Rand Paul doubles down on vaccine stance

Sen. Rand Paul doubled down Monday on his earlier comments that vaccines should be “voluntary,” telling CNBC, “I don’t understand the point of why that would be controversial.” He also alleged he was the victim of media bias.

The remarks of the Kentucky Republican, who is an ophthalmologist by training and a likely 2016 Republican presidential candidate, come as public health officials try to contain an outbreak of measles believed to be fueled in part by a growing number of families refusing to vaccinate their children.


Paul first expressed his stance on vaccinations during an interview with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham, expressing particular concern over mandatory vaccinations for sexually transmitted diseases.

On CNBC, “Closing Bell” host Kelly Evans pushed back against the senator, saying “maybe you are not aware, but there is a huge problem right now” caused by parents deciding that the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is “voluntary.”

Paul responded that he has “heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,” though he was sure to note that he wasn’t arguing vaccines are a “bad idea.”

The CDC has studied the alleged relationship between common vaccines like MMR and autism and found “no links” whatsoever. These results have been replicated by multiple separate reports.

The exchange stayed heated as the two changed subjects and began discussing the efficacy of corporate tax holidays. At one point, Paul shushed Evans and told her to “calm down a bit here.”

Evans also pressed the Republican on a Washington Post article about Paul’s efforts in the early 2000s to protest the group that certifies ophthalmologists by starting his own National Board of Ophthalmology. Ultimately, Paul was able to certify only about 50 or 60 doctors and the state of Kentucky dissolved his board.

Paul responded to questions about the article by accusing Evans of “mischaracterizing and confusing the whole situation” and “twist[ing]” it as, he believed, the Post did in its article.

Toward the end of the interview, Paul said what he perceived as bias against him in the media could be a “problem” for his 2016 ambitions.

“You end up having interviews like this where the interview is so slanted and full of distortions that you don’t get useful information. I think this is what is bad about TV sometimes,” he said.

“Frankly, I think if we do this again, you need to start out with a little more objectivity going into the interview.”