posted
You know, the fact that this thread was here for two hours with not a single kind word in reply, with the only message on it being a pretty hateful one towards a man who, right or wrong, was once our leader and is about to undergo surgery, just makes me hate humanity even more than I already do.
When I was a little kid Ronald Reagan was shot and my brother and I made homemade get well cards and sent them to him, and our parents thought that was a nice idea, despite the fact that they disagreed with Reagan and though he was a pretty horrible president.
It's nice to see how much the world has changed.
Anyway, good luck to Mr. Clinton. I hope the surgery goes well and he and his family will be in my thoughts.
Edit for spelling.
[ September 05, 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Vera ]
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I was serious about the . My feelings toward prayer are different and I don't tend to pray for people I know only by name regardless of their political affiliation. Maybe its a personal fault, but something inside me gets squeamish at the idea of sending a get well to someone who to me only exists as a political opponent. By no means do I wish any bad will upon Mr. Clinton, though.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
NFL, that's nice. I wasn't really refering to you anyway, but to the other two posts. Especially to the one before you. That's why I said two hours and only post. At the time I first started to get pissed off at this thread, Ryan's was the only reply.
By the time I got around to replying, it had been three hours and there were two hateful posts and one neutral one (yours) so I still thought a slam on the hateful posts was in order.
I don't believe in praying for strangers either (or praying at all for that matter) and sending the get well card to Reagan was a child's sentimentality. But when someone is ill, if you can't say anything nice, saying nothing at all really is the LEAST you can do and anyone who does otherwise deserves a vigorous smackdown from all decent people. I wouldn't have replied to this thread at all if Ryan's post hadn't pissed me off so bad, so I have no quarrel with you at all, NFL.
[ September 05, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Vera ]
Posts: 96 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, personally, I don't really think its acceptable to take cheap shots at anyone who's about to undergo a serious medical operation even if he does have over a 99% chance of survival. There are a few exceptions to that rule, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, or Hitler, but even as a Republican I refuse to put Clinton anywhere near that same category.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We feel so blessed and grateful for the thousands of prayers and messages of good will we have received these past few days. Your cards, letters, emails and calls have moved and encouraged us immensely.
We are also thankful for the excellent care provided by the doctors, nurses and the staff of the New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center. And we are fortunate to have great health care coverage - and continue to hope for the day when every American will enjoy this basic right.
That's why people love Bubba.
Posts: 611 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no doubt in my mind that Bill Clinton is far and away, one of the most charismatic presidents we have ever had.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: When I was a little kid Ronald Reagan was shot and my brother...
I'm SO sleepy... I just read this as "When I was a little kid, Ronald Reagan shot my brother..." Vera, I'm sorry, I didn't mean for that to be derogatory, I was genuinely stunned.
posted
I'm puzzled by why anyone would regard Ryan's comment as hate-filled. I mean, if you really support Clinton that much, why not accept such statements as accolades to the man?
Among his supporters (including those that pray at all) his accomplishments in changing the moral tone of this country are justly lauded. I can't say I'm in the "Clinton is great cause now we can have sex" crowd, but I'll bet that the majority of the American people (including those that pray for him) are.
I mean, are we to consider his own statement about health care for everyone self-derogatory? After all, not only did many people think it a bad idea, it was unquestionably one of the most embarrassing fiascoes of his administration.
I think Vera is one of those uptight chicks that wants to pretend that Clinton never accomplished anything in office. He accomplished plenty, and real praise for his actual accomplishments isn't "hateful", it's complimentary.
I would think that someone could have said something about his contributions to the Balkan situation, though.
Or perhaps a malediction on the stupid doctors that got him hooked on that addictive heart medication, so the moment he stopped taking it his arteries all clogged up. I think it was a plot. Those doctors knew perfectly well that Clinton would go off his meds, and they put him on those drugs on purpose to kill him off.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or perhaps a malediction on the stupid doctors that got him hooked on that addictive heart medication, so the moment he stopped taking it his arteries all clogged up.
You've invented a new medication, haven't you?
*suspicious
As a plot device for a novel?
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I mean, if you really support Clinton that much, why not accept such statements as accolades to the man?
Why is it so hard for you to believe that some people might have liked many of things Clinton did as president but still found his sexual exploits despicable?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, some people liked his sexual escapades but found other elements of his presidency "despicable".
All I'm saying is that just because someone compliments the man on something you don't find worthy of compliment, that doesn't mean they were being cruel and petty towards him. I was at a wedding recently and a lot of the guests were saying things about the bride and groom that I really don't want anyone saying at my wedding. Did I flip out and accuse everyone there of being cruel and insensitive to the couple? Of course not. I recognized that these people liked this couple because of some of the things mentioned.
So sure, I believe that there are a lot of people who like Clinton "except for X" (or XXX, if you like). But I don't see how it is reasonable for someone who likes Clinton "except for X" to jump all over the case of someone that compliments the man on "X", whether "X" is his wife or...someone else.
Anyway, I had thought that those morons put him on some statins (not any of the many medications I've invented, no) and he stopped taking them, leading to the occlusions. If not so, then I guess I was misinformed.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the aim is to communicate clearly, make more sense of the world, create a sense of viable community, or even speak completely intelligibly. I don't really know what the intent is, but I expect it has something to do with play, likely from a mocking/superior (yet playful) standpoint, and without genuine opening of self to vulnerability, but a sincere attempt at humor.
In other words, think a young fallow mixed with an Eye of Argon reading. At least, that's as best as I can tell.
Mostly harmless.
(And welcome to Hatrack, WS. )
[ September 07, 2004, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
WraithSword, statins have no addictive or dependence-inducing properties, and there is no rebound effect. There just isn't any evidence of this.
Where did you get that idea? (*curious)
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Well, I'm not about to do that. But I wonder, maybe the reason Bill needed the surgery was that too many people were praying for him. Praying that he'd have a "change of heart", that is.
As for where I might get the idea that statins have adverse effects on the heart and everything, just try googling "statin" and "side-effect". There's plenty of literature on the subject.
But that's not where I got the idea. Oh no, you don't know where I get my ideas...unless you follow the link.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: WraithSword, statins have no addictive or dependence-inducing properties, and there is no rebound effect. There just isn't any evidence of this.
Where did you get that idea? (*curious)
Sara, is it possible that because someone is on Statins, they go back to indulging in, oh, say, Big Macs or Egg McMuffins (which are possibly closer to addictive) and then discontinue the statins, creating a crisis? I'm not claiming this happened to anyone in particular. I'm just wondering if it is in the realm of possibility.
I am glad that Clinton appears to be doing better. And I'm sorry I didn't take the opportunity to post to this thread sooner.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for where I might get the idea that statins have adverse effects on the heart and everything, just try googling "statin" and "side-effect". There's plenty of literature on the subject.
I see nothing about addiction, dependency, or rebound effects, which was what was claimed above.
I see popular press (not medical literature) about the possible rare side effects of polyneuropathy and rhabdomyalysis, so rare that they do not routinely show up in studies of 50,000+ patients. They are there as possibilities, but such possibilities exist for most medications.
I think you might be confusing "addictive" with "I think it might have some kind of bad effect, but I'm not sure what." Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, the pattern of behavior certainly is possible, but despite jokes to the contrary, death by cholesterol is not precipitated by a fatty meal (AFAIK, that is -- I remember some study I can't currently locate which suggested you might be more likely to have a heart attack in the few hours after eating a cheesburger or something, but it was refuted).
It just isn't consistent with the physiology. The cholesterol floating around in the bloodstream isn't what plugs up and blocks off blood supply.
What happens is that cholesterol is absorbed into "foamy macrophages" and deposited into the smooth muscle walls of the vessels. There is some evidence that the smooth muscle cells can do this, too. This forms fatty streaks which become calcified and then prone to having the lining that covers them broken apart (this tends to happen at areas of turbulent blood flow, like at the bifurcation of blood vessels), which:
1) exposes the underlying layers, and then 2) the exposed collagen attracts platelets, which clump, and then 3) red blood cell attach to the platelets, and then 4) more platelets attach, and then 5) the process repeats itself, sometime to the point where the clot obstructs the artery,
Cholesterol that happens to be floating around doesn't have a role in the direct event itself. It's -- at that point -- just a bystander.
The body's own repair mechanisms are the acute problem, not the immediate level of cholesterol in the bloodstream. Over extended time, of course, the latter builds up to precipitates the former, but that's not the same as rebound at all.
[ September 08, 2004, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, but I'm talking about something I think is called the Concorde fallacy. The existence of a technology has unintended effects. The Concorde, instead of giving us more time, makes our lives more stressed. Because if we can cross the Atlantic in X minutes, we now expect to.
For this to apply to the statins, one's diet would have to get worse than the diet that cause the initial diagnosis, because they feel the medication is taking care of things. What I don't understand is why they would then stop taking it, unless there is any kind of tolerance effect, or the medicine has an unpleasant side effect. Stopping the medicine doesn't connect in the mind to eating better. So not just one fatty meal, but a habit of eating.
I believe this happens because people I know on statins have said "Now I can eat whatever I want and the Doctor doesn't lecture me!"
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I get what you are saying, pooka. I don't think that this is the rebound effect WS had in mind, though. But I do understand you. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I meant addictive in terms of having a tolerance effect, if it comes to that.
And you're right to point up that statins work by inhibiting the repair process that ends up producing these blockages. They suppress synthesis of the type of cholesterol involved, which means that your body has to turn available metabolized cholesterol into something other than artery-patch kits.
Stop taking statins, and that pathway starts up again...and what does it find? Lots of metabolized but unused cholesterol floating about. Let's make some artery-patching kits, since there are signs that we haven't been doing that for a while!
Fine, fine, the stuff isn't exactly rat poison or anything (though it does have an effect suspiciously similar to rat poison, come to think of it). So that theory probably belongs in the same catagory as the idea that Clinton's condition was caused by too many people praying that his heart would be touched;)
One thing I have to wonder, if he was faithfully taking his statins and this happened while he was taking them...but we are talking about Mr. BigMac himself, I suppose.
Posts: 100 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
WS, I think you are possibly being more light-hearted than I had anticipated. This might make some sense of why we seem to be talking past each other. I also have trouble switching into play mode, so I'm sure that's a big contributor, too.
I have trouble being light-hearted about matters of health and safety, and inaccuracy disturbs me. Inaccuracy about something else -- say, the details of musical notation -- probably wouldn't, and I'd likely not even notice. But misinformation about medications on the net scares me.
(But I can see where it might be to you what musical notation is to me. Forgive an old lady for pedantry.)
quote:Well, I meant addictive in terms of having a tolerance effect, if it comes to that.
Statins don't have a tolerance effect. Really, they don't. You don't become dependent on them and there is no need to take increasing amounts for the same effect (which is the definition of medical tolerance).
quote:Stop taking statins, and that pathway starts up again...and what does it find? Lots of metabolized but unused cholesterol floating about.
The "unused cholesterol" doesn't build up. After it is produced/ingested and processed, it is excreted. Even if people have become accustomed to eating less healthfully (see pooka's comment above), most of the bad cholesterol in the human body is produced by that body, not ingested in the diet. Dietary changes are great if they work to make significant difference, but in most cases the real problem is how that person's liver, etc., function, not what the person eats. So, most of the time dietary changes are going to be a relatively small part of the story, although they are a good first step.
quote:Fine, fine, the stuff isn't exactly rat poison or anything (though it does have an effect suspiciously similar to rat poison, come to think of it).
Rat poison is coumadin (aka warfarin), a blood thinning agent. It doesn't have anything to do with cholesterol.
quote:So that theory probably belongs in the same catagory as the idea that Clinton's condition was caused by too many people praying that his heart would be touched;)
Okay, the musical notation part. Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for being such a nitpicker.
quote:One thing I have to wonder, if he was faithfully taking his statins and this happened while he was taking them...but we are talking about Mr. BigMac himself, I suppose.
I don't think anything at all about his diet or consistency with medication can be inferred from this incident. It's just idle speculation. A lifetime of high cholesterol could have well damaged vessels to the point where something like this was pretty inevitable, anyway, and that may have had quite little to do with his diet.
[ September 08, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dietary changes are great if they work to make significant difference, but in most cases the real problem is how that person's liver, etc., function, not what the person eats.
Do you give any credence to the idea that livers can be damaged by diet, thereby having an indirect effect? Specifically, insulin resistance? I know the liver performs, literally, hundreds of functions so I don't know if the glycogen cycle is related to the cholesterol production. I wondered if you knew. Finding out the hundreds of functions of the liver is something I've seriously considered going back to school for.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure that this is a topic up for hot debate, pooka, and I'd hate to even hazard a guess (especially when I'm feeling stuporous like tonight ). From my perspective, insulin resistance is (or should be) the primary focus of general health research dollars. Increasing Type II diabetes, PCOS, you name it -- it all hinges at the same joint.
Very good question. Wish I had a good answer. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
)![[Confused]](confused.gif)
