MMR - Autism links if child is over 2?

[firststeps]

DS is 2.3, he couldn't have the MMR when he was called as I was pregnant with DS2 and was found to be non rubella immune. We are now deliberating whether to go for the MMR or pay for single injections, does anyone have any experience of immunising an older child, and advise on whether the autism link would still apply?

Have only read the OP.

My ds didn't get the first MMR until he was 3 and a bit. He hasn't been affected as far as I can see (he's now just 4 - and overdue for the booster)

yes yurt. I'm almost tempted to let them have a try.

I live in an area which has one of the lowest uptake of the MMR and my DS2 was not able to get his MMR til he was 14 months which left him exposed when we had a mini measles outbreak.

I am not in favour of attacking only Dr Wakefield as many others were involved in fuelling this now long standing public health problem. As I said earlier lawyers seeking to use the 1987 CPA act for 'chancing it' litigation were a factor. There was a perception at the time that the relatively new CPA Act would allow new possibilities to bring in legal business - esp if they could be
publically funded. Although it is true that the standard of proof is lower than in traditional non contractual liability, it will never be the case that unproven theories, however passoniately they are believed, can be taken as facts.

So until they sort out the compensation system it's go ahead at your own risk I guess then.

The compensation system in the States used to be far better than it is here (although it has been fiddled with). The manufacturers had to pay into a central fund per shot given which was then used as compensation for vaccine damage. They paid an amount that depended on how dangerous a given vaccine was assessed as being. So of the standard childhood vaccinations the DT was cheap - a few cents into the central fund per shot, the DTP was the most expensive. A few dollars per shot (can't remember the exact amount). The MMR the second most expensive.

Always seemed a sensible system to me.

It has never been disputed that there is a need for vaccine damage compensation. It has always been recognised that manufacturing errors could cause a vaccine batch to be either 'bad' or 'ineffective'. Proving that the vaccination in wrong for a population as a whole because of a perceived risk is a new area of litigation. The standard of proof in the US vaccine court is much the same as under the CPA Act - causition does not need to be established in a strict sense. I don't want to give the impression that I am not synpathetic to the MMR parents. I agree with you that the lawyers' behaviour towards their clients was unacceptable and it was certainly not acceptable that the lawyers got all the money and did not return it to the public purse where in some ideal world, it could have been used to fund support for all ASD children - but that's not real life unfortunately.