It doesn't sound to me like she believes she was adequately informed of the risks to her son (or her bank account).
True, but I think that risk is being deceptively miscommunicated. If "4 days in the hospital and cardiology visits for the indefinite future" is indeed being considered a 'mild' reaction, as she claims, that's taking subjectivity far outside the realm of reason.
Right, no one but a moron thinks that vaccines or other medical procedures don't have risks. But how does this compare to anything else, such as other vaccines which have already been legally required for children for a long time?
True, but I think that risk is being deceptively miscommunicated. If "4 days in the hospital and cardiology visits for the indefinite future" is indeed being considered a 'mild' reaction, as she claims, that's taking subjectivity far outside the realm of reason.
Yes, many people will quickly sing a different tune and start backtracking away from their beliefs when it hits them in the pocketbook. If she had been listening to the skeptics she would have known that there are many people questioning whether the benefit to risk ratio is worth it in younger people and children.
Her son's case was what it was. Neither mild nor severe. The vaccines CAN cause severe (as in fatal) myocarditis/pericarditis, so all in all it could have been worse. These things are very much indiosyncratic. The key for parents is that it can happen, and that it can actually be fatal. While most of the time it's towards the mild end of the spectrum, there is no hiding of the fact that it can kill. In the meantime, she seems more concerned about the money than her son's health. Not that I'm surprised, given the cost of his care. On that, what happens to people who don't have that $3k? Surely you have public hospitals who'll treat for free?