Letter in today's Washington Post re whooping cough in California

[Guest guest]

Wiping out whooping cough As a Californian and a student studying public health, I find the

whooping cough resurgence in California extremely troubling [“Whooping

cough makes a comeback,” Health and Science, Sept. 28].

People who refuse to be vaccinated, though misguided, are easy

scapegoats, but they are not the driving force behind this trend. In

the short term, more needs to be done to encourage booster vaccines in

teens and adults to protect the most vulnerable: infants too young to

be vaccinated.

Public information campaigns are a good start, and one hopes we will

see better vaccination rates as insurers begin to cover preventive care

as part of health reform. But the real problem is that the vaccine is

not effective enough. Given the expense of developing and testing

vaccines and the facts that the vaccines are used once or a few times

in an individual’s life and therefore create much less revenue than

everyday drugs, there are few incentives for developing a better

vaccine. Our government and private foundations should

step in to support research and development of a vaccine that is more

effective. Otherwise, needless deaths from this disease will continue.

MIRANDA WALKER, Berkeley, Calif.

[Guest guest]

This is CLASSIC! The writer points out that the vaccine is ineffective, but

still says people who don't vaccinate are " misguided " !

Sylvia

>

> Wiping out whooping cough

> As a Californian and a student studying public health, I find the whooping

cough resurgence in California extremely troubling [ " Whooping cough makes a

comeback, " Health and Science, Sept. 28].

>

> People who refuse to be vaccinated, though misguided, are easy scapegoats, but

they are not the driving force behind this trend. In the short term, more needs

to be done to encourage booster vaccines in teens and adults to protect the most

vulnerable: infants too young to be vaccinated.

>

> Public information campaigns are a good start, and one hopes we will see

better vaccination rates as insurers begin to cover preventive care as part of

health reform. But the real problem is that the vaccine is not effective enough.

Given the expense of developing and testing vaccines and the facts that the

vaccines are used once or a few times in an individual's life and therefore

create much less revenue than everyday drugs, there are few incentives for

developing a better vaccine.

>

> Our government and private foundations should step in to support research and

development of a vaccine that is more effective. Otherwise, needless deaths from

this disease will continue.

>

> MIRANDA WALKER, Berkeley, Calif.

>

[Guest guest]

Here is the comment I left in response to the article:

NicksMom2 wrote:

Although still a student, Ms. demonstrates that she has all the makings

of a true Public Health bureaucrat. She admits that the vaccine has low

efficacy, but insists those who do not want it are misguided. In true government

bureaucrat fashion, she believes the solution is that more government funds

should go to the private companies that make them. Because after all, why should

the makers of the current pertussis vaccines pour their own money into making

them better? As it is now, they have no liability for an unsafe or ineffective

product (through vaccine court which is funded by the consumer and presided over

by government), and their product is mandated to be used by all children born in

the U.S.

So if you already have product that everyone is forced to take, and you can't be

held liable for it's effects, why on earth would you put a penny into improving

it?

> >

> > Wiping out whooping cough

> > As a Californian and a student studying public health, I find the whooping

cough resurgence in California extremely troubling [ " Whooping cough makes a

comeback, " Health and Science, Sept. 28].

> >

> > People who refuse to be vaccinated, though misguided, are easy scapegoats,

but they are not the driving force behind this trend. In the short term, more

needs to be done to encourage booster vaccines in teens and adults to protect

the most vulnerable: infants too young to be vaccinated.

> >

> > Public information campaigns are a good start, and one hopes we will see

better vaccination rates as insurers begin to cover preventive care as part of

health reform. But the real problem is that the vaccine is not effective enough.

Given the expense of developing and testing vaccines and the facts that the

vaccines are used once or a few times in an individual's life and therefore

create much less revenue than everyday drugs, there are few incentives for

developing a better vaccine.

> >

> > Our government and private foundations should step in to support research

and development of a vaccine that is more effective. Otherwise, needless deaths

from this disease will continue.

> >

> > MIRANDA WALKER, Berkeley, Calif.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Perfect! Very nicely said.

Winnie Re: Letter in today's Washington Post re whooping cough in CaliforniaVaccinations > Here is the comment I left in response to the article:> > NicksMom2 wrote:> Although still a student, Ms. demonstrates that she has > all the makings of a true Public Health bureaucrat. She admits > that the vaccine has low efficacy, but insists those who do not > want it are misguided. In true government bureaucrat fashion, > she believes the solution is that more government funds should > go to the private companies that make them. Because after all, > why should the makers of the current pertussis vaccines pour > their own money into making them better? As it is now, they have > no liability for an unsafe or ineffective product (through > vaccine court which is funded by the consumer and presided over > by government), and their product is mandated to be used by all > children born in the U.S.> > So if you already have product that everyone is forced to take, > and you can't be held liable for it's effects, why on earth > would you put a penny into improving it?> > > > > >> > > Wiping out whooping cough> > > As a Californian and a student studying public health, I > find the whooping cough resurgence in California extremely > troubling ["Whooping cough makes a comeback," Health and > Science, Sept. 28].> > > > > > People who refuse to be vaccinated, though misguided, are > easy scapegoats, but they are not the driving force behind this > trend. In the short term, more needs to be done to encourage > booster vaccines in teens and adults to protect the most > vulnerable: infants too young to be vaccinated.> > > > > > Public information campaigns are a good start, and one hopes > we will see better vaccination rates as insurers begin to cover > preventive care as part of health reform. But the real problem > is that the vaccine is not effective enough. Given the expense > of developing and testing vaccines and the facts that the > vaccines are used once or a few times in an individual's life > and therefore create much less revenue than everyday drugs, > there are few incentives for developing a better vaccine.> > > > > > Our government and private foundations should step in to > support research and development of a vaccine that is more > effective. Otherwise, needless deaths from this disease will continue.> > > > > > MIRANDA WALKER, Berkeley, Calif.> > >> >> > >

[Guest guest]

I like. Well said.

Christie

At 10:55 AM 10/3/2010, you wrote:

>

>

>Here is the comment I left in response to the article:

>

>NicksMom2 wrote:

>Although still a student, Ms.

>demonstrates that she has all the makings of a

>true Public Health bureaucrat. She admits that

>the vaccine has low efficacy, but insists those

>who do not want it are misguided. In true

>government bureaucrat fashion, she believes the

>solution is that more government funds should go

>to the private companies that make them. Because

>after all, why should the makers of the current

>pertussis vaccines pour their own money into

>making them better? As it is now, they have no

>liability for an unsafe or ineffective product

>(through vaccine court which is funded by the

>consumer and presided over by government), and

>their product is mandated to be used by all children born in the U.S.

>

>So if you already have product that everyone is

>forced to take, and you can't be held liable for

>it's effects, why on earth would you put a penny into improving it?

>

>

> > >

> > > Wiping out whooping cough

> > > As a Californian and a student studying

> public health, I find the whooping cough

> resurgence in California extremely troubling

> [ " Whooping cough makes a comeback, " Health and Science, Sept. 28].

> > >

> > > People who refuse to be vaccinated, though

> misguided, are easy scapegoats, but they are

> not the driving force behind this trend. In the

> short term, more needs to be done to encourage

> booster vaccines in teens and adults to protect

> the most vulnerable: infants too young to be vaccinated.

> > >

> > > Public information campaigns are a good

> start, and one hopes we will see better

> vaccination rates as insurers begin to cover

> preventive care as part of health reform. But

> the real problem is that the vaccine is not

> effective enough. Given the expense of

> developing and testing vaccines and the facts

> that the vaccines are used once or a few times

> in an individual's life and therefore create

> much less revenue than everyday drugs, there

> are few incentives for developing a better vaccine.

> > >

> > > Our government and private foundations

> should step in to support research and

> development of a vaccine that is more

> effective. Otherwise, needless deaths from this disease will continue.

> > >

> > > MIRANDA WALKER, Berkeley, Calif.

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>No virus found in this incoming message.

>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

>Version: 9.0.856 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3174

>- Release Date: 10/03/10 02:34:00