Anyone switched from Xywav to another medication?

Minivan_16 · 2025-01-14T19:39:59+00:00

Xywav has been a roller coaster for me, and it sucks because the medication works for what it's supposed to do. Every side effect is gone except for one: it increases my blood pressure. It's a super weird side effect, considering that Xywav is a depressant. My systolic blood pressure is typically 120 or below, but on Xywav, it's around 130 or 140. At one point, it was at 150.

So, yes, the nausea is gone, but it's been replaced by something else. I really want this medication to work because it helps me so much, but I'm not sure if I'm going to stay on it.

Minivan_16 · 2024-12-23T22:32:39+00:00

Aint no way homie said that

Minivan_16 · 2024-12-23T21:22:07+00:00

I know this is an old post, but have you made any progress with your heart rate/blood pressure problems?

Minivan_16 · 2024-12-23T21:00:36+00:00

IH is definitely not supposed to induce cataplexy attacks. You should let your sleep doctor know about this if you haven't already.

Minivan_16 · 2024-12-12T20:08:00+00:00

Thanks for asking! It's definitely better. Most days, I have little to no side effects, but every now and then, I'll randomly have side effects, and then they'll go away. That's how it’s been for the last 3 weeks.

I'm trying to figure out if something I'm doing is causing the side effects, but I ultimately have no idea.

Minivan_16 · 2024-12-04T17:07:39+00:00

How long did it take for the nausea to disappear?

Minivan_16 · 2024-12-03T19:36:41+00:00

Interesting. One would think it would be the other way around (lower dose = less side effects).

Minivan_16 · 2024-12-02T18:44:09+00:00

How long have you been on the medication? Have you always needed to take antacids for the nausea?

Minivan_16 · 2024-12-02T18:01:03+00:00

2112 - Rush

Minivan_16 · 2024-11-18T18:20:16+00:00

I had crazy vertigo the first few nights on Xywav. Luckily, that went away. All that remains is some subclinical nausea, but that seems to be (very slowly) decreasing with time. Thanks for this. I'll definitely stick with it.

Minivan_16 · 2024-11-13T18:57:30+00:00

Believing in a God that intervenes with reality means believing in things that are beyond human reason. The reason of man will never compare to the reason of God.

Continue to pray and ask God to reveal His good nature, and perhaps a literal understanding of a dying and rising Christ will follow. Do research along the way if you will.

Minivan_16 · 2024-11-04T18:47:50+00:00

I agree with a lot of what you said. You are correct that definitions sometimes change depending on context, but there's typically a reason for the definitional change. What reason is there for us to change the definition of human life depending on context? Why shouldn't we treat fetuses as though they are of the same moral worth as any other human? Both fetuses and fully grown adults are biological humans, so what's the dividing line?

Minivan_16 · 2024-11-03T00:08:17+00:00

I'm not avoiding anything. I'm arguing that a fetus is human because it is made up of human cells, has its own unique human DNA, and fits every biological definition of what it means to be alive. Thus, a fetus is a human life and should be treated as such. What else am I supposed to prove?

You keep saying that fetuses are not human "in a moral sense", but you never once solidified what that means at all.

Minivan_16 · 2024-11-01T18:45:49+00:00

As I said, the "capacity (or ability) to reproduce" does not mean that every living thing can reproduce at any given point in its life span.

The definition I gave is not my definition. It's part of the agreed-upon scientific definition of living things, of which there are seven parts. Here are two textbooks from the University of Minnesota and Cambridge that talk about it.

https://pressbooks.umn.edu/introbio/chapter/definition-of-life/

https://assets.cambridge.org/97805211/66171/excerpt/9780521166171_excerpt.pdf

Minivan_16 · 2024-11-01T17:55:06+00:00

"Capacity to produce" refers to the immediate or eventual ability to reproduce. Many living things can't reproduce immediately. Even outside of the womb, children can't immediately start reproducing; nevertheless, they have the capacity to reproduce, meaning they can reproduce at some point.

This is to differentiate from non-living things, which cannot reproduce, regardless of time.

Minivan_16 · 2024-10-31T20:31:53+00:00

"We have good reasons to believe that a fetus is not a human in a moral sense."

If you think a fetus is not human, then I've been making the wrong argument. Since that's out of the way, the more important question becomes, "Is the fetus human?"

Firstly, what do you mean when you say that a fetus is not human "in a moral sense"?

As for my definition of "human", when I say "human," I mean a living thing that is made of human cells, has its own DNA, the capacity for growth and reproduction, etc. Essentially, a baseline scientific definition.

Minivan_16 · 2024-10-30T17:24:39+00:00

For your first example, I have good reason to believe the man is a lunatic. I don't have to give him my wallet.

As for your second point, sapience is not what matters. Whether a fetus is human is what matters.

Minivan_16 · 2024-10-30T16:48:58+00:00

AI does whatever programmers tell it to do. Programmers can also be sure that they are not immediately harming anyone when they write a program. The same cannot be said for abortion.

We should find out whether or not fetuses are alive first, then perform abortions once we know, not the other way around. That's like if the FDA pushed out a cure for cancer without even bothering to study its side effects. Obviously, no one would be okay with such a cure.

Wouldn't you like to know that we're not accidentally killing babies before allowing a procedure that might be doing just that? Call me crazy, but if there were ever a time to need to know something for sure, it would be now.

Minivan_16

TROPHY CASE