Sussex has more cases of measles than any county in the nation other than Merseyside. Brighton and Hove experienced 186 reported cases this year while East Sussex has 88 cases and West Sussex has 40 cases. Through all of 2011, the county reported 173 cases, the Argus reports.The increase in cases is due to still insufficient measles vaccine rates. This brings the total number of UK cases to over 1279 for 2012. The EU has reported over 18,000 cases of measles for 2012.
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
UK Measles Cases Continue to Rise
Sussex county, United Kingdom now has 314 confirmed measles cases second to Merseyside's 414 confirmed cases.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"...The increase in cases is due to still insufficient measles vaccine rates..."
ReplyDelete"Herd immunity" implies that not all members need to be vaccinated to achieve general protection. Now if 92.8% coverage is seen as "insufficient" to achive herd immunity then no rate ever will, because as we approach 100% rate the concept makes less and less sense.
With such high coverage figures pretending that vaccine failure can be remedied by more vaccines is ridiculous.
Stop peddling false remedies for healthy kids, will you?
An example of how this guy "thinks".
Deletethank you Chris.
Deletethe 92.8% coverage rate is measured at current school entry as far as I know, while a much too large number of older school kids are un- or undercovered due to the fear of MMR.
ReplyDeletePutinroaded: Herd immunity can be evaluated on several levels. You seem to only be considering it on a national level. Outbreaks can begin in local pockets with low vaccination rates, such as that seen at several Waldorf Schools. Noting a 92.8 percent national rate for this local outbreak is no more relavent than saying that you should not get over heated in Pheonix when it is 115 degrees, because the the average national temperature on the same day is 80 degrees.
ReplyDeletethe sad thing is that with over 1200 cases and some time to go in the year, it is not unlikely that we'll see a measles death in the UK. Entirely preventable!
ReplyDeleteThank you Mederation. Have a look here: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20226 and here: http://justthevax.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/record-measles-outbreak-in-uks.html
ReplyDeleteNotice something? Sporadic outbreaks almost entirely in unvaccinated and undervaccinated. Herd immunity assumes equal distribution of susceptibles. But there is now geographic clustering of unvaccinated; the same is observed with pertussis outbreaks hence part of the increase. Just because on a national or large population level there is high coverage, doesn't mean that applies to local clusters. Your claim is a typical dishonest and ignorant meme of anti-vaxx nonsense. You don't understand epidemiology so why keep abusing it?
What is remarkable is this:
Deletea case was defined as probable when the three following criteria were fulfilled:
...
3. MMR vaccination status: patients who had not received two doses of MMR vaccine (irrespective of age) or with unknown history of MMR vaccination.
So cases were only reported in the unvaccinated and undervaccinated by design, as those in the vaccinated were automatically excluded for not fulfilling requirement 3.
To top off the fraud, serological confirmation of true measles was not required, meanining anything measles-like passed as "measles" creating the false appearance of an outbreak.
Fraud, fraud, fraud.
the sad thing is that with over 1200 cases and some time to go in the year, it is not unlikely that we'll see a measles death in the UK. Entirely preventable!
ReplyDeleteCatherina.... are you 100% positive that it is entirely preventable? Are you are saying deaths do not occur from vaccine injury? Are you saying that if you get the vaccine, you are immune from contracting measles?
According to epidemiology you have a 90-98% protection against infection of measlesvirus with two doses of MMR.
DeleteI haven't been able to locate a single report confirming death by measles vaccine since the introduction of the MMR i Europe, which of course doesn't deny it but to me at least diminish the probability...
I haven't been able to locate a single report confirming death by measles vaccine since the introduction of the MMR i Europe, which of course doesn't deny it but to me at least diminish the probability...
DeleteWhat? Try Eurosurveillance: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/
There are numerous reports of deaths post MMR.
there are at least three deaths from MIBE caused by MMR in immunocompromised kids. There are also some in VAERS where timing and symptoms would be consistent with a causal role of the MMR (ie onset about 8 days after the MMR, encephalitis or seizure, no other bugs found - that sort of thing).
Delete@Science Mom,
DeleteI've searched Eurosurveillance for "vaccine; vaccination; MMR; death; mortality" and the only hit is a 2004 report regarding yellow fever vaccination. If you have other hits please provide med with the relevant doi:s.
@Catherina,
VAERS is an American system open to the public for which I am unfamiliar with the quality control mechanisms, thus not included in my previous comment. However, I've not been able to find a later study on VAERS than that done for the period 1991-2001 (MMWR 2003;52(1):1–24 - I expect an up-date will be published this year or next). In this there is only one death confirmed among the 1,4-2,8% of reports on "vaccine related deaths": a 28-year old woman who developed GB syndrome.
So to me - though I acknowledge the possibility of underreporting/underdetection (not to be confused with suppressing reports!) - the current availability of confirmed cases in Europe do not support claims that MMR-vaccine causes death in a detectable number of vaccinations.
Exilapotekare, I've forgotten that Eurosurveillance's search is not very good. Here is a WHO report on France:http://tinyurl.com/7zwzc5k
DeleteYou can use WHO or broaden your search in Eurosurveillance (eg "measles"). I know that in the past decade there have been measles-related deaths in France, Italy, Germany and Switzerland at the least (as far as EU countries). Here is a list of Eurosurveillance reports on measles: http://www.eurosurveillance.org/Public/Search/SearchResults.aspx
Measles infections and deaths have occurred, in almost all cases, in unvaccinated or those with unknown vaccination status.
Dear Science Mom,
DeleteI think we are discussing two different things! My answer to Anonymous related to "death by vaccine" not measles as such, sorry for my sloppy English in the original comment. I definitely do not contend that there have been deaths due to measles infection in Europe! In fact it is often hard to get replies from antivaxxers about this as the statistics confirm a mortality rate of 1 out of 1000-2000 infected even in our nutritionally, hygienic and economically enlightened age.
"...we'll see a measles death in the UK. Entirely preventable!...
DeleteVaccine deaths and irreversible injuries are entirely preventable too.... guess how?
The incidence of plausible vaccine-related deaths or injuries is a lot higher than measles deaths. Check out VAERS database: http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/vaersdatafiles/2011VAERSSYMPTOMS.csv there are 167 possible cases.
Since the link to vaccines is plausible, by precautionary principle parents should abstain from exposing children to this much greater risk.
53 deaths after MMR only in the US in 20+ years since the inception of VAERS. Connection doubtful in many. On average 350 deaths/year from measles before the introduction of the measles vaccine. Hey, looks like the MMR is saving lives big time :)
DeleteIt is strange how just some numbers are believable to people like 'putinreloaded'. The number for reported "plausible" MMR-deaths in VAERS is a fact, but the numbers of given MMR-vaccinations, cases of measles and its sequalae etc are just "biased". Why is it so hard to get a bit of basic philosophy of science, statistics and probability out of antivaxxers? Since our sources are always "wrong" and theirs are always "right" the source-war can't be won by any of us...
DeleteAnon 1xMMR protects 95% of vaccinees. 2xMMR protects >99% of vaccinees. In countries with high vaccination coverage, circulation of measles can be prevented. Measles could be eradicated if the irrational did not give it CPR. 1 out of 1000 reported measles cases dies acutely. For every 10 acute deaths, 1 case of SSPE occurs (give or take). As 1200 cases have occurred in the UK, it is not unreasonable to assume that we will see a fatality this year. This would be preventable (see above).
ReplyDeleteDo children die of the MMR? I am sure this has happened and it is a tragedy.
It is exceedingly rare. Before 1992 there were cases of meningitis from the Urabe mumps strain in two out of the three different MMR vaccines used in the UK. The MMR vaccine used in the UK since 1992 use a different mumps vaccine strain.
Delete"...In countries with high vaccination coverage, circulation of measles can be prevented...
DeleteBut there's a catch: the WHO policy is to swith from clinical-only diagnosis to lab comfirmation as soon as mass vacinations are in place:
http://www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/diseases/measles_surveillance/en/index.html
"The laboratory classification scheme should be used by countries in the low incidence or elimination phase…"
Obviously, the “elimination phase” – and the moment to switch to lab confirmation – is declared after right after a mass vaccination campaign is put into place.
The more stringent diagnosis requirements cause the apparent incidence drop and vaccines get credited for it.
Fraud, fraud, fraud.
Puttputt; I'm not putting up with your shite here at all. If you can't respond with some honesty then you're into purgatory too.
DeletePutinreloaded: So lets look a the other end of your point. In 1st world countries with low incidence of measles, ALL suspected cases of measles are laboratory confirmed and as recent history has repeatedly shown: in areas of declining MMR vaccination rates, new outbreaks occur. Declining MMR rate = measles outbreak. Hmmmm, why might that be?
ReplyDelete"...as recent history has repeatedly shown: in areas of declining MMR vaccination rates, new outbreaks occur. Declining MMR rate = measles outbreak...
DeleteYou give no references, but for the sake of argument let's assume you don't lie,..
... then I can show you that the exact opposite is also true: the incidence of measles is higher in populations with a higher vaccination coverage:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560816/pdf/10994277.pdf
Pattern of susceptibility to measles in Italy. Serological Study Group.
Pag 952: “…The average annual incidence of measles in 1990–96for the population aged 0–40 years was higher in regions with high coverage (112 cases per 100 000 inhabitants) than in those with low coverage (77 cases per 100 000), and age-specific rates diverged after 4 years of age, higher incidences occurring in regions with higher coverage…”
The explanatio is what medical science long knows and you should learn today: retrospective case reports have such a low evidence value that they can prove one thing and the opposite at the same time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence
Pag 952: “…The average annual incidence of measles in 1990–96for the population aged 0–40 years was higher in regions with high coverage (112 cases per 100 000 inhabitants) than in those with low coverage (77 cases per 100 000), and age-specific rates diverged after 4 years of age, higher incidences occurring in regions with higher coverage…”
DeleteAnd your own source goes on to explain why this is. In areas with lower vaccine coverage and higher disease prevalence, under-reporting explains the discrepancy. This is consistent with reporting sensitivity observed in many countries particularly pre-vaccine.
"...under-reporting explains the discrepancy...
DeleteUnderreporting cannot be observed, so the authors are speculating from their biased standpoint that vaccines work.
Without this bias, vaccinse being useless or even spreading the disease is another good explanation too.
Such is the problem with all case studies... observations are tainted by many unknown confounding factors and have their scientific value is very low.
Underreporting happens with vaccine injuries and deaths because dctors are told vaccine reactions are extremely rare, because they don’t teach about vaccine reactions in medical school, there’s no textbook on the subject and there’s no training to recoggnize them.
In spite of more than 40,000 vaccine-related incidence at VAERS, the problem is much worse.
Underreporting cannot be observed, so the authors are speculating from their biased standpoint that vaccines work.
DeleteYes it can certainly be retrospectively estimated: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106092
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106109
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16219394
Without this bias, vaccinse being useless or even spreading the disease is another good explanation too.
Nope, no vaccine is spreading disease. Even those that shed are terminal and even those with lower effectiveness are still controlling disease. But go ahead and name one.
In spite of more than 40,000 vaccine-related incidence at VAERS, the problem is much worse.
VAERS is a passive reporting system and can't be used as a prevalence for vaccine adverse events
In contrast to infectious diseases, vaccine injuries are preventable to an absolute 100% with no risky medical intervention at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of negligent arents wouldn’t protect their children against those horrible, totally preventable injuries and deaths?
The kind of parents who have two brain cells to rub together.
DeleteExactly, you can meet them at the VAERS courts of law.
DeleteHow stupid to have to go to court for injuries that are totally preventable!
what is a VAERS court of law and where do parents go whose children die of measles or whooping cough? Can they get compensation anywhere?
DeletePudinhead, what must your read and understand before using the VAERS database at its official website?
DeleteAnd Catherina, there is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The level of evidence required is minimal, and there is a list of injuries that will automatically be compensated. Even though it is very lenient, only a third of the claims have been compensated.
Anyone can read many of the Vaccine Court decisions. Almost all of the Autism Omnibus cases were dismissed.
"...there is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The level of evidence required is minimal.."
DeleteStill a lot higher than the level of evidence of any single death by lack of vaccines, which is non existent.
Vaccine Court visits can be prevented to 100% by not vaccinating your kids- It's the simplest protection measure parents can take to help their kids.
ah - I see a black swan:
Deletehttp://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=715
and two more:
http://justthevax.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/medical-care-for-unvaccinated-children.html
and hundreds more per year who died of hib, measles, rubella embryopathy, rotavirus etc per year before vaccines.
Chris - I know about the NVIC, but PR does not have his/her acronyms straight.
ReplyDeleteOops, sorry, it is just difficult to follow his "logic". elsewhere his comments are getting more bizarre.
DeleteSee what I mean about his bizarre "logic"?
DeleteThis comment thread shows Pudinhead has a closed mind, there is no reason to engage in any kind of discussion with him. Please ignore him.
Deleteof course all vaccine-related deaths can be stopped if no one vaccinates. That is trivial.
DeleteThe jump in deaths by vaccine preventable diseases would be immediately visible (like in Sweden and Japan after they stopped vaccinating against pertussis).
Chris is right about putinreloaded everyone. This wanna be attorney, is just being a devil's advocate. He probably does not even believe half of what he says himself. This is just an exercise in arguing for him. It is quite clear that he is being disinguinuous or is an ignoramus. In either case, responding to him is a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteI put the last couple of comments of putin's in the spam folder and they will remain there along with any of his/her future comments unless s/he can start responding in good faith instead of taunting.
ReplyDeleteDr. Halvorsen in The Truth About Vaccines said that authorities had a hard time introducing the measles vaccine in the 1980s, because parents were familiar with measles, all of them having had it, and knew it was not a disease to be feared in First World countries. Putinreloaded is quite right to insist that the vaccine to prevent it is much more dangerous than the natural disease. Censoring him will not erase the truth.
ReplyDeleteDr. Halvorsen seems to play fast and loose with facts:
Deletehttp://jdc325.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/dr-richard-halvorsen-babyjabs-and-single-vaccines-misleading-advertising-exaggeration-harm-offence/
And the UK had a measles vaccine starting in 1968, which is a wee bit before the 1980s. So it seems that Dr. Halvorsen had at least that bit wrong.
Considering you don't even know when the measles jab was introduced in the UK, I highly doubt that you would provide the statistics that the jab is more dangerous than the disease. I've run the numbers myself and consulted the epi reports and even with measles circulating at relatively low rates, the risk of disease complications is still higher than the risk of vaccine adverse events.
DeleteIt is amazing how folks like Anonymous fail to even look up simple facts like that on their own. The swallow the anti-vax canards hook, line and sinker without any question.
DeleteThey probably think that the first measles vaccines started with the MMR, and that there is only one type of MMR (which is why they are confused about the changing of them in 1992 in the UK).
@ Anonymous: Anyone who has an entire page devoted to him and his book at whale.to is not a reliable source:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.whale.to/a/halvorsen_h.html
See "Scopies Law", here...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scopie%27s_Law
Orac has an entire whale.to page also:
Deletehttp://www.whale.to/vaccine/orac_h.html
:-)
@ Chris: Orac's page on whale.to is an attack on one of our most respected science bloggers. :-)
ReplyDeleteI omitted the actual "Scopie's Law" when I posted back at "Anonymous".
Scopie's Law states:
“In any discussion involving science or medicine, citing Whale.to as a credible source loses you the argument immediately ...and gets you laughed out of the room."
I thought the putin troll was put in moderation purdah.
There are several others. It is considered an honor to have whale.to attack page. It means that you have annoyed the owner, John Scudamore.
DeleteS/he is and won't come out until s/he can post in good faith.
DeleteI do believe I'm just a mere mention on whale.to
I have a whale.to page for a former nickname of mine (HCN). :-)
DeleteWell I'll be Chris, I had no idea that was you and wondering what happened to HCN. Good to see you again :D
Delete