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

We will have to disagree certainly. There is under-reporting of vaccine reactions, and as the medical assumption is one of wild measles vaccine it stretches credulity to imagine that every patient with SSPE undergoes brain dissection after death. The manufacter's predicate their risk assessment on the assumption of asymptomatic wild measles: health professionals will follow that lead.

Any risk calculated from the yellow card system is really worthless, under those circumstances. The assumption is of wild measles: therefore there is no report. Therefore the risk is unknown.

With respect to risk benefit, I'm afraid you can't have it both ways, again.

You can't move from "no risk" to "small risk" without acknowledging that you don't know what the risk is. You've only just found out there is a risk. How how can you suddenly know what it is?

So whilst it probably is small - it's certainly not known, so a risk benefit analysis is not possible, especially in the light of a rapid shift from "no risk at all".

"manufacturers" plural not possessive

With regard to updating literature - it's been updated for ASD refs.

I have never claimed 'no risk'
Try not to mis quote me
ALL medicines carry risk

And please stop confusing theoretical risks with real ones. Its very misleading

Blueberties,

Merck cannot look at brain tissue - either the relatives agree to an autopsy or they don't and the autopsy would not have been (and should not be anyway) performed by Merck, but by a publically appointed coroner with subsequent tests by independent scientists. In every autopsy and subsequent virus test on brain material performed after SSPE, wild virus was found. This does not exclude that vaccine virus might be found at one point, but it hasn't. SSPE has all but disappeared in countries with low measles circulation, while it is still going strong in developed countries with high measles circulation (Turkey for example). There is nothing that would support that MMR causes SSPE.

It does not matter that it was not performed by Merck: I would not expect an autopsy to be carried out by Merck. One would expect the results of such an autopsy to be available to the company however. Particularly if the company discourses about the relative risks in its literature and is talking about the risk during "trials" - although as none of the trials lasted longer than I think three weeks it's hard to imagine how they thought they could assess SSPE at all.

However Pims says such information is available to manufacturers through the yellow card reporting system. So it's not necessary to imagine that Merck would carry out an autopsy.

Pims: I am not misquoting. You said measles vaccine does not cause SSPE.

That means to me there is no risk of SSPE from measles vaccine.

What are you saying it means?

Caterina: I'm afraid you and Pims have to rather tie knots here.

This is a disprovable risk, which is not necessary to list as an adverse event if it does not exist.

It is absolutely unnecessary.

So first you want me to believe that Merck lists an adverse event which is proved (allegedly) not to exist: you also want me to understand that parents cannot trust information from a vaccine manufacturer, doctor or health authority about the product - an odd position for pro-vaccinists; you also want me to believe that a risk assessment based on yellow card reporting which is predicated on an assumption of wild measles is an accurate risk assessment.

Pims: the issue of a theoretical risk does not arise.

There is a risk, or no risk: it is provable.

Actually, I am quite happy with the Merck insert. You keep bringing up proofs and issues you think I should be having. I don't.

Nevertheless, there is no indication the MMR would cause SSPE. Measles vaccine virus has never been retrieved from an SSPE brain and the epidemiology clearly shows that in countries in which no wild measles occur, hardly any SSPE cases occur (usually in intl adoptees or immigrants). SSPE is not a consequence of vaccine. It is a consequence of wild measles. A horrendous consequence btw.

Blueberties
The Merck list is not based on proven risk from what I can gather
It is based on the VAERs risk reports. That means that someone who had the MMR had SSPE, it does not prove that the MMR caused the SSPE at all. What PIMS and Catherine are saying that when cases have been investigated the cases of SSPE have always been caused by wild measles. As most cases of SSPE are caused by children catching measles under the age of 2 it makes perfect sense as they could have caught it as a baby before they had MMR. If a baby caught it in the first 6 months then they may have had it so mild it may not have noticed because they will have some protection from maternal antibodies.

You said that they will be including ASD in future, this is because once claims that MMR caused autism, people (many of them injury lawyers) started reporting asd as a result of MMR to the VAERS. Anyone can report an event on VAERS it doesn't prove that it happened.
risk of disease against VAERS reports

Bruffin: it's obvious to everyone it is not based on proven risk. It is based on an assumption that all SSPE patients suffered asymptomatic measles.

"There have been reports of subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE) in children who did not have a history of infection with wild-type measles but did receive measles vaccine. Some of these cases may have resulted from unrecognized measles in the first year of life or possibly from the measles vaccination. Based on estimated nationwide measles vaccine distribution, the association of SSPE cases to measles vaccination is about one case per million vaccine doses distributed. This is far less than the association
with infection with wild-type measles, 6-22 cases of SSPE per million cases of measles. The results of a retrospective case-controlled study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that the overall effect of measles vaccine has been to protect against SSPE by preventing
measles with its inherent higher risk of SSPE."

Pims: "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."

A number of points. Note the inclusion of a retrospective epidemiological study in support of MMR-II wrt SSPE. Consider why if - as Pims claims - the issue is proved, the risk is included as an adverse event when that would be totally unnecessary. The reason, of course, is that it is not proved.

Caterina: I didn't bring up proof. You and Pims brought up proof. The moment you said: "SSPE is not caused by vaccine" you imply proof. It is an absolute. If you wish to withdraw that implication of course you can. Pims will not want to.

Pims, your apology was insincere as you have had to resort to nasty sarcasm again. This insert was updated in 2009. No one said they were updated every month - but you have shown your true colours there.

However in this answer you again confirm your belief that parents should not trust what a vaccine manufacturer says about its product and should do their own research. Many of those who question vaccines would agree with that most emphatically.

I am quite happy to repeat what you expect people to believe.

1. that Merck lists an adverse event which has been proved (Pim's claim) at least four years earlier not to exist. (Under such circumstances there would be no need to post even theoretical risk.)

1. that parents cannot trust information from a vaccine manufacturer (an odd position for pro-vaccinists)

1. that a risk assessment based on yellow card reporting, which is predicated on an assumption of wild measles, is an accurate risk assessment, and despite the fact that vaccine reactions are under-reported

Note: I went back to find the link to the JID study and could not do so, and googled it, where I found a reference to it happening in 2005. The insert was updated in 2009. If the date is different you could link the study again or copy and paste.

1. that Merck lists an adverse event which has been proved (Pim's claim) at least four years earlier not to exist. (Under such circumstances there would be no need to post even theoretical risk.)

You cannot prove a non existant link. All I said was that MCV causing SSPE had never been shown and the epidemiology supported the notion that MCV does not cause SSPE.

2. that parents cannot trust information from a vaccine manufacturer (an odd position for pro-vaccinists)

I am a realist - that said, the Merck package insert is pretty good.

3. that a risk assessment based on yellow card reporting, which is predicated on an assumption of wild measles, is an accurate risk assessment, and despite the fact that vaccine reactions are under-reported

hu? I said nothing of the sort.

So, before a jab, are the parents given these leaflets to read?

1. Pims claims explicitly that there is proof (the JID study) which shows that the link does not exist. You yourself claim implicitly that there is proof that the link does not exist.

As I say, if you want to withdrawn that claim you can - I gather from your last post you do?

1. You and Pims disagree. Pims believes we cannot trust what a vaccine manufacturer tells us. Actually it doesn't make sense to believe the negative proved and to be happy with the insert. You believe a negative has been proved: the insert says there may be some cases but it's probably a very low number.

1. the Merck risk assessment is largely based on yellow card reporting. If you are happy with it (although it contradicts your view that a negative has been proved) then you believe yellow card/post rollout, in other words reporting offers an accurate risk assessment.

Caterina you're incredibly confused.

You don't think post roll out reporting offers an accurate risk assessment, but you're happy with a risk assessment based on post roll out reporting, even though it contradicts your view that a risk does not exist at all.

Tabitha: if you ask you can get one. Otherwise they are available to read online. But there are two inserts: one for patients and one for medics. You would need to see the one for medics.

I don't doubt that they are available. I'd like to know if parents are actively given them and told to read them prior to the vaccination?
Before I take any medicine, the box tells me to read the accompanying leaflet.

By the way, what happened to that thread about a flu jab poster? Does anyone know?

Oh sorry - was that grandmothers and egg-sucking. I do apologise.

Well I must admit I never was never given one. I don't think people are generally, no. And then there are the people who are just injected without warning.

Don't know about the other thread, just assume it was due to unapproved soliciting maybe?

sorry more

Caterina when you say "all I said was.."

Actually that's not really true. You said vaccine does not cause SSPE. I guess you would like to withdraw that now, or perhaps change it to "one study has not found any vaccine-induced SSPE".

Here it is

"SSPE's only cause is measles, therefore SSPE=measles death."

"but the causative agent is the wild measles virus NEVER the vaccine virus"

"SSPE's only cause is measles"

I think you mean: one study has not found vaccine-induced SSPE. I think in some of the patients there was a history of vaccination so that made no difference to the SSPE even if it didn't cause it.

Only one study has been linked to though: if you have other brain dissection studies to link to that would be interesting.

Blueberties - no confusion here, but you seem to have an awful lot of time to spare to construct things out of various posts that posters here have not said.

Have you read the one paper I linked to? Anything you'd like to discuss about that one before we move on to the next? There are 2500 papers on SSPE on Pubmed. I have read quite a lot and actually, found it most rewarding to see the development (i.e. decline of SSPE with the introduction of the measles vaccine, and, most recently, even advances to determine genetic susceptibility to persistent virus infections). Give it a go...

Why are you criticising the amount of time I am spending on this? What does that have to do with anything? Are you trying to smear me somehow?

And again the sarcasm - these things only emerge when you feel your argument doesn't stand up without such tactics.

If you think it does, please try to be more temperate.

Can you tell me what your interest is? Are you a research scientist? You must be something along these lines it seems.

There is confusion in your posts, quite a lot. How can you believe that post roll-out reporting does not offer an accurate risk assessment, but "be happy" with a risk assessment based on post-roll out reporting? How can you insist there is absolutely no risk but be happy with a risk assessment which says there is a risk?

These are self-contradictory claims.

I only saw the link to the JID study from Pims. I assume you haven't made 2500 links, I wouldn't expect that, but I've looked back and have seen only one link you placed, which was the immuno-compromised child. If you've made others I haven't seen them. I joined the thread around SSPE and you haven't linked to any brain dissection studies since then.

I've got to be honest - I don't know what your article is supposed to prove. Half the SSPE cases had been vaccinated. Twelve (I think?) had no record of measles.

And wrt this

"Four children with a history of receipt of a measles containing vaccine were reported not to have had measles; two of these cases had a brain biopsy, and nucleotide sequence data confirmed wild measles infection."

I couldn't see what happened to the other two. One must assume they didn't find wild measles infection, otherwise they would say so.

So how does this prove the claim you've made?

Plus it wasn't 47 cases during that period (yes I skim read it the first time but thanks for the encouragement to examine in detail) at all.

It was "58 cases that met the laboratory criteria for confirmation" ... "Eleven were foreign nationals who returned home after diagnosis and were therefore excluded."

So it was at least 58 and obviously more than that, but the others "didn't meet the laboratory criteria for comfirmation".

It wasn't 47 cases at all. Are you trying to be deliberately misleading in the hope that people will only skim read the link?

I mean when half the patients are vaccinated how does that support the conclusion that vaccination is the way ahead in the SSPE battle?

That's me done for the night. If you can concentrate on the argument rather than being personal I'll respectfully attend to what you have to say tomorrow or whenever.

Please don't be personal again. There's no need if you have things to say that are valuable and have cogency.