Mothering Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,845 Posts
Well, obviously, most cases of rubella would never be reported if they occurred in small children. It is such a mild illness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,851 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
I think the cases or rubella going from 500-6000 per year, with peaks and valley to zero the year after the second MMR shot was added looks very fishy.

First off, one MMR is supposed to do it, in terms of efficacy, so why the sudden drop to zero the year after the second shot it was added? According to the site I got the graph from, 1-3% may have benefited from a second shot. 1-3% of a tiny percentage of the population who got a second MMR in 1996/1997 is not enough to cause a disease to go from endemic and circulating to not circulating.

My guess - rubella was simply not reported, or even considered as a possibility, after the second MMR was added.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deborah

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,845 Posts
Easy enough to overlook, for sure.

Have you compared this to the CDC chart showing vaccination rates by year? I very much doubt that the uptake among toddlers was super high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,849 Posts
this too is different - (the graph does not paste correctly!)


Rubella Data

The following table contains recent data on the number of reported cases and incidence of rubella in Canada from 2005 to 2011. For previous surveillance data, please see the Notifiable Diseases On-Line webpage as well as the Publications section below.

Table 1. Reported cases of rubella in Canada by year and age group, 2005 to 2011.
Year All Ages Less than 1 1 to 4 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 to 24 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 39 years 40 to 59 years 60 years or Greater Age Unspecified
*Data is obtained from the Canadian Measles/Rubella Surveillance System and data are preliminary.
** 309 cases can be attributed to the 2005 outbreak in Ontario

2005* 315** 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 314
2006* 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0
2007* 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
2008* 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
2009* 7 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 0
2010* 12 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 5 1 0
2011* 1 0 0



IF one does look at clearly there is a issue with the 25+ age group in 2010 - what the heck happened there? 5 alone in the 40-59 group??!!

IMO - if vaccinated, assumption is it can't be the disease you received your vaccination for - stop looking and call it a rash!
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top