This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

James D. Cherry, MD
University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine

JAMA. 1990;264(18):2386.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.—

The letters of Lewis, Menkes, Garbitelli, and Tilelli and Manniello all contain errors of fact and reasoning and seem to be aimed at preserving the myth of pertussis vaccine encephalopathy. Dr Menkes implies that in my assessment of the National Childhood Encephalopathy Study I focused on one set of biases. This is not true. Even though there clearly were biases that tended to exaggerate the calculated risks, the original data alone do not indicate a cause-and-effect relationship but only the redistribution of events over time.¹ If you believe that the increased number of vaccinations in cases during the 0- to 3-day period indicates a causative effect of vaccine, then by the same reasoning you must believe that the increased number of vaccinations in the controls during the rest of the observation period was protective against disease.

Since after considerable study there is no epidemiologic evidence that supports . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?