Vaccines: how do I talk to my anti-vac wife about it?

[Bob001]

A couple thoughts for the original poster: You and she are now in confrontation. She sounds like she won't be persuaded by you no matter what because it would feel like giving in. Perhaps she could talk to an independent person that she respects, like a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, a mothers' group or even some alternative health practitioner (I don't think they're all against vaccination). That person might even make the argument that vaccines resemble homeopathic medications in the sense that they contain a small, weakened, safe amount of the disease agent (I wouldn't draw that analogy with anybody else, but it might work with someone who subscribes to homeopathy). You might also look into your state's vaccination requirements for school children. You might make a call to CPS to find out to find out what a parent's obligations are regarding their children's medical care. Also, to protect yourself and your child, it might be wise to talk to a lawyer now about preparing for the possibility of divorce. Your wife has already threatened to leave you. You don't want to wake up some morning and find out that she has left the state with your child, your credit cards and all of your assets.

 

[truethat]

so what you're saying is that anti-vaxers are selfish and contemptible.

Actually no. I'm saying I don't understand why adults would use "selfish" to describe someone looking out for the best interests of their child. To you it might be selfish but that's really an abstract idea now isn't it? Who cares if it's selfish? Having kids in the first place can be considered selfish and contemptible when you consider the needs of the planet overall and the tax on resources. Spending long hours debating online while people suffer and die around the world of starvation and then going out to dinner with friends for a nice meal can be considered selfish and contemptible. Being alive is filled with opportunities to be selfish and contemptible. Most people do a lot worse things than use the herd. I mean it's almost laughable that you need to make sure you label it as such.

Frankly, if it works, it's also very smart.

 

[Explorer]

That's cool but is the body not designed (not by a creator... don't go nuts) to keep up as well?


One thing I want to point out, I only mentioned the Amoxicillin example to point out how a medical trend and going against it might seem very weird to other people but how a mom (in this case me) was convinced her personal observations were correct and that I had done research to some degree to back up my thoughts. Confirmation bias to be sure, but the OP wants to figure out how to talk to his wife. So that's what I'm addressing.

Also

I'd like to point out that just because someone had a really bad case of whooping cough it doesn't mean that their body didn't heal from it. It seems like people are trying to equate "getting the sickness" with "dying from the sickness" and it's odd. To me the body is designed to fight sickness in a natural way. If you are at risk you should get additional protection. But if you are a normal healthy person you should be able to fight it off naturally. Yes it might be a tough week but that is what your body does.


I do believe this is at the crux of most antivaccine people's beliefs. But once again I have vaccinated all of my kids and would have vaccinated for H1N1 if it had become an epidemic. I waited, it didn't, no worries.

You relied on your vaccine and it seemed to work, I relied on our immune systems.......guess what? Seemed to work as well.

Of course we all have a degree of immunity against disease, both bacterial and viral, that is how we have survived to the present day, at least to a reproductive age.

I would ask this however, what degree of immunity, and/or genetic pre-disposition to disease do your kids have? Impossible to say, for yours or mine. Some of us are blessed with above average immunity, but are you going to take a chance with your kids and take a guess. Until we know much more about infection and immunity, I am happy to apply the best medical prevention techniques that we have available to me and my family. I owe them nothing less!.

 

[truethat]

Of course we all have a degree of immunity against disease, both bacterial and viral, that is how we have survived to the present day, at least to a reproductive age.

I would ask this however, what degree of immunity, and/or genetic pre-disposition to disease do your kids have? Impossible to say, for yours or mine. Some of us are blessed with above average immunity, but are you going to take a chance with your kids and take a guess. Until we know much more about infection and immunity, I am happy to apply the best medical prevention techniques that we have available to me and my family. I owe them nothing less!.

I would disagree only in theory. Over reliance on created medical techniques seems to lessen the body's ability to cope on it's own. Though I might be wrong about that.

On the other hand I whole heartedly agree that you are the best judge of what works for your family (as long as you aren't trying prayer and going off the deep end with other ideas) and it's your job as a parent to take care of them. What works for you doesn't necessarily work for me. I tend to think that it's not just "luck" in my case since so many of my other family members children on both sides have a lot of health issues. But that's just a confirmation bias I guess.

 

[Estellea]

Oh please, stop using pregnancy as an excuse to lose your mind. These beliefs were in place prior to gestation.

And the OP's wife is being sane and rational by threatening to take his children away if he dares to vaccinate them? I doubt this is the only issue which he faces regarding care and parenting of the children.
Again I ask, how do you convince someone who believes vaccines are teh debil to examine the scientific data, which they are rejecting, in order to come to said compromise?

"Get away with"? What kind of plan is that?

Oh sigh. Do you actually look at the numbers and the actual reactions/diseases yourself or is this just another one of your 'guesses'?

Este

Um PSSST Este -----have you seen the lines where I'm asking people if they can confirm or deny what I am saying???

If I'm wrong I'd like someone to post the facts to explain why. I'm sure the OP would appreciate this information.

Yes, I did miss this which is not surprising considering your verbosity and inconsistency.

Have you seen the edit where I bring in information that seems to work against the idea of herd immunity?

Ah after a bit of research I found an article that says "You can't hide in the herd" apparently it isn't realistic according this guy.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/you-cant-hide-in-the-herd/

Yet you are still advocating for him to "hide in the herd".

What kind of plan? Well a plan to buy himself more time to work it out since you can't just "push the pause button" when you are having a kid to work out all the kinks. Or "tell her never to have children" which seems to be the brilliant advice of some posters.

There is a vast difference between acknowledging one's fears and pushing to achieve what is best for the child, you know, the one that is also his and not eminent domain of the mum and validating one's irrational fears and continuing being thrown in a stasis. I am advocating for the former. As far as brilliant advice, I don't think you are one to cast stones considering yours was to vaccinate the children behind mum's back.

Are you guys normally so cleaved to your own ideas that you don't understand someone who is actually willing to look at both sides of an argument?

That is the problem with this situation, there isn't 'both sides of an argument' here; that's providing false balance to a completely erroneous train of thought. But that is why you can't understand why no one is willing to rationalise the mother's behaviour whilst you are patting yourself on the back.

I don't care about the BIG STORY, I'm trying to help this guy online who seems pretty desperate right now.

If he can "hide in the herd" it might just take the pressure off for a while as he continues to try to convince his wife.

Also the link I posted broke down the potential illnesses in a pretty clear way.

You'd better care about the big story as it affects us all, unless you live in a sealed biodome. Diseases are a mere plane, train or walk away. Are you unfamiliar with what has and is happening with measles? Six infants and toddlers were infected with measles in Dr. Bob Sears' office by one wilfully unvaccinated child who returned from Switzerland with measles. One of those infants landed in the hospital with pneumonia. Recently, an infant was in critical care with measles-related pneumonia after returning from a trip to Kenya, a few others were infected too.

As for the diseases 'broken down in a clear way' do you take into account incubation periods? Infectivity rates? Complication rates?

I'd wonder if she might be open to the Chicken Pox vaccine.


Simple reason, if the kid gets the vaccine he gets to skip Chicken pox which is a pain in the butt. The older her older child gets without having been exposed to Chicken pox at a young age, the more dangerous it can be to him in the long term right?

IS THIS TRUE? I've heard it before, can anyone back it up or contradict this?

Naive older children and adults have higher complication rates from chicken pox infections.

So this might be a reasonable place for her to start by vaccinating both her kids at the same time for Chicken pox. Sparing the kid potential scarring from CP if he gets it, or long term dangers if he doesn't get it.

See this is where you aren't even bothering to examine the individual diseases themselves. Chicken pox vaccines aren't even given until one year old or older and as far as disease severity, is not nearly as bad as measles, hib, pertussis, mumps, or rubella (although the danger is for developing foetuses). So if I were trying to get a reluctant mum to vaccinate, this isn't even one I would broach in the beginning.

Este

 

[truethat]

Yes, I did miss this which is not surprising considering your verbosity and inconsistency.


Yet you are still advocating for him to "hide in the herd".


There is a vast difference between acknowledging one's fears and pushing to achieve what is best for the child, you know, the one that is also his and not eminent domain of the mum and validating one's irrational fears and continuing being thrown in a stasis. I am advocating for the former. As far as brilliant advice, I don't think you are one to cast stones considering yours was to vaccinate the children behind mum's back.

That is the problem with this situation, there isn't 'both sides of an argument' here; that's providing false balance to a completely erroneous train of thought. But that is why you can't understand why no one is willing to rationalise the mother's behaviour whilst you are patting yourself on the back.


You'd better care about the big story as it affects us all, unless you live in a sealed biodome. Diseases are a mere plane, train or walk away. Are you unfamiliar with what has and is happening with measles? Six infants and toddlers were infected with measles in Dr. Bob Sears' office by one wilfully unvaccinated child who returned from Switzerland with measles. One of those infants landed in the hospital with pneumonia. Recently, an infant was in critical care with measles-related pneumonia after returning from a trip to Kenya, a few others were infected too.

As for the diseases 'broken down in a clear way' do you take into account incubation periods? Infectivity rates? Complication rates?

Naive older children and adults have higher complication rates from chicken pox infections.


See this is where you aren't even bothering to examine the individual diseases themselves. Chicken pox vaccines aren't even given until one year old or older and as far as disease severity, is not nearly as bad as measles, hib, pertussis, mumps, or rubella (although the danger is for developing foetuses). So if I were trying to get a reluctant mum to vaccinate, this isn't even one I would broach in the beginning.

Este

You see that part above where I asked a question and you answered it. But then take me to task for not knowing the answer just because you don't like me. Fanfreaking tastic. It's funny.

Also what's funny is the part when you completely cut out of the post of mine that you were replying to the part where I ask if it's not a good idea to examine the different vaccines individually rather than discussing vaccines as a whole.

And also once again I've asked for someone to clarify if what I am stating is true or is it not true.

Is it not true, that the likelihood of this ONE baby of getting a disease from a kid coming back from Kenya or Romania or India etc is just as likely as this ONE baby contracting an illness from the vaccine itself?

If we're looking at just this ONE baby is it true or is it not true?

If the OP had to use herd immunization, because what else is he really supposed to do? would it not work.


Hey I suggested taking the baby and immunizing the baby on his own without saying a word. You poo poohed that idea and then turn around and threatened the damnation of the planet if the kid doesn't get his shots.

It's part of why it is hard to keep straight what the reality of the situation is. Many of the pro people start getting really melodramatic in the claims.


My question is for this one guy. Yes or no. If he had to use the herd immunity, wouldn't it most likely work as he walked his wife through immunizations ?

See for me I don't have patience for this kind of nonsense. I'd have the kid immunized and just hide the paper work until he needed to be registered for school. Sounds like the mother prefers holistic methods anyway so when would it ever come up?

 

[Cayvmann]

Was it last year that you and another poster were predicting dire horrid circumstances based on the "swine flu epidemic" that has mysteriously disappeared?

So who is doing the fear mongering? We were told of drastic life threatening circumstances. Told that by not vaccinating that elderly people and children with illnesses that threatened their immune system would basically be dropping like flies based on our selfishness not to vaccinate.

It didn't happen did it? Or is it being covered up in the news or something?


That sounds like fear mongering as well.


Both sides have gotten pretty creative in making their arguments I would say.

The fact that it could very well have happened doesn't concern you? It surely happened in the past, with dire consequences. Would you rather just wait until millions die, before trying to do something about it, or try your best to make sure it doesn't happen again? Nature's way would be that millions, or billions can die. Nature just down right doesn't give a rat's patootie if you live or die.

As a person who supported vaccinations, I say "Hooray, it didn't happen!", rather than feel ashamed because the predictions were off.

It may very well have been the people who got vaccinated created a firewall of sorts that stopped the spread.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Is it not true, that the likelihood of this ONE baby of getting a disease from a kid coming back from Kenya or Romania or India etc is just as likely as this ONE baby contracting an illness from the vaccine itself?

NO! It is not in the slightest bit true. Getting a vaccine is a single vector, in a controlled environment, with only a few exposures (depending on the schedule of whatever vaccine we are talking about).

The risk of catching a disease is a lifelong risk for the unvaccineated, and it doesn't have to come directly from the kid who came from Kenya, Romania, India, or wherever. Diseases have a multitude of vectors, and the exposure to them is totally out of the control of the individual or their parents.

 

[Cayvmann]

The fact that the epidemic was not as bad as they thought does not mean that the vaccine was useless... so it only saved hundreds of lives instead of thousands. Ummm... that makes no sense. Amoxicillian is an antibiotic that has to be subscribed by a doctor. The only way they should be taking it is if they were actually ill, and saw a doctor. You're not supposed to take it as a preventative measure.

Those were my thoughts too. Why give an antibiotic, if not already sick? Is there a prophylactic (sp?) reason for this?

 

[truethat]

NO! It is not in the slightest bit true. Getting a vaccine is a single vector, in a controlled environment, with only a few exposures (depending on the schedule of whatever vaccine we are talking about).

The risk of catching a disease is a lifelong risk for the unvaccineated, and it doesn't have to come directly from the kid who came from Kenya, Romania, India, or wherever. Diseases have a multitude of vectors, and the exposure to them is totally out of the control of the individual or their parents.

Of course they are, we're talking about likelihood not control. Also good point that you brought up, I guess the way I'm looking at it is, worse case scenario if the child's mother is completely resistant and the child will need a vaccine to get into public school at the age of five. NOT LIFE LONG.


Also question, does the vaccine need to be given by a certain age for it to be effective? My youngest son was duplicated on a set because I lost paperwork when we moved. So was I. It didn't seem to matter what age?



So again, thanks so much for answering that question. Just to clarify further, if he had to wait, if it was a matter of just buying say a few months before he finally got her to agree. Is it very likely?

I'm not trying to be obtuse but it just seems like, (which some of you may consider) that if your arguments for the need of this are diseases being imported from women in India, Kenya, Romania etc and being picked up by unvaccinated kids in a doctor's office that this will only reinforce the fear of going to the doctor.


It does KINDA seem like you are not being honest. That in reality the likelihood of catching a disease in the next few months from a woman who came from Kenya is probably just as likely as the baby having an adverse side effect, so he can calm down a bit and do it the right way.

It does kinda seem like you guys don't want to admit this is true because you are afraid it will sort of validate the idea of herd hiding.

But I do think that is a reasonable statistic. If you could show me otheriwise it would be helpful.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

The anti-vax pro-disease nutter lobby has made it easier and easier for kids to go to school with non-religious exemptions. I don't know what the law is like in Ontario, but there are loopholes, and the anti-vax pro-disease lobby helps people find those loopholes and exploit them.

Due to how dynamically populations move on this planet, why risk exposure at any time? Hiding behind herd immunity isn't going to work when the rates are not up to snuff to reach the tipping point of that benefit. The risk of adverse effects from vaccines run at odds of 1 in 1to2 million vaccinated. Whereas the risks from any particular disease runs from 1 in 500 to 1 in 10,000 (depending on which disease and so forth).

Outbreaks happen because too many people believe they can hide behind herd immunity.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/2/07-050187/en/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57e222a1.htm

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/measles/

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/168/12/1389.full

And keep in mind, some people CAN'T get vaccinated, so there is a vital reason to keep herd immunity strong: http://danamccaffery.com/

It would be horrible as a parent to "delay" getting a vaccine, and then having a child suffer a horrible side effect from a disease when it could have easilly been prevented. The schedule was not developed willy-nilly. There are very good reeasons behind it. Any changes to the schedule are done in a methodical manner as well, not just because they feel like it.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

http://practice.aap.org/content.aspx?aid=2680

http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/Vaccineschedule.pdf

 

[Estellea]

You see that part above where I asked a question and you answered it. But then take me to task for not knowing the answer just because you don't like me. Fanfreaking tastic. It's funny.

I don't know you and don't believe I have even encountered you before so the charge of "not liking you" and responding in kind is moot. If I see blah blah blah, I can't be arsed answer a question that may be buried in it. I subscribe to an economy of words, it works, perhaps you ought to try it.

Also what's funny is the part when you completely cut out of the post of mine that you were replying to the part where I ask if it's not a good idea to examine the different vaccines individually rather than discussing vaccines as a whole.

Again, I see blah blah blah; just make your point. What do you even mean by vaccines individually versus as a whole?

And also once again I've asked for someone to clarify if what I am stating is true or is it not true.

Is it not true, that the likelihood of this ONE baby of getting a disease from a kid coming back from Kenya or Romania or India etc is just as likely as this ONE baby contracting an illness from the vaccine itself?

You need to be more specific. For instance which vaccine? What "illness" from what vaccine? What coinciding disease? Just a fever or localised erythema or anaphylaxis or encephalitis or what?

If we're looking at just this ONE baby is it true or is it not true?

Please clarify the above and I can answer that.

If the OP had to use herd immunization, because what else is he really supposed to do? would it not work.

Maybe maybe not; it's a crapshoot.

Hey I suggested taking the baby and immunizing the baby on his own without saying a word. You poo poohed that idea and then turn around and threatened the damnation of the planet if the kid doesn't get his shots.

I poo pooed your suggestion but most certainly did not threaten damnation of the planet or anything remotely so. I try to avoid engaging in hyperbole so please don't attribute such remarks or interpretations to me.

It's part of why it is hard to keep straight what the reality of the situation is. Many of the pro people start getting really melodramatic in the claims.

Not me.

My question is for this one guy. Yes or no. If he had to use the herd immunity, wouldn't it most likely work as he walked his wife through immunizations ?

Again, maybe, maybe not. Are they going to take the infant to the market? Daycare? A doctor's office? Grandma and Grandpa's? Playgroups? Or yanno, seal the kid and themselves in a bubble?

See for me I don't have patience for this kind of nonsense. I'd have the kid immunized and just hide the paper work until he needed to be registered for school. Sounds like the mother prefers holistic methods anyway so when would it ever come up?

Well that's a crappy way to engage in what should be a partnership. And if one has to resort to that tactic, then really, what are they doing partnered with that person to begin with?

Este

 

[truethat]

The anti-vax pro-disease nutter lobby has made it easier and easier for kids to go to school with non-religious exemptions. I don't know what the law is like in Ontario, but there are loopholes, and the anti-vax pro-disease lobby helps people find those loopholes and exploit them.

Due to how dynamically populations move on this planet, why risk exposure at any time? Hiding behind herd immunity isn't going to work when the rates are not up to snuff to reach the tipping point of that benefit. The risk of adverse effects from vaccines run at odds of 1 in 1to2 million vaccinated. Whereas the risks from any particular disease runs from 1 in 500 to 1 in 10,000 (depending on which disease and so forth).

Outbreaks happen because too many people believe they can hide behind herd immunity.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/2/07-050187/en/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm57e222a1.htm

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/idepc/diseases/measles/

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/168/12/1389.full

And keep in mind, some people CAN'T get vaccinated, so there is a vital reason to keep herd immunity strong: http://danamccaffery.com/

It would be horrible as a parent to "delay" getting a vaccine, and then having a child suffer a horrible side effect from a disease when it could have easilly been prevented. The schedule was not developed willy-nilly. There are very good reeasons behind it. Any changes to the schedule are done in a methodical manner as well, not just because they feel like it.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm

http://practice.aap.org/content.aspx?aid=2680

http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/Vaccineschedule.pdf

thanks for the links!

 

[Explorer]

I would disagree only in theory. Over reliance on created medical techniques seems to lessen the body's ability to cope on it's own. Though I might be wrong about that.

We often take for granted today "created medical techniques".

I shall just mention a few diseases, most of them 100% fatal or seriously disabling for life:

Tuberculosis
Typhoid
Leprosy
Polio
Diphtheria
Measles
Smallpox

All virtually eradicated from the human population due to medical advances. The human body could not "cope on its own" without the vaccines and anti-biotics that medical science has created for these diseases.

Only when parents fail to timely vaccinate their children, do these diseases have a habit of coming back. TB is the classic example.

You are perfectly free to take a chance with your own health, but for your kids they have the choice or no choice made by their parents. To take no action on the basis of a gut feeling, or anecdotal evidence without a test of your belief proving your point, your kids may never forgive you if and when things go badly wrong.

 

[truethat]

We often take for granted today "created medical techniques".

I shall just mention a few diseases, most of them 100% fatal or seriously disabling for life:

Tuberculosis
Typhoid
Leprosy
Polio
Diphtheria
Measles
Smallpox

All virtually eradicated from the human population due to medical advances. The human body could not "cope on its own" without the vaccines and anti-biotics that medical science has created for these diseases.

Only when parents fail to timely vaccinate their children, do these diseases have a habit of coming back. TB is the classic example.

You are perfectly free to take a chance with your own health, but for your kids they have the choice or no choice made by their parents. To take no action on the basis of a gut feeling, or anecdotal evidence without a test of your belief proving your point, your kids may never forgive you if and when things go badly wrong.

I do understand the first part. I wonder though if you realize how much like a scare tactic your second one sounds like? I heard it last year as well about how things were going to go badly wrong when the swine flu becomes a pandemic. Which it didn't. (awaits the inevitable "yet")

I do wish people would keep the proselytizing out of the posts and just stick to the basic information. It's not that what you are saying isn't necessarily true, it's just after being warned for over a decade from people how I'm putting my kids at risk based on what they know over a website, it does tend to make one second guess the sources of information you are providing.

I would like to go over them. Thanks so much for posting them. I hope they will help the OP as well.

 

[TsuDhoNimh]

Why would you introduce a virus into a person's body when the person's body already has a natural defense mechanism designed to fight the virus?

Because by the time the immune system has realized that there is a problem and the whole antibody-making process is underway, the bacteria or viruses have been wreaking havoc on the body ... and your body's damage control mechanisms may never catch up to the disease process.

The vaccination "primes" the system so that when an infection by that pathogen (or toxin) starts, the body can go right into antibody production and has a much better chance of coming out unscathed.

 

[truethat]

Because by the time the immune system has realized that there is a problem and the whole antibody-making process is underway, the bacteria or viruses have been wreaking havoc on the body ... and your body's damage control mechanisms may never catch up to the disease process.

The vaccination "primes" the system so that when an infection by that pathogen (or toxin) starts, the body can go right into antibody production and has a much better chance of coming out unscathed.

Awesome explanation. Thanks for posting that as well.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

I wonder though if you realize how much like a scare tactic your second one sounds like? I heard it last year as well about how things were going to go badly wrong when the swine flu becomes a pandemic. Which it didn't.

Sometimes the medical establishment can be wrong about the actual severity versus the anticipated severity. It happens. However, I would prefer we err on the side of caution. Although, then we get the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome to deal with, whether it was a mistake or our own actions that prevented the pandemic. What TsuDhoNimh said is really the essense of why vaccines work and why they are so important. An argument for the "natural immunity" is better just doesn't hold up, especially when a proper risk analysis is done. Furthermore, your body (and the immune system) doesn't give a rat's posterior if the immune response is triggered by a vaccine or the disease itself. It's the symptoms and side effects that we need to consider in this case.

And it could be argued that the swine flu pandemic was actually avoided due to the agressive immunization program (although I am uncertain as to the conclusive validity of such a statement).

As I say at http://factsnotfantasy.com/vaccines.php : Pro-disease anti-vaxers want vaccines that are 100% safe. This is never going to happen, as all medicines carry some risk. However, the relative risk of injury from vaccines is significantly lower than the risk of injury from getting the disease naturally. For more information, see the CDC website.

Another Herd Immunity link I missed: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-01-06-childhoodvaccines06_CV_N.htm

 

[laca]

Actually no. I'm saying I don't understand why adults would use "selfish" to describe someone looking out for the best interests of their child. To you it might be selfish but that's really an abstract idea now isn't it? Who cares if it's selfish? Having kids in the first place can be considered selfish and contemptible when you consider the needs of the planet overall and the tax on resources. Spending long hours debating online while people suffer and die around the world of starvation and then going out to dinner with friends for a nice meal can be considered selfish and contemptible. Being alive is filled with opportunities to be selfish and contemptible. Most people do a lot worse things than use the herd. I mean it's almost laughable that you need to make sure you label it as such.

Frankly, if it works, it's also very smart.

For the third time: look up "smart" in the dictionary, you don't seem to know what it means. Alternatively, you could stop using the word.

 

[truethat]

You are perfectly free to take a chance with your own health, but for your kids they have the choice or no choice made by their parents. To take no action on the basis of a gut feeling, or anecdotal evidence without a test of your belief proving your point, your kids may never forgive you if and when things go badly wrong.

this is the dramatizing part. The rest is information. But as has been pointed out, many times people arguing the points online resort to drama, instead of just posting the facts. I think it does a great disservice to the cause of vaccinations because it ultimately underminds the objectivity of the medical end of the discussion.

So does calling people selfish ****** etc when discussing using herd immunity etc.


I know it's a highly emotional issue, as well as frustrating I'm sure. But when people start talking like this it sounds agenda driven to me. I can only imagine what it would sound like to the OP's wife.