flowers@ucla-cs.UUCP (02/14/86)
In article <300@ucbjade.BERKELEY.EDU> abulloch@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP () writes: >DTP: In the last few years there has been >a lot of controversy over the possible side-effects of the pertussis part >of these innoculations, with some arguing (especially in England) that the >dangers of the side-effects from the innoculation are larger than >those arising from the disease itself. We are doing some research into >the latest literature of this, but would be very interested to have any >info. that anyone has about the current state of research and opinion, >and to hear the experience and opinions of others. Our pediatrician told us that there was a big study recently completed at USC which recommends against the 6 month pertussis innoculation (i.e. give only the 2 and 4 month pertussis innoculation) because antibody titres don't increase that much more with the 6 month innoculation but there is a much greater risk of dangerous allergic reaction. It is as yet unpublished but he expects it to be the basis of many malpractice suits when it finally is published. I don't have any references, sorry. Baby tylenol (or Tempra) seemed to help much with the pain, so that she quit moaning and just ended up sleeping a lot until the next day. So the next time they gave her some with the shot and it went much better. There was no problem with the third shot which was only a DT. (Even the DT's hurt a lot, I got one at the same time and was astonished how sharp the pain was). The show 20/20 a year or so ago claimed that the cited rates of dangerous reaction to the pertussis innoculation are the British rates, and that our rates in the US, where a different formulation is used, are significantly higher, high enough to advise against the vaccine. I don't know if this charge is true or not.