Well, I don't know, it was probably rude but those talking heads always ask questions and then don't let people finish their answer before talking over them so I kind of understand it. As to the whole "anti-vaccination" thing, I'm not against vaccinations, but I don't think one should dismiss Rand Paul's opinion out of hand simply because it isn't the same as their opinion....I mean, he is actually a doctor and it's not like there isn't a history of medications and vaccines having unintended side effects so there could be a link between certain health problems and vaccines. That said, I just think you have to get your kids vaccinated if you want to put them in public school. There is risk in nearly everything you do, vaccinations are a risk that should be taken.....but I don't have any kids that I know about so it's possible I would think differently if I did.
It makes it worse that he is a doctor because frankly he should know better than citing uncredited anecdotal evidence. The research is out there and fairly easy to get that shows very little danger and side effects from vaccines. While any medical procedure has some level of risk in regard to the good that vaccines do the risk of them is miniscule. So on one hand you have what is at best a very nebulous argument against vaccines versus the very real diseases that vaccines address. Paul as a doctor is misleading and misstating the argument. This is more than just going to public schools. As we see with Disneyland this is about anywhere where there is mass exposure to the public. I myself wouldn't really care that much about this issue if the only people affected were parents and children of those who choose not to be vaccinated but this affects for more than just those people.
Exactly. That is where this argument that we shouldn't have gay marriage is because it offends some religious sensibilities (Christians are being oppressed because gay marriage is legal) falls apart. That would be akin to saying that Jews and Muslims are being oppressed because pork and shrimp are legal.
Paul is a doctor and was talking about things he's allegedly seen himself, IMO that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand simply because it doesn't support the position that I personally have on the issue. Another point is that since he's a Libertarian at heart, he doesn't agree with the federal government telling people what they have to do with their children and I can understand that sentiment. I personally think that it is dangerous and irresponsible to not get your kids vaccinated, but I can understand why some would be concerned about it, and I can understand why people wouldn't want the government telling them what they have to do with their children. At the same time, I understand that you are creating a danger to the public by not getting your kids their shots which is how I justify my support of mandatory vaccination despite my own Libertarian views.
Of course it should be dismissed out of hand. Because it is a stupid, dangerous position. That's how we deal with stupid, dangerous positions. Christ, you seriously think that we should give credence to this crank's claims to have seen vaccinations cause "profound mental disorders". This where we default to peer reviewed science over the loony rambling of an individual doctor. Do you even understand how dangerous it is for someone with the respect and authority of a sitting U.S. Senator to be jumping on Jenny Mccarthy's "vaccines cause autism" bandwagon. Now we're going to get thousands more parents putting their kids (and everyone else) in danger.
Fair enough, I don't think it should be dismissed because how often do we find out things that are allegedly safe are really harmful? It's an arrogant and frankly and ignorant position to dismiss educated claims simply because they go against what you prefer to believe or what is considered known at any given time. If science has taught us anything it's that what we think we know today will be drastically different than what we think we know in the future. For all we know, they simply haven't discovered the link and when we look back on this in 30 years, it'll seem pretty stupid that we missed it. Personally I'd have my kids vaccinated without a second though, but I can understand why people would be concerned about it and it's not a partisan issue.
I didn't know about the measles outbreak till today, but in light of it I just don't understand how you can stand behind not vaccinating---it extends past public schools (unless you want your kid in a bubble). And yes, he is a Doctor, but that makes it worse. A lot of discussion going on at my med. school about his remarks, and quite frankly, I'm debating on whether I would vote for him now. You would be hard pressed to find another physician that would take the stance he did.
Rand is such a clown. Who could possibly interpret "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." as "alleging causation".
The very next words he said was "I'm not arguing that vaccines are a bad idea, they're a good thing but I think the parents should have some input". His argument was that he thinks that children are getting too many vaccines without enough time in between them and he started off the interview by saying that vaccines are good for public health and that they should promote the idea of parents getting them for their children. But, you know, if you want to take one line out of context and overreact to it, that's cool too.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/vaccineswork?src=hash">#vaccineswork</a>. Let's protect all our kids. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/GrandmothersKnowBest?src=hash">#GrandmothersKnowBest</a></p>— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) <a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/562456798020386816">February 3, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Oh there's no question that Rand is talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one hand vaccines are awesome on the other they're really scary and he's "heard" they can cause profound mental disorders. And now it's just that vaccines and mental disorders are "temporally related". Thus, he's a clown.
No, he's saying that parents should have some input in what immunizations their kids get and when they get them. You failing to understand that doesn't make him the clown.
Is Rand saying there's a connection between vaccines and profound mental disorders or not? You certainly seemed to think he was a mere few hours ago.
Have you even listened to the interview? Serious question because I'd bet not. You probably just heard or read one sentence taken out of context and are rolling with it. Here I'll help you by posting some of the text He believes it to be potentially harmful to give "five or six vaccines all at one time" but says over and over again in the interview that vaccines are a good thing and that he supports them going so far as saying that "vaccines are one of the greatest medical breakthroughs that we have" and that he was a "big fan" of them Again, one sentence taken out of context seems to be all you are going on here. I suggest you find the entire interview and relieve yourself of the ignorance you are clinging to.
On what evidence does he base his belief that it's potentially harmful to give five or six vaccines all at one time? And what is the potential harm?
No clue, I didn't ask him. He thinks, as a doctor, that it is better to stagger the vaccines infants get rather than get them all at once in order to lessen the chances of unintended side effects, seems like a reasonable thing. Now I personally am not worried about vaccines, but my point was that we shouldn't be taking his words out of context in a foolish attempt to score political points. His words were framed as if he was anti-vaccine and that's just about the furthest thing from the truth and anyone who actually watched the interview would realize that.
Honestly , I like Rand. His dad was a bit too honest and could never play the politician game too well. Rand needed to rally the bat**** crazy repugs that root for the likes of Bachman and he took a calculated risk. As a big supporter of his dad chances are I'll vote for him if he runs. They are true libertarians unlike the neocons that santiago and texxx believe to be so.
