question for delayed/partial and non vaccers

[Schmickers]

You need to be extremely careful about what you read on the internet. Science is not perfect, and statistics are both difficult to understand and, in this kind of thing, frequently misinterpreted by non-professionals. Don't believe anything that doesn't give references to peer-reviewed journals. Even if there is, as in the Wakefield case, a peer-reviewed journal that has published a result, you have to look further to see how many studies of what calibre have confirmed the result, and how many have disputed it. In the end, science works on a "majority rules" way, since it's so easy for one study to get a wrong result, but it is much less easy for lots of studies to get the same wrong result.

Tenar, a lot of what you say is true. As yet, no scientific study has proven a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. It is worth remembering, though, that it took over two decades from the first concerns being raised about a link between smoking and lung cancer, until research proving that link became available. I believe we are at that initial stage now - where enough children have developed autism or other unexplained side effects after the administration of the MMR that some autism experts are beginning to ask the question: "is the MMR contributing to this growing problem?" Until that question can be answered definitively, I think it is reasonable that parents exercise their best judgement in making decisions about vaccination.

Now, this is an aside, and not suggesting you feel this way, but the question I'd like to ask parents who don't vaccinate because of autism fears (if there was a real connection, which there does not seem to be), is why they would rather risk their child dying of a disease than risk them being autistic. Death is rather more severe a thing...

I am happy to address that question, Tenar.

The diseases that the MMR vaccine prevents are measles, mumps, and rubella. Mumps is not a fatal disease. It causes a week of neck and jaw pain and glandular swelling. It rarely has any side effects or complications. In adolescent boys and men, it can produce an inflammation of the testicles that can result in infertility. For this reason, I think it is reasonable to give the MMR in early adolescence, but I don't see a compelling reason to give it in childhood.

Rubella is even more benign. Essentially it causes a rash and flu-like symptoms. It rarely has any side effects or complications. If contracted during pregnancy, though, it can cause fetal abnormalities. For this reason, once more, I think it is reasonable to give the MMR in early adolescence, but I don't see any real reason to vaccinate against Rubella in childhood.

Measles, rarely, can have a side effect called encephalitis. This is an inflammation of the brain that can be fatal. About 0.3% of children who contract the measles virus will go on to develop this form of encephalitis.

The difficult decision that every parent has to make is what is more risky? The (currently unevaluated) risk of developing autism following the administration of the MMR, or the 0.3% risk developing measles encephalitis? This is a difficult decision to make.

Also, it's not true to say that a younger child is not at risk if the older child is vaccinated (not that Schmickers said exactly that). The fact is, young kids aren't perfect in their hygiene, and they get exposed to a lot of bugs. While your older child is very much safer than if they weren't vaccinated, the vaccines aren't perfect, as we all know, so there is still some chance of them contracting the disease and passing it on to your younger child. This is why the schedule has been designed as it has: to minimise the window of time in which babies are totally unprotected from the diseases in question, and thus to save as many lives (and serious illnesses) as possible.

Indeed, I didn't say that. Let me try and clarify.

Skybie's child is at no greater risk than if she was in the general community, because if we assume that her older child's vaccinations were effective, then the older child is no more likely to contract and bring home a disease then anyone else she has contacy with. Nearly every one of the vaccine preventable diseases spreads through close contact, after symptoms have appeared. It is possible to enforce basic hygeine rules, even with a younger child and a baby; no kissing, no close play, while you have a runny nose or a cough. It works; we've done it, even with coughs and colds we've managed to keep Lily protected from quite a few. And as far as I am concerned, I think there is as much, or more, value in teaching these rules of basic hygeine, as there is in vaccinating your children and then expecting this to be a gold shield against all infections.