PEDIATRICS Vol. 98 No. 4 October 1996, pp. 795-796
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Adler, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Adler, P.

Letter To The Editor

Philip Adler MD1

1 Department of Pediatrics, Tampa, FL 33614-7104

In his argument supporting the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices-recommended switch to a sequential inactivated polio vaccine/oral polio vaccine (IPV/OPV) immunization schedule (Pediatrics. 1996;98:116-117), Dr Samuel Katz fails to address the enormity of the threat that an untested immunization practice poses to an unprepared public.

Dr Katz theorizes that the proposed sequential schedule may reduce the six to eight cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio that occur each year. Yet no solid proof exists to support this claim.