ShareThis Page
Letter to the editor: Vaccine controversy | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Vaccine controversy

Tribune-Review
| Monday, March 11, 2019 10:00 a.m

In reply to letter-writer Hank Baughman (“Vaccines are safe?,” March 3, TribLIVE): Yes, there is a National Child Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) that was passed in 1998 largely because in the 1970s and ’80s there was controversy concerning the DPT (diptheria, pertussis, tetanus) vaccine.

There were anecdotal reports that the pertussis (whooping cough) component of the DPT vaccine caused brain injury. Later studies proved that the alleged vaccine-induced brain damage was actually a condition called infantile epilepsy.

The NCVIA was created because large jury awards in lawsuits against different vaccine companies and doctors threatened to cause shortages and reduced vaccination rates for preventable diseases.

According to the Center for Disease Control, from 2006-17, over 3.4 billion doses of vaccines were distributed in the United States, and 4,172 vaccine cases were compensated. That means that for every 1 million doses of vaccines administered, one individual was compensated.

Lastly: It wasn’t mentioned, but no, autism is not caused by vaccination, regardless of what Jenny McCarthy has to say.

Richard Dulemba

Washington Township, Westmoreland County

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.