flu pandemic in early 1900s - - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-06-2006, 07:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
aisraeltax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: never never land & CPP
Posts: 5,227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
in which 300,000 AMERICANS died? (from the flu)

is this true?
aisraeltax is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-06-2006, 07:37 PM
 
angelpie545's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Near water, with a refreshing rain
Posts: 6,466
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic suppousedly killed millions.

Bethany, crunchy Christian mom to Destiny (11) Deanna (9), and Ethan (2)

angelpie545 is offline  
Old 09-06-2006, 07:44 PM
 
LongIsland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 10,813
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I heard it was from 500,000 to 675,000.
I don't think anyone really knows the real number.

Besides, we're talking about overall living and sanitary conditions from 100 years ago, not to mention the crappy hospital conditions compared to today.
That sort of mortality rate would never happen in the U.S. today. However, the Spanish Flu is an effective scaremongering/marketing tool for pharma and the CDC.
LongIsland is offline  
Old 09-06-2006, 07:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
aisraeltax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: never never land & CPP
Posts: 5,227
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
LI, im rarely quick enough to read your posts before the edits!

thanks! as is obvious, i am being inundated with pro-vax crap right now.
aisraeltax is offline  
Old 09-06-2006, 10:23 PM
 
Qestia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,980
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think we're talking about the same one documented in the book "the great influenza" by John Barry. I read that last year. My take away was that its spread was largely due to conditions in the world at the time--which is to say, WWI. You had all these young men crowded into unheated tents/barracks, no good place to treat them when they became ill, yes they died in large numbers. I would highly recommend the book. He really goes into detail about the type of living conditions and how it facilitated the spread of disease.

Mom to DS 5/05 and DD 9/08
Qestia is offline  
Old 09-06-2006, 10:26 PM
 
zinemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: from the fire roads to the interstate
Posts: 6,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I second that book recommendation. Also really fascinating for the historical perspective on medical science of the time.

Yes, millions died. And the majority of them were young, healthy people, not the old and infirm who typically die of flu these days.
zinemama is offline  
Old 09-06-2006, 10:51 PM
 
kittywitty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Room of Requirement
Posts: 13,061
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Yeah, you are talking about back in the "old days". Read a book on the evolution of medical treatment and you can see how someone could die of a hangnail. Not trying to be snarky, it really is creepy.

Plus with sanitation, and an increase in world travel, it shouldn't be surprising. Flu is still a leading cause of death, I believe, but it mostly hits the elderly and those with weak immune systems.

AP Mom to 5 knit.gifhomeschool.giftoddler.gif
 
  

kittywitty is offline  
Old 09-06-2006, 11:16 PM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
even more interesting is when you go back into medical history how DOCTORS were touting smoking to cure asthma, and breathing disorders, and medical journals back then are one of the best ways to find out about the snake-oil purveyors.

I was staggered when I read what many doctors did in those days, with impunity, and then had the gall to suggest legislation to get rid of the natural practitioners because they were a menace to patients.



The more you read, and the more you understand, the more you wonder how it was that once, all of us got sucked into believing so much nonsense.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
Old 09-06-2006, 11:21 PM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I knew a guy in college whose mom died of the flu - an otherwise perfectly healthy woman in her 30's. Everything that has been posted re the 1918 pandemic is true to my knowledge BUT it was an incredibly nasty strain and regardless of better hygienic practices today I still think a similar strain would kill many young, healthy people.

Luckily most flu strains are not that deadly and people with strong immune systems are not likely to die from them. I once got the flu twice in one year (lucky me) and it sucked soooooooooo bad...but I have still never gotten the flu shot since I got it once in college and felt icky for the next few days. If they knew precisely which strains to vax for I might feel differently, but it just seems like a crapshoot...up to now I've always just taken my chances. And I very rarely do get the flu.
Nora'sMama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 01:10 AM
 
barefoot mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This flu arrived at exactly the same point that asprin did. So it was the up and coming medicine at the time. The first thing all the hospitals and doctors did for their patients was give them asprin. And what did all these people die from? Bleeding in the lungs=Rye's Syndrome.

Hospitals and doctors who did not use asprin (mostly homeopaths) had a mortality rate of 1 or 2%. The other doctors and hospitals had a mortality rate of 40% to 60% and often even higher.

This is why this particular flu seemed to target the healthy young adults. They didn't want to give a drug that was too new to elderly people or children or those that had compromised health. Also why people would get up and go to work and die while they were there. Asprin.

Something to think about. I'm not saying this is the cause of all evils, it's just that there are so many variables that people forget to look at and they think they can fix everything with a stupid shot:
barefoot mama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 01:18 AM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefoot mama
This flu arrived at exactly the same point that asprin did. So it was the up and coming medicine at the time. The first thing all the hospitals and doctors did for their patients was give them asprin. And what did all these people die from? Bleeding in the lungs=Rye's Syndrome.

Hospitals and doctors who did not use asprin (mostly homeopaths) had a mortality rate of 1 or 2%. The other doctors and hospitals had a mortality rate of 40% to 60% and often even higher.

This is why this particular flu seemed to target the healthy young adults. They didn't want to give a drug that was too new to elderly people or children or those that had compromised health. Also why people would get up and go to work and die while they were there. Asprin.

Something to think about. I'm not saying this is the cause of all evils, it's just that there are so many variables that people forget to look at and they think they can fix everything with a stupid shot:
Can you cite your sources? Especially the source for the death rate of patients treated without aspirin? I've never heard of this!

Aspirin causes Reye's Syndrome primarily in children (my ex-boyfriend got it as a child), it is not always deadly, and most children who take aspirin (and the vast vast majority of adults who take it, as well, of course!) will NOT develop the syndrome. So what you say doesn't make too much sense to me. 40-60% of flu patients developing Reye's Syndrome and dying from THAT, not the flu? :
Nora'sMama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 01:30 AM
 
barefoot mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sandra Perko

The Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza

http://www.homeopathic.com/Merchant2...t_Code=per-inf

She believes that this particular strain of the flu just happened to react very poorly to asprin. She has tons of documentation in the book to back up those numbers. I have read an older edition, not this most recent one, but I imagine all the info is still there.

I am a diehard homeopath, so I loved this book.
barefoot mama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 01:30 AM
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Why would a virus want to destroy its host? I've only come across a few doctors over the years that disagreed with the mass conditioning that viruses are out to get us. It never made sense to me either. The internal drive of life is survival and viruses strengthen the host, such as chicken pox and measles, unless the host is in a very compromised state. Anyhow, the point is I don't believe there was a Spanish Flu, anymore than there was a Hong Kong, Asian, swine or is a bird flu. When those young men were surving their country they were guinea pigs and forced consumers of vaccines, just like the Gulf War Syndrome sufferers. The people at home were scared by the supposed horrific foreign diseases the young soldiers were returning with and the largest vaccination program in history (up to that point) was underway. Typhoid, diptheria and whatever else they could come up with were shot straight into millions.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 01:30 AM
 
zinemama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: from the fire roads to the interstate
Posts: 6,298
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefoot mama
This flu arrived at exactly the same point that asprin did. So it was the up and coming medicine at the time. The first thing all the hospitals and doctors did for their patients was give them asprin. And what did all these people die from? Bleeding in the lungs=Rye's Syndrome.

Hospitals and doctors who did not use asprin (mostly homeopaths) had a mortality rate of 1 or 2%. The other doctors and hospitals had a mortality rate of 40% to 60% and often even higher.

This is why this particular flu seemed to target the healthy young adults. They didn't want to give a drug that was too new to elderly people or children or those that had compromised health. Also why people would get up and go to work and die while they were there. Asprin.

Something to think about. I'm not saying this is the cause of all evils, it's just that there are so many variables that people forget to look at and they think they can fix everything with a stupid shot:
That's not how The Great Influenza documents it. Healthy people would keel over with no warning and be dead in hours. No time for aspirin. Not saying that this never happened, but I haven't heard that Rye's Syndrome caused significant deaths in the 1918 pandemic.
zinemama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 01:43 AM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefoot mama
Sandra Perko

The Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza

http://www.homeopathic.com/Merchant2...t_Code=per-inf

She believes that this particular strain of the flu just happened to react very poorly to asprin. She has tons of documentation in the book to back up those numbers. I have read an older edition, not this most recent one, but I imagine all the info is still there.

I am a diehard homeopath, so I loved this book.
The link didn't talk about aspirin...but it did feature this paragraph:

"In the fall of the year 1918 the whole world witnessed the most devastating influenza plague to ever befall mankind. The Spanish Influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 is called "one of the three most destructive outbreaks of disease the human race has ever known," and rivals the Plague of Justinian of 542 A.D., and the Bubonic Plague of 1347-1350. While it took a full four years for the fourteenth-century Bubonic Plague to spread across Europe, and then throughout Asia, the 1918 Spanish Flu circled the globe in little more than four short months. In so doing it took the lives of 20 to 50 million people worldwide, and it sickened fifty times that number."

I am just very skeptical that aspirin was actually the cause of 20 to 50 million deaths!
Nora'sMama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 01:52 AM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scattershoot
Why would a virus want to destroy its host? I've only come across a few doctors over the years that disagreed with the mass conditioning that viruses are out to get us. It never made sense to me either. The internal drive of life is survival and viruses strengthen the host, such as chicken pox and measles, unless the host is in a very compromised state. Anyhow, the point is I don't believe there was a Spanish Flu, anymore than there was a Hong Kong, Asian, swine or is a bird flu. When those young men were surving their country they were guinea pigs and forced consumers of vaccines, just like the Gulf War Syndrome sufferers. The people at home were scared by the supposed horrific foreign diseases the young soldiers were returning with and the largest vaccination program in history (up to that point) was underway. Typhoid, diptheria and whatever else they could come up with were shot straight into millions.
I can think of many viruses that destroy their hosts...let's think about an extreme case, Ebola. The way Ebola spreads is through infected bodily fluids. So it is to the advantage of the virus to make the host bleed profusely (eventually causing death) so as to spread the infected blood and infect more hosts.

The purpose of a virus is to survive...if the death of one host means that 5 more hosts can be infected, then the death of the host is not a threat to the virus. As long as the virus can infect new hosts, it doesn't "care" whether the original host dies or not!

Sometimes I think this board has a rather naive view of disease: if we all ate mineral-rich diets and took sodium ascorbate in the proper doses, nothing would kill us. :

The truth is that healthy, well-nourished, non-immunocompromised people DO die from viruses. It depends far more on whether you are exposed to a deadly virus than whether you are appropriately healthy when you meet this virus.

Obviously healthier people survive more frequently. But they don't always survive. And we don't have all the answers as to why some people pull through or have only mild symptoms when exposed to potentially deadly viruses, and some people die.

Think about AIDS. Some people are exposed and don't get the virus. Some people have measurable amounts of HiV in their bodies and never get symptoms. I have read a bit about this and it doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason...it's some quirk of people's physiology. But, without treatment, the VAST majority of people who have measurable amounts of HiV in their systems will eventually die of AIDS. (No matter how much sodium ascorbate they take.) That is why there is an AIDS crisis in Africa - not because of dirty water or poor hygiene. The disease is not being prevented from spreading and there are not adequate resources to treat it.

And the same reasons caused the deaths in the flu pandemic in 1918. Not aspirin.
Nora'sMama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:01 AM
 
Momtezuma Tuatara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,461
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Aspirin was not a significant or even an insignificant contribution to the 1918 flu epidemic.

And I think its very sad if Sandra wrote that.

“I want to sell drugs to everyone. I want to sell drugs to healthy people. I want drugs to sell like chewing gum.” former Merck CEO, Henry Gadsden

Momtezuma Tuatara is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:02 AM
 
barefoot mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nora'sMama
The link didn't talk about aspirin...but it did feature this paragraph:

"In the fall of the year 1918 the whole world witnessed the most devastating influenza plague to ever befall mankind. The Spanish Influenza pandemic of 1918-1919 is called "one of the three most destructive outbreaks of disease the human race has ever known," and rivals the Plague of Justinian of 542 A.D., and the Bubonic Plague of 1347-1350. While it took a full four years for the fourteenth-century Bubonic Plague to spread across Europe, and then throughout Asia, the 1918 Spanish Flu circled the globe in little more than four short months. In so doing it took the lives of 20 to 50 million people worldwide, and it sickened fifty times that number."

I am just very skeptical that aspirin was actually the cause of 20 to 50 million deaths!
I have no doubt that poor living conditions had much to do with it as well. But in what we consider to be the more developed areas of the world, it surely played a huge role.

That link was just meant to show you the book, I guess. I doubt that she's got all the info in there out on the internet.
barefoot mama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:04 AM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here is the Wikipedia link to Reye's Syndrome, with cites.

No causal link has been made between aspirin and Reye's Syndrome...based on somewhat doubtful epidemiological data, there is a theory that giving aspirin for fever-based illnesses in children may raise the risk.

I hardly think that this tenuous link could be responsible for the deaths of the 1918 flu pandemic! I mean, let's step back for a second. Which scenario is more plausible?

Scenario A - there is a particularly virulent strain of the flu that spreads quickly and does not respond well to treatment (it kills too quickly to be treated at all in many cases). It whips through the world and kills on an unprecedented scale.

Scenario B - there is a particularly virulent strain of the flu that doctors worldwide treat with aspirin. 20 to 50 million people die after developing Reye's Syndrome, which may be associated with giving aspirin to children with the flu. The flu itself is not responsible for their deaths, but the treatment, even though there is NO epidemiological link between aspirin and Reye's Syndrome in adults.

I don't think that the traditional narrative of the 1918 pandemic, which is along the lines of Scenario A, is some conspiracy. It's by far the more plausible (in fact - provable) explanation - the contortions of logic that would be required to believe Scenario B make me a little : !

However, I do not doubt out of hand that an effective homeopathic treatment was developed for the flu. That's a separate issue. I know nothing about homeopathy, so I can't evaluate this claim without learning more.
Nora'sMama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:06 AM
 
barefoot mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zinemama
That's not how The Great Influenza documents it. Healthy people would keel over with no warning and be dead in hours. No time for aspirin. Not saying that this never happened, but I haven't heard that Rye's Syndrome caused significant deaths in the 1918 pandemic.
Asprin was a wonder drug. People took it on their way out the door to help them get through their day if they felt a bit under the weather. So why couldn't it cause a previously healthy person to keel over?

Reye's Syndrome hadn't been named yet.
barefoot mama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:09 AM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Here's another site with a bibliography you can actually look at. It's from Stanford.

A quote:

"The effect of the influenza epidemic was so severe that the average life span in the US was depressed by 10 years. The influenza virus had a profound virulence, with a mortality rate at 2.5% compared to the previous influenza epidemics, which were less than 0.1%. The death rate for 15 to 34-year-olds of influenza and pneumonia were 20 times higher in 1918 than in previous years (Taubenberger). People were struck with illness on the street and died rapid deaths. One anectode shared of 1918 was of four women playing bridge together late into the night. Overnight, three of the women died from influenza (Hoagg). Others told stories of people on their way to work suddenly developing the flu and dying within hours (Henig)."

People died before they could even get to a doctor!
Nora'sMama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:12 AM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefoot mama
Asprin was a wonder drug. People took it on their way out the door to help them get through their day if they felt a bit under the weather. So why couldn't it cause a previously healthy person to keel over?

Reye's Syndrome hadn't been named yet.
So, your position is that aspirin caused 20 to 50 million people to "keel over"?

I find that kind of strange!

Again, do you have any citations? Why isn't this known? Did the aspirin manufacturers shut the story down worldwide?

Edited to add: ah, don't bother. I'm not looking to get into an argument. I'm sticking to my belief that what killed millions of people in 1918 was a virus, not aspirin, but I respect that you have looked at the evidence and believe differently! (shake hands? )
Nora'sMama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:16 AM
 
barefoot mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I happen to be of the opinion that medical treatment causes far more deaths than any disease (not saying that diseases never cause death). So maybe that's why the asprin thing sounds plausible to me. And why I'd rather get information from a homeopath than mainstream "scientists".

And for pete's sake, I was just putting it out there as a possible explaination. How can anyone here say it's wrong? Especially without reading the book and looking at the evidence presented?
barefoot mama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:24 AM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefoot mama
I happen to be of the opinion that medical treatment causes far more deaths than any disease (not saying that diseases never cause death). So maybe that's why the asprin thing sounds plausible to me. And why I'd rather get information from a homeopath than mainstream "scientists".

And for pete's sake, I was just putting it out there as a possible explaination. How can anyone here say it's wrong? Especially without reading the book and looking at the evidence presented?
Well, I said it doesn't seem plausible, which is a little different from saying it is outright wrong. But...I have many citations to back up my opinion, and unless I buy the book I can't seem to find any support for the alternative view.

Actually, I'm also of the opinion that medical treatment kills far too many people...I don't know if I'd go as far as to say more than disease itself, but far too many people. But it isn't either/or, black or white. It is often harmful but sometimes neutral and occasionally helpful.

IMO the flu pandemic could'nt have had too much to do with treatment because it spread and killed too fast for treatment to be involved at all in most cases. BUT even if the treatment exacerbated the morbidity and mortality of the virus, the virus was still a killer. I'm sure you agree! I mean, people dropping dead in the streets...that's very scary.

Anyway, I think it's good to question things but I certainly don't discount something someone claims just because of who they are (a naturopath, a homeopathic practitioner, a scientist) - I look at their evidence and evaluate their claims - both the factual evidence they marshall in support of their claims and the logic they use in explaining their conclusions. I can't look at the linked author's evidence because she hasn't provided any on the link I looked at...but if you do want to keep discussing this, since you have the book, you could type out quotes that support her hypothesis. It's a rather fantastic claim (which is not, I noted, made on the website advertising the book) and I'd be interested to see what evidence she has in support of it.
Nora'sMama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:33 AM
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
If we were two ask too different people what is AIDS, we would likely hear, "It is caused by a virus called HIV. People pick up through sexual contact or through blood contact. It originally attacked homosexuals but has crossed into the heterosexual community. It is very deadly but sometimes takes years to kill." I could go on, but that's pretty standard. Here's the interesting part. Two totally separate individuals with no contact with one another say almost the exact same thing. Think about that.

What if AIDS was not causes by a virus? What if what we thought we knew was a contrived, manipulated reality?

A man takes nitrates (poppers) on a nightly basis while on the dance floor with his partner for the evening. He accidently drops some on his leg and it burns into his skin, but he doesn't stop inhaling. He takes loads of antibiotics to fight off the STD's he is dealing with. Corticosteroids come in handy as well. He gets very run down. He goes to the doctor. After a test that shows antibodies have formed to fight intruders, he is told he has AIDS. He psychologically shuts down. He starts taking medicine that has a skull and crossbones on the label because it is known to destroy the DNA. His body starts to wither away from constant diarrhea and vomiting. He dies.

The man who discovers the "AIDS virus" announces the discovery the very same day his patent goes through that tests for the so-called "AIDS virus."

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:36 AM
 
barefoot mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,451
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
[QUOTE=Nora'sMama]Well, I said it doesn't seem plausible, which is a little different from saying it is outright wrong. But...I have many citations to back up my opinion, and unless I buy the book I can't seem to find any support for the alternative view.


I actually would like to type out quotes, but I don't have the book in my house at the moment. It is being borrowed by a friend.

You didn't say it was outright wrong, but others did. And I really stink at having debates anyway. This all totally took me by surprise.
barefoot mama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:39 AM
 
insider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 544
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scattershoot
Why would a virus want to destroy its host?
I think this is a good question to pose. Natural selection forces most viruses to evolve toward low mortality and decreased severity because it is an excellent survival strategy: the strains that incapacitate the host the least get more opportunities to spread (i.e. if you're not sick enough to miss work your virus gets to infect more people) and they therefore outcompete the more virulent strains. A dead host ceases to be a viral reservoir.

Anyway, this sort of goes along with the more banal explanation of why the 1918 strain of influenza had its highest mortality in the 20-40 age group - the virus was specifically adapted to 20-40 year olds because it evolved specifically in that age group. Recent research indicates that the 1918 strain originated in the trenches of World War I. A stagnant population of human stock does not put much selection pressure on an influenza strain: the virus could adapt highly lethal traits without ever depleting its human herd - whether a soldier died from a bomb or a disease, he was removed and replaced with a healthy live (susceptible) soldier. With no selection pressures driving the influenza strains in the trenches to become less virulent, they became more virulent.

The driving force behind influenza evolution is the ability of the virus to reassort its genes with other viral strains. This happens when a host is infected simultaneously with multiple strains of flu. And it occurs with ideal frequency when susceptible animals are packed close together in herds (pigs), cages (birds) or trenches (humans). So in addition to the constant influx of susceptible hosts to the front line, the fact that the virus replicators were packed so closely and in such large numbers made the conditions ripe for very fast, unrestrained evolution of highly pathogenic strains. It can hardly be a coincidence then that the 1918 strain came out of the trenches of World War I. Although there have been several other influenza pandemics, the 1918 outbreak was probably uniquely historical. But that's JMO.
insider is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:44 AM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefoot_mama
I actually would like to type out quotes, but I don't have the book in my house at the moment. It is being borrowed by a friend.

You didn't say it was outright wrong, but others did. And I really stink at having debates anyway. This all totally took me by surprise.
Well, I just thought it was an interesting subject so I clicked on the thread, and then I was really surprised when I saw your post about the aspirin. I didn't mean to get into a debate, either!

Anyway, I hope it is clear that I am not in any way attacking you OR your belief about the flu pandemic. I am however skeptical and without being able to see the evidence supporting your point of view, I have only "my side" to fall back on!

I think it is good to debate and to see the evidence for different scenarios set up side by side...it is still totally possible for two people to look at the evidence and come to radically different conclusions, but at least people walk away understanding the other's position a little better, y'know?

I hesitate to get into debates on this forum because I feel intimidated...but I shouldn't. If things stay within the UA and people post with a spirit of respect, I think debate is nothing but good for all of us: it helps us clarify our thoughts.

Anyway, I need to log off now, but this was almost like a chat. Thank you for responding to my posts. Take care and LMK if you want to discuss further when you get the book back. I would be interested, if you are.
Nora'sMama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 02:46 AM
 
Nora'sMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: a state of flux
Posts: 2,321
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
I think this is a good question to pose. Most viruses tend to evolve toward low mortality and decreased severity because it is an excellent survival strategy: the strains that incapacitate the host the least, spread more readily (i.e. if you're not sick enough to miss work your virus gets to infect more people) and they therefore outcompete the more virulent strains. A dead host can't pass along viral progeny.

Anyway, this sort of goes along with the more banal explanation of why the 1918 strain of influenza had its highest mortality in the 20-40 age group - the virus was specifically adapted to 20-40 year olds because it evolved specifically in that age group. Recent research indicates that the 1918 strain originated in the trenches of World War I. A stagnant population of human stock does not put much selection pressure on an influenza strain: the virus could adapt highly lethal traits without ever depleting its human herd - whether a soldier died from a bomb or a disease, he was removed and replaced with a healthy live (susceptible) soldier. With no selection pressures driving the influenza strains in the trenches to become less virulent, they became more virulent.

The driving force behind influenza evolution is the ability of the virus to reassort its genes with other viral strains. This happens when a host is infected simultaneously with multiple strains of flu. And it occurs with ideal frequency when susceptible animals are packed close together in herds (pigs), cages (birds) or trenches (humans). So in addition to the constant influx of susceptible hosts to the front line, the fact that the virus replicators were packed so closely and in such large numbers made the conditions ripe for very fast, unrestrained evolution of highly pathogenic strains. It can hardly be a coincidence then that the 1918 strain came out of the trenches of World War I. Although there have been several other influenza pandemics, the 1918 outbreak was probably uniquely historical. But that's JMO.
You seem very knowledgeable about this! That makes perfect sense to me.
Nora'sMama is offline  
Old 09-07-2006, 03:00 AM
 
Scattershoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Round Rock, TX
Posts: 812
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Or perhaps, there was not a virulent strain of the flu that hung around the trenches during WWI gaining superabilities to go out and destroy millions but instead those soldiers were dying like the thousands since the Gulf War ended because they were shot full of poisons on an unbelievable scale. And if they tried to escape the shots they were forcibly held down and given them anyhow. Perhaps there was no Spanish Flu just like there was no swine flu out of Fort Dix in '76. Perhaps millions died because people lined up by the millions to get poison injected into their bodies because they were scared to death of getting "battlefield" diseases such as typhus. Perhaps we don't have to come up with some superstrain scenario that somehow discriminates by age (attacking only the strongest). Perhaps it is much, much simpler.

Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation. - Oscar Wilde
Scattershoot is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off