- Thread starter sayanora
- Start date
take care of DR doctors
I found this:
That's a massive dose. That much of anything...even oxygen...could be harmful.
There may be better alternatives, certainly, and a patient/parent is in charge of what they put into the body no matter what a physician prescribes. But I wouldn't freak out too much for a one time occurrence, and I wouldn't judge this physician too harshly.
One thing I like about medical care in the DR is docs can prescribe common-sense therapies without an aggressive ambulance-chasing trial lawyer watching over their shoulder. That's one reason medical care in the DR is a fraction of the U.S.
True.Also yogurt is good for prevention of yeast infections when taking an antibiotic.
Women are susceptible.But the yogurt must have the "live active culture" and must
be eaten for as long as the person is on the antibiotic.One (6 oz or 8 oz) container
of yogurt daily.
AE, i just wanted to say: i ain't a doctor. only a professional medic can weigh risks against the benefits and decide on a therapy, even if that includes controversial decisions.
and, at the end of the day i ain't fussy. when i was a kid a constipation medicine was a piece of soap stuck up the butt for the small ones and natural stuff like coffee or vodka with pepper for the bigger ones. and before you gasp: i had both coffee and strong spirits as a kid and i am fine
one dosage of the stuff in pressing (on not pressing, in this case) circumstances is not gonna kill...
and, at the end of the day i ain't fussy. when i was a kid a constipation medicine was a piece of soap stuck up the butt for the small ones and natural stuff like coffee or vodka with pepper for the bigger ones. and before you gasp: i had both coffee and strong spirits as a kid and i am fine
one dosage of the stuff in pressing (on not pressing, in this case) circumstances is not gonna kill...cobraboy;1184740I said:
Like cobraboy, I am not trying to defend the physician in this case, but I am not rushing to judgement, either, especially since she is not able to give an explanation.
But it is worth keeping in mind, as cobraboy pointed out, that there is nothing in the literature to suggest a spoonful or two is going to result in cancer. "chronic administration of very high doses" reportedly are what must be avoided.
"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]FDA warning effective March 28, 1987 - Danthron toxicity in humans has not been specifically demonstrated but because of the potential risk, FDA has requested a halt to all manufacturing, relabeling, repacking, and further distribution in the United States of human drug products containing danthron as an ingredient (products containing danthron were recalled) 25. Some studies have suggested that chronic administration of very high doses of danthron to rats and mice may be associated with the development of intestinal and liver tumors. Citations to adverse effects occurring with danthron-containing laxatives include individual cases of leucopenia with liver damage, greyish-blue (sic) skin discoloration, and orange vaginal discharge. There has also been a report of intestinal sarcoma in an 18-year-old girl with a history of prolonged use of a danthron-containing laxative. (In the UK) because of concern over rat carcinogenicity its use tends to be restricted now to the elderly, to terminally ill patients, and to those in whom straining would be potentially hazardous 23.[/FONT]
#1 cause of cancer in laboratory rats and Nuclear weapons that fizzled
Laboratory technicians
Sometimes Iwonder if given the excessive dosages of about anything they feed laboratory rats, all would lead to cancer or other disease
What was the amount of Aspartame they used to determine it "could" cause cancer, something like the equivalent of a human being consuming 100 12oz cans of diet soda per day?
I realize they have found some correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, but remember those ugly 60's and 70's pictures of dogs in cages with special devices forcing them to "smoke" about 20 cigarettes all day everyday?
All in the name of science, recall pictures of servicemen standing with no protection watching nuclear devices being detonated? I recall one in particular only because it was aviation related, operation Upshot PlumbBob I believe, the only aerial detonation of the Genie Nuclear rocket fired from an aircraft (F 89 Scorpion maybe?)
In that era 1950's, air to air rockets were a new science, unguided and unreliable The theory of the Genie was that if you used a big enough bang shooting at flights of incoming soviet Bombers you need not worry about accuracy.
My new "thing", see how long I can go without using wikipedia to make intelligent sounding posts, God help a few posters if they try that) Anyhow, they had a group of Airmen and I believe reporters standing on the ground without any hats , shelter etc directly under the explosion, again I am trying to recall but I think around 20k feet AGL. Not sure of the long term consequences, it was a very "small" warhead, a KT or less
Kind of reminds me of another "wonder weapon" we developed (Man, I am rambling here) the "Davey Crockett" A shoulder launched tactical Nuclear weapon (Very similar to a recoilless rifle or bazooka in appearance) Only problem with the foolish thing was the soldiers shooting it were in the blast radius.
I think that was one of the faults of the never used Atomic Cannon "Annie" developed and deployed to Korea. It was to be used if the Chinese continued en masse toward the south. Very little was ever published about that, my Uncle served in Korea and near the 38th parallel he spoke of strange "super roads" that made no sense, roads that were to be used to quickly move the rather awkward Atomic cannon
Laboratory technicians
Sometimes Iwonder if given the excessive dosages of about anything they feed laboratory rats, all would lead to cancer or other disease
What was the amount of Aspartame they used to determine it "could" cause cancer, something like the equivalent of a human being consuming 100 12oz cans of diet soda per day?
I realize they have found some correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, but remember those ugly 60's and 70's pictures of dogs in cages with special devices forcing them to "smoke" about 20 cigarettes all day everyday?
All in the name of science, recall pictures of servicemen standing with no protection watching nuclear devices being detonated? I recall one in particular only because it was aviation related, operation Upshot PlumbBob I believe, the only aerial detonation of the Genie Nuclear rocket fired from an aircraft (F 89 Scorpion maybe?)
In that era 1950's, air to air rockets were a new science, unguided and unreliable The theory of the Genie was that if you used a big enough bang shooting at flights of incoming soviet Bombers you need not worry about accuracy.
My new "thing", see how long I can go without using wikipedia to make intelligent sounding posts, God help a few posters if they try that
) Anyhow, they had a group of Airmen and I believe reporters standing on the ground without any hats , shelter etc directly under the explosion, again I am trying to recall but I think around 20k feet AGL. Not sure of the long term consequences, it was a very "small" warhead, a KT or lessKind of reminds me of another "wonder weapon" we developed (Man, I am rambling here) the "Davey Crockett" A shoulder launched tactical Nuclear weapon (Very similar to a recoilless rifle or bazooka in appearance) Only problem with the foolish thing was the soldiers shooting it were in the blast radius.
I think that was one of the faults of the never used Atomic Cannon "Annie" developed and deployed to Korea. It was to be used if the Chinese continued en masse toward the south. Very little was ever published about that, my Uncle served in Korea and near the 38th parallel he spoke of strange "super roads" that made no sense, roads that were to be used to quickly move the rather awkward Atomic cannon
Laboratory technicians
Sometimes Iwonder if given the excessive dosages of about anything they feed laboratory rats, all would lead to cancer or other disease
What was the amount of Aspartame they used to determine it "could" cause cancer, something like the equivalent of a human being consuming 100 12oz cans of diet soda per day?
I realize they have found some correlation between cigarette smoking and lung cancer, but remember those ugly 60's and 70's pictures of dogs in cages with special devices forcing them to "smoke" about 20 cigarettes all day everyday?
All in the name of science, recall pictures of servicemen standing with no protection watching nuclear devices being detonated? I recall one in particular only because it was aviation related, operation Upshot PlumbBob I believe, the only aerial detonation of the Genie Nuclear rocket fired from an aircraft (F 89 Scorpion maybe?)
In that era 1950's, air to air rockets were a new science, unguided and unreliable The theory of the Genie was that if you used a big enough bang shooting at flights of incoming soviet Bombers you need not worry about accuracy.
My new "thing", see how long I can go without using wikipedia to make intelligent sounding posts, God help a few posters if they try that
Kind of reminds me of another "wonder weapon" we developed (Man, I am rambling here) the "Davey Crockett" A shoulder launched tactical Nuclear weapon (Very similar to a recoilless rifle or bazooka in appearance) Only problem with the foolish thing was the soldiers shooting it were in the blast radius.
I think that was one of the faults of the never used Atomic Cannon "Annie" developed and deployed to Korea. It was to be used if the Chinese continued en masse toward the south. Very little was ever published about that, my Uncle served in Korea and near the 38th parallel he spoke of strange "super roads" that made no sense, roads that were to be used to quickly move the rather awkward Atomic cannon
No, if it did then everything would have a cancer risk associated, which is obviously not the case. I bet that most substances on Earth that humans consume have been as extensively tested as any other and have resulted in no change or insignificant results between tested and control subjects.
Also wanted to add that the part I bolded is most likely close to what the pediatricians excuse would have been, and I completely understand that point of view, I just don't want my 3 year old son to be the test subject that produces negative results.
Then to be on the safe side, don't give him 300 times the dosage over an extensive time.
Note that studies found no cancers in human trials.
Just sayin'...
I fell ill in Spain about ten years ago and a doctor there prescribed me some antiobiotics that had fallen out of fashion in the US in the 1950s. I think different standards of health care and different standards for medicine are one of the prices to be paid for living in a place like the DR, or even Spain which is a decade or two behind its more northern neighbors on the development index. A goodly portion of the advances in medicine and pharmaceuticals occurs in the US which is part of the reason health care there is so expensive. It takes time for all of those "advances" to filter down.
At some point in the past the drug the pediatrician was also the latest and greatest thing. I suppose it's just a matter of time until today's latest and greatest drugs are shown to have their own side effects.
At some point in the past the drug the pediatrician was also the latest and greatest thing. I suppose it's just a matter of time until today's latest and greatest drugs are shown to have their own side effects.
Mine was a lovely summer's day in PoP in 1980 when, walking down the street behind an insouciant derri?re which languidly swiveled to a tropical rhythm, my Dominican buddy called out to her, "Si cocinas como caminas, me voy a comer tu conc?n!"