Arguing with DH over whether to vaccinate or not

[LetsGoToTheHills]

This is causing a lot of conflict and we are both really upset about it. He is for, I am against (never had them myself). Both equally passionate. This is my first time on MN and I have found a lot of useful information and interesting viewpoints, but was wondering if anyone has been in a similar situation? How did you manage to resolve it?

Farlo, I'm glad your DD is on her way to recovery. Just a couple of comments on your post -

Firstly, how do you suggest people identify whether their child is in a 'special risk group'. Sadly many parents have only found this out by their child being vaccine damaged.

Also, what is the difference between a child that is unvaccinated for medical reasons and one who is not? Both could still have infected your child or any other (equally so could a vaccinated child because vaccines do not guarantee immunity). Would you have been ok with that happening if the parents were able to give you an acceptable reason as to why their child was unvaccinated? What would you consider an acceptable reason? Who has the ability to define 'acceptable reason'?

I understand that it must be scary when your child is vulnerable but realistically they are going to be at risk from everyone not just unvaccinated children. A vaccinated child is not necessarily immune, an adult may not still have immunity, you could bring home a flu/stomach bug yourself. I'm not trying to belittle your situation or your feelings but I just don't think it's fair to always be pointing the finger at the unvaccinated child as a 'potential murder weapon' (to use a phrase from another thread) when there are plenty of other people also posing a risk out there. Unless everyone is 100% sure that they are immune and their own children are immune (based on a blood test and not just on the idea that because they are vaccinated they must be immune for life) then they have absolutely no right to point the finger at any one else and accuse them of being irresponsible or putting someone at risk.

Thank you all for your good wishes for my DD. We still have a long period of watching and waiting to go, and everything could still change, but we're hopeful and everyone's good wishes are very much appreciated.

Catherina Wishing all the very best to your cousin and friends!

I'll try to respond to your queries, bumbleymummy:

Firstly, how do you suggest people identify whether their child is in a 'special risk group'. Sadly many parents have only found this out by their child being vaccine damaged.

For 'special risk group' what I would think of is someone who is, say, immune compromised, has a history of severe allergic reactions, family history of trouble with specific vaccines or has any condition which evidence shows raises the risk of damage from the vaccine. The child's medical team should be identifying any child at risk and making sure they do not receive anything there is reason to suspect might put them at more risk of harm than not receiving it. I wouldn't dream of saying any evidence-based reason wasn't good enough, that's completely up to the parents and medical team if there are any known risk factors at all.

If you mean however those kids with no medical issues for whom the problems come as a bolt from the blue then no, there is no way to identify them in advance, the same way that there is no way to identify the otherwise normal kids that would have died from measles, mumps, pertussis, diptheria etc. in advance. You have to go with the choice that has the least risk and hope for the best in that situation - they may even be the same set of kids and there may be nothing you can do to prevent the harm, that's just probability. I did everything right for my DD to reduce her risk of cancer, she had no family history, she played in the muck, she was BF, she went to nursery, she had a very healthy diet - we played the numbers game as best we could and still got the short straw. Even though the stats suggest those were the best things to do, paradoxically a bug she picked up doing those exact things could have triggered the cancer. We couldn't know, but at least we had the comfort of knowing that statistically we did what gave her the best odds of growing up healthy. That's all you can do as a parent. It is tragic for those very, very rare children who are damaged by vaccines, but if nobody was vaccinated many, many more children would be dead or damaged by the diseases than are by vaccines, so until we have a perfect set of vaccines, it's a tragic but thankfully very rare consequence we all have to live with. I know that it feels worse emotionally for harm to be caused by a direct action rather than an inaction, but it's better for less children to be harmed in total, surely?

Also, what is the difference between a child that is unvaccinated for medical reasons and one who is not? Both could still have infected your child or any other (equally so could a vaccinated child because vaccines do not guarantee immunity). Would you have been ok with that happening if the parents were able to give you an acceptable reason as to why their child was unvaccinated? What would you consider an acceptable reason? Who has the ability to define 'acceptable reason'?

Of course each unprotected child has the same potential to pass it on irrespective of their reason for not being protected, but that's not actually the problem - the problem is the likelihood of each non-immune child acquiring the illness. The 'medical reasons' child could not have been vaccinated safely/succesfully, and the 'failed vaccination' child could not be vaccinated effectively. These are the people we can't protect by vaccination, and who need to be protected by other means. Unfortunately, the higher the percentage of unprotected people in any population, the more likely the infection is to be passed on each time there is a case, because there are that many more opportunities available to the organism to be passed on before it is no longer infectious. Once you reach a certain percentage, there are enough opportunities for an epidemic to start, and then it is incredibly hard to protect the vulnerable. We only have the luxury of not immunising those with genuinely increased risks if as many as possible who don't have those risks are immunised. We can't get away from that, it's how vaccination works. I'd be as permissive as possible about 'acceptable reasons', I'd rather nobody with a real increased risk had to have anything done that might harm them unnecessarily, with the proviso that there needs to be some evidence behind it that leads you to believe that the risks outweigh the benefits because this is an exemption that cannot be made for too many or the whole system comes crashing down and the death toll starts to rise, which I don't think anyone wants to see.

Would I have assigned less blame to parents of a child who infected mine if they had a medically validated reason for not immunising than parents who had chosen not to immunise with no special reasons - yes. Would I assign less culpability to any action that caused harm that wasn't reasonably attempted to be prevented as opposed to one that could, yes, of course. I would love the decision to be down to parents alone, but the problem is that this only works while most parents make the choice to vaccinate. Honestly, I think to safeguard the above mentioned unprotectable groups and to avoid having to vaccinate babies ridiculously young to protect them too, there has to be more to it than that and an opt-out should only be available to those who can get a doctor to sign them some kind of exemption form.

I understand that it must be scary when your child is vulnerable but realistically they are going to be at risk from everyone not just unvaccinated children. A vaccinated child is not necessarily immune, an adult may not still have immunity, you could bring home a flu/stomach bug yourself. I'm not trying to belittle your situation or your feelings but I just don't think it's fair to always be pointing the finger at the unvaccinated child as a 'potential murder weapon' (to use a phrase from another thread) when there are plenty of other people also posing a risk out there. Unless everyone is 100% sure that they are immune and their own children are immune (based on a blood test and not just on the idea that because they are vaccinated they must be immune for life) then they have absolutely no right to point the finger at any one else and accuse them of being irresponsible or putting someone at risk.

Yes, my DD was at some level of risk from everyone with any illness. However, some illnesses are known to be particularly dangerous for those with a low immune system. Chickenpox is one, and every time my DD was exposed to anyone with it she had to go into hospital and have some large and nasty injections in her leg to protect her from death, brain damage or other serious impairment. Most of the diseases that young children are immunised against fall into this category and sadly some children who would have otherwise survived their cancer have died of measles, pertussis etc. Thankfully most of them survive a stomach bug or the flu. The point is to reduce the most dangerous risks where you can. Nobody can avoid risk altogether. You wouldn't argue that everyone should be allowed to be in a car without a seatbelt because some would die anyway, after all. Neither would you argue that because some people won't wear a seatbelt and the occasional seatbelt might fail that it wouldn't be more safe to wear one. So, your part suggesting that because 100% are not effectively immunised (because some can't be) means we can't question the decisions of those who could be but are not doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me.

Now, I never called anyone's child a 'potential murder weapon' as that implies intent to harm, which I don't for a second believe is anyone's intention. Generally the non-vaccinating parents I have met are very nice people who certainly wouldn't want to harm/kill someone's child so I think murder is a nasty word in the circumstances. You will notice that I also didn't use the word irresponsible, I'm not out to offend someone because they want to protect their children - you seem to have taken offence anyway which is unfortunate. However, since you asked about it directly and say people have "no right" to even say it just because it's not a perfect world and we can't get rid of illness completely, which do you honestly think is more and which less responsible - keeping the general level of immunity as high as possible by removing as many links in the chain leading from single infection to epidemic as possible, or leaving some stray links there that didn't need to be available? Can't you see that every single child who could have been protected leaves a door open for an infection to spread one unnecessary child closer to a vulnerable one - and don't forget that until they have their first jabs every child in the country is vulnerable? Can't you see that whilst you can't normally "point the finger" at an individual child and say that that one child was the cause of a certain other child's death, it's hard to deny it increased the likelihood of it happening just a little bit? So please, don't say I have "absolutely no right" to say that choosing not to vaccinate puts a vulnerable child (let alone your own) at a higher risk. You may feel that's a chance you're willing to take, on your child's behalf and on behalf of other people's children, knowing that you only have that option because others are vaccinating theirs, and you may feel that it's in your own child's best interests (although I would disagree) and that you are justified in putting their needs first in your mind but at least be honest about it. I happen to believe that you have every right to speak that view in your child's best interests as you see them if that's what you believe, but kindly don't presume to tell me what I have the right to say in the defence of mine and many thousands of others.

She is far nicer than me
I am pretty sick of reading a) that these illnesses are not serious and b) that protecting other vulnerable children and adults is no reason to vaccinate your child. Both arguements don't stand up imo. Locally there was a tragedy recetly when a newborn baby died from whooping cough. She was too young to be vaccinated. Her parents had waited for years, trying to have a child and they only had her for a few weeks. Yes that's an emotive story but that's how it happened. The child died after contracting a illness which we could minimise in our community but we haven't, yet.

Farlo, thanking for taking the time to respond to me. I didn't take offence at your particular post - it's just something that bothers me in general that comes up a lot in vaccine threads - blame the unvaccinated child, not the other vast numbers of people out there who are also posing a risk, many without even knowing it.

There are a few things like I'd like t respond to but I don't have much time so I might have to come back to you later. I'll get through what I can now...

Unfortunately, there is no way to identify children who are at risk of vaccinating - certain factors do seem to play more of a role than others eg history of autoimmune disorders (other parents on this board have a lot more experience and knowledge about specifics than I do) but how many doctors do you know that sit down and go through those things with parents before a vaccine? Many parents have only found these things out after one of their children has been vaccine damaged and have only then been able to make an informed decision about future vaccines/vaccinating siblings. Perhaps if doctors took the time to assess children and properly inform parents, determine what whether their child may fall into any 'at risk' categories and address any concerns that the parents have then it would be an easier decision for people to make. How can people weigh up the risks when they don't even know whether the child is in the 'at risk' group for the vaccine? As it stands people are basically playing Russian roulette with their children and hoping for the best for the sake of the 'greater good' and that isn't a gamble I would take. My responsibility is first and foremost to my child, just as yours is to yours.

Re your post about whooping cough NL.The WC vaccine does not provide lifelong g protection and there was a recent article discussing how it is makings comeback in teenagers and adults in the UK (it has been happening in the US the last few years) so once again, it is not necessarily an unvaccinated child who is putting babies at risk. You could be putting them at risk yourself.

Thanks, Northern! Your story about that poor baby is so very sad. It's a horrible illness and so hard to treat once they get it, and babies are so very susceptible to it. Unfortunately if vaccination rates fall too far we'll see a lot more precious babies losing their lives to things like this again and it really does worry me .

Bumbley, there are some very good reasons why people do focus on unvaccinated children more than other non-immune groups, though. First and foremost, children are the most effective transmitters of these infections, many of which are spread by faecal-oral or droplet transmission which kids just excel at sharing! They mix with so many other children on a daily basis, they do unhygienic things like not wash their hands properly (ar at all) after going to the toilet and then play with a toy, right before another kid sticks it in their mouth, or they sneeze all over their hands and touch every bun on the tray before all the other kids choose one. They are truly amazing in their ability to spread germs in ways adults would never be creative enough to manage . By making a child immune to a disease, you punch way above your weight in protecting other children because they are much more effective transmitters. I wouldn't be too surprised if you could make the entire adult population completely immune to all these diseases (although obviously that's impossible) and still be easily able to sustain almost the same number of epidemics just by child-to-child transmission. After all, there are many infections common to childhood we don't vaccinate for that adults hardly ever get because they're mostly immune and yet still transmit perfectly fine between kids - like chickenpox, hand foot and mouth and Fifth disease.

You can't seriously blame someone for something they can't prevent, so no, people don't blame the kids who truly can't have a vaccine or who had it and don't know it didn't work, but they are a small minority and the whole principle of vaccination accounts for them in the first place - the numbers of boosters given are carefully calculated to ensure that as long as those that are scheduled for vaccination do go ahead, then everyone stays much safer because enough kids are protected to avoid there being enough carriers to spark an epidemic that begins wiping out babies too young to be immunised and all the other susceptible groups (including some you don't know are susceptible in advance). It is the extra non-immune people, those who choose not to vaccinate, who throw off those careful calculations and start tipping the balance of probability towards epidemics. That is why they are assigned more blame, not because anyone thinks they are the only ones that could pass on the germ to that one susceptible child.

I haven't seen any large studies showing a particular susceptibility to vaccine damage in one group over another, and unless a big one gets done I don't expect GPs will be sitting down with parents suggesting they reconsider vaccinating, because they wouldn't want to expose the kids to the risk of getting one of these childhood diseases without strong evidence, given the harm they can do. That would be terribly unethical. A major risk with not immunising a child with a history of autoimmune problems in particular would be that sometimes you need to give a drug that dampens the immune system such as methotrexate in order to control it, making that individual suddenly very susceptible to infection. If they don't already have antibodies by being vaccinated before they get to that stage it is too late to vaccinate and they will be left unprotected and at high risk. I would imagine not too many GPs would want to risk that without very strong evidence that the vaccines are likely to cause damage.

This brings me on to another point, which is that the age that children receive their immunisations are points of massive change as their brains, immune systems etc. suddenly mature very fast and when all sorts of things start to show up that hadn't been obvious before. It is therefore very easy to mistakenly ascribe the development of a problem in a child to vaccines and call it vaccine damage when in fact the condition would have arisen at this time naturally. For example the MMR/autism debate, where it was noticed that autism rates were rising and the MMR was given at around the same time as autism developed. Of course as time and studies have shown, autism occurs at the same age and with the same frequency in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. Everyone wants someone or something to blame when a child gets ill or dies, believe me. I was even blamed for causing my child's cancer because my house wasn't tidy all the time. People will lash out at anything to give them somewhere to vent their anger. Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Pertussis, Polio and Diptheria are all horrific diseases - if you do a little research it doesn't take long to see how awful they can be, you can even find images of severe cases on Wikipedia. Any time damage is caused to a child by anything we need a full and unbiased investigation into why it happened, and if vaccines are the cause they need changing - I certainly don't hold them sacrosanct, but we need really good evidence that vaccine damage is actually happening and causing severe damage more often than these diseases would before we voluntarily let these diseases rage again. Don't forget that measles alone killed millions worldwide yearly in the 1980s, and one in every 500 babies that gets pertussis will still die from it in this country - these are not the mild harmless illnesses some say they are.

You say people are playing 'Russian Roulette' for the 'greater good' if they vaccinate but you must understand that you run a risk either way. If you don't vaccinate, your child might catch mumps, say, and be damaged from that, or they might even give their baby sister pertussis and cause their death. It's 'Russian Roulette' for your child whatever you do, you can't avoid that, you just have to pick the option with the smallest probability for harm to your child. Also, you seem to be thinking of the 'greater good' as a group of people separate from your child, but your child is a part of that population and will be as safe or not safe as the average member of that population. Now I don't believe that vaccination is currently more dangerous than leaving a child unprotected, but for argument's sake, let's pretend that it is - what would happen if everyone - or even one in every three - decided that they would let everyone else shoulder that risk and they would keep their child 'safe' by not vaccinating? We already know what would happen - there would be an epidemic. Then there would be damage and deaths way beyond anything caused by vaccination even if the most ardent of vaccine conspiracy theorists was right about the extent of vaccine damage. People get so angry with you because in their eyes you are saying that you believe there is a risk to doing something, and that you want nearly everyone else's child go face that risk so yours doesn't have to. You want to benefit from something you are not prepared to contribute to, even though you could. Not only that, but you are fighting against the opinions of the vast majority of doctors and scientists who feel that the benefits for your own child, even if yours was the only extra one granted a special exemption from vaccination, outweigh the risks. Despite the relatively high level of cover we enjoy here, children do still occasionally die from some of these diseases in this country. So, of course, most people are of the opinion that you are making a mistake and by doing so are raising everyone's risk a little, and doing so needlessly.

You say yourself that people " blame the unvaccinated child, not the other vast numbers of people out there who are also posing a risk " so you already understand that an unvaccinated child does pose a risk to others, even if you believe it is a small one for that individual. Can you also understand why non-immune children are much more risky to other children than non-immune adults? Do you understand why not vaccinating any children at all would be very bad for your child, would result in a lot of babies dying and couldn't be allowed in a caring society? Do you understand that you need as high a percentage of the population vaccinated as is humanly possible to provide as much safety as possible for small babies, immunocompromised and unwell children? Can you not see that if you expect everyone else to protect your child by having theirs vaccinated when you won't do it yourself, knowing that your child is increasing the risk for everyone else, that people have a logical reason to blame you, to resent your choice and to wonder why you feel that you have the right to special treatment you could not allow everyone to share?

Bumbley

Polio is a special case because it is on the way to being irradiacted in exactly the same way as smallpox was.

No you cannot get polio from the current vaccine, it was possible in the days of live vaccine (is true of any live vaccine) on the sugar cube but live vaccine is no longer used and there is no reported case of side effects of polio vaccine other than a bit of red swelling at the injection site.

The countries where it is endemic have strong links with Britain either family links or through the army being deployed.

Do you not 'get' just how fantastic erradication of a disease is? It has been done once in the history of the planet.

Wihtout routine vaccination how many people would Janet Parker have infected in 1978?

I had measles as a child. My eyesight dropped to -0.8 immediately. Not a total disaster but a lifetime of glasses and lenses until laser surgery.

Leonie - I didn't mean to be insulting. If anyone has good reason for not vaccinating their own child, and they know that there is an immune-compromised classmate, they can still be responsible but have to do it more actively as all parents have to do with chickenpox etc.

Without going into the conspiracy theory parts of vaccine discussion, bare in mind that our grandparents expected children to die of the diseases we currently vaccinate against. One of the most touching things I have read about this is this short essay by Roald Dahl about his oldest daughter Olivia.

Surely the thought that your children could die of a purely preventable "childhood" disease would have you vaccinate them?

Yes. People now have a distorted view of the dangers of measles: 'well, I had it, got better, unpleasant but no big deal'. Not realising that for some children it was a big deal, to the extent that they'd ended up dead or disabled and therefore in 'special schools' so the lucky majority didn't even realise they existed.

Sorry, very busy week so only getting a chance to quickly pop my head in these days! I do want to come back to a lot of points that have been made but I did just want to say to farlo that I did read up plenty about the diseases themselves so between that and having my own personal experience of most of them, I made a very informed decision. I will try to get back to address specific points soon.

I'm probably a little late joining this - sashh, your posting was excellent. I talk to a lot of people who are anti vaccination, and it's obvious from the reasons they give for being anti that they just do not understand how the immune system works. LetsGoToTheHills, you obviously want to do what is best for your child. I find it hard to understand the objections to vaccinations, when the evidence for their efficacy is so overwhelming. People seem to love conspiracy theories - it's those wicked GPs or wicked drug companies trying to make money out of harming babies...really? Why would they? Just go on to Wikipaedia and have a look at some of the statistics, if you want convincing. I am old enough to remember when alongside the the model of the Guide Dog with its collection box outside Woolworths was a another model, a little blonde girl in calipers, holding out a collection box for the Polio Society. Now polio has been eradicated in most countries of the world, even India. That did not happen by people deciding not to vaccinate...
You have been let down by not having the principles behind vaccination adequately explained to you. When I was at school we all learned about Jenner and the cowpox/smallpox story - apparently this doesn't happen any more? Any educators out there?
I hope you sort out your conflict in a way that satisfies you both and protects your much loved child against potentially fatal childhood diseases.

happy - please don't be so patronising. There are plenty of people on MN who have chosen not to vaccinate for a number of reasons and not knowing how the immune system works or not learning about Jenner in school has absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, I would say that the majority of people who choose not to vaccinate have done a lot more reading and have a much greater understanding of the diseases and the vaccines than the majority of the people who do vaccinate.

Fargo, I realise that my response to you is long overdue but I just haven't had time to sit down at a computer for any length of time over the past few days. I am not ignoring you - I will get back to you as soon as I can grab a decent amount of time!

I would say that the majority of people who choose not to vaccinate have done a lot more reading and have a much greater understanding of the diseases and the vaccines than the majority of the people who do vaccinate.
Having read the posts on mm for years now, I very much doubt it

No worries, BumbleyMummy, whenever it suits, I'm pretty busy myself!

bumbley - I find it scary that you think knowing how the immune system works is irrelevant to your decision making. That is fundamental to how and why vaccination works. How can you make an informed decision without knowing that - and don't you want to know that? What sort of reading are you doing that does not tell you that? Of course all parents want to do the best by their children, and that applies to both pro and anti vacc - by all means be anti if you want, but first be informed.

You've misunderstood happy - I'm saying that not knowing about it has nothing to do with their decision not to vaccinate (in relation to your accusation) because they do know about it, probably more than a lot of people who do vaccinate - for example the ones who think that tetanus is a communicable disease that your child could catch from eating some dirt out in the garden one day or that their child is at risk from catching polio because the OPV was used in this country several years ago.

I find it hard to believe that people can make an informed decision about whether to vaccinate without knowing anything about the diseases they are vaccinating against, their incidence, their risk of complications or even how the diseases are transmitted! How exactly is their decision informed? Or does it only work one way?

bumbley - you seem to be confusing knowing about the diseases with knowing about how the immune system works. Maybe I've misunderstood you - are you saying that people who decide not to vaccinate DO know how the immune system works? If you do know how it works, there is really no need to be well informed about the diseases themselves - all you need to know is that vaccination protects against them. I agree that it is good to know as much as possible, and I think it is great that people do a lot of reading, but you have to be sure you read the right stuff. There is an awful lot of disinformation out there, and there are obviously fundamental gaps in people's appreciation of how vaccination works. The health services, in my view, must take some responsibility for that, because they do nothing to inform people of the fundamental principles underlying vaccination. And I return to my point about educators - everybody should be taught in school about Jenner and his observations. Vaccinations have been responsible for the eradication of smallpox, polio is going the same way. That cannot be a bad thing - think how many children's lives have been saved, and how many deformities have been avoided. Read Philip Roth's Nemesis for a harrowing description of what life was like before polio vaccination...

'scuse me but I am very aware of how the immune system works, which is one of the reasons why I avoided the NHS vaccination schedule and created my own.

You may want to read the the other side of Jenner

Vaccinations can be a good thing, they can also be a devastating thing for the tiny minority of children who end up brain damaged because of a bad reaction to the vaccine.

Because of the huge amounts of money involved there is inertia into investigating the link between vaccinations and autoimmune diseases in later life.

So yes, this semi-vaccinating parent does know all about Jenner. I find your attitude to non vaccinating parents extremely ill-informed and patronising.

Happy, I'm not confusing them - I'm talking about both. Yes, I know how the immune system works and I know how vaccines are supposed to work. I also know that they not always work as they are intended to, can have some pretty nasty side effects (life changing for some children) and don't necessarily provide lifelong protection against the diseases which can have pretty devastating consequences for adults who contract diseases (which are usually harmless in children) when they are adults. I also know about the diseases themselves, their incidence and their risks of complications so I can weigh up the risks v benefits and I (and others) have come to different conclusions about what vaccines(if any) are necessary for our children and when. Please don't think that because you have made a different decision regarding vaccines that you are right and everyone else is wrong/misinformed/uneducated stupid.

By the way, different countries have different vaccines and different schedules - in their eyes you are probably 'wrong'/taking gambles with your children's lives. I mean how could you not vaccinate against rotavirus, chickenpox and Hepatitis? Don't you know they're deadly?

Xpost wgc.

Also, why are you recommending reading a novel about polio? Maybe I should also watch survivors to get an idea of what life would be like if there was a plague, or read the Velveteen Rabbit so I know what scarlet fever was like before antibiotics?

Agree with world and bumble, I would certainly say that the parents who choose not to vaccinate, tend to be those who have more information and have done more research

Mince, I don't think you're quite right on that. In fact, you've made a classic error of the sort that you have to watch out for when trying to assess scientific data!

The default position in the UK is vaccination, right? As the non-vaxer's have mentioned above, there is a lot of pressure to vaccinate. So those who don't, have to be pretty certain in their views - they have to have read a lot of things that have convinced them to go against their doctors' advice. Right?

But that doesn't mean that the people who do vaccinate haven't done their research. Obviously some of them haven't, and are just going to the default position, but that doesn't mean none of them have. Do you see what I mean?
In fact, I'd suggest that those who vaccinate are more likely to have science or medical qualifications and hence know a bit about the subject anyway.

I'd add also, that having a lot of information is not the same as having a lot of accurate information, especially if you're doing said research on t'internet.I'd cautiously suggest that there are anti-vaccination websites out there so wacky that even the non-vaccinators wouldn't want to be associated with them.

Sorry, need to rephrase that last sentence - the non-vaxers wouldn't want to be associated with them even though they share the same POV.

OP- the suggestions here of examining each vaccination in turn and deciding whether you want it, and when, seem to be a good compromise. Is there one in particular you object to?