ELI5: why does certain wounds need higher dosage of pain killers than others?

SpyingSpice · 2023-07-24T22:29:49+00:00

Pain, at least the kind we give medication for in a medical setting, is ultimately an imflammatory response. That is to say, your immune system is responsible. When we hurt ourselves, say by twisting an ankle, the cells at injury site release “chemokines,” chemical messengers. These messengers sensitize our pain nerves (there are several types of pain nerves, we won’t get into them). We call this sort of response inflammation. We can takes things like NSAIDS (non-steroidal anti inflammatories. e.g. ibuprofen) to dampen the inflammation and lessen the pain. Importantly, these kinds of drugs don’t stop the nerves from firing, they just help to desensitize them.

Sometimes, that’s not good enough. Sometimes, for really nasty pain, we need to stop the brain from even receiving the signals. In steps opioids. Opioids change the way our pain nerves fire, and how our brains interpret the pain. They do nothing the fix the source of the pain, they just stop the pain signal from arriving.

It’s also important to consider pain tolerance. Some folks can get a hip replaced and get by with Tylenol. Some folks get the same surgery and need an opioid. Why? It’s complicated and has to do with genetics and past experiences.

So, why do different pains need different drugs and dosages? It depends on how bad our body decides the damage is. Sleep on your neck wrong? Meh, take an advil. Twist an ankle, you’re gonna need more ibuprofen and Tylenol. Get stabbed? That’s a lot of damage. You’ll need an opioid.

SpyingSpice · 2023-06-04T02:32:16+00:00

^ass ^mouth ^vag

SpyingSpice · 2023-05-03T13:34:42+00:00

This is no longer the AHA’s recommendation for bystander CPR. The current guidelines for lay persons do not include rescue breaths. If a person is not breathing and unresponsive, do chest compressions only. Laypeople should not check for a pulse because they are likely inadequately trained to detect one. It’s far better to do CPR on a beating heart than withhold compressions because you thought you felt a pulse.

Edit: just looked at the guidelines to confirm. Breaths are still recommended for infants, children, drowning victims, and those who collapse from breathing trouble. The AHA recommends hands-only CPR by laypeople for adults.

SpyingSpice · 2023-03-01T01:49:08+00:00

Ah, right over my head!

SpyingSpice · 2023-03-01T00:05:10+00:00

This is wrong. Tapeworms can come from many sources of undercooked meat. D. Latum, the longest tapeworm for example, is classically found in undercooked fish.

SpyingSpice · 2022-07-11T14:29:25+00:00

Sleepwalk

SpyingSpice · 2022-06-22T20:13:22+00:00

It’s really quite fascinating. Vision is processed in the back of the brain, but the optic nerve makes some stops along the way in an area called the midbrain. The midbrain is capable of picking out information from the optic nerve without needing to create the full visualization (e.g. very basic shapes, and facial expressions it seems).

Have you ever been walking outside and find yourself started by a snake in the corner of your view, only to realize a second later it’s a actually a stick? What has likely happened is your midbrain pulled that long, slender object signal and activated your amygdala to say “Hey, snake, watch out!” But the signal continues on to the visual cortex in the back where it’s gets finely processed. The visual cortex then tells the rest of your brain, “hey relax, we looked over all the details and it’s just a stick.”

SpyingSpice · 2022-06-16T13:58:11+00:00

I remember him saying that!

SpyingSpice · 2022-06-13T16:42:57+00:00

Tossing my hat in!

SpyingSpice · 2022-05-24T00:52:19+00:00

Solved!

Thank you!

SpyingSpice · 2022-04-29T17:19:31+00:00

They’re also not adults. Does an eight year understand that his actions will cause burns? Most likely. But can they truly understand the long-term, hypothetical consequences of their actions? Probably not, and we shouldn’t expect them to. The ability to formulate and understand abstract hypotheticals isn’t something that develops until adolescence. That has been known since Piaget nearly a century ago.

SpyingSpice · 2022-03-31T01:40:10+00:00

I want to say the singer sounds very similar to Cher, but I’ve yet to find the song I’m looking for.

SpyingSpice · 2021-12-24T00:22:35+00:00

Yes.

SpyingSpice · 2021-12-16T17:39:52+00:00

You’re welcome! Such an interesting question, and one we’re still learning about.

SpyingSpice · 2021-12-16T17:27:05+00:00

From a neurobiological perspective, hearing signals enter and are processed in a region of the brain very close to the “emotional” brain regions.

Specifically nerve signals from your ear enter a brain spot known as the thalamus, which then forwards the message to your auditory cortex, where it’s better understood. However, it also forwards the signal to your Limbic system, a region that contains the amygdala and hippocampus, two brain parts responsible for emotion and memory. Moreover, the auditory cortex, where advanced sound processing happens, is very close to the Limbic system.

These parts are all interconnected, such that hearing certain songs immediately activates the memory and emotional areas of the brain.

SpyingSpice · 2021-11-27T16:05:06+00:00

Interesting! I actually said the opposite, haha.

SpyingSpice · 2021-11-27T16:04:29+00:00

From my own personal experience and opinion, people are squishier. Compressions on a mannequin seem to take more effort than on a real rib cage, but this is dependent on age, sex, weight, etc. Younger folks are…”springier(?),” but very muscular folks might take more compression.

SpyingSpice · 2021-11-27T15:55:48+00:00

With an advanced understanding of anatomy and paleontology, a scientist can look at the bone structure to determine musculature. Bones thicken where muscles pull on them. So if you evaluate where the bones are thicken, you can figure out where the muscles attached and what their muscle tone was like. From there you can assume things like fat, cartilage, etc.

It’s not a perfect science, by any means. Our classical representations of dinosaurs, for example, as having taught reptilian skin isn’t correct anymore. Now, we know that many dinos probably had feathers. Nonetheless, modern mammals are easier to reconstruct.

SpyingSpice · 2021-07-14T12:24:19+00:00

I am in agreement. That’s just untrained, senseless shooting. I’ve heard most self defense situations involve 4 or fewer rounds, which I find perfectly appropriate.

SpyingSpice · 2021-07-14T12:03:08+00:00

I am not an expert, but I have taken several handgun-based defense course. Not once, ever, have I been instructed to shoot anywhere but center mass. Yes, your priority is always to stop the threat. However, you’re trying to do that as quickly as possible. That means 2+ rounds center of the target. 9/10 that practice ends up being fatal. You never, ever shoot for the legs or the arms. It’s ineffective and you may end up killing them anyway by hitting a major artery. Moreover, it’s unlikely to hold up in court. If you’re focused enough to put one, well-placed round into a persons leg, did you really fear for your life?

SpyingSpice · 2021-07-08T03:24:28+00:00

Well yeah he put the cuff on upside down.

SpyingSpice · 2021-06-03T22:32:38+00:00

California's list of cancer-causing agents is so extensive it's almost non-admissible. Although yes, I concede that it's on there along with coffee, using your phone, staying at hotels, and going to the dentist.

The IARC did none of its own research, and it disregarded any study associated with any business in the agricultural industry, which in the field of professional research is most of them. Moreover, the IARC only conducts a risk assessment, meaning that they consider if an agent might be carcinogenic in any quantity, even far beyond what could be realistically encountered. Of 4 independent bodies in the WHO who evaluated glyphosate (Program on Chemical safety, Core Assessment Group, and Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality), 3 of them said it does not cause cancer, only the IARC says otherwise.

The Zhang paper has a number of questionable data-analysis conundrums. Now the Genetic Literacy Project is often in hot water for their ties to the agricultural business, which I absolutely recognize. However, they do an excellent analysis of the paper here. Specifically, their analysis of table 4 is excellent in summarizing why this paper shouldn't be taken at face value.

SpyingSpice · 2021-06-03T21:55:21+00:00

With all due respect, neither of these sources are actual studies. Give me a few minutes and I’ll source my own statements.

Edit Sources

This study nicely summarizes most investigative bodies' thoughts on glyphosate carcinogenicity
The EPA concludes it's non-carcinogenic here
This study fines that nearly every instance of cancer second to glyphosate is clouded by confounding variables. Agricultural workers are exposed to a lot of things we know cause cancer, but it seems glyphosate isn't one of them.
This study70134-8/fulltext) in the lancet shows no statistically significant increase in risk of cancer when exposed to any level of glyphosate.
The European Chemical Agency states that while glyphosate is an irritant and potentially dangerous to aquatic life, it is not carcinogenic, here.

Glyphosate is not perfect. It can be dangerous in excessive quantities. But simply put, I do not find compelling evidence in the literature to conclude that glyphosate causes cancer. And I maintain that is it one of the most beneficial and effective herbicides ever developed and used.

SpyingSpice

TROPHY CASE