Probably not a winning suggestion, but what if you do something with the “child/son/daughter” last name custom? Like for instance, in some cultures (I’m actually not sure which), if the man’s name was “Hans” and they had a boy, then the child’s last name would be Hanson (Hans-son = Hanson). So let’s say your husband…

As a man, I feel utterly unable to comment on this situation - nobody has ever tried to rape me, or made unwelcome physical advances on me (well, a drunk girl, but she was so ineffective I don’t take it seriously) - but I might be able connect two dots, which may be useful to somebody, so I feel it’s my duty to put it…

The probability of contracting mumps once during your life is actually about 1 in 175, assuming you aren’t vaccinated. So that’s not actually insignificant.

As far as the parent aspect goes, I’m not a parent yet, so I won’t claim anything about what parents should or shouldn’t do. I was just hoping to point out others’ perspective. Sometimes understanding others’ perspectives helps me be more sensitive and avoid counterproductive exchanges with others, make my own point…

First, I’m not talking about measles, I’m talking about mumps with meningitis. I completely ignore the risk for measles and only talk about mumps. The odds of getting mumps once in your life increases by 22.5 in 3,000 if you are unvaccinated.

But I should say, it sounds like you’ve done your best to find a fiscally responsible method of healthcare. That’s good. I have no idea how to fix these problems, and the saddest thing of all to me is that the biggest thing keeping us back from solving health problems for a huge portion of the population comes down to…

I did open up the political can of worms myself, didn’t I? I shouldn’t have, when I just wanted to talk about science!

The two most important parts of my post are highlighted. Out of all the discussion I put here, those are, I think, the crux of where you disagree with me: Either you think my method is wrong, in which case I’d like to know what I did wrong, or you think my conclusion isn’t strong enough, in which case I’d like to know…

It’ll take me several days to go through that video. (It’s almost 2 hours long!) I’ve watched 20 minutes (all I have time for at the moment) and here are my impressions:

(I’m going to highlight the useful statistics solely to make them easier to find. I don’t want anybody to think I’m making an emotional argument- these are purely numbers and should be treated as such. The numbers may suggest different things to different people. The art of science is following up those suggestions…

Ah, well, I wanted to be at the extreme upper end: it leaves no wiggle-room for opposing arguments.

Also, HepC doesn’t have a vaccine, so I’m a little confused why you’re bringing that into the discussion.

Actually, I just realized the odds are even less dramatic when compared with the baseline. As a baseline, children have a 1 in 25 chance (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/febr…) of having at least one febrile seizure, or a 4% probability. From that standpoint, MMR increases the risk of at least one febrile seizure…

Personally, I would use a different risk equation, then, if I were you. You have a 1/3000 chance of a seizure due to fever. This is a febrile seizure: http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/febr…. 95%-98% of children recover entirely, with 2-5% developing epilepsy. 1% of children who never have febrile seizures develop…

I think this is one of the more intelligent arguments against vaccinations as recommended by the CDC, in your case delayed. But I have a few concerns, mostly when it comes to applying what you’ve discovered:

CVS gives shots because there’s enough demand for it to be economically feasible. CVS and pharmaceuticals would make more money if people got the disease and then needed to be treated. Think: sell shots, or sell tissues and acetaminophen and antibiotics and thermometers and (etc.)...

I’m really unsure what you’re trying to say. I was only answering one specific question: is it worthwhile to space out vaccines? I came up with an answer of “no, it’s not worthwhile to space out vaccines.” I didn’t address any other question.

Eh... I figure when the number comes out so ridiculously low, calculating error bars on things is a waste of time. The error bars on the original figures would have to be drastically huge to make a difference.

Right, I assumed the odds of allergy were independent of each other. If they aren’t, I could see it going several ways:

Yeah, I was going for the worst-case scenario. I think you’d have to work really hard and probably lie to a few doctors for them to unnecessarily give you that many shots in one day to cover your vaccination schedule.