Talk:Sweating sickness

The

The article states no rash was visible, but the article in the BBC link provided says there was a rash associated with the disease.--Anchoress 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Any BBC reference indicating there is a rash associated with the sweating sickness is incorrect. Careful review of all medical historical literature is clear--the sweating sicking was rapid in onset, with symptoms consisting of malaise, fatigue, abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, diaphoresis (excessive sweating), and a foul, putrid vapor (breath), consistent with a pulmonary infection. No historical source cited indicates that a rash was in any way a common component of this disease. Indeed, this distinction has been used by various medical historians to discount a number of potential causes of sweating sickness that have a rash as a predominant feature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.137.183 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 17 May 2007

(opinion)

According to the article the disease affected the wealthy more than the poor, and didn't affect infants or children. The extremely short period between onset of symptoms and death would suggest an infection other than person to person. Survivors built up no immunity, and were sometimes stricken multiple times. The disease was confined to the UK and disappeared completely and forever, despite survivors not building up any immunity. These characteristics sound more like cases of mass poisoning than an infectious disease. Perhaps a toxin producing yeast in the wine production chain? --Mzzl (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this was mass poisoning. Symptoms sound quite similar (ie identical) to scopolamine poisoning. This is not 100% fatal, however. Seems silly to define this as a disease, much less a virus.~anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.165.105 (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, 75. I'm sure we can all rest easy in our beds knowing that a disease that has puzzled the medical profession for centuries has been solved by an anonymous contributor to an online encyclopaedia. I suppose apart from the absence of confusion, agitation, rambling speech, hallucinations, paranoid behaviours, and delusions it could well be Scopolamine poisoning.

Mzzl: The article does not say it affected the rich more than the poor; it mentions eleven well-off people (out of several thousand in total) affected in 1485. Nor did it leave children unaffected; the "unusual plague" Freeman mentions did that. Nor was it confined to the British Isles; the 1528 outbreak was recorded across Northern Europe. Still, the poisoning idea is interesting; do you have any sources that suggest it? Moonraker12 (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The marxist and Communist propaganda alwas spoke about the negative effects of colonization, native Amerindians that died because of smallpox etc. There's much less talk about the diseases brought from the Americas and the Far East to Europe. This sweating disease very much resembles with the Spanish flu. Or it may be a smallpox variant with mutated DNA brought back from America. Who knows... Recently, the scientists examined some human remnants related to Spanish flue (conserved in the Spitzbergen Island, I think, but also skeletons of people died of the Black Plague. Maybe the same tests would be needed in this particular case, too.. Mazarin07 (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Immunity or no immunity?

The article suggests that a bout with the sweating sickness seemed to offer no immunity and that a person could suffer with it several times (Characteristics). Later, it suggests that the fact that French mercenaries appeared to be immune to it meant it may have originated with them or in France (Cause). Another area notes that the sickness never appeared in France (1528).

Can we get these to all agree? 07:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egthegreat (talk • contribs)

Characteristics

...In the final stages, there was either general exhaustion and collapse, or an irresistible urge to sleep, which was thought[by whom?] to be fatal if the patient was permitted to give way to it...

the by whom is by Caius, whose description of the disease is being quoted,refer to

pp186 The Encyclopaedia Britannica : a dictionary of arts, sciences, literature and general information (c1910-1922) http://www.archive.org/details/encyclopaediabri26chisrich —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.251.203 (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Graham87 14:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Causes section

I just added "citation needed" to the first two paragraphs under the "Causes" heading and removed two statements re: "this suggests." The author's conjectures are unencyclopedic. I plan on deleting these two paragraphs if adequate citations are not added. Lazr75 (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Death Assessment Commentary

The article was assessed C-class for lack of sufficient in-line citations.Boneyard90 (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

CFS

I removed the following: "Chronic fatigue syndrome has been suggested by Chaudhuria and Behan, based on a 1934 article of epidemic myalgia outbreaks that share clinical similarities with Bornholm disease." This has vbeeb tagged as a dead link for a while, and franklty, it's difficult to see how anyone could seriously suggest that this fast-acting fatal disease has any resemblance to CFS. Paul B (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

ICD code

It seems kind of strange to have a mysterious historical disease represented by a modern diagnostic/billing code. Does the ICD explicitly mention sweating sickness under it's "sweating fever" category? Is it WP:OR to make the link between the historical disease and the modern category?Plantdrew (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing...