Anyone ever have gout?

[Number Six]

Nobody in this thread said or implied that eating well or doing things in moderation wasn't a good thing. If that's all your point was then what was all the arguing about in this thread about anyway?

We're not putting strawmen on you, rather you're just getting tired of defending undefendable positions and so you're changing them to be more reasonable. It was you making ridiculous statements about all drugs being harmful or foods being able to cure everything that set people off. I'm glad you're finally seeing how silly it was to say such things now even if you won't admit it.

Eat right and get exercise...how revolutionary, I don't think I've ever heard that before. Fine. But what happens if you get cancer or gout or some illness anyway, as virtually everyone is bound to do?

 

[jj]

Originally posted by Number Six [/B]

Yes. As of this last Sunday afternoon, in fact.

Presently on cochilchine and something else. Head spinning nastily. UGH.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Sorry jj truly. I have talked with women I know w/gout and the tell me that's more painful then childbirth. I haven;t given birth but it is extremely painful.

Colchicine, is a good drug for immediate relief from gouty joints, low dosage , acts quickly and metabolizes medium slow.

There is something most Drug Reference synopsis's don't mention that being some people have psychotic episodes from the drug. I tolerated it well, with the accompanying "fuzziness" You describe.

It was my savior during my first attack in my big toe joint.

I will repeat what I said before tho, do not use Allopurinol as a follow up to the attack or a long term prophylactic. My experience including all the males in my family and my Doc who sufferers from it , have experienced acute attacks just after the inflammation episode when taking Allopurinol.
Anecdotal , but true.
Diet and exercise. Nor more double cheese burgers for lunch followed by a fillet for dinner, Eat veggies, chicken, drowned Yourself in water and not red wine. If you must imbibe drink whites or beer ( the alchoal is an antagonist as is animal protein but less in white wine and flesh ) .

Good luck .

 

[jj]

Colchicine, is a good drug for immediate relief from gouty joints, low dosage , acts quickly and metabolizes medium slow.

Yes, it certainly is. I love the instructions "take this two now and one per hour until either the pain stops or you start throwing up".

For me it was the first two, and one more, and "poof" the riot was down to an ache. No GI effects, it seems.

I'm also on indomethicin, which brought some attention to the fact that there was some other inflamation going on that disappeared promptly. Have to talk to the doctor about that.

I have arthritis in both feet (large bunions, bad foot shape, I have the opposite (by a lot) of a "flat" arch), and you can guess where the gout settled into.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I'm also on indomethicin, which brought some attention to the fact that there was some other inflammation going on that disappeared promptly. Have to talk to the doctor about that.


Hmmm curiouser and curiouser.
My oldest brother had what we and his docs thought was gout. Turns out he has what is called "false gout " aka Paterson-Brown-Kelly syndrome. It's rare and weird ask your doc as that symptomatically happened to my brother, even tho we had garden verity gout. Boy I tell ya what , You want to see some calcification , You should see his elbows..

All gout is basically arthritis , they just differ as to the mechinism.



Editoor choice of words.

 

[Mojo]

I'm currently on allopurinol, and, so far, it seems to be doing the job. As the consultant said last time I saw him: "the important thing is that you're feeling OK."

A friend of mine is using colchicine as he had an unpleasant reaction to allopurinol. His main side effect to colchicine is severe diahrroea.

 

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Number Six [/i]

>>Nobody in this thread said or implied that eating well or doing things in moderation wasn't a good thing. If that's all your point was then what was all the arguing about in this thread about anyway?
We're not putting strawmen on you, rather you're just getting tired of defending undefendable positions and so you're changing them to be more reasonable. It was you making ridiculous statements about all drugs being harmful or foods being able to cure everything that set people off.

Of course that is nonsense. I certainly never made any such statement that foods can cure everything, but it is certainly true that all drugs are potentially harmful, otherwise, they wouldn't be called drugs.

>> Eat right and get exercise...how revolutionary, I don't think I've ever heard that before. Fine. But what happens if you get cancer or gout or some illness anyway, as virtually everyone is bound to do?

Everyone is not bound to get gout or cancer or even some illness, but everyone must die of something.

 

[Rolfe]

it is certainly true that all drugs are potentially harmful, otherwise, they wouldn't be called drugs.

Please provide some support for this extraordinary abuse of the English language.

Rolfe.

 

[Goshawk]

Good info on colchicine here.

Scary stuff.
Many many warnings.
Oy.



Historical footnote: Colchicine, found in the autumn crocus, besides being incredibly poisonous in all its parts, has also been prescribed since at least Byzantine times for gout.

 

[Dragon]

...
Everyone is not bound to get gout or cancer or even some illness, but everyone must die of something.

Interesting. Barring trauma, what do people die of, if not some illness or disease?




Oh and Rouser, please learn to use the "Quote" button.

 

[Number Six]

Here's the reasoning. If something is proposed as a drug then before it can become classified as a drug it must go through a process to check its efficacy, the ways it can be potentially harmful, etc. Since literally everything is potentially harmful, everything that is classified as a drug is potentially harmful. Ergo, all drugs are harmful.

The implication is that drugs are potentially harmful. But the fallacy in the logic is that _everything_ is potentially harmful regardless of whether it has gone through the procedure to be classified as a drug. Simply testing a substance doesn't make that substance more harmful.

Since only certain substances have to be classified as a drug, only those things classified as a drug have the label "potentially harmful side effects" associated with it. If the FDA decided to classify fruits and vegetables as drugs then they'd have to undergo the same kind of testing as drug and they'd suddenly all have "potentially harmful side effects."

So there you go...drugs are labelled "potentially harmful" by the FDA and non-drugs are not. The reason for that isn't because drugs are inherently more dangerous but rather just that the FDA _can't_ label things it doesn't test as "potentially harmful" and the FDA _must_ label things it does test as "potentially harmful."

If someone invents a substance in a lab, no matter what it is, it isn't dangerous _until_ the FDA tests it, at which time it become dangerous. Hmmm!

 

[Rouser2]

I see. A "pseudo-disease" that acts in every way like cancer except that some people recover from it with the help of those evil drugs.

I smell No True Scotsman:

Drugs can't cure disease. If you were sick, and a doctor gave you drugs, and you got better, then all you had was a pseudo-disease you pathetic malingerer!

I refer you to an earliler thread entitled:
Modern Medicine & Pseudodiseases

Dr. H. Gilbert Welch's book "Should I Be Tested for Cancer" suggests that one think twice before going in for cancer tests pointing out that in many cases, what is diagnosed as "cancer" is actually a pseudodisease -- and the improvment of so-called 5-year "survival rates" are skewed statistics only due to early diagnosis of a disease which may or may not be real. The noted MD points out that while most pathologists can agree on what are big, obvious cancers, and what is normal tissue, there is a fair amount in between which can only be guessed at.

"Falling into that gap... are people subjected to unnecesssary tests, biopsies, and uncomfortable scans, not to mention terror, all because a cancer screening found "something."

Bottom line considerations:

"1. It is unlikely that you will benefit
2. You may have a "cancer scare" and face an endless cycle of testing
3. You may receive unnecessary treatment
4. You may find a cancer you would rather not know about
5. Your pathologist may say it's cancer, while others say it's not
6. Your doctor may get distracted from other issues that are more important to you "

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10079.html