Christina Applegate hospitalized with kidney infection: 'They're thinking that it could be something else'
Christina Applegate is on the mend at home after spending a week in the hospital.
The Dead to Me actress said Tuesday evening in a statement to Entertainment Weekly that she was home after being treated for kidney infection, noting, "I was there seven days."
The update came after Applegate explained on Tuesday's edition of the MeSsy podcast, which she cohosts with Jamie-Lynn Sigler, that she was recording from a hospital in Los Angeles. She said she was unsure of exactly what was going on, other than that she had a kidney infection, but she assured listeners that she would recover.
"I didn't, by the way, people out there, I'm not doing a podcast from the hospital because I felt like doing one from the hospital was an awesome idea," Applegate said. "We just happen to have this scheduled and they won't let me leave yet because things are, things are messy, but I'm going to be OK. How am I? I'm, right now, I'm waiting till, at 1 o'clock, I get medicines to feel better. So that's how I'm doing right now."
Applegate revealed in August 2021 that she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis earlier in the year. In March, the Don't Tell Mom the Babysitter's Dead actress said on the podcast that she had ended up in the hospital "upwards of 30 times" due to "throwing up and diarrhea and pain" just three years after diagnosis, although she had been told by a doctor that it was "not an MS thing."
She was admitted to the hospital this time, she said, following a trip to visit family in Europe. Applegate was "not feeling good" and struggling with stomach pain the entire trip, but it wasn't until she returned Stateside that she checked in.
"We flew back on our 11-hour flight, and I wasn't feeling good. And I was really afraid to go back home and get to the point where I was so bad that like at 3 in the morning, my poor friend has to drive me, and it's a Saturday night and it's going to be horrible. So, I was like, ''I'm going to go and I'm not leaving there until I have some f---ing answers! Like, I'm done. Think outside the box. Don't just leave me there, give me meds, and say, 'You feel better now. You're going home.' I want to know why this is happening, and I want it to stop so that I don't have to keep coming here."
The next day, Applegate said, she began "getting a pain that I've never felt before on my right side in my back." She panicked and thought her appendix might be bursting.
"Well, it also was radiating in the back," she continued. "So, I hate this word, but the whole flank — I'm going to say it just cause it's the worst f---ing word. Flank from my back to my front is in so much pain. I'm like screaming. And they ordered me an emergency CT at 2 o'clock in the morning. I went in and got a CT. And I had kidney infections."
At one point, doctors thought Applegate might have a urinary tract infection, an idea that the actress joked about having "the cleanest vagina." She's "a clean girl down yonder," she said.Because of the kidney infection, she said, she was being treated with antibiotics via an IV. There weren't the answers that had hoped for yet.
"That's where we're at," Applegate said. "And now they're thinking that it could be something else, and I don't want to say what they think, because I don't want it to sound scary, but I'm just going to be here."
Sigler, who also has MS, said she was so sorry to hear Applegate's story.
The Emmy winner admitted that it wasn't always easy to deal with and she sometimes breaks into tears, which she was holding back as she said it.
"I sometimes fall into the nurse's arms like a freako," Applegate said. "Just like crying."
In her statement to EW on Tuesday, Applegate added, "As far as my ongoing stomach thing, it's a work in progress."
Listen to Applegate and Sigler's full conversation above.
[This article has been updated with a statement from Applegate.]
Read the original article on Entertainment Weekly
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Weapons' Director Details the ‘Turmoil' the Movie Faced Amid Pedro Pascal's Exit
Pedro Pascal has understandably earned the reputation of being the busiest man in Hollywood, and it's easy to see why. Pascal's name feels like it pops up in every significant movie or television show of late. However, the 50-year-old Fantastic Four: First Steps star's loaded schedule actually did cause an issue for one specific movie. As Weapons director Zach Cregger explained, following strike delays in Hollywood, Pascal had to drop out of the movie due to scheduling issues, as Entertainment Weekly revealed. Unfortunately for Cregger, Pascal's departure flipped much of what was initially planned for Weapons on its head, and he explained the "turmoil" it caused. 'Weapons' Director Had to Recast 'Entire Movie' After Pedro Pascal Dropped Out Pascal was initially slated to play the role of Archer in Weapons, the father of one missing child, a part that's now played by Josh Brolin. As Cregger explained to Entertainment Weekly, that was just the start, revealing that he had to recast almost the entire movie. "I had a whole different cast for this movie," Cregger explained. "And then we had the strike, and then Pedro Pascal's schedule threw us into turmoil. I had to recast the entire movie." "This is what happens, right?" Cregger continues. "The strikes delayed us, and then when you delay, people's schedules get conflicts, and then you're back at square one. I bear no ill will towards anybody. We just kept getting delayed and delayed. It's like a domino effect. So I had to start over again." Of the four initial cast members that were confirmed to be in the movie, a group that included Pascal, Brian Tyree Henry, Renate Reinsve and Austin Abrams, only Abrams made it to the final cast. Cregger praised Abrams, who plays James, a homeless man struggling with addiction in the movie. "He hung tough with me. That's my dude right there," Cregger comments. Even Without Pedro Pascal, 'Weapons' Is Earning Incredibly Strong Reviews Cregger and the rest of the crew deserve praise for the handling of the recasting, and it's even more noteworthy when considering just how strong the reviews of Weapons have been thus far. While the movie officially releases in theaters on August 8, early viewings and critics' reviews have been coming in for days. And to put it as bluntly as possible, many of them are almost as perfect as the 100 percent Rotten Tomatoes score that Weapons currently boasts. Cregger's film, which stars Julia Garner in the lead role of Justine Gandy, was turning heads when it was at 100 percent based on 10-15 critic reviews. Now, that number is up to 35 reviews, and it's yet to get a tally in the loss column. Next up for the horror/mystery movie is the fan feedback, which should begin pouring in over the weekend.'Weapons' Director Details the 'Turmoil' the Movie Faced Amid Pedro Pascal's Exit first appeared on Men's Journal on Aug 6, 2025 Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
What does it take to get a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes? I watched 'War of the Worlds' to find out.
Ice Cube stars in a modern adaptation of the alien invasion story, which the internet turned into a meme. I wasn't planning on watching the straight-to-Prime-Video remake of War of the Worlds set entirely on the computer screen of a government security analyst until I saw footage of Ice Cube screaming at a young man via video call as he shakily records an alien invasion. It's so bad, it demands to be seen. The new movie, released July 30, debuted with a rare 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning that it had been panned by all of the critics who took the time to watch and review it. (It has since been elevated to 3% as of press time, thanks to a contrarian review from Entertainment Weekly.) Scoring in the single digits for any amount of time is not an easy feat on the review aggregation website, which considers critics of varying levels of prestige in its 'Tomatometer' scores. Without such widespread disdain, 2025's War of the Worlds might have been forgotten — slipping into the depths of Prime Video's expansive catalogue. Instead, it became a lightning rod on social media. There's something magical about a movie that tried to be good and ended up being bad in so many ways that thousands of people still took the time to investigate the extent of its failure. I myself was intrigued by the widespread condemnation of what seemed to be a real movie with a budget and familiar actors — surely, it can't be that bad! — so, for 89 unhinged minutes, I sat down on my couch and watched it for myself. So, what happens in this movie? Ice Cube stars as William Radford, a grizzly 'domestic terror analyst' who spends his days stalking his pregnant biologist daughter, Faith (Iman Benson), and underperforming video game streamer son, Dave (Henry Hunter Hall). As an employee of the Department of Homeland Security, he has access to seemingly every camera and technology in the Washington, D.C., area — he hacks his daughter's fridge to monitor what she consumes (too much soy milk, apparently) and frequently right-clicks on flashing targets on his computer to select a menu option that says 'Commandeer Drone.' Luckily, William was just starting his workday as aliens invaded, though he frequently declines calls from 'Sandra NASA' (Eva Longoria) and ignores Microsoft Teams messages from his DHS boss (Clark Gregg) in favor of yelling at his son for buying new video games and hacking his daughter's computer to see what her baby daddy, Mark (Devon Bostick), an Amazon delivery driver, is telling her about their upcoming shower that William is not invited to. I know that the goal of this movie is to show how, in the 2020s, the response to an alien invasion would be mostly online. Unlike the 2005 film adaptation starring Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning, we wouldn't be fighting invaders on the ground as much as we'd be watching clips of the chaos unfold on X and Instagram. I did wonder, though, how aliens who initiated their invasion of Earth by blowing up NASA satellites so they couldn't be surveilled and immediately began destroying data centers as soon as they landed left our internet intact. The world may be ending as we know it, but because Microsoft Teams and Google Sheets were still operating, some people still had to work. Ridiculous alien movie logic aside, the fact that 2025's War of the Worlds anticipates that the apocalypse will be somewhat mundane feels appropriate for our dystopian times. Unfortunately for this movie, any new take on War of the Worlds — and there have been dozens since H.G. Wells's original novel was published in 1898 — would have to stand in the shadow of the most interesting adaptation: the 1938 radio drama that sparked nationwide hysteria after being misinterpreted as a real broadcast of an invasion. By standing out — though it's for being absurd, poorly acted and ridiculously edited — the 2025 version has accomplished something amazing. Is it actually bad? While watching the film, I made a list of the dialogue and plot points that made me laugh out loud. Here are a few: As the star of a movie about a guy sitting at his computer, I don't envy the work Ice Cube has to do here. God forbid a camera ever record my looking-at-my-laptop face, let alone amid an alien invasion. There are so many references to Amazon made throughout the film, it might as well be an ad. So bad it's good My list only scratches the surface of the chaos. To take a moment to jot down something that made me laugh meant tearing my eyes away from the screen, where ridiculous things were happening in such rapid succession that even three seconds of dwindling attention meant I might miss an editing failure or a bizarrely worded Teams message. Even though I was on my couch reading posts about it online, my viewing experience was less like watching a movie and more like attending an event. I'm grateful for the social media dogpile that inspired me to watch War of the Worlds in the first place, but because of the way social platforms seem to reward negative opinions, scoring a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes might not be a rare feat for much longer. Dan Green, director of the Master of Entertainment Industry Management program at Carnegie Mellon University, tells Yahoo that the collective panning of the film reveals how audience review websites like Rotten Tomatoes 'have been transformed into a competitive exercise in disdain, reflecting a gamified culture of online critique.' In other words, watching movies and making fun of them on social media and review sites now feels like a community activity. For a moment, people were so united by the intrigue of a 0% score that War of the Worlds reached the No. 2 spot on Prime Video's U.S. movie rankings. It's now part of Rotten Tomatoes' unofficial Hall of Shame, among the few dozen widely reviewed and panned films of all time, like 2018's Gotti starring John Travolta and 2014's Left Behind starring Nicolas Cage. After the fun I had watching this one, I think I'll make my way through the list. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
What does it take to get a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes? I watched 'War of the Worlds' to find out.
Ice Cube stars in a modern adaptation of the alien invasion story, which the internet turned into a meme. I wasn't planning on watching the straight-to-Prime-Video remake of War of the Worlds set entirely on the computer screen of a government security analyst until I saw footage of Ice Cube screaming at a young man via video call as he shakily records an alien invasion. It's so bad, it demands to be seen. The new movie, released July 30, debuted with a rare 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, meaning that it had been panned by all of the critics who took the time to watch and review it. (It has since been elevated to 3% as of press time, thanks to a contrarian review from Entertainment Weekly.) Scoring in the single digits for any amount of time is not an easy feat on the review aggregation website, which considers critics of varying levels of prestige in its 'Tomatometer' scores. Without such widespread disdain, 2025's War of the Worlds might have been forgotten — slipping into the depths of Prime Video's expansive catalogue. Instead, it became a lightning rod on social media. There's something magical about a movie that tried to be good and ended up being bad in so many ways that thousands of people still took the time to investigate the extent of its failure. I myself was intrigued by the widespread condemnation of what seemed to be a real movie with a budget and familiar actors — surely, it can't be that bad! — so, for 89 unhinged minutes, I sat down on my couch and watched it for myself. So, what happens in this movie? Ice Cube stars as William Radford, a grizzly 'domestic terror analyst' who spends his days stalking his pregnant biologist daughter Faith (Iman Benson) and underperforming video game streamer son Dave (Henry Hunter Hall). As an employee of the Department of Homeland Security, he has access to seemingly every camera and technology in the Washington, D.C., area — he hacks his daughter's fridge to monitor what she consumes (too much soy milk, apparently) and frequently right-clicks on flashing targets on his computer to select a menu option that says 'Comandeer Drone.' Luckily, William was just starting his workday as aliens invaded, though he frequently declines calls from 'Sandra NASA' (Eva Longoria) and ignores Microsoft Teams messages from his DHS boss (Clark Gregg) in favor of yelling at his son for buying new video games and hacking his daughter's computer to see what her baby daddy Mark (Devon Bostick), an Amazon delivery driver, is telling her about their upcoming shower that William is not invited to. I know that the goal of this movie is to show how, in 2025, the response to an alien invasion would be mostly online. Unlike the 2005 film adaptation starring Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning, we wouldn't be fighting invaders on the ground as much as we'd be watching clips of the chaos unfold on X and Instagram. I did wonder, though, how aliens who initiated their invasion of Earth by blowing up NASA satellites so they couldn't be surveilled and immediately began destroying data centers as soon as they landed left our internet intact. The world may be ending as we know it, but because Microsoft Teams and Google Sheets were still operating, some people still had to work. Ridiculous alien movie logic aside, the fact that 2025's War of the Worlds anticipates that the apocalypse will be somewhat mundane feels appropriate for our dystopian times. Unfortunately for this movie, any new take War of the Worlds — and there have been dozens since H.G. Wells' original novel was published in 1898 — would have to stand in the shadow of the most interesting adaptation: the 1938 radio drama that sparked nationwide hysteria after being misinterpreted as a real broadcast of an invasion. By standing out — though it's for being absurd, poorly acted and ridiculously edited — the 2025 version has accomplished something amazing. Is it actually bad? While watching the film, I made a list of the dialogue and plot points that made me laugh out loud. Here are a few: So bad it's good My list only scratches the surface of the chaos. To take a moment to jot down something that made me laugh meant tearing my eyes away from the screen, where ridiculous things were happening in such rapid succession that even three seconds of dwindling attention meant I might miss an editing failure or a bizarrely worded Teams message. Even though I was on my couch reading posts about it online, my viewing experience was less like watching a movie and more like attending an event. I'm grateful for the social media dogpile that inspired me to watch War of the Worlds in the first place, but because of the way social platforms seem to reward negative opinions, scoring a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes might not be a rare feat for much longer. Dan Green, director of the Master of Entertainment Industry Management program at Carnegie Mellon University, tells Yahoo that the collective panning of the film reveals how audience review websites like Rotten Tomatoes 'have been transformed into a competitive exercise in disdain, reflecting a gamified culture of online critique.' In other words, watching movies and making fun of them on social media and review sites now feels like a community activity. For a moment, people were so united by the intrigue of a 0% score that War of the Worlds reached the No. 2 spot on Prime Video's U.S. movie rankings. It's now part of Rotten Tomatoes' unofficial Hall of Shame, among the few dozen widely reviewed and panned films of all time, like 2018's Gotti starring John Travolta and 2014's Left Behind starring Nicolas Cage. After the fun I had watching this one, I think I'll make my way through the list. Solve the daily Crossword