🚀 go-pugleaf

First: There is an excellent article (I previously just included the 
abstract) at: http://pharminfo.com/pubs/msb/MMWR_Pertussis.html - anyone 
interested in the vaccine discussion should read this.  

In article <45pmcd$ed7@earth.superlink.net>,
Jonathan Wayne <jwayne@mars.superlink.net> wrote:
>
>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"??

You seem to be looking so hard for contradictions you've turned off your 
reading comprehension skills.  "Death or permanent disability" - no.  
Some pain, discomfort, distress - yes.  Hence, simple humanitarian 
reasons: Just as it's better to have babies suffer some fever and 
discomfort than to have them cough their lungs out and then seizure until 
they die, it would be better to have the same freedom from disease 
without the fever and discomfort.

>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.)

That's a damn good question and I don't know the answer. As far as I can
tell (which isn't all that far) the acellular vaccine should be used 
here.  But that's to reduce the incidence of temporary and relatively 
minor discomfort, not permanent damage.  

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

If, in the light of recent events in the USA, you still believe that US
courts invariably dispense justice - that juries will accept scientific
evidence rather than a photgenic face and a self-righteous lawyer ...
well, you must live in a happy world, and I envy you. 

The main reason I followed up is to correct an error in my previous 
post.  I either stated or implied that there were 1000 pertussis deaths 
in 1976 - that was wrong; I misread cases for deaths.  The actual figure 
these days is 32 pertussis-related deaths and 17 cases complicated by 
encephalopathy in 1992-94.  (I think I got that right.  That's taken 
directly from the URL to which I refer above.)  

Note that I've directed followups to sci.med.nursing, which seems to be
the only one to which this is directly relevant. 

Ian

-- 
Ian York (york@mbcrr.harvard.edu) 
"As things are, most Usenet postings are of no interest to socially 
well-adjusted people over the age of twelve." -Nature 376:200 (1995)