The crazy part of this is that there is such an easy and simple solution for the family, but the dad is choosing against helping his son, right?
I mean, if you are thinking logically and you have all of the information that we all have, what choice would a logical person make:
1. Take the (extreme, lol, not) risk of getting vaccinated where something (absolutely nothing) negative might happen to you?
2. Let your son suffer kidney disease?
Out of hundreds of millions of vaccinations, how many instances of a negative side effect have there been? What is the likelihood of surviving kidney disease without a transplant? I guess everyone has their own right to interpret statistics any way they choose, but according to math and science there is a right way and a wrong way.