Sure we don't have to focus on MMR. But that's not the point. The point is that comparisons must be made with consistent measures. If you want to compare rates of compensation vs serious adverse events estimates, how can you have the former lumped over all vaccines and 25 years, and the latter for one vaccine and a per year rate? Performing a comparison over lumped results would be much more difficult than performing it per vaccine. Under reporting affects BOTH adverse events and infection rates making a debate about it virtually useless.
There has been NO paper published that established 1 in 1 million as any type of rate of anything. There was an ARTICLE published in a subsection of Slate Magazine, by a Psychology MA. Sorry, doesn't count.
Yes, they didn't definitely establish a casual relationship, they used SCIENCE to eliminate all the adverse events that could possibly be attributed to ANYTHING else or have ANY other contributing factor. Otherwise the rate would have been like 70/100G! (Or 700 in 1 million doses).
The number of adverse reactions to measles doesn't TRULY matter here, what matters is that some posters are engaging in an erroneous campaign of vaccine injury denialism. No one is attempting to block distribution or lower the rate of vaccination, what I am trying to do is establish that there IS a reaction rate, it HAS been studied, and it has nothing to do with any fictional number comparing the overall rate of vaccination with the number of cases that actually make it through the VICP.
CDC has these 1 in 1 million bound based on VIS reports http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
Now, before the CDC hate posts start pouring out, the agency is often conservative with its numbers. Truth is, that lower rates of serious side effects have been reported in studies. Furthermore, the benefits provided in CDC also tend to be conservative. For example CDC states that children with no pertussis vaccination are 8 times more likely to get the disease. http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html However, a 2009 study suggested that they are 23 times more likely to get the disease. Although in that 2009 study it is implied that their procedure leads to more precise estimates, consensus is still needed. Hence CDC has preferred to leave the less favorable '8 times' estimate on their website.