Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Joe Rogan CHALLENGES Peter Hotez to DEBATE RFK Jr, Pro-Vax Virologist CHICKENS OUT" video.

 @jrjr7390 No one should tell you, much less coerce you. They should provide you with solid advice.
13
@norman_5623 Well, the problem is that we've learned to mouth that "fact" rather than to do the very difficult multivariate analysis we need. You assume that individual vaccines being safe means that collectively they are safe, and need to be administered on a schedule that presumes early daycare and little to no breastfeeding. The fact is that the current vaccine schedule is remarkable, and relatively new. A lot of parents who support vaccines gave them as late as possible to their children, for sound biological reasons. I'm assuming you know about the various problems with polio vaccines, hm?
4
 @info781 Then why is Hotez all over the media all the time?
4
@somename86 You must hate reading then. Reading is fun. Math, too.
3
OH, now you're calling eminent toxic torts lawyers "idiots." Do you even know what that work entails, or how such cases are won?
2
@timogul Yup. He won huge, important cases against massive corporations.
2
@timogul Oxford: "(of a person) famous and respected within a particular sphere or profession"
2
@Timothy Bogle I would agree with you, except thar RFK Jr has never opposed all vaccines, or all childhood vaccines. Many major countries do not have a vaccine mandate for school, but rely on persuasion.
2
 @norman_5623 Brie just gave a summary of research on thimerosal. Please listen to that.
2
@norman_5623 Anyway, if all that were true, it should be a breeze to debate RFK Jr. Say, you don't think the COVID fiasco unjustifiably undermined support for clearly beneficial vaccines? I do. Public policy demands debates to persuade the public. New babies are being born every day . . .
2
 @erickborling1302 You think toxic tort cases are easy to bring, and win? Just how low is the average level of education now?
2
@erickborling1302 Wait. Do you actually not know that RFK Jr has spent his entire career proving toxic torts by reading the scientific literature and presenting expert witness testimony from scientists, against some of the most powerful corporations?
2
@timogul Those who forced vaccines, insisted on no liability with full patent protection for the pharmaceutical companies, and deprived anyone who disagreed of things like liberty, property, jobs, and good reputation, and even undermined young people's physical and mental health. Those are tyrants.
1
@erickborling1302 Yeah, like the Wuhan lab leak hypothesis being deemed "racist," rather than very viable and very inconvenient to Fauci. That was a lie that cost us all.
1
@@phillipwareham7761 I don't need authority for that. Do you?
1
@@phillipwareham7761 So . . . Do YOU think that full protection against liability for injury, full patent protection, and trying to hide data from court-ordered disclosure as intellectual property, in the case of an experimental drug urged upon everyone age 6 months and older are consistent positions? HOW SO?? That's funny. Jonas Salk tested the polio vaccine on himself and declined to pursue patent protection. Those were the days I guess.
1
@skosh6359 No wonder they resisted the lawsuit to make them divulge their data.
1
@JJwest118 Enough to make him susceptible to mild COVID, lol. Possibly mild myocarditis, too. Less funny.
1
@timogul Blocked. LOL
1
@timogul You could have at least consulted a dictionary, and you call other people names.
1
@timogul He most certainly is respected in toxic tort litigation against major multinational corporations, which have BIG BUCKS to wear down opponents. EDIT: Changed "who" to "which." Corporations are not natural persons.
1
@timogul I didn't need to look it up to use it. I did that for you.
1
@timogul He most certainly is respected in toxic tort litigation against major multinational corporations, which have BIG BUCKS to wear down opponents. EDIT: Changed "who" to "which." Corporations are not natural persons.
1
@timogul If Koch Industries is not paying you, you're getting cheated.
1
@timogul So they're not paying you.
1
@timogul Don't be so jealous of lawyers. Some people go to law school later in life.
1
@timogul Your audition for a job with Koch Industries? Or your desire to do something important with your life? You know who is an idiot. You know what big words mean. You can joke using computer terms like reboot. You are eminently qualified. I assumed that was your "big picture" concern. Or were you Worried For America?
1
 @permiek A single case, IF accurately examined and reported, shows what is possible. It cannot be generalized to the population level. But it does provide data.
1
@permiek It is called a case study. You've never read a medical journal? You've never signed a privacy waiver at a teaching hospital for your case to be analyzed after stripping all identifying information? You've never had a group of interns at your bed? One solid case study shows what is possible. Not at all what is usual, ordinary, etc. Possible. You've never heard of modal logic?
1
@permiek Oh wait. You're a "Science" and "Boomer" person. Never mind.
1
@permiek False. Case studies appear in peer-reviewed medical journals to alert doctors and scientists to what is POSSIBLE, and they often lead to generating testable hypotheses for further research. Moreover, do medical schools teach wrong things? That's taking skepticism way too far.
1
@permiek Great. One more person who does not understand scientific reasoning and thinks himself an expert. An anonymous testimonial online is NOT a case study by any stretch. Try that. That way, you'll be correct.
1
@permiek What I already wrote, with helpful highlighting: "A single case, IF accurately examined and reported, shows what is possible. It cannot be generalized to the population level. But it does provide data."
1
@jrjr7390 Let me see if I understand. RFK Jr. will debate people who smear him, but Scientists are too Big and Important to debate him. They won't perform the public service of showing new parents that RFK Jr is wrong, after this pandemic fiasco, where many are now understandably worried. And Kennedy's father and uncle were both assassinated, so smearing him is no big deal. Okay, got it.
1
Let me see if I understand. RFK Jr. will debate people who smear him, but Scientists are too Big and Important to debate him. They won't perform the public service of showing new parents that RFK Jr is wrong, after this pandemic fiasco. And Kennedy's father and uncle were both assassinated, so smearing him is no big deal. Okay, got it.
1
@David-iv6je I refer you to an older (pre-pandemic but post-terrorism/anthrax attacks) book by George Annas called American Bioethics. Scientists do not and should not have final say on public policy, especially where there is a question of curtailing fundamental rights. It makes no sense "simply to let science take us where it will. . . . Science has no will . . . "
1
@David-iv6je Actually, the public policy debate IS with lawyers, politicians, regulators, civil rights experts, and members of the public. It isn't just with scientists in journals. That's one reason why Hotez is all over the media all the time.
1
 @timogul So then make it a discussion, not a debate. Your points sound good to me, but they don't provide a reason not to have a discussion. It's a matter of format and appropriate gravitas.
1
@David-iv6je Well, I just wrote a factual post and was subjected to scents or sheep. You wrote a speculative one, and here it still is.
1
@David-iv6je No, the science is not "simple," nor is the ethics simple. Drugs are evaluated strictly case by case.
1
@timogul False, LOL. Don't imitate bots.
1
@timogul On second thought, do. Make a fool of yourself.
1
@timogul I believe I should respect myself enough not to respond to someone/something who/that parrots my words mindlessly, or post here at all because my excellent information is being sense oar d. That's what I believe. Why should any intelligent person subject themselves to this, OR create free content for YT, for that matter?
1
@timogul Is this The Joe Rogan Show?
1
@timogul Irrelevant to the question. What, is this some kind of a snowflake moment? I agree that someone much better than Hotez should meet with Kennedy and discuss this issue, and two scientists at the table with Kennedy would be even better. (As an attorney, "two against one" is no problem for Kennedy.) Hotez was singled out because he has been smearing people, but that is because he is primarily engaged in advertising and public relations, not medicine. So you do have a point.
1
 @Blake-gh8xl Who is the "flat earther?" Kennedy has won toxic tort cases against major corporations by presenting copious scientific evidence.
1
@1MarkKeller Who is the "flat earther" according to you? An eminent toxic torts lawyer who has won cases against major corporations by presenting scientific evidence and having it tested in court, where the burden is on his side to prove up all their claims?
1
Tremendous point.
1