I would like you to substantiate your claim by finding an environmental case with a mortality of 30,000 people a year in the United States that had eluded discovery for multiple decades in the modern era.
That's backward. How could I possibly provide evidence of something that has eluded detection? If it had eluded detection, there wouldn't be a citation for it.
The way I arrived at that estimate was by looking at the size of the datasets that don't show deaths from MMR. The size of the clinical trials for MMR is ~5,000 (the largest I can find), which is only mathematically capable of ruling out a death rate as small a 1/1,100 or larger (using binomial probability and a p = 0.05 alpha). Then I just fudged it 10x higher sensitivity to be generous and account for things like several brands having trials, etc.
Note, by the way, that the best clinical trial I found:
* Only included super healthy babies (actually, not only that but ones with healthy geneologies too!), beyond the standards suggested by the CDC for actual vaccinations, thus would be under-representing complications in less robust babies in actual usage.
* Only included babies getting that one single vaccine in 30 days, thus under-representing complications from multiple vaccinations synergizing and possible compounding one another. ideally, you'd want to test both isolated AND typical practice multiple vaccinations.
* Has un-explained, un-documented "discretion of the researcher" exemptions of unknown numbers.
But I'm also generously ignoring all of those.
So yeah, 1/10,000 is a quite strong estimate of what causal data supports.
Also, regarding the HPV vaccine study (other conversation), here's the table from that actual study:
For anaphylaxis, they didn't actually use any comparison group at all, they just counted.
For other allergic reactions, they used as a comparison group other people who came into participating hospitals/offices during the period of the study for other vaccines. And sorry, I think technically they gathered data for 2 days after for the comparison vaccine receivers, and 42 for the HPV (which is also weird and unexplained, but whatever, most probably happen within 2 days anyway)? If not, it's 42 for both. Poorly explained in the article (i.e. not explained at all)
This is not a full population general background rate, this is an "immediately after vaccine A versus immediately after vaccine B" comparison.
As for the other types of complications that mention "VSD background rate" they don't explain and I am not actually sure whether this refers to rate of those complications 42 days after other vaccines in the database, or whether it means any 42 day period of all people in the database, vaccine or not. The wording implies the former, since the column is titled "post-vaccination observation window"
However, to be sure, I already emailed the CDC an hour ago asking for clarification, since I couldn't find the first author's contact info online anywhere. Frankly I don't really trust a researcher anyway who uses concurrent vaccination anywhere and bills it as a general safety study, but all the same, I'll let you all know when I hear back, for funsies.