Things that annoy me (when it comes to parenting)

Just for fun, because I feel like it, I'm going to go on a little rant about things that annoy me. This is mainly inspired by me, in the face of Lily's upcoming 12 month vaccines, having a re-look at anti-vaccine advice.

1. Mummier-than-thou: I don't mind a bit of mumpetition. I actually quite like it. It makes me think through my choices for my daughter, read and re-read research and helps me learn to protect my daughter's best interests. It also helps me to humbly except that sometimes, I am wrong, or even a bit haphazard. What I can't stand, and I rarely get into conversation with such people and they certainly aren't my friends, is people who think that their choice is the only choice, that simply because you disagree, your research is flawed or non-existent. Better yet, I love people that flat out refuse to listen to bodies of evidence produced by better research practices than their sources because they know their sister-in-law's, cousin's, aunt's, dog's breeder did it the way their massively flawed research suggests. Sometimes I like to goad these people on message boards, but one must be careful arguing with such people as idiots nearly always win arguments by dragging you down to their level and beating you with experience. Or simply exasperating you so much, you give up as your brain leaks out your ears.
2. People who are rude about breastfeeding: I'm about to come out of the closest here. *deep breath* I plan to breastfeed until Lily is AT LEAST 2. This is not something I planned when I was pregnant. My mum didn't breastfeed, and my grandma didn't breastfeed long as Mum failed thrive on breast milk and many of my friends had been unsuccessful with breastfeeding and I was very anxious about public attitude. I planned to give it a go for at least 6 weeks and then what happened, happened. Then Lily was born prem and while I have yet to find unshakeable evidence that breast outstrips formula by a wide enough margin that it should be shoved down the throats of parents of healthy, full term babies the way some groups think it should, the evidence of the benefits of breast for prems is pretty much uncontested. So 6 weeks came and went, and my attitude shifted. I decided to breastfeed until at least 1, which had been Bob's attitude all along. Then 6 months came and went. And I decided that 2 was my new aim, and Bob agreed. Lily was pretty much a case for the text books on how good breast is for prems. But the disgusting things that are said about breastfeeding in some circles, usually not parents, have really made the bile rise in my throat. Comparing it to urinating or defecating in public, suggesting women should hide out in toilets or use bottles, suggesting there is something PERVERTED about it. It makes me furious. The public attitude is absurd. I've even heard some people, that should KNOW better, saying they will not breastfeed, not because of careful research or personal negative experience, but because they don't want to be tied down to their child. Oh, FFS. Well, for the love of all things holy DON'T BREED, because your kid will be a clear asset to society. Of course, things are turning around, and the new push by Queensland Health is for breast for 12 months+, which I think it awesome! Having said that, I will champion anyone who has chosen bottle for good reasons, and there are lots of them, exclusive of physical inability, and have done on many occasions.
3. And finally, why I'm here, the Anti-Vaccine Movement: When I was in hospital, I felt the urge to pick apart every decision for our child. It seemed like a better use of my time than moping. One of the things that piqued my interest was whether to vaccinate or not. I did exactly 10 minutes research. I went to the Australian Vaccination Network website, one of the leading anti-vax groups in the world, and was astonished there was no forum or way to make comment on the papers they presented. So I dug a little deeper and found them to be an exceptionally horrible organisation that had committed borderline terrorist acts, were vitriolic towards parents of sick children who were too young to immunised and had caught diseases off unimmunised children and called for people to sue anyone who gave them advice to vaccinate if their child had an adverse reaction, but didn't seem to think that the reverse could be true. That THEY may be sued if a child died after their parents took the advice of their organisation. And the absurd things they were saying, such as calling measles a benign disease made me distrust ALL their research and finally, I decided that anyone who told me to vax was at least more right than these fools when I discovered they weren't just AIDS deniers but CANCER deniers. And I discontinued my research. And Lily had been jabbed with everything since. 

However, as a footnote, since then I have followed all anti-vax/ pro-vax discussions and have kept a close eye on the activities of Meryl and her cronies. I have learned through doing this that:

• anti-vaxxers pose a threat to herd immunity, because the fewer people that vaccinate, the more a disease is likely to pop up and the less effective immunisation is as a whole because not all vaccines are 100% effective, 100% of the time and they require high levels of vaccination for efficacy. If 10% of people are allergic or unable to vaccinate because of disease, and 10% fail to vaccinate, you reach 80% vaccination rate, which is when herd immunity begins to fail. 
• The vast majority of anti-vax research is done with small test groups, poor scientific practise and with an end goal in mind. Sometimes, the research isn't even done by doctors, immunologists or scientists; sometimes it is an opinion paper from someone such as a naturopath, who really has no place purporting such things.
• If 100 papers support vaccination, anti-vaxxers will champion the one that doesn't, calling the sometimes THOUSANDS of doctors and scientists involved in the other papers sell-outs and cronies of "big pharma". 
• They still think Andrew Wakefield is a hero and have no f***ing idea about ASDs.
• they think SIDS guidelines are another thing the government is using to control the masses
• that Andrew Wakefield's paper set real Autism research back decades
• that, having read detailed descriptions of adverse reactions, and having seen what is described as a adverse reaction by anti-vaxxers as reason not vaccinate, that they are hysterical (c'mon, a grumpy baby with a fever and sore arm is a well documented reaction and is no reason not to vaccinate), fail to recognise other environmental factors (Autism cannot be recognised until 9 months and often not until after, so yes, it DOES correlate with the MMR, but only by coincidence) and gloss over cases of obvious child abuse (one case was clearly shaken baby syndrome)

This is not EVERYTHING I have learned but, in short, yes, I am worried about adverse reactions and hold my breath for up to a week after she gets vaccinated, but I am not going to stop vaccinating her because of this. Quite frankly, if you don't immunise your kid, you are a fucking idiot.