Lower Your Fever and Stay Sick
john
Researchers at the University of Maryland have publicly stated what
chiropractors and other drug-free, vitalistic healers have been saying
for a long time: taking aspirin or Tylenol for the flu actually could
prolong your illness by up to 3˝ days. Fever is the body's natural way
of fighting an infection and taking aspirin or acetaminophen (TylenolT)
interferes with your body's natural healing process.
"You're messing with Mother Nature," says Dr. Leland Rickman, an
associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of
California, San Diego. An elevated temperature "may actually help the
body fight the infection quicker or better than if you don't have a
fever." The Maryland researchers found that influenza A sufferers who
were treated with aspirin or acetaminophen extended their illness from
five days to about 8˝ days. Aspirin and acetaminophen may prolong
influenza A and possibly other viral infections according to
researchers. Pharmacotherapy, December 2000; 20: 1417-1422
Richard Cavell
news:aqfuqg$3c4$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> Researchers at the University of Maryland have publicly stated what
> chiropractors and other drug-free, vitalistic healers have been saying
> for a long time: taking aspirin or Tylenol for the flu actually could
> prolong your illness by up to 3½ days.
(Some) medical doctors have believed this for a long time. It did not start
with natural medicine.
amp_spamfree
For the sake of honesty - here's what the abstract says:
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine whether antipyretic therapy prolongs
the course of experimental influenza A, Shigella sonnei, and
Rickettsia rickettsii infections. DESIGN: Retrospective observational
study. SETTING: University Center for Vaccine Development. SUBJECTS:
Fifty-four volunteers with experimentally induced influenza A, 45 with
S. sonnei, and 21 with R. rickettsii infections participated.
INTERVENTIONS: Subjects from the six influenza A studies were
challenged intranasally. If they met certain criteria, they were
offered aspirin or acetaminophen for symptomatic relief. Subjects from
the three Shigella studies were challenged with the bacteria and then
given trimethoprimsulfamethoxazole. Acetaminophen also could be
administered. In the one R. rickettsii trial, subjects were inoculated
intradermally and treated with tetracycline. Again, acetaminophen was
administered for symptomatic relief. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:
Data, excerpted from subjects' study records, were evaluated using
Wilcoxon tests, Spearman's correlation coefficients, and multiple
regression analysis. Two-tailed hypotheses with a p value of 0.05 were
used for all of the analyses. There was a striking correlation between
antipyretic therapy and duration of illness in subjects infected with
influenza A and S. sonnei, but not R. rickettsii. CONCLUSIONS:
Multivariate analysis suggested that antipyretic therapy prolonged
illness in subjects infected with influenza A, but its use was the
result of prolonged illness in those infected with S. sonnei. The
precise nature of these relationships requires a prospective,
randomized, placebo-controlled trial.
-----------------------
I went to the actual article - and it was just a bit humorous. John,
go read it for yourself. The use of antipyretic was not randomized
but rather was at the discretion of the participant and by permission
of the treating physician. The majority of patients who did not use
antipyretics had a course of illness of one day - ONE DAY.
Antipyretic use was generally not started until halfway through the
illness.
The study designs (this was actually three studies - two said
relationship one said negative relationship) did not allow antipyretic
administration without elevated temperature. Figure out the problem?
Even Roger will catch this fatal flaw.
Duh - the people who were sicker longer used antipyretics - good
medical practice - giving medications to people that have symptoms.
too funny.
john
"Richard Cavell" <richar...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3jOy9.28203$5u4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Some medical doctors are anti-vaccine.
john
Richard Steven Walz
But whereas the docs who recognize the body's defenses are
useful and important are at the top of their field, the
docs who question vaccines are but a few incompetent quacks
who should be drummed out of the profession.
THAT'S the difference!
Steve
Richard Cavell
> Some medical doctors are anti-vaccine.
There are no doctors that are anti-vaccine who are safely employed in an
area where they're required to give vaccines. If they were, they'd be
deregistered and sued into bankruptcy.
PF Riley
wrote:
>
>I went to the actual article - and it was just a bit humorous. John,
>go read it for yourself. The use of antipyretic was not randomized
>but rather was at the discretion of the participant and by permission
>of the treating physician. The majority of patients who did not use
>antipyretics had a course of illness of one day - ONE DAY.
>Antipyretic use was generally not started until halfway through the
>illness.
In other words, the results they got are because the ones who were
sicker for a shorter duration did not take the antipyretics, not
because the ones who did not take antipyretics were sicker for a
shorter duration.
PF
john
I can believe that. You can be sued if you don't vaccinate a child and it
gets damaged by the disease but you can't be sued for vaccinating and the
child gets vaccine damaged, so you can see the incentive to vaccinate for an
MD.
john
"I observed that my unvaccinated children were healthier, hardier and more
robust than their vaccinated peers. Allergies, asthma and pallor and
behavioral and attentional disturbances were clearly more common in my young
patients who were vaccinated. My unvaccinated patients, on the other hand,
did not suffer from infectious diseases with any greater frequency or
severity than their vaccinated peers: their immune systems generally handled
these challenges very well."--Incao's Hepatitis B Vaccination Testimony
http://www.whale.to/m/quotes26.html
Richard Cavell
> I can believe that. You can be sued if you don't vaccinate a child and it
> gets damaged by the disease
Of course.
> but you can't be sued for vaccinating and the
> child gets vaccine damaged
That doesn't happen, and in fact yes doctors do get sued over it.
john
>
> That doesn't happen, and in fact yes doctors do get sued over it.
I haven't come across any being sued here, UK--it just gets taken to the
government
john
Tsu Dho Nimh
>"You're messing with Mother Nature," says Dr. Leland Rickman, an
>associate clinical professor of medicine at the University of
>California, San Diego. An elevated temperature "may actually help the
>body fight the infection quicker or better than if you don't have a
>fever."
Sheesh! What academics won't do for a thesis!
I remember this from the 1960s pathogenic bacteria class: fever
is a defense mechanism, so ignore it unless the patient is
seriously hurting.
Tsu
--
To doubt everything or to believe everything
are two equally convenient solutions; both
dispense with the necessity of reflection.
- Jules Henri Poincaré
aussiefi
are not nice to watch. A blanket statement saying that fever is a defence
mechanism is fine, but in young children fever can so easily lead to
convulsions. Get to know your child's normal temp and if it is only mildly
up then perhaps consider leaving it, but if the child is seriously febrile,
at least get a dr to check on him/her.
Fi
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
"aussiefi" <auss...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:B9F355B8.32E56%auss...@hotmail.com...
Actually, if the fever is already up, chances are that the child will not
have febrile seizures. These seizures (which, as far as doctors can tell are
basically harmless -- despite how scarey they are) appear to occur mostly as
the fever is increasing, not once the fever is there. I would not recommend
giving any child any drug just because the child has a fever. If the child
is runnign just fine with a temp over 101, but feeling ok, I wouldn't do
anything.
But, as always, talk to your doctor.
All the best,
Wyle
>
> Fi
>
PF Riley
wrote:
Where they pay out on bogus claims, which you then take as "proof"
that "damage" occured. Perhaps we should create a true burden of
proof?
PF
David Wright
>
>"I observed that my unvaccinated children were healthier, hardier and more
>robust than their vaccinated peers.
The ones that survived, anyway.
> Allergies, asthma and pallor and
>behavioral and attentional disturbances were clearly more common in my young
>patients who were vaccinated. My unvaccinated patients, on the other hand,
>did not suffer from infectious diseases with any greater frequency or
>severity than their vaccinated peers: their immune systems generally handled
>these challenges very well."--Incao's Hepatitis B Vaccination Testimony
>http://www.whale.to/m/quotes26.html
That word "generally" in the last sentence really leaves me
wondering. Not that I take such testimony particularly seriously.
I'm sure it's right up there with Mendelsohn's observations.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders."
D. C. Sessions
To be a bit more specific, the usual guideline is to
administer antipyretics if either
a) Fever is interfering with adequate rest, in which case
give the pt. enough symptomatic relief to allow sleep.
During wake cycle, do not medicate unless:
b) Temperature is extreme. Temperatures over 40C can
be dangerous in themselves, so antipyretics to bring
the temp down below 40C may be indicated.
In other words, temps up to 40C during the day are fine,
and mildly elevated temps even at night.
--
| In the course of every project there comes a time |
| when the best debugger is a can of gasoline. |
Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
"D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:u4hmqa...@news.lumbercartel.com...
> aussiefi wrote:
>
>
> To be a bit more specific, the usual guideline is to
> administer antipyretics if either
> a) Fever is interfering with adequate rest, in which case
> give the pt. enough symptomatic relief to allow sleep.
> During wake cycle, do not medicate unless:
> b) Temperature is extreme. Temperatures over 40C can
> be dangerous in themselves, so antipyretics to bring
> the temp down below 40C may be indicated.
>
> In other words, temps up to 40C during the day are fine,
> and mildly elevated temps even at night.
>
Not trying to be funny or anything, but the usual guidence from whom?
I think these are great guidelines, but I am just curious where you go them.
Wyle
D. C. Sessions
> "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>> To be a bit more specific, the usual guideline is to
>> administer antipyretics if either
>> a) Fever is interfering with adequate rest, in which case
>> give the pt. enough symptomatic relief to allow sleep.
>> During wake cycle, do not medicate unless:
>> b) Temperature is extreme. Temperatures over 40C can
>> be dangerous in themselves, so antipyretics to bring
>> the temp down below 40C may be indicated.
>>
>> In other words, temps up to 40C during the day are fine,
>> and mildly elevated temps even at night.
>
> Not trying to be funny or anything, but the usual guidence from whom?
>
> I think these are great guidelines, but I am just curious where you go them.
Time out of mind.
Seriously, these were the rules my mother used with us,
and she wasn't into making stuff up. It must have either
come from Dr. Pothoff, or /Baby/ /and/ /Child/ /Care/
(I have her 1952 edition!). However, it's also the rule
that I've heard from several friends and MVS, RN -- who
does pretty well keeping up with the whole paediatric
general care stuff.
Oh, and it was the release instruction we got when one
of the boys came down with a nasty strep infection on
a trip to Disneyland and had to be taken to ER with a
temp well over 40C. Honking antibiotic injection,
acetaminophen suppository, ice bath, the whole thing.
My MD endorsed it when I had pneumonia about ten years
back.
I frankly never paid much attention to original sources
precisely because the protocol seems so universal.
The whole fever-management thing is a grand case of
Scudamore and fellow-travellers misrepresenting mainstream
medicine -- a classic straw man. AFAIK mainstream med
has been conservative in its use of antipyretics for at
least fifty years.
CBI
"D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:0ivmqa...@news.lumbercartel.com...
> Wyle E. Coyote, M.D. wrote:
> > "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>
> >> To be a bit more specific, the usual guideline is to
> >> administer antipyretics if either
> >> a) Fever is interfering with adequate rest, in which case
> >> give the pt. enough symptomatic relief to allow sleep.
> >> During wake cycle, do not medicate unless:
> >> b) Temperature is extreme. Temperatures over 40C can
> >> be dangerous in themselves, so antipyretics to bring
> >> the temp down below 40C may be indicated.
> >>
> >> In other words, temps up to 40C during the day are fine,
> >> and mildly elevated temps even at night.
> >
> > Not trying to be funny or anything, but the usual guidence from whom?
> >
> > I think these are great guidelines, but I am just curious where you go
them.
>
> Time out of mind.
>
> Seriously, these were the rules my mother used with us,
> and she wasn't into making stuff up. It must have either
> come from Dr. Pothoff, or /Baby/ /and/ /Child/ /Care/
> (I have her 1952 edition!). However, it's also the rule
> that I've heard from several friends and MVS, RN -- who
> does pretty well keeping up with the whole paediatric
> general care stuff.
>
What I usually tell people is to put the thermometer away and treat the
symptoms. If the kid looks like he feels like crap (or the adult knows he
does) then give an anti-pyretic. If the kid is happily playing the parent
should leave the kid alone and try to keep in mind who they are making feel
better by giving the drug. I can't imagine that anyone would have a fever of
>40 deg C and not feel lousy so I think we are expressing the same thing in
different ways.
--
CBI
PF Riley
wrote:
>What I usually tell people is to put the thermometer away and treat the
>symptoms. If the kid looks like he feels like crap (or the adult knows he
>does) then give an anti-pyretic. If the kid is happily playing the parent
>should leave the kid alone and try to keep in mind who they are making feel
>better by giving the drug. I can't imagine that anyone would have a fever of
>>40 deg C and not feel lousy so I think we are expressing the same thing in
>different ways.
I agree, although I prefer the parents actually confirm the presence
of fever with a thermometer.
PF
D. C. Sessions
You're more aggressive than I (or others) are.
Feeling lousy -- including direct fever-induced lousy -- is
OK as long as it doesn't get into other, recovery-impairing,
modes such as sleep loss. I'd consider a temp where the
pt. starts having chills to be well up into the "requires
management" range, though.
Steve Harris
You're more aggressive than I (or others) are.
Feeling lousy -- including direct fever-induced lousy -- is
OK as long as it doesn't get into other, recovery-impairing,
modes such as sleep loss. I'd consider a temp where the
pt. starts having chills to be well up into the "requires
management" range, though.
-------------
Comment:
And the management of viral chills and rigor is a warm shower or bath till
your temp goes up, and the chills go away. "Chills" don't mean you have a
fever, they mean you're *trying* to run one (or raise your body temp).
You're only uncomfortable while they occur, and the faster you help your
body do what it's attempting to do, the faster the chills, rigors
(shivering), and feelings of cold go away. Once you warm up to your
hypothalamous reset point, you usually are no more uncomfortable than you'd
be in a warm bath, hot beach, or Florida vacation. Which is not so
uncomfortable you need a pill which may interfere with your ability to fight
your virus.
Geez, it's becoming clear from this discussion that there are lots of people
who don't understand the basic physiology. Fever is a RESULT of chills and
rigor/shivering. These can be unpleasant, but they aren't necessary if you
know what you're doing and use your warm water. Fever itself is really not
that unpleasant.
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
JG
news:aqn6j0$6qj$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> What I usually tell people is to put the thermometer away and treat the
> symptoms. If the kid looks like he feels like crap (or the adult knows he
> does) then give an anti-pyretic. If the kid is happily playing the parent
> should leave the kid alone and try to keep in mind who they are making
feel
> better by giving the drug. I can't imagine that anyone would have a fever
of
> >40 deg C and not feel lousy so I think we are expressing the same thing
in
> different ways.
> CBI
And what do you tell parents regarding antipyretics/analgesics and
vaccinations? Does the AAP still endorse their *prophylactic* use? I've
long maintained that's an idiotic recommendation; the true (nonaltered)
degree of pain and the temperature (if any) a child experiences following a
vaccination are important factors to consider in deciding whether subsequent
doses of a vaccine should be administered.
JG
When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent.
When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun.
Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet.
-- Lyle Myhr
CBI
"JG" <jg03...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:IDUz9.47247$Lg2.13...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
> "CBI" <00...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:aqn6j0$6qj$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> > What I usually tell people is to put the thermometer away and treat the
> > symptoms. If the kid looks like he feels like crap (or the adult knows
he
> > does) then give an anti-pyretic. If the kid is happily playing the
parent
> > should leave the kid alone and try to keep in mind who they are making
> feel
> > better by giving the drug. I can't imagine that anyone would have a
fever
> of
> > >40 deg C and not feel lousy so I think we are expressing the same thing
> in
> > different ways.
>
> > CBI
>
> And what do you tell parents regarding antipyretics/analgesics and
> vaccinations?
As little as possible.
> Does the AAP still endorse their *prophylactic* use?
I'm not sure what the official party line is - largely because I don't
really care. That advice is still commonly given.
> I've
> long maintained that's an idiotic recommendation; the true (nonaltered)
> degree of pain and the temperature (if any) a child experiences following
a
> vaccination are important factors to consider in deciding whether
subsequent
> doses of a vaccine should be administered.
>
I disagree. I doubt a dose or two of Tylenol will mask a reaction sufficent
to warrant not rechallenging with the same vaccine. I just don't see any
reason to push the parents into giving a medication that probably isn't
needed.
--
CBI
Mark
>
> vaccinations? Does the AAP still endorse their *prophylactic* use?
>
>
You first...what do you tell YOUR pediatric patients?
Mark, MD
CBI
"PF Riley" <pfr...@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:3dcf2516....@news1.nwlink.com...
I'm not sure I see that it makes any difference. A lot of the "lousy" that
the Tylenol is treating is the myalgias and arthraligias more than the temp.
I think it is useful to have some idea initially that the kid is having
temps and roughly how high they are but don't see much use in repeatedly
measuring it - especially when it leads to the temptation to medicate the
fever rather than the symptoms.
--
CBI
--
CBI
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:2sTz9.6901$Aq5.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Geez, it's becoming clear from this discussion that there are lots of
people
> who don't understand the basic physiology. Fever is a RESULT of chills and
> rigor/shivering. These can be unpleasant, but they aren't necessary if you
> know what you're doing and use your warm water. Fever itself is really
not
> that unpleasant.
>
I think it is a lot easier to wrap yourself up in a warm blanket than to
take 4 or 5 showers a day - especially the part where you get out dripping
wet in a drafty bathroom.
--
CBI
D. C. Sessions
> And the management of viral chills and rigor is a warm shower or bath till
> your temp goes up, and the chills go away. "Chills" don't mean you have a
> fever, they mean you're trying to run one (or raise your body temp).
> You're only uncomfortable while they occur, and the faster you help your
> body do what it's attempting to do, the faster the chills, rigors
> (shivering), and feelings of cold go away. Once you warm up to your
> hypothalamous reset point, you usually are no more uncomfortable than you'd
> be in a warm bath, hot beach, or Florida vacation. Which is not so
> uncomfortable you need a pill which may interfere with your ability to fight
> your virus.
>
> Geez, it's becoming clear from this discussion that there are lots of people
> who don't understand the basic physiology. Fever is a RESULT of chills and
> rigor/shivering. These can be unpleasant, but they aren't necessary if you
> know what you're doing and use your warm water. Fever itself is really not
> that unpleasant.
No argument about chills being the body attempting to raise
temperature. OTOH, when someone has reached steady state
with plenty of insulation and is *still* having chills,
you can either lay on artificial heat (dangerous in itself)
or lower the body's thermostat because sustained chills are
will pretty fast fatigue anyone, and *that* isn't good for
recovery either.
PF Riley
wrote:
>> of fever with a thermometer.
>
>I'm not sure I see that it makes any difference. A lot of the "lousy" that
>the Tylenol is treating is the myalgias and arthraligias more than the temp.
>I think it is useful to have some idea initially that the kid is having
>temps and roughly how high they are but don't see much use in repeatedly
>measuring it - especially when it leads to the temptation to medicate the
>fever rather than the symptoms.
The utility to me is, if, say, a mother comes in and claims her son
has been having a fever for 8 days straight. The differential becomes
much broader. If she had measured temps of 102 for 8 days, I take it
much more seriously than if she said he's felt warm at night for 8
days.
PF
PF Riley
wrote:
>
>> I've
>> long maintained that's an idiotic recommendation; the true (nonaltered)
>> degree of pain and the temperature (if any) a child experiences following
>a
>> vaccination are important factors to consider in deciding whether
>subsequent
>> doses of a vaccine should be administered.
>
>I disagree. I doubt a dose or two of Tylenol will mask a reaction sufficent
>to warrant not rechallenging with the same vaccine. I just don't see any
>reason to push the parents into giving a medication that probably isn't
>needed.
I concur with CBI. Pain and fever are not at all contraindications for
future doses of the vaccine. In fact, it means, to me, that the
vaccine is working.
Reactions such as anaphylaxis, cardiovascular collapse, or seizures
are typical contraindications to subsequent doses. Analgesics will not
prevent those.
Would you decline pain medications after surgery so you can see if
your unmedicated degree of pain post-op is great enough for you to
decide not to have the operation again?
PF
PF Riley
<d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>Steve Harris wrote:
>>
>> Geez, it's becoming clear from this discussion that there are lots of people
>> who don't understand the basic physiology. Fever is a RESULT of chills and
>> rigor/shivering. These can be unpleasant, but they aren't necessary if you
>> know what you're doing and use your warm water. Fever itself is really not
>> that unpleasant.
I usually just huddle under a blanket instead of taking a warm shower.
By the way, the physiology of the hypothalamic set-point also explains
why you break out in a sweat when your fever breaks. Time to cool off!
>No argument about chills being the body attempting to raise
>temperature. OTOH, when someone has reached steady state
>with plenty of insulation and is *still* having chills,
>you can either lay on artificial heat (dangerous in itself)
>or lower the body's thermostat because sustained chills are
>will pretty fast fatigue anyone, and *that* isn't good for
>recovery either.
Indeed, even after reaching your "set point," you still burn more
calories maintaining a temp of 103 than a temp of 99.
PF
Steve Harris
It's easier to keep yourself warm with a blanket AFTER you get the temp up.
But it's a long and time-consuming process to heat a body from the outside
in, as you may know from studies on warming hypothermia victims. All a
blanket really does is cut down on heat loss while continued shivering does
the real job of raising your temp, and that can take half an hour. You can
stop all that in about 2 minutes in a warm bath.
If you get yourself a degree or two over you set point, you don't cool
enough while toweling and dripping (60 sec) to make any difference. Any more
than you get a chill from toweling yourself after a dip in a hot tub.
Steve Harris
"lousy" that
>the Tylenol is treating is the myalgias and arthraligias more than the
temp.
>I think it is useful to have some idea initially that the kid is having
>temps and roughly how high they are but don't see much use in repeatedly
>measuring it - especially when it leads to the temptation to medicate the
>fever rather than the symptoms.
COMMENT:
And to make things complicated, some of the classic symptoms of febrile
illness, myalgias in particular, may be caused by simple muscle soreness
from excentric exercise, to wit: shivering. People with flu don't come down
with severe muscle/body aches at the same time they first come down with the
malaise and headache, in my own experience, but rather they come down with
them after at least a day or so of shivering with fever. I think they are
mostly due to the shivering, and if that's prevented by letting the patient
warm himself in the bath, the body aches are far more mild, or do not occur
at all.
ARTHralgias, which are pains in the joints, are a much rarer phenomenon, and
are not a classic manifestation of endogenous pyrogen, or febrile illnesses
in general. MYalgias are. I find that suspicious.
Now, it is known that endogenous pyrogens cause muscle protein catabolism
and the rise of inflammatory factors like pgE2 in muscles, even without
shivering. And it's been suggested that this causes the muscle pain. But it
hasn't been proven, and I personally think this story is either wrong, or
else more complicated. After all, even DRUG reactions that cause
drug-fever, also cause myalgia. Not arthralgia. No infectious organism is
even needed.
SBH
Chest 1989 Sep;96(3):688-9 Related Articles, Links
Previously unreported adverse reaction to encainide.
Goli-Bijanki R, Nair CK, Nair N, Sketch MH Sr.
Division of Cardiology and Allergy-Immunology, Creighton University School
of Medicine, Omaha, NE.
We describe a patient with recurrent atrial fibrillation who suffered a
previously unreported adverse reaction to encainide therapy manifested by
fever, chills, diaphoresis and myalgia. The patient had a similar response
upon rechallenging with encainide, which resolved on discontinuation of
therapy.
PMID: 2504544 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Steve Harris
>No argument about chills being the body attempting to raise
temperature. OTOH, when someone has reached steady state
with plenty of insulation and is *still* having chills,<<
That shouldn't happen unless somebody is trying to run a fever over 104 F
(40C), which is the limit of the temp you want your bath or hot tub at. And
of course, there are very different rules about applying this to a child too
young to say they are cold or chilled or too hot (not a good idea), and
children of (say) school age on up. Plenty of school age kids hot-tub with
their parents, and despite some grumbling from the authorities, I know of no
good evidence that so long as the water temp is under 104 F, that this is
unsafe. If you have your head/scalp out of the water, you'll never make it
up to water temp in any reasonable time, anyway.
For babies and toddlers, I'm not recommending hot bath therapy for chills at
all.
>>you can either lay on artificial heat (dangerous in itself)
Only if your water is over 104 F (you can measure the temp with the same
thermometer you use for yourself).
>>or lower the body's thermostat because sustained chills are
will pretty fast fatigue anyone, and *that* isn't good for
recovery either.<<
Agreed. But if you are otherwise in good health and you are mobile and not
mentally impaired, and your body wants to run a temp of up to 104 F because
you have some virus like the flu, then let it. Indeed, you'll be more
comfortable is you ASSIST it.
CBI
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:SSfA9.1499$Bh1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> CBI <00...@mindspring.com> wrote in message ...
> >I'm not sure I see that it [fever] makes any difference. A lot of the
> "lousy" that
> >the Tylenol is treating is the myalgias and arthraligias more than the
> temp.
> >I think it is useful to have some idea initially that the kid is having
> >temps and roughly how high they are but don't see much use in repeatedly
> >measuring it - especially when it leads to the temptation to medicate the
> >fever rather than the symptoms.
>
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> And to make things complicated, some of the classic symptoms of febrile
> illness, myalgias in particular, may be caused by simple muscle soreness
> from excentric exercise, to wit: shivering.
Possibly some of it is from that. On the other hand people who have not
shivered much, if at all, will still get myalgias.
> People with flu don't come down
> with severe muscle/body aches at the same time they first come down with
the
> malaise and headache, in my own experience, but rather they come down with
> them after at least a day or so of shivering with fever.
In my experience the aches can be before, concomitant with, or after the
onset of fever. I'm sure shivering doesn't help but I think the aches are
primarily due to the infection (or the inflammatory reaction to it) and not
entirely from the fever or the shivering that produces it.
> I think they are
> mostly due to the shivering, and if that's prevented by letting the
patient
> warm himself in the bath, the body aches are far more mild, or do not
occur
> at all.
>
I'm not sure the bath is anything more than a warm wet blanket. Maybe
sitting in a 105 degree hot tub for several minutes can raise the temp a
degree or two but I think it would be hard to do with a hot shower or what
most people would consider a "warm" bath. I also don't know why you think
that exposure to a heat source a few degress above body temp (maybe 3 -6)
can alter the temp but exposure to temperatures some 20 degrees below it
combined with exapoartive cooling can't. Either way, at most the bath may
accelerate the attainment of the higher temp but its effects will be largely
the same after a few minutes under a blanket.
I think most of the fever is produced by changes in metabolism and blood
flow and I know that shivering is not the only method of generating a fever
or muscle soreness.
> ARTHralgias, which are pains in the joints, are a much rarer phenomenon,
and
> are not a classic manifestation of endogenous pyrogen, or febrile
illnesses
> in general.
No - but they are classic manifestations of viral illnesses. I'm not at all
sure they are that rare.
--
CBI
CBI
"PF Riley" <pfr...@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:3dd09492...@news1.nwlink.com...
True - a certain degree of accuracy is lost. I'm not convinced it is all
that much and it seems to me the fever can be confirmed any time it becomes
and issue. I think that if the mom has checked the temp a few times and
documented it to be up we can take her word for it on other occasions. I see
the trade off as increased focusing on the symptoms and less treating of the
numbers.
--
CBI
CBI
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:q7fA9.1389$Ta6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> It's easier to keep yourself warm with a blanket AFTER you get the temp
up.
> But it's a long and time-consuming process to heat a body from the outside
> in, as you may know from studies on warming hypothermia victims. All a
> blanket really does is cut down on heat loss while continued shivering
does
> the real job of raising your temp, and that can take half an hour. You can
> stop all that in about 2 minutes in a warm bath.
>
> If you get yourself a degree or two over you set point, you don't cool
> enough while toweling and dripping (60 sec) to make any difference. Any
more
> than you get a chill from toweling yourself after a dip in a hot tub.
I don't believe that a warm bath can change the temp in two minutes (or
five). It probably can change the perception of feeling cold. I also find it
inconcruous to assume that a bath can raise the temp in two minutes but
that a minute or two of being wet while towelling off will not cause you to
lose it.
--
CBI
CBI
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:ixgA9.1505$Ta6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Agreed. But if you are otherwise in good health and you are mobile and not
> mentally impaired, and your body wants to run a temp of up to 104 F
because
> you have some virus like the flu, then let it. Indeed, you'll be more
> comfortable is you ASSIST it.
>
I don't think you will be comfortable with a temp of 104 - assisted or not.
I think it is quite reasonable to take an "all of the above" approach of
combating the chills (and helping the body with the temperature) by bundling
up - even in a bath if you please, but not if you don't - and altering the
set point and relieving the myalgias with an antipyretic if you feel
significantly uncomfortable (as defined by the sick person).
I don't think it is as simple as saying the myalgias and chills are from the
attempts to increase temp and so taking a warm bath will increase the temp
for the body and hence relieve the myalgias and the chills and you will be
comfortable with your self induced temp of 104. In fact, I think every
element of that theory is at least partially in error.
--
CBI
D. C. Sessions
> D. C. Sessions wrote in message ...
>
>>No argument about chills being the body attempting to raise
> temperature. OTOH, when someone has reached steady state
> with plenty of insulation and is *still* having chills,<<
>
>
> That shouldn't happen unless somebody is trying to run a fever over 104 F
> (40C), which is the limit of the temp you want your bath or hot tub at. And
> of course, there are very different rules about applying this to a child too
> young to say they are cold or chilled or too hot (not a good idea), and
> children of (say) school age on up. Plenty of school age kids hot-tub with
> their parents, and despite some grumbling from the authorities, I know of no
> good evidence that so long as the water temp is under 104 F, that this is
> unsafe. If you have your head/scalp out of the water, you'll never make it
> up to water temp in any reasonable time, anyway.
You're missing the "steady state" part. A bath is fine
for raising the temperature, but you can't spend all night
in one. If the body can't sustain "setpoint" temperature,
it's time to do something to lower the setpoint.
There are a number of things that can interfere with the
body's ability to maintain a high temperature, among them
being hypoglycaemia (esp. with GI infections), hypoxia
(pneumonia), and fatigue (since the body's main means of
producing heat is muscular action.)
I personally have serious reservations about using electric
heating to raise a body above normal temperatures due to
the danger of overheating.
>>>you can either lay on artificial heat (dangerous in itself)
>
> Only if your water is over 104 F (you can measure the temp with the same
> thermometer you use for yourself).
Not everyone has an unlimited supply of hot water.
>>>or lower the body's thermostat because sustained chills are
> will pretty fast fatigue anyone, and *that* isn't good for
> recovery either.<<
>
>
> Agreed. But if you are otherwise in good health and you are mobile and not
> mentally impaired, and your body wants to run a temp of up to 104 F because
> you have some virus like the flu, then let it. Indeed, you'll be more
> comfortable is you ASSIST it.
Agreed -- up to the limits stated.
CBI
"D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:0ahnqa...@news.lumbercartel.com...
> >
> > What I usually tell people is to put the thermometer away and treat the
> > symptoms. If the kid looks like he feels like crap (or the adult knows
he
> > does) then give an anti-pyretic. If the kid is happily playing the
parent
> > should leave the kid alone and try to keep in mind who they are making
feel
> > better by giving the drug. I can't imagine that anyone would have a
fever of
> >>40 deg C and not feel lousy so I think we are expressing the same thing
in
> > different ways.
>
> You're more aggressive than I (or others) are.
I really don't think so - either one. I know I am not more aggressive than
others as many will repeatedly check the temp and attempt to suppress it. I
don't see anything wrong with letting the kid have a temp. I cringe when I
hear the advice about alternating Tylenol and Motrin to keep the temp down.
> Feeling lousy -- including direct fever-induced lousy -- is
> OK as long as it doesn't get into other, recovery-impairing,
> modes such as sleep loss.
I would say that if the kid's behavior is noticably altered that he is
already there and we are talking about basically the same thing - or at
least pretty close. I mean - recognizing that a fever is a beneficial
response not to be automatically supporessed is a good idea - but I don't
see any reason to be miserable over it.
> I'd consider a temp where the
> pt. starts having chills to be well up into the "requires
> management" range, though.
>
Personally, I find the achiness to be far more bothersome. The chills can be
well managed with a few layers of clothing and a blanket.
--
CBI
D. C. Sessions
>> I'd consider a temp where the
>> pt. starts having chills to be well up into the "requires
>> management" range, though.
>>
>
> Personally, I find the achiness to be far more bothersome. The chills can be
> well managed with a few layers of clothing and a blanket.
I tried to clarify this elsewhere, as "chills once pt.
reaches steady state with insulation." If, even after
heavy blankets etc. the temp stabilizes at a point where
the pt. is still shivering, that's too much.
Maleki
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in
<2sTz9.6901$Aq5.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
that:
>And the management of viral chills and rigor is a warm shower or bath till
>your temp goes up, and the chills go away. "Chills" don't mean you have a
>fever, they mean you're *trying* to run one (or raise your body temp).
>You're only uncomfortable while they occur, and the faster you help your
>body do what it's attempting to do, the faster the chills, rigors
>(shivering), and feelings of cold go away. Once you warm up to your
>hypothalamous reset point, you usually are no more uncomfortable than you'd
>be in a warm bath, hot beach, or Florida vacation. Which is not so
>uncomfortable you need a pill which may interfere with your ability to fight
>your virus.
>
>Geez, it's becoming clear from this discussion that there are lots of people
>who don't understand the basic physiology. Fever is a RESULT of chills and
>rigor/shivering. These can be unpleasant, but they aren't necessary if you
>know what you're doing and use your warm water. Fever itself is really not
>that unpleasant.
I don't know what kind of cold or flu you guys are
talking about. When I get a bad case of flu I cannot
stand one drop of water on my skin. Even if I touch my
skin it hurts let alone taking a shower.
-------------------------
Amadeh gure kiyo bekaneh?
Jenn Vandusen
I dunno I had the flu 2 days ago and let me tell you I thought I was going
to die. my whole body ached I felt as though I ran a 10k marathon and had
nothing to show for it. I was cold but sweating at the same time. spent most
of the day preying to the porcelain god. and the rest barely being able to
life myself outta bed so I know myself I couldn't handle a hot shower
despite the fact of how good it would be for me. hell I don't think I could
have lifted a cheek to pass gas if I wanted to
LMAO sorry that was kinda rude but I thought it was funny
"Maleki" <male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rfat0voqkafrjbpde...@4ax.com...