******Disclaimer******* Unless you have a lot of spare time on your hands, please skip to the last 3 paragraphs of this post as everything proceeding it is simply addressing my opponents inaccurate statements.
Actually, it's off-topic ad hominem interspersed with unfounded accusations and blatant characterizations using a foundation of semantics and an incredible amount of pedantics that are incorrectly used.
Absolutely not. The nature of your statement was condescending and this reader has no idea what your <shrug> is supposed to mean or furthermore what your <snort> is supposed to mean.
The nature of my statement is what it is. How you choose to infer that nature is up to you. In this case, you inferred incorrectly. You also asked for clarification of my meaning, to which I gave answer, and you rejected that answer. Clearly, you choose to believe what you wish. There's nothing I can do about that.
<shrug> is the written illustration of what someone does when they physically shrug and give you that quizzical look. <snort> is the written illustration of me snorting with great sarcasm. Now you know. You're now educated in the <shrug> and the <snort> of the Turtle. Not "fully" educated, perhaps, but certainly more educated than you were yesterday. It's a happy day.
As expected, you are attempting to change the original context of your post to suit your current argument and it is blatantly obvious.
The original context of my post is still right there for you and anyone else to go back and read for yourselves. No edits have been made, the context has not changed in any way, shape or form.
This may come as a surprise but you don't get to decide what the context of your writing was after you wrote it. The reader must decide the context based on what you wrote.
The context is decided at the time it was written, and always by the writer, since that's who wrote it. I have not made any attempts whatsoever to change that context, nor could I if I wanted to.
The time to make your self clear was when you wrote post #5 and it was obvious at that time that you were referring to anti-inflammatories as medications which is consistent with how the term is used by the general public.
Make myself clear? Seriously? In Post #5 I first detailed the differences between ibuprofen and naproxen and aspirin, being very clear to indicate in the most unambiguous terms I know that they are,
quite specifically, "non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs." I know of no way to be more clear than that. The next time in that posting I used the term "anti-inflammatory" was in the final paragraph of that post, and it was done was in
direct conjunction with the use of an ice pack to reduce inflammation. The distinctions between chemical and non-chemical anti-inflammatories in Post #5 are extraordinarily plain, clear and orderly to everyone except someone who sees any mention of a drug at all as being intentionally confusing, That's why I can only question your reading comprehension, as my text was intentionally plain, clear and orderly so as to be non-confusing, yet you confused it, anyway.
If someone asked their Doctor for an anti-inflammatory because they pulled a muscle, their Doctor would correctly assume they desire a medication because that has become the generally accepted meaning of the term. Somewhat similar to someone asking you for a Kleenex, it would be correctly assumed that you want a tissue although Kleenex makes many different products.
Two different red herrings, both incorrectly attempted. Their doctor wouldn't correctly assume they desire a medication because that has become the generally accepted meaning of the term, the doctor would assume they desire a medication because of the context in which the request occurred. People requests drugs from their doctors, they do not requests prescriptions for heating pads or ice packs, and in that context the doctor will assume the patient is requesting drugs. Context is everything, a concept with which you seem to have great difficulty. The Kleenex red herring analogy isn't even applicable in this context, or even in the manufactured context, so I won't even address it, as it requires the construction of a straw man argument in order to be applicable at all.
In addition to the generally accepted practice of referring to anti-inflammatories as medicines the reader also makes their best determination regarding the context of a statement based on what proceeds the statement and what follows the statement.
Your statement:
was proceeded by 6 paragraphs describing anti-inflammatory medications with specific drug names and terms used over 30 times with no mention of ice.
Again, it's a reading comprehension problem. And a serious one, at that. I made no mention whatsoever of the generic, generally acceptable usage of the term "anti-inflammatories" to refer to
anything other than "non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs" until the final paragraph where I specifically used the the term "anti-inflammatory" in specifically conjunction with an ice pack. I used the terms specifically and in different contexts, once with the specific reference to drugs, and the other with the specific reference to ice, expressly to ensure an intelligent reader could not possibly confuse the two uses within the same posting. It was you who took that once sentence, quoted it outside the paragraph and out of context, and then replied in a new context, and in course accused me of saying something which I did not.
This made it perfectly reasonable for the reader to conclude that you were using the term anti-inflammatory to refer to medications.
Not only is it not perfectly reasonable, it's absolutely an incorrect conclusion, not based in any way on what I wrote.
This would also be consistent with how the public relates the term anti-inflammatories to medications.
keeping that in mind, take a look at your statement from post #5:
You stated that an anti-inflammatory will promote blood flow and "ALSO" an ice pack will promote blood flow. If you meant for the term anti-inflammatory to include ice, why put also. We both know what you meant and any amount of back peddling falls short.
Again, you should concern yourself far more with that I write, rather than trying to figure out what you think I really meant. I used the term "ALSO" because many people do not realize that in addition to being an anti-inflammatory, the cold of an ice pack will also promote blood flow, by virtue of it reducing the swelling. I included that because up until that point in my response I had only talked specifically about NSAIDs (in the context of how to get a good night's sleep in a moving truck with a pulled muscle), and wanted to mention ice as being an alternative, even though it's probably not the best method to use in order to get a good night's sleep in a moving truck with a pulled muscle.
I simply said NSAIDS "may" cause stress on the kidneys and they may. Your addition that I meant "very likely" or "to the point of certainty" is your over dramatization in order to bolster your view point.
Not really. Like I said, I responded with absurdity to illustrate your own absurdity. My original post still stands on it's own. You tried to refute it by changing contexts, introducing theories about what you think I mean, and stating things that I have not said, and thus far have failed to refute it. I added "very likely" and "to the point of certainty" not as an overdramatization, but in the context of the entire sentence in which it was written, that of being my opinion of the distinct impression that your statement on NSAIDs conveys. Everything you've said about NSAIDs are negative and/or alarming. If you're looking for overdramatizations, you certainly don't have to look very far. The fact is, OTC NSAIDs are safe for most people and a very small percentage have even minor side effects from them, much less major side effects. You can disagree with that all you want, but you cannot refute it.
Oh, you mean the list that is included in the package that the consumer doesn't usually read? The list that must be read during a commercial for a medication that is spoken softly so the consumer doesn't notice? Are those commercials "fear mongering"?
Those commercials or whether or not people read the literature have nothing to do with what you posted or in the context in which you posted it. You posted it specifically to induce fear and discourage people from taking NSAIDs. There's nothing wrong with posting your opinion, but there's no reason to post the laundry list otherwise.
"Frequency of occurrence" is a highly manipulated statistic that favors the drug manufacturer but you know that.
Depends on where the statistics come from and who is manipulating them. Publicly gathered statistics collated by the CDC, WHO, FDA, HPFB, and the MHRA are generally far more impartial and often do not favor the drug manufacturers at all. Those are the statistics in which I pay more attention. I freely admit, however, to paying very little attention to statistics for those drugs for which I do not take nor am I likely to take. So the drugs I do research on are a very small number, indeed.
Counting on low "frequency of occurrence" to give you piece of mind is like swimming with the sharks. After all, very few people get attacked. It is your risk to take.
That's very true. I've been swimming in the ocean many times. Every time I've gone in the water, I've paid the most attention to news reports and the reports from marine biologists, lifeguards, Coast Guard and fisherman rather than to those of the tourism bureau or someone else with a vested interest in seeing me in the water. It's all about educating yourself using reliable sources and then making the best informed decision you can.
That is your opinion which I believe is wrong. Some interactions are known and understood but ones that are not known and are not understood are not even included in the study results.
If you are of the opinion that I'm wrong, why is the second sentence a rephrasing of exactly what I just said?
"Granted, no one knows 100% of every medication, but there are many, many medications where the chemical mechanisms, as well as the interactions, are absolutely understood, demonstrable and repeatable using irrefutable scientific methods."
Some interactions are known and understood, and some are unknown and not understood, and the ones that are known and understood, we know and understand them, and the ones we don't know and don't understand, we don't know or understand them. Really? How profound.
It might be simpler just to say any and all drugs scare you, or that you personally do not agree with ingesting chemicals and will refrain from commenting about the pharmaceutical options, and leave it at that.
Yes, in some cases. In other cases, not so much. As far as the physiological effects go we can certainly measure what we are monitoring; however, there are many effects taking place on a microscopic level that we don't even know to monitor.
I'm not taking about
some cases or
other cases, I'm talking
specifically about the injury and inflammation of a pulled muscle. Why are you trying to introduce something outside the scope of the issues here? Are you that desperate to win an argument that no one but you is trying to win? So desperate to convince others to be afraid of all medications under any and all circumstances? Because that's the argument you're making.
Seriously? I was supposed to think that you meant somewhat educated? partially educated?
No, you're supposed to think exactly what I wrote, nothing more, nothing less, without some randomly selected qualifying adjective inserted for your own purposes.
It is now my fault for assuming that you may want to be fully educated about something that your life depends on?
No, it's your fault for assuming I meant something beyond what I said. The language I used is very precise. No need to embellish it.
Maybe you should "actually say" what you mean instead of modifying it after the fact to suit your argument.
I did say exactly what I meant. Exactly. I usually do, and it's rare that I don't. I tend to use very precise language that doesn't open itself up to varying interpretations. I do that intentionally, so that people do not misinterpret what I write. You probably should go back and read it, and do so without trying to interpret into it some ethereal meaning that's not explicitly stated. My entire post still stands on its own and in context with no need to modify of it for any reason. I haven't modified a single word, other than the badly worded sentence of which I clarified the meaning in Post #27. But that modification is irrelevant to my argument, isn't substantive to the point I made in that paragraph, nor to the one you are trying to make (unless I agree with you and change the meaning and context of my post, which I will not do).
I absolutely agree that clinical trials are a joke; however, I also feel that your "public clinical trials" with an arbitrary time frame of 5 years is flawed as well.
Well then certainly don't adopt my policy.
Real world data collecting and correlating is dependent on patients reporting to their Doctors, their Doctors agreeing that the interaction is related to the drug and then actually reporting it to someone who is collecting and evaluating the information. Most of these notes just stay in the patient file never to be noticed.
I would love to see the data you used to formulate the conclusion that most of the notes just stay in the patient profile never to be noticed (considering the reporting requirements for most drugs). But in any case, I feel that the public data from five years of public clinical trials is far more valuable and reliable than the few weeks or months of manufacturer-controlled clinical trials (or purely fabricated) which cannot be trusted at all, at least by me. Five years is enough information for which I can begin to use to make a more informed decision. But note that I did not say five years exactly, I said that at the five year point is where you
begin to have enough reliable data which can be used to make an informed decision about risks and efficacy. Prior to the five years it's more or less a crapshoot, but after 5 years you have a little more information with which to work. That hardly means I'll start gobbling up any drug that's been on the market for at least 5 years. Granted, it's not all of the possible information, I won't be "fully" educated on all the permutations of the possibilities, but at least I'm a little more educated than I would be before the 5 years. 10 years is better, and once the patent actually expires is even better than that. I suppose I could come up with a policy where no amount of years of information would possibly be enough to
begin to evaluate risks and efficacy, and therefore consider all drugs not an option, but that's a little on the extreme side, I think.
Congratulations! I would highly suggest that you look into the program proposed by Dr. Joel Furmann
Dr. Joel Fuhrman Improves Health - Lose Weight Naturally | Reverse Diabetes | Prevent Heart Disease and Cancer | Lower Cholesterol if you haven't already. He could be considered a zealot; however, following merely 80% of his program would lead to great results.
I'm familiar with it, thanks.
After I lived through an extreme health scare 8 years ago, I met with my Doctor. He prescribed a cholesterol lowering drug, a blood pressure lowering drug and an osteoporosis drug. I declined to proceed with the medications and adhered strictly to a diet similar to Furmann's. In short order I had no need for the prescriptions as those problems were alleviated.
"Let food be thy medicine" - Hippocrates
Like I said, I'm not a pill-popping zealot any more than I'm an anti-pill-popping zealot. I can educate myself on the pros and cons of each and make a decision accordingly. For me, both drugs and lifestyle alterations were called for, which allowed for lower drug dosages and for shorter periods of time. Two drugs I refused and wanted to try diet first. The diet worked. I have other posts in these forums which partially chronicle my progress, which I feel is substantial progress and in a rather short time frame. The success is due far more to the changes in eating than to anything else. But the drugs allow me the time to get those changes going and settled in, and keep me alive until those changes allow me to get off most of all of them completely.
In the end, this is a really simple matter. You stated your practice of taking NSAIDs and foregoing the ice. We have since learned that you do not carry ice and heat in the confines of your van so you go directly to NSAIDs and rest if indicated. You believe that the risk is worth the reward based on your knowledge of the drugs.
Well, I really thought it was a simple matter, but you continually want to complicate it. Again, there's a reading comprehension problem, and in this case, it's a problem with a very basic premise which you draw an unsupported and incorrect conclusion. It is true that I do not carry ice packs or heating pads in the truck (mainly because I don't have pulled muscles very often and I don't want to mess with ice or a heating pad), but I also said that when I'm at home those are the very things I tend to use. I did not say that I "go directly to NSAIDs" in any fashion, and I cannot imagine how someone could conclude that I said or even meant that. I said, in the absence of heat or ice in the truck, I'll
either just tough it out (without any kind of treatment) or,
if it's bad enough, I'll take an ibuprofen, naproxen, or aspirin. How "if it's bad enough" translates to "go directly to" is beyond me. The mind boggles.
I believe that the full effect of NSAIDs is not completely known. I suggested using the ice and any other conservative treatments first and saving NSAIDs as a later option due to the possible side effects. The end result we are looking for is the same, even our methods to reach that end result are the same, just in a different order.
I, too also believe that the "full effects" of NSAIDs are not "completely" known. But I believe the "full effects" of anything we insert into our bodies are not "completely known, whether that be a drug or an apple or a glass of water. I believe that not knowing the "full effects" of something shouldn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be done. I believe that we should gather whatever knowledge we can and use that knowledge to make informed decisions. I believe that if someone needs relief from the pain of an inflamed muscle in order to get a good night's sleep in a moving truck, which is the context of the thread, that ice (or heat) is less effective than a NSAID for that purpose. I mentioned ice as an alternative, albeit a less effective one, in case Linda didn't want to use a NSAID. I believe that my answer was an appropriate one for those conditions, and I stand by it. Every word.
