|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 10 2018 16:35 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 05:21 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2018 05:19 sc-darkness wrote:On April 10 2018 03:27 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2018 01:23 sc-darkness wrote:The question is if it's the complete truth (that has to be regulated). Otherwise, I can write anything on a piece of paper as well.  wait what's "the complete truth" that you are talking about? Well, I'm a bit skeptical that pharma industry is completely honest and transparent. They may miss some details. can you give an example? Merck and the Vioxx scandal. They knew alright. And the product note is only as good as what has actually been researched. Long-term consequences can be very difficult to predict - i.e morphine is apparently slightly immunosuppressive (observed in about 7 different populations now). The product note doesn't mention this.
Yeah, I'm looking for stories like that. Because there are some old people (100+ years old) who say they were fine without medicine, I just wonder if it's worth cutting medicine whenever it's not critical. E.g. common cold medicine such as Strepsils (lozenges), paracetamol, etc. Or, these old people could have good health despite not getting medicines. Who knows. I just don't know if I could trust leaflets and if they don't miss any information.
|
On April 11 2018 01:53 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 16:35 Ghostcom wrote:On April 10 2018 05:21 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2018 05:19 sc-darkness wrote:On April 10 2018 03:27 IgnE wrote:On April 10 2018 01:23 sc-darkness wrote:The question is if it's the complete truth (that has to be regulated). Otherwise, I can write anything on a piece of paper as well. wait what's "the complete truth" that you are talking about? Well, I'm a bit skeptical that pharma industry is completely honest and transparent. They may miss some details. can you give an example? Merck and the Vioxx scandal. They knew alright. And the product note is only as good as what has actually been researched. Long-term consequences can be very difficult to predict - i.e morphine is apparently slightly immunosuppressive (observed in about 7 different populations now). The product note doesn't mention this. Yeah, I'm looking for stories like that. Because there are some old people (100+ years old) who say they were fine without medicine, I just wonder if it's worth cutting medicine whenever it's not critical. E.g. common cold medicine such as Strepsils (lozenges), paracetamol, etc. Or, these old people could have good health despite not getting medicines. Who knows. I just don't know if I could trust leaflets and if they don't miss any information.
If you're afraid of unknown side effects of paracetamol I'm not quite sure what anybody can tell you. It's extremely well studied, and its side effects are very well known. If you are otherwise healthy, its side effects are negligible as long as you don't exceed the recommended doses.
As for people living to 100 without medicine... that doesn't say much. It's 100% due to survivorship bias (in other words: if they had died to whatever disease they might have overcome without medicine, they wouldn't be around to tell you the story, would they?)
|
Thats a true retards dilemma.
Guy lived Xxx long whiteout medicine so all medicine is a hoax. No, idiot, he lived because he was lucky and didn't get any ugly disease.
|
Yeah, I don't approve of abandoning all medicine. Just the one that's not critical to use such as common cold medicine. You're probably not going to die without it. So I was just wondering if research about side-effects was complete.
|
Don't use medicine you don't need is a good idea in general. If your healthy and get a cold you can just sleep under a bunch of blankets and be better in days. If your old or otherwise vulnerable medicine might be a good idea.
|
Interesting to see how many people just say "well if you're healthy, sleep out the common cold".
Yeah, chances are that this works - but it's certainly not a guarantee. An untreated common cold, even in healthy people, can lead to some really nasty stuff such as acute ear infections, asthma attacks (of course, you'd need to be asthmatic for that), acute sinusitis, strep throat, pneumonia, broncholitis and more.
These are severe infections, which can lead to even nastier stuff (as any infection does, since an infection weakens the immune system).
I do understand if someone, especially in the US, says that people take too many drugs (oxycontin amongst other opioids for being hit by anything slightly denser than a cotton ball). But that boils, to me, down to things that are supposed to improve quality of life. Painkillers. Not actual medicine designed to treat something.
|
What medication do you propose to treat the common cold with?
|
|
|
I usually have the same approach: don't take medicine unless it's absolutely necessary.
However, the fact that all my doctor friends are very open to take medicine for cold/Headache/slight fever, or any other small symptoms, often makes me think that I could be a bit more relaxed and treat the symptoms more readily with medicine.
|
A recent RCT showcased that paracetamol has no effect on symptoms, duration of disease, or viral load in influenza. There is literally no reason to take it for influenza or the common cold outside of the placebo effect. On the other hand, it almost certainly won't hurt you (a few observational studies have observed slightly increased risk of GI bleeds, but we are talking about 20% increased relative risk and mostly among the elderly).
|
United States24328 Posts
On April 11 2018 20:18 Ghostcom wrote:
A recent RCT showcased that paracetamol has no effect on symptoms, duration of disease, or viral load in influenza. There is literally no reason to take it for influenza or the common cold outside of the placebo effect. On the other hand, it almost certainly won't hurt you (a few observational studies have observed slightly increased risk of GI bleeds, but we are talking about 20% increased relative risk and mostly among the elderly).
Placebos are actually remarkably helpful at treating perceived symptoms though aren't they?
|
On April 11 2018 20:18 Ghostcom wrote:
A recent RCT showcased that paracetamol has no effect on symptoms, duration of disease, or viral load in influenza. There is literally no reason to take it for influenza or the common cold outside of the placebo effect. On the other hand, it almost certainly won't hurt you (a few observational studies have observed slightly increased risk of GI bleeds, but we are talking about 20% increased relative risk and mostly among the elderly).
That's quite the claim, given how counterintuitive it is. Can you link to the study?
|
What makes what Ghostcom posted "counterintuitive?" It seems the opposite to me.
|
On April 11 2018 20:54 farvacola wrote:
What makes what Ghostcom posted "counterintuitive?" It seems the opposite to me.
After using paracetamol my whole life and personally seing it have positive effects on myself and seeing it do the same on others, yes, I would consider it just being a placebo effect counterintuitive.
Though lots of things in life work because people believe they will work, most things work because there's an active mechanism behind it working, therefore I would consider any claim about medicine that "works" purely because of placebo effect counterintuitive. Does my intuition go against yours? Also, by counterintuitive I'm not saying it can't be right, I know placebos can work.
|
United States24328 Posts
On April 11 2018 20:57 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 20:54 farvacola wrote:
What makes what Ghostcom posted "counterintuitive?" It seems the opposite to me. After using paracetamol my whole life and personally seing it have positive effects on myself and seeing it do the same on others, yes, I would consider it just being a placebo effect counterintuitive
Couldn't find the actual studies, but here's a synopsis of what I was talking about with placebos:
How placebos work is still not quite understood, but it involves a complex neurobiological reaction that includes everything from increases in feel-good neurotransmitters, like endorphins and dopamine, to greater activity in certain brain regions linked to moods, emotional reactions, and self-awareness. All of it can have therapeutic benefit. "The placebo effect is a way for your brain to tell the body what it needs to feel better," says Kaptchuk.
www.health.harvard.edu
What you observed could be very real and a result of taking medication, it just turns out that if it turned out you'd been taking sugar pills your whole life you'd likely have seen the same results.
I didn't recognize the name, but I suppose it does have a mild analgesic effect, and I think ours is usually cut with caffeine stateside .
|
Well my experience has been the opposite, namely that tylenol is one of those meds that a lot of people take when sick without ever engaging with whether it's actually helping. To make deciphering its practical effects even harder, its cold/flu applications tend to mix it with other compounds like guaifenesin, dextromethorphan, or pseudoephedrine.
|
Google gives me a study from 2015, but explains both stances.
That study tested for the amount of virus in the body between those taking paracetamol and a control group and found no significant difference.
Which makes sense since Paracetamol isn't supposed to combat the virus, just its symptoms.
So yes taking it when you have the cold has a positive effect because the symptoms are being suppressed.
It however does nothing to limit the duration of your illness.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/is-paracetamol-any-good-for-treating-flu/
|
I had a look at the study (at least, I assume it's this one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26638130) and it doesn't seem too shocking. Paracetamol's anti-pyretic effect has never really been shown particularly well, and I was never under any illusion that it did anything to cure influenza. I was actually under the impression that NSAIDs work better than paracetamol for fever. Doing a bit of googling shows that the WHO does recommend paracetamol for fever.
In any case, it is quite an effective painkiller, and helps with some of the symptoms, such as headaches or muscle pains, that can be symptoms of flu, and will, in that way, simply make you feel a bit less shitty while your body deals with the disease.
|
On April 11 2018 20:57 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2018 20:54 farvacola wrote:
What makes what Ghostcom posted "counterintuitive?" It seems the opposite to me. After using paracetamol my whole life and personally seing it have positive effects on myself and seeing it do the same on others, yes, I would consider it just being a placebo effect counterintuitive. Though lots of things in life work because people believe they will work, most things work because there's an active mechanism behind it working, therefore I would consider any claim about medicine that "works" purely because of placebo effect counterintuitive. Does my intuition go against yours? Also, by counterintuitive I'm not saying it can't be right, I know placebos can work.
I normally don't take anything when I have a cold, those positive effects come simply from the passage of time
On April 11 2018 21:13 Acrofales wrote:
In any case, it is quite an effective painkiller, and helps with some of the symptoms, such as headaches or muscle pains, that can be symptoms of flu, and will, in that way, simply make you feel a bit less shitty while your body deals with the disease.
That's a good point, I guess there are so many strains out there and people react differently to them. For me the annoyance is limited to the nose and throat. Never had headaches/pain during a cold, I can see why paracetamol may be useful to people that do.
|
On April 11 2018 21:07 Gorsameth wrote:Google gives me a study from 2015, but explains both stances. That study tested for the amount of virus in the body between those taking paracetamol and a control group and found no significant difference. Which makes sense since Paracetamol isn't supposed to combat the virus, just its symptoms. So yes taking it when you have the cold has a positive effect because the symptoms are being suppressed. It however does nothing to limit the duration of your illness. https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/is-paracetamol-any-good-for-treating-flu/
The study by Jeffries et al (link) also had a questionnaire measuring symptoms. Paracetamol didn't influence these either. And the theory of the study in question was actually that paracetamol would INCREASE the viral load due to it's anti-pyretic effects. The study has a number of flaws, but it is also the only study carried out so far. I think the overall conclusions are quite reasonable.
I wouldn't recommend taking NSAIDs regularly for a cold/influenza.
EDIT: This is a very odd topic for a politics thread though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
