3 ms·

> We do know though that hospitalization rates are about the same for people who take epinephrine vs those that don't An EpiPen is not a cure, and you are told

> We do know though that hospitalization rates are about the same for people who take epinephrine vs those that don't An EpiPen is not a cure, and you are told that if you use an EpiPen you should also go to the hospital. An EpiPen essentially keeps you alive long enough to receive care. > The speed at which they get to the ER seems to have a bigger impact on the recovery from the reaction than the EpiPens do If you have anaphylaxis without an EpiPen, the first thing the ambulance/ER will do is almost certainly inject epinephrine. I really encourage you to ask a doctor. It is not enough to read papers and draw conclusions without understanding the broader context. I am not a doctor, but have talked to a doctor about carrying an EpiPen. > The tricky thing with the data set available to us is that anaphylactic deaths are so rare that it's hard to establish meaningful findings Again, could this be because there is such abundant access to life saving medication, that you are arguing against?

legitster 1y ago
> Again, could this be because there is such abundant access to life saving medication, that you are arguing against? I'm not at all arguing that Epipens don't save lives or that doctors shouldn't prescribe them or that you shouldn't carry one. Let me reframe my argument: Crime is a real risk no matter where you live in this country. But we should not be surprised that people that sell you security are incentivized to scare you about the risk of crime or its randomness. I would not say people shouldn't take whatever precautions they need against crime, but don't think it's controversial to say the risk is overstated. It's easy enough to say that never stepping outside of your house because crime exists is a silly conclusion to make. But people for some reason thought it was completely normal to deprive children of exposure to large swaths of the food pyramid despite no underlying history or diagnosis because a risk was overstated to them. Still, I am admitting that my targeting of Epipens in particular something of a crackpot argument. But also we live in a world still reeling from the effects of the Sackler family and the marketing they used on the medical industry - would it be that far fetched if we learned in 20-30 years that the life saving ability of emergency epinephrine was overstated for profit?
- habinero 1y ago
  Yes? It's silly to think Big Epipen is out to get you. I don't even know what you think your point is. We do the best with the information we have. If in 30 years, the standard of care changes due to new consensus, that's a good thing. It doesn't mean everyone is an eeeeeevil moneygrubbing whatever, it just means we have more information.

legitster 1y ago

> Again, could this be because there is such abundant access to life saving medication, that you are arguing against? I'm not at all arguing that Epipens don't save lives or that doctors shouldn't prescribe them or that you shouldn't carry one. Let me reframe my argument: Crime is a real risk no matter where you live in this country. But we should not be surprised that people that sell you security are incentivized to scare you about the risk of crime or its randomness. I would not say people shouldn't take whatever precautions they need against crime, but don't think it's controversial to say the risk is overstated. It's easy enough to say that never stepping outside of your house because crime exists is a silly conclusion to make. But people for some reason thought it was completely normal to deprive children of exposure to large swaths of the food pyramid despite no underlying history or diagnosis because a risk was overstated to them. Still, I am admitting that my targeting of Epipens in particular something of a crackpot argument. But also we live in a world still reeling from the effects of the Sackler family and the marketing they used on the medical industry - would it be that far fetched if we learned in 20-30 years that the life saving ability of emergency epinephrine was overstated for profit?

habinero 1y ago
Yes? It's silly to think Big Epipen is out to get you. I don't even know what you think your point is. We do the best with the information we have. If in 30 years, the standard of care changes due to new consensus, that's a good thing. It doesn't mean everyone is an eeeeeevil moneygrubbing whatever, it just means we have more information.