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

[truethat]

Yes I am. It's called a friggin' joke.


Also I will wager that some of the arguments that I have brought to light will go MUCH further than the typical vitriol and ham fisted slams of "statistics" I've seen thrown about on this site.


About a year ago i had the same discussion. And frankly you ought to know that the "herd immunity" is something that a lot of "anti vaxers" have sent me PMs about pointing out that ALL they have learned in most of these threads is that the smartest thing to do would be to pretend you are willing to get a vaccine in order to encourage other people to do it and "build the herd"

I've never seen a single argument in any of these threads that has convinced an anti vaxer to change their mind.

Except ONE. That is the idea that you could potentially kill an innocent person if you or your child are carriers and infect a person at risk.

Other than that............nothing else seems to really matter.

We'll see what the OP has to say.

 

[Drachasor]

About a year ago i had the same discussion. And frankly you ought to know that the "herd immunity" is something that a lot of "anti vaxers" have sent me PMs about pointing out that ALL they have learned in most of these threads is that the smartest thing to do would be to pretend you are willing to get a vaccine in order to encourage other people to do it and "build the herd"

A strategy based on a lot of lying is bound to run into problems, especially when one advocates it. It's also selfish and stupid. If adopted at all it is likely to result in insufficient vaccinations.

That said, my understanding is that antivaxers reject the idea that vaccines work. So I don't know why'd they seriously consider any reason to pretend that they do work.

I've never seen a single argument in any of these threads that has convinced an anti vaxer to change their mind.

Same with holocaust or AGW deniers as far as I know. Really anyone who is rejecting scientific fact with great enthusiasm is going to be hard to convince of anything. A forum is typically only suitable for pointing out their arguments have no merit, not for actually convincing them they are wrong.

In person you can potentially get someone to change their mind. You'd have to go slowly and step by step, and most likely get them to agree to at least seriously consider they might be wrong.

Except ONE. That is the idea that you could potentially kill an innocent person if you or your child are carriers and infect a person at risk.

Since antivaxers reject that vaccines work, I don't see how this argument would get anywhere. It MIGHT get someone with you, but that's because you are having difficult with risk-assessment.

 

[Estellea]

I would suggest for example, which hasn't really been brought up, that the OP examine the rates of illnesses in his area, the likelihood of contagion. For example if he lives in a neighborhood that has a lot of immigrants, that argument may give the wife pause. She should realize by not inoculating that she is basically relying on the vaccines of others to protect her child from fatal diseases or very serious ones. If they lived where I live, the conversation would be easier.

How do you expect someone so irrational and eschew basic science to suddenly be able to parse statistics and epidemiology and formulate complex mathematical modelling of disease spread? Your comment about immigrants is as ignorant as it is offensive. The vast majority of measles cases for instance have been among those either wilfully unvaccinated or too young to be vaccinated indigenous people.

But the reality of it should be examined. Not why "over all" vaccinations are better but why is it specific to this woman.

Some of the information in this thread has lent itself to that sort of dialogue. Some has not.

The reality is is that the OP's wife is steeped in anti-science and no amount of reasoning will pull her from that. This is his child too and if he accepts being cuckolded by his partner over this issue, then he has far more problems in his marriage than he thinks.

Este

 

[truethat]

Oh pooey, it is not. People who are pro vaccine make a lot of hysterical judgments about people who are nervous about vaccines. And most people who are sympathetic towards the anti vax arguments are just uneducated people who don't understand the statistics or really how vaccines work. They think like I did about the amoxicillin. They make the argument that your body is naturally able to fight off infections etc and best to not fix what ain't broken. And if you need a vaccine because you are at risk, then get one, but leave me out of it.

(this also doesn't include the really anti vaxxers who believe that the government is trying to insert a chip into your body that is described as part of the "end of times" in the bible and vaccines are a way of forcing you to get "chipped")

Also selfish and stupid might work ...........at least the selfish part, if you are talking about a PERSON and most PEOPLE who live in the US right now ARE vaccinated, because their parents did it to them. The majority who are nervous about vaccines are worried about it for their children and babies. And selfish is really not something at all that they are going to worry about if they are in a panic about the safety of their child.

I do agree that slowly and surely the arguments should be made. However in this particular thread the man has obviously used up all his arguments and is looking for a different angle. His wife also seems to be really really into her way of thinking and has a compatriot in on the act. It will be next to impossible to get her to change her mind.

The threat of taking her kid away will only serve to make her more stubborn.


If it was me, honestly, I'd just have the kid vaccinated and not tell her about it at all. Then she thinks it's all clear and hubby is happy. If she does find out, it will be too late.

But I'm thinking if he does try to make it more personal and also specific it will help. I would think that ALL of you would agree with me that asking her to examine EACH vaccine instead of lumping them all into the same category would be a good idea because she may be willing to compromise on some of them which would sort of be baby steps along the way.

But no, just do the typical thing and decide that because you don't like me everything I said is stupid etc etc etc. Have fun. I've been around here for 4 years. Same ol' same ol.

 

[Estellea]

Also selfish and stupid might work ...........at least the selfish part, if you are talking about a PERSON and most PEOPLE who live in the US right now ARE vaccinated, because their parents did it to them. The majority who are nervous about vaccines are worried about it for their children and babies. And selfish is really not something at all that they are going to worry about if they are in a panic about the safety of their child.

Please read my previous posts. It is not just a majority, it's how large is that majority and how are they distributed.

I do agree that slowly and surely the arguments should be made. However in this particular thread the man has obviously used up all his arguments and is looking for a different angle. His wife also seems to be really really into her way of thinking and has a compatriot in on the act. It will be next to impossible to get her to change her mind.

The threat of taking her kid away will only serve to make her more stubborn.

I agree with this.

If it was me, honestly, I'd just have the kid vaccinated and not tell her about it at all. Then she thinks it's all clear and hubby is happy. If she does find out, it will be too late.

Great plan and what all good partnerships should be based on.

But no, just do the typical thing and decide that because you don't like me everything I said is stupid etc etc etc. Have fun. I've been around here for 4 years. Same ol' same ol.

I don't know you but I find that most of your arguments to be non-factual and validating irrational behaviour.

Este

 

[jamesbuhls]

Anyway...

Thank-you, Truethat, for hijacking the discussion thread. And whoever it was that called her a nutter, you can keep your comments to yourself: I'm looking for constructive help, not 3rd-grade name calling.

To address a few of the other commenters, perhaps the biggest reason I'm having trouble talking with my wife about this is because - like me - she's reading studies and reports of medical professionals and believes she knows the truth. It isn't so much that I'm calling her a liar, as it is I'm facing the challenge of disputing everything she's reading.

She's very concerned for the health of our children and wants nothing more than to protect them, but as near as I can tell everything she's read says that children are safer without vaccines. She's a smart woman and I think she could be persuaded to change her opinion, but I don't know how to start the conversation.

She has genuine concerns - for example, some children have been reported having severe allergic reactions - but she seems to let these fears cloud over everything else. Her other big criticism is that it isn't just the vaccine itself that's dangerous (or at best unnecessary), but that the process in which the vaccines are made is dangerous... and thus, the delivery vehicle carries with it those dangers. It was something about the danger of cultivating vaccines inside chicken eggs - something from the egg being carried over into the vaccine.

So, can anybody recommend any speaking points, debate strategies, non-confrontational ways to invite the conversation, gentle ways of encouraging her to see a different perspective, or another tactic to get her to put down her defenses and listen to what I'm trying to share with her?

EDIT

And I'd appreciate not being called a cuckold, Este; I imagine people inside the skeptic community often lose patience with people who do dangerous things, but it makes it really difficult for me to read through these replies, sort the chaff, and find a way forward when the people I'm asking for help are also the ones telling me I'm a coward. To reiterate, if you don't have anything constructive to say *to me*, then you can keep it to yourself.

 

[excaza]

She has genuine concerns - for example, some children have been reported having severe allergic reactions - but she seems to let these fears cloud over everything else. Her other big criticism is that it isn't just the vaccine itself that's dangerous (or at best unnecessary), but that the process in which the vaccines are made is dangerous... and thus, the delivery vehicle carries with it those dangers. It was something about the danger of cultivating vaccines inside chicken eggs - something from the egg being carried over into the vaccine.

Allergic reactions are comparatively rare, and arguing against vaccines based on it is ridiculous. If your child goes into shock because they're allergic to eggs or something else in the vaccine, your doctor will be able to handle it appropriately. Your child having an allergic reaction to the vaccine is no different than your child having a reaction the first time you try to feed them eggs or whatever else they're allergic to.

If anything, being in a doctor's office when it happens would be the safest situation.

 

[Estellea]

Thank-you, Truethat, for hijacking the discussion thread. And whoever it was that called her a nutter, you can keep your comments to yourself: I'm looking for constructive help, not 3rd-grade name calling.

To address a few of the other commenters, perhaps the biggest reason I'm having trouble talking with my wife about this is because - like me - she's reading studies and reports of medical professionals and believes she knows the truth. It isn't so much that I'm calling her a liar, as it is I'm facing the challenge of disputing everything she's reading.

She's very concerned for the health of our children and wants nothing more than to protect them, but as near as I can tell everything she's read says that children are safer without vaccines. She's a smart woman and I think she could be persuaded to change her opinion, but I don't know how to start the conversation.

She has genuine concerns - for example, some children have been reported having severe allergic reactions - but she seems to let these fears cloud over everything else. Her other big criticism is that it isn't just the vaccine itself that's dangerous (or at best unnecessary), but that the process in which the vaccines are made is dangerous... and thus, the delivery vehicle carries with it those dangers. It was something about the danger of cultivating vaccines inside chicken eggs - something from the egg being carried over into the vaccine.

Well, she is lumping all vaccine excipients together. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-1.pdf is a list of vaccines and their excipients. The only ones of concern to you would be flu vaccines and MMR, which is not given until 1 year or after and an egg allergy would be known by then. The incidence of severe allergic reactions is extremely rare and is ~1/millions of doses.

So, can anybody recommend any speaking points, debate strategies, non-confrontational ways to invite the conversation, gentle ways of encouraging her to see a different perspective, or another tactic to get her to put down her defenses and listen to what I'm trying to share with her?

I really think that you would get somewhere by suggesting a less aggressive schedule that would get your infant protected and bolster her confidence. Why not start with Pentacel (DTaP-IPV-Hib) at the two month well-baby visit. DTaP and Hib are the 2 diseases which pose the most risk for infants and IPV is a very innocuous vaccine that you can 'get out of the way'. If you are both HepB antigen negative and no daycare or any Hep B positive caretakers then you can probably delay this one. However, please know that Hep B infection in infants has a risk of over 90% of causing chronic illness and fulminate liver disease, that's why it is recommended. Again, as she sees that something horrible isn't happening, perhaps you can convince her to add to your schedule.

Este

 

[truethat]

Thank-you, Truethat, for hijacking the discussion thread. And whoever it was that called her a nutter, you can keep your comments to yourself: I'm looking for constructive help, not 3rd-grade name calling.

To address a few of the other commenters, perhaps the biggest reason I'm having trouble talking with my wife about this is because - like me - she's reading studies and reports of medical professionals and believes she knows the truth. It isn't so much that I'm calling her a liar, as it is I'm facing the challenge of disputing everything she's reading.

She's very concerned for the health of our children and wants nothing more than to protect them, but as near as I can tell everything she's read says that children are safer without vaccines. She's a smart woman and I think she could be persuaded to change her opinion, but I don't know how to start the conversation.

She has genuine concerns - for example, some children have been reported having severe allergic reactions - but she seems to let these fears cloud over everything else. Her other big criticism is that it isn't just the vaccine itself that's dangerous (or at best unnecessary), but that the process in which the vaccines are made is dangerous... and thus, the delivery vehicle carries with it those dangers. It was something about the danger of cultivating vaccines inside chicken eggs - something from the egg being carried over into the vaccine.

So, can anybody recommend any speaking points, debate strategies, non-confrontational ways to invite the conversation, gentle ways of encouraging her to see a different perspective, or another tactic to get her to put down her defenses and listen to what I'm trying to share with her?

EDIT

And I'd appreciate not being called a cuckold, Este; I imagine people inside the skeptic community often lose patience with people who do dangerous things, but it makes it really difficult for me to read through these replies, sort the chaff, and find a way forward when the people I'm asking for help are also the ones telling me I'm a coward. To reiterate, if you don't have anything constructive to say *to me*, then you can keep it to yourself.

Hey welcome back. I do apologize for the massive posting, however I do think if you actually read some of the posts you will find some interesting points. I'll kind of summarize them here to make it more simple.


I do believe you are both probably way more knowledgeable on the topic than anything I can add to the conversation. But I do think I have a particular knack in deconstructing an argument even if I don't always make sense to people.

To me it seems you have two basic arguments here.

A. What you know

B. What you don't know.


Maybe drawing this down on a piece of paper for both of you can help you look at it more clearly.

I don't know if you saw all my posts but one of the points I made to you as a worried dad, is basically for the time being you do have the ability to rely on the herd immunity, especially if you live in an area that doesn't have a lot of immigrants or military people.

That's one thing you have that you know.

On the other hand, you have no way of knowing how long that will last or how effective it will be really, all you need is one person who is a carrier who is exposed to your child that can cause conflict.


I do know as a mom what it is like to have people act like I'm crazy about certain things with my children's health and for me to go with my confirmation bias only to be proven CORRECT in the long term. That alone makes it difficult for me to evaluate information, especially when information in the past would be so melodramatic.

For example it WAS proven that when my kids were younger there was an over prescription of amoxicillin to kids my kids age. So I wasn't off base in my opinion.

I'm sure your wife has done a ton of research. I also did not get my kids the H1N1 I don't feel like I was "lucky" I feel that they were definitely over exaggerating the possibilities.

I'll stop here. Please know I started this conversation not to hijack the thread but to hopefully give you some alternative answers you could take a look at that were outside the norm of what you had since you seem like you are looking for a different angle.

Cheers

 

[LarianLeQuella]

So, can anybody recommend any speaking points, debate strategies, non-confrontational ways to invite the conversation, gentle ways of encouraging her to see a different perspective, or another tactic to get her to put down her defenses and listen to what I'm trying to share with her?

Genuine, reality based concerns are perfectly valid, however, you have indicated that she does not have any trust in the medical profession. I am afraid that you will be at a total and complete impasse as a result. Medicine, as a branch of science, relies on the weight of evidence of scientific studies that show that the benefit of vaccines totally and wholly outweigh the risk.

Maybe pages like http://whatstheharm.net/vaccinedenial.html and http://jennymccarthybodycount.com/Jenny_McCarthy_Body_Count/Home.html and http://www.vaccinetimes.com/ will drive some points home?

(BTW, when I say nutters in my post, I am specifically refering to the purveyors of the anti-vax pro-disease hysteria like Jenny McCarthy, Vaccine Liberation, Wakefield, Generation Rescue, etc. Your wife is just woefully missinfimrmed and influenced by these nutters.)

 

[pgwenthold]

Huh? You acknowledge that vaccines are keeping your children safe from disease but refuse to vaccinate them? WTF? The nutters at least believe that vaccines do harm. You just acknowledged they are keeping your children safe from diseases! Mind-boggling. You're basically saying that vaccines work, but like any other medical procedure, they carry some risk, so let's have everyone else but me and my kids take those risks and reap the rewards. I'm genuinely disgusted.

Seconded.

The absolute worst anti-vaxxers are those who acknowledge that vaccination prevents disease but feels they don't need to vaccinate because everyone else does. There are a lot of names that can be applied to them, like sponges, or the like, but I prefer to call them selfish ********.

 

[truethat]

So what though? That's what I'm saying. I'm sort of saying it to reassure the OP because it seems like he's going to have a rough go of it.

Let's turn the question around a bit. Say you were a friend of the OP and he came to you and said "I'm freaking out about my child's health because I absolutely cannot convince my wife to vaccinate our child. It's literally causing fights and chaos in the house and I'm tempted to take the baby and just secretly vaccinate the baby."

Wouldn't a legitimate response be, "Give it more time and lean on the herd immunity. If you live in an isolated area and are careful you may be able to avoid any issues until you can convince her to come around."


It might be selfish as you say, but I'm not interested in the emotional baggage everyone tries to dump on this topic. I'm tired of hearing it.

The fact is, for this particular child, the herd immunity is likely to present a form of protection until he can figure out how to solve the problem.


It's a fact. Yes there is a risk but I guess the risk of his child contracting an illness is probably just as high as his child contracting an illness from the vaccine at this point.

If an epidemic shows up the that's a totally different story. If he finds he's in a high risk area (Like I am in NYC) then that's also a totally different story.


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

But all this name calling and trying to emotionally guilt someone is pathetic to me. Why in the world would you care about ONE baby doing this when thousands of people are already doing it accidentally or deliberately every day.

Strange.

 

[pgwenthold]

The way I see it, this is to the point where she has threatened to take the kids and leave him over this. It is way past the point where it can be solved by sitting and talking about it calmly to resolve our issues. SHE has thrown down the gauntlet.

The best response I have seen so far is the one to call her bluff - let her know that if she tries it, you will fit it in court AND YOU WILL WIN. Does she honestly think the court is going to side with her attempt to prevent them from being vaccinated. It's an open and shut case. You bring in an expert witness from CPS, and the AAP, and the CDC who all say, kids need to be vaccinated, she's harming the child and society. She brings in ...Andy Wakefield? Who gets asked in cross-ex, wasn't your paper retracted for being baseless? Yes or no. At which Wakefield says, Yes, I have my beliefs but the scientific community doesn't accept them. End of trial. You get the kids, she won't.

I hate to play the ultimatum game, but she did it. And the only way to counter it is to call her bluff.

Or don't have kids. That's the best solution.

 

[truethat]

The way I see it, this is to the point where she has threatened to take the kids and leave him over this. It is way past the point where it can be solved by sitting and talking about it calmly to resolve our issues. SHE has thrown down the gauntlet.

The best response I have seen so far is the one to call her bluff - let her know that if she tries it, you will fit it in court AND YOU WILL WIN. Does she honestly think the court is going to side with her attempt to prevent them from being vaccinated. It's an open and shut case. You bring in an expert witness from CPS, and the AAP, and the CDC who all say, kids need to be vaccinated, she's harming the child and society. She brings in ...Andy Wakefield? Who gets asked in cross-ex, wasn't your paper retracted for being baseless? Yes or no. At which Wakefield says, Yes, I have my beliefs but the scientific community doesn't accept them. End of trial. You get the kids, she won't.

I hate to play the ultimatum game, but she did it. And the only way to counter it is to call her bluff.

Or don't have kids. That's the best solution.

People have been posting things like this which is why I jokingly posted what I did before about being married to a pregnant woman. I mean are you in a committed relationship? Do you honestly think this is a realistic answer for this poster?

Gauntlets get thrown by emotional pregnant women ALL THE TIME. Not all pregnant women but many many many.

When people post these kinds of posts I'm entirely baffled. Are you not taking the poster at his word?

And finally why is my response just above yours not a realistic response? Is there anything legitimately wrong in that post? Other than your personal offense or emotional reaction?

In reality this is the most logical course of action for him to take, unless he is in a high risk situation. And slowly take time to work with her regarding this issue.

The key point being "what do you know" "what don't you really know" and examining the vaccines one by one and creating a sort of compromise.


But honestly I do think the guy could probably get away with going the kids whole childhood coasting on herd immunity.

I don't see the point in unrealistic posts when someone is asking for advice.


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/

 

[Estellea]

People have been posting things like this which is why I jokingly posted what I did before about being married to a pregnant woman. I mean are you in a committed relationship? Do you honestly think this is a realistic answer for this poster?

Gauntlets get thrown by emotional pregnant women ALL THE TIME. Not all pregnant women but many many many.

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

When people post these kinds of posts I'm entirely baffled. Are you not taking the poster at his word?

And finally why is my response just above yours not a realistic response? Is there anything legitimately wrong in that post? Other than your personal offense or emotional reaction?

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.

In reality this is the most logical course of action for him to take, unless he is in a high risk situation. And slowly take time to work with her regarding this issue.

The key point being "what do you know" "what don't you really know" and examining the vaccines one by one and creating a sort of compromise.

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?

But honestly I do think the guy could probably get away with going the kids whole childhood coasting on herd immunity.

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

It's a fact. Yes there is a risk but I guess the risk of his child contracting an illness is probably just as high as his child contracting an illness from the vaccine at this point.

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

 

[BrainRotMenacer]

I only read the first half of the first page so this has probably already been mentioned, but can kids who have not received vaccinations attend accredited Universities? I know I had to prove I was vaccinated in order to attend my University. I don't know how or why that would change her mind, but it might. I don't remember exact details, but I am pretty sure the MMR vaccine was the one that was required.

EDIT: I don't know if this has been mentioned either, but in response to the wife running off with the kid because you want to vaccinate him: it reminds me of the Judgment of Solomon story. Pretty different, but some similarities. Not sure why the mother would be the one who would be able to keep the kids when society pretty strongly agrees that she is putting her kids and others in danger.

 

[Estellea]

I only read the first half of the first page so this has probably already been mentioned, but can kids who have not received vaccinations attend accredited Universities? I know I had to prove I was vaccinated in order to attend my University. I don't know how or why that would change her mind, but it might.

EDIT: I don't remember exact details, but I am pretty sure the MMR vaccine was the one that was required.

Yes, public universities will accept non-medical exemptions as do public schools (this is all U.S. mind you) except for MS and WV and many states that have various regulations about religious exemptions. However, a university programme, e.g. nursing, can refuse to let you in without a proper medical exemption or proof of vaccination/immunity.

Este

 

[truethat]

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.

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/

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.




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?


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.

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?


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.

 

[BrainRotMenacer]

Yes, public universities will accept non-medical exemptions as do public schools (this is all U.S. mind you) except for MS and WV and many states that have various regulations about religious exemptions. However, a university programme, e.g. nursing, can refuse to let you in without a proper medical exemption or proof of vaccination/immunity.

Este

I looked up my University's requirements (University of Maine; I can't provide a link due to post count) and proof of Tdap and MMR vaccines appear to be required by Maine State Law. I understand now that it's a state thing and not an accreditation thing, though, so thank you. I also looked up a couple schools near the OP's area and the requirements there indicate just for nursing as you said. It was just a thought. The thread appears to have veered slightly off course, anyway.

 

[Lamuella]

About a year ago i had the same discussion. And frankly you ought to know that the "herd immunity" is something that a lot of "anti vaxers" have sent me PMs about pointing out that ALL they have learned in most of these threads is that the smartest thing to do would be to pretend you are willing to get a vaccine in order to encourage other people to do it and "build the herd"

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