Rand is a physician who is also a politician. His responsibilities includes protection of his patients and of the American people as voting and non-voting citizens. What emerged from the Wuhan laboratory killed millions of people across the globe. None of us know yet what else could possibly happen unless brave men like Rand demand the t…
Rand is a physician who is also a politician. His responsibilities includes protection of his patients and of the American people as voting and non-voting citizens. What emerged from the Wuhan laboratory killed millions of people across the globe. None of us know yet what else could possibly happen unless brave men like Rand demand the truth from wherever it comes. A time to look is now. Undoubtedly there are some who must be exposed and punished.
Also, I don't think Rand is the one writing these. Other posts refer to Rand in the 3rd person. If that makes any difference.
Edit:
Yep. This is not Rand's writing. I retract my statements about Rand making these claims. But whoever is writing these is doing an awful job making an argument.
If he has information he needs to present it in his argument. I'm purely evaluating his blog post here.
I have no doubt Rand is a smart guy when it comes to ophthalmology.
The email he uses as evidence of 15,000 Covid-19 samples, actually references 15,000 Coranavirus samples. The Coronavirus family is massive, and there would be good reason to catalog that many. See my post below.
He also does more than analyze medical facts. He analyzes motives. In his analysis of motives, he assumes the worst, without making a solid argument for it. He really can't think of a single reason why 15,000 samples might be frozen in a lab aside from a desire to kill millions of people? He's not thinking about this very hard.
Rand just doesn't support his argument. If he has more evidence I'm open to listening. But this blog post doesn't stand up to even my 30 minute examination of just taking him at his word. He blows up his own case.
Cheers
Edit: Rand isn't the one writing these. The author really needs to be made more clear, and not hidden in the blogs about me. I still stand behind my analysis, but if reading this, please redirect my comments on Rand to whoever is making these awful arguments.
Rand is a physician who is also a politician. His responsibilities includes protection of his patients and of the American people as voting and non-voting citizens. What emerged from the Wuhan laboratory killed millions of people across the globe. None of us know yet what else could possibly happen unless brave men like Rand demand the truth from wherever it comes. A time to look is now. Undoubtedly there are some who must be exposed and punished.
Also, I don't think Rand is the one writing these. Other posts refer to Rand in the 3rd person. If that makes any difference.
Edit:
Yep. This is not Rand's writing. I retract my statements about Rand making these claims. But whoever is writing these is doing an awful job making an argument.
If he has information he needs to present it in his argument. I'm purely evaluating his blog post here.
I have no doubt Rand is a smart guy when it comes to ophthalmology.
The email he uses as evidence of 15,000 Covid-19 samples, actually references 15,000 Coranavirus samples. The Coronavirus family is massive, and there would be good reason to catalog that many. See my post below.
He also does more than analyze medical facts. He analyzes motives. In his analysis of motives, he assumes the worst, without making a solid argument for it. He really can't think of a single reason why 15,000 samples might be frozen in a lab aside from a desire to kill millions of people? He's not thinking about this very hard.
Rand just doesn't support his argument. If he has more evidence I'm open to listening. But this blog post doesn't stand up to even my 30 minute examination of just taking him at his word. He blows up his own case.
Cheers
Edit: Rand isn't the one writing these. The author really needs to be made more clear, and not hidden in the blogs about me. I still stand behind my analysis, but if reading this, please redirect my comments on Rand to whoever is making these awful arguments.