Swine flu: Eight myths that could endanger your life

[mmix]

READ the FACT, be ware of flu.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/swine-flu-myths-that-could-endanger-your-life

[Bjalf]

The article is a classic case of fear-mongering, designed to draw readers to an ad-infested page. Most people will read
Swine flu: blah blah endanger your lifePeople die of the flu every year, sometimes more die, sometimes fewer. Worrying about the swine flu might well be more harmful to your health than the swine flu itself.

[Zoot7]

The article is a classic case of fear-mongering, designed to draw readers to an ad-infested page. Most people will read People die of the flu every year, sometimes more die, sometimes fewer. Worrying about the swine flu might well be more harmful to your health than the swine flu itself.
There's plenty pandemics out there that kill thousands of people every year, swine flu is just another to add to the list.

[koshatnik]

The article is a classic case of fear-mongering, designed to draw readers to an ad-infested page. Most people will read People die of the flu every year, sometimes more die, sometimes fewer. Worrying about the swine flu might well be more harmful to your health than the swine flu itself.

Show me your PhD in medicine and I'll take you seriously. The New Scientist is far from a scaremongering publication, its a respected science journal.

[Exodist]

I am still at a mix with this flu virus. On one hand I want to be prepared and protect my daughter. On the other hand I dont want to believe all the media hype.

[koshatnik]

I am still at a mix with this flu virus. On one hand I want to be prepared and protect my daughter. On the other hand I dont want to believe all the media hype.

Then don't read the media, go to your GP and get advice direct from someone qualified to give it. Simples.

[kiridude]

Actually, I've read articles in the new scientist written by staff members of big pharmaceutical companies. It has become an advertising outlet for them.

As far as swine flu is concerned, its just scare mongering to sell their vaccinations (which actually do us harm). Check out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VBPV8uN7bI&feature=related

I have 2 friends who got swine flu, and they both recovered fine at home. Not really different from the regular flu. Do you know how many people die from the regular flu in the US alone per year? Check it out. You may be surprised.

Come on guys, lets get over the sheep mentality here.

[benj1]

Show me your PhD in medicine and I'll take you seriously. The New Scientist is far from a scaremongering publication, its a respected science journal.

to be fair:

"The Butcher family of Southampton, UK, wouldn't say so. In August, their daughter Madelynne, 18, became sick and short of breath after returning from a holiday. Two weeks later, she died in hospital. "

the link they supply states that the cause of death could not be confirmed, and i haven't found any other sources that do actually state cause of death.
that isn't good journalism and could legitimately be called scare mongering

[forrestcupp]

+1 for fear-mongering.

When one of the points was that we're still not safe even though we have vaccines, that showed me that they just want people to be afraid.

[Bezmotivnik]

I'm somewhat more concerned about this. (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/140492/Million-hit-by-plague-worse-than-swine-flu-)

[koleoptero]

I've talked to doctors that are friends of mine and they all agree that it's all a bunch of cr*p. So I won't take articles like this more seriously. No I don't have a PhD but I doubt the author of this article has one either.

[benj1]

I'm somewhat more concerned about this. (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/140492/Million-hit-by-plague-worse-than-swine-flu-)

theres a story like this every other week, i take issue with them calling it a plague, it isn't helpful, next week it will be dog flu.

[kiridude]

Yeah guys, we need to relax. Big Pharma wants us scared - all the time. That's how they keep the profits high.

[Bezmotivnik]

theres a story like this every other week, i take issue with them calling it a plague, it isn't helpful, next week it will be dog flu.
There are a lot of funny little between-the-lines items in there for the attentive follower of their politics, but the one scary word there that presumably isn't hype is "pneumonic."

That changes everything on the scary-meter.

[benj1]

There are a lot of funny little between-the-lines items in there for the attentive follower of their politics, but the one scary word there that presumably isn't hype is "pneumonic."

That changes everything on the scary-meter.

pneumonic just refers to the lung, there isn't anything inherently scary or dangerous about it.

[Bezmotivnik]

pneumonic just refers to the lung, there isn't anything inherently scary or dangerous about it.
No, pneumonic also means it can spread by aerosol dispersion, as I understand it, the greatest fear epidemiologists have about any virulent bug.

This is hugely more contagious than contact transmission. The current swine flu is contact-transmissible as I recall, which is one reason there's been so little true panic.

[Paqman]

The New Scientist is far from a scaremongering publication, its a respected science journal.

+1

Their standard of science journalism is normally head and shoulders above anything else in the mainstream media. This one is a little alarmist though.

[kiridude]

+1

Their standard of science journalism is normally head and shoulders above anything else in the mainstream media. This one is a little alarmist though.

They are basically owned by big pharma. Have a look at who is writing some of the articles. It is through "articles" in such publications that they do their best advertising.

[koshatnik]

+1

Their standard of science journalism is normally head and shoulders above anything else in the mainstream media. This one is a little alarmist though.

Think about why articles need to be slightly alarmist sometimes....

A: People are stupid and need telling, time and time and time again.

I don't think the World Health Organisation would be getting their panties in a bunch about something that was insignificant.

And as for this pharmaceutical companies want to keep us scared crap, next time you get critically ill make sure you refuse the drugs to cure you.

I'm quite happy to pay any money to a company if it increases the chances of my children not dying. Scared? you bet. Wait until you have kids and then see your fears go right off the meter. :p

I know about media manipulation and scare mongering, im not completely stupid (yet), but sometimes people have to be scared to get a point across.

[Paqman]

They are basically owned by big pharma. Have a look at who is writing some of the articles. It is through "articles" in such publications that they do their best advertising.

I'll take your word on that one. I tend to gloss over the boring biology stuff anyway. All that genetics mumbojumbo might be important, but I just find it soporific.

[koshatnik]

They are basically owned by big pharma. Have a look at who is writing some of the articles. It is through "articles" in such publications that they do their best advertising.

Hmm, don't think so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist)

[alphaniner]

Do you come to bury Caesar or praise him?


It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal

[benj1]

No, pneumonic also means it can spread by aerosol dispersion, as I understand it, the greatest fear epidemiologists have about any virulent bug.

This is hugely more contagious than contact transmission. The current swine flu is contact-transmissible as I recall, which is one reason there's been so little true panic.

Pneumonic
Pneu*mon"ic (?), a. [Gr. : cf. F. pneumonique.] (a) Of or pertaining to the lungs; pulmonic. (b) Of or pertaining to pneumonia; as, pneumonic symptoms.

things that tend to affect the lungs also tend to be transmitted by aerosol dispersion, they aren't one and the same.

@koshatnik
articles should convey the facts, and allow people to make up their own minds not be alarmist, all that does is allow the people who were going to be scared anyway to hold up an article as proof, it doesn't help the discussion at all.
how many scientific journals get their point across by scaring people ? non because they trust in the intelligence of their readership to make decisions themselves

[koshatnik]

how many scientific journals get their point across by scaring people ? non because they trust in the intelligence of their readership to make decisions themselves

Like I said before, what if you aren't intelligent?

[kiridude]

Hmm, don't think so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Scientist)

That doesn't tell us anything. I said, "basically owned," which is a slang way of saying they must be receiving large contributions to have their staff writing articles for the magazine. Come on, when, for example, the director of department x of Merk writes an article about how great vaccines are, what do you think he's going to say? Vaccines are dangerous and will give you 50% protection? Of course not. He's going to try and scare everyone into lining up like good little sheep to make their donation to the company. Of course, its better to pay off the guys in the correct positions to pass a law and make it mandatory, but thats another subject.

[benj1]

Like I said before, what if you aren't intelligent?

well first off i would say thats even more reason not to scare monger.

second you said:

"its a respected science journal."

should respected science journals cater to the lowest common denominator?

[koshatnik]

well first off i would say thats even more reason not to scare monger.

second you said:

"its a respected science journal."

should respected science journals cater to the lowest common denominator?

Is there a law against that?



That doesn't tell us anything. I said, "basically owned," which is a slang way of saying they must be receiving large contributions to have their staff writing articles for the magazine. Come on, when, for example, the director of department x of Merk writes an article about how great vaccines are, what do you think he's going to say? Vaccines are dangerous and will give you 50% protection? Of course not. He's going to try and scare everyone into lining up like good little sheep to make their donation to the company. Of course, its better to pay off the guys in the correct positions to pass a law and make it mandatory, but thats another subject.

You sound like a man with an agenda. Like I said before, wait till you get something serious and then moan about pharmaceutical companies then.

All media has an agenda, and all writers are on backhanders to push a certain viewpoint. We all know this. Its not news. No need for the conspiracy theory hysteria though. As no one so far on this thread is qualified to a) confirm the efficacy and dangers of the vaccine or b) speak with any authority on the quality of the journalism, I wonder where all of these forum experts have suddenly come from :)

[Paqman]

Like I said before, what if you aren't intelligent?

The you probably aren't reading New Scientist in the first place. It's a pretty geeky magazine, aimed at people in science and technology.

The problem is that all the hacks in the mainstream media all rush out and buy NS as soon as it hits the shelves. Here in the UK you can always tell when the new issue is out from the rash of half-arsed science articles in the papers the next day. The job they do of mangling and sensationalising NS's generally very even-handed articles has to be seen to be beleived.

[23dornot23d]

Interesting read ......


as by word of mouth ........ one person I know had it for a week and is now ok

the other person is a friends niece in Newfoundland ..... on a life support machine ...

But they are the only two that I know of personally .....


here is the article ..... can a flu vaccine work ,,,,, is the first question ......

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a/aa011604a.htm

This is flu in general by the way ,,,, but do they all mutate over time .... ?

If so what good is the vaccine ......

Why would you give it to perfectly healthy people ......

........ who gets money from supplying it .........

Final question ...... how did it originate ,,,,,

( was it made in a lab or did it naturally occur )

research ...........

Did anybody read an article on how much money was made from this ?
__________________________________________________ _________

[Kimm]

Diseases like these have existed for ages, its no surprise that we've started noticing them to greater extents these days though. This is due to one simple reason: we now have the ability to distinguish between a new and an old flu ;)

A bit of a side-note: I've had swine flu already (caught it this summer), wasn't all that bad, I felt tired and had some muscle aches, but nothing really serious, it was over in a couple of days.

And this is how seriously professionals take it: When I got it, I asked a doctor for advice on what I should do. Her reply was: "nothing really, just get some rest and call back if you're not feeling better in a week"

[ade234uk]

This is one reason why the internet stinks sometimes. Its too subjective and we can get information when we want 24/7. Without looking at these sites, apart from the new scientist, do any of them have advertising for medicines?

My theory is the following, if it happens, it happens. Deal with it then. I'm not going to fall in to the trap of worrying about every single issue I hear about on the internet, unless of course people start dropping around me.

This is where it was sometimes better without the internet, you never heard about these things so it gave you nothing to worry about.

[ikt]

Come on guys, lets get over the sheep mentality here.


....

Do you really think you're not a sheep following yet another internet e-fad by opposing vaccinations for swine flu? Usually lead by the same people going on about the 9-11 conspiracy theories..

"In late April, Margaret Chan, the World Health Organization's director-general, declared a "public health emergency of international concern" under the rules of the WHO's new International Health Regulations when the first two cases of the H1N1 virus were reported in the United States, followed by hundreds of cases in Mexico."

I'm going to trust WHO over some internet yahoo giving his skewed personal opinion and baseless information.



My theory is the following, if it happens, it happens. Deal with it then.

That is a shockingly terrible statement to make in regard to ones life, not even in computer security would you follow that.


And this is how seriously professionals take it: When I got it, I asked a doctor for advice on what I should do. Her reply was: "nothing really, just get some rest and call back if you're not feeling better in a week"

And again I'm amazed at the silliness of some peoples comments,

I just asked an I.T. professional what he thought of linux, he said he'd never heard of it and real IT people use windows, shows what professionals think of linux..

why did I click to come into this thread argh

[Paqman]

Diseases like these have existed for ages, its no surprise that we've started noticing them to greater extents these days though. This is due to one simple reason: we now have the ability to distinguish between a new and an old flu ;)


In the past, any new and nasty version of the flu would be contained fairly locally, and spread no faster than walking speed. Now, in the jet age, these things can be anywhere in the world in 24hrs. So pandemics are now considerably faster spreading than they used to be, which makes them a lot harder to deal with.

[benj1]

"In late April, Margaret Chan, the World Health Organization's director-general, declared a "public health emergency of international concern" under the rules of the WHO's new International Health Regulations when the first two cases of the H1N1 virus were reported in the United States, followed by hundreds of cases in Mexico."

I'm going to trust WHO over some internet yahoo giving his skewed personal opinion and baseless information.

first it was written in april when less was know about H1N1, second i suspect the phrase "public health emergency of international concern" is WHO-ese which sounds worse than it is.

to quote the press release (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_20090425/en/index.html)
"The Committee further agreed that more information is needed before a decision could be made concerning the appropriateness of the current phase 3."
this would indicate to me, at that point it was at phase 2.

phase 2:
"In Phase 2 an animal influenza virus circulating among domesticated or wild animals is known to have caused infection in humans, and is therefore considered a potential pandemic threat."
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/phase/en/index.html

so there you go, not exactly a statement that the world is going to end

[RabbitWho]

What the hell was the point in that article? All it said was: "Swine flu is dangerous, there's no way to avoid it"

How did reading it do anything whatsoever to help me? It just took away a minute of my life. I could have done a lot with that minute. I could have watched Spaced instead of listening to it in the background. Now i've wasted another minute posting this. I'm really annoyed at you for making this thread.

[befana]

Worrying about the swine flu might well be more harmful to your health than the swine flu itself.It is the truth!

The end of life is death. No one can live forever... Do we have to worry, or to live what we have to live? No one is eternal, so live and do your best!

[KiwiNZ]

This is a Tech site not a Medical Centre . The best place for meical advice is your Doctor .
Thread closed.