i never said it was an absolute contradiction, i said it was a contradition. Again i only SHARED my experience and the FACT that it is a contradiction. The people discussing this with ME are intelligent, and able to ask their dentist or health care provider before making THEIR own decision. By sharing MY experience, others who feel the need can discuss the use of it prior to any procedure..
I NEVER posted anything about the way it works only that it is a contradiction. So why you are implying that i shared completely unsupported evidence is not true. I shared only the information thst it is a contradiction nothing else, which is substantiated.
you seem to have some sort of issue.
I gave NO misinformation. If you do not like this thread, thats fine. But do not come with such a snotty attitude trying to turn my post into something it never was.
Well, that's the thing about language and communication: It doesn't exist in a vacuum. What you say is constantly interpreted and applied by others, often leading to mis-communication. A mis-communication like we've apparently had with the word contraindication. So we need to be careful about what is said and what isn't.
It's true that you did not say that CF was an absolute contraindication, which is good, since absolutes are very difficult to arrive at. However, the thread seems to be framed in a reasonably simplistic way, inferring that people with CF should not be given nitrous. When framed this way, it makes it look like CF is an absolute contraindication. Indeed, in the next sentence, you emphasize the word "FACT" when describing the contraindication. It would be nice if every condition could have a classed system of relative contraindication, like pregnancy does. Unfortunately, this isn't the case and the cost/benefit analysis for any treatment or medication must be something you consider, with the assistance of your physicians and pharmacists. And, on almost every other topic I see here, that is done. People are posting research on new therapies all the time here, so I'm not sure why the same wouldn't be the case for non-disease specific treatments/medication.
What you witnessed with your child, may be a really common adverse event associated with nitrous (obviously I can't know this with 100% certainty). The knowledge of this adverse event, and why it occurs, is exactly why many delivery systems use self-administration as a passive safety mechanism. All medications have adverse events associated with them, and while you may think that only posting an adverse event, without any understanding or information about how the medication works, is a bit like someone posting a blanket warning about narcotics, and only citing one adverse event. I highly doubt this simplistic model would work on a thread about CFTR potentiators. Would anyone abandon Kalydeco because some people had some elevated liver enzymes? Probably not, but then Kalydeco has a much greater benefit than nitrous. Of course, the only way that you could know that is to educate yourself about the medication, which nobody seems interested in on this thread.
Regarding what others do with the information you've shared, some people on this very thread have already indicated that they do not think it's their responsibility to safeguard themselves or their children. The buck stops with the doc. It's not my responsibility to know. Of course, this is part of how medical errors occur. Overworked docs with 80+ patients on their service, often very complex cases, cannot humanly be expected to operate without error. It's nice to have an informed patient. It's nightmarish to have a mis-informed patient. I can imagine, from some of the responses here, someone walking into their child's dentist office and refusing nitrous based solely on a scary report. Fear sells, if you need any proof of this, watch network news for a few hours. If you can scare a group of educated Americans that Y2K will melt down the computer infrastructure or that vaccines are the government trying to kill us, you certainly can take a real adverse event and turn it into something to be feared, instead of understood. Network news is a great example of the mindset of a large portion of the populace. They don't want to understand, they just want to be told in a 60 soundbite what they need to avoid.
I assume this wasn't intended as a fear-mongering piece, so we need to ask ourselves: What is it, then? Well, you start out emphasizing "FACT," but then when faced with some consequences inherent with sharing information using demonstrably faulty tools, like language, quickly retreat to a position of "your experience" I don't necessarily buy that you only came here to share some information and ask questions when you later state: "
I hope many see this, and do not allow it to be used on them ir their children if they have cf. - See more at: http://forum.cysticfibrosis.com/threads/128615-Nitrous-Oxide#sthash.a7nrCHFL.dpuf"
In one instance your're firmly planted in "FACT" and your stated goal is to steer as many people away from nitrous as possible (again with absolutely no understanding as to why) and the other you're simply looking for information and sharing your experience. The reality is that both of these positions have consequences, although one more than the other. As with medication, some of these consequences will be unintended on your part. Unlike medication, the easiest way to relieve yourself of unintended consequences is to present as much information as you can. That along with avoiding absolutes and conclusions you don't have the evidence to support.
Unfortunately, when you said that you posted NO mis-information, you're correct. You also correctly state that you did not share unsupported information. That's the problem. You've shared a story and are making yourself clear that you hope that many people will be steered clear of nitrous based on your testimony. What you need to to is share your story and, if there is sufficient evidence to back up your warning to CF patients, share that evidence objectively. You instead seem to take the very entitled position that your experience is worth just as much as the actual data. I see this position all over facebook as well. What's even more concerning is that a lot of others are willing to take someone's experience over data. Yet, when I actually hold your post to the flame of accountability, you call me snotty and retreat to the 'it's just my opinion' stance.
If you want to make an "informative" post, do just that, but you have to put all the information on the table, not just the bits that validate your experience. If you want to ask questions, do that, but don't come back with a mission statement like "I hope many see this and do not allow it to be used..."
