Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
The Top Medical Myths
timesonline.co.uk — The myths are: Having sex can cause a heart attack in men, high blood pressure causes headaches, diabetics crave sugar, women need to examine their breasts, diets cut cholesterol and etc.
DorothyLaudie- 690 diggs
- digg it
- nahsrocketeer75, on 04/22/2008, -0/+27So it's all a genetic crapshoot? I'm going home to have a cheeseburger and see if maybe the wife's in the mood.
- ICSU, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2"That sex is a form of exercise. In fact, it equates only to climbing two flights of stairs."
Maybe yours, grandpa.
- ICSU, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2"That sex is a form of exercise. In fact, it equates only to climbing two flights of stairs."
- boredrph, on 04/22/2008, -6/+35Yea, women don't need to examin their breasts... I do
- Flamancot, on 04/22/2008, -3/+3OH!
- rspeed, on 04/22/2008, -1/+17You need to examine your breasts?
- Gabberwok, on 04/22/2008, -2/+2It's less fun than you'd think. :-/
- greengiant2684, on 04/22/2008, -1/+4Centipedes, in my vagina? It's more likely than you think.
- BoneheadFarker, on 04/22/2008, -2/+1Either you're a doctor, or you're gay. Or you're a gay doctor. In any case, I can't possibly imagine how fondling breasts could be less fun then I think...
- scubaman5000, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3Grandma boobs?
- Gabberwok, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1If your job is to do this stuff then in the rare instances when you get an attractive patient it makes you feel awkward (because you have to be professional), and in the vast majority of cases where the patient is not someone you'd otherwise want to see naked, it can put some unpleasant images in your head.
- BoneheadFarker, on 04/23/2008, -0/+0Hmmm...I've thought about it, and I'm still up for it. I want to see them all. Big boobs, small boobs. Pointy boobs, pancake boobs. Boobs with big nipples, boobes with no nipples, boobs with an innie *and* an outie. Real boobs, fake boobs, I'll even take my own man-boobs. Boobs, boobs, boobs, just show me your boobs!
- bgrah449, on 04/22/2008, -1/+64I am completely satisfied with the number of diggs this story had when it hit the front page.
- imnojezus, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2I am unable to make a swarthy reply telling you where you can go and to "not let the door hit your ass on the way out."
- scvarsity7, on 04/22/2008, -9/+2My whole world has just changed.
- scvarsity7, on 04/22/2008, -19/+2my whole world has just changed
- scvarsity7, on 04/22/2008, -5/+2dupe... sorry. bury
- tradwolley, on 04/22/2008, -0/+62"Any related myths? That sex is a form of exercise. In fact, it equates only to climbing two flights of stairs."
Wow, they must be doing it wrong. I am never that breathless and sweaty after just two flights.- SpencerMc, on 04/22/2008, -1/+15I was about to post something similar. Anyone can tell this is complete *****, and it calls the rest of the article into question if you ask me.
- Oea420, on 04/22/2008, -1/+6I don't think it's *****, I think the writer might have a performance...problem
I mean, do you really think that kid in American Pie had what you would equate to two flights of stairs worth of exercise when he was with the hot foreign chick?
Haha how are you going to say that to an activity that is so varying... what a stupid article, bury! - Flamancot, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2Stairs are tough, man...
- Matteos, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1Maybe if it is done only in one position.
- MattB123, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4And it's one where your partner does all the work.
- cutething, on 04/22/2008, -1/+4Just goes to show: even if this is all as a result of this doctors personal experience, it doesn't matter; he has a professional responsibility to present tried and tested information, not whatever he feels like.
- notoneofus, on 04/22/2008, -0/+7More like running up and down those flights of stairs. Sometimes repeatedly.
- petebot, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4Almost...almost...almost...ah, there we are.
- 1773nium, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I only dugg you because your comment fits with your username. Otherwise you would've gotten the ole "Not another damn FG joke" reply. Well done sir.
- crump199, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Good show.
- Gabberwok, on 04/22/2008, -2/+6Remember, this is a British newspaper...
- KingGorilla, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4How many steps are a flight of stairs?
- mummbleswers, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2They didn't say whether it was with a person or not, the author probably has huge forearms.
- cyclopean, on 04/22/2008, -7/+9They forgot the "going out in the cold will cause a cold" myth.
- elipabst, on 04/22/2008, -5/+2There may actually be some truth to that one. I recently came across a report about how exposure to cold temperatures actually "congeals" viral particles that have membrane coatings and makes them more durable to transport in the open air. I have doubts as to how big an effect that has on the risk of catching a cold when you compare it to the effect of people being in enclosed spaces all winter. But the more you know....
- cyclopean, on 04/22/2008, -2/+4I agree with your statement. Maybe I should rephrase that so it says "Cold air will not cause colds, only a virus (which is transported easier in the cold) can cause colds."
- innocentsinner, on 04/22/2008, -3/+5True, at least in the sense that cold weather doesn't 'cause' the cold. But I'd imagine that your body temperature lowering would make you more susceptible to catching it when exposed.
- cJw314, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3Oh come the hell on; use your brain.
OF COURSE you can get a cold by going out (underdressed) in the cold - or by not getting enough sleep - or having a ***** diet - or being an overweight, out of shape asshat like yourself.
ANYTHING that weakens your immune system WILL give you a better chance at getting sick.- kowalzki, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1thank you for this comment
- cyclopean, on 04/23/2008, -1/+0You need to do a little research before you start calling people "out of shape ass-hats". Google 'why people get more colds in the winter'. (or rainy season if you live down south)... IDIOT!
- crump199, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Of course you can get a cold from being out in the cold.
It's called a COLD isn't it?!?! GEEZ!!!
- elipabst, on 04/22/2008, -5/+2There may actually be some truth to that one. I recently came across a report about how exposure to cold temperatures actually "congeals" viral particles that have membrane coatings and makes them more durable to transport in the open air. I have doubts as to how big an effect that has on the risk of catching a cold when you compare it to the effect of people being in enclosed spaces all winter. But the more you know....
- rjc5056, on 04/22/2008, -6/+22#11 - Healthcare reform will result in everyone getting treatment from the real world equivalent of Dr. Nick Riviera
- eyepatch100, on 04/22/2008, -2/+4The coroner?? I am so sick of that guy!
- innocentsinner, on 04/22/2008, -1/+13Well, if it isn't my friend Mr. McGreg! With a leg for an arm and an arm for a leg!
- breckinshire, on 04/22/2008, -1/+8Hi everybody!!
- diggdong, on 04/22/2008, -5/+11Top medical myth: Dead people live forever.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 04/22/2008, -2/+4Only if they were famous.
- cJw314, on 04/22/2008, -3/+3...or believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
: )
Digg me down; God still loves you.- rjc5056, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2I'm happy that your psyche-created Jiminy Cricket approves!
- cJw314, on 04/22/2008, -3/+3...or believe in Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 04/22/2008, -2/+4Only if they were famous.
- fullofshit, on 04/22/2008, -2/+8"Research shows that routine self-examination does no good in terms of breast cancer outcomes because it isn't sensitive enough to detect important lumps."
That's retarded. I guess I don't need to routinely check for lumps in my testicles too.- tradwolley, on 04/22/2008, -0/+8I thought the breasts themselves were the important lumps.
- GvnMcCld, on 04/22/2008, -1/+5"Any related myths? There is an exact parallel with routine self-examination of testicles in males - another discredited activity that continues to receive publicity because it sounds like a good idea."
- tradwolley, on 04/22/2008, -0/+6I thought it 'felt' like a good idea.
- crump199, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I "check" my testicles on a regular basis. Nothing bad so far.
- priegog, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2It's a debated topic currently. Sure, you wouldn't base a diagnosis on a self-exam, but that wasn't the intention in the first place. The few lives that it saves by letting the cancer be discovered earlier than the routine examination would have it discovered, is worth it in my opinion. also, there's a study that showed that women who were married or in a sexual relationship had their cancers detected earlier, so I guess it's not useless to just feel around.
- MiNGLED, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1I'm not groping you, I'm checking to see if you have breast cancer.
- nezroy, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3You absolutely do, and should. The article's dismissive attitude on this topic is flat out wrong.
First, it's extremely easy. Much easier than a breast self-exam.
Second, it's not like old women who know to be getting regular mammograms; those who suffer from testicular cancer primarily are young males who don't get regular check-ups of any kind. So it's not going to be noticed by a doctor.
Third, it's entirely possible to have a very large, noticeable tumor that may take months to become apparent in some other way. More importantly, detection of even a large testicular tumor is hugely important, unlike in breast cancer where by that point it's generally already too late. I had a tumor that was basically the size of the original testicle (that it had subsumed or whatever), and I had no idea it was there until it bled out (which is not a necessarily common occurrence, so don't count on that happening to you). This was both painful beyond description and extremely lucky, because it became apparent to me months (maybe even years) faster than it would have otherwise, and forced me to seek medical attention. A self-exam would have easily uncovered this tumor, had I known that I should be doing that (which I didn't). I cannot unequivocally say that early detection saved my life, but since it had already started spreading, I know it certainly didn't hurt my odds.
- whatthefu, on 04/22/2008, -1/+10Does anyone here actually check their balls for lumps? I mean, really.
- slvrbullet87, on 04/22/2008, -0/+11I thought about doing it but always stopped on the way down to jerk off.
Serriously why would you tell 13-15 year old boys to put their hand in their pants more than they do already. - Grok22, on 04/22/2008, -0/+7while i wasn't touching my self for the explicit reason of checking for lumps, I did find one.
- uziko, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2i just did, yep i got 2 large lumbs in my sack
- verynegative, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I assume that one thing human males do in a daily basis is touching their gonads. In my case, if theres a new ball in between, i´d absolutely know.
- slvrbullet87, on 04/22/2008, -0/+11I thought about doing it but always stopped on the way down to jerk off.
- beoir, on 04/22/2008, -1/+82Myth that you shouldn't finish your antibiotics? People not finishing their antibiotics is the main reason antibiotic resistant bacteria develop. Its true that the sick person will probably be perfectly healthy long before their antibiotics are out, but stopping too soon selects for the resistant bacteria that are still alive (the resistant ones). Those few extra days can kill even the most resistant bacteria. MRSA is not a problem? ever go to a hospital
- DaFunk, on 04/22/2008, -1/+35Yeah, I had to stop reading right there. The breast exam "myth" was palatable, but saying you shouldn't complete an antibiotic regimen isn't just potentially harmful for the patient, but potentially harmful for everyone in terms of the emergence of resistant strains.
- orblivion, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3And this his the Times of London, am I correct? Conclusion: Don't trust anything.
- Areku, on 04/22/2008, -0/+12Having a Registered Nurse for a mother, I've had ALL my penicillin shoved down my throat until it was gone, thank you very much. I think I'll stick to her professional training.
- InferiorWang, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I'd be pissed if my mom shoved penicillin down my throat...at least until the swelling stopped and the hives went away.
- SaxmanTrav, on 04/22/2008, -11/+3Not finishing courses of antibiotics has nothing whatsoever to do with the emergence of resistant strains. It's the patients who complain to their doctors about having a stuffy nose and demanding antibiotics for it, when if it's a cold (and it most often is) antibiotics will do nothing! Doctors don't refuse to prescribe the drugs because they are afraid of getting sued (most relevant in America) and losing their practice. This is why we have MRSA, resistant TB strains, and all the other wonderful flavours of resistant bacteria. People need to get informed and learn that "antibiotics" as we know them only affect bacteria.
- Gabberwok, on 04/22/2008, -0/+9You're right that those patients are a problem, but not finishing courses of antibiotics is also a problem.
- InferiorWang, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Just because you feel better doesn't mean you should stop taking your antibiotics. If you quit before completely eradicating the germs making you sick, then the germs that survive are going to be the stronger ones. If your illness comes back, it will be even stronger than before due to the stronger germs. I watched a room mate do this without antibiotics 3 or 4 months straight. Every time he got sick he would swear off drinking, but when he felt like he was getting better again (though not completely healthy) he would go out and drink his fill which would drop his immune system for the night and let whatever bad ass germs that had evaded his immune system thus far get a fresh hold. Then he would get even sicker. Over and over again. Some people just don't learn. But back to the point, finishing your prescription doesn't beef up germs further than stopping half way through, but stopping half way through may leave the stronger minority of the germs to start over again.
- bgolds99, on 04/22/2008, -0/+11I couldn't agree more. My mother's a physician and has always told me to finish my antibiotics. I've also had instances where I felt better within a few days of taking antibiotics, stop taking them, then develop the symptoms (usually bronchitis related, wheezing, coughing up flem) again. I'm starting to question if this "doctor" is board certified or equivalent (I'm not sure how it works in Britain.)
- Ruthleess, on 04/22/2008, -0/+9Thank you for pointing this out, I was about to do the same thing. As someone that works in the medical industry I'm begging all of you to please finish your antibiotic regiment. The number of infections caused by superbugs (antibiotic resistant bacteria) is growing by the day.
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html? ...
Buried for inaccuracy about antibiotics and possibly more. - iFrikkenR, on 04/22/2008, -1/+7Well the other point there is how does the patient know the infection is *completely* done with? They could be stopping prematurely. And like you say, the surviving bacteria now know what to exepct the next time anti-biotics are administered and many will survive and become even stronger.
It's appalling advice to say that there is no harm in stopping treatment early. - Ellipsys, on 04/22/2008, -0/+5The was asinine. Trust me, you want to take that doxycycline for a few more days, even if you're feeling better, EVERY SINGLE TIME. The course prescribed for you is not some arbitrary timeframe. You don't want to end up in the ER getting IV Zyvox or Vancomycin because of a resistant infection.
- turkoftheplains, on 04/23/2008, -0/+2Dr. Keith Hopcroft, GP can take his advice and shove it in the same hole that will be reamed by bloodthirsty lawyers as all of his patients develop Rheumatic Fever, VRE, and MRSA.
- DaFunk, on 04/22/2008, -1/+35Yeah, I had to stop reading right there. The breast exam "myth" was palatable, but saying you shouldn't complete an antibiotic regimen isn't just potentially harmful for the patient, but potentially harmful for everyone in terms of the emergence of resistant strains.
- DeFex, on 04/22/2008, -1/+6Paris and Brittney are celebrating that they can drink and take antibiotics! slappers around the world rejoice!
- verynegative, on 04/22/2008, -0/+0Actually I was very happy to confirm that myth was false. Now I have to convince the others so they'll let me drink in peace tonight.
- ayeroxor, on 04/22/2008, -3/+50It is INCREDIBLY dangerous to dissuade women from breast self-exams. Speaking as a male, if there is ANYTHING my family or friends can do to give them ANY bit of early warning about cancer, I hope they would do so. It is shameful for this submitter and this author to be so cavalier with other peoples' lives. Some people may not think that breast self-exams are necessary, but other doctors and groups do, including the Mayo Clinic (1). For something so simple to do, why not prefer to be safe than sorry?
(1) "Breast self-exams: One way to detect breast cancer" http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/breast-self-exam/ ...- tradwolley, on 04/22/2008, -0/+8The problem with self breast exams is that they are not very sensitive to small lumps. The article states that the "outcome" is not improved. That is simply because buy the time a lump is felt through the skin and other tissue it is typically larger than can be found by mamograms. However, I would bet that if the women had not found the lumps themselves when they did the outcome would have been worse for them.
- malaak, on 04/22/2008, -3/+1Maybe because the doctors make money by testing people who are freaked out by the thought of getting cancer.....
- TheObviousChild, on 04/22/2008, -0/+9Agree 100%.
My mother is alive today because 10 years ago she got checked.
This article seems to border on irresponsibility. - wastelander, on 04/22/2008, -0/+6The article is wrong about breast self exam--it seems to base these conclusions on a single article in a Canadian medical journal that has been greatly disputed. The recommendations for breast self exam have not changed. http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/51/5/2 ...
- iFrikkenR, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4Doesn't find little lumps - probably not. I think it's a safe bet that the reason most women are even diagnosed with breat cancer is because one day they noticed a lump and went to a doctor.
Sure they didn't find it when it was small, but when it was large enough to notice via self examination, they did something about it. Better safe than sorry - Gabberwok, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1With any type of diagnostic test, the question is always cost vs. benefit. What are the costs of a breast self-exam? That you might find something that turns out to be harmless. What are the benefits? Catching something a bit early that would have otherwise been missed. There's one more thing to consider which is the relative amount of false positives vs. true positives, since the more false positives you have the more you have to consider the costs associated with the test and the more true positives you have the more you have to consider the benefits. Without looking into the actual data, my guess would be that breast exams would still be helpful, although they will normally only reveal tumors that have progressed too far to be treated effectively.
- jonnasi, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I must agree with your comment. This statement is ridiculous. I would just recommend women over 30 to go every other year to a doctor for a check, as is done in some countries.
- TekTrixter, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I think that partner-administered exams are an even better option for both breasts and testicles. At least my wife and I think so! ;)
- OffPiste, on 04/22/2008, -13/+7#12 The Democrats will fix healthcare.
- h3lx, on 04/22/2008, -4/+3#13 It's not 'that' important to wash your face after you smear ***** on it.
- OffPiste, on 04/22/2008, -3/+2I've heard that piss is sterile though.
- crump199, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Know this from experience?
- h3lx, on 04/22/2008, -4/+3#13 It's not 'that' important to wash your face after you smear ***** on it.
- maliath, on 04/22/2008, -0/+11We should distribute more over-simplified medical advice from an uncredible MSM source to the general public. That way we can ... oh wait ...
- mytibt, on 04/22/2008, -0/+5"EETS Not a TOOMAH"
- dwninjungleland, on 04/22/2008, -5/+63Please bury this.
The author clearly has NO ***** idea what they are talking about.
And PLEASE ignore the antibiotic advice-- FINISH YOUR MEDS. Inconsistent or imcomplete regimens of antibiotics and other drugs are basically why we have growing resistant strains of bacteria, parasites, etc.
I hope the author dies of MRSA, or malaria.- SaxmanTrav, on 04/22/2008, -2/+4Why would I bury someone who obviously has a shred of intelligence? Thank you, sir.
- DaFunk, on 04/22/2008, -0/+51Myth #1 - You can believe a "Common Medical Myths" article you read on the intarwebs.
- Musicmonkey34, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2 way to blow the story in the description
- waldo21, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3High blood pressure may actually "PREVENT" migraines: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080414161552.htm
ScienceDaily (Apr. 16, 2008) — People with high blood pressure appear to be less likely to have migraine than those with low blood pressure. Researchers say stiff arteries associated with high blood pressure may play a role in protecting against migraine.- priegog, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Migraines and headaches are not the same thing. And high BP CAN and DOES cause headaches.
- starkwhite, on 04/22/2008, -0/+13The cholesterol claim is bogus, at least in my experience. I was able to drop my cholesterol by 25% just through diet and exercise.
- tetsuwan, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1The author wasn't quite lucid, but I believe he meant cholesterol in food, such as in egg yolk.
- gregfadein, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Anecdotes aren't data.
The typical dieter, according to the article, will drop cholesterol by about 10% in clinical trials. Exceptions occur: you and my father are two of them.- priegog, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1But this particular claim is true. Proven in studies also. I'll give you a hint: one class of meds to diminish cholesterol actually mimics what fiber does in the intestines. So please don't claim to have such high scientific standards and then go believe what this article says.
- priegog, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1The cholesterol (along with most of those claims) are not bogus, they are plain out wrong.
- docbob84, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Also, the thing they don't mention is most types of cholesterol drugs do about the same, 10 percent or twenty points max. There are really only three or four types of cholesterol meds (statins, fibrates, Niacin, and resins) and most people have some kind of adverse reaction to at least one or two of these. If you're sitting at a total cholesterol of about 300 and refuse to change your diet because you've heard it doesn't do much, there's no way you're going to get it down to healthy levels with just drugs.
- Oea420, on 04/22/2008, -1/+2"Any related myths? That a scan is a good idea. The chances of turning up an irrelevant but worrying abnormality are fairly high."
Is it just me or does it seem bad practice to tell people not to get something looked at if they think it's a problem?- crump199, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Well if they show symptoms, or the doctor thinks there is something wrong, then it's probably a pretty good idea to get a scan.
I think what they're trying to say is that you shouldn't get a scan just to make sure everything's in working order, if you get the scan there's a high chance of something abnormal showing up that's really not a problem at all. This could only lead to worrying, more tests and more doctor bills.
- crump199, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Well if they show symptoms, or the doctor thinks there is something wrong, then it's probably a pretty good idea to get a scan.
- PavDiddy, on 04/22/2008, -6/+5You have to be pretty dumb to mix any type of antibiotics with alcohol
- breckinshire, on 04/22/2008, -0/+5Yeah, seriously, penicillin makes my margarita taste like *****.
- j1ggy, on 04/22/2008, -4/+8Women examining their breasts has always been a myth to me. That's a job for men to do.
- jebzter, on 04/22/2008, -0/+17Speaking on antibiotics, the reason for not drinking is not a drug interaction, its your liver. AB's can be toxic to very toxic to your liver, alcohol doesnt help. INH hepatitis, caused by an antibiotic.
- priegog, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Yup. What is wrong with this author? If he doesn't have a disclaimer in that article he should be sued for spreading such *****.
- linuxpenguin, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Not only that, but alcohol gets absorbed directly into the bloodstream so when you drink it, it hits hard (depending on how much you're talking). Alcohol is slightly acidic too - not sure how much that's going to affect the coating of your pills, but I guess it could.
This guy needs to watch his wording too - I don't know a ton about antibiotics, but I do know that there's some non-antibiotic drugs that you shouldn't be mixing with alcohol, and people could misunderstand what he said to mean that it's OK to take most pills with alcohol. You should always follow the label.
- WhoDoneIt, on 04/22/2008, -2/+3I'm not going to tell my wife that I need to stop "examining" her breasts. I rather enjoy my doctor session and screening time. Time to keep a secret.
- Nick519, on 04/22/2008, -1/+3i personally know someone who had a heart attack while getting a BJ. he's now paralyzed on one side of his body, and speaks like rain man. he is a shadow of his former self.
- TerrapinRangler, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I can only imagine that chicks ego after that.
- bloodomen13, on 04/22/2008, -0/+7sounds more like a stroke than a heart attack
- ElJif, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4"Any related myths? That sex is a form of exercise. In fact, it equates only to climbing two flights of stairs."
hmmm...how long is a "flight" of stairs?
This article is dangerous.- linuxpenguin, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I have to wonder how long he's talking about. . . having a quickie? Maybe. Going all night's gotta burn more calories than walking up stairs though.
- BoneheadFarker, on 04/22/2008, -1/+0I can personally vouch for the metronidazole bit...though it needs very little help in making you vomit. Actually, taking the stuff was pretty close to being drunk, minus the fun and the inflated ego...
- litkaj, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I didn't have any problem with it. I took it a back over the Christmas/New Year's Holiday for a gum infection and drank more than my share without any ill effects.
- BoneheadFarker, on 04/23/2008, -0/+0Mine was combined with ciproflaxicin. The first 2 days I took them, loud noises could knock me down. Evil, evil drugs. And from what I remember, the metronidazole was the huge capsule that had a horrible aftertaste. Not to mention the side effects of nausea, dizzyness, and funny enough...vomiting. I couldn't risk touching dairy or liquor even if I wanted too...
- litkaj, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I didn't have any problem with it. I took it a back over the Christmas/New Year's Holiday for a gum infection and drank more than my share without any ill effects.
- rovsky, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1797753
- socketman, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2What a lame freaking AMA bs article
- crump199, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Ya! Those doctors have absolutely no clue whatsoever!
- diggadigga, on 04/22/2008, -1/+4"DIETS CUT CHOLESTEROL"
Yes, most of the the cholesterol produced in the body is from the liver, however cholesterol is transported in two different ways (High density lipoproteins (HDL's) and low density lipoprotreins (LDL's)). People with high HDL levels are very resistant to heart disease, but people with high LDL's are very vunrable. High LDL levels have shown a very strong correlation with refined/processes carb consumption (white bread, high fructose corn syrup, cereals, chips, sugar, ect), and also a decent correlation with saturated fat consumption.
"Cholesterol is usually treated with statins."
It is interesting to note that people who have there cholesterol lowered via statins don't seem to be any less vulnerable to heart disease. This is probably do to oxidation and inflammation of the arteries is how heart problems start, something which statins do not help. Oxidation and inflammation can be reduced via fruits and veggies (full of antioxidants), less refined/processed carbs (produce VLDL's, google it), less trans fat, and maybe less vegetable oils although I'm not 100% sure why on this one.
PS. Keep in mind that I'm not an expert, I'm just a student right now. . ..- dagnome1984, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1Well antioxidants have their own drawbacks. They way in which they work is by disabling a protein in the cell that helps keep the cell alive in low oxygen situations. So taking antioxidants could theoretically lower your survival chance if you have a heart attack or stroke. Body chemistry can be very tricky. What could be great in some situations could be a net negative in others.
- priegog, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1What? no, it's exactly the opposite. The way damage from ischemia is produced (in most tissues anyways) is when said tissue actually gets the bloodflow restored, and the overoxidation that happens then is what causes the damage. Antioxidants would very much help in those situations. Get your facts straight, because you're wrong on how antioxidants work too.
- Gabberwok, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Actually, statins have been shown to reduce heart disease, it's just unclear if the way they do it is by lowering cholesterol (which they do quite well). The recent controversies have arisen from drugs like Zetia that block cholesterol reabsorption in the intestines and were supposed to reduce LDL without affecting HDL. Although these drugs do successfully maintain/raise HDL levels while reducing LDL, they don't seem to have the expected effect on heart disease. This suggests that the good cholesterol/bad cholesterol dichotomy that has been pushed so hard for so long is far from accurate and needs to be reexamined closely.
Also, while oxidized fatty acids due promote the formation of "foam cells" that are thought to play a significant role in atherosclerotic plaque development, saying that by taking antioxidants you can prevent this from happening is also more than a bit simplistic.
The truth is, take most nutrition information with a grain of salt (not literally if you have hypertension). In 10 years, most of the information people swear by as gospel now will be completely ridiculed, with new nutrition myths to replace them. Only a very small percentage of what we're told now will probably end up being true - and almost all anecdotal evidence should be completely disregarded.
That said, follow whatever your doctor tells you with regards to diet and medication and don't take anything else too seriously. As long as you eat moderate amounts of a well-balanced diet, take a multivitamin, and get a moderate amount of exercise you're already well ahead of most of the population. - Ellipsys, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Statin drugs can be useful, but lets not forget they are bigger moneymakers than just about anything else for pharmaceutical companies. Most of us in the medical profession will advocate healthier diet, supplementation, and other treatments to help lower cholesterol first. Statins are useful in certain instances, but they're not a perfect "I'm going to eat nothing but lard fried cheesburgers" fixit pill, like many people believe them to be.
- priegog, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I know what you say, but for a drug that has so little side effect and so many potential benefits, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it from the very beggining. Heck, I know I'll start taking them from the time I turn 40. And I'm an eurofag, where we don't get swayed by bif pharmas.
- TekTrixter, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1mmmmmm...... tasty lard fried cheesburgers.
- priegog, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1I know what you say, but for a drug that has so little side effect and so many potential benefits, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it from the very beggining. Heck, I know I'll start taking them from the time I turn 40. And I'm an eurofag, where we don't get swayed by bif pharmas.
- priegog, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Not quite. Actually, one of the first drugs to try and prevent ateroschlerosis (can't remember the name tosave my life) was the most potent antioxidant, but it failed miserably. You got it almost right, tho.
- dagnome1984, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1Well antioxidants have their own drawbacks. They way in which they work is by disabling a protein in the cell that helps keep the cell alive in low oxygen situations. So taking antioxidants could theoretically lower your survival chance if you have a heart attack or stroke. Body chemistry can be very tricky. What could be great in some situations could be a net negative in others.
- webwulf, on 04/22/2008, -1/+12This article is horrible, and is almost all *****. I got the worst headache one day and they did not go away. I went to the doc a week later and was in surgery 2 days after that getting a cyst removed from my brain. Is the guy writing this just guessing, high, or dumb?
- DanaLynn86, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1My father had a cancerous brain tumor and his FIRST symptoms were terrible headaches. About a month and a half after the headaches he started having other symptoms. This article is pure BS.
- jwiesenborn, on 04/22/2008, -0/+19FTA: "Any related myths? That you should always finish your course of antibiotics. It usually makes little difference."
thanks for helping create antibiotic-resistant strains you douche. ***** buried. - bssj4, on 04/22/2008, -5/+5"FLU JABS GIVE YOU FLU
How wrong is this? Totally. You might suffer a sore arm or, at most, a slight fever.
What are the facts? The vaccine does not contain live germs and so cannot cause flu. But, as it's given in autumn, peak snuffle period, many patients will pick up a virus around the time of their jab. This they misinterpret as flu, which they link to the jab.
Any related myths? The idea that if you are healthy, the flu jab isn't necessary. In fact, it's recommended to all over-65s, even if they're fit and well. "
I call *****. A lot of people I know, including myself, always get a kind of mini-flu after getting the flu shot, every time.- kageflame, on 04/22/2008, -0/+6It's actually true. When you get a shot you're given the a bunch of proteins that house the flu virus, but not the virus itself. As a result you create an immune response to these proteins that helps to protect you if you ever get the real virus. The reason you get the "mini-flu" is because the symptoms you feel after getting the virus as well as the shot are the same and they both stem from the immune reaction you have. Not everybody gets this reaction, but it's usually less of a reaction than actually getting the flu. The flu shot is actually quite protective because it helps you clear the viral infection faster decreasing the chances of it getting out of hand and causing major problems. Also it helps your body restrict spread of the virus so that you down accidentally give it to someone more susceptible (kids and elderly).
- Ellipsys, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Kage is correct here. Also, if you have the choice of it, be sure that the flu vaccines given to you contain the bare minimum of preservatives.
- schoolisdeath, on 04/23/2008, -0/+0You and kage and the medical community continues to tell me this, however I am with bssj4. I'm 26 and can remember having the flu once in my life - when I had a shot for it in college. That's really all the information I need to tell myself never to get another shot again. Maybe when I start getting frail I will need to, as that is what they suggest.
- Ellipsys, on 04/23/2008, -0/+1Some people react badly to the "killed virus" in the vaccines. Just as we said, you can get the "mini-flu" because your immune system is doing all the things it usually does to get rid of a "real" virus - your temperature goes up, you feel crappy etc... Some people also react badly to the preservatives and metals (mercury and aluminum based) in the formulation. Also, flu vaccines are typically created in advance for a certain strain of the virus. If the vaccine is for strand A, it isn't going to provide nearly as much protection against strand B. That might explain you getting the actual flu even after you've had the shot. Personally, because of the mercury and aluminum preservatives in many vaccines (the ones NOT in unit doses) I think most people shouldn't be vaccinated by default. Unless you're frail or in a high risk environment, its probably not worth it. Its really your choice however, but the vaccines DO work.
- schoolisdeath, on 04/23/2008, -0/+0You and kage and the medical community continues to tell me this, however I am with bssj4. I'm 26 and can remember having the flu once in my life - when I had a shot for it in college. That's really all the information I need to tell myself never to get another shot again. Maybe when I start getting frail I will need to, as that is what they suggest.
- Ellipsys, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Kage is correct here. Also, if you have the choice of it, be sure that the flu vaccines given to you contain the bare minimum of preservatives.
- kageflame, on 04/22/2008, -0/+6It's actually true. When you get a shot you're given the a bunch of proteins that house the flu virus, but not the virus itself. As a result you create an immune response to these proteins that helps to protect you if you ever get the real virus. The reason you get the "mini-flu" is because the symptoms you feel after getting the virus as well as the shot are the same and they both stem from the immune reaction you have. Not everybody gets this reaction, but it's usually less of a reaction than actually getting the flu. The flu shot is actually quite protective because it helps you clear the viral infection faster decreasing the chances of it getting out of hand and causing major problems. Also it helps your body restrict spread of the virus so that you down accidentally give it to someone more susceptible (kids and elderly).
- vanarothiel, on 04/22/2008, -2/+3It's a trap!
- TerrapinRangler, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2This is all coming from one doctor. Methinks he is the one out of ten doctors who feel this way about this stuff.
- MrPlow14, on 04/22/2008, -0/+15I am a medical student.... and this is article is just plain stupid.
Dont listen to any of these claims. - j3ff86, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1"You shouldn't mix antibiotics and alcohol"
According to Howard Stern this morning, that combination gave Ralph diarrhea - ZeusLaughed, on 04/22/2008, -0/+22Any first-year nursing student knows:
If sex is only the equivalent of 2 flights of stairs, you're doing it wrong.
Suddenly skyrocketing blood pressure does in fact cause a blinding headache. You can ask any of my patients with fluid retention if this is true.
It is true that self breast exams do not appear to bear significant correlation with early detection rates. Doctors still recommend it, however, so that women are aware of changes in tissue which may indicate something awry.
There are many antibiotics besides metronidazole that should not be taken with alcohol. Metronidazole is one of the most acutely unpleasant mixes (i.e.--projectile vomiting) but there are some others that may cause fulminant hepatic failure if mixed with alcohol (read: you're dead without a liver transplant.) If the bottle says don't drink, trust me, don't drink.
Fatigue is an excellent indicator of illness, whether it occurs alone or with other symptoms. It is often the first and only symptom of anemia, heart disease, lung disease, and heart attacks. (Fatigue is overwhelmingly the only symptom in elderly women of a heart attack.) Anemia is a common cause of fatigue in adolescent and pregnant women, and it does produce significant fatigue.
In short: Buried for staggeringly, exasperatingly inaccurate. - baronbrapp, on 04/22/2008, -0/+9Please please DO take all your antibiotics. Not finishing all your antibiotics can leave behind resistant bacteria in your body which CAN recolonize. And when they recolonize, all those bacteria are going to be resistant, and you're going to die.
- yomamaphat, on 04/22/2008, -0/+9INACCURATE: Any related myths? That sex is a form of exercise. In fact, it equates only to climbing two flights of stairs.
-------------------------
I don't ***** sweat bullets for 20 minutes climbing two flights of stairs. This guy has erectile dysfunction or premature ejaculation problems.- cJw314, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Maybe you should get that heart pumping instead of just that one time every three months...
- jooeyd, on 04/22/2008, -3/+2I always thought the reason you don't mix alcohol with antibiotics is because alcohol brings down your immune system, while antibiotics try to build it up...
- priegog, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1oh man... I'm just responding to let you know I lol'd IRL at your comment
- FoxFaction, on 04/22/2008, -3/+2Comments this far down are pointless... so have fun wasting time and "expressing your opinion", everyone below me. I know I did!
- dwninjungleland, on 04/22/2008, -0/+5PLEASE STOP DIGGING THIS POS ARTICLE.
Submitting this in the first place= worst idea of all time.
It's flat out dangerous. - cJw314, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4":Any related myths? That you should always finish your course of antibiotics. It usually makes little difference.:"
I declare shenanigans; this is *****. Buried as inaccurate. - TheCommentThief, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3Myth that you shouldn't finish your antibiotics? People not finishing their antibiotics is the main reason antibiotic resistant bacteria develop. Its true that the sick person will probably be perfectly healthy long before their antibiotics are out, but stopping too soon selects for the resistant bacteria that are still alive (the resistant ones). Those few extra days can kill even the most resistant bacteria. MRSA is not a problem? ever go to a hospital
- Nytemare, on 04/22/2008, -0/+3I noticed that this was from Britain, the land of free health care. Anyone else notice that some of the women said it would be 2 years before examined.
"...but I did examine my own breast to find a very aggressive cancer growing alarmingly fast. 2 years before I would have been called for a mammogram I'm glad I didn't wait for the experts."
or
"Self examination does help some women discover growths which are cancerous. Surely that's a good enough reason for all women to do it?
Besides, screening starts so late in this country. My mother and grandmother both had breast cancer before 50. My mum discovered she had it at her first mammogram. Perhaps if she had been self-examining, it might have been caught even sooner than that."
And we want public health care? Self examination is probably the only way to detect it. Sure they'll miss it when it's small, but at least it'll be caught before it kills them, assuming a doctor doesn't get there first.
Buried for inaccurate and scary. - lisaawesome, on 04/22/2008, -0/+4Man my breasts get a daily self examination and it's not because I'm afraid of cancer.
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by