9 ms·

Huh. I don’t know if I’m picking up what they’re putting down here, but it kind of sounds like suppressing fever e.g. with Tylenol would actually be bad for (n

• kruffalon 10mo ago
  Well, yes? Very simplified... It is a suppressor of symptoms like pain and fever which are the bodies way of letting you know something is damaged and killing off unknown foreign bodies respectively. Suppressing symptoms does not remove the cause and is not a cure.
  • Dusseldorf 10mo ago
    I think what they're saying here is that you're not just suppressing a symptom, you're suppressing a sickness fighting mechanism.
    • parineum 10mo ago
      He said that.
      • dboreham 10mo ago
        Fever isn't just a symptom. It's a defense mechanism. The idea is that use of antipyretic drugs may make the infection worse.
        • querez 10mo ago
          The sentence is constructed, weirdly, but it's meant to say that fever is "killing off unknown foreign bodies"
          • jibal 10mo ago
            Pain being a way to let you know that something is damaged is close to true--close enough not to quibble with. But fever is not a way to let you know that foreign bodies are being killed off--that's his claim, and it's wrong.
            • Ukv 10mo ago
              > But fever is not a way to let you know that foreign bodies are being killed off--that's his claim, and it's wrong. querez's point is that the sentence is meant to be parsed as: > pain and fever which are the bodies way of <<letting you know something is damaged>> and <<killing off unknown foreign bodies>> respectively So the claim is that fever is the body's way of killing off unknown foreign bodies, not the body's way of letting you know something is killing off unknown foreign bodies.
              • kruffalon 10mo ago
                Correct! I will edit my previous comment to make it more clear. (Edit: Nvm, I'm not able to edit that comment any more, I've still not understood the edit-function here)
              • jibal 10mo ago
                The fact that one can ferret out what someone perhaps meant to say from what they did say doesn't change the fact that what they did say was wrong, and can be rightly criticized for being wrong. Someone else responded to such a criticism by writing "He said that" -- but that is false. And I would make the point that these two things are not analogous, so they shouldn't be mentioned together in any case. The response to the misstatement that started this subthread was "I think what they're saying here is that you're not just suppressing a symptom, you're suppressing a sickness fighting mechanism", which is exactly right, along with a subsequent statement "Fever isn't just a symptom. It's a defense mechanism. The idea is that use of antipyretic drugs may make the infection worse" and which the misstatement completely muddies. It's weird how some people who didn't even make the misleading misstatement are so desperately trying to defend it for no good reason, while others are rationally pointing out how the statement is off the mark. Even with the edit, the statement serves no purpose, mixing up symptoms like pain that guide us psychologically with autonomic immune system responses. I will say no more about this dead horse.
• throwaway290 10mo ago
  I know someone who doesn't get fever. When he gets sick with regular cold or fly it's much longer and worse than for anyone else I know.
  • nradov 10mo ago
    Most people don't get a significant fever when infected with most common cold viruses.
    • throwaway290 10mo ago
      "Regular cold or flu" if I wasn't clear he basically does not get fever that's just it, the body don't do it.
  • Tor3 10mo ago
    You usually don't get a fever from a cold (except in Japanese anime), if there's a significant fever it's more likely to be a flu. Or, these days, could be Covid.
• wombatpm 10mo ago
  Our pediatrician didn’t want us to give Tylenol unless the fever was over 99.5 and not to bring them in unless it was over 101 with Tylenol.
• jeroenhd 10mo ago
  Fever helps against all kinds of illnesses but it can also be deadly, so having fever reducting medicine around is a smart precaution IMO. If you're otherwise healthy and are dealing with a mild seasonal infection and have got something important going on, I can see why people would choose to reduce symptoms at the cost of taking longer to recover. Lots of people go overboard with this, though, like taking flu reduction medicine with every single cold or using medication to go to work sick. American media seems especially accepting of people taking "flu medicine" over rest and recovery.
  • tayo42 10mo ago
    > like taking flu reduction medicine with every single cold or using medication to go to work sick. Basically how I grew up. I took painkillers and throat lozenges in my backpack to school.
    • ehnto 10mo ago
      Due to a condition I was born with, I was raised the opposite. No over the counter medication my entire life, with some exceptions. I usually decline pain management in ER, for things like broken bones, but for surgeries and stuff of course I have no choice as I go under. I will take what the doctor orders though, to treat illness and conditions though thankfully at this stage there hasn't been many instances. Usually that's antibiotics.
      • srean 10mo ago
        Broken bones? A broken femur or a shin is hell.
        • ehnto 10mo ago
          Yeah it was pretty painful at first and at different times. Never like in tears pain though, just very distracting. I have broken two fingers and two collarbones, at different times, and a toe! Both collarbones were fully smashed to bits but did not pierce the skin, I had bruising for months. I have an above average tolerance but I think what really helps is pain management techniques, which I believe can help all of us at different times of need. Chronic pain is a bitch, which I have, and not everyone has pain that is reasonably manageable, but even prescribed pain meds are really going to mess with you and I think it is worth avoiding if possible and not inhumane.
• lqet 10mo ago
  It may go further than that: > Fever is used by organisms as diverse as fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals (see for reference Basu and Srivastava, 2003). Since fever is metabolically expensive, it must provide substantial advantage to the host. Surprisingly little is known about immunological effects mediated by fever, a lack of understanding that might be attributable in part to the common ignorance in clinical practice with respect to benefits fever might provide. Post-operative infections can be prolong survival: patients developing empyema after lung cancer surgery have improved 5-year survival (50% (n = 18) vs 22% (n = 411)) (Ruckdeschel et al, 1972). In this light, it seems unfortunate that fever is usually suppressed in hospital routine. > The phenomenon of spontaneous regression and remission from cancer has been observed by many physicians and was described in hundreds of publications. However, suggestive clues on cause or trigger are sparse and not substantiated by much experimental evidence. [...] At least in a larger fraction of cases a hefty feverish infection is linked with spontaneous regression in time and is investigated as putative trigger. > Professor Busch in 1868 introduced the infection of cancer patients by purpose as a novel strategy to treat cancer. He achieved a dramatic regression with his first patient using live Streptococcus pyogenes bacteria, the pathogen leading to erysipelas, published in the German Journal ‘Berliner Klinische Wochenschrift’ (Busch, 1868). Beginning in 1891, this strategy was exploited by Coley, who had some reading knowledge of German (Hall, 1998). Coley systematically applied Streptococcus pyogenes extracts – later called ‘Coley’s toxin’ – to cancer patients and achieved a remarkable rate of regressions. A retrospective compilation of cases considered inoperable at the time of treatment between 1891 and 1936, which was conducted by Wiemann and Starnes (1994, Table 2), determined a remission rate of 64% (108/170) and a 5-year survival rate of larger than 44%. Coley used to inject his extract once or twice a week over a period ranging from a few weeks to several months. His method became quite famous and was tested on hundreds of patients by him and contemporary physicians, but overshadowed by the development of X-ray treatment which was regarded to be much more powerful and of broader applicability. > Since cancer is usually a slowly progressing disease with occasionally long periods of dormancy, putative beneficial fever effects should also precipitate as preventive efficacy. This can indeed be found. In a cohort of 603 melanoma patients compared to 627 population controls, an inverse correlation was found between melanoma risk and number of recorded infections on the one hand and between melanoma risk and fever height on the other hand, leading to a combined reduction of melanoma risk of about 40% for people with a history of three or more infections with high fever above 38.51C (Koelmel et al, 1999). Mastrangelo et al (1998) report a striking inverse correlation between the number of infections and mortality from tumours in Italy in the period 1890 –1960: every 2% reduction in the number of infectious diseases was followed by a 2% increase in tumours about 10 years later. https://www.nature.com/articles/6602386.pdf https://www.nature.com/articles/6602386.pdf https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16444847/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16444847/
• bee_rider 10mo ago
  It is, as others have pointed out. Although, we’re very unusual humans in the grand scheme of things. So using medication might be reasonable. The brain might start taking damage around 104F. That was probably a good tradeoff for a peasant farmer (our ancestors, on average). Most of us nowadays just think for a living, not such a good tradeoff for us. Take the fever suppressant, what’s the worst that’ll happen if you miss an extra day of work?
  • Amezarak 10mo ago
    You do not get brain damage from fever. https://www.seattlechildrens.org/conditions/a-z/fever---myths-versus-facts/ https://www.seattlechildrens.org/conditions/a-z/fever---myth...
    • deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
• euroderf 10mo ago
  You want your immune system to simmer, not to boil.
• beAbU 10mo ago
  It's a fairly common notion to "sweat out" a flu. Stay in bed, wrap yourself up in lots of blankets and just sweat the damn thing out. High body heat kills the virus. So it would make sense that drugs like tylenol/paracetamol would make you feel better, but would keep the flu alive in you for longer.
  • adrian_b 10mo ago
    Anecdotally, I have used this technique many times, also drinking hot tea besides being wrapped in blankets, and at least for me it has worked much better than when taking any kind of antipyretics. There are cases when the fever is dangerously high and antipyretics are necessary. But when the fever is supportable it certainly accelerates the healing.
• 01100011 10mo ago
  Copying Google AI's response here as it's at least as good as what I was going to recall: > Fever is a key part of the innate immune system, acting as a protective response to infection by raising the body's temperature. This increase in temperature inhibits the growth of many pathogens, enhances the activity of immune cells like leukocytes, and improves the effectiveness of the adaptive immune response. My Vietnamese in-laws commonly make a sweat tent to shorten the duration of sickness. I can't say if it works, but it's something I intend to try next time I'm sick.
  • dabber21 10mo ago
    When I feel like I have a virus I usually put on my hoody which I only wear when I feel ill and a scarf and before going to bed I drink a lot of herb or ginger tea (like two cans) this is will heat up your body and you get some night sweats, this usually helps reducing the sick time. I can't say if it actually helps, but its become a ritual for that occasion
• rkuska 10mo ago
  That's what we do here (Czech republic), we don't take meds until the fever goes over 39°C (above 40 you are looking for trouble). You lay in bed and drink enough to compensate for sweating. My grandma would make you onion tea.
• tarsinge 10mo ago
  Isn’t it common knowledge that adults heal quicker with higher fever, and that suppressing fever is needed only if it reaches dangerous levels (in contrast to children where fever can be dangerous at lower levels)?
  • Amezarak 10mo ago
    This is common old wive's tale. Fever itself is not dangerous in adults or children. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/127/3/e20103852/65016/Fever-and-Antipyretic-Use-in-Children https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/127/3/e20103... > There is no evidence that children with fever, as opposed to hyperthermia, are at increased risk of adverse outcomes such as brain damage.10,12,24–26 Fever is a common and normal physiologic response that results in an increase in the hypothalamic “set point” in response to endogenous and exogenous pyrogens.12,26 In contrast, hyperthermia is a rare and pathophysiologic response with failure of normal homeostasis (no change in the hypothalamic set point) that results in heat production that exceeds the capability to dissipate heat.12,26 Characteristics of hyperthermia include hot, dry skin and central nervous system dysfunction that results in delirium, convulsions, or coma.26 Hyperthermia should be addressed promptly, because at temperatures above 41°C to 42°C, adverse physiologic effects begin to occur.10,12,27 Studies of health care workers, including physicians, have revealed that most believe that the risk of heat-related adverse outcomes is increased with temperatures above 40°C (104°F), although this belief is not justified.7,26,28–30 A child with a temperature of 40°C (104°F) attributable to a simple febrile illness is quite different from a child with a temperature of 40°C (104°F) attributable to heat stroke. You cannot get a dangerously high fever. You can get a dangerously high body temperature from heat stroke, or I suppose you could have some rare hypothalmic disease. But fever as an immune response is not dangerous to adults or children.
• amypetrik8 10mo ago
  kind of sounds like suppressing fever e.g. with Tylenol would actually be bad for (normal) flu progression. you're just the tip of the iceberg my friend - did you know "horse dewormer" ivermectin has long been given to humans - for decades - to treat parasitic infections?