A new study suggests that your “man flu” is totally legit

In the immortal words of The Smiths, "And if they don't believe us now, will they ever believe us?"

An article published in the British Medical Journal has argued that the ever-mocked man flu might actually have some basis in science. The study, by Dr. Kyle Sue of the University of Newfoundland, notes that "Epidemiological data from 2004-10 for seasonal influenza in Hong Kong showed that adult men had a higher risk of hospital admission." Sue also cited two "studies of influenza vaccination suggest that women are more responsive to vaccination than men." The study also discusses the concept of an "immunity gap," which is the idea the men simply have weaker immune systems than women. However, Sue postulates that much of what makes men ill could be in our own hands. For example, men worldwide are more like than women to be smokers. They are also less likely to seek medical intervention when they are sick. The study concludes that the common dismissal of "man flu" is "potentially unjust." "Men may not be exaggerating symptoms but have weaker immune responses to viral respiratory viruses, leading to greater morbidity and mortality than seen in women."