Dozens of People Sent us Rand Paul’s Senate Hearing Testimony
Let's examine the evidence (or lack thereof) for his vaccine claims.
In RFK Jr.’s recent congressional hearing, Senator Rand Paul, himself a physician, delivered an impassioned speech about vaccine policies that has since gone viral among vaccine skeptics. In fact, dozens of people have sent us the speech, pointing to it as a perfect articulation of why they distrust vaccine recommendations. "Finally, someone is saying what we've been thinking," they tell us. His remarks merit careful examination, not because they're novel – many of these arguments have circulated for years – but because they illustrate the complex challenge of communicating public health evidence in an era of diminishing trust.
Let's discuss his claims one by one.
The Hepatitis B Birth Dose
"You're telling my kid to take a hepatitis B vaccine when he's one day old," Paul argued. "You get it through drug use and sexually transmitted [contact]. That's not science."
This fundamental mischaracterization of hepatitis B transmission ignores epidemiological evidence. The virus is remarkably hardy, surviving for at least seven days on surfaces. Transmission occurs through multiple routes beyond sexual contact and drug use – including household exposures, childhood injuries, and mother-to-child transmission during birth.
Remarkably, the hep B vaccine offers nearly 100% protection against the virus.
The timing of the birth dose isn't arbitrary – it's based on clear biological evidence. When newborns contract hepatitis B, 90% develop chronic infections that can lead to liver failure, cirrhosis, or cancer. That risk drops dramatically with age, to 30% for children infected between ages 1-5, and just 6% in adults. Approximately 78,000 Americans become infected annually, with 5,000-6,000 deaths from complications.
Maternal testing, while important, isn't foolproof. Mothers can be infected between testing and birth, results can be inaccurate, and some women lack access to prenatal care entirely. The birth dose serves as a crucial safety net, particularly for vulnerable populations.
COVID-19 and Children
"The science actually shows that no healthy child in America died from COVID," Paul claimed. This statement is demonstrably false.
A comprehensive study of pediatric COVID-19 deaths from February 2020 to July 2022 identified 112 deaths among individuals under 21 years old in just 25 participating jurisdictions. While many had underlying conditions, 16 (14%) had no preexisting medical conditions. The study also found that COVID-19 became the seventh leading cause of death in children aged 1-17 during this period.
Moreover, focusing solely on mortality misses critical aspects of COVID-19's impact on children. Death is NOT the only possible outcome of COVID-19. The discovery of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) revealed a devastating complication affecting approximately 1 in 2,000 infected children. Recent research from UCSF has uncovered its mechanism: the children's immune systems attack their own tissues because part of the coronavirus closely resembles a protein found in vital organs.
Long COVID affects approximately 3.5% of vaccinated individuals who contract the virus – down from 10% early in the pandemic. While that might sound small, with over 1.3 million Americans still becoming infected daily, the numbers are substantial. Recent studies show unvaccinated individuals face increased risks of metabolic and gastrointestinal complications from newer variants.
"72 Vaccines": Understanding Modern Vaccine Science
Paul's reference to "72 vaccines" is misleading. Today's childhood immunization schedule typically involves about 17 doses before kindergarten, protecting against roughly a dozen diseases. Each vaccine contains approximately 10 antigens – the proteins that stimulate immune response.
Remarkably, this is far fewer immune system challenges than in the past. The smallpox vaccine alone, used over a century ago, contained about 200 proteins. The old pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine from the 1940s contained over 2,000 proteins. Thanks to scientific advances, we've identified the specific proteins needed for immunity, creating more precise vaccines that are actually less taxing on the immune system than their historical counterparts.
For perspective, infants encounter thousands of antigens daily through normal environmental exposure. Their immune systems are built to handle this – they're constantly responding to bacteria, viruses, and other substances in their environment. The antigens in vaccines represent a tiny fraction of what babies' immune systems successfully manage every day.
The "One Size Fits All" Argument
Paul argues for a more individualized approach to vaccination. While this sounds reasonable, it misunderstands how vaccine recommendations are developed. The current schedule isn't arbitrary; it's grounded in extensive research on when children are most susceptible to specific diseases and when their immune systems are primed to respond most effectively to vaccination. While the schedule may appear uniform, it's actually highly nuanced and tailored to different age groups and individual circumstances.
Several key points demonstrate why the "one-size-fits-all" argument falls short. First, vaccine dosing isn't fixed. Infants and adults don't receive the same doses; some vaccines have specific pediatric and adult formulations. Dosages are carefully adjusted based on factors like immune response and the potential for side effects. Second, vaccines work differently than medications. While medicine dosages are often based on weight, vaccines stimulate the immune system. The goal is to activate immune cells (T cells and B cells), not to achieve a specific drug level in the bloodstream. The amount of active ingredient in vaccines is typically very small. Third, vaccine doses are not chosen randomly. They are rigorously tested during vaccine development to determine the lowest effective dose for the target age group. Higher doses would only increase side effects and costs. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the schedule does account for individual needs. Doctors consider medical histories before administering vaccines. Special circumstances, such as weakened immune systems or allergies, are always taken into account. The schedule can be modified for specific needs, and some individuals may require vaccines outside the typical schedule. All states, for example, allow for medical exemptions.
Returning to the topic of hepatitis B, the birth dose perfectly illustrates this point. It's not simply about preventing immediate infection. We know that infants infected at birth have a 90% chance of developing chronic hepatitis B, compared to only a 30% risk for older children. The timing of the birth dose is precisely calibrated to provide protection when the risk of severe, long-term outcomes is highest. This demonstrates how the apparent uniformity of the schedule actually masks a highly individualized approach designed to maximize protection at the most vulnerable stages of life.
When Science Changes
Paul points to changing aspirin recommendations as evidence that today's scientific consensus might be wrong. But this argument reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how modern science works.
The aspirin example actually demonstrates the strength of current scientific methods – our ability to detect subtle differences in risk across populations and adjust recommendations accordingly. When aspirin guidance changed, it wasn't because the original research was wrong. Rather, long-term population studies revealed that for people without existing heart disease, the bleeding risks slightly outweighed the benefits. For those with heart disease, aspirin's benefits still clearly exceed the risks.
Modern vaccine safety monitoring is even more sophisticated, involving:
Real-time global surveillance systems tracking millions of doses
Advanced statistical methods that can detect even extremely rare adverse events
Molecular and genetic studies examining biological mechanisms
International collaboration allowing rapid verification of findings
Computational power analyzing population-level data in ways impossible even a decade ago
When scientific recommendations change today, it's typically because:
New technology enables more precise measurement
Larger populations can be studied over longer periods
Different variants or pathogens emerge requiring updated approaches
Risk-benefit calculations evolve for specific groups based on new data
This isn't weakness – it's science working exactly as it should, constantly refining our understanding while building on established foundations.
The Autism Question
Perhaps most revealing is Paul's invocation of autism: "We don't know what causes autism yet. So shouldn't we be at least open-minded?" This rhetorical move, linking vaccines to autism despite decades of evidence to the contrary, illustrates a common misunderstanding of scientific evidence.
While we may not fully understand all causes of autism, we have definitively ruled out vaccines as a cause. Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is now understood as a complex condition involving genetic and environmental interactions that begin during prenatal development. Multiple large-scale studies, including one following 537,303 children in Denmark, have found no connection between vaccines and autism rates.
A 2014 meta-analysis of 10 studies involving over 1.2 million children found no association between vaccines and autism. This analysis is one of many studies that have consistently shown no link between vaccines and autism. We could go on and on. We have investigated this topic every which way for decades at this point. Not a single study has found an association.
In fact, autism rates have continued rising even in populations with lower vaccination rates.
It's important to note that we thoroughly debunked a recent paper attempting to link vaccines and autism. The study was fundamentally flawed, most notably because the authors failed to verify the vaccination status of the children involved—the most basic and essential variable for comparison. This, among other significant methodological issues, renders the paper's claims entirely baseless.
Current research shows that 60-90% of autism risk comes from genetic factors. Environmental influences primarily occur during pregnancy, including factors like advanced parental age, certain prenatal exposures, and specific pregnancy complications. Importantly, these influences affect brain development long before any childhood vaccines are administered.
"The Science Says"
Paul criticizes what he calls "submission" to scientific consensus, pointing to changing health recommendations like aspirin use as evidence that today's certainties might be tomorrow's mistakes. But this argument fundamentally misunderstands modern scientific methodology.
Today's vaccine safety monitoring involves unprecedented capabilities:
Real-time global surveillance systems tracking millions of doses
Sophisticated statistical methods detecting even rare adverse events
Advanced molecular and genetic studies examining biological mechanisms
International collaboration allowing rapid verification of findings
Computational power analyzing population-level data in ways impossible even a decade ago
When scientific recommendations change today, it's typically because:
New technology enables more precise measurement
Larger populations can be studied over longer periods
Risk-benefit calculations evolve for specific groups
Different variants or pathogens emerge requiring updated approaches
The aspirin example actually demonstrates the strength of modern science – the ability to detect subtle risk differences across populations and adjust recommendations accordingly. This isn't weakness; it's precision.
Moving Forward
As new variants emerge and Long COVID affects millions globally (with an economic impact estimated at $1 trillion annually), maintaining high vaccination rates remains crucial. But building trust requires more than just citing statistics.
We must acknowledge that scientific inquiry continues. Researchers are still uncovering new aspects of how vaccines protect against both acute infection and long-term complications. Each variant brings fresh questions requiring careful study.
But this ongoing investigation doesn't indicate weakness in our understanding. Rather, it demonstrates the rigorous process through which we continue to test, verify, and refine our knowledge. Multiple lines of evidence, from various independent sources globally, support current vaccine recommendations.
The challenge isn't choosing between blind trust and skepticism. It's understanding how modern science works: as a dynamic, self-correcting process that builds knowledge through careful study, replication, and continuous verification. This process has given us unprecedented ability to prevent serious diseases – but it requires ongoing engagement from both scientists and the public to ensure its benefits reach all communities.
Stay curious,
Unbiased Science
Welcome to our brave new world, overseen by Trump's political appointees, and heralding America's rapid descent into the Dark Ages of science and medicine.
I don’t say it often enough, but THANK YOU