Posting this under the heading it deserves: Signs of dehydration worth acting on Everything below is what sits behind that.
A follow-up question about Signs of dehydration worth acting that I did not know to ask the first time.
The earlier thread answered what I asked. What I should have asked is below, and I think it is the one that matters.
Signs of dehydration after repeated vomiting are the most common serious secondary problem described here and are also the most preventable.
The opening post answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Where the Signs of dehydration worth acting reasoning breaks down for me is the step from the group result to the individual case. That step is almost never argued for.
I read post #2 twice before replying, because I had assumed the opposite.
A note on scope: what I am saying about Signs of dehydration worth acting applies to the case in the first post and I would not extend it further without checking.
Nothing here is medical advice, and in this subcategory the phrase is doing more work than in any other on the site.
Worth separating two things that post #2 runs together.
I think the Signs of dehydration worth acting question is answerable and has not been answered, which is a more optimistic position than most of this thread.
That is clearer than the version I had in my head. Thank you.
Signs of dehydration worth acting would be much easier to settle if anyone reported the denominator. Almost nobody reports the denominator.
Picking up post #8: that is the part I would want checked first.
The most useful contribution to this subcategory is a completed account: what happened, what was done, and what the outcome was.
Someone will know this better than I do and I hope they say so.
On post #6 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
The strongest argument against my own position on Signs of dehydration worth acting, stated as well as I can state it, since nobody else has yet.
That is consistent with mine, for whatever one more account is worth.
The arithmetic in post #13 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.
Medullary thyroid carcinoma is the reason these compounds are contraindicated in people with personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. Rodent toxicology showed a signal; human evidence of causation is absent but caution is appropriate.
This is where my knowledge stops and I would rather mark the edge than blur it.
What I would want before treating Signs of dehydration worth acting as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.
Everything in post #13 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Injection-site reactions that spread over a day or come with systemic symptoms are a different observation from ordinary local reactions.
That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.
Narrowing post #17, because the general version has more than one answer.
Reading back through the Signs of dehydration worth acting threads from last year, the same three questions come up every time and only one of them has ever been answered properly. That seems like a documentation gap rather than a knowledge gap.
On Signs of dehydration worth acting: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.
Building on post #18 rather than restating it.
Source for the Signs of dehydration worth acting figure, since it was asked for. It is in the discussion rather than the abstract, which is why the version circulating is stronger than the paper is.
Reading the surrounding paragraph is worth the two minutes. The authors are more careful than their summarisers.
I disagree with the framing of Signs of dehydration worth acting above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.
The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.
Following this. I have the same question and no better information than the first post.
Medullary thyroid carcinoma is the reason these compounds are contraindicated in people with personal or family history of MTC or multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2. Rodent toxicology showed a signal; human evidence of causation is absent but caution is appropriate.
Severe gastrointestinal events: persistent vomiting, abdominal pain out of proportion, or signs of bowel obstruction warrant urgent evaluation. Mild nausea and constipation are ordinary; severe versions are not.
Correct me on the arithmetic if it is wrong; I would rather know.
Speaking only to Signs of dehydration worth acting as I have actually seen it, rather than as it is usually described: the effect is real, it is smaller than the thread suggests, and the variance between people is larger than the effect.
Everything in post #24 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.
Attribution is genuinely hard for a single case and the reporting schemes are designed to work with that. You are not expected to prove causation to file.
Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.
Adding the boring version of Signs of dehydration worth acting, because the interesting version keeps getting posted and the boring one is usually right.
Check the ordinary explanations, in order, and stop when one of them accounts for what you are seeing. Most of the time the second one does.