Rand Paul Says He's Not Getting the Jab, and Anti-Science Heads Explode

AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File

Sen. Rand Paul has laid down the gauntlet about COVID-19 vaccination, and continues to raise hackles within the Senate, legacy media, and among the sheeple.


Sen. Rand Paul said he won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine because he has already had the coronavirus and believes he now has “natural immunity.”

Paul (R-Ky.), one of the first senators to test positive for the virus last March, told John Catsimatidis on his WABC 770 AM radio show that it’s a personal decision to opt-out of the vaccine.

An ophthalmologist, Paul said unless he sees evidence proving that the vaccine is more effective than having survived the virus, he won’t be getting the shot.

“Until they show me evidence that people who have already had the infection are dying in large numbers, or being hospitalized or getting very sick, I just made my own personal decision that I’m not getting vaccinated because I’ve already had the disease and I have natural immunity,” Paul said in the interview that aired Sunday.

When Paul is not being a Senator, he is a medical doctor—an ophthalmologist, which is a specialty within the field of medicine. I knew a resident who was seeking to practice ophthalmology, and it’s an incredible amount of training on top of the already intensive medical training received. Paul is also a practicing doctor, as opposed to Dr. Anthony Fauci, who essentially plays one on TV. Over 40 years of being paid half a million for maintaining the NIH bureaucracy does not a physician make. Paul and Fauci have shown how great that divide is in their numerous exchanges on the Senate floor. So, if Paul says something along these lines, I take him more seriously than I would “Dr. Fauxci.” Just saying.


Since the vaccines became available (thank you, Donald J. Trump), there has been this great push to get everyone vaccinated. However, there has not been a whole lot of conversation around testing those who have had COVID-19 and recovered, or those who have an inherent immunity to the virus—they have never had it, and probably never will. The CDC is not recommending people have testing for monoclonal antibodies, despite outlining a wealth of studies in Britain and the U.S. that individuals who had COVID and recovered have an 80-95 percent immunity to COVID reinfection.

Apparently, Paul is willing to go with those odds.

Because the vaccines are new and minimally tested, there is also little evidence that their efficacy is greater than natural immunity.

The American Institute of Economic Research also points to the vaccination rush, in light of the fact that COVID mutates much more quickly than other viruses, and the mass vaccination could be contributing to mutation, rather than containment.


It is estimated that “the SARS-CoV-2 virus is known to accumulate…two single nucleotide mutations per genome month.” In terms of pressure on the pathogen, some even argue that the combination of containment strategies such as lockdowns, school closures, societal restrictions, and mass vaccinations also help drive the emergence of variants and this is to be clarified and validated further for this current pandemic.

This then brings us to some troubling issues that need to be reconciled. We are concerned about the future implications of the proposed and ongoing mass Covid-19 vaccination of the populace (and for our purposes here we define the ‘vaccine’ as any of the mRNA vaccines in use currently), its selection pressure effect, and indeed the potential for longer-term chronic effects (if any) on humans. We hope to show that there is an urgent need for debate on the issue of vaccinating people who have already recovered from Covid-19.

Sadly, the federal government is disinterested in actual debate or discussion, only in pushing minimally tested vaccines. Biden has threatened that if you remain unvaccinated you’ll have to wear a mask in order to protect others, as though he can dictate such a requirement in a nation of 50 States who set their own guidelines.

There is also little discussion on who should not be vaccinated and only recently are studies being conducted regarding allergic reactions to the vaccines, and consequential side effects for certain segments of the population.


Paul continued:

“In a free country you would think people would honor the idea that each individual would get to make the medical decision, that it wouldn’t be a big brother coming to tell me what I have to do,” Paul said.

“Are they also going to tell me I can’t have a cheeseburger for lunch? Are they going to tell me that I have to eat carrots only and cut my calories?” Paul added. “All that would probably be good for me, but I don’t think big brother ought to tell me to do it.”

As Paul well knows, Big Brother already is (thank you, Obamacare), and many people blindly follow it without question; that is their choice. But I am with Paul: it is not the government’s role to tell me whether I should, or should not, get vaccinated. There should not be penalization, marginalization, and outright blocking of constitutional liberties for those who say, “My body, my choice.” It is also none of your business whether I have, or have not, been vaccinated, which is the crux behind the drumbeat for vaccine passports.

The naked promotion of these vaccines as lifesavers and trustworthy remains suspect for many, indicative of the fact that a little more than 43 percent of people have gotten fully vaccinated. That leaves 47 percent who will get vaccinated later, or simply choose not to. Taking a stance that everyone must be vaccinated or else is also a violation of individual liberties. Paul’s stand illustrates there are other solutions that need to be investigated and given weight as people decide how to best navigate life in this post-pandemic nation.



Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos