Talk:Rand Paul/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Rand's "fight over COVID's origins"

The New York Times mentions the questioning that Rand did to Fauci at a Senate hearing on efforts to combat Covid-19 last month and includes it as part of what they characterize as "fight over COVID's origin". I think this is a notable fact and propose to include a brief mention of it here, perhaps at the Political positions section. Forich (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Biased opinion vs Fact

"Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video which falsely claims that masks are not effective"

The inclusion of the word 'falsely' enters a biased opinion, meant to be dismissive of the subject, which has no foundation in fact or reality. The claims were citing medical studies and are valid points. This sort of political bias harms the credibility of Wikipedia as much as any trolling, especially on a locked page where opponents of the politician are free to slander them and cannot be corrected by those seeking honesty over political bias.

"Paul was suspended from YouTube for a week under the company's misinformation policy after he published a video citing studies claiming that masks are not effective." Would be more honest and less opinion based, at the very least. More appropriate would be to include that Youtube has their own opinion based on political agendas, while the Dr and many other Drs have one based on medical research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:6000:402:e0f0:4e21:4ecc:8d97 (talk) 11:15, August 13, 2021 (UTC)

No, that's a false claim. Masks are effective. We don't equivocate or provide WP:FALSEEQUIVALENCE. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No, your opinion doesn't top medical science. Paul cited scientific research and is himself a medical doctor. His opinion and the research of experts is not thwarted by your biased opinion, no matter how impressed with yourself you are. Shameful, truly shameful to pass off your biased and inaccurate opinion as fact. Wikipedia shouldn't be a platform for bias and opinion vs fact. Sorry, you're passing off lies and opinion as fact and that's not right.

Even blindly ignoring research and science because it doesn't suit your bias, it would merely take asking yourself, 'If masks are effective, how come people with masks and vaccines keep catching and passing along this virus?'. Even the political hero Fauci agreed that masks weren't effective early on and changed his claim when it became politically convenient to do so. Again, passing your uneducated and heavily biased opinion off as fact on a locked page, only serves to make Wikipedia a joke and removes any and all credibility it could ever hope to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:6000:402:141a:f2c8:4da8:7abf (talk • contribs) 09:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Medical science is not made from opinions of medical doctors. It is made from careful planning and careful execution of studies, then careful evaluation of the best of them while excluding the bad ones. Opinions of medical doctors is something that is filtered out in the first step of this process by double blinding (look up how it works). Opinions of medical doctors are a source of error, not a source of truth. We follow the science, and the science says masks are effective. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2022

Change: "In 2003 he withdrew from the American Board of Ophthalmology and declared himself self-certified by his National Board of Ophthalmology. He continued working and established his own clinic in December 2007."

To: "In 1994, Rand Paul passed the written part of the American Board of Ophthalmology exam and the next year he passed the oral section to become board certified. Beginning in 1993, the board chose to enforce a recertification exam every ten years but grandfathered in every ophthalmologist certified before 1993. Dr. Paul believed this to be unfair and organized a group of 200 young ophthalmologists to protest. When the protest was ignored by ABO, this group of 200 young ophthalmologists broke away and formed the National Board of Ophthalmology which required board recertification for all ophthalmologists regardless of age. When Dr. Paul’s ABO certification expired, he chose not to renew it because of the injustice of not requiring the exam for the older ophthalmologists. Dr. Paul has that this struggle exemplifies his belief that laws as well as association mandates should be applied equally." JakeCox (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Slamming the US government

He has slammed the US government as the “greatest propagator of disinformation in history”. Needs to be added somewhere. 176.55.120.156 (talk) 08:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Support for Putin?

In 2017 the late senator, John McCaine, accused Paul of doing Putin's work. After he held up $40 million in aid for Ukraine could this now become worthy of comment in the main article. https://www.newsweek.com/john-mccain-warning-rand-paul-vladimir-putin-ukraine-vote-1706301 I am no expert in US politics but this has appeared on Twitter a couple of times and the comments dissapeared after 24 hours. One comment was there today. https://twitter.com/Awesome26340342/status/1525661393839501312?s=20&t=j-gKXd_8Hfn-L1Iy0GvNWQ HuttonIT (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Huffpost

reference 84 is a HuffPost article. Poor and biased source. Please remove 47.203.28.160 (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Church Info

From recent Fox News article by Kelley Paul: "Kelley Paul and her husband, Senator Rand Paul reside in Bowling Green, Kentucky, where they are members of Broadway United Methodist Church. She and Rand were married in 1990 and are the parents of three sons." Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

 Added. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Right to Try Bill

Senators Paul and Booker advocate alternative Schedule I drug therapies for the terminally ill. "The legislation would clarify the act should allow terminally ill patients to have access to Schedule I drugs if said drugs have been through a Phase 1 clinical trial. In other words, the goal of the bill is to take away obstacles presented by the Controlled Substances Act." - WYMT Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Update, Time.com, August 24, 2022 by Tara Law Kathryn Tucker, a lawyer focused on expanding access to psychedelics for groups including terminally ill people, to compel the DEA to allow use of psilocybin under the Right to Try law, which Tucker argues should supersede the Controlled Substances Act establishing the U.S.’s drug policy. The DEA is “thwarting operation of duly enacted federal law,” says Tucker. “If a physician deems their patient to have a life-threatening condition that could be addressed with one of the eligible investigational drugs, then that physician can seek Right to Try access, and should be granted it.” Advocates argue that the law has a particularly broad mandate. “The lack of an exclusion makes it clear that there is no exclusion” for Schedule 1 substances, Tucker says.

The advocates’ case has won them some powerful bipartisan allies. On July 20, Senators Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced the Right to Try Clarification Act, to make it clear that the legislation encompasses Schedule 1 substances so long as they’ve been through Phase 1 clinical trials.

Veterans with PTSD are a particular area of focus in the fight to expand psychedelic access. “Currently, even in the best circumstances, our treatments probably help about half of the patients with PTSD,” and many also have treatment-resistant depression, says retired Brigadier Gen. Dr. Stephen Xenakis, a psychiatrist who served in the Army and volunteers with Reason for Hope. The U.S. has a moral responsibility to offer them a treatment that can help, he says. Given that about 17 U.S. veterans die by suicide every day in the U.S., “too many people are going to die” if veterans are forced to wait for FDA approval.

“All of us should be shouting from the rooftops that something has to change,” says Lynnette Averill, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Baylor College of Medicine who has studied how psychedelics can help special-operations veterans and is part of Reason for Hope. “Given the crisis that we are in, we cannot wait another year - or 2, 5, or 10—for these to be fully approved.” Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Masker

Senator Paul has stated on Twitter numerous times that he believes "masks don't work" and that there is "scientific proof" - no masks, not even 3M N95s. Many sources can be found. Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: During Fox News's August 19, 2022 edition of Hannity, Senator Paul suggests that caregivers tending to ill people "might want to wear a mask". This is a departure from extreme anti mask rhetoric. Also, he states that "cloth masks don't work" implying that other types do indeed work. Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Senator Paul is in agreement with this statement of Dr. Vinay Prasad, an associate professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. Prasad stated, "No one has ever shown that masking kids slows the spread of sars-cov-2.” Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 08:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

During Fox News's Sept 14 broadcast of Hannity, Senator Paul reiterates that cloth masks in particular don't work while others may. Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Gain of Function Research

"Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is leading the first-ever congressional hearing dedicated specifically to gain-of-function research." - WSET Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Update: Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who sparred many times with Fauci in the Senate, said (on Twitter), "Fauci’s resignation will not prevent a full-throated investigation into the origins of the pandemic." - Houston Keene, Fox News August 22, 2022 Gain of function research is a possible means of origin for Covid 19, a strain of SARS-CoV-2. Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 07:29, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

From the website of Senator Rick Scott, September 15, 2022: Senator Rand Paul, M.D. said, “The American people deserve full transparency as to the federal government’s role in overseeing dangerous gain-of-function research. Having convened the first-ever congressional hearing on gain-of-function research, I am committed to providing that transparency. The secretive P3CO Review Group – which is supposed to provide a layer of much-needed oversight of this dangerous gain-of-function research – has largely been ineffective. I am glad to join Senators Rick Scott and Roger Marshall in sending this letter, and I’m hopeful that the NIH will respond to these critical questions promptly and in full.” Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Experts at hearing sought by Sen. Rand Paul say gain-of-function virus research should be subject to more government oversight Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 07:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Please note that per WP:COPYQUOTE I have replaced the text with a link instead. Previously most of this article was copy-pasted into the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

No longer correct statements do not belong in the article

The article contains this sentence:

"After completing his residency in ophthalmology, Paul moved to Bowling Green, Kentucky, where he has been an "active, licensed physician" since 1993."

But another part of the article states that Paul has not practiced medicine since his 2010 election to the Senate.

Out-of-date and otherwise false statements do not belong in the article. 2601:200:C000:1A0:6971:114D:7F8:4A26 (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right. I've edited it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

He is still an "active, licensed physician". See this. —Wasell^(T) 🌻🇺🇦 05:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

"Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[6][7] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for his first name."

This is the kind of editorial that costs Wikipedia revenue from potential donors. 76.74.14.155 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What part of the statement do you consider to be a-factual? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Masker

Excerpt from @RandPaul February 22, 2023 Twitter post: "Didn’t I say masks don’t work, over and over again for 2 yrs and Big Tech censored me for it? Waiting for their apology— crickets so far . . ." After no direct anti-mask rhetoric since August 2022, Senator Paul once again states that all masks don't work with no differentiation between types of mask. Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

2015 Prayer Book

Note that Rand Paul cowrote a Christian book of prayers with James Randall "Randy" Robison, son of Evangelical leader James Robison, entitled "Our Presidents & Their Prayers: Proclamations of Faith by America's Leaders". This should be highlighted in the "Personal Life" section where is religious affiliation is mentioned. Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Correct Names

Note that Rand Paul's sister, Joy, does not hyphenate her last name according to her Facebook Profile.

https://www.facebook.com/joy.p.leblanc

Rand Paul's mother is listed as Carol Wells Paul

https://www.facebook.com/carol.w.paul.5 Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. I removed the hyphen from his sister's name with a New York Times ref. –CWenger (^ • @) 14:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022

Remove "and became one of his top supporters in the U.S. Senate during and after his presidency.[3]" add a period following "While he initially opposed candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 Republican primaries, he supported Trump following his nomination".

He voted with Trump the 3rd lowest of any Republican Senator. Jdrico6 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. "One of his top supporters" might be an overstatement because they have an odd relationship, but it's sourced so I don't think it's fair to remove it. We could add some nuance if you have a reliable source. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@CWenger Define a reliable source, there is evidence Rand Paul wasn't a close Trump supporter all over The Internet. His voting record should speak for itself. Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 01:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest an addition based on a reliable source. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Please read Reliable sources and take a look at WP:RSP for analysis of commonly debated sources. Cullen328 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@CWenger Does this qualify as a reliable source? I don't understand the nuance. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/rand-paul/ Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would qualify. I do notice the current ref focuses on impeachment, but we use it as a more general statement. I suggest something like this:

While he initially opposed candidate Donald Trump during the 2016 Republican primaries, he supported him following his nomination and became one of his top defenders in the U.S. Senate during his impeachment, though on key votes Paul aligned with Trump the third least among Republican senators during Trump's presidency.

References

How does that sound? –CWenger (^ • @) 01:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@CWenger Yes, that's perfectly fine but change it to "during his first impeachment trial" as there were two. Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done! Thanks for your input. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@CWenger No, thank you! It's always terrific to work with you. You're an asset to Wikipedia. Ginacanadiangirl (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Spotted typo (18th October 2023)

Hi,

I can't seem to edit the main article, but I noticed a typo today - in the Disease Control section, it currently says, 'On October 10, 20023, Paul published Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up with Regnery Publishing'

This should be obviously say 'On October 10, 2023, Paul published Deception: The Great Covid Cover-Up with Regnery Publishing'

Could someone kindly make the fix?

Best, Ed El2279 (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. Shearonink (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks El2279 (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)