Posted on 02/18/2023 2:08:22 PM PST by george76
The Republican senator wanted to make a point about America’s COVID policies compared to the rest of the world.
On Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul wanted to know if the dean of Johns Hopkins School of Nursing was ‘pro-choice.’
‘Are you pro-choice in regards to patients making individualized medical choices?” Paul asked Dr. Sarah Szanton.
“Broadly, thank you, yes,” Szanton replied.
Paul was beginning a larger discussion to note that other nations have enjoyed more medical freedoms than most Americans have had.
“Are you aware that your university doesn’t allow choice with regard to vaccination, that you require all of your students to have three vaccines in order to be students?” Paul asked.
“Yes,” she responded.
“So it’s sort of choice, but not so much when regarding vaccination,” Paul continued.
The senator then asked if Szanton if she “aware of the increased risk of myocarditis with the COVID vaccine, particularly with successive COVID vaccinations in males between the ages of 16 and 24?”
Szanton came back with, “I’m prepared to talk about the nursing crisis, and that we have vaccine requirements across the board for.”
Paul stopped her.
He said, “Here’s the problem, if you exclude everybody from being a nurse who believes in basic immunology, you’re gonna include a lot of smart people, people who believe that you can get immunity from both vaccination as well as infection, and if you say, ‘Well, we’re just not gonna take the people who believe in that old-fashioned infection thing providing immunity, we’re only gonna take the people who do as they’re told’ — I mean, do you think individuals should be treated the same when they come to the emergency room?”
...
In Britain, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, they don't have university mandates for the COVID-19 vaccine.
Then why do American universities, like Johns Hopkins, stick their heads in the sand and require three vaccines?
...
The senator said people often need different treatments. That one size fits all doesn’t always work. Older people should be treated differently from younger people, for example.
Paul rattled off the countries he claimed had less restrictive vaccine policies.
“In Britain, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, they don’t have university mandates on this,” Paul said. “Some countries don’t recommend it for children at all.”
“There really is a debate and a discussion, you can have an opposite debate that if you believe in choice, when something has a debate and there’s arguments on both side, you’d give people a choice,” he added.
Rand Paul discussed more, before concluding, “This isn’t an argument against vaccinations, it’s an argument for thinking, and understanding that people of different ages could respond differently.”
Rand Paul discussed more, before concluding, “This isn’t an argument against vaccinations, it’s an argument for thinking, and understanding that people of different ages could respond differently.”
When medical professionals don’t get it, it’s bad.
What’s next? Leeches?
I really like Rand Paul. Can I swap him for John Coryn?
a 14-year-old girl in North Carolina who was denied a kidney transplant from Duke University Hospital because she was never vaccinated against COVID. The patient argued she already had the virus and therefore had natural immunity... ~ Chrissy Hicks, mother of 14-year-old Yulia Hicks,
And Sen. Paul still makes the argument that senior citizens should get an experimental vaccine that has not been approved by the FDA. I disagree with that notion.
If individuals with a relentless logical bent occupied the majority of seats in the U.S. Senate, rather than a vanishing few, we would be in much better shape.
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Then, relentlessly ridicule state legislatures that shamelessly foist mind-numbed stiffs on the national legislature until every Senator eventually meets a minimum standard of sentient function.
Senior citizens should be given a wider range of options of experimental treatments which have not been around long enough to gauge long-term effects.
Upping one’s chances of surviving 3 years from below 60% to above 90% (when say another treatment that is better tested will shove it to only 75%) at the price of a big question mark after 3 years while possibly benefiting others by allowing more to be known about a treatment’s long term effects is much more of a win-win for someone at 70 than someone at 30.
“When medical professionals don’t get it , it’s bad.”
Of course most are not stoopid but have been intimidated by hospital admin and powers that be.
FedGov can and Will deliver a horse head to one’s bed.
-fJRoberts-
I guess that’s their latest tyrannical move….denial of service….for the non-compromised blood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.