Measles outbreak in Europe

[bubbleymummy]

Interesting that there was a large outbreak in Bulgaria in 2009/2010 despite a vaccination rate of 96% Figures here

Bb, did you read the references I gave to support? Simply saying you proved me wrong doesn't make it true no matter how much you want it to be!
Besides, I thought you were off?!

I thought you were off too? I went to see to my children. Now I am killing time.

But you are proved wrong about SSPE - just saying you aren't doesn't make it true. People would only have to read back.

References to support what? Your statement that measles after immunisation is rare?

I don't understand. Whether the references support your claim or not, you are caught in a bind.

If they support your claim, then herd immunity is irrelevant. I'm not in this instance disputing your claim - I am telling you whence it leads.

Data suggests a probability that the vaccine may cause

It also acknowledges that the cause may simply be a previous sub acute presentation.

Your evidence is inconclusive and can not confirm ANYTHING by it's own admission, hence the 'probability' a 'may' words
The page reference from the virology text I gave supports that it's caused by wild measles sometimes even following subacute cases

SSPE is not caused by measles vaccine
Journal of infectious Diseases 192:1686-93
To prove this, they took brain tissue from patients diagnosed with SSPE, performed reverse-transcriptase PCR (necessary because measles is an RNA virus), and analyzed the sequences of the PCR products in order to determine the genotype of the measles virus. (Measles has 22 known genotypes; the vaccine strain, for example, is genotype A). None of the sequences matched the genotype A viruses--the vaccine does not cause SSPE.

It's not my evidence. It's from the manufacturer. The manufacturer lists it as an adverse event.

It gives a figure of one in a million based on the assumption, and it is only an assumption, that patients who had the vaccine and SSPE must have had a case of asymptomatic measles that no one noticed.

They didn't take brain tissue and dissect it from all the patients who died of SSPE. That's why they made the assumption.

Like I say - take it up with Merck.

I mean, it would have been very easy for Merck to prove this assumption wrong. They could have looked at the brain tissue. But they didn't. They didn't have to list it as an adverse event. They could have proved that it wasn't.

But they didn't. They accepted that it was. So this: "SSPE is not caused by measles vaccine" is not true, according to the manufacturer of the vaccine. they approximate that it causes one case per million doses.

Take it up with Merck.

No, you take it up with the journal of infectious diseases who DID look at brain tissue and concluded that SSPE is not caused by a vaccine. Furthermore, it is accepted that the vaccine protects against SSPE

Do you know how ridiculous you sound?
You evidence is anecdotal at best and unsupported, mine is scientific and proven by brain biopsy.

But your must be right cause the authors is the manufacturer? Hmmm

You take what they wrote out of context.
They list the number of cases of SSPE in absence of clinical symptoms of measles as 1 in a million however they say that these cases are LIKELY to have been subclinical presentations in the first year.
It also concludes in the same piece of research that the vaccine protects against SSPE

So chances are less than one in a million. Zero depending on which author you read.
Your child has more chance of being injured in a road accident, but I'm sure you still let them out the house for the benefits of school social interaction etc. Medicine is about risk vs benefit.

Serious immune compromise is a known contraindication to this jab.

For a health person the reported incidence of seizures caused by measles is 1 in 200, for mmr it is 1 in 1000
Encephalitis/meningitis caused by measles is 1 in 200-5000 (depending on age)
Encephalitis/meningitis caused by MMR < 1 in a million
SSPE caused by measles 1 in 200
SSPE caused by MMR 0
death caused by measles 1 in 2500/5000 depending on age
Death caused by MMR 0
I think the statistical evidence speaks for itself

Why do you have to be abusive? It's not ridiculous. Isn't it more "ridiculous" to assume that a manufacturer would list a serious degenerative disorder as an adverse effect when it absolutely proved not to be?

I wouldn't use the word ridiculous myself because I don't need to attack people like that - I think my argument holds water very perfectly. But I would say it doesn't make sense to me to think the manufacturer would list an adverse event for its product which is proved not to exist.

I don't dispute your study at all (I haven't read the paper, but I'm happy to accept that in your study all the cases were caused by wild measles. I assume that's what it says.)

But not even the manufacturer accepts that as proof that every case of SSPE is caused by wild measles. It simply doesn't follow.

I think if the manufacturer could, the manufacturer would -- of course. It's the one disease/disorder where absolute proof or disproof is possible.

There is no reason for Merck to list SSPE as an adverse reaction unless it is one. It even says that despite this, MMR contributes to the drop in SSPE cases world wide with its measles prevention.

So less of the "ridiculous" please. It doesn't add to your argument. I think it's a sign that you're worried about being wrong.

"They list the number of cases of SSPE in absence of clinical symptoms of measles as 1 in a million however they say that these cases are LIKELY to have been subclinical presentations in the first year."

For example this. They don't need "likely". They can find out. It is provable one way or another. There is no need to assume it wasn't the vaccine: they can find out.

Caterina and you have both implied that in every case of SSPE the brain is dissected and wild measles found. Therefore vaccine does not cause SSPE - this is your case.

I have said this is not the case, and that when there has been no measles disease only the vaccine there is simply as ASSUMPTION that asymptomatic measles disease and not vaccine was the cause. This does not prove that vaccine does not cause SSPE.

(It actually implies - through common sense - the opposite. It is very provable either way: the fact that the proof has not been sought does make you wonder why. If there is such confidence that vaccine strain virus would not be found.)

I am obviously right. You have quoted the very section that proves me right.

In fact you do seem to accept "one case in a million" which is a direct contradicton of your earlier statement that vaccine does not cause SSPE.

But you seem to think that one in a million is equivalent to zero. On the contrary. One in a million in our population would be for example sixty people. Let me just do a couple of sums.

So a rough google (you can challenge me on these numbers of course) finds that 500 million doses of MMR have been given globally around the world, so that would be 500 people who have contracted SSPE through the vaccine.

Why do you have to be abusive? It's not ridiculous. Isn't it more "ridiculous" to assume that a manufacturer would list a serious degenerative disorder as an adverse effect when it absolutely proved not to be?

If you think 'ridiculous' is an abusive word I apologise. I am not here to be abusive, but objective in examining the evidenced and balanced in the consideration of its findings

For example this. They don't need "likely". They can find out. It is provable one way or another. There is no need to assume it wasn't the vaccine: they can find out.

The journal of infectious diseases did. Case and point. your literature needs updated!

In fact you do seem to accept "one case in a million" which is a direct contradicton of your earlier statement that vaccine does not cause SSPE.

No I dont, your literature actually says that the incidence of SSPE inpatients with non clinical presentation of measles is 1 in a million, not that the chances of patient who have the vaccine will get SSPE is 1 in a million. You mis understood what they are saying

They don't need "likely". They can find out.

Likely was their choice of word, not mine. Take it up with them as you put it.

PS the research has been done to prove that the vaccine doesn't cause SSPE.
have you read it yet?
I had the curtesy to read yours...

And to be honest, you do seem to imply there that we shouldn't trust what a pharmaceutical company says about its vaccine products.

I'd have to agree with you somewhat but I'm surprised to hear you say it.

But I don't know why a manufacturer would include an adverse event which has been disproved. Especially such a serious one as this. Nor why they would justify it as an adverse event by saying, in effect, there'd be more SSPE without the vaccine. Not only do they list it, they feel the need to justify it.

"courtesy"

Yes, they used the word "likely", that's what I'm saying. That means it's an assumption, that's exactly what I'm saying. It's not proof, it's not even an indication. It's just an assumption.

and Im not worried about being wrong!
I get frustrated that people trying to make a difficult decision get the wrong information.

This decision is made difficult by unnecessary scaremongering. There are risks with all medications. The risks of this vaccine are far smaller than the natural risks of measles (as the evidence I have given proves!)

Why would I need to take it up with them?

I accept that they have made an assumption. I'm not the one saying it's proof rather than assumption - you are.

But you are giving out wrong information, which I haven't, and you have tried to scare-monger too.

The evidence you've given doesn't prove it. I think you have a different idea of proof than the actual definition of proof.

You've fallen back on the risk-benefit thing when we're talking about the proof of something very specific here. You can't discuss risk-benefit until you know the risks. The risks have not been established. This specific risk is disputed for example.

And to be honest, you do seem to imply there that we shouldn't trust what a pharmaceutical company says about its vaccine products.

I didn't realise they updated their printed literature on a monthly bases as new evidence is release.
Wait... they don't. Thats why I like to do my own literature reviews as well

But I don't know why a manufacturer would include an adverse event which has been disproved. Especially such a serious one as this. Nor why they would justify it as an adverse event by saying, in effect, there'd be more SSPE without the vaccine. Not only do they list it, they feel the need to justify it.

At the time they released it they did so with the most up to date knowledge that was available at the time, as you say they conclude and prove nothing simply acknowledge a potential risk
Research is released every day. I enjoy reading it

Yes, I think ridiculous and ludicrous are abusive. There's no need for that, or for nasty name-changing or passive aggression. We are all adults and this is a serious subject.

The risks have not been established. This specific risk is disputed for example.

Just because you dont accept it doesn't mean that the medical and scientific professions dont.

The adverse events for this vaccine are reported via the yellow card system and the chances of these events I have already posted. This let us say with some certainty that its safety is well established

ridiculous and ludicrous
And to think that they show dragons den BEFORE the watershed!
However I take your point and standby my apology. It was not ment to be abusive

I do not and have no name changed. ( I think my confusion with the name changer proved that, though you can check with mn HQ if you want)

I appreciate this is a serious subject, and have taken it very seriously

The risks are not established unfortunately. They probably are very low: 500 cases in 500 million doses would indeed be low -- but they are not established and they do exist.

In a debate like this I think words like ludicrous are unhelpful to be honest. You are directing them towards evidence from a vaccine manufacturer, apart from anything else.

You had fun with the namechanger earlier, but I accept your apology.

appreciated

The risks are not established unfortunately. They probably are very low: 500 cases in 500 million doses would indeed be low -- but they are not established and they do exist.

Will have to agree to disagree. Adverse events are reported via yellow card system and the risks calculated from this. I don't accept your claims that the risks are not established. I do accept that their are risks of adverse events, but these are insignificant compared to the natural adverse effects of measles. This has been well documented and reported. (I actually expect that the side effects of measles is probably underreported as over 90% of cases now come from developing countries.) The vaccine has been used safely for years. The risk of adverse events is well documented and reported and the information to support this is widely available.

for starters...

Safety and Immunogenicity of Concurrent LAIV (FluMist ) with Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR II) and Varicella (VARIVAX ) Vaccines in Infants 12 to 15 Months of Age
Nolan T, Bernstein D, Block S, Hilty M, Keyserling H, Marchant C, Yogev R, Cho I, Mendelman P
Pediatrics, 2008, 121(3):508-16.

Safety and immunogenicity of a combined live attenuated measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella vaccine (MMR(II)V) in healthy children.
Watson BM, Laufer DS, Kuter BJ, Staehle B, White CJ, Starr SE
1996