5 ms·
The explicit quote from the article was "believing it required so much liquid, and such a high concentration of chemical nutrients, that it would cause inflamma
by rincebrain 3y ago
The explicit quote from the article was "believing it required so much liquid, and such a high concentration of chemical nutrients, that it would cause inflammation and burning when administered.", and I am assuming that the former was not just redundant with the latter.
Directly mucking with glucagon and insulin for anything short of directly demonstrable life and death is going to be a fraught proposal in almost any circumstance, I would speculate, given that the risk is not just wasting away from malnutrition but much more direct tissue damage and death. (Much like I suspect something with a risk profile like Accutane's would not get approved again _now_ with the body of evidence we have for what happens if you introduce something that's "almost, but not quite, vitamin A" into rapidly growing bodies...)
- arghwhat 3y agoThat was the quote describing why they originally thought that intravenous feeding was entirely impossible, which proved false, so I didn't take it as an observation regarding solution as it was later invented. It was how the original solution was invented and tested, with resistance to mucking about likely limiting it's development significantly. It is certainly not a game to entertain without understanding the signficant risks, but healthy people can intentionally take on extreme risks, so I see no reason to stop a patient with a coordinated plan for research into bettering theirs and others situation.