Bill Straub: Paul’s arguments wrong on both the science and the law in vaccination controversy

WASHINGTON – In his relatively short time on the public stage, during which he has expended a great deal of time running for president with credentials so thin they are transparent, Sen. Rand Paul has displayed an unparalleled unwillingness to let good sense and the facts get in the way of his political beliefs.

The most recent example of the Kentucky Republican’s often baffling view of the common good arrived a few days ago when he made it clear that parents alone ought to determine whether the children they “own’’ should be vaccinated for potentially dangerous diseases like the measles, mumps and rubella.

In outlining his views, Paul, who carries a medical degree, albeit in ophthalmology – which has little to do with communicable diseases – defended his dubious position by asserting, “I don’t think there is anything extraordinary about resorting to freedom.’’

“I have heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines,’’ Paul said. “I’m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they are a good thing. But I think the parent should have some input. The state doesn’t own your children. Parents own the children. And it is an issue of freedom and public health.’’

Later, on CNBC, during a rather awkward interview, Paul asserted regarding vaccinations, “for most of our history they have been voluntary.”

Now, to be fair, every individual in public life makes a faux pas. It’s inevitable and understandable. But in this instance Paul, who is feverishly trying to convince voters that the nation needs him to become president of these United States, belts a grand slam, calling into question not only his views on public health but his credentials as a physician, all-the-while seeking to bolster his curriculum vitae as a libertarian.

Given the opportunity here to either protect the nation’s health or avoid damnation from Ayn Rand’s grave, he has selected the latter.

So many places to start. First the low-hanging fruit – how can one cite “many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines’’ and then conclude “I think they are a good thing’’? It’s rather like saying you’re aware of instances where smoking caused lung cancer but cigarettes are a good thing.

But that reasoning, applying that characterization very loosely, is a canard anyway. Study after study, including one by the Institute of Medicine, concluded that the risk of a child becoming autistic as a result of the vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella – popularly known as MMR – isn’t any greater than for those who don’t receive the vaccine.

Some concern existed at one time that a compound found in vaccines intended to prevent bacteria contamination, thimerosal, could cause harm because it contained ethylmercury. Mercury, in significant doses, can prove harmful to a child’s brain development. But it was removed from all childhood vaccines in 1999 and subsequent tests found no link between thimerosal and neurological problems.

That should end the debate there. Of course it doesn’t.

Paul’s argument – which often consists of simply shouting the words “Freedom!’’ or “Liberty!’’ – completely ignores the public health consequences resulting from those who fail to gain their necessary vaccinations, which could prove devastating.

Measles in older children can lead to encephalitis, resulting in seizures and brain damage. Before MMR, mumps was the most common cause of meningitis and acquired deafness. In grown men it can infect the testicles, resulting in infertility. A pregnant woman infected with rubella during the first trimester faces a 20 percent chance that her the child could suffer birth defects like blindness, deafness, heart defects or mental retardation.

Vaccination can’t be a parental option. It’s a societal obligation. There’s an old saying that you’re freedom ends at the tip of my nose. Misguided individuals can’t be allowed to provide an obvious danger to otherwise innocents.

And Paul is simply wrong when he asserts that vaccinations have been voluntary. Way back in 1905 the U.S. Supreme Court held in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that the states have the authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. Justice John Marshall Harlan held that “the police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.’’

Individuals of a certain age will certainly recall lining up in the school gym for polio shots or, later on, thanks to Dr. Albert Sabin at Cincinnati Childrens Hospital and the University of Cincinnati, consuming the oral vaccine on a sugar cube. Many states continue to enforce vaccination requirements by refusing to admit children who are not properly vaccinated to school.

It seems, at the very least, Paul, as a physician, simply ought to know better. Instead he has opted to become a prisoner of libertarianism, or at least his version of same. Trying to determine just how this assist his burgeoning presidential campaign is difficult to understand in the extreme.

This entire incident raises another legitimate question regarding not only Paul but certain elements of his Republican Party regarding their rather tenuous relationship with the sciences, which they tend to use or disregard at the convenience of their political positions.

The Pew Research Center released a poll in 2009 showing that 71 percent of both Republicans and Democrats questioned favored requiring the vaccination of children. Five years later, according to the survey, Democratic support had grown to 76 percent while Republican support had inexplicably fallen to 65 percent, indicating a growing distrust within the party for science, medical or otherwise.

Vaccination policy is one thing. Then there is the constant dismissal of the reported dangers presented by global climate change. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-OK, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, is a climate change denialist, basically maintaining – no kidding here – that God won’t let the earth shrivel up and blow away.

And this guy’s the chairman.

All this, of course, doesn’t even began to crack the debate over evolution and the stated belief of some conservatives that creationism should be granted the same weight in the academic curriculum of the public schools as Darwin’s theory.

Pretty soon they’ll be telling us that Galileo was a quack and the sun really does revolve around the earth.

Washington correspondent Bill Straub served 11 years as the Frankfort Bureau chief for The Kentucky Post. He also is the former White House/political correspondent for Scripps Howard News Service. He currently resides in Silver Spring, Maryland, and writes frequently about the federal government and politics. Email him at williamgstraub@gmail.com.