Try out PMC Labs and tell us what you think. Learn More.

Logo of pubhealthrepPublic Health Reports
Public Health Rep. 1984 May-Jun; 99(3): 255–259.
PMCID: PMC1424579
PMID: 6429722

The pertussis vaccine controversy.

A R Hinman
Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Abstract

Over the past few years, there has been continuing controversy about whether the benefits of routine vaccination for pertussis outweight the potential risks. Some of the epidemiologic and technical issues include ascertainment and reporting of cases, case definition and laboratory confirmation, identification and purification of antigens, vaccine potency measurement, vaccine efficacy, and vaccine safety. Other factors include legal and economic issues, ethical concerns, emotional overlays, and the role of the media. Much of the evidence for the benefits of pertussis vaccination arises from epidemiologic studies regarding the incidence of the disease and the effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing it. The very nature of epidemiologic data has contributed to the controversy, since there is virtually no epidemiologic study with absolutely incontrovertible results that allow only one interpretation. Nonetheless, available evidence indicates that the benefits of pertussis vaccination far outweight the risks.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.2M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

 
icon of scanned page 255
255
icon of scanned page 256
256
icon of scanned page 257
257
icon of scanned page 258
258
icon of scanned page 259
259
 

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  • Miller CL, Fletcher WB. Severity of notified whooping cough. Br Med J. 1976 Jan 17;1(6002):117–119. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Stewart GT. Vaccination against whooping-cough. Efficacy versus risks. Lancet. 1977 Jan 29;1(8005):234–237. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Nelson KE, Gavitt F, Batt MD, Kallick CA, Reddi KT, Levin S. The role of adenoviruses in the pertussis syndrome. J Pediatr. 1975 Mar;86(3):335–341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Manclark CR. Pertussis vaccine research. Bull World Health Organ. 1981;59(1):9–15. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Mortimer EA, Jr, Jones PK. An evaluation of pertussis vaccine. Rev Infect Dis. 1979 Nov-Dec;1(6):927–934. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Miller DL, Ross EM, Alderslade R, Bellman MH, Rawson NS. Pertussis immunisation and serious acute neurological illness in children. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1981 May 16;282(6276):1595–1599. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Miller DL, Alderslade R, Ross EM. Whooping cough and whooping cough vaccine: the risks and benefits debate. Epidemiol Rev. 1982;4:1–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Bernier RH, Frank JA, Jr, Dondero TJ, Jr, Turner P. Diphtheria-tetanus toxoids-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant deaths in Tennessee. J Pediatr. 1982 Sep;101(3):419–421. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Baraff LJ, Ablon WJ, Weiss RC. Possible temporal association between diphtheria-tetanus toxoid-pertussis vaccination and sudden infant death syndrome. Pediatr Infect Dis. 1983 Jan-Feb;2(1):7–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Public Health Reports are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications