
I thought all anti-vaxxers were idiots. Then I married one - rvikmanis
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/4/9252489/anti-vaxx-wife
======
astalwick
I'm so not surprised by the comments here, so far.

The core points here are good ones:

\- In a fundamentally emotional argument, you 'win' with empathy, not by
beating people over the head with the same (very reasonable) arguments they've
heard a hundred times.

\- Vaccines are certainly effective, they are the correct choice, but there
are also absolutely legitimate reasons to distrust the medical and scientific
arguments (as pointed out in the article, both medicine and the science behind
drugs have been spectacularly wrong more than once). That's something that has
to be addressed and overcome, and not just with numbers.

~~~
pc86
It should be addressed with legislation making it a felony not to vaccinate
your children by a reason early childhood age (e.g. 6 years or something),
whether put in public school or not, and making proof of vaccination a
requirement for federal aid for that person (e.g. student loans or
assistance).

There are certain things that should be up for public debate and discourse,
left to the courts, or up to personal preference. Vaccination is not one of
them. "This shot will give my kids autism" is not reasonable and should not be
treated as a reasonable concern any more than "Obama is Kenyan" or "We didn't
land on the moon" should.

~~~
tzs
What would you think of a similar argument, but, instead of for forced
vaccination, for forced compliance with following government nutritional
recommendations when we feed children?

The health consequences of a childhood of poor eating are arguably as big a
problem as many (but not all) of the diseases we vaccinate against were.

I've not been able to come up with a good argument to distinguish these, other
than the health consequences of communicable diseases are more directly
visible. Take measles, for instance. At the time a vaccine for it was
developed and deployed, measles was infecting about half a million children in
the US per year, and about 400 per year died. (40 years earlier, the number of
cases per year was about the same, but deaths were about 20x higher).

If your kid gets measles, it is obvious that he's got a serious, dangerous
health problem, especially if he is one of the ones who dies.

If you feed your kid in a way that ensures he's seriously obese and sets him
on the road to almost certain diabetes by young adulthood, it's not
immediately obvious to the naked eye that something is seriously wrong. Kids
can have so much energy that even the fat kids can run around and ride bikes
and skateboards and be active by adult standards. From an adult point of view,
the main visible problem for the fat kid is likely to be social--the fat kid
gets picked last for pick up sports games, things like that.

Also, what the parent could have done better to prevent the condition is more
obvious with things like measles. Your kid gets measles, and I can confidently
point my finger at you and say your mistake was not vaccinating.

Your kid is fat, and I can only speculate. Maybe you aren't making the kid
exercise enough. Maybe you don't supervise his between meal eating and the kid
has 6000 calories of candy and soda between each meal. Maybe you cook giant
portions and make him clean his plate. Maybe the kid is a bully and steals the
other kids' desserts at school.

So with measles since there is really only one thing parents can do wrong that
can lead to the child getting it, it's easy to force people to not do that one
thing. With childhood nutrition and fitness there are so many ways it can go
wrong it is hard to force people to do it right. So maybe that's how forcing
vaccination can be distinguished from forcing good nutrition?

~~~
aharonovich
Feeding children in a specific way: costly and complicated. Vaccinating your
kids: just take them to where you're told. Free and easy. Even a monkey can do
it.

------
jacquesm
The CIA did more for the anti-vaccination movement than any kind of scientific
publication ever will. People that are afraid of vaccination are so for many
reasons (some of them totally nonsense, others with some basis in fact). But
to have actual proof that a three letter agency used a (fake) vaccination
drive to gather DNA from large numbers of innocents in order to get at a
fugitive was something we could have really done without.

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-
vaccin...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/11/cia-fake-vaccinations-
osama-bin-ladens-dna)

~~~
Alex3917
Also the HIV epidemic is thought to have been started by government
vaccination programs:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS)

But a lot of 'pro-vaccine' folks just completely ignore the black swan
problem, which is wrong.

Also the flu vaccine lowers your chances of dying in any given winter, but
many studies show that it increase your chances of the flu dying over the
course of your life. This is because the flu vaccine only confers immunity
against those strains for 6 - 18 months, whereas getting the flu confers
immunity against those strains for decades:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2870374/)

[http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/11/study-
add...](http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2014/11/study-adds-more-
data-effects-consecutive-year-flu-shots)

Also a lot of vaccines have had very little human testing. E.g. if you look at
the CDC webpage for the japanese encephalitis vaccine, it says "There are no
efficacy data for Ixiaro. The vaccine was licensed in the United States on the
basis of its ability to induce JE virus neutralizing antibodies as a surrogate
for protection."

[http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2016/infectious-
disea...](http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2016/infectious-diseases-
related-to-travel/japanese-encephalitis)

I think there is a major lack of critical thinking of both sides of the issue.

~~~
spleeder
In my country (Romania) HIV was actually spread through vaccinations. Indeed
that is how I got infected as an infant. The problem was supposedly not with
the vaccines themselves though but with the fact that they were reusing
needles.

~~~
omonra
That's a very sad story - please accept my condolences.

Is the government providing you now with retrovirals?

------
drglitch
The author tries to make some fair points based on anecdotal evidence, but at
its core, the article simply states that "I had a strong opinion about X that
i imposed upon others. After being influenced by a romantic interest, I biased
in another direction. Now I have a (new) strong opinion that i wish to impose
upon others.".

In other words, the fundamental act is still same, it is just opinion that has
changed.

~~~
chillingeffect
This is a deep observation and it's how a lot of Art works: it's not the
immediate object/product/action that makes sense. It's when you put it into a
context to generate meaning.

To persevarate: I'm sure if the author ever breaks up, he'll cop to being led
around by his hormones. In the meantime, his unaware writing is a bold sample
of the process of mental rationalization.

And in that way, the artist is often in a bind: to intentionally produce a
work that reveals an unconscious incorrectness, in order that other can
properly contextualize it. The artist must be wrong in order to be right, to
ruin their reputation to grow one.

~~~
calinet6
He didn't work to change his opinions at all, if you read the article. He
simply came up with a strategy to try to change others opinions in a different
way.

This ain't no artist.

------
condescendence
You're missing a big part of the argument here:

>Go tell arachnophobic parents that you must put spiders on their child
because society depends on it, and see how that goes

When children don't receive vaccines it is not just seen that they are
endangering themselves, but other children aswell because of the possibility
of spread/mutation (whether this is true or not it doesn't really matter,
that's just a majority of public view at the moment).

So unlike the spider example, a direct vaccination example from a pro-vaxor's
standpoint would be that NOT vaccinating everyone will put children in harm's
way.

~~~
cname
If you read the whole article, it's pretty clear that he hasn't missed any
aspect of "the argument".

From the article: "But vaccines only work when everyone buys in. Public health
depends on anti-vaxxers confronting their greatest fears for the benefit of
others."

~~~
condescendence
I'm pointing out the fact that this person is playing mental mind games to
justify the SO's point because he is head over heals so to speak.

I read the full article, and your comment furthers my point. The author is
playing on both sides of the fence. It's like my SO for example, I hate when
people chew with their mouth open I find it a little disrespectful and yet she
does it and I don't find it disturbing. My preferences and beliefs are strayed
because of my love for her.

This is basically a blog post explaining how someone can have an affect on
even the strongest of beliefs solely because of emotions....no matter how
ridiculous. Powerful stuff.

~~~
cname
It doesn't sound like his beliefs were affected at all. In the end, she
decided to get her kid vaccinated. He was playing the long game, and it sounds
like it paid off. It seems to me that you're the one missing the point.

------
plg
How come there aren't any "anti-civil engineers" who go around claiming
bridges aren't safe or "anti-aeronautical-engineers" who "believe" through
common sense that planes can't fly? Electricity is reading our brainwaves.
Vacuum cleaners suck out our souls. If there are they are rightly recognized
as crackpots in need of psychiatric help.

~~~
slavik81
> "anti-aeronautical-engineers" who "believe" through common sense that planes
> can't fly?

There are plenty of people who won't fly because they're afraid it will crash,
despite that being tremendously unlikely.

> Electricity is reading our brainwaves.

I got some great pamphlets in my mailbox about how the neighborhood powerlines
were going to affect my mood.

But, no. They are not in need of psychiatric help. They're just wrong about
something.

~~~
Ensorceled
> There are plenty of people who won't fly because they're afraid it will
> crash, despite that being tremendously unlikely.

I know people like this. They don't think their view is rational and they do
things like buy plane tickets for their kids.

~~~
jacquesm
Regardless of how irrational their views are they are actually less likely do
die in a plane crash.

------
sharemywin
How do you convince your wife when her kid got sick and went into a seizure
after a vaccination.

Especially when the CDC recommends against it for your child:
[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-
vacc.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-vacc.htm)

then what do you do about the other child?

~~~
coldtea
How do you convince your wife when your child gets the disease that
vaccination would have protected them against (which is far more likely to
happen, and has cost thousands upon thousands of recorded deaths in the past)?

Your question is analogous to: "If you told you kid it's ok to go out and
play, and while outside a car hit him, do you let the other child ever go out
again?" probability wise.

~~~
henalye
But that's exactly what happens sometimes. Family was ridiculously
overprotective of me and crossing roads because my sister got run over by a
car. I was barely able to go out and do anything at all outside until I
managed to get out of that environment because my older cousin got herself
into drugs.

While this is merely anecdotal evidence, my story is not unique. The younger
sibling paying dearly for the bias caretakers incurred thanks to correlation
to a bad incident is far, far from a rare occurrence.

~~~
coldtea
> _But that 's exactly what happens sometimes. Family was ridiculously
> overprotective of me and crossing roads because my sister got run over by a
> car._

Well yes, and it isn't the right reaction, not in this case, and neither in
the example about vaccination.

Of course it's also all too human and understandable, but in the end it
remains absurd.

------
vezzy-fnord
I'm curious how far the label "anti-vaxxer" extends. Does it also include
people who accept the science behind vaccination, but who as a political
principle are opposed to it being made compulsory?

~~~
Grishnakh
If you don't make it compulsory, then it doesn't work. Vaccination relies on
herd immunity because the vaccination doesn't work for everyone; some people
can't have the vaccine (allergic to one of its components), for other people
it just doesn't take effect (biological systems are unreliable like that), so
you have to have an over 90% vaccination rate for herd immunity to actually
work. By allowing people to opt out, you're condemning a bunch of people to
illness and death.

Lemme guess, you're a libertarian, right?

~~~
Grue3
So you're arguing that flu vaccine must be mandatory? All the other vaccines
(there sure are plenty)? You're just plain wrong about vaccination relying on
herd immunity. Vaccine is still effective for those who take it. And the oft-
repeated number "90%" has no scientific basis whatsoever, the herd immunity
threshold is heavily dependent on how infectious the disease is, and plenty of
other factors.

~~~
Grishnakh
No, you're just plain wrong. Go read any of the scientific literature about
it. And yes, it does have a scientific basis, that's why REAL SCIENTISTS talk
about herd immunity. The vaccines are NOT effective for everyone who takes
them, that's why herd immunity is necessary.

------
CuriouslyC
I looked at this article as a simple case study in being compassionate.

For me, learning to be compassionate has been a pretty big deal. While it is
clearly great from a moral perspective, even from a selfish perspective it
provides value. Just like the article states, it greatly improves
communication and cooperation. Beyond that though, being compassionate makes
me feel good.

I definitely recommend practicing compassion, particularly if you tend to be
naturally critical, judgmental or cynical.

------
hiou
Is there any research anyone is aware of about a possible connection between
movements like these and how Facebook promotes and displays certain types of
articles to certain people?

Scaring people is a fantastic way to create and emotional connection and
increase engagement do to the fear of missing out on new information. The type
of thing that will get you to check your phone every couple minutes all day.

In the back of my head I've always felt(without any information to back it up)
that the anti vaccination movement was one of the first real big public health
impacts to come out of Facebook and other social applications that serve
content designed to cause emotional reactions to increase engagement.

I should add that I do not believe any of this is intentional as opposed to
simply optimizing for engagement over time.

------
1337biz
The whole anti-science movement is in parts self inflicted. If someone reads
one day that scientists discovered "walking" causes cancer and the next day
that "walking" is the key to eternal living it is no wonder nobody takes any
form of evidence serious anymore. We just see those studies coming out every
other day - and journalists certainly playing their part by over-hyping them.

Once you realize how hard consensus finding is and all the personal interests
and agendas involved, including the "big" failures of science (e.g smoking is
save), I can see the point of people rejecting science as subjective.

~~~
jinushaun
Science isn't the problem. It's lay people ingesting their information from
dumbed down articles written by professional journalists looking to sell more
newspapers or get more clicks. Even if these studies were free and not stuck
behind a paywall, your average person will not bother to read the details.
Maybe it's human nature to want to be told what to believe. No one has time to
do the independent research on every little thing they hear or read.

------
JTon
TL;DR: Anti-vaxxers aren't idiots. They are driven by fear.

~~~
moron4hire
More correctly, phobia. Phobias are irrational fears.

------
anovikov
I know a couple anti-vaxxers, and they are very rational, but just selfish,
people: they don't believe vaccines are evil in general, but rather they
believe what is, basically, true: it is best of all if everyone else is
vaccinated, but you aren't.

~~~
calinet6
_Vaccination libertarians._ Interesting. At least that's an understandable,
rational argument.

------
sharemywin
Rotavirus Vaccine (RotaShield®) and Intussusception

[http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rotavirus/vac-
rotashield...](http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/rotavirus/vac-rotashield-
historical.htm)

And what does it protect against? a bad case of diarrhea.

An intussusception is a medical condition in which a part of the intestine
invaginates (folds into) into another section of intestine, similar to the way
the parts of a collapsible telescope slide into one another.[1] This can often
result in an obstruction. The part that prolapses into the other is called the
intussusceptum, and the part that receives it is called the intussuscipiens.
Intussusception is a medical emergency and a patient should be seen
immediately to reduce risk.

~~~
jwmerrill
Diarrhea kills more than a million people each year. In 2012, it was the
second most common cause of deaths in children younger than five (0.76 million
or 11%).

Be thankful that you live in a time and place that allow you to not take it
very seriously. I know I'm thankful for this.

Source:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarrhea](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarrhea)

------
legulere
A really good article. Similar things are happening with so many things in our
lives (feminism for instance). The worst is when people begin to deny the
existence of real problems (like with vaccines, although they make sense,
there really is some risk for the people that get vaccinated).

------
calinet6
This article doesn't really dive into the issue in a real, honest way.

Vaccinations are generally a public health benefit, no doubt about it, but
there's also much we don't understand about how the immune system works. It's
not completely, entirely, 100% irrational to desire to avoid messing with
something you don't fully understand. The more science you learn, sometimes,
the more you learn how little we really know and understand about the
complexities of our own bodies. With enough science, that can turn around and
reinforce rationality; but I don't think we're there yet as a society in
either the body of science available, nor the prevalence of good science
education in the population.

I used to be in the same camp as the author. My mom is what I'd call a
rational anti-vaxxer, and I hated her for it. She's a trained biologist. She
vaccinated where she could see all the science and the benefit, but treated
each vaccine as an independent entity, requiring new proof and new science and
understanding of how it functioned and how effective it was and the
cost/benefit to society before making the decision. When I turned 18, she
turned the reins over to me and told me to make my own decisions based on all
the data available. She trusted me with the science.

I took this to heart as an adult. I feel it is an excellent way to approach
the problem, and in fact is more scientific than blindly accepting
recommendations that have dozens of conflicting influences outside simple
public health. This became particularly apparent to me as I now battle a
chronic GI immune condition that has made my life extremely difficult over the
past year. It took a full year to actually diagnose, and even then, what was
the best doctors could tell me? "We have no idea what causes it, but we know
it doesn't correlate to cancer. Here's some steroids. Good luck." I am not
saying any vaccination causes this—I simply don't know—but it's that kind of
doubt in the field that makes people doubt blanket statements on all
vaccinations, whether that be right or wrong.

I agree with the author of this piece: we need more empathy, more
understanding, and much less confrontation. But we also need more science, and
a better understanding of science, and a more nuanced, honest discussion of
vaccines in medicine and society. In a complex world, when a scientist hears
"All X are good," they are _right_ to be skeptical of it. We need to recognize
that we live in a world where no one is allowed to have a conversation on
vaccines based on reality. Instead, any discussion that doesn't qualify itself
with the greatness of vaccines and the wrongness of anti-vaxxers instantly
labels you an anti-vaxxer yourself, and loses you all credibility.

This article, too, succumbs to that mental virus. I refuse to. He says, _" my
point isn't that the anti-vaxxers might be right. They're not."_ With that
attitude, we'll never be able to understand the problem scientifically as a
populace, and that's what's wrong with our response to anti-vaxxers—not that
they're wrong and delusional. If you want real empathy, stop calling people
wrong all the time, and start trying to understand their fear instead of
dismissing it and strategically trying to quell it.

~~~
RUG3Y
Wow, someone who gets it. Science has really become the religion of our time,
"scientists" are the priesthood. We should trust their recommendations
unconditionally, without question.

------
krcz
If someone has an irrational fear that can pose harm to their child (or other
children), the person should do something about it. Never letting a child to
play with others, based on the fear that something might happen to in wouldn't
be right, would it?

~~~
DanBC
Sure. Yelling at people doesn't seem to help them with their irrational fear,
and may well make it worse.

------
pluma
You don't have to be an idiot to be an anti-vaxxer but it certainly helps.

------
Ensorceled
This whole discussion reminds me of seat belt law debate:

Pro-seat belt: "It will save hundreds of lives and reduce injuries"

Anti-seat belt: "What if an accident pushes my car into the water and the
seatbelt jams and my child drowns."

Make it the law and put parents in jail. Better yet, since the first
confrontation over vaccinations will be when the children are young, put them
up for adoption. Lots of vetted, rational people looking to adopt young
children.

You don't own "your" children, they are people and they have the right to
proper medical care. Proper medical care isn't decided by irrational phobias
and fears.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
There are laws that you aren't allowed to wear your seatbelts in certain
situations; e.g. on some ice roads in some countries (Estonia). Not that this
is very relevant to anti vax.

~~~
Ensorceled
Where I'm from, we also take our seat belts off and roll down our windows
while driving out to our ice shacks to go fishing.

I agree though, there are children with compromised immune systems who CAN'T
take vaccines. And anti-vaxxers increase the risks to those children.

------
LinkPlug
> She had a very unfortunate run-in with a complacent MD in her late teens

I can relate with this.

------
everyone
The author comes across as a bit of an idiot too in the article. Basing his
opinions on blogs and a particular internet community. Rather than acquiring
an understanding from the scientific source material on these issues.

~~~
donkeyd
Confirmation bias works both ways. In one way or another everybody is
influenced by it, whether you're on the right side, or the wrong side of
facts.

~~~
AnkhMorporkian
> In one way or another everybody is influenced by it, whether you're on the
> right side, or the wrong side of facts.

I disagree. I'm always on the right side and am never influenced by
confirmation bias - at least that's what the comments I approve on my blog
say!

~~~
donkeyd
I have to disrespectfully disagree, because my filter bubble always shows me
that my views are correct.

------
batarjal
The author gives a good overview of the psychology of an anti-vaxxer:

1) Anti-vaxxers aren't paranoid misfits TL;DR: Anti-vaxxers are normally
rational people, but with an incorrect view on a topic.

2) It's all about fear TL;DR: Anti-vaxxers hold their view out of an
irrational fear, similar to arachnophobia, and simply using reason and facts
won't work, as they're not in a frame of mind to accept them.

3) If you think something is dangerous, it's logical to avoid it TL;DR: Though
their starting premise is misguided, an anti-vaxxer's reaction to vaccines is
logical. Thus, there is an emotional component in the initial premise that,
when confronted with facts and reason, lead them to dig their heels into the
sand and hold the line instead of thinking logically.

4) There's an industry supporting anti-vaxxers — and we're driving them into
its arms TL;DR: There are people positioned to exploit fear, and it is these
people who are validating the anti-vaccination movement, despite various
ethical concerns, and allowing it to thrive. Without these people, the
movement would have died out shortly after it had started. Also, anti-vaxxers
seeks support from loved ones and people who have experience with the subject
matter to validate their worldview.

5) Changing someone's mind doesn't just take love. It takes empathy. TL;DR:
Anti-vaxxers come to their erroneous conclusion about vaccinations after bad
experiences, not logic. The road to change minds is through empathy, not
attack.

He makes an interesting quote in his article: "The anti-vax position was not a
deal breaker for me, but suggesting that we should expose her daughter to
grave dangers for no good reason was a deal breaker for my wife." This
reasoning could (and arguably should) be applied in reverse: suggesting that
we should expose children to easily preventable dangers (various potentially
lethal childhood illnesses) for no good reason should be a deal breaker in any
kind of relationship. While empathy could change an anti-vaxxer's mind, the
dangers of having children unvaccinated while this strategy is employed is too
risky, so a more direct approach, in my mind, must be taken. It's like
trusting someone to drive you to the store while they're very drunk when it's
better to never get into the car and to stop them from driving, if possible.

Likewise, he compares the anti-vaxxer movement to arachnophobia. His
conclusion to drop his stance on vaccination doesn't logically follow from
this comparison, however, as arachnophobia is a mental illness, treated by
certified therapists when the phobia starts preventing people from living
their lives or driving people to impact other people's lives. The logical
conclusion to this comparison is to treat the anti-vaccination movement as a
mental illness, encourage anti-vaxxers to seek out certified therapists, and
enact laws to prevent people who don't vaccinate their children or themselves
from spreading easily preventable but potentially life and quality of life
threatening diseases.

------
XorNot
So did Jim Carrey.

------
iSnow
Dick trumps brain, nothing surprising there.

~~~
vermooten
:)

------
pheroden
Um, no, she's an idiot, and you're justifying it her stupidity.

------
altern8
There are people who believe our planet is 2000 years old, too...

~~~
rjsw
Don't you mean 4000 years old ?

~~~
krcz
Isn't it supposed to be 6000 (4k before Christ and 2k after)?

~~~
knieveltech
[reserve not met]

------
sputr
Damn, this is something I've been saying for a while (and also written a more
succinct blog about[1]). The anti-vaxxer parents are victims of fraudsters who
do this for monetary gain. It's the same story as with all pseudoscience.

Attacking parents will not stop it. Education and holding fraudsters
responsible will. But education has to be, marketing wise, on the same level
as what fraudsters are pumping out. Currently it really isn't (save for a few
exceptions).

[1] [http://thescepticalpirate.eu/vaccinations-dont-blame-
parents...](http://thescepticalpirate.eu/vaccinations-dont-blame-parents/)

------
tinco
"Lead paint, tobacco, bloodletting [..] we ought to remember that the same
sentence has been said, earnestly and confidently, about things that
absolutely were hazardous."

I've heard this argument before but it sounds really wrong to me. Did anyone
ever really say lead paint is absolutely safe? For all of these things I feel
people just didn't think about it. They never thought 'hmm maybe if we put
poisonous metal in paint (we knew lead was poisonous) it could go into the air
and affect the brain development of our children' they just went to a hardware
store and bought the paint that was good and cheap, assuming that since
everyone else bought it, it would be good. Same for tobacco.

~~~
Alex3917
It was already known that lead was poisonous when leaded gas was invented, but
there was a huge amount of lobbying saying it was safe by the car industry.

------
bluedino
I almost married an anti-vaxxer. And then I realized there are another couple
million people in this country I could marry and not have to fight over that
stuff about the rest of my life.

It wasn't just vaccines she was worried about. She was also vegan. Only ate
organic. I'm fine if those are your choices but I don't want them forced upon
me, or a lecture when I eat a hotdog, take an aspirin, or drink milk.

Constant fear of everything in the environment requires psychological help.

~~~
Grishnakh
You made the right choice. I wish someone had convinced me to avoid my
marriage. My last wife wasn't a really strong anti-vaxxer (we never had kids,
so it never was a big issue), but she did buy into it and closely related, she
was really big into "alternative medicine". She spent a ridiculous amount of
money on that crap, and of course that was one of the big factors that lead to
our marriage failing.

I agree with the other guy though about you conflating things. You're right
that being anti-vax and using alternative medicine is largely about fear
(which she has problems with in many other areas too: she's afraid of
terrorists, she's afraid of illegals, I could go on and on), but veganism, as
far as I can tell, is not about fear, it's about an extreme philosophical
position where those people don't want to hurt or abuse animals in any way.
(The problem with the position, of course, is it's just not very practical.) I
don't see the two as the same at all; my wife wasn't into veganism at all. She
was into organic stuff though, which of course is based on fear, though not
completely irrational as a lot of our food in this country is of shitty
quality and many farming practices are questionable (for instance, giving
livestock tons of antibiotics even when they don't need it, which is causing
more antibiotic-resistant bacteria to arise).

If you're in the position of dating someone who you might have kids with, and
she's anti-vax, I recommend getting out ASAP. You're going to end up having
horrible fights over it. If you're past the age of having kids, it's less of
an issue, but it's still a good indicator of a very different worldview, so I
recommend avoiding those people.

