The article is terrible. The CDC has a very good FAQ on the pertussis vaccine.

http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/a...

Q: Can pertussis be prevented with vaccines?

A: Yes. Pertussis, or whooping cough, can be prevented with vaccines. Before pertussis vaccines became widely available in the 1940s, about 200,000 children got sick with it each year in the US and about 9,000 died as a result of the infection. Now we see about 10,000–40,000 cases reported each year and unfortunately about 10–20 deaths.

Pertussis vaccines are recommended for people of all ages. Infants and children should get 5 doses of DTaP for maximum protection. A dose is given at 2, 4 and 6 months, at 15 through 18 months, and again at 4 through 6 years. A booster dose of Tdap is given to preteens at 11 or 12 years of age.

Any adolescents or adults who didn't get Tdap as a preteen should get one dose. Getting Tdap is especially important for pregnant women. It’s also important that those who care for infants are up-to-date with pertussis vaccination. You can get the Tdap booster dose no matter when you got your last regular tetanus booster shot (Td). Also, you need to get Tdap even if you were vaccinated as a child or have been sick with pertussis in the past.

Learn more about preventing pertussis.

car

Whooping cough can be deadly for babies. Learn how to protect them through vaccination. See this infographic.

Q: Why is the focus on protecting infants from pertussis?

A: Infants are at greatest risk for getting pertussis and then having severe complications from it, including death. About half of infants younger than 1 year old who get pertussis are hospitalized, and 1 or 2 in 100 hospitalized infants die.

There are two strategies to protect infants until they're old enough to receive vaccines and build their immunity against this disease.

First, vaccinate pregnant women with Tdap during each pregnancy, preferably at 27 through 36 weeks. By getting Tdap during pregnancy, mothers build antibodies that are transferred to the newborn, likely providing protection against pertussis in early life, before the baby can start getting DTaP vaccines at 2 months old. Tdap also helps protect mothers during delivery, making them less likely to transmit pertussis to their infants.

Second, make sure everyone around the infant is immunized. This includes parents, siblings, grandparents (including those 65 years and older), other family members, babysitters, etc. They should be up-to-date with the age-appropriate vaccine (DTaP or Tdap) at least two weeks before coming into close contact with the infant. Unless pregnant, only one dose of Tdap is recommended in a lifetime.

These two strategies should reduce infection in infants, since health data have shown that, when the source of pertussis could be identified, mothers were responsible for 30-40% of infant infections and all household members were responsible for about 80% of infections.

It's also critical that healthcare professionals are up-to-date with a one-time Tdap booster dose, especially those who care for infants.

Learn more about infant complications.

Top of Page

Q: Do pertussis vaccines protect for a lifetime? If I've had whooping cough, do I still need a pertussis booster?

A: Getting sick with pertussis or getting pertussis vaccines doesn't provide lifelong protection, which means you can still get pertussis and pass it onto infants.

Pertussis vaccines are effective, but not perfect. They typically offer high levels of protection within the first 2 years of getting vaccinated, but then protection decreases over time. This is known as waning immunity. Similarly, natural infection may also only protect you for a few years.

In general, DTaP vaccines are 80-90% effective. Among kids who get all 5 doses of DTaP on schedule, effectiveness is very high within the year following the 5th dose – at least 9 out of 10 kids are fully protected. There is a modest decrease in effectiveness in each following year. About 7 out of 10 kids are fully protected 5 years after getting their last dose of DTaP and the other 3 out of 10 kids are partially protected – protecting against serious disease.

Our current estimate is that Tdap vaccination protects 7 out of 10 people who receive it. Since Tdap vaccines were only licensed in 2005, we don't yet have results on long-term vaccine protection. We're still working to understand how that protection declines over time or might differ based on which vaccine was received during early childhood (i.e., DTaP or DTP). CDC will be conducting an evaluation in collaboration with health departments in Washington and California to better understand how long Tdap vaccines protect from pertussis. The data from these evaluations will help guide discussions on how best to use vaccines to control pertussis.

Keeping up-to-date with recommended pertussis vaccines is the best way to protect you and your loved ones.

Learn more about protection from vaccines and infection.

 
Q: Do pertussis vaccines protect from severe disease?

A: If you've been vaccinated and get pertussis, you are less likely to have a severe infection. Typically, your cough won't last as many days and coughing fits, whooping, and vomiting after coughing fits won't occur as often. When vaccinated children get pertussis, fewer have apnea (life-threatening pauses in breathing), cyanosis (blue/purplish skin coloration due to lack of oxygen), and vomiting.

Learn more about pertussis symptoms.

Top of Page

Q: Why are reported cases of pertussis increasing?

A: Since the early 1980s, there has been an overall trend of an increase in reported pertussis cases. Pertussis is naturally cyclic in nature, with peaks in disease every 3-5 years. But for the past 20-30 years, we've seen the peaks getting higher and overall case counts going up. There are several reasons that help explain why we're seeing more cases as of late. These include: increased awareness, improved diagnostic tests, better reporting, more circulation of the bacteria, and waning immunity.

When it comes to waning immunity, it seems that the acellular pertussis vaccine (DTaP) we use now may not protect for as long as the whole cell vaccine (DTP) we used to use. Throughout the 1990s, the US switched from using DTP to using DTaP for infants and children. Whole cell vaccines are associated with higher rates of minor and temporary side effects such as fever and pain and swelling at the injection site. Rare but serious neurologic adverse reactions including chronic neurological problems rarely occurred among children who had recently received whole cell vaccines. While studies have had inconsistent results that the vaccine could cause chronic neurological problems, public concern in the US and other countries led to a concerted effort to develop a vaccine with improved safety. Due to these concerns, along with the availability of a safe and effective acellular vaccine, the US switched to acellular pertussis vaccines.

Learn more about DTaP waning immunity Adobe PDF file [140 KB, 1 page] and pertussis outbreaks.

Q: I've heard about parents refusing to get their children vaccinated and travelers to the U.S. spreading disease; are they to blame for pertussis outbreaks?

A: Even though children who haven't received DTaP vaccines are at least 8 times more likely to get pertussis than children who received all 5 recommended doses of DTaP, they are not the driving force behind the large scale outbreaks or epidemics. However, their parents are putting them at greater risk of getting a serious pertussis infection and then possibly spreading it to other family or community members.

We often see people blaming pertussis outbreaks on people coming to the US from other counties. This is not the case. Pertussis was never eliminated from the US like measles or polio, so there's always the chance for it to get into a community. Plus, every country vaccinates against pertussis.

Learn more about pertussis in other countries.

Top of Page

Q: Are most coughs pertussis and does everyone with pertussis "whoop"?

A: There are a lot of causes behind a person's cough and not every cough is pertussis. In general, pertussis starts off with cold-like symptoms and maybe a mild cough or fever. But after 1 to 2 weeks, severe coughing can begin. Unlike the common cold, pertussis can become a series of coughing fits that continues for weeks. The best way to know if you have pertussis is to see your doctor, who can make a diagnosis and prescribe antibiotics if needed.

The name "whooping cough" comes from the sound people make gasping for air after a pertussis coughing fit. However, not everyone with pertussis will cough and many who cough will not "whoop."

Teens and adults, especially those who haven't been vaccinated, may have a prolonged cough that keeps them up at night. Those who do get the coughing fits say it's the worst cough of their lives. And the cough may last for weeks or months, causing major disruptions to daily life and complications like broken ribs and ruptured blood vessels.

Infants may not cough at all. Instead, they may have life-threatening pauses in breathing or struggle to breathe. Any time someone is struggling to breathe, get them to a doctor right away.

Learn more about pertussis symptoms.

 
Q: Are pertussis bacteria changing and causing an increase in pertussis cases?

A: CDC is evaluating potential causes of increasing rates of pertussis, including changes in disease-causing bacteria types ("strains"). Unlike a foodborne illness where one strain causes an outbreak, multiple types or strains of pertussis bacteria can be found causing disease at any given time, including during outbreaks.

Learn more about CDC's Pertussis Strains.

Top of Page

Q: How contagious is pertussis?

A: Pertussis spreads easily from person to person through coughing and sneezing. A person with pertussis can infect up to 12 to 15 other people. That's why being up-to-date with pertussis vaccines and practicing good cough etiquette are so important.

Many infants who get pertussis are infected by older siblings, parents or caregivers who might not know they have the disease. If pertussis is circulating in the community, there's a chance that even a fully vaccinated person of any age can catch this very contagious disease. But if you've been vaccinated, your infection is usually less severe.

If you or your child develops a cold that includes a severe cough or a cough that lasts a long time, it may be pertussis. The best way to know is to contact your doctor.

Learn more about pertussis transmission.

 
Q: Doesn't herd immunity protect most people?

A: Herd immunity, or community immunity, is a situation in which, through vaccination or prior illness, a sufficient proportion of a population is immune to an infectious disease, making its spread from person to person unlikely. Even individuals not vaccinated (such as newborns and those with chronic illnesses) are typically protected because the disease has little opportunity to spread within their community. Since pertussis spreads so easily, vaccine protection decreases over time, and acellular pertussis vaccines may not prevent colonization, we can't rely on herd immunity to protect everyone.

Vaccines are the most effective tool we have to provide protection against pertussis. It's important that everyone get their recommended pertussis vaccines to protect themselves.

Learn more about vaccine coverage.

To stop cartooning. Beatle Baily, Hagar the Horrible, Garfield and yes... I'll even go far as Dilbert (I'm sure blasphemy to geeks around here) are worn out strips that are recycling the same dumb gags and phone-it-in art over and over. I actually respect Waterson for quitting in his prime.

I assure you that people have unhappy experiences on other hallucinogens as well. Also, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that LSD was the first. It's really more like one of the last. All the ones I listed have been used by human beings for thousands of years.

As far as religion is concerned, I think you misunderstand. It's not that much "religion" as in doctrine as it is an established practice that minimizes harm, but established practices designed to minimize the bad effects of the powerful drugs.

YMMV, but don't assume your experiences are everyones.

The story you linked to says the burden of proof is on the person suing, and must prove the statement was libelous. I believe libel is already illegal. The makes the law really stupid if it's already covered by libel laws. But it's not quite having to be careful about what you say about beef.

LSD has no such traditions. Its just a chemical to get you high.

LSD is a special case because it's very new. There hasn't been enough time to develop traditions around its use. That's not true for other, very similar drugs. These drugs have long traditions of usage outside the west. That includes peyote, psychedelic mushrooms, Ayahuasca, and ibogaine, to name just a few.

Typically these drugs are taken in group settings with an experienced person or group of people to guide the experience. It's really completely contrary to our current medical system where the patient is given a drug and sent on their way. Medical practitioners have sometimes used them in a one-on-one setting, which can probably work as well, but still represents an inherent clash with the medical establishment, and is quite contrary to how the traditional cultures where these drugs were first used have used them.

I'd totally agree with you that none of these drugs should be available at the corner 7-11. These drugs aren't compatible with our consumer driven culture. They're all very powerful drugs that invoke a profound experience on the user and need to be respected. But also our medical establishment really isn't suited to their use either. So what's to be done?

Umm.. no. It's no surprise to everyone that countries spy on one another. It's a big surprise to most that the US government is spying on everyone in the world, including its citizens.

In this case the wife is played by the American people, Not Russia.

He said he didn't have the documents with him to steal, and destroyed them after he gave them to the journalists. Now.. he could be lying of course but...

Snowden is a sharp guy. He knows that having those documents with him would make him a really, really good target to just be killed by the US CIA, or be kidnapped by whatever they're calling the KGB these days. Remember the US is the country that waterboarded people, and said it wasn't torture.

Now... whether he's given some form of assistance to Russia is a different matter. We all know he's willing to act as a political puppet for Putin, throwing him some softball questions to deny the Russians aren't spying on it's citizens. "Yes Mr. Putin sir, oh greatest leader of Russia Sir! You certainly aren't spying on YOUR citizens like those dirty, dirty Americans are, right sir?"

The sad thing is- Snowden's actions will probably hurt us abroad and not do a thing to stop the fascist and creepy internal spying on U.S. citizens.

You might be right. But the thing about Snowden's actions are that it put the burden on the American people, and the government to do something. If they don't, so be it, but he's giving us the chance to. If he didn't, most Americans would still be living in silent bliss about the spying going on.

Now, as far as who hurt who, I'd say the US government is FAR more responsible for hurting it's own relationships by doing the spying in the first place.

    It's sort of like cheating on your wife, then getting mad at a mutual friend when the mutual friend tells your wife. Then end of your marriage isn't really the fault of your friend, and it's not your friends problem if you don't learn anything from it and become a better person.

Are you kidding me?

Russia would be tough, but Snowden only wound up in Russia after he was left with no other options. So if he kept a low profile, he'd never have wound up in Russia.

If you think the US doesn't have the power to take it's own citizens from many, many countries in the world and just make them disappear, you're living in a delusion, The US has a golden ticket that the lawyers have been ever-expanding their justification to do anything. It's called the Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists, and it's been used to justify killing and targeting people that have no connection to the Sept 11 attacks. You think they wouldn't try use it to legally justify kidnapping Snowden?

And if they couldn't do that, you think they wouldn't use a CIA operative to kidnap him, or get some other group to do it? Countries are mean motherfuckers. You're under the misapprehension that countries actions are ruled by laws. They aren't, they're ruled by politics and what they can get away with. The OP is right. If Snowden hadn't put up a big profile rather quickly, the US govt would have found him and hung him out to dry in one way or another. (And I'm certain Ed Snowden is under no illusion this would have happened, and likely was a major reason he DID come forward).

You've missed a very, very big loophole. The US government decides NOT to prosecute him. Banks commit massive fraud and destroy our economy in 2008.. and... nobody gets prosecuted. That was most certainly a political decision to prosecute or not. It happens all the time. It's really quite business as usual.

What I'd like to see is the Obama administration simply say they were wrong to spy on Americans and vacuum up masses amounts of intelligence without a warrant, then stop doing that crap and pass a law that says they can't. Then refuse to prosecute Snowden for any wrongdoing.

The law works like this ALL the time. I'm no fool and I sure as hell realize this isn't going to happen anytime soon. But wait a few years for current guys to get out of office, and someone else to get in (likely a Democrat wanting to distinguish themselves from the past, or one of those extrodinarily rare beed of non-crazy Republicans who also are wiling to stand up to their crazy party every so often). Then it might, just might happen. But not for perhaps 5-10 years.

Ahh.. the one upsmanship of sexism. What fun!

It reminds me of an old joke. During WWII a high ranking Soviet official walks out of a meeting with Stalin, obviously upset, muttering under his breath "Mustached asshole!". The secretary overhears him, and goes in and tells Stalin he just heard the official mutter "Mustached asshole!". Stalin calls in the official and asks him "Comrade, Who were you referring to when you said "Mustached asshole"? The official without hesitation says "I was referring to Hitler of course!". Stalin thanks him and calls the secretary in, asking her "And who did YOU think he was referring to, comrade?"

I think you're sort of missing the point. Sexism is sexism. You're still dividing the world up into sexes and saying one persons sexism is better or worse or not as important than someone else's sexism. Uhh.. also a form of sexism.

Isn't not discriminating on the basis of sex simply not discriminating on the basis of sex? You're kind of saying "Well fuck you and the discrimination you face because mine (or womens) is FAR worse". That's counter-productive. If you're against discrimination, you're against it, no matter who's being discriminated against.

  We need a lot less angry testosterone driven assholes.

This is just another form is sexism. I'm really tired of this bullshit about the "testerone driven male". As if all aggression is male and derived from masculine hormones. Can we please stop this bullshit? Men and women are different, it's true. But is one form of being an asshole any better or worse than another? Is asshole diversity somehow "good"?

The pendulum of sexism is drifting towards males, and there seems to be a distinct anti-male form of sexism in the world now. It's exemplified by this statement about "testosterone driven", as if men are simply slaves to hormones. It's just as sexist as women being accused of the same thing. (I think we're all familiar with the women controlled by their fluctuating hormones meme). Reversing it and putting the same thing on all men is just as sexist. So please stop this stereotype.

>80% of NBA players are black, 70% of NFL players are black. Is anyone asking them for more "diversity"? Yeah I thought not.

Maybe it's because there's around 500 NBA players, and around 1700 NFL players. For comparison, Google has 50,000 employees.

So if you're concerned about people having equal access to high paying jobs, who are you going to go after, the NBA or NFL, with a combined 2000 jobs, or Google, with 50,000?

It's not about "fairness" in each industry or "diversity" (that's really just marketing in our current culture), it's about different groups of people having access to well paying jobs.

Now, I'll be the first to tell you I don't think Google is racist, and there's MANY different reasons for the racial disparity. But trying to paint this as a numbers game where each industry has to have balance is really missing the point here. I'm actually totally against things like affirmative action. I don't think you can solve racial inequality through a socially acceptable form of racism.

It's true, but it's also just part of the way the world works. It's not just Silicon Valley. The big difference there is that Smart People have far more of a chance of first succeeding because software is "hard", and requires smart people in the first place to do anything useful.

1. By definition, most of the population is not-so-smart. (Please note, this does NOT mean smart people are better than everyone else, just smarter)

2. It takes smart people, and often times a particular kind of smart person to distinguish the smart people from the not-so-smart, but overly confident people.

3. People are heavily biased towards confident people. Confidence everyone can recognize. (as evidenced by the rise of Sara Palin, who has no business being confident, but yet was/is beloved by a certain segment of the populace).

4. There's an inverse relationship between skill and confidence. The more skillful people become, the less confident they are. (Primarly because they realize how much they really don't know).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

So given the above, it's a natural tendency as a company grows that it'll start to get filled with people who aren't quite as smart as the founders. It's really inevitable at a certain point of growth because you'll just need more people, and a larger percentage of them will be not-so-smart. They'll start promoting the confident, but less skilled people because of point 2 and 3. This will create a feedback loop (less smart promotes even less smart people), and eventually the company is filled with morons who coast on the success of others. (i.e. Microsoft).