Dozens of People Sent us Rand Paul's Senate Hearing Testimony

historian said:

---

Rand Paul is a doctor, an ophthalmologist. He's probably smarter than most people on these boards.

---

nah. He ain't that bright.

jbbear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

historian said:

---

Rand Paul is a doctor, an ophthalmologist. He's probably smarter than most people on these boards.

---

nah. He ain't that bright.

---

Coming from an idiot like you that's a compliment.

---

I could have easily gotten into med school, so it ain't that difficult. No desire to be a doc.

J.R. said:

---

jbbear said:

---

J.R. said:

---

historian said:

---

Rand Paul is a doctor, an ophthalmologist. He's probably smarter than most people on these boards.

---

nah. He ain't that bright.

---

Coming from an idiot like you that's a compliment.

---

I could have easily gotten into med school, so it ain't that difficult. No desire to be a doc.

---

If I recall, you're a Highland Park boy, correct?

Kind of disingenuous to tout your ability to get into med school when you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth.

That said, I suspect even with the money you came from and connections daddy had, getting into Duke Med School would have been a tall order.

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Dozens of People Sent us Rand Paul's Senate Hearing Testimony

---

But TikTok nutritionists paid for by the sugar industry are! Right milli?

---

Measles: symptoms, spread & SSPE | Doctors Talk | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Dozens of People Sent us Rand Paul's Senate Hearing Testimony

---

But TikTok nutritionists paid for by the sugar industry are! Right milli?

---

Still butt hurt I see.

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

---

Dozens of People Sent us Rand Paul's Senate Hearing Testimony

---

But TikTok nutritionists paid for by the sugar industry are! Right milli?

---

Measles: symptoms, spread & SSPE | Doctors Talk | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

---

Another Paul Offit propaganda piece, brought to you and paid for by Pfizer.

Sweet!

I think he attended BU for a semester or 2. I could be mistaken....

The article in the OP is suspect. For the first issue, of the 78k Americans who get Hep. B, how many are infants or pregnant women? After all those statistics, isn't that the one that matters?

On children dying from covid, 16 in 30 months who had no preexisting conditions is a suspect claim. It is likely that is not quite true. Probably there were undiagnosed preexisting conditions, given how rare it is.

In the 1 size fits all paragraph, the author clearly does not understand how to use the words "uniform" and "tailored."

The science changing section makes a misleading statement, that the original aspirin research was not flawed. Not mentioned is that while true, what was left out is that the interpretation of that data was flawed. Not only should science not be "believed in" as if it is a religion, but often, it is the interpretation of the data that is flawed, even when the data is correct and accurate.

There are many strengths to modern science, but ultimately what Paul is saying, that these things should not be blindly trusted, is correct. Science is our best guess based upon what we know now, and we really know very little about almost every drug on the market.

Finally, an online berating of Paul's statement "We don't know what causes autism yet. So shouldn't we be at least open-minded?" is ridiculously stupid. Yes, we need to be open minded about the unknown. Is close minded the author's approach? Seems so.

Porteroso said:

---

The article in the OP is suspect. For the first issue, of the 78k Americans who get Hep. B, how many are infants or pregnant women? After all those statistics, isn't that the one that matters?

On children dying from covid, 16 in 30 months who had no preexisting conditions is a suspect claim. It is likely that is not quite true. Probably there were undiagnosed preexisting conditions, given how rare it is.

In the 1 size fits all paragraph, the author clearly does not understand how to use the words "uniform" and "tailored."

The science changing section makes a misleading statement, that the original aspirin research was not flawed. Not mentioned is that while true, what was left out is that the interpretation of that data was flawed. Not only should science not be "believed in" as if it is a religion, but often, it is the interpretation of the data that is flawed, even when the data is correct and accurate.

There are many strengths to modern science, but ultimately what Paul is saying, that these things should not be blindly trusted, is correct. Science is our best guess based upon what we know now, and we really know very little about almost every drug on the market.

Finally, an online berating of the statement "We don't know what causes autism yet. So shouldn't we be at least open-minded?" is ridiculously stupid. Yes, we need to be open minded about the unknown. Is close minded the author's approach? Seems so.

---

But Obama said the science is settled. Don't think he ever published anything as a "professor". Not sure what his qualifications are

Reading a teleprompter I guess. Nothing more.

Porteroso said:

---

The article in the OP is suspect. For the first issue, of the 78k Americans who get Hep. B, how many are infants or pregnant women? After all those statistics, isn't that the one that matters?

On children dying from covid, 16 in 30 months who had no preexisting conditions is a suspect claim. It is likely that is not quite true. Probably there were undiagnosed preexisting conditions, given how rare it is.

In the 1 size fits all paragraph, the author clearly does not understand how to use the words "uniform" and "tailored."

The science changing section makes a misleading statement, that the original aspirin research was not flawed. Not mentioned is that while true, what was left out is that the interpretation of that data was flawed. Not only should science not be "believed in" as if it is a religion, but often, it is the interpretation of the data that is flawed, even when the data is correct and accurate.

There are many strengths to modern science, but ultimately what Paul is saying, that these things should not be blindly trusted, is correct. Science is our best guess based upon what we know now, and we really know very little about almost every drug on the market.

Finally, an online berating of the statement "We don't know what causes autism yet. So shouldn't we be at least open-minded?" is ridiculously stupid. Yes, we need to be open minded about the unknown. Is close minded the author's approach? Seems so.

---

You deserve more stars. This was well stated, especially the last paragraph. The idea that we have so many increases in autism and cancer in children is worth being open minded about and reexamining what we think we know.

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The article in the OP is suspect. For the first issue, of the 78k Americans who get Hep. B, how many are infants or pregnant women? After all those statistics, isn't that the one that matters?

On children dying from covid, 16 in 30 months who had no preexisting conditions is a suspect claim. It is likely that is not quite true. Probably there were undiagnosed preexisting conditions, given how rare it is.

In the 1 size fits all paragraph, the author clearly does not understand how to use the words "uniform" and "tailored."

The science changing section makes a misleading statement, that the original aspirin research was not flawed. Not mentioned is that while true, what was left out is that the interpretation of that data was flawed. Not only should science not be "believed in" as if it is a religion, but often, it is the interpretation of the data that is flawed, even when the data is correct and accurate.

There are many strengths to modern science, but ultimately what Paul is saying, that these things should not be blindly trusted, is correct. Science is our best guess based upon what we know now, and we really know very little about almost every drug on the market.

Finally, an online berating of the statement "We don't know what causes autism yet. So shouldn't we be at least open-minded?" is ridiculously stupid. Yes, we need to be open minded about the unknown. Is close minded the author's approach? Seems so.

---

Good catch, and your last paragraph is spot on. The idea that we should completely close the door on that possibility, despite the absence of definitive evidence on the causes of autism, is asinine, but predictable.

BTW, just a little background on this "doctor" - she's not an MD, nor even a PhD in a field such as virology or microbiology, which would lend credibility (and expertise) to her statements. Instead, she has a doctorate in Public Health (DrPH) - a graduate-level degree that essentially qualifies one to work in hospital administration. Oh, and her little company, "Unbiased Science"? Unfortunately, not so unbiased. It operates based on grants from the Moderna Charitable Foundation and CSL Seqirus - two of the largest vaccine manufacturers in the world.

So, in other words, poor milli is one again trying to sell paid-for propaganda as science. Oy vei.

---

There are crazies on both sides, but really, politicians only want to promote science when it fits their agenda, and they deny it or misrepresent it if it doesn't. And I bring up politicians, because most of the electorate primarily hears about science through politicians. It has got to be one of the worst ways to inform people about science. I mean, as adults, after you go through science courses.

Science is amazing, but when you realize it's simply our knowledge based upon simple observation, you have to always question it. And good scientists always question. It's only politicians that love telling us "the science is settled," as Freedombear points out.

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The article in the OP is suspect. For the first issue, of the 78k Americans who get Hep. B, how many are infants or pregnant women? After all those statistics, isn't that the one that matters?

On children dying from covid, 16 in 30 months who had no preexisting conditions is a suspect claim. It is likely that is not quite true. Probably there were undiagnosed preexisting conditions, given how rare it is.

In the 1 size fits all paragraph, the author clearly does not understand how to use the words "uniform" and "tailored."

The science changing section makes a misleading statement, that the original aspirin research was not flawed. Not mentioned is that while true, what was left out is that the interpretation of that data was flawed. Not only should science not be "believed in" as if it is a religion, but often, it is the interpretation of the data that is flawed, even when the data is correct and accurate.

There are many strengths to modern science, but ultimately what Paul is saying, that these things should not be blindly trusted, is correct. Science is our best guess based upon what we know now, and we really know very little about almost every drug on the market.

Finally, an online berating of the statement "We don't know what causes autism yet. So shouldn't we be at least open-minded?" is ridiculously stupid. Yes, we need to be open minded about the unknown. Is close minded the author's approach? Seems so.

---

You deserve more stars. This was well stated, especially the last paragraph. The idea that we have so many increases in autism and cancer in children is worth being open minded about and reexamining what we think we know.

---

There is definitely a time based correlation. But there could be other explanations, like autism being a byproduct of a wildly changing gene pool, autism having been more common than thought, but not called that and explained in other ways, autism caused by our increased consumption of plastic wrapped processed foods, etc.

Porteroso said:

---

TinFoilHatPreacherBear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

The article in the OP is suspect. For the first issue, of the 78k Americans who get Hep. B, how many are infants or pregnant women? After all those statistics, isn't that the one that matters?

On children dying from covid, 16 in 30 months who had no preexisting conditions is a suspect claim. It is likely that is not quite true. Probably there were undiagnosed preexisting conditions, given how rare it is.

In the 1 size fits all paragraph, the author clearly does not understand how to use the words "uniform" and "tailored."

The science changing section makes a misleading statement, that the original aspirin research was not flawed. Not mentioned is that while true, what was left out is that the interpretation of that data was flawed. Not only should science not be "believed in" as if it is a religion, but often, it is the interpretation of the data that is flawed, even when the data is correct and accurate.

There are many strengths to modern science, but ultimately what Paul is saying, that these things should not be blindly trusted, is correct. Science is our best guess based upon what we know now, and we really know very little about almost every drug on the market.

Finally, an online berating of the statement "We don't know what causes autism yet. So shouldn't we be at least open-minded?" is ridiculously stupid. Yes, we need to be open minded about the unknown. Is close minded the author's approach? Seems so.

---

You deserve more stars. This was well stated, especially the last paragraph. The idea that we have so many increases in autism and cancer in children is worth being open minded about and reexamining what we think we know.

---

There is definitely a time based correlation. But there could be other explanations, like autism being a byproduct of a wildly changing gene pool, autism having been more common than thought, but not called that and explained in other ways, autism caused by our increased consumption of plastic wrapped processed foods, etc.

---

100% agree, and to your original point, ruling out anything, like vaccines, plastics, genes, etc, just because they are sacrosanct is just BS. Open mind and willing to question what we think we know is important.

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Rand Paul was my Baylor classmate of 1986. He was accepted to medical school and left Baylor before getting his Baylor degree. Rand Paul is a super intelligent dude. A little too Libertarian for me, but he is a good man with a good heart.

Two other fellow Class of 1986 members: Trey Gowdy and Jeff Dunham.

---

But, but, but, the OP says otherwise. Why would you accept your own up close/personally view on this when a poster on the internet has basically said the opposite.

ScottS said:

---

RD2WINAGNBEAR86 said:

---

Rand Paul was my Baylor classmate of 1986. He was accepted to medical school and left Baylor before getting his Baylor degree. Rand Paul is a super intelligent dude. A little too Libertarian for me, but he is a good man with a good heart.

Two other fellow Class of 1986 members: Trey Gowdy and Jeff Dunham.

---

But, but, but, the OP says otherwise. Why would you accept your own up close/personally view on this when a poster on the internet has basically said the opposite.

---

Not real sure what Milli is thinking here. Rand Paul is a great representative of the people of Kentucky.