🚀 go-pugleaf

york@mbcrr.dfci.harvard.edu (Ian A. York) wrote:

>And there's yet another flaw in philips' post.  Pertussis vaccine is
>actually not believed to be the cause of most of the so-called cases of
>vaccine-induced damage: Ref [4] says that "epidemiologic studies appear to
>have largely, if not completely, absolved pertussis vaccine of
>responsibility for inducing death or permanent neurologic disability ... " 
>
>[4]  Hodder SL.  Mortimer EA Jr.
>  Epidemiology of pertussis and reactions to pertussis vaccine. 
>  Epidemiologic Reviews.  14:243-67, 1992.
>Abstract
> ... A problem that has been addressed in recent years is
>  the excessive reactivity of whole-cell pertussis vaccine, which
>  undoubtedly includes components of the organism that are irrelevant to the
>  induction of immunity and are excessively reactive. Although epidemiologic
>  studies appear to have largely, if not completely, absolved pertussis
>  vaccine of responsibility for inducing death or permanent neurologic
>  disability, a less reactive vaccine is highly desirable, not only to
>  promote acceptance of a full course of immunization for the world's
>  children but also for simple humanitarian reasons...

Huh?  Is Hodder speaking out of both sides of his mouth?  If whole
cell vaccine is "largely if not completely, absolved ... of
responsibility for inducing death or permanent neurologic disability",
then why IS "a less reactive vaccine highly desirable"??  And what is
this bit about "simple humanitarian reasons"??

And why has almost every civilized country gone exclusively to
acellular?  (The US is a notable exception; our pediatrician says that
it can't be given to our little one until he is one year old.)

And why has more than $500M has  been awarded to vaccine victims, most
of them casualties of the whole cell pertussis vaccine?

jon

-----
Jonathan Wayne
jwayne@mars.superlink.net