(First, a note: apparently the word "role" has sometimes been spelled with a hat over the "o"; this is a sign of its French derivation. It surprised me too when I first saw it.)
In my ongoing quests for finding things that might be wrong with vaccines that people aren't talking about, I encountered this article. I don't think it quite qualifies, but I'm mentioning it for the sake of completeness.
The article, by Charles Armstrong, dealt with an issue with smallpox vaccination: sometimes tetanus occurred after the vaccination, because the bacteria that cause tetanus, Clostridium tetani, had been introduced to the wound and had multiplied there, producing their toxin. So Armstrong wanted to figure out when and why this happened in some cases and not others, in order to prevent it from happening.
He examined 116 cases of postvaccinal tetanus, and figured out that what they had in common was that the vaccination site had some sort of dressing wrapped around it. It didn't really matter what kind of dressing, just some kind of tight wrapping of the area. This agreed with studies in animals that showed something similar. So the US Public Health Service recommended against wrapping the area, and cases of postvaccinal tetanus dropped from a consistent 30 per year to less than 13.
Armstrong looked into why the dressing might cause this problem. It didn't seem to be related to keeping air away from the wound, because a good number of dressings he saw in cases did allow airflow. It also didn't seem to be an issue of contamination of the vaccination material, since no tetanus could be detected in it with animal studies. But it seemed like the problem was that the dressing was tight enough to cause some swelling, and held all the dead tissue in place on the site, so stuff could start growing under it.
So Armstrong recommended that, instead of putting a dressing on the site, just cover it with a loose sleeve of material; this can move back and forth over the area, wiping away any moisture and dead material that might appear, keeping the area clean and dry.
So it sounds like the issue was for the most part resolved nearly 100 years ago, and presumably only got better since then. But I will be sure to look into any relevant papers I encounter in the future.
He examined 116 cases of postvaccinal tetanus, and figured out that what they had in common was that the vaccination site had some sort of dressing wrapped around it. It didn't really matter what kind of dressing, just some kind of tight wrapping of the area. This agreed with studies in animals that showed something similar. So the US Public Health Service recommended against wrapping the area, and cases of postvaccinal tetanus dropped from a consistent 30 per year to less than 13.
Armstrong looked into why the dressing might cause this problem. It didn't seem to be related to keeping air away from the wound, because a good number of dressings he saw in cases did allow airflow. It also didn't seem to be an issue of contamination of the vaccination material, since no tetanus could be detected in it with animal studies. But it seemed like the problem was that the dressing was tight enough to cause some swelling, and held all the dead tissue in place on the site, so stuff could start growing under it.
So Armstrong recommended that, instead of putting a dressing on the site, just cover it with a loose sleeve of material; this can move back and forth over the area, wiping away any moisture and dead material that might appear, keeping the area clean and dry.
So it sounds like the issue was for the most part resolved nearly 100 years ago, and presumably only got better since then. But I will be sure to look into any relevant papers I encounter in the future.
Reference:
Armstrong, C. The Rôle of the Vaccination Dressing in the Production of Postvaccinal Tetanus. Public Health Reports (1896-1970) 44, 1871–1884 (1929).
No comments:
Post a Comment