On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:24:13 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > Charities keep going, even when their reason for being no longer exists.
> > Here are three prime examples:
> >
> > When my parents were kids, there was
> >
> > Christmas Seals -- to fight tuberculosis
> > The March of Dimes -- to fight polio
> > Easter Seals -- to help crippled kids
> >
> > TB was cured, but Christmas Seals kept going, orienting its mission to
> > general lung ailments.
> > Polio was cured, but the March of Dimes kept going, changing its mission
> > to have something to do with birth defects.
> > Kids stopped getting crippled (same thing happened to the Shriners
> > Hospitals) but Easter Seals kept going, changing its mission to have
> > something to do with disabled children, especially autistic kids.
>
> Actually, TB is back. Perhaps not so much in this country but it is here.

TB never went away. What's back is all the childhood diseases,
including whooping cough, thanks to stupid parents who don't vaccinate
their children.
http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/images/...ph-2014-lg.jpg


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 10/29/2014 9:46 AM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:24:13 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Charities keep going, even when their reason for being no longer exists.
>>> Here are three prime examples:
>>>
>>> When my parents were kids, there was
>>>
>>> Christmas Seals -- to fight tuberculosis
>>> The March of Dimes -- to fight polio
>>> Easter Seals -- to help crippled kids
>>>
>>> TB was cured, but Christmas Seals kept going, orienting its mission to
>>> general lung ailments.
>>> Polio was cured, but the March of Dimes kept going, changing its mission
>>> to have something to do with birth defects.
>>> Kids stopped getting crippled (same thing happened to the Shriners
>>> Hospitals) but Easter Seals kept going, changing its mission to have
>>> something to do with disabled children, especially autistic kids.
>>
>> Actually, TB is back. Perhaps not so much in this country but it is here.
>
> TB never went away. What's back is all the childhood diseases,
> including whooping cough, thanks to stupid parents who don't vaccinate
> their children.
> http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/images/...ph-2014-lg.jpg
>
>
The Christmas Seals, March of Dimes and Easter Seals are rated B, B- and
C- by Charities Watch. That means to me that I might possibly support
the Christmas Seals and the March of Dimes but not Easter Seals. I
suppose it's hard to stop a full time hobby of raising money :-(

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not." in Reply To.

James Silverton wrote:
>
> On 10/29/2014 9:46 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:24:13 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> Charities keep going, even when their reason for being no longer exists.
> >>> Here are three prime examples:
> >>>
> >>> When my parents were kids, there was
> >>>
> >>> Christmas Seals -- to fight tuberculosis
> >>> The March of Dimes -- to fight polio
> >>> Easter Seals -- to help crippled kids
> >>>
> >>> TB was cured, but Christmas Seals kept going, orienting its mission to
> >>> general lung ailments.
> >>> Polio was cured, but the March of Dimes kept going, changing its mission
> >>> to have something to do with birth defects.
> >>> Kids stopped getting crippled (same thing happened to the Shriners
> >>> Hospitals) but Easter Seals kept going, changing its mission to have
> >>> something to do with disabled children, especially autistic kids.
> >>
> >> Actually, TB is back. Perhaps not so much in this country but it is here.
> >
> > TB never went away. What's back is all the childhood diseases,
> > including whooping cough, thanks to stupid parents who don't vaccinate
> > their children.
> > http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/images/...ph-2014-lg.jpg
> >
> >
> The Christmas Seals, March of Dimes and Easter Seals are rated B, B- and
> C- by Charities Watch. That means to me that I might possibly support
> the Christmas Seals and the March of Dimes but not Easter Seals. I
> suppose it's hard to stop a full time hobby of raising money :-(

It's no hobby, these folks make entire careers out of leaching off of
charity. Each of those organizations employs a lot of such leaches who
would otherwise need to find a real job (or another scam).

On 29/10/2014 7:46 AM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:24:13 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Charities keep going, even when their reason for being no longer exists.
>>> Here are three prime examples:
>>>
>>> When my parents were kids, there was
>>>
>>> Christmas Seals -- to fight tuberculosis
>>> The March of Dimes -- to fight polio
>>> Easter Seals -- to help crippled kids
>>>
>>> TB was cured, but Christmas Seals kept going, orienting its mission to
>>> general lung ailments.
>>> Polio was cured, but the March of Dimes kept going, changing its mission
>>> to have something to do with birth defects.
>>> Kids stopped getting crippled (same thing happened to the Shriners
>>> Hospitals) but Easter Seals kept going, changing its mission to have
>>> something to do with disabled children, especially autistic kids.
>>
>> Actually, TB is back. Perhaps not so much in this country but it is here.
>
> TB never went away. What's back is all the childhood diseases,
> including whooping cough, thanks to stupid parents who don't vaccinate
> their children.
> http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/images/...ph-2014-lg.jpg
>
>
Andrew Wakefield has a lot to answer for!
Graham

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:24:13 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Charities keep going, even when their reason for being no longer
>> > exists.
>> > Here are three prime examples:
>> >
>> > When my parents were kids, there was
>> >
>> > Christmas Seals -- to fight tuberculosis
>> > The March of Dimes -- to fight polio
>> > Easter Seals -- to help crippled kids
>> >
>> > TB was cured, but Christmas Seals kept going, orienting its mission to
>> > general lung ailments.
>> > Polio was cured, but the March of Dimes kept going, changing its
>> > mission
>> > to have something to do with birth defects.
>> > Kids stopped getting crippled (same thing happened to the Shriners
>> > Hospitals) but Easter Seals kept going, changing its mission to have
>> > something to do with disabled children, especially autistic kids.
>>
>> Actually, TB is back. Perhaps not so much in this country but it is
>> here.
>
> TB never went away. What's back is all the childhood diseases,
> including whooping cough, thanks to stupid parents who don't vaccinate
> their children.
> http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/images/...ph-2014-lg.jpg

The vaccine isn't very effective. Angela had it but was still sick for
about 2 months with the whooping cough. So was my mom.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:24:59 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:24:13 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Actually, TB is back. Perhaps not so much in this country but it is
> >> here.
> >
> > TB never went away. What's back is all the childhood diseases,
> > including whooping cough, thanks to stupid parents who don't vaccinate
> > their children.
> > http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/images/...ph-2014-lg.jpg
>
> The vaccine isn't very effective. Angela had it but was still sick for
> about 2 months with the whooping cough. So was my mom.

The vaccine was not a panacea, but it was a good start. What if she
hadn't been vaccinated and died? Would you want to be responsible for
that?
http://blog.sfgate.com/gurley/2010/0...u-should-know/


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:24:59 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:24:13 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Actually, TB is back. Perhaps not so much in this country but it is
>> >> here.
>> >
>> > TB never went away. What's back is all the childhood diseases,
>> > including whooping cough, thanks to stupid parents who don't vaccinate
>> > their children.
>> > http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/images/...ph-2014-lg.jpg
>>
>> The vaccine isn't very effective. Angela had it but was still sick for
>> about 2 months with the whooping cough. So was my mom.
>
> The vaccine was not a panacea, but it was a good start. What if she
> hadn't been vaccinated and died? Would you want to be responsible for
> that?
> http://blog.sfgate.com/gurley/2010/0...u-should-know/

She still could have died. The shot doesn't protect against that.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:01:01 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:24:59 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "sf" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:24:13 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Actually, TB is back. Perhaps not so much in this country but it is
> >> >> here.
> >> >
> >> > TB never went away. What's back is all the childhood diseases,
> >> > including whooping cough, thanks to stupid parents who don't vaccinate
> >> > their children.
> >> > http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/images/...ph-2014-lg.jpg
> >>
> >> The vaccine isn't very effective. Angela had it but was still sick for
> >> about 2 months with the whooping cough. So was my mom.
> >
> > The vaccine was not a panacea, but it was a good start. What if she
> > hadn't been vaccinated and died? Would you want to be responsible for
> > that?
> > http://blog.sfgate.com/gurley/2010/0...u-should-know/
>
> She still could have died. The shot doesn't protect against that.

You improved her chances with the vaccine. She's still alive, isn't
she?


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 17:01:01 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 15:24:59 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "sf" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 01:24:13 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually, TB is back. Perhaps not so much in this country but it
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> here.
>> >> >
>> >> > TB never went away. What's back is all the childhood diseases,
>> >> > including whooping cough, thanks to stupid parents who don't
>> >> > vaccinate
>> >> > their children.
>> >> > http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/images/...ph-2014-lg.jpg
>> >>
>> >> The vaccine isn't very effective. Angela had it but was still sick
>> >> for
>> >> about 2 months with the whooping cough. So was my mom.
>> >
>> > The vaccine was not a panacea, but it was a good start. What if she
>> > hadn't been vaccinated and died? Would you want to be responsible for
>> > that?
>> > http://blog.sfgate.com/gurley/2010/0...u-should-know/
>>
>> She still could have died. The shot doesn't protect against that.
>
> You improved her chances with the vaccine. She's still alive, isn't
> she?

How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:



>>> > The vaccine was not a panacea, but it was a good start. What if she
>>> > hadn't been vaccinated and died? Would you want to be responsible for
>>> > that?
>>> > http://blog.sfgate.com/gurley/2010/0...u-should-know/
>>>
>>> She still could have died. The shot doesn't protect against that.
>>
>> You improved her chances with the vaccine. She's still alive, isn't
>> she?
>
>How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
>vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
>died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!

You don't know that either. It may or may not have been worse with no
vaccine. Unless you have conclusive proof from laboratory tests
anything you or the doctors say is pure conjecture.

"Isn't very effective" is a rather loose terminology. It also shows
it is a little effective.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> > The vaccine was not a panacea, but it was a good start. What if she
>>>> > hadn't been vaccinated and died? Would you want to be responsible
>>>> > for
>>>> > that?
>>>> > http://blog.sfgate.com/gurley/2010/0...u-should-know/
>>>>
>>>> She still could have died. The shot doesn't protect against that.
>>>
>>> You improved her chances with the vaccine. She's still alive, isn't
>>> she?
>>
>>How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
>>vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
>>died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>
> You don't know that either. It may or may not have been worse with no
> vaccine. Unless you have conclusive proof from laboratory tests
> anything you or the doctors say is pure conjecture.
>
> "Isn't very effective" is a rather loose terminology. It also shows
> it is a little effective.

Of course I can't prove anything. But this link says that the shot protects
7 out of 10 people who get it.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/r...ctiveness.html

Clearly my daughter and my mom were not the protected ones.

But if it didn't protect her from getting it, then it likely couldn't have
protected her from death either. What probably did protect her was her age
and the fact that she got precious little sleep during that time period.
The coughing was so severe that it would wake her.

On 2014-10-30 5:58 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"

>> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
>> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
>> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>
> You don't know that either. It may or may not have been worse with no
> vaccine. Unless you have conclusive proof from laboratory tests
> anything you or the doctors say is pure conjecture.

In Julie's peculiar little world, conjecture would be a step closer to
reality than the BS she usually spews.

"Julie Bove" > wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> The vaccine was not a panacea, but it was a good start. What if she
>>>>>> hadn't been vaccinated and died? Would you want to be responsible >>>> > for
>>>>>> that?
>>>>>> http://blog.sfgate.com/gurley/2010/0...u-should-know/
>>>>>
>>>>> She still could have died. The shot doesn't protect against that.
>>>>
>>>> You improved her chances with the vaccine. She's still alive, isn't
>>>> she?
>>>
>>> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
>>> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
>>> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>>
>> You don't know that either. It may or may not have been worse with no
>> vaccine. Unless you have conclusive proof from laboratory tests
>> anything you or the doctors say is pure conjecture.
>>
>> "Isn't very effective" is a rather loose terminology. It also shows
>> it is a little effective.
>
> Of course I can't prove anything. But this link says that the shot
> protects 7 out of 10 people who get it.
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/r...ctiveness.html
>
> Clearly my daughter and my mom were not the protected ones.
>
> But if it didn't protect her from getting it, then it likely couldn't
> have protected her from death either. What probably did protect her was
> her age and the fact that she got precious little sleep during that time
> period. The coughing was so severe that it would wake her.

Getting the vaccine clearly lessens the severity of the disease and serious
complications, e.g. death, if you do contract it. It was not a lack of
sleep that kept her from dying.
--
jinx the minx

On 10/29/14, 6:24 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> The vaccine isn't very effective. Angela had it but was still sick for
> about 2 months with the whooping cough. So was my mom.

The current pertussis vaccine, while relatively new, is quite effective
-- 70 to 90%. But you have to keep it current.

Note from the final paragraph: "If you get the vaccine and still get
whooping cough, you will have fewer coughing fits, shorter illness, and
be less likely to suffer from disease complications."

"CDC is studying the long-term effectiveness of adolescent and adult
whooping cough vaccines

In general, Tdap vaccination protects 7 out of 10 people who receive it,
but protection fades over time....

CDC's current estimate is that Tdap vaccination protects against
whooping cough in about 7 out of 10 people who receive it. We are still
working to understand how that protection decreases over time as
antibody levels drop....

In general, DTaP vaccination is effective for up to 8 or 9 out of 10
children who receive it, but protection fades over time.
Since the childhood whooping cough vaccine (called DTaP) has been used
since the 1990s and almost every child gets it, we have study results on
long-term protection. In general, DTaP vaccines are effective for 8 or 9
out of 10 children who receive them. Among children who get all 5 doses
of DTaP vaccine on schedule, effectiveness is very high within the year
following the 5th dose — nearly all children (98 out of 100) are fully
protected. There is a modest decrease in effectiveness in each following
year. About 7 out of 10 of children are fully protected 5 years after
getting their last dose of DTaP vaccine and the other 3 are protected
against serious disease....

If you get the vaccine and still get whooping cough, you will have fewer
coughing fits, shorter illness, and be less likely to suffer from
disease complications. By getting the vaccine, you will also transfer
antibodies (proteins produced by the body to fight off diseases) to your
baby. Even if your baby gets whooping cough, these antibodies can
protect her against the severe outcomes that come along with the
disease. However, for women vaccinated during pregnancy, CDC does not
yet have an exact estimate as to how long that short-term protection
lasts in babies. Studies have shown that the antibodies will last until
your baby can start getting her own vaccines. That is why it is critical
that your baby starts getting the whooping cough vaccine for children on
time at 2 months of age."

-- Larry

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!

The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help diminish
the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
against.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 30/10/2014 10:15 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
>> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
>> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>
> The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either,

But that usually means that you have caught a strain that wasn't in the
vaccine.
Graham

In article >, says...
>
> Of course I can't prove anything. But this link says that the shot protects
> 7 out of 10 people who get it.
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/r...ctiveness.html

Gawd you're a sloppy reader.

That's talking about the Tdap vaccine given to teens and adults.
>
> Clearly my daughter and my mom were not the protected ones.

Your daughter got the childhood whooping cough vaccine (called DTaP)
... did she finish the who9le schedule?

From your link

"Since the childhood whooping cough vaccine (called DTaP) has been
used since the 1990s and almost every child gets it, we have study
results on long-term protection. In general, DTaP vaccines are effective
for 8 or 9 out of 10 children who receive them. Among children who get
all 5 doses of DTaP vaccine on schedule, effectiveness is very high
within the year following the 5th dose"

Janet UK

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 05:58:27 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>> > The vaccine was not a panacea, but it was a good start. What if she
>>>> > hadn't been vaccinated and died? Would you want to be responsible for
>>>> > that?
>>>> > http://blog.sfgate.com/gurley/2010/0...u-should-know/
>>>>
>>>> She still could have died. The shot doesn't protect against that.
>>>
>>> You improved her chances with the vaccine. She's still alive, isn't
>>> she?
>>
>>How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
>>vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
>>died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>
>You don't know that either. It may or may not have been worse with no
>vaccine. Unless you have conclusive proof from laboratory tests
>anything you or the doctors say is pure conjecture.
>
>"Isn't very effective" is a rather loose terminology. It also shows
>it is a little effective.

A bit like being a little pregnant?

On 10/30/2014 11:15 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
>> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
>> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>
> The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help diminish
> the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
> against.
>
>

The shingles vaccine is only 60% effective. Don't ask me how I know.

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> Of course I can't prove anything. But this link says that the shot
>> protects
>> 7 out of 10 people who get it.
>>
>> http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/r...ctiveness.html
>
> Gawd you're a sloppy reader.
>
> That's talking about the Tdap vaccine given to teens and adults.
>>
>> Clearly my daughter and my mom were not the protected ones.
>
> Your daughter got the childhood whooping cough vaccine (called DTaP)
> .. did she finish the who9le schedule?
>
> From your link
>
> "Since the childhood whooping cough vaccine (called DTaP) has been
> used since the 1990s and almost every child gets it, we have study
> results on long-term protection. In general, DTaP vaccines are effective
> for 8 or 9 out of 10 children who receive them. Among children who get
> all 5 doses of DTaP vaccine on schedule, effectiveness is very high
> within the year following the 5th dose"
>
> Janet UK

Yes. She is up to date on all of her shots.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
>> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
>> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>
> The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help diminish
> the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
> against.

Or in my case, it will make me very ill. The problem with the flu vaccine
is that it might not contain the strain of whatever is going around that
year.

"pltrgyst" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/29/14, 6:24 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> The vaccine isn't very effective. Angela had it but was still sick for
>> about 2 months with the whooping cough. So was my mom.
>
> The current pertussis vaccine, while relatively new, is quite effective --
> 70 to 90%. But you have to keep it current.
>
> Note from the final paragraph: "If you get the vaccine and still get
> whooping cough, you will have fewer coughing fits, shorter illness, and be
> less likely to suffer from disease complications."
>
> "CDC is studying the long-term effectiveness of adolescent and adult
> whooping cough vaccines
>
> In general, Tdap vaccination protects 7 out of 10 people who receive it,
> but protection fades over time....
>
> CDC's current estimate is that Tdap vaccination protects against whooping
> cough in about 7 out of 10 people who receive it. We are still working to
> understand how that protection decreases over time as antibody levels
> drop....
>
> In general, DTaP vaccination is effective for up to 8 or 9 out of 10
> children who receive it, but protection fades over time.
> Since the childhood whooping cough vaccine (called DTaP) has been used
> since the 1990s and almost every child gets it, we have study results on
> long-term protection. In general, DTaP vaccines are effective for 8 or 9
> out of 10 children who receive them. Among children who get all 5 doses of
> DTaP vaccine on schedule, effectiveness is very high within the year
> following the 5th dose — nearly all children (98 out of 100) are fully
> protected. There is a modest decrease in effectiveness in each following
> year. About 7 out of 10 of children are fully protected 5 years after
> getting their last dose of DTaP vaccine and the other 3 are protected
> against serious disease....
>
> If you get the vaccine and still get whooping cough, you will have fewer
> coughing fits, shorter illness, and be less likely to suffer from disease
> complications. By getting the vaccine, you will also transfer antibodies
> (proteins produced by the body to fight off diseases) to your baby. Even
> if your baby gets whooping cough, these antibodies can protect her against
> the severe outcomes that come along with the disease. However, for women
> vaccinated during pregnancy, CDC does not yet have an exact estimate as to
> how long that short-term protection lasts in babies. Studies have shown
> that the antibodies will last until your baby can start getting her own
> vaccines. That is why it is critical that your baby starts getting the
> whooping cough vaccine for children on time at 2 months of age."
>
> -- Larry

And yet, she was severely sick for two months!

On 10/30/2014 4:01 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> t...
>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>> Of course I can't prove anything. But this link says that the shot
>>> protects
>>> 7 out of 10 people who get it.
>>>
>>> http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/adults/r...ctiveness.html
>>>
>>
>> Gawd you're a sloppy reader.
>>
>> That's talking about the Tdap vaccine given to teens and adults.
>>>
>>> Clearly my daughter and my mom were not the protected ones.
>>
>> Your daughter got the childhood whooping cough vaccine (called DTaP)
>> .. did she finish the who9le schedule?
>>
>> From your link
>>
>> "Since the childhood whooping cough vaccine (called DTaP) has been
>> used since the 1990s and almost every child gets it, we have study
>> results on long-term protection. In general, DTaP vaccines are effective
>> for 8 or 9 out of 10 children who receive them. Among children who get
>> all 5 doses of DTaP vaccine on schedule, effectiveness is very high
>> within the year following the 5th dose"
>>
>> Janet UK
>
> Yes. She is up to date on all of her shots.

So is my dog!

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:46:07 -0500, Janet Wilder >
wrote:

> On 10/30/2014 11:15 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
> >> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
> >> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
> >
> > The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help diminish
> > the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
> > against.
> >
> >
>
> The shingles vaccine is only 60% effective. Don't ask me how I know.

I'm not one to say, well it doesn't work 100% so I won't get the
vaccine. I'm hoping whatever effectiveness it has works it's miracle
on me if/when I ever come down with shingles.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 2014-10-30 5:19 PM, sf wrote:

>> The shingles vaccine is only 60% effective. Don't ask me how I know.
>
> I'm not one to say, well it doesn't work 100% so I won't get the
> vaccine. I'm hoping whatever effectiveness it has works it's miracle
> on me if/when I ever come down with shingles.


I thought the idea of it working its miracle on you is that you don't
come down with it. I have heard horror stories about shingles.
Apparently the shot is quite expensive and, as per Janet's experience,
far short of 100% effective.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:02:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
> >> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
> >> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
> >
> > The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help diminish
> > the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
> > against.
>
> Or in my case, it will make me very ill. The problem with the flu vaccine
> is that it might not contain the strain of whatever is going around that
> year.

You're allergic to eggs, so you won't do it unless you're willing to
put up with however the egg allergy makes you feel. I'm willing to
get my vaccination hoping it will help me fight off one of the three
included strains out of the possible hundreds I may come into contact
with.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:04:02 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> And yet, she was severely sick for two months!

That's par for the course with whooping cough.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:27:54 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-10-30 5:19 PM, sf wrote:
>
> >> The shingles vaccine is only 60% effective. Don't ask me how I know.
> >
> > I'm not one to say, well it doesn't work 100% so I won't get the
> > vaccine. I'm hoping whatever effectiveness it has works it's miracle
> > on me if/when I ever come down with shingles.
>
>
> I thought the idea of it working its miracle on you is that you don't
> come down with it. I have heard horror stories about shingles.
> Apparently the shot is quite expensive and, as per Janet's experience,
> far short of 100% effective.

My shingles shot was free via my health plan (I call no co-pay "free")
and my understanding with vaccines is if they don't work 100%, I'll
still be better off than if I had no vaccine at all. I am not a
gambler, but that's a chance I'm willing to take.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On 30/10/2014 3:27 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-10-30 5:19 PM, sf wrote:
>
>>> The shingles vaccine is only 60% effective. Don't ask me how I know.
>>
>> I'm not one to say, well it doesn't work 100% so I won't get the
>> vaccine. I'm hoping whatever effectiveness it has works it's miracle
>> on me if/when I ever come down with shingles.
>
>
> I thought the idea of it working its miracle on you is that you don't
> come down with it. I have heard horror stories about shingles.
> Apparently the shot is quite expensive and,

In Alberta ~$220, most of which is the cost of the vaccine.
A friend in the UK is currently suffering from an attack and
"suffering" doesn't go halfway to describe the pain, apparently.
Graham

On 10/30/2014 4:19 PM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:46:07 -0500, Janet Wilder >
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/2014 11:15 AM, sf wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
>>>> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
>>>> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>>>
>>> The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help diminish
>>> the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
>>> against.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The shingles vaccine is only 60% effective. Don't ask me how I know.
>
> I'm not one to say, well it doesn't work 100% so I won't get the
> vaccine. I'm hoping whatever effectiveness it has works it's miracle
> on me if/when I ever come down with shingles.
>
>

I probably had a much lighter case because of the vaccine.

--
From somewhere very deep in the heart of Texas

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:56:08 -0500, Janet Wilder >
wrote:

> On 10/30/2014 4:19 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:46:07 -0500, Janet Wilder >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/30/2014 11:15 AM, sf wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
> >>>> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
> >>>> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
> >>>
> >>> The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help diminish
> >>> the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
> >>> against.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> The shingles vaccine is only 60% effective. Don't ask me how I know.
> >
> > I'm not one to say, well it doesn't work 100% so I won't get the
> > vaccine. I'm hoping whatever effectiveness it has works it's miracle
> > on me if/when I ever come down with shingles.
> >
> >
>
> I probably had a much lighter case because of the vaccine.

I wish Julie could understand that point whooping cough!


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:02:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "sf" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
> > >> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
> > >> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
> > >
> > > The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help diminish
> > > the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
> > > against.
> >
> > Or in my case, it will make me very ill. The problem with the flu vaccine
> > is that it might not contain the strain of whatever is going around that
> > year.
>
> You're allergic to eggs, so you won't do it unless you're willing to
> put up with however the egg allergy makes you feel.

Can't you get an egg-free version there?
We just got our flu shots yesterday, have never had any side effects
at all.

Janet UK

On 10/30/2014 5:27 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

> I thought the idea of it working its miracle on you is that you don't
> come down with it. I have heard horror stories about shingles.
> Apparently the shot is quite expensive and, as per Janet's experience,
> far short of 100% effective.
>

I paid $95 for the shot. Having seen a couple of people that had
shingles. I was willing to invest even if only a 70% chance,

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:02:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that
>> >> the
>> >> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could
>> >> have
>> >> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>> >
>> > The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help diminish
>> > the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
>> > against.
>>
>> Or in my case, it will make me very ill. The problem with the flu
>> vaccine
>> is that it might not contain the strain of whatever is going around that
>> year.
>
> You're allergic to eggs, so you won't do it unless you're willing to
> put up with however the egg allergy makes you feel. I'm willing to
> get my vaccination hoping it will help me fight off one of the three
> included strains out of the possible hundreds I may come into contact
> with.

I am not willing to put up with that. Having the flu would be better!

"Janet" > wrote in message
t...
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:02:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "sf" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >>
>> > >> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that
>> > >> the
>> > >> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could
>> > >> have
>> > >> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>> > >
>> > > The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help
>> > > diminish
>> > > the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
>> > > against.
>> >
>> > Or in my case, it will make me very ill. The problem with the flu
>> > vaccine
>> > is that it might not contain the strain of whatever is going around
>> > that
>> > year.
>>
>> You're allergic to eggs, so you won't do it unless you're willing to
>> put up with however the egg allergy makes you feel.
>
> Can't you get an egg-free version there?
> We just got our flu shots yesterday, have never had any side effects
> at all.

There is a nasal kind that is free of eggs but it's not for people over 50.
Not sure why.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:56:08 -0500, Janet Wilder >
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/2014 4:19 PM, sf wrote:
>> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:46:07 -0500, Janet Wilder >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 10/30/2014 11:15 AM, sf wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> >>> > wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could
>> >>>> have
>> >>>> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>> >>>
>> >>> The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help
>> >>> diminish
>> >>> the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
>> >>> against.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> The shingles vaccine is only 60% effective. Don't ask me how I know.
>> >
>> > I'm not one to say, well it doesn't work 100% so I won't get the
>> > vaccine. I'm hoping whatever effectiveness it has works it's miracle
>> > on me if/when I ever come down with shingles.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> I probably had a much lighter case because of the vaccine.
>
> I wish Julie could understand that point whooping cough!

Well if hers was a lighter case then I wouldn't want to see a full blown
one! She would just keep coughing until she threw up and many times I had
to check on her to see if she was still breathing.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:44:45 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 17:56:08 -0500, Janet Wilder >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/30/2014 4:19 PM, sf wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:46:07 -0500, Janet Wilder >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 10/30/2014 11:15 AM, sf wrote:
> >> >>> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> >> >>> > wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that
> >> >>>> the
> >> >>>> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could
> >> >>>> have
> >> >>>> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help
> >> >>> diminish
> >> >>> the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
> >> >>> against.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> The shingles vaccine is only 60% effective. Don't ask me how I know.
> >> >
> >> > I'm not one to say, well it doesn't work 100% so I won't get the
> >> > vaccine. I'm hoping whatever effectiveness it has works it's miracle
> >> > on me if/when I ever come down with shingles.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> I probably had a much lighter case because of the vaccine.
> >
> > I wish Julie could understand that point whooping cough!
>
> Well if hers was a lighter case then I wouldn't want to see a full blown
> one! She would just keep coughing until she threw up and many times I had
> to check on her to see if she was still breathing.

I think you're lucky if all that happened was she threw up.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Fri, 31 Oct 2014 01:46:05 -0000, Janet > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:02:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "sf" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that the
> > > >> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could have
> > > >> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
> > > >
> > > > The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help diminish
> > > > the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
> > > > against.
> > >
> > > Or in my case, it will make me very ill. The problem with the flu vaccine
> > > is that it might not contain the strain of whatever is going around that
> > > year.
> >
> > You're allergic to eggs, so you won't do it unless you're willing to
> > put up with however the egg allergy makes you feel.
>
> Can't you get an egg-free version there?
> We just got our flu shots yesterday, have never had any side effects
> at all.
>
No idea and don't care because I don't have an egg allergy. We sign a
waver that says we understand what happens if we take the vaccine -
which was cultured in egg.



--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:41:38 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:02:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "sf" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that
> >> >> the
> >> >> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could
> >> >> have
> >> >> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
> >> >
> >> > The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help diminish
> >> > the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
> >> > against.
> >>
> >> Or in my case, it will make me very ill. The problem with the flu
> >> vaccine
> >> is that it might not contain the strain of whatever is going around that
> >> year.
> >
> > You're allergic to eggs, so you won't do it unless you're willing to
> > put up with however the egg allergy makes you feel. I'm willing to
> > get my vaccination hoping it will help me fight off one of the three
> > included strains out of the possible hundreds I may come into contact
> > with.
>
> I am not willing to put up with that. Having the flu would be better!

It's up to you. Take the chance and die as a result.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:41:38 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 14:02:51 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> "sf" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > On Thu, 30 Oct 2014 00:58:37 -0700, "Julie Bove"
>> >> > > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How in the world can you say that? The Dr. said they now know that
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> vaccine isn't very effective. She still got sick. She still could
>> >> >> have
>> >> >> died. I didn't improve her chances of anything!
>> >> >
>> >> > The flu vaccine isn't 100% effective either, but it will help
>> >> > diminish
>> >> > the effect of the flu if you do get one that you were vaccinated
>> >> > against.
>> >>
>> >> Or in my case, it will make me very ill. The problem with the flu
>> >> vaccine
>> >> is that it might not contain the strain of whatever is going around
>> >> that
>> >> year.
>> >
>> > You're allergic to eggs, so you won't do it unless you're willing to
>> > put up with however the egg allergy makes you feel. I'm willing to
>> > get my vaccination hoping it will help me fight off one of the three
>> > included strains out of the possible hundreds I may come into contact
>> > with.
>>
>> I am not willing to put up with that. Having the flu would be better!
>
> It's up to you. Take the chance and die as a result.

Well seeing as how I haven't had a cold or the flu for years... I will!
I'm only going to live another 1.5 years anyhoo. A Facebook quiz
told me so!