Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
I'm a little disappointed in Nick's comments there.
__________________________________________________ ________________
"A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst
Wow when quoting they left out first time they were "mandated." They just aren't stopping..
Maybe this is an effort to convince him not to run? Or perhaps Rand did alot better at that high dollar forum than what's actually being told? Surely there's a reason for this considering the amount of distortion going on..
I'm a LOT disappointed in Gillespie's article. This bizarre notion that Rand links vaccines and autism is a straight up lie. Gillespie has now officially pitched his tent with the whackjob progressive statists, AND the wingnut Paul-hater neocons, at the same time. I suppose that, anyway, is mildly impressive.
Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom
What's Nick's agenda here? Seems a little hard to follow.
Capitalize on the buzz, say something controversial, draw massive traffic, sell ads, profit.
So Gillespie is throwing in with the science-worshipping progressives and piling on Rand? Not surprised at all. The atheists at Reason are at least honest about where there allegiances lie.
I tell you what, if people here can't see who is the enemy, who is not, and which side Rand is on then I don't know what to think of them.
I am more and more convinced that man is a dangerous creature and that power, whether vested in many or a few, is ever grasping, and like the grave, cries, 'Give, give.'
Abigail Adams
He's pitching his tent with pharmaceutical corporations and their associated foundations and board members which fund his magazine.
This one is an order of magnitude worse:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/03/va...aul-please-say
Either way, profit over principle.
I canceled a subscription to Reason and a gift subscription to my grandmother in 2012 due to the anti Ron Paul editors at Reason.
Reason is overrated anyways
There are a lot of atheist Rothbardians that hate Reason and love Ron Paul.
I don't think anything like that happened. I'm, obviously, about as close to a Paul fanboi as any adult male could ever be and I have no problem with the article or Paul's stance. Paul likes vaccines. Paul gets vaccines. Paul thinks they are good. Paul also believes they should not be mandated and that they may cause severe health problems in a very small minority of the population. I tend to believe him on that, but the science is not necessarily there yet so it is a controversial thing to say. What did Nick write that is not in align with what I've just stated?
For the most part I agree with you, but Nick was being a bit dishonest here.
“The first sort of thing you see with martial law is mandates, and they’re talking about making it mandatory,” said Paul. “I worry because the first flu vaccine we had in the 1970s, more people died from the vaccine than died from the swine flu.”
As a matter of history, Paul is flat-out wrong. The first flu vaccines were developed in the late 1930s.
The dishonesty is in the half truth. Yes Rand Paul misspoke, but the point he was making that the first time we had a mass swine flu outbreak, more people died from the vaccine than from the swine flu, is 100% accurate and it should give people pause regarding blindly taking every vaccine the government tell you to take.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Rand is the fly in the ointment. They don't want him near any microphones while this psyop is being played out.
That is actually debatable, and I'm surprised Nick didn't take Rand to task for saying it. The fact of the matter is that it is extremely hard to say anything definitively about this stuff, and the people who do so usually have an agenda or a bias attached to their comments. I don't think Rand is an exception to that statement. And again, look at my post history here -- I don't think anyone would say I'm anything short of a huge Rand Fan.
Last edited by KingNothing; 02-05-2015 at 02:09 PM.
Yep, Dr.s Ron Paul and Larry McDonald spoke the truth about it.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ine-Propaganda
Nick, like the previous author at Reason, is desperately trying to connect Rand's statement on vaccines to autism. That is a lie, and the one reason they would have to do that is to attempt to discredit him.
I think Rand had to just bite his tongue and let this issue die. Hell he didn't say anything wrong and still had his views twisted every way but straight. Hopefully this don't stick in the minds of republicans to bad. But it still gives them cannon fodder for down the road cuz hell if they completely ignored what he actually said this go around they'll do it again.
The grassroots really needs to start digging up the Bushes dirt..
Ummm.....it's pretty much not debated.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr...history27?pg=1
More than 500 people are thought to have developed Guillain-Barre syndrome after receiving the vaccine; 25 died. No one completely understands the causes of Guillain-Barre, but the condition can develop after a bout with infection or following surgery or vaccination. The federal government paid millions in damages to people or their families.
However, the pandemic, which some experts estimated at the time could infect 50 million to 60 million Americans, never unfolded. Only about 200 cases of swine flu and one death were ultimately reported in the U.S., the CDC said.
The public viewed the entire episode as political farce, Sencer said. But at the time, he said, the government erred on the side of caution.
I don't know of a single credible source that questions whether more people died in 1976 from the swine flu vaccine than from the swine flu. If you have such a source by all means post it. But also Nick didn't try to attack the substance of what Rand said, probably because he knows it can't honestly be attacked, but rather the trivial matter of Rand mis-speaking and saying "When we first had flu vaccines in the 1970s" as opposed "When we first tried mass vaccination against swine flu in the 1970s."
As for your posting history and being a fan of Rand, I fail to see the relevance. I think your position is more about you being pro conventional wisdom (in this case that vaccines always do more good than harm) as opposed to be pro or anti Rand.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Good work Gunny!
How is questioning the efficacy of the claim about the 1976 flu vaccine conventional wisdom? Nearly everyone here believes it. They know that the vaccine caused GBS and death. To quote Richard Feynman though, how can they know anything? They haven't done the research. And I mean that in a statistical, mathematical sense.
The fact that 40,000,000 people got the vaccine, and only 500 people came down with GBS should be considered, especially when people don't really know how the disease is contracted. I'm not saying that a causal link does not exist. I'm just saying that 1 in 80,000 people having a negative response is such a small number that it is hard to definitively make the claim. I mean, more people who received the vaccine were struck by lightening. Seriously. We're dealing with really extreme numbers here, and that makes any claim dubious. To truly know that the disease was caused by the vaccine requires a lot of evidence that is really just not available.
And, FWIW, http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/2/197
Last edited by KingNothing; 02-05-2015 at 04:33 PM.
"claims" do not have "efficacy."
I wasn't talking about RPF conventional wisdom. I'm talking about MSM "Take your damn vaccines" conventional wisdom. I thought that was obvious.
FWIW Your own link studied data from 1995 to 2006. In fact it states:The fact that 40,000,000 people got the vaccine, and only 500 people came down with GBS should be considered, especially when people don't really know how the disease is contracted. I'm not saying that a causal link does not exist. I'm just saying that 1 in 80,000 people having a negative response is such a small number that it is hard to definitively make the claim. I mean, more people who received the vaccine were struck by lightening. Seriously. We're dealing with really extreme numbers here, and that makes any claim dubious. To truly know that the disease was caused by the vaccine requires a lot of evidence that is really just not available.
And, FWIW, http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/2/197
Background. Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyradiculoneuropathy, thought to be an autoimmune process. Although cases of GBS have been reported following a wide range of vaccines, a clear association has only been established with the 1976 H1N1 inactivated influenza vaccine.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. Neither Rand nor anyone in this thread has stated that GBS is typically caused by vaccines but that there was a clear association, what your own reference stated, between the 1976 H1N1 vaccine and GBS. Who knows? Maybe there was something particularly bad about that particular batch of vaccine? Bottom line is Nick Gilespie jumped on one trivial mistake that Rand made when the overall statement about the 1976 vaccine was 100% true.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Imagine that, his own link that he posted to try and disprove a link between the 1976 vaccine and GBS, states blatantly that there was a link between the 1976 vaccine and GBS.
FWIW Your own link studied data from 1995 to 2006. In fact it states:
Background. Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is an acute polyradiculoneuropathy, thought to be an autoimmune process. Although cases of GBS have been reported following a wide range of vaccines, a clear association has only been established with the 1976 H1N1 inactivated influenza vaccine.
I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. Neither Rand nor anyone in this thread has stated that GBS is typically caused by vaccines but that there was a clear association, what your own reference stated, between the 1976 H1N1 vaccine and GBS. Who knows? Maybe there was something particularly bad about that particular batch of vaccine? Bottom line is Nick Gilespie jumped on one trivial mistake that Rand made when the overall statement about the 1976 vaccine was 100% true.
Great catch!!
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us