Spontaneous CJD occurs in the US at a rate of about 350 cases a year -- about one a day. So just for example, if half the population has been vaccinated, you would expect 7 cases of CJD to show up within two weeks of vaccination. But the incubation period is at least months and can be as long as a decade (!). So the reporting window h…
Spontaneous CJD occurs in the US at a rate of about 350 cases a year -- about one a day. So just for example, if half the population has been vaccinated, you would expect 7 cases of CJD to show up within two weeks of vaccination. But the incubation period is at least months and can be as long as a decade (!). So the reporting window has to be several months at minimum. If it's six months, the expected background would be 90 cases.
On top of that, the vaccination rate and the incidence of spontaneous CJD are both positively correlated with age, which means they're positively correlated with each other. So the expected background number is actually higher than that.
On the other hand, there's the URF. But I see no particular reason to believe that the URF for CJD specifically is the same as the overall URF. I could easily imagine that a rare, serious condition like CJD would be less underreported than more common conditions. I'm not saying I know the URF is lower; I'm saying the burden of proof would be on you to provide evidence that it isn't. And of course such evidence is very difficult to come by.
Bottom line -- I don't know that six cases, with a mean patient age of 67, is even enough evidence to raise eyebrows. It certainly doesn't begin to approach anything that could be called proof.
These cases, I’d expect (I have still not read the article though) cannot be explained by family conditions nor by infection. Age is definitely a factor here, since spontaneous prion disease doesn’t appear in young people. Moreover it was suspected in the beginning. And finally someone made the effort to report this into VAERS, meaning it was sufficiently unusual for the reporter. Under normal circumstances this should be investigated ASAP. Unfortunately our situation can hardly be described as normal circumstances. Grim picture. Sorry. Burden for vaccine safety still on the vendor anyway. They should have the answer.
Spontaneous CJD occurs in the US at a rate of about 350 cases a year -- about one a day. So just for example, if half the population has been vaccinated, you would expect 7 cases of CJD to show up within two weeks of vaccination. But the incubation period is at least months and can be as long as a decade (!). So the reporting window has to be several months at minimum. If it's six months, the expected background would be 90 cases.
On top of that, the vaccination rate and the incidence of spontaneous CJD are both positively correlated with age, which means they're positively correlated with each other. So the expected background number is actually higher than that.
On the other hand, there's the URF. But I see no particular reason to believe that the URF for CJD specifically is the same as the overall URF. I could easily imagine that a rare, serious condition like CJD would be less underreported than more common conditions. I'm not saying I know the URF is lower; I'm saying the burden of proof would be on you to provide evidence that it isn't. And of course such evidence is very difficult to come by.
Bottom line -- I don't know that six cases, with a mean patient age of 67, is even enough evidence to raise eyebrows. It certainly doesn't begin to approach anything that could be called proof.
These cases, I’d expect (I have still not read the article though) cannot be explained by family conditions nor by infection. Age is definitely a factor here, since spontaneous prion disease doesn’t appear in young people. Moreover it was suspected in the beginning. And finally someone made the effort to report this into VAERS, meaning it was sufficiently unusual for the reporter. Under normal circumstances this should be investigated ASAP. Unfortunately our situation can hardly be described as normal circumstances. Grim picture. Sorry. Burden for vaccine safety still on the vendor anyway. They should have the answer.