Men's Health on TV1
Peter Zohrab
New Zealand's TV1 will be showing a two-part programme on Men's Health
at 8 p.m. on June 17 and June 24, according to page 16 of TV Guide, May
30, 1997.
That's the good news. The bad news is that it's called "The Problem
With Men". It's directed by a woman, and, in today's sexist, misandrist
environment, it's impossible to get a TV show to air that helps men, I
guess, without giving it an anti-male title !
Can you imagine a programme going to air called "The Problem With
Women"? Women are totally faultless, as far as New Zealand television
is concerned.
Of course, the point of the title is that men don't look after their
health as much as women look after their own health -- but I bet the
programme won't mention the fact that much more money is spent on
research into women's health than is spent on research into men's
health -- and here I'm specifically talking about research into breast
cancer, prostate cancer and cervical cancer in the USA.
The write-up in the TV Guide says that men die earlier than women
because men don't look after their own health -- but I would say that a
lack of research, publicity and publicly funded treatment of men's
health would have a lot to do with it as well.
On the topic of longevity, it is amazing how Feminists always assume
that men's shorter life-span is either their own fault, or just an
immutable fact of life ( as the sexist Feminists who developed the
gender-related development index and the gender empowerment meassure for
the United Nations do, for example).
Peter Zohrab.
--
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6708 OR
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~zohrab/ for Men's and Fathers' resources.
PUBLISHER wanted for "Post-Feminism:Restoring the Sexual Contract."
Email MensD...@aol.com to subscribe to the Liberator.
Cliff Pratt
Peter Zohrab wrote:
>
> Of course, the point of the title is that men don't look after their
> health as much as women look after their own health -- but I bet the
> programme won't mention the fact that much more money is spent on
> research into women's health than is spent on research into men's
> health -- and here I'm specifically talking about research into breast
> cancer, prostate cancer and cervical cancer in the USA.
It is true that men tend to look after themselves less than women.
That has no connection to health spending.
>
> The write-up in the TV Guide says that men die earlier than women
> because men don't look after their own health -- but I would say that a
> lack of research, publicity and publicly funded treatment of men's
> health would have a lot to do with it as well.
>
Neither you no they are correct. The human body is actually
designed as female. There are lots of telltales that show
that all things being equal all bodies would be female. It
takes massive amounts of hormones thoughout a man's life
for him to stay a man. Anything which interrupts the flow
of hormones results in a man developing female characteristics.
These large doses of hormones over time cause men's bodies
to wear out before women's bodies, in spite of the demands
of child bearing and rearing.
Also the very much lower level of female hormones in
women ceases at menopause, allowing them a respite from
hormonal tides in their later years. This never really
happens for men.
Women are just better designed than men are.
> On the topic of longevity, it is amazing how Feminists always assume
> that men's shorter life-span is either their own fault, or just an
> immutable fact of life ( as the sexist Feminists who developed the
> gender-related development index and the gender empowerment meassure for
> the United Nations do, for example).
>
It *is* an immutable fact of life.
Cliff
Kent Duston
Cliff Pratt wrote:
>
--- snip ---
> Neither you no they are correct. The human body is actually
> designed as female. There are lots of telltales that show
> that all things being equal all bodies would be female. It
> takes massive amounts of hormones thoughout a man's life
> for him to stay a man. Anything which interrupts the flow
> of hormones results in a man developing female characteristics.
>
--- snip ---
>
> Women are just better designed than men are.
>
> > On the topic of longevity, it is amazing how Feminists always assume
> > that men's shorter life-span is either their own fault, or just an
> > immutable fact of life ( as the sexist Feminists who developed the
> > gender-related development index and the gender empowerment meassure for
> > the United Nations do, for example).
> >
> It *is* an immutable fact of life.
Oops, I must have been on a different planet when the research findings
were released.
Would you care to provide your references and sources to back the
assertions? I for one would be interested in what the studies were
looking at, and how they were conducted.
Cheers
Kent.
Peter Belt at the PLUG
>Can you imagine a programme going to air called "The Problem With
>Women"? Women are totally faultless, as far as New Zealand television
>is concerned.
OK, you make that a credible case with Suzanne Paul's makeover program, and
I'll sign up with your organisation for one year :-)
PB
(Sorry Pete, you're just too much fun to ignore :-)
Editor
The PLUG - New Zealand's Home Page
http://www.plug.co.nz
mailto:edi...@plug.co.nz
Peter Belt at the PLUG
<sexist comment warning>
I always held that opinion.
Actually, I'm with Billy Connely [comedian - for the culturally challenged].
He suspects he is a lesbian, because he studied lesbians, and he likes to do
everything lesbians do too.
On a more serious note, smirks aside, I always felt men were (in general) more
specialised for short bursts of high energy output, while women seem to be the
Duracel bunnies of the world. They just keep going and going and going. I'd
like to see a man after 9 months labour and a birth get 2 hour sleep a day for
weeks and survive. No way. Not me, anyway.
Still, seeing as I have already crossed the "PC" line here, let me part with a
small sexist joke: Should men trust women? (Pete Z? What do you think?)
Answer: no way! Would you trust anything that bleeds for a week every month
and LIVES?
I suppose I'd better quote you again, when you said:
>Women are just better designed than men are.
In general, of course - that's what you meant.
PB
(I just looked at all the cross posts. Pete Z does evangelise, doesn't he?)
Steve Bell
edi...@plug.co.nz (Peter Belt at the PLUG) wrote:
>Cliff Pratt <Cliff...@vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
>>Women are just better designed than men are.
><sexist comment warning>
>I always held that opinion.
>Actually, I'm with Billy Connely [comedian - for the culturally challenged].
>He suspects he is a lesbian, because he studied lesbians, and he likes to do
>everything lesbians do too.
Fine by us, the lesbians might reply; so long as you stop doing
anything we *don't* do.
I think Billy Connolly [ two Ls and an O - for the spelling-challenged
- couldn't resist :-)] might find that difficult - or at least
undesirable.
Or does he (do we?) secretly long for a lifestyle where we don't have
to produce an erection on demand and have it last at least half an
hour:-) Where we can fake orgasms; where we don't have to pretend to
be enthusiastic about rugby....
PS: I suspect I might have those tendencies too. Visiting a lesbian
friend, I discover she shares some of my tastes in erotica. The
difference is, she can get away with putting it on her bedroom wall.
Steve B
Steve Bell
edi...@plug.co.nz (Peter Belt at the PLUG) wrote:
>Cliff Pratt <Cliff...@vuw.ac.nz> wrote:
>>Women are just better designed than men are.
>On a more serious note, smirks aside, I always felt men were (in general) more
>specialised for short bursts of high energy output, while women seem to be the
>Duracel bunnies of the world. They just keep going and going and going. I'd
>like to see a man after 9 months labour and a birth get 2 hour sleep a day for
>weeks and survive. No way. Not me, anyway.
Nine months' *labour*? I don't think anyone would survive that.
Two hours' sleep a night? Why do I suspect you've never been the
father of an infant, Peter (B)?
Or are you of the "roll over and let *her* get on with it" school?
Steve B
Cliff Pratt
Kent Duston wrote:
>
> Cliff Pratt wrote:
> >
> > Women are just better designed than men are.
> >
> > >
>
> assertions? I for one would be interested in what the studies were
> looking at, and how they were conducted.
>
That's the trouble with going on memory alone. Someone always
asks for references...
Cliff
Cliff Pratt
Miche
In article <339318...@ix.netcom.com>
jew...@ix.netcom.com writes:
> My extra .02 cents: Plus men just "tough it out" and don't go to the
> doctor till things are really bad. Women tend to run to the doctor with
> every little ache and pain. That's just IMHO. No personal offense to
> women as I am one. (though I never understood
> why they just didn't "tough it out" too!)
People who 'tough it out' especially with colds get on my nerves.
Better to have an ounce of prevention (in the form of an early doctor's
visit) while the problem is a small one than time in hospital when it
gets serious. And people who go to work with colds just infect their
co-workers. Damned inconsiderate, actually.
Miche
--------------------
Miche Campbell
Remove <no-ads.> in address before emailing me.
My opinions are mine alone, not those of the University of Otago
BREAKFAST.COM Halted...Cereal Port Not Responding
Peter Ashby
In Article <5n2rcj$ppl$1...@celebrian.otago.ac.nz>,
michelle...@no-ads.stonebow.otago.ac.nz (Miche) wrote:
>In article <339318...@ix.netcom.com>
>jew...@ix.netcom.com writes:
>
>> My extra .02 cents: Plus men just "tough it out" and don't go to the
>> doctor till things are really bad. Women tend to run to the doctor with
>> every little ache and pain. That's just IMHO. No personal offense to
>> women as I am one. (though I never understood
>> why they just didn't "tough it out" too!)
>
>People who 'tough it out' especially with colds get on my nerves.
>Better to have an ounce of prevention (in the form of an early doctor's
>visit) while the problem is a small one than time in hospital when it
>gets serious. And people who go to work with colds just infect their
>co-workers. Damned inconsiderate, actually.
While I appreciate and agree with your concern for preventitive medicine,
you appear to be under the misaprehension that the common cold (or 'flu for
that matter, or most viral diseases) is curable. Colds are not even
particularly preventible, not everyone has an absolutely tip-top immune
system all the time. If you are seriously advocating that everyone with a
cold should stay at home until free of symptoms have you considered the
economic costs of this? Sure a cold is distressing but generally doesn't
stop you working.
Peter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Ashby National Institute for Medical Research
Eukaryotic Molecular Genetics London, England
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ellen W.
Cliff Pratt wrote:
> Peter Zohrab wrote:
> > The write-up in the TV Guide says that men die earlier than women
> > because men don't look after their own health -- but I would say
> > that a lack of research, publicity and publicly funded treatment of
> > men's health would have a lot to do with it as well.
Yes both. And both of these are part of the fact that Men's lives
are valued less from day one. The higher death rate extends to the
toddler age group.
> Neither you no they are correct. The human body is actually
> designed as female. There are lots of telltales that show
> that all things being equal all bodies would be female. It
> takes massive amounts of hormones thoughout a man's life
> for him to stay a man. Anything which interrupts the flow
> of hormones results in a man developing female characteristics.
> These large doses of hormones over time cause men's bodies
> to wear out before women's bodies, in spite of the demands
> of child bearing and rearing.
> Also the very much lower level of female hormones in
> women ceases at menopause, allowing them a respite from
> hormonal tides in their later years. This never really
> happens for men.
> Women are just better designed than men are.
This is false for two reasons.
1. The hormone difference is small before puberty, and male
death rates are much higher than female in these age groups.
2. The male/female ratio of life expectancy in the US and
in New Zealand is much lower than the ratio in the rest of
the first world countries.
both these show that if your hormone theory has any truth to it,
it can only be part of the explanation.
> > On the topic of longevity, it is amazing how Feminists always assume
> > that men's shorter life-span is either their own fault, or just an
> > immutable fact of life ( as the sexist Feminists who developed the
> > gender-related development index and the gender empowerment meassure
> > for the United Nations do, for example).
> >
> It *is* an immutable fact of life.
>
> Cliff
Do you have any citations for your female supremecy theory?
-Ted
Kent Duston
> > > health as much as women look after their own health -- but I bet the
> > > programme won't mention the fact that much more money is spent on
> > > research into women's health than is spent on research into men's
> > > health -- and here I'm specifically talking about research into breast
> > > cancer, prostate cancer and cervical cancer in the USA.
>
>
> This is COMPLETELY UNTRUE. Women are just now beginning to get funding
> for
> women's health problems. While it may be true that there is little to
> no funds
> for Prostatitis, in general men's health issues are funded much more
> than women's
> health issues are. Where are you getting your statistics?
>
--- snip ---
The argument about statistics will probably rage for some time, as these
are inherently fuzzy issues, open to all sorts of interpretation.
But one of the things that is noticeable is the media noise that
surrounds male/female health issues, which was the point of Peter's
original post.
Here in New Zealand, there has been a lot of publicity about cervical
screening and breast cancer programs for women, and little comparable
coverage of equivalent male issues. For instance, a media story this
week said that 1 in 7 Australian males attempted suicide by the time
they are 25 ...... and given that NZ has one of the highest youth
suicide rates in the Western world, I would suppose that our figures are
not too different.
The point is, a health problem (which this definitely is) affecting 1 in
7 of any population is called an epidemic. And epidemics normally get a
ton of press coverage ..... which this one has absolutely failed to do.
Yet breast cancer (affecting a much smaller percentage of women) is also
classed as an epidemic, and covered accordingly in the media here.
I'm not suggesting that it's a conspiracy from the media, but perhaps
there is a blind spot which needs addressing.
Cheers ....... Kent
Peter Belt at the PLUG
>Nine months' *labour*? I don't think anyone would survive that.
Woops. Pregnancy, of course Shows you what too much Internet can do to a well
meaning confused lad like myself.
>Two hours' sleep a night? Why do I suspect you've never been the
>father of an infant, Peter (B)?
Good guess (all of it. No father, no infant, and definitely a B)
>Or are you of the "roll over and let *her* get on with it" school?
If you knew my wife, you wouldn't say that. It would be the <elbow> "Pete,
Bub's crying". Pete exits bedroom. Re-appears with bundle. Exposes breast.
Applies Bub. Falls into bed on the other side. Awaits arrival of next elbow.
My wife is of the "you wanted it, your problem" school. (Hence no Bub :-)
Or so I imagine it would be. It is all make believe at this stage, and it
better stay that way, because in every conceivable (ha) scenario, I'd be in
trouble.
PB
Peter Belt at the PLUG
s.b...@iecho.co.nz (Steve Bell) wrote:
>Two hours' sleep a night? Why do I suspect you've never been the
>father of an infant, Peter (B)?
Come to think of it, maybe I do need to be a member of the men's rights
association <smirk>
Gerard S. Harbison
> Cliff Pratt wrote:
> > Neither you no they are correct. The human body is actually
> > designed as female. There are lots of telltales that show
> > that all things being equal all bodies would be female. It
> > takes massive amounts of hormones thoughout a man's life
> > for him to stay a man. Anything which interrupts the flow
> > of hormones results in a man developing female characteristics.
Utter crap, of course. The human body is not 'designed' in the first place.
Depending on hormone levels in utero, the fetus will develop either as a
male or as a female. You can regard baby boys as girls transformed by
testosterone, or you can regard girls as testosterone-deficient boys. Each
is equally fatuous.
Miche
In article <p-ashby.1...@mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>
p-a...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk (Peter Ashby) writes:
> While I appreciate and agree with your concern for preventitive medicine,
> you appear to be under the misaprehension that the common cold (or 'flu for
> that matter, or most viral diseases) is curable.
I realised it looked that way after I wrote it. I know the common cold
is not curable; however people who come to work while 'toughing it out'
through a cold are not doing themselves or anyone else a favour.
Added to this, often (for things other than colds) an early visit to
the doctor *can* save time, pain and money by catching an ailment at
the early stages, rather than requiring hospital intervention at a
later, more serious stage.
Peter Belt at the PLUG
>male or as a female. You can regard baby boys as girls transformed by
>testosterone, or you can regard girls as testosterone-deficient boys. Each
>is equally fatuous.
I'm more comfortable with the thought that I'm a girl transferred by
testosterone. The alternative view would get in the way of my passion :-)
Peter Belt at the PLUG
>friend, I discover she shares some of my tastes in erotica. The
>difference is, she can get away with putting it on her bedroom wall.
Darn it. I can't even get away with having an erotic screen saver. You know,
like Bill in frillies.
The more I keep conversing in this thread, the more I come to realise that
being a man is a cruel twist of nature, and I must investigate the Men's Right
association after all.
If you're not the master of your own bedroom wall (or screen saver), then
that's starting to get pretty serious indeed.
Regards
Kerry Thornbury
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 07:03:27 -0700, "Ellen W." <ok...@a.crl.com>
wrote:
>Cliff Pratt wrote:
>> Peter Zohrab wrote:
>> > The write-up in the TV Guide says that men die earlier than women
>> > because men don't look after their own health -- but I would say
>> > that a lack of research, publicity and publicly funded treatment of
>> > men's health would have a lot to do with it as well.
>
>Yes both. And both of these are part of the fact that Men's lives
>are valued less from day one. The higher death rate extends to the
>toddler age group.
I hope you aren't suggesting that boy babies have a higher death rate
in early childhood because they are less valued than girl babies?....
Stephen Judd
In article <33964eb8...@news.es.co.nz>, ker...@ihug.co.nz (Kerry
Thornbury) wrote:
No! Don't give him ideas!
On second thoughts, yes! They can't be any worse than the ones he already has!
Stephen
***this message contains a spam block to foil spam-wankers***
***to email me, remove the capital letters from my "Reply-To" line***
--
Stephen Judd | Install new ClueDoubler(tm) today!
Interactive Media Consultant | Minimum Configuration: half a Clue.
Campus Media | Want my PGP key?
University of Waikato, New Zealand | http://stephen.ttg.waikato.ac.nz/
Ellen W.
Kerry Thornbury wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 07:03:27 -0700, "Ellen W." <ok...@a.crl.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Cliff Pratt wrote:
> >> Peter Zohrab wrote:
> >> > The write-up in the TV Guide says that men die earlier than
> >> > women because men don't look after their own health -- but I
> >> > would say that a lack of research, publicity and publicly
> >> > funded treatment of men's health would have a lot to do with
> >> > it as well.
> >
> >Yes both. And both of these are part of the fact that Men's lives
> >are valued less from day one. The higher death rate extends to the
> >toddler age group.
>
> I hope you aren't suggesting that boy babies have a higher death
> rate in early childhood because they are less valued than girl
> babies?....
This is precisely what I am suggesting. I can think of no other
explanation which is consistent with the causes of death that have
differential death rate by sex. For toddlers, the causes of death which
have the biggest discrepancy by sex are accidents and murder. For kids
above age 5, the three causes with the biggest differential death rate
by sex are accidents, murder and suicide. There is nothing natural
about the greater death rate of boys.
-Ted
Noeline McCaughan
Miche (michelle...@no-ads.stonebow.otago.ac.nz) wrote:
"snip"
: often (for things other than colds) an early visit to
: the doctor *can* save time, pain and money by catching an ailment at
: the early stages, rather than requiring hospital intervention at a
: later, more serious stage.
What beats me is the number of people I meet who work with the public
everpresent and who don't bother to take advantage of immunisation for the
'flu. The women in one establishment were all having a moan about a client
coming in coughing and spluttering with the 'flu.
They were indignant and saying he should have stayed home, perhaps so but
what amazed me was their attitude when I asked if they had been immunised.
The general comment was that they were young, that they probably wouldn't
catch it, that they didn't think the cost was worth it and in any case they
could always take sick leave.
Noeline.
Lin Nah
Noeline McCaughan (noe...@styx.southern.co.nz) wrote:
: Miche (michelle...@no-ads.stonebow.otago.ac.nz) wrote:
: "snip"
: : often (for things other than colds) an early visit to
: : the doctor *can* save time, pain and money by catching an ailment at
: : the early stages, rather than requiring hospital intervention at a
: : later, more serious stage.
: What beats me is the number of people I meet who work with the public
: everpresent and who don't bother to take advantage of immunisation for the
: 'flu. The women in one establishment were all having a moan about a client
: coming in coughing and spluttering with the 'flu.
<snip>
: The general comment was that they were young, that they probably wouldn't
: catch it, that they didn't think the cost was worth it and in any case they
: could always take sick leave.
It can cost up to around $30 or $35 to get it done - some even slightly
higher, depending on what the doctor charges for consulation on top of
the cost of the vaccine. So for some, they'd rather have the sick days
off than have to shell out for the money.
Some say the employers should pay for this.
Students at U of Auckland can get it for $8 each at student health.
So I guess we can use that as the base - minimum cost of a flu vaccine.
Unfortunately despite that low cost, quite a number of my students
have not had it - judging from the number who have caught the flu recently.
I decided to give it a try this year ( i mean having the vaccines) since
the flu has always hit me quite badly in the past. However I am not that
optimistic because the 2 other times I have been vaccinated against it
(ages ago - last one was more than 10 years ago) it has not been effective.
I am hoping that things have improved since then and maybe this time it
will effectively prevent me from getting it.
I think we should not be judgemental over this. Some people may not be
eligible for flu vaccines. I was asked a number of questions before I
was given my shot.
regards
lin
Kerry Thornbury
lin...@comu2.auckland.ac.nz (Lin Nah) wrote:
>Noeline McCaughan (noe...@styx.southern.co.nz) wrote:
>: Miche (michelle...@no-ads.stonebow.otago.ac.nz) wrote:
>: "snip"
>: What beats me is the number of people I meet who work with the public
>: everpresent and who don't bother to take advantage of immunisation for the
>: 'flu. The women in one establishment were all having a moan about a client
>: coming in coughing and spluttering with the 'flu.
>It can cost up to around $30 or $35 to get it done - some even slightly
>higher, depending on what the doctor charges for consulation on top of
>the cost of the vaccine. So for some, they'd rather have the sick days
>off than have to shell out for the money.
The vaccination is $18 this year. Most practices offer immunisation
free from the practice nurse. Cost me $18.
>I decided to give it a try this year ( i mean having the vaccines) since
>the flu has always hit me quite badly in the past. However I am not that
>optimistic because the 2 other times I have been vaccinated against it
>(ages ago - last one was more than 10 years ago) it has not been effective.
>I am hoping that things have improved since then and maybe this time it
>will effectively prevent me from getting it.
The efficacy of an immunisation is determined by the immune response
your body mounts to that immunisation. The main reason that a
particular flu injection doesn't work though, is because it is
protective against a strain different to the one that 'gets you'.
This year the vaccine is against A/Texas 91, A/Nanchang 95, B/Harbin
94. The vaccination will only work against these, and we have been
caught out before by rogue flu strains. The vaccine is not long
lasting, the antibodies only lasting for 1 influenza season in the
majority of people. The strains for the approaching influenza season
are determined by the World HEalth Organisation as being the
'fashionable' flu this season. Be chic and get it ;-)
Seriously though I had the vaccination last year and was blessedly flu
free, and decided I couldn't take a week out to feel lousy this year
either
Kerry
"What I love most about deadlines
is the whooshing sound they make as they go by."
- Douglas Adams
Lin Nah
Kerry Thornbury (ker...@ihug.co.nz) wrote:
: lin...@comu2.auckland.ac.nz (Lin Nah) wrote:
: >Noeline McCaughan (noe...@styx.southern.co.nz) wrote:
: >: Miche (michelle...@no-ads.stonebow.otago.ac.nz) wrote:
: >: "snip"
: >: What beats me is the number of people I meet who work with the public
: >: everpresent and who don't bother to take advantage of immunisation for the
: >: 'flu. The women in one establishment were all having a moan about a client
: >: coming in coughing and spluttering with the 'flu.
: >It can cost up to around $30 or $35 to get it done - some even slightly
: >higher, depending on what the doctor charges for consulation on top of
: >the cost of the vaccine. So for some, they'd rather have the sick days
: >off than have to shell out for the money.
: The vaccination is $18 this year. Most practices offer immunisation
: free from the practice nurse. Cost me $18.
Unfortunately a student who did not realise Student health did it cheaper
had paid $29 for a flu shot. S/he mentioned this to me after I put the
cost of doing it at student health on one of the web pages for my paper.
I paid $16 for mine. It was administered by the nurse.
regards
Lin
Simon Lyall
In nz.general Noeline McCaughan <noe...@styx.southern.co.nz> wrote:
>What beats me is the number of people I meet who work with the public
>everpresent and who don't bother to take advantage of immunisation for the
>'flu. The women in one establishment were all having a moan about a client
>coming in coughing and spluttering with the 'flu.
I don't know if other people notice this but some people get sick and some
people don't. Take the people at a place I work part-time. Of the six
people who work with me most weeks 4 of us only have a couple of days each
year off sick. However the other 2 would have between 1/4 to 1/3 of the
days they are supposed to work sick. Things were getting so bad that the
boss said that they *had* to bring in a doctors certificate every time
they were sick (I think the union complained about this after a while).
Some people will catch about 3 lots of the flu each year and be off work
for weeks, others will feel a bit snuffly for a couple of days and then be
fine. I am certainly not going to go through the whole trouble of taking a
day off work and inconvienencing everyone else just because I have a little
cough. Sure if I am really sick I'll take a day off but not just for a
little touch of flu.
As for taking an injection what is the point? It cost $x , it involves
someone jabbing a needle into you (something to avoid if possible), it can
involve side effect (usually just sore shoulders etc for a day or two) and
half the time it doesn't even work! Balance this against the fact that I
have so many sick days that are specificly there *if* I get sick and
result in me getting full pay to recover.
Sure if you get sick a lot go for it, otherwise it's a waste of money.
--
Simon Lyall. | Looking for Work | Mail: si...@darkmere.gen.nz
"Inside me Im Screaming, Nobody pays any attention." | MT.
Colin Douthwaite
Simon Lyall (si...@darkmere.gen.nz) wrote:
>In nz.general Noeline McCaughan <noe...@styx.southern.co.nz> wrote:
>>What beats me is the number of people I meet who work with the public
>>everpresent and who don't bother to take advantage of immunisation for the
>>'flu. The women in one establishment were all having a moan about a client
>>coming in coughing and spluttering with the 'flu.
>I don't know if other people notice this but some people get sick and some
>people don't.
But the people who don't get sick can be carriers.
That is one reason why immunization of a high percentage of the
population is desirable especially when there is contact with individuals
at high risk from infections.
Bye,
Cliff Pratt
Noeline McCaughan wrote:
>
> What beats me is the number of people I meet who work with the public
> everpresent and who don't bother to take advantage of immunisation for the
> 'flu. The women in one establishment were all having a moan about a client
> coming in coughing and spluttering with the 'flu.
>
spluttering" you don't have the 'flu.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Cliff
Sylvia L Dalefield
lin...@comu2.auckland.ac.nz (Lin Nah) wrote:
>: The vaccination is $18 this year. Most practices offer immunisation
>: free from the practice nurse. Cost me $18.
>regards
>Lin
Is this the first year you have had the jab, Lin? If not, do you
think it works?
I have never had one because of the fact that my brother and
sister-in-law get one every year, and every year they go down with a
virus that is new to their system (according to their doctor). As I
don't get colds and seldom get the 'flu', I must have a natural
immunity. Says she, touching wood.
Sylvia
Kerry Thornbury
Hiya Cliff
Coughing and spluttering are indeed symptoms of influenza. Flu's are
respiratory infections, with widespread symptoms in the body, aches,
pains, fever, headache, sore throat. Can get sore watering eyes as
well, basically it can go anywhere. It starts in the respiratory
tract but has widespread effects on the body. The clincher for the
flu is the fever/high temperature and severity of the symptoms. You
KNOW when you have the flu. Often people get a bacterial infection
on top of the viral one, this can cause the yuckky gunky <note the hi
tech lingo> green stuff. Flus tend to happen in epidemics in late
autumn and winter.
Colds are also viral infections, but they are confined to the upper
respiratory tract, the nose , throat, larynx, trachea and bronchi.
Colds stay in the upper respiratory tract, they don't affect the whole
body. Sneezing, watery runny nose, cough, sore throat, dry cough,
laryngitis. No fever, aches and pains. Can get bacterial infection
on top of the viral with the green gunk as before, can turn into ear
infections or sinusitis. Striking seasonal pattern, colds are more
common in the spring, summer and early autumn.
Hope this helps
K
Lin Nah
Sylvia L Dalefield (sylv...@manawatu.gen.nz) wrote:
: lin...@comu2.auckland.ac.nz (Lin Nah) wrote:
: >: The vaccination is $18 this year. Most practices offer immunisation
: >: free from the practice nurse. Cost me $18.
: >I paid $16 for mine. It was administered by the nurse.
: Is this the first year you have had the jab, Lin? If not, do you
Well this is the first year since 10 years ago so I don't know if it'll
work. It has not worked before so I'm not holding my breath.
Trying other things to prevent the flu as well like garlic tablets 8)
Lin
Noeline McCaughan
Sylvia L Dalefield (sylv...@manawatu.gen.nz) wrote:
: lin...@comu2.auckland.ac.nz (Lin Nah) wrote:
: >: The vaccination is $18 this year. Most practices offer immunisation
: >: free from the practice nurse. Cost me $18.
: >I paid $16 for mine. It was administered by the nurse.
: Is this the first year you have had the jab, Lin? If not, do you
: think it works?
: I have never had one because of the fact that my brother and
: sister-in-law get one every year, and every year they go down with a
: virus that is new to their system (according to their doctor). As I
: don't get colds and seldom get the 'flu', I must have a natural
: immunity. Says she, touching wood.
It works, for Jim and me anyway. Have you considered the possibility that
*you* might be passing something on to the unfortunate pair? :-) As for a
"new" virus every year, hmm, methinks the Doc. may just be making placatory
noises.
I note that among those I know the ones who seem to suffer from viral
infections the most seem to be the heavy drinkers and/or smokers and the
infirm elderly.
Noeline.
Lin Nah
In the last few weeks there's been a BBC documentary (on bbc world service
on TV) called "Cracking the Code". It discusses DNA, genetics etc and
introduces the concepts in laymans terms. At least it made it easy for
me to understand.
Each installment (as with other documentries on the bbc world) plays
a few times in the same weeks at different times so that everyone has
a chance to see it.
I happened to catch the current installment (it's a bit of a hit and
miss thing for me) a few minutes ago - or at least part of it. it might
be worth taping and watching for those of you who would like to find
out more about flu viruses. It certainly explained to me why things
change so often etc 8)
regards
Lin
Frank G. Pitt
In article <5nj0f8$bul$2...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>,
>>>What beats me is the number of people I meet who work with the public
>>>everpresent and who don't bother to take advantage of immunisation for the
>>>'flu. The women in one establishment were all having a moan about a client
>>>coming in coughing and spluttering with the 'flu.
>
>>people don't.
>
>But the people who don't get sick can be carriers.
>
>That is one reason why immunization of a high percentage of the
>population is desirable especially when there is contact with individuals
>at high risk from infections.
One reason why immunization or other unneccesary use of medicines is _not_
a good idea is that if the flu's and colds are given a hard time, they
end up evolving into something worse, merely to survive.
The recent discovery of another "super-bug" in a Japanese hospital,
immune to to all antibiotics, is just the result of over use of anti-biotics.
I'd rather suffer a mild influenza now, than be hit by a killer influenza
that is immune toa existing antibodies and antibiotics sometime in the
future
Frankie
Marty Faville
In article <noelin...@styx.southern.co.nz>, noe...@styx.southern.co.nz
(Noeline McCaughan) wrote:
> Sylvia L Dalefield (sylv...@manawatu.gen.nz) wrote:
> : lin...@comu2.auckland.ac.nz (Lin Nah) wrote:
> : >: The vaccination is $18 this year. Most practices offer immunisation
> : >: free from the practice nurse. Cost me $18.
> : >I paid $16 for mine. It was administered by the nurse.
>
> : Is this the first year you have had the jab, Lin? If not, do you
> : think it works?
> : I have never had one because of the fact that my brother and
> : sister-in-law get one every year, and every year they go down with a
> : virus that is new to their system (according to their doctor). As I
> : don't get colds and seldom get the 'flu', I must have a natural
> : immunity. Says she, touching wood.
>
> It works, for Jim and me anyway. Have you considered the possibility that
> *you* might be passing something on to the unfortunate pair? :-) As for a
> "new" virus every year, hmm, methinks the Doc. may just be making placatory
> noises.
Hmm, I dunno. Viruses mutate very rapidly. Which is why I don't bother
getting immunised. I also think the occasional bout of 'flu is a great
opportunity to get home and discover what a frothing torrent of bilge
daytime TV is.
Marty.
_____________________________________________________________________
Marty Faville 'I don't mean to brag, I don't mean to boast,
Biology Department but we're like hot butter on breakfast toast'
University of Waikato
Hamilton, New Zealand. Sugarhill Gang.
Mark Doherty
There are a few misconceptions circulating here, which could probably do
with a bit of clearing up. :-)
First (with regard to the comments above) *not* getting the jab is going to
have no effect on the evolution of a "supervirus". If immunisation is
effective, then the virus is going to be contained and (in the case of
'flu) eliminated. Since an effective immune response is adaptive, a virus
is not going to "out-evolve" it in the host (the proof is that 'flu never
recrudesces (that is, reappears from a latent form). If you *don't* make
an effective immune response to the 'flu - you die.
New, more virulent forms of 'flu *do* evolve - but the reason they appear
is because 'flu has developed a way of incorporating genetic material from
other viruses to create new forms that have never been seen before. Since
it's new, your immune system hasn't seen anything like this before, and you
start the infection without even the residual immunity you might have
against other 'flu viruses.
Secondly, most people fail to distinguish between a bad cold and the 'flu.
'Flu is actually pretty rare, and generally fairly severe. If you have a
stuffed sinus, a leaky nose, sore throat and bad headache, it's probably
just a cold. "Flu is almost always accompanied by all the preceding, plus
fever, extremely sore eyes, muscle pain, aching or painful joints and
significant swelling of the throat (normally with significant "pockmarks"
on the back of the throat. Often the victim coughs a little red blood in
the sputum or mucus from the lungs.
When people get a bad cold, they almost always say they have the 'flu - but
generally this is not the case. It would be almost unheard of the get a
case of the 'flu every winter - there's only a limited number of serotypes.
On the other hand, there were at least 800 viruses known to be capable of
causing a cold when I was an undergrad, and I suspect the number of
identified culprits is much greater now.
The second point is that immunity to antibiotics only affects bacteria or
parasites - not viruses, and it is an inevitabale, if unfortunate side
effect of antibiotic use. (The development of resistance is a damn good
reason not to overprescribe antibiotics of course, and to ban them from
animal feed.)
So, if you have any history of respiratory illness, or you're getting on a
bit (say 60+) then by all means get the jab. If you're younger the cost
and annoyane probably outweigh the typical risk. If you *do* get the 'flu
however - GO HOME UNTIL YOU"RE BETTER. At the clinical centre across the
road, every winter the wards sprout signs carrying that message. 'Flu is
is *very* contagious, and if you give it to someone who is already under
the weather, they may not just miss a few day's work - it could kill them.
Machismo is one thing, but stupidity is quite another. The last big "flu
epidemic in the '60's killed several million people and left millions of
others with permanent respiratory-related illnesses.
Cheers, Mark: recently promoted to Associate Research scientist at the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases :-)
Kerry Thornbury
On 9 Jun 1997 13:09:22 GMT, Simon Lyall <si...@darkmere.gen.nz> wrote:
>In nz.general Noeline McCaughan <noe...@styx.southern.co.nz> wrote:
>>What beats me is the number of people I meet who work with the public
>>everpresent and who don't bother to take advantage of immunisation for the
>
>As for taking an injection what is the point? It cost $x , it involves
>someone jabbing a needle into you (something to avoid if possible), it can
>involve side effect (usually just sore shoulders etc for a day or two) and
>half the time it doesn't even work! Balance this against the fact that I
>have so many sick days that are specificly there *if* I get sick and
>result in me getting full pay to recover.
I agree, the flu injection isn't necessary for everyone. I am in the
position where it would be difficult for me to take a week off work
at the moment, so I got the jab to optimise my chances of not getting
the presnt flu. If you are healthy though, and not elderly or very
young, the flu will make you sick for a few days and not cause any
extra problems.
>Sure if you get sick a lot go for it, otherwise it's a waste of money.
>
I don't get sick...but I don't want to at the moment :-)
Kerry
Colin Douthwaite
Lin Nah (lin...@comu2.auckland.ac.nz) wrote:
>In the last few weeks there's been a BBC documentary (on bbc world service
>on TV) called "Cracking the Code". It discusses DNA, genetics etc and
>introduces the concepts in laymans terms. At least it made it easy for
>me to understand.
>Each installment (as with other documentries on the bbc world) plays
>a few times in the same weeks at different times so that everyone has
>a chance to see it.
What different times and where ?
>I happened to catch the current installment (it's a bit of a hit and
>miss thing for me) a few minutes ago - or at least part of it. it might
>be worth taping and watching for those of you who would like to find
>out more about flu viruses. It certainly explained to me why things
>change so often etc 8)
Aaargh...a programming nightmare.
It turns out this is a Weekend World: Cracking the Code _series_ of
programmes running on eTV on TV1 since Monday May 5 at 7-05am and
the title of each episode was not given...all "The Listener" gave
was just the title of the series.
And...the local CTV has also run the series at 3-05pm on Sundays
since Sunday May 4 but only in the last 2 weeks have they given the
title of the episode:
Sunday, June 14 " Body Invaders: A look at the body's powerful
defence in the face of invaders. "
Sunday, June 22 " Freedom in the Genes: DNA may makeus what we are
physically, but it is a flexible blueprint. "
The series has so far run for 8 weeks.
TV1 is still not giving the title of each episode.
CTV is scheduled for closure by TVNZ at the end of June although
there are rumours of a reprieve.
Bye,
Colin Douthwaite
Lin Nah (lin...@comu2.auckland.ac.nz) wrote:
>In the last few weeks there's been a BBC documentary (on bbc world service
>on TV) called "Cracking the Code". It discusses DNA, genetics etc and
>introduces the concepts in laymans terms. At least it made it easy for
>me to understand.
>
>Each installment (as with other documentries on the bbc world) plays
>a few times in the same weeks at different times so that everyone has
>a chance to see it.
>
>miss thing for me) a few minutes ago - or at least part of it. it might
>be worth taping and watching for those of you who would like to find
>out more about flu viruses. It certainly explained to me why things
>change so often etc 8)
It turns out this is a Weekend World: Cracking the Code _series_ of
programmes running on eTV on TV1 since Monday May 5 at 7-05am and
the title of each episode was not given...all "The Listener" gave
was just the title of the series.
And...the local CTV has also run the series at 3-05pm on Sundays
since Sunday May 4 but only in the last 2 weeks have they given the
title of the episode:
Sunday, June 14 " Body Invaders: A look at the body's powerful
defence in the face of invaders. "
Sunday, June 22 " Freedom in the Genes: DNA may makeus what we are
physically, but it is a flexible blueprint. "
The series has so far run for 8 weeks.
The title of each episode is still not stated in the TV1 listings.
Hayden Crowther
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------FCC7E781010C192A16A2D311
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In Japan, people with the flu all wear a mask, like a white dust mask
(not a full face one) this is very considerate for others that they come
in contact with. I'm not sure if it woks or makes a difference, but if
they do we should look at trying to introduce it here, maybe make clear
ones so people don't hide behind them and rob banks etc. It would save
millions of dollars in doctors bills and employers paying out for
unnecessary sick days and hopefully stop the flu strand from evolving in
to a killer virus.
Hayden (a man with the flu)
--------------FCC7E781010C192A16A2D311
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="vcard.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: Card for Hayden Crowther
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="vcard.vcf"
begin: vcard
fn: Hayden Crowther
n: ;Hayden Crowther
email;internet: h...@ihug.co.nz
x-mozilla-cpt: ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
end: vcard
--------------FCC7E781010C192A16A2D311--
Lin Nah
Colin Douthwaite (cf...@southern.co.nz) wrote:
: Lin Nah (lin...@comu2.auckland.ac.nz) wrote:
: >In the last few weeks there's been a BBC documentary (on bbc world service
: >on TV) called "Cracking the Code". It discusses DNA, genetics etc and
: >introduces the concepts in laymans terms. At least it made it easy for
: >me to understand.
IT was shown just after midnight on MOnday morning.
Quite interesting
Lin
Sylvia L Dalefield
>noe...@styx.southern.co.nz (Noeline McCaughan) wrote:
>>Sylvia L Dalefield (sylv...@manawatu.gen.nz) wrote:
>>: I have never had one because of the fact that my brother and
>>: sister-in-law get one every year, and every year they go down with a
>>: virus that is new to their system (according to their doctor). As I
>>: don't get colds and seldom get the 'flu', I must have a natural
>>: immunity. Says she, touching wood.
>>It works, for Jim and me anyway. Have you considered the possibility that
>>*you* might be passing something on to the unfortunate pair? :-) As for a
Nope.... Altho we are in constant touch by phone I only see them
about once a year so it's not likely 8-)
Sylvia