Smasharoo wrote:
When the first someone is a sibling of the second someone, and the subject is a medical reaction, then it does actually make it more likely.
No, fuckstick, it doesn't. Good guessing though. Don't bother with the last 100 year of immunology or anything, just go with your gut instinct that if one kid is allergic to something that his (non identical twin) brother is more likely than normal to be allergic also.
First off, we're not necessarily talking about a classical allergic reaction. But that's beside the point because you are still wrong. The mother has had a strange history in terms of her reaction to chicken pox. Her first child had a negative reaction to the chicken pox immunization. The odds of the second child *also* having a similarly negative reaction are, in medical terms, "significant".
No amount of you yelling makes you any less wrong.
Quote:
He isn't. Stop substituting your anecdotal experience or "intuition" for easily obtainable facts.
Lol. So easy you didn't bother to find any before launching into an assumption.
To be fair, there's still a question as to whether allowing the child to catch the chicken pox naturally is a great alternative, but she's absolutely right to be concerned about the effect of the immunization on the child. I don't know if I'd forgo it, but I'd definitely wait until the second child is as old as possible before giving him the immunization, if for no other reason than the health risks from those kinds of reactions are significantly greater the younger a child is when it happens.
I would assume she talked this over with her doctor before proceeding Smash. I do find it strange that you are so insistent about something that is ultimately a choice for the parent to make. It's not like we're talking polio or small pox here. In the grand scheme of things, chicken pox is pretty far down the list of things most people worry about.