I said something like this earlier in this thread, but the key caveat that I added (or what I meant, anyway) is that what makes the average anti-vaccine wacko an idiot is not that they think there may be some risks in vaccines, it’s that they think, and preach—in spite of all the evidence to the contrary—that the vaccine risk is greater than the risk of not being vaccinated. If there are significant risks inherent in vaccines—and I have yet to see any convincing evidence that the risks are anything but remote—they are certainly so much less than the risks of the targeted diseases as to not even be in the same ballpark. To me, the risk decision seems to be a no-brainer.

I remember one thread, quite some time ago, where you argued that you abstain from caffeine and alcohol because the risks of consuming them (while minute) were still greater than the benefits gained from them (which you posited were zero). Wouldn’t the risk vs. benefit calculation in this case be even more clear-cut?