One of the first things they emphasize on the first day of medical school is "don’t give unsolicited medical advice to strangers" (secondly, right after the "don’t date or sleep with patients" part)
I'd like to see the theoretical benefit/risk analysis of advising someone who has been acutely ill and on recent glucocorticoids to take "max dose" NSAIDs for a week for theoretical myocarditis prevention.
I'm willing to bet the chances of causing someone to suffer a perforated stomach ulcer or acute prerenal failure as opposed to actually doing them some good, are not on your side, no matter how altruistic your intent may be.
Of course, I guess another big difference is that lay people don’t get sued for giving shit advice.
Well you can make that bet I guess, but it's all just prejudice until you actually look isn't it?
One, this isn't concurrent dosage. They're off IV glucocorticoids for 6 days, even for methylprednisolone that's enough time to be practically clear in terms of GR binding. Hell, their natural cortisol levels might even still be suppressed at this point, practically providing the opposite effect of a concurrent steroid dosage.
Two, I didn't suggest a preventative dose. I suggested a conditional one on symptoms that, whilst not conclusive for myocarditis, are not very likely to occur in the first place. The risk is absolutely nil in the most likely outcome where that condition isn't met.
Three, just a week of following the limits and instructions on over the counter NSAIDs is exceedingly unlikely to lead to peptic ulcer bleeding. I will grant that even absent the direct effect of steroids the risk of renal issues may be slightly more elevated than usual, just because of cumulative strain on the kidneys and metabolites still clearing from the recent illness, but that is an elevation from something even more exceedingly unlikely than the stomach ulcers.
Four, yes being able to give impartial advice free from cover your ass hemming and hawing is great. At no point did I claim authority over their health and they get to take it at face value, research it more, get a second opinion, or ignore it at their leisure. The only thing that happened is information and an idea were presented, without prejudice. No-one can get sued for sincere anonymous advice, sufficiently divorced from a professional setting. No-one is validating it either, neither in sincerity nor content, so it's foolish to take advice you can't personally understand the rationale behind. It's only useful to provide a perspective you may not have considered yet. But as modern standards of integrity have continued to erode, that increasingly applies to advice in all settings anyway. 🤷♀️
One of the first things they emphasize on the first day of medical school is "don’t give unsolicited medical advice to strangers" (secondly, right after the "don’t date or sleep with patients" part)
I'd like to see the theoretical benefit/risk analysis of advising someone who has been acutely ill and on recent glucocorticoids to take "max dose" NSAIDs for a week for theoretical myocarditis prevention.
I'm willing to bet the chances of causing someone to suffer a perforated stomach ulcer or acute prerenal failure as opposed to actually doing them some good, are not on your side, no matter how altruistic your intent may be.
Of course, I guess another big difference is that lay people don’t get sued for giving shit advice.
Well you can make that bet I guess, but it's all just prejudice until you actually look isn't it?
One, this isn't concurrent dosage. They're off IV glucocorticoids for 6 days, even for methylprednisolone that's enough time to be practically clear in terms of GR binding. Hell, their natural cortisol levels might even still be suppressed at this point, practically providing the opposite effect of a concurrent steroid dosage.
Two, I didn't suggest a preventative dose. I suggested a conditional one on symptoms that, whilst not conclusive for myocarditis, are not very likely to occur in the first place. The risk is absolutely nil in the most likely outcome where that condition isn't met.
Three, just a week of following the limits and instructions on over the counter NSAIDs is exceedingly unlikely to lead to peptic ulcer bleeding. I will grant that even absent the direct effect of steroids the risk of renal issues may be slightly more elevated than usual, just because of cumulative strain on the kidneys and metabolites still clearing from the recent illness, but that is an elevation from something even more exceedingly unlikely than the stomach ulcers.
Four, yes being able to give impartial advice free from cover your ass hemming and hawing is great. At no point did I claim authority over their health and they get to take it at face value, research it more, get a second opinion, or ignore it at their leisure. The only thing that happened is information and an idea were presented, without prejudice. No-one can get sued for sincere anonymous advice, sufficiently divorced from a professional setting. No-one is validating it either, neither in sincerity nor content, so it's foolish to take advice you can't personally understand the rationale behind. It's only useful to provide a perspective you may not have considered yet. But as modern standards of integrity have continued to erode, that increasingly applies to advice in all settings anyway. 🤷♀️
A very respectable reply.
IANAL, but I wouldn't want to put that belief to the test.
Yeah, agreed on not wanting to test that. Here especially my primary precaution is not making it easy to know who to sue in the first place.