word Hinduphobia is troubling. I feel all Hindus should stop using it.

[coffee_rules]

5 hours ago, goose said:

I’m not American or an Indian citizen but the increasing use of the word Hinduphobia is troubling. I feel all Hindus should stop using it.

Why? It is xenophobia directed specifically at Hindus. You think it is not existent?

[goose]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Why? It is xenophobia directed specifically at Hindus. You think it is not existent?

certainly not in the UK but not in position to comment on India. that’s not my point though - language is important, I’m not comfortable with any word for an anti Hindu movement, it’s bad energy. 

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, goose said:

certainly not in the UK but not in position to comment on India. that’s not my point though - language is important, I’m not comfortable with any word for an anti Hindu movement, it’s bad energy. 

Whatever bad energy means, it’s widely accepted that anti-Hindu sentiments are on the rise. Last year’s Leicester unrest proved that. Hindu temples were desecrated and a talk from a Hindu Sadhvi had to be dropped because demands by the British Muslims. Here’s a RutgersU iv report on that. If we don’t recognize, talk and make noise about , it gets normalized in the society. Learn about how anti-semitism is widely recognized and condemned immediately 

 

Rutgers Report Finds Increase in Anti-Hindu Disinformation

Edited August 13, 2023 by coffee_rules

[goose]

1 hour ago, coffee_rules said:

Whatever bad energy means, it’s widely accepted that anti-Hindu sentiments are on the rise. Last year’s Leicester unrest proved that. Hindu temples were desecrated and a talk from a Hindu Sadhvi had to be dropped because demands by the British Muslims. Here’s a RutgersU iv report on that. If we don’t recognize, talk and make noise about , it gets normalized in the society. Learn about how anti-semitism is widely recognized and condemned immediately 

 

Rutgers Report Finds Increase in Anti-Hindu Disinformation

So some Muslims hate Hindus (often Indians to be precise) so what. They have their reasons.  You don’t need a word for it in the lexicon that just dignifies it to a wider audience. You can’t add ‘phobic’ whenever someone dislikes you. There is nothing to be feared in Hinduism. Was there a word for it in Mughal times genuine question. 

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by goose

[Vijy]

4 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Why? It is xenophobia directed specifically at Hindus. You think it is not existent?

it's certainly existent, and has been for a while. when I was in NJ (princeton) during 70s and then visited again in 80s, the dot-busters were particularly active. most will not know this though, but I saw it firsthand