Talk:Anti-inflammatory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

RICE

I have altered the section on RICE to correspond to the current First Aid Manual guidance, it has been changed from Compression to Comfortable support. This is current with the 10 edition Red Cross/St John Ambulance First Aid Manual Jaded dream (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ice man

The section on ice treatment doesn't look very serious, with the reference to chinese medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.105.32 (talk) 14:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

death?

"The risk of death as a result of use of NSAIDs is 1 in 10,000 for young adults aged 16-45" I call bullshit on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.91.190 (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am allergic to nsaids, and have arthritis. I still take nsaids, but pay close attention to my reactions. Anaphylaxis has put me in the hospital before. The risk of death is real, and can come from 1 dose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.93.114 (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Herbs and Supplements

These do not really belong under NSAIDs, because they are not drugs. There is a lot more that could be said about safe and effective herbal supplements. One rather interesting patented substance is called Univestin. It is not for sale to the public, but is available in products on the market. One key use is for joint comfort, another is for oral care. Univestin, circumin, scutellaria and acacia all work by inhibiting the cox pathways. They do so in a less drastic manner than the drugs do, reducing side effects. Additional links:

CaptainSeeker (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely one half?

"Anti-inflammatory drugs make up one half of analgesics...."

What an amazing statement! I'd like to see the raw data and calculations. How are anti-inflammatory drugs and analgesics counted and distinguished? How could the ratio between them be determined precisely at any given time? How long is that "one half" ratio likely to prevail? Does it refer to them by weight or by number? The statement is not only hard to understand, but hard to believe. D021317c (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Inhibit healing?

It would seem to me that, intuitively, if inflammation is part of the healing process, then preventing inflammation would inhibit healing. I'm fairly sure that supposition is wrong, but I'd like to know why it's wrong. ASWilson (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes I'm wondering the same thing. The article mentions in passing that inflammation is a "problem" - but it doesn't say *why*. ··gracefool 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It is correct that turning off inflammation too much can cause great harm. That is why some of the cox inhibitors have been taken off the market.CaptainSeeker (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


For one thing, inflammation hurts. For another, it can trigger undesirable second-order effects (other medical conditions that you wouldn't have if the inflammation hadn't caused them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Too much inflammation causes all manner of harm in the body, playing a key role in cancer, heart disease, altheimers, and many more. Oh, and "itis" mean inflammation, so all the diseases ending in "itis" are also related to inflammation. For more information, see the 2004 Time Magazine article: The Secret KillerCaptainSeeker (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

TNF-inhibitors

TNF inhibitors suppress inflammation. Shouldn't they be mentioned in the article ? Rod57 (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling "seven" in 1.3

Not urgently important but should eventually be looked into: In the third paragraph of subsection 1.3, the word "seven".Svato (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)