Talk:Spanish flu/Archive 1

Case fatality rate

Surely 2.5-5% isn't the proportion of the population (globally) that died, as the article says, but rather the estimated "case fatality rate" - the proportion *of those who caught flu* who died? I know the numbers are controversial, but I've never heard a reputable estimate as high as this for proportion of the world's population that died.

---

The island of Marajó wasn`t the only inhabited place not to contract Spanish flu (I haven't checked this fact). Other examples are St. Helena, New Caledonia or American Samoa.

I believe the point about Marajó is that it was the only sizable population center not to have contracted the disease (where as New Caledonia is presumably much smaller). I suggest the removal of this sentence until evidence for it has been provided, as the only place I have ever seen this piece of information is on wikipedia.

Today Marajó and New Caledona have similar populations (around 200,000) - I don't know what they were in 1918.

---

I deleted the Austrian artist Klimt, because he couldn't have died from Spanish flu. The epidemic only started in March of 1918 in the U.S. The most famous Austrian victim is the painter Egon Schiele.

---

The article seems inaccurate. The cause of the virus turns out to be a mutation of a virus that exists harmlessly in birds, who transmit it to pigs, causing the virus to mutate. Samples of the virus found in well-preserved victims are offering clues. I am not a pathologist or a biologist, perhaps someone more knowledgable than I cold implement this? http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1386.html

--cprompt

It appears that this is an outdated theory. Rmhermen 19:46 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

"8 million deaths in Spain in May of 1918"? That can't be right...

Why can't it be right? Please explain. GrahamN 18:32, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It can't be true because the population of Spain was 20 million in 1918 and 21 million in 1919. Immigration is not likely to make up the difference. Ian Eiloart

---

"8 million people sick in Spain." (one in three people was serious sick). The most recent regional study by Beatrix Echeverri 1993 "La gripe Española. La pandemia de 1918 a 1919" suggests some 255.000 dead in Spain. J.D.Mueller from Hannover, Germany

I change 8 million died in Spain to 8 million people infected in Spain. Mintguy (T) 23:44, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

change "really bigger" to "much bigger"? --203.142.136.122 01:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fewer 'cite needed' please

Can we be a little less anal about the "citation needed" tags? I don't know about you guys, but I don't use Wikipedia as an absolute-truth kind of source, more of an overview kind of source, and all these "citation needed" tags make me feel like there's someone out there with a highlighter yelling "Another link in my conspiracy theory chain! The government is lying about the 1918 pandemic to contain the truth about vampires!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.184.7 (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A better article

There is a better article written on WikiNews (Wikinews:The Deadliest Fall) about the Spanish flu. I think it would make sense to copy it here and use existing material (which is currently little more than a loose collection of random facts) to expand it. Paranoid 18:32, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

admited copyvio?

The article says it contains translations from a French site. I can't read French really, but there was no indication on that site that it was GFDL or similar. Translations have been restricted to the original copyright for more then a hundred years. --Eean 05:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

"Among its various effects, the Spanish flu outbreak in 1919 caused the cancellation of the Stanley Cup Final, due to the illness of many of the hockey players – its only cancellation prior to the 2004-2005 Labour Lockout in the NHL." Is that a joke? I don't really want to edit that par out in case I'm missing the point in what seems like a bit of local trivia in some country, in an article about the deaths of millions of people worldwide. I assume it must be Wiki-vandalism. alpheus

I just came on this talk page to say the exact same thing. I assume it's either vandalism or a really sick joke. I've taken it out anyway. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it was minutia added by a hockey fan with a rather narrow perspective of notability. -- Infrogmation 20:15, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was reported several times on NPR during the hockey strike. I dont see the point of removing it from the article, it is trivia, but nonetheless an interesting fact, that conceivably someone might be using Wikipedia to verify.

Its pointless to point out that the 2004-05 season is cancelled, just keep the part of cancelling the 1919 Stanley Cup. That has to do with the Flu, not the current lockout. Also, if it will stay, why not mention that Joe Hall, a member of the Montreal Candadiens, died from the flu? Kaiser Matias 8:45, 3 Apr (UTC)

Supposed First Victim

According to a TV show I just watched, it claims that Pvt. Harry Underdown of England was the first victim, and brought it to the world. He died January 21, 1916, a full 2 years before it hit the world. Should that be written, or is it not verified enough? Kaiser matias 02:53 Mar 30 2005 UTC

Most epidemiologist have ruled out the 1916 cases as unrelated to the "Spanish" flu. See The Great Influenza, John M. Barry, which states on page 453 that this theory was rejected in the AMA study of 1927. Rmhermen 13:42, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

http://home.nycap.rr.com/useless/bubonic_plague/index.html states that the first victim was on 11 March 1918 at Camp Funston, Kansas – a company cook named Albert Mitchell. violet/riga (t) 20:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

John Barry's The Great Influenza presents good evidence (but not certainty) that this flu originated in Kansas. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The Death Toll

Many books I have read on the topic say only 20 to 40 million died (The Encyclopedia of Plague and Pestilence, etc.)500 million estimated infected worldwide.

Question! (Why don't teachers (history or science teachers) teach this)

Why don't teachers (history or science teachers) teach this to students? (high school or lower.) It had a major effect on the world, and yet it isn't even mentioned in passing. Why? - _{perviously unsigned comment by} 207.200.116.204 17:49, 24 September 2005

A lot of teachers aren't acquainted with this aspect of early 20th century world history. In addition, the subject by nature is depressing and fearful. Not an attractive addition to any class syllabus, by any means. How did this type of flu enter the United States? I'm a high school science teacher and I have taught about this for years in my biology classes in great detail. -unsigned

I was never taught about this in school, and neither was two of my other friends from other parts of the country (US). Its very strange that it isn't part of WWI lessons. Btw, please indent your messages and sign your name (or lack thereof) with four tildes (~~~~) Fresheneesz 23:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

During World War One, most of the governments of the world actively suppressed information about the flu pandemic and the suppression of that information has influenced the lack of data in typical texts up to the present time. Some historians have concluded that all history is a myth to some degree. WAS 4.250 23:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

We are learning about this in US History right now. So teachers do teach it, it's one of the "unexpected outcomes" of WWI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.184.23 (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

study by Noymer and Garenne

What is the point of mentioning the study by Noymer and Garenne if you don't give even a summary of the conclusion? I was quite interested in why it infected so many young adults - and ..... nothing.

Agreed - looked it up in the article and it seems that it's to do with an interaction between the virus and tuberculosis, the latter being "a disease of adulthood rather than old age". I've amended the section. 67.120.149.45

I agree fully. I only learned about this epidemic as an adult when researching my family tree. Death records showed that 3 of my great-great aunts and uncles all died in the same week in 1918. I wondered why, and a little more research enlightened me about the Spanish Flu! Especially now with the Bird Flu in asia out there...

As an entomologist, one of my hobbies is reading about the history of arthropod-vectored diseases. Having said that, I consider John Barry's The Great Influenza, about a non-arthropod-vectored disease, one of the best histories I have read about diseases. If you want to know why this flu killed mostly healthy, young adults, why government agencies tried to keep it quiet, and the massive political-social-economic-scientific effects it had upon the world and especially the United States, you should read this book. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 23:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the significance of Bayer reference?

Bayer aspirin is mentioned in the last sentence, and... nothing else? It was distrusted? Ok. Wouldn't it actually be a good thing, since not taking it would mean it would not interfere with body's natural defence systems, i.e. fever? What is the effect of Bayer or anything aspirin or NSAD on influenza virus and/or morbidity/mortality?

Title/Moving the page

I think that the page should be moved from Spanish flu to Spanish Flu, as it is a proper noun. See Asian Flu and Hong Kong Flu. Btm 06:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea!

Kiradax (Lunakeet, or the magic parakeet) 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

PROBLEM (re-creation of Spanish Flu by scientists in about 2006)

Some scientist has re-created The Spanish Flu is this a fact worthy of putting on there?

I have read that they were considering it. If you have a reference handy, please insert it. DanielDemaret 14:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish Flu has indeed been decoded (bits of tissue containing it were assembled from various sources and the virus was extracted and its genes were sequenced). The virus was then recreated in a form lethal to lab animals. This fact does seem germane to an article on Spanish flu, and salient to the significance of Spanish flu today, since the re-constituted flu throws some light on the nature and scope of the potential pandemic facing humanity in the form of the H5N1 virus now endemic in poultry and resembling the H1N1 of the Spanish flu in certain key aspects.

It is fair to question the wisdom of the decision to re-sequence the Spanish Flu even in bio-"safe" laboratories, as the existence of herd immunity to it is an open question and its escape from the lab or employment of a weapon of mass murder is imaginable and horrible. The decision seems understandable only when weighed against the high likelihood of an H5N1 pandemic in the near- to medium-term, and the corresponding need for any information that may help to prepare vaccines, anti-virals, VLPs, or other medical measures on an urgent basis which, once developed, are likely to help prevent devastation from the likely H5N1 pandemic, from future pandemics such as an H7N7, or even from a pandemic emerging by H1N1 (Spanish flu) later getting loose from the lab.

unclear mention of avian influenza

I have reworded the lead here which stated that Spanish flu is variant of avian influenza. H1N1 (which I just created from the CDC pages) is not considered an avian strain as it is primarily transmitted through swine, though both avian influenza and H1N1 are considered Type A influenza viruses. Avian influenza currently does not list H1N1 as one of the strains that falls under the term. The description here states that the virus jumped directly from birds to humans; if this is accurate, H1N1 and Avian influenza may both need to be updated as the articles are currently contradicting each other. - BanyanTree 18:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

And I have reverted myself.

I was under the impression that Genus A of the influenza virus was not identical to avian influenza, but apparently they are. I've fixed H1N1 and will see if Avian influenza can be made more explicit for the benefit of people as slow on the uptake as myself... - BanyanTree 18:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Sci Trek on Discovery radio this flu is was a swine flu, not avian flu. I'm no scientist and I'm not completely certain the people on discovery channel radio are either but I think this might be a contentious point that needs further investigation by someone more qualified than me. JohnCub 14:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It is apparently a swine flu: Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 47 (2008) 1100–1110 Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

National Geographic Article

I just read an article in National Geographic (Finnish edition, 11/2005) that claims some 50-100 million died. So, is this new information or false information?

I've heard those claims, too. The problem arises because poor census data from the 3rd world makes differentiating influenza deaths from unrelated deaths very hard. With that said, I've never come across a scholarly source (i.e. peer-reviewed journal article) that has claimed more than 40 million. Here are some examples of articles that claim 40 million:

• Edward C. Holmes. 1918 and all that. Science, 303:1787–1788, March, 2004.
• Andrew Noymer and Michel Garenne. The 1918 influenza epidemic's effects on sex differentials in mortality in the United States. Population and Development Review, 26(3):565–581, September, 2000.

SyntaxPC 14:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Several blocks down in this discussion, there is [Encyclopedia Brittanica 1968: ...It says here that most of the 100 million deaths that occured ...] This seems to provide another source for the 100 million figure.

Why did the virus infect young people?

Has there been any attempt to explain why the virus seemed to infect young people more easily? Can this be because the virus adapted to young people in the trenches in Europe?

As people get older, they have usually have some protective antibodies from previous flu virus infections. Even if a new flu strain comes along, the old antibodies can provide some protection. --JWSchmidt 23:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "young people." Do you mean young adults or children? Influenza normally has a U-shaped age-mortality profile, being most deadly to children and the elderly. The 1918 strain was unusual in that it had a W-shaped profile: it was also very deadly to middle-aged people. The "safest" ages were 5–15 and 50–70. The scientific and medical communities approach an explanation through virological analysis of the strain, while historians focus more on ætiological and social interactions, such as influenza's combination with tuberculosis. In 1918, there were a lot of middle-aged people with tuburculosis; the theory is that the tuburculosis made them more succeptible to influenza, and they died of the flu when they would have otherwise died of tuburculosis. If you look at a graph of the number of tuburcolisis deaths per year, the numbers drop dramatically starting in 1918. SyntaxPC 15:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

John Barry's The Great Influenza explains the W-shaped profile by young adults having strong immune systems. Unfortunately sometimes the immune system can backfire: they were, according to Barry, struck down, or at least made much weaker, by the immune system in its battle against the virus. I am not an expert and cannot judge how good an explanation this is. I am also simplifying Barry so those interested should visit the library for details. The book in question is in the article's reference section. MichaelSH 00:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Cytokine storm mechanisms rely on a healthy immune system. Those with a compromised immune system lack sufficient feedback to create a cytokine storm. Essentially, it is an over-response by a healthy immune system. This is the cause of death.

For another theory on the dangers of being young with the Sp Flu see"Anecdotal observations". Socsci69 (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Socsci69

What about the survivors?

It seems to be common knowledge now that the H5N1 virus directly attacks deep-lung tissue, bringing on acute pulmonary distress in a matter of days, if not hours. The mortality numbers the experts are talking about are scary enough---but what about those who survive? Will scarring from the pneumonia leave them with impaired lung function? If indeed the worst-case scenario plays out will "normal" pulmonary function in humans become the exception rather than the rule? It doesn't take much imagination to predict dire consequences on a hitherto unheard-of scale.

The title offends the poor iberians

The article should be moved to "Great Influenza Pandemic". Please vote for that. I think it is currently offensive to spanish people. No, spanish people are not infectious. What would americans think if we hosted AIDS info under the title "Great Yankee A**-F****** Disease"? 195.70.48.242 19:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't image that anyone would believe that "Spanish flu" is a pejorative against Spaniards. --66.216.165.187 02:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how it is known in Hungary, but in the English speaking world this is indeed known as the Spanish Flu. Black_Death isn't renamed on the basis that it may offend black people. --82.15.46.162 22:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It was called Spanish Flu because the spaniards "discovered" it, or at least rang the alarm bell. This i a credit to spanish doctors, and should be known. And we all learned in my country about spanish flu in school, so if you change the name, who is ever going to find it in wikipedia? DanielDemaret 14:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Brittanica 1968

Hmmmmmmm! It says here that most of the 100 million deaths that occured in 1918 Spanish Flu/ Spanish Fever Pandemic was NOT caused by the virus, but by a Bacteria that opportunistically infected people with the virus. Because people had no Antibiotics, many died. If this same virus strain were to be infected on the present population today, Antibiotics & Antivirals would combat most of the illnesses.

Supercool Dude 01:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The 1918 influenza was swiftly deadly and killed within a day or so. Few common pathogenic bacteria behave that way. This appears to be due directly to viral virulence, not concuring or secondary bacterial infections; so antibiotics would be useless. Anonymous

I contrary, I had read papers stating that the body was extremly weaken by the 1918 flu, and then complications (pneumonie, bacteria,etc.) were fatal. Yug (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A better article

There is a better article written on Wikipedia in dutch search for Spaanse griep --Retjiur 21:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Shift vs. Drift

Under mutation theory, there is talk of "Genetic Drift and Antigenic Shift" but later in the article, it is refered to as genetic shift. The difference between the two is somewhat muddled, if there is in fact, a difference.

Thanks.

I have exactly same question. Will there be an answer?

Thanks.

The adjective "Genetic" pertains to genes where as the adverb "Antigenic" pertains to antigens i.e. infective agents. Found here at Wikipedia:

Genetic drift is the statistical effect that results from the influence that chance has on the survival of alleles (variants of a gene).

Antigenic shift is the process by which two different strains of influenza combine to form a new subtype having a mixture of the surface antigens of the two original strains.

Killing Newborns and Elderly?

The article currently says: "The strain was unusual in commonly killing many young and healthy victims, as opposed to more common influenzas which caused the bulk of their mortality among newborns and the old and infirm." under Effects of New Strain.

However in a Stanford University Article it says the exact opposite saying, "The flu was most deadly for people ages 20 to 40. This pattern of morbidity was unusual for influenza which is usually a killer of the elderly and young children."

Can anybody confirm or deny the validity of this discrepancy?

--Prozaciswack 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

How is that a discrepancy? They both say that it killed young and healthy victims--20 to 40--instead of young children (newborns) and elderly.--Prosfilaes 21:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you're correct! I definately read that wrong, sorry.

Why did Spanish Flu Vanish?

A previous version of the article said that Spanish Flu vanished after 18 months. Why did it vanish? This is a very important question. Maybe the recreated 1918 H1N1 virus will help to shed some light; by antibody study, for example. I wonder too why/how the flu vanished ......... I heard/read somewhere that a successful organism such as this flu - (sorry, I know it may technically not be an organism, but I can't come up with anything else to call it...)can basically wipe out its supply of hosts by successfully killing them off. In other words, perhaps those people in whom the flu could fourish were now dead and gone, and the only ones left were the ones in which the flu could not survive. So the flu itself died out. 216.57.138.98

No one knows. H5N1 shows every indication of being a continuing feature of the future biological landscape. Even if one H5N1 pandemic occurs, there is no indication a second H5N1 pandemic could not also occur a month or decade later. The experts are scared shitless. They are literally stocking up on food and water. If we are lucky and the RNA dice favor us, we will have a vaccine in 2007 or 2008 in time to prevent a pandemic and the idiots of the world will ridicule it all not knowing how close they came to half or a tenth (NO ONE KNOWS) of humanity dead. WAS 4.250 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The book "The Great Influenza" by John M. Barry, around page 370, explains that there were two natural processes at work. One was the buildup of immunity of the population. The second was the extremely rapid mutation of the virus (actually the "mutant swarm" of influenza viruses) causing a "reversion to the mean," where the mean was less lethal than the unusually dangerous variety that was causing the pandemic. This begs the question: Why don't similar processes occur for H5N1 in the current bird population, making it less lethal? - unsigned

Any book about Flu written or based on data over ten years old is hopelessly out of date. WAS 4.250 01:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't similar processes occur for H5N1 in the current bird population, making it less lethal? People would pay a billion dollars for an answer to that question that could be used to successfully deal with H5N1. The fact is that H5N1 is an example of evolution creating new and unexpected traits. WAS 4.250 01:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It is conceivable that traits such as multiple organ invasion and massively prolific replication may yield an evolutionary advantage in birds, which are sickened but often do not die. That advantage may perpetuate viruses with these traits even though the same traits make the virus so lethal to mammals that the mammalian host often gets obviously sick and dies before many others can be infected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.222 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fort Riley

Why does Fort Riley link here? I gather there's some sort of folk tale, but more detail would be helpful for those not in the know. Anyone?

Fort Riley was a major staging ground for the first U.S. troops sent into World War I action. It is reported that the flu first affected these troops before they were sent over to Europe. From the PBS documentary The American Experience: Influenza 1918: "At Fort Riley, Kansas, an Army private reports to the camp hospital just before breakfast on March 11 {1918} complaining of fever, sore throat, and headache. He was quickly followed by another soldier with similar complaints. By noon, the camp's hospital had dealt with over 100 ill soldiers. By week's end that number jumped to 500." (Aewold 08:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

Honolulu Advertiser link

Is the link really notable? It was originally posted anonymously, and contained syntax errors and POV. I vote that it should be removed. SyntaxPC 14:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the name "spanish flu"

I read somewhere many years ago that the person alarming the spanish papers of the epidemic was primarily Santiago Ramón y Cajal, thereby giving it its name. Does anyone know more? DanielDemaret 13:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC) My source was not the most reliable, I am afraid.DanielDemaret 13:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

On my sources (read some years ago, and wrote in the 80's by the Pasteur institute's expert), only the Spanish news papers dared to talk about the subject, while other European newspaper was forbidden to talk about this issue, which may indicate to the oppossite states (World War 1 context) that the country's forces was deeply affected.

Accordingly, French's (and other countries) newspapers talked about "the spanish Flu, in Spain, and only in Spain". This Censure gave the name to the pandemy. Yug 07:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

NB: I made a "student article" for school in 2001-2002, and I was 17. My classmates and myself had read about 40 pages from the Pasteur Institute's expert on this "Spanish Flu" (and about 150 others pages on newspapers, medical papers, encyclopedias and other sources). Despite we made a website (TPE « La Grippe Espagnole de 1918 », exposé de Terminale S), we stupidly forgave to put our sources online, which by the time we though not usefull -__-.

My own printed version contain a short referece list, and I just found : "Dr. C. HANNOUN, Documents de la Conférence de l'Institut Pasteur : La Grippe Espagnole de 1918.". By the time, we got this a free copy of this document simply by mail request (but my copy is probably destroy from 2003), and I think the answer is probably in this document.

Someone may him confirm this "Origin of the name "spanish flu"" by an other source, or look on this one to check ? Yug 11:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Aspirin

In relation to an earlier comment on this talk page - what is the aspirin mention here for? It doesn't seem to be linked to the rest of the article in any coherent way - would it have prevent Spanish flu if people had used it? Or should it be removed? TheGrappler 02:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That was my first reaction as well - the aspirin is in no way connected to treatment of the flu. It should be removed, but it is an interesting fact, and definitely deserves a place elsewhere in Wikipedia.

Asprin was used and not used as treatment. People tried all sorts of things. Fresheneesz 23:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

GA nomination

I believe that this meets the criteria because:

• It's well written; all necessary jargon is defined - I had no problem reading it.
• It's factually accurate and referenced; this is where it falls down a bit. While I'm sure that you got those stats from the general references, you really need to cite specific page numbers (in the form of footnotes)
• It's broad
• It's neutral; nothing really contraversial here.
• It's stable; Well, I guess stable enough.
• It contains images; yes.

Overall, while it only just passed stable and referenced, I feel that this is good enough to be on the Good Articles list. Congratulations! --Celestianpower ^háblame 09:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It tends to repetition. Permutations of several sections seem to appear twice or more. I will try to tighten it up in a little bit.--128.186.13.112 14:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The article has changed a great deal recently. Data about the subject has changed a great deal recently, invalidating the books that were used originally as sources. It needs to be rewritten, not merely tightened. WAS 4.250 17:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous Peoples

Were the indigenous peoples hurt especially just those who had not had long term historical exposure to European viruses? Did the Basques have a special deathrate? If not I think the wording should be rearranged to clarify that it was not idigenous peoples, just those historically isolated

Vaccinations as cause?

I added a link under "further reading" to information postulating that US compulsory vaccinations caused the Spanish Flu. It may be interesting to add an additional section to the article if anyone has additional information from the "anti-vaccinationist" perspective. --Tokalon73 01:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of that link by WAS 4.250 ... WAS 4.250, I find the contrast between your "batshit-insane" description of a mere LINK and this touchy-feely quote on your user page to be puzzling:

"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities."

I fail to see the respect here. You seem merely to want to dictate what people can and cannot read, rather than let them decide for themselves. Either this open-source stuff is democratic or dictatorial, and if it's the latter, it's not open-source. Please show a little more respect rather just insult and force your preference onto everyone. --Tokalon73 02:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Most open-source is moderately to completely dictatorial; Linus in theory checks everything that goes into the kernel, and many open-source programs have one and only one person as the main programmer and dictator as to everything that goes in the official version of the program. There as here, you're welcome to fork if you follow the license, but you have no right to dictate what's in the mainstream version.

The link is not well-written, or credible. That's why it was deleted. Argue that issue, not some bogus "whatever I want to add to Wikipedia should stay" issue.--Prosfilaes 06:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Healthy immune systems more susceptible?

From the article:

"While World War I didn't cause the flu, the close quarters and mass movement of troops quickened its spread. It has been speculated that the soldiers' immune systems were weakened by the stresses of combat and chemical attacks, increasing their susceptibility to the disease."

From H1N1:

"Due to the nature of the infection, people with a normal healthy immune system were more susceptible to the disease, such as young adults compared to young children and the elderly."

Does anyone else see a conflict here? Spanish flu says that weakened immune systems increased susceptibility to the flu, and H1N1 says that normal healthy immune systems were more susceptible. Which is it? - Eric 11:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Normal healthy immune systems were more susceptible to Spanish flu because it like H5N1 killed by turning the body's immune system against itself, so the stronger your immune system, the harder you were attacked by it. (See cytokine storm.) "It has been speculated that the soldiers' immune systems were weakened by the stresses of combat and chemical attacks, increasing their susceptibility to the disease." is true because it was "speculated". Now, was the speculation true or false? Can one have a strong immune system due to being age 18 to 30 but also be "weakened by the stresses of combat and chemical attacks"? In other words can part of the immune system not used by cytokine storm be weakened by stress or chemicals without weakening the part of the immune system that is used against a person during a cytokine storm? I suspect yes, but I don't know. WAS 4.250 13:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted "inaccurate" additions

I added some things that should be on this page, including how long the pandemic lasted, and why scientists believe it subsided. I also gave a source. I'd like an explanation as to why my added information was "inaccurate". WAS 4.250? Fresheneesz 13:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You certainly deserve an explanation, so I'll give one.

1. This says "approximately year-long", not 18 months. 18 months can be wrong both due to being a year and a half instead of a year and due to being more precise than the facts allow (like claiming the average human pregnancy is x days long instead of y months long).
2. You deleted the reference used for both the length and for the number dead
3. you provide blog.eogn.com as a verification. Note "blog". Read WP:V.
4. it is important to as far as possible document which specific facts are supported by which specific pages on which specific references. Getting more specific is better. Getting less specific by moving a source to the bottom rather than tagging a specific sentence makes the verifyability of an article worse, not better. WAS 4.250 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

1. 18 months verified:

http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/1918flu.htm

http://medicine.science-tips.org/health/diseases-and-conditions/bird-flu.html

http://virus.avianbirdsflu.com/article.aspx?pageId=94

http://www.yoism.org/?q=node/148

http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2004/02/03/health.htm

2. I didn't delete the reference, you seem to know where I put it.

3. Verifying the fact that scientists recreated the flu:

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/051005_spanishflufrm.htm

http://www.hmnews.org/article2678.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171329,00.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100900932.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1585976,00.html

4. You say getting more specific is better, yet you don't like the 18 months figure. I get the point, its better inline. However, the ref tags make the paragraph look junky.

5. You mass reverted, letting my other small edits be caught in the storm. Please in the future be more discriminatory as to what to revert and what to keep. You're an admin (I presume) for a reason, and that reason is not so you can be lazier than other editors who would take the time to see whats wrong and fix it.

I'm going to revert your revert, excluding the reason people think it died out (I couldn't find sources to verify it). Please discuss it here before reverting again. Fresheneesz 01:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think what I think and you think what you think. We have a content dispute. I recommend arbitration. I suggest we find some third person we both trust and let them look at your version, my version, and this discussion and accept their solution. Sound good? WAS 4.250 04:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds ridiculous. We haven't even discussed it. I have addressed every single one of your numbered points. In my newer edit, none of your arguments are valid - because I fixed my edit based on each one - providing valid sources and changing my edits so they don't conflict with your points. PLEASE, tell me why you disagree with all of my edits. Don't you think we can come to an agreement without bothering other busy people? Fresheneesz 13:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no I don't think we can come to an agreement; but I'm wrong a lot about this sort of thing, so I'll give it a try. In a few minutes I'll post my thoughts on my last revert and why. WAS 4.250 14:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to take this one item at a time, at least for now, because I think I'm wasting my time. First item: you left out the ref tag. Why would you do that? WAS 4.250 14:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned it makes the paragraph look choppy (it separates the second line of the first paragraph from the first line). However, I just thought it looked better, its not an important part of my edit so you can have this one your way - thats fine. Next? Fresheneesz 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm not done with this. This is important. This has to do with whether I'm wasting my time. If you are here to beautify articles at the expense of their usefulness as an encyclopedia article then I'm wasting my time. Why would you chose to make it look better at the expense of its usefulness as an encyclopedia article? Do you understand what ref does and why it is used? WAS 4.250 21:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well i'm not here to beautify at any expense. I don't infact understand what ref does, other than exactly what an external link reference does. In many cases, the ref tag also adds lots of meta content - but this particular reference tag had basically none. In any case, my intentions are not the point, and *your time* is not what I care about (no offense). I've ceaded the issue, move on or you're wasting your own time without my help. Fresheneesz 05:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

20% of the world suffered?

it says: "with 20% of the world population suffering from the disease to some extent.". This needs to be clarified. What does "to some extent" encompass? That a person had a loved one lost? That they lost business because of it? "to some extent" is unacceptably vauge. Fresheneesz 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

French Institut Pasteur say 50% of the world population suffered, so ~950 millions. ~3% of the sicks were killed, so we have 30 millions deaths. Yug (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Material to add

FROM : Kreiser, Christine M. (December 2006). "Influenza 1918". The Enemy Within. 41. American History: 22. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

• Average age of death from flu : 33.

• Incubation period of the flu virus : 24 to 72 hours.

• The virus is able to live in the air during a period of 24 hours. Less humidity helps the virus to live.

• The epidemic lasted for less than two months in the majority of places.

• Home remedies for the flu included a teaspoon of sugar with turpentine or kerosene, or poultices made from goose grease and onions tied in a piece of red flannel and placed on the chest.

• 3 Navy nurses were posthumously awarded the Navy Cross for "distinguished service and devotion to duty" during the epidemic. They all died of the flu.

Why no recognition of the Spanish Flu?

I am suprised that an event that took 100, 000, 000 lives at the dawn of the 1900s has had little spot light. Black Death this, Black Death that. Why I heard of the S.F. (as a minor footnote) I was astonished! I thought to my self, "My God! So many people died! How have I never heard anything about this!? Nothing it texts or notes about how it effected the people or economy or nations". It's like nothing happened. Some people dropped dead and that's it.

-G It's all about priorities and publicity. In third world countries, people die off off of lots of things and the flu pandemic was just one more woe; and their news infrustructure was nead nonexistent. In developed counrties there was World War One taking place which meant it has both the priority and the pubkicity. Further governments activelty suppressed information about the pandemic. And finally western governments actively persistantly lied about it saying it was just a normal flu season and whatever you see to the contrary is just a local anomoly. Makes you wonder how much of history is a fairy tale.WAS 4.250 23:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Frozen Victims?

Should the article read

Scientists have used tissue samples from frozen victims to reproduce the virus for study.

or

Scientists have used tissue samples frozen from victims to reproduce the virus for study.

The former of course implies that you have whole people frozen, whilst the latter simply implies small tissue samples. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.78.64.106 (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

They died from Spanish flu in 1918-1919 in Alaska, were buried in permafrost, and were specifically chosen as victims who had been frozen since death in the search for actual unchanged samples of the 1918 virus. WAS 4.250 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the reference for that? Sounds like good material - - Never mind, google is my friend.129.78.208.4 06:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing about South China?

Nothing about the origins of the Spanish Flu being likely in China, near Hong Kong? That area is famous for "interesting" cuisines and has been the breeding ground for many "interesting" virii. - unsigned

The experts say it wasn't from China. The current debate includes lots of other possibilities and maybe the experts are wrong about this ... but there is no good evidence for such a source. WAS 4.250 20:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong the most likely place of origin was a bird farm in Kansas.

Where did it go?

Shouldn't there be something explaining what happend to it, why isn't it around today?, etc. --Fabio^Talk 03:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See Flu for what is known. Basically the flu virus can not help mutating so it never maintains any single specific strain and is always changing. But that doesn't tell us why the really deadly strains are rare and the not so deadly strains occur every year. Some think the strains that don't kill their hosts are more evolutionarily fit. There is evidence that the really deadly strains like the 1918 stain and H5N1 contain gene sequences that are evolutionarlity fit for survival endemic in birds but not humans meaning pandemics occur after bird flu genes become part of a human flu virus but before the (hopefully) inevitable mutation to a less virulent form. H5N1 is different in being able to infect so many species and being so deadly to so many more and so H5N1 could wind up being like the 1918 flu virus only never going away (by being endemic in wild birds that it does not kill yet remaining deadly to humans) - but no one knows. WAS 4.250 08:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

affected

You have something about towns whose entire population was wiped out. What towns are they? - Kiradax (Lunakeet, or the magic parakeet) 14:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading that some native Eskimo tribes in Alaska were wiped out. In the context of World War I and the technologies and development and resources at the time in 1918, I am sure that "wiped out" means enough died (over 80 percent maybe?) so everyone remaining fled and the village was not repopulated. WAS 4.250 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

something badly wrong with the figures

There is something badly wrong with the figures in this article. Global deaths are put at 50 - 100 million. Mortality among infected individuals at 2.5% - 5%. The proportion of the population catching the flu is given as 20% (this seems very high). In 1918, the world population was 1.85 billion. Accepting the seemingly high infection rate of 20%, this means that 370 million people caught it. If we take the high value of 5% for mortality of infected individuals, we end up with a total of 18.5 million deaths (9.25 million for the lower value). Luss42 10:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

100 million dead at 5% mortality gives 2000 million infected. Assume 2000 million for world population and "mortality" then must not mean "case mortality rate" but must mean "total population mortality rate". Case mortality rate then varies according the infection rate assumed (there is not even good data on total deaths much less infection). WAS 4.250 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

The 1918 flu pandemic, commonly referred to as the Spanish flu, was a category 5 influenza pandemic between 1918 and 1920 caused by an unusually severe and deadly Influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1. By far the most destructive pandemic in history, it killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide in just 18 months, [1][2] dwarfing the bloodshed and ball hair due to World War I (1914-1918). Many of its victims were healthy young adults with supple breasts and firm buttocks, in contrast to most influenza outbreaks which predominantly affect juvenile, elderly, or otherwise weakened patients.

I assume the parts I have bolded above from the first paragraph are due to vandalism since they makes no sense. Please edit the article if you agree.

I agree - that stuff should go. It's someone's attempt at light hearted humor (opinion) , sort of an odd thing to do with the dead. Thanks for removing it. Carptrash 13:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Spanish influenza research

"In February 1998, a team led by Jeffery Taubenberger of the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) recovered samples of the 1918 influenza from the frozen corpse of a Native Alaskan woman buried for nearly eight decades in permafrost near Brevig Mission, Alaska."

According to Gina Kolata's 1999 account of the pandemic, 'Flu', pp. 255-65, this is incorrect. Johan Hultin first attempted to recover samples from Brevig in 1951, but he was unsuccessful. In 1997, by then a seventy-two year old retired pathologist, he decided that science had advanced enough to make another attempt worthwhile. Taubenberger had already recovered RNA of limited quality from samples of two servicemen who had died in the pandemic, and Hultin wrote offering offering his services to try to get better quality samples from Brevig permafrost. Taubenberger accepted, and Hultin went alone to Brevig in August 1997, and recovered the sample from the Alaskan woman, which Taubenberger and his team then analysed. Dudleymiles 21:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr.Jeffrey Taubenberger

Does anyone know where Dr.Jeffrey Taubenberger works today? - unsigned

medicalnewstoday Article Date: 07 Jul 2007 says "Jeffery K. Taubenberger, M.D., Ph.D., senior investigator in the NIAID Laboratory of Infectious Diseases;" WAS 4.250 11:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs cleanup

The first few paragraphs of this article contain an unusual number of occurrences of the word unusual. Which is unusual because as unusual as it may seem, wikipedia articles are unusually well written considering the fact that anyone can edit. 74.140.118.185 07:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the problem down into the main body and rewrote the lead as a summary per WP:LEAD. It took me forever to realize that there is a shared transcluded subarticle here, Spanish flu research, which is an utterly bizarre alternative to summary style writing that directs readers to a subtopic article. I'm too lazy to go through the trouble of rewriting both Spanish flu and Flu research to conform to the WP:MOS, but if anyone wants to take it on, just assume that you have my vote if you run into resistance. - BanyanTree 05:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mention of waves needed

The Spanish flu pandemic came in three waves

The first pandemic in 1918 had a second wave and third wave. The last two in 1957 and 1968 also had a second wave.

http://www.pharmacyeurope.net/default.asp?title=Flupandemic%22maylastsixmonths%22&page=article.display&article.id=8002 Flu pandemic "may last six months" Wednesday 6th February 2008</ref>

The earlier wave of the Spanish flu in the U.S. was far less lethal than the later waves, and communities affected by the earlier mild wave experienced fewer deaths when stricken by the subsequent lethal waves.

The protective effect of community exposure to the early mild wave of the Spanish Flu is a public health fact of unique interest and usefulness, because it suggests a personal and public health strategy that may be vital during any near-term outbreak of a a mild form of pandemic flu that may have later lethal waves, as did the Spanish flu.

For a significant time after a pandemic emerges, it is expected that there will be no effective vaccine. While one is being developed, the experience of community protection by the mild wave of the Spanish Flu suggests a personal and public-health countermeasure that might be adapted from pre-vaccine days, one fashioned along the lines of chicken pox parties. These parties were favored before the emergence of effective chicken pox vaccine. A child who caught a mild case of chicken pox would be the honored guest at a party intended to allow all his or her friends to be immunized by exposure to the same mild form of chicken pox.

If an initial wave of pandemic influenza is as mild as was the first wave of the Spanish flu (dubbed the "three day" flu by a number of historians), then it will be theoretically possible for large numbers of the population to acquire some measure of personal immunity by arranging to contract the newly emergent mild strain before a lethal wave has time to evolve. These individuals may well protect protect not only themselves but in the process also provide the overall population with a measure of herd immunity to slow the rate of contagion of later more lethal waves, saving not only the lives of the inoculated but also sparing health, economies, and lives of others in their community or even globally,

By adding mention of the protection afforded by the mild first wave of the Spanish Flu to this article, readers will be furnished key information of potentially inestimable value and interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.68.117 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CDC citation to history of Spanish Flu's three waves

A masterful brief history full of information lamentably lacking in the current article is available, with footnotes, in

1918 Influenza: the Mother of All Pandemics Jeffery K. Taubenberger* and David M. Morens†

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol12no01/pdfs/05-0979.pdf

The authors provide this summary and prologue:

The “Spanish” influenza pandemic of 1918–1919, which caused ≈50 million deaths worldwide, remains an ominous warning to public health. Many questions about its origins, its unusual epidemiologic features, and the basis of its pathogenicity remain unanswered. The public health implications of the pandemic therefore remain in doubt even as we now grapple with the feared emergence of a pandemic caused by H5N1 or other virus. However, new information about the 1918 virus is emerging, for example, sequencing of the entire genome from archival autopsy tissues. But, the viral genome alone is unlikely to provide answers to some critical questions. Understanding the 1918 pandemic and its implications for future pandemics requires careful experimentation and in-depth historical analysis.

...

When and Where Did the 1918 Influenza Pandemic Arise?

Before and after 1918, most influenza pandemics developed in Asia and spread from there to the rest of the world. Conflunding definite assignment of a geographic point of origin, the 1918 pandemic spread more or less simultaneously in 3 distinct waves during an ≈12-month period in 1918–1919, in Europe, Asia, and North America (the first wave was best described in the United States in March 1918). Historical and epidemiologic data are inadequate to identify the geographic origin of the virus (21), not necessarily in the familiar annual winter patterns of and recent phylogenetic analysis of the 1918 viral genome does not place the virus in any geographic context (19).

Although in 1918 influenza was not a nationally Although in 1918 influenza was not a nationally reportable disease and diagnostic criteria for influenza and pneumonia were vague, death rates from influenza and pneumonia in the United States had risen sharply in 1915 and 1916 because of a major respiratory disease epidemic beginning in December 1915 (22). Death rates then dipped slightly in 1917. The first pandemic influenza wave appeared in the spring of 1918, followed in rapid succession by much more fatal second and third waves in the fall and winter of 1918–1919, respectively (Figure 1). Is it possible that a poorly-adapted H1N1 virus was already beginning to spread in 1915, causing some serious illnesses but not yet sufficiently fit to initiate a pandemic? Data consistent with this possibility were reported at the time from European military camps (23) ...

16 Emerging Infectious Diseases • www.cdc.gov/eid • Vol. 12, No. 1, January 2006

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.66.127 (talk) 20:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)