snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Medical

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05 January 2007, 05:50 AM
Sister Ray's Avatar
Sister Ray Sister Ray is offline
 
Join Date: 03 July 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,974
Flame

The flu is a respitory virus. So there's really no such thing as "stomach flu" but people claim they get that after the vaccine.

I won't get into the nuttiness that people get into about vaccines. I'll just say the only illness that is gone today - entirely - is the one that we put the most effort into vaccinating for.

Sister "and vaccine is stockpiled in case it becomes a bioweapon" Ray
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05 January 2007, 08:28 AM
Lady Neeva
 
Posts: n/a
Default

And that goes to show that the point I was attempting (and failing!) to make is valid -- when someone delves into tinfoil hat land in one statement, it's difficult to believe the next statement.

Although the AIDS one makes sense... probably if I'd paused for a minute to re-read my post I'd of realized that one was pretty much a "duh" moment -- something that impacts the immune system obviously would result in an infected individual getting more infections.

The flu one I didn't know for sure though, because how can you trust anyone who repeatedly told her class that premarital sex causes cancer? I could almost see promiscuous sex resulting in diseases which may damage cells enough that cancer becomes a possibility, but premarital? What changes about sex after you're married?

Sorry I didn't make my statement clearer... I'm on the tag end of an insomnia jag *and* have a mild yet still distracting migraine, so my words don't fit together as well as I'd like. Actually, thats *usually* when I post... the rest of the time I always determine that I don't really have anything all that important to add lol.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05 January 2007, 03:58 PM
MegansMom's Avatar
MegansMom MegansMom is offline
 
Join Date: 13 January 2006
Location: Waldorf, MD
Posts: 1,009
Shifty Eyes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Neeva View Post
The flu one I didn't know for sure though, because how can you trust anyone who repeatedly told her class that premarital sex causes cancer? I could almost see promiscuous sex resulting in diseases which may damage cells enough that cancer becomes a possibility, but premarital? What changes about sex after you're married?
Not to add to the, um, tinfoilage but... It is true that the HPV (human papilloma virus) can cause cervical cancer (CDC cite). However, it is only a small portion of women infected with a persistent form of HPV who will develop cancer. Additionally, that is only one of many forms of cervical cancer. Many women who develop cervical cancer have not been exposed to the virus. I couldn't find any studies on the pre-marital/marital status of women with HPV-linked cervical cancer, so can't say for sure what the ratio might be, but, possibly, the instances of "promiscuity" are higher with pre-marital sex and therefore would put a woman at a higher risk of infection.

The problem with "tinfoilage" in general is that there usually is some small grain of truth somewhere in the weirdness. It's just hard to find and hard to believe due to the insanity that surrounds it.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05 January 2007, 04:06 PM
Johnny Slick's Avatar
Johnny Slick Johnny Slick is offline
 
Join Date: 13 February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,628
Icon95

Actually, these kinds of posts are generally heavy in 'truth' in the Nietzschean "things my paradigm thinks are true" sense. They can be completely devoid of 'truth' in the "things that actually have some sort of factual basis" sense, but that's not how most people think about things.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05 January 2007, 04:24 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 67,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MegansMom View Post
Not to add to the, um, tinfoilage but... It is true that the HPV (human papilloma virus) can cause cervical cancer (CDC cite). However, it is only a small portion of women infected with a persistent form of HPV who will develop cancer. Additionally, that is only one of many forms of cervical cancer. Many women who develop cervical cancer have not been exposed to the virus. I couldn't find any studies on the pre-marital/marital status of women with HPV-linked cervical cancer, so can't say for sure what the ratio might be, but, possibly, the instances of "promiscuity" are higher with pre-marital sex and therefore would put a woman at a higher risk of infection.
The link between promiscuity and increased rates of cervical cancer was, IIRC, recognized years before the link between HPV and some forms of cervical cancer. Some pro-abstinence folks have been treating "sex outside marriage" and "promiscuity" as synonyms for, well, forever.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05 January 2007, 04:36 PM
Der Jägermeister
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
Refused what shots? It's news to me that flu shots were available in 1918. Or are they suggesting that vaccinations for other diseases weakend resistance to the flu? How common were vaccinations for any disease in 1918?
--->I get a date of 1945 from the National Network for Immunization Information. [tinfoil]If you can believe their obvious pro-immunization propaganda.[/tinfoil]

http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vacc...etail.cfv?id=6

--->Shane
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05 January 2007, 04:37 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 12,716
Icon19

Quote:
Originally Posted by KathyB View Post
"Elanor McBean" is no doubt Eleanor McBean. She has some interesting theories about vaccines. "Many vaccines also cause other diseases besides the one for which they are given. For instance, smallpox vaccine often causes syphilis,.

Is that why syphilis is known as the pox in some circles?

Hastings: You can get flu shots in the USA. I usually see ads for them around the beginning of October.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the first flu shots sometime in the late 70s? I remember the first ones having horrid complications, but IIRC the formulation was changed so complications haven't been a problem for many years. (I'm going by memory here, so correct if needed).
And what does weather have to do with the flu? I once had a hellacious case of the flu in May of all months.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05 January 2007, 04:43 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 67,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DawnStorm View Post
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the first flu shots sometime in the late 70s? I remember the first ones having horrid complications, but IIRC the formulation was changed so complications haven't been a problem for many years. (I'm going by memory here, so correct if needed).
I think you're remembering the Swine Flu vaccination fiasco. U.S. Swine Flu Scare of 1976.

Quote:
And what does weather have to do with the flu? I once had a hellacious case of the flu in May of all months.
More people get the flu during cold weather than during warm weather, which is why people speak of the "flu season," and why flu shots are given in autumn.

Quote:
It remains unclear why outbreaks of the flu occur seasonally rather than uniformly throughout the year. One possible explanation is that, because people are indoors more often during the winter, they are in close contact more often, and this promotes transmission from person to person. Another is that cold temperatures lead to drier air, which may dehydrate mucus, preventing the body from effectively expelling virus particles. The virus may also linger longer on exposed surfaces (doorknobs, countertops, etc.) in colder temperatures. Increased travel and visitation due to the holiday season may also play a role.[3]
from Wikipedia
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05 January 2007, 05:04 PM
BlushingBride's Avatar
BlushingBride BlushingBride is offline
 
Join Date: 26 August 2005
Location: Arlington, TX
Posts: 2,378
Default

Well, anecdotally, I've never had the flu before. This year, DH insisted I get a shot just in case. And about a month later, I had a horrible case of the flu. (Doctor confirmed.)

But I'd call it more of an unfortunate coincidence than a causal relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05 January 2007, 05:51 PM
rhiandmoi's Avatar
rhiandmoi rhiandmoi is offline
 
Join Date: 27 July 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 12,735
Default

A related story: Outbreak scare closes R.I. Schools
Quote:
CRANSTON, R.I. -- Rhode Island officials canceled school Thursday and Friday for more than 20,000 students because of a suspected case of meningitis and the death of a 2nd grader from encephalitis.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 06 January 2007, 01:03 AM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 12,716
Icon220

[QUOTE=Lainie;8692]I think you're remembering the Swine Flu vaccination fiasco. U.S. Swine Flu Scare of 1976.



That's the one! Thanks Lainie!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 06 January 2007, 01:16 AM
Koshka
 
Posts: n/a
Hello Kitty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
Refused what shots? It's news to me that flu shots were available in 1918.
Remind me to get back here once I get home and have access to my books, OK?

Working from memory, once the "Spanish" flu started seriously killing people, there were all sorts of shots and sera being promoted by one doctor or another as preventing the flu. All of them were produced under the assumption that influenza was caused by a bacterium (I think it's hemophilus influenzae, but could easily be wrong or misspelling). I suppose some dead virus could have gotten in a batch of "vaccine" and actually done something ... but who knows? All I know is that in 1918, influenza wasn't a reportable disease, so why would anyone worry about giving a vaccine for it?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 16 January 2007, 05:59 PM
matches
 
Posts: n/a
Soapbox 24 Flus

With regard to the notion that the flu is actually food poisoning. I have heard this theory proposed, but only with regard to the 24 flu, as no virus has ever been found for a 24 hour flu, and the symptoms described are very similar to food poisoning, and usually last for only a short time if the case is mild enough to avoid seeing a doctor.

As to opportunistic infections killing people off with AIDS, that used to be true, but recently people have lived long enough to die of the HIV infection itself and not a secondary infection.

Thirdly, as I had always heard it. The actual flu is exceedingly rare in the industrialized world. What we normally think of as the flu is actually a cold, and is just a minor respatory infection.

Actual flu is a pretty rough desease making some one nearly unable to function while they are infected, and with the ability to kill those who are weak to begining with (the elderly, babies, and those with compromised immune systems).

When you call in sick with the flu, and drag your sick but to the kitchen, make chicekn soup, watch tv, maybe head outside after five, or take in a movie, you probably didn't have the flu.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 17 January 2007, 06:28 PM
EeyoreCorbie
 
Posts: n/a
Shifty Eyes

One of the interesting things about the 1918 epidemic was who it killed. Normaly it's the elderly and the young who get hit hardest, but during that one it was the seemingly healthy adults that died. Of course this was happening during a war and all those men stuck in trenches really helped pass it along. But, even in cities the healthy dying quickly was common.

This is one of my Dad's favorite topics, quickly followed by "The next pandemic is coming and we're all going to die!!!" My Dad is in charge of infection control for a hospital so he may be paraniod.

But I don't think so.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 18 January 2007, 03:56 AM
Sister Ray's Avatar
Sister Ray Sister Ray is offline
 
Join Date: 03 July 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,974
Icon215

Quote:
Originally Posted by EeyoreCorbie View Post
One of the interesting things about the 1918 epidemic was who it killed. Normaly it's the elderly and the young who get hit hardest, but during that one it was the seemingly healthy adults that died. Of course this was happening during a war and all those men stuck in trenches really helped pass it along. But, even in cities the healthy dying quickly was common.

This is one of my Dad's favorite topics, quickly followed by "The next pandemic is coming and we're all going to die!!!" My Dad is in charge of infection control for a hospital so he may be paraniod.

But I don't think so.
Likely it was a stronger strain. That is the reason it became an epidemic instead of being another disease that picked off the least resistant.

About the next pandemic, I remember a class where students named irrational fears, and one girl said ebola. I commented she didn't need to fear it. When questioned, I pointed out ebola kills so quickly that it usually does not have much time to spread, unlike a virus that takes longer to incubate. I then said smallpox was something to fear, provided it ever was released in the wild again.

Sister "did I mention how grateful I am to vaccines?" Ray
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 18 January 2007, 03:12 PM
DawnStorm's Avatar
DawnStorm DawnStorm is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2003
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 12,716
Default

The book The Great Influenza (might have title wrong) is an excellent account of the 1918-19 pandemic and the history of medical education in the US prior to WW1.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 22 January 2007, 02:49 PM
bjohn13
 
Posts: n/a
Default

some more anectdotal evidence:

My mother has chohn's, and, as a result, is considered high risk for influenza. Her doctor recommends a flu shot every year. She's been doing this since about 1993 or so, and every time she gets a flu shot, she ends up battling a bout of the flu and missing a couple of days of work. About three years ago, she got tired of this cycle and elected not to get her flu shot. She didn't get the flu that winter. She elected to forgo it again the next winter, and that winter she did get the flu. Her doctor hospitalized her with what he called "influenza-like symptoms", but her hospital stay was prolonged by a bout with pneumonia that was likely provoked by the influenza. After throwing in some complications with her chrohn's that also were likely provoked by her bout with influenza, she ended up in the hospital for six weeks (three weeks in, two weeks out, three more weeks in). She takes her flu shot every winter now, and she saves up sick days for the time she will miss from work because of it. All I can say is, it must be a terrible feeling knowing that you have to go into the doctor to get a shot that will make you sick once a year.

b "it's not the needle that scares me" john13
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 22 January 2007, 03:25 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 67,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koshka View Post
Remind me to get back here once I get home and have access to my books, OK?

Working from memory, once the "Spanish" flu started seriously killing people, there were all sorts of shots and sera being promoted by one doctor or another as preventing the flu. All of them were produced under the assumption that influenza was caused by a bacterium (I think it's hemophilus influenzae, but could easily be wrong or misspelling). I suppose some dead virus could have gotten in a batch of "vaccine" and actually done something ... but who knows? All I know is that in 1918, influenza wasn't a reportable disease, so why would anyone worry about giving a vaccine for it?
Not to mention the silliness of comparing modern flu shots to the useless (if not worse) shots promoted as flu prevention by random doctors in 1918.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 21 September 2007, 06:04 PM
Robigus
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EeyoreCorbie View Post
One of the interesting things about the 1918 epidemic was who it killed. Normaly it's the elderly and the young who get hit hardest, but during that one it was the seemingly healthy adults that died. Of course this was happening during a war and all those men stuck in trenches really helped pass it along. But, even in cities the healthy dying quickly was common.
I apologize for dragging such an old subject back to the forefront, but this was something that caught my eye due to recent news stories. It seems that one of the reasons the 1918 epidemic killed so differently was because of something called a Cytokine storm. It causes your own immune system to run out of control and kill you instead of protecting you. It also seems to be a key factor in SARS and avian flu.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.