🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <45pne5$e9k@cisunix1.dfci.harvard.edu> Ian A. York,
york@mbcrr.dfci.harvard.edu writes:
>
>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. 
>

My first daughter ran higher fevers with each dose of DPT she received. 
In the third dose, her temperature ran over 104 deg F with Tylenol.  When
she was due to get her fourth DPT immunization at age 4, I was on the
verge of saying no to the pertussis component.  But there was a shortage
of the pertussis component of the vaccine because Connaught had recently
stopped making it.  So she got DT instead.  She also did not have a fever.

Our younger daughter, on the otherhand, had minimal difficulty with DPT
vaccinations, and she has gotten the full series.

I find it credible from my experience that the cellular pertussis vaccine
has endotoxins which in rare cases can cause high fever, possibly
harmfully high.  And these would be the reason for the damage awards. 
Not injustice of the US court system.  The injustice is that harm, caused
by a government mandated medical procedure, is reimbursed solely from the
manufacturer and not from the government that required and licensed the
use of such a procedure.

Jim Owens