Is anyone familiar with the whole gamet of whooping cough studies? (which ones were performed well by no bias parties, results, etc..)
I read "What every parent should know about Childhood immunization" by Jamie Murphy and was floored by the chapter on whooping cough. It references studies that I never came across before (maybe I was just out of the loop).
From my understanding of the Cleveland, Ohio 1394-1936 & Great Britian 1942-1978 studies, they showed that pertussis infected both DTP vaxed and unvaxed children equally.
But then when the Binghampton, NY 1939-1940 study says that unvaxed children are more susceptible to pertussis. Murphy's arguement was that these were misleading. Based on the results of the Cleveland/GB studies. But should they have been evaluated seperatly?
If someone is familiar with these studies (or other ones), I'd love to hear their thoughts. I would love to believe that the pertussis vaccination does not prevent any infection (so I don't feel as guilty) but am having a hard time buying Murphy's arguements.
I read "What every parent should know about Childhood immunization" by Jamie Murphy and was floored by the chapter on whooping cough. It references studies that I never came across before (maybe I was just out of the loop).
From my understanding of the Cleveland, Ohio 1394-1936 & Great Britian 1942-1978 studies, they showed that pertussis infected both DTP vaxed and unvaxed children equally.
But then when the Binghampton, NY 1939-1940 study says that unvaxed children are more susceptible to pertussis. Murphy's arguement was that these were misleading. Based on the results of the Cleveland/GB studies. But should they have been evaluated seperatly?
If someone is familiar with these studies (or other ones), I'd love to hear their thoughts. I would love to believe that the pertussis vaccination does not prevent any infection (so I don't feel as guilty) but am having a hard time buying Murphy's arguements.
