3 ms·

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

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 11mo 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 11mo ago
  He said that.
  - dboreham 11mo 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 11mo ago
      The sentence is constructed, weirdly, but it's meant to say that fever is "killing off unknown foreign bodies"
      - jibal 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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.
        Ukv 11mo 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. kruffalon said something ambiguous, with the intended interpretation (of that ambiguous part) being true and a secondary unintended interpretation being false - both interpretations grammatically valid. querez tried to clarify the misinterpretation being made, but it looked as though their point was missed so I made it more explicit. > 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 I just saw some confusion so chimed in to try to clear it up. Only motive is that I feel like it's useful in a discussion for people to know what others mean, rather than arguing against a phantom point caused by miscommunication.

Dusseldorf 11mo 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 11mo ago
He said that.
- dboreham 11mo 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 11mo ago
    The sentence is constructed, weirdly, but it's meant to say that fever is "killing off unknown foreign bodies"
    - jibal 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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.
        Ukv 11mo 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. kruffalon said something ambiguous, with the intended interpretation (of that ambiguous part) being true and a secondary unintended interpretation being false - both interpretations grammatically valid. querez tried to clarify the misinterpretation being made, but it looked as though their point was missed so I made it more explicit. > 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 I just saw some confusion so chimed in to try to clear it up. Only motive is that I feel like it's useful in a discussion for people to know what others mean, rather than arguing against a phantom point caused by miscommunication.