On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:20:07 +1100, Christian Gerzner
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Folks,
>
>I come from a medical family and, quite possibly as a result of that,
>I am a serious disbeliever in drugs. I use them only if obliged to.

I found absolutely no logical relation between the "medical family"
and your "disbeliver in drugs".    I have two M.D.s in my immediate
family and not counting in-laws.  I would be very stupid NOT to
believe the proper use of drugs (medication) for the purposes for
which they are prescribed!

Your post has gone far beyond the indictment of "abuse" (rather than
commonsense "use" of Sudafed) to a general but unsubstantiated
indictment of modern medication to diving, when the MEDICAL and the
DIVING professions have gone a long way toward educating the diving
public about the PROPER use of drugs, as well as delinearating
"absolute contraindication" and "contraindication" to diving, to be
judged by physicians, on a case by case basis!

Your position is just a watered-down version of the view of the
"Christian Scientist" (an oxymoronic but actual term used by a
RELIGIOUS sect in the USA) which FORBIDS any use of ANY physician
or medicine at all -- for any illnesses!  I call them religious
fools and murderers.  ;-)


I have learned long time ago that it's counterproductive to argue
against RELIGIOUS views -- which your (Christian's) view is akin to.

So, I'll simply point out that there is nothing in the medications
you discussed that has even been remotely linked as counterindication
to DIVING, including the controversial case of Sudafed (except as
you and Strike indicated to be so in Australia), by the medical
profession.  I am not even sure that's the MEDICAL view (and not
just the diving profession's view) in Australia.

All we know is that ANY medication has POTENTIAL side-effects that MAY
or may not adversely affect different individuals, whether diving or
not diving!


>Let me explain that:

>Today, at my age (soon to reach 62),

Irrelevant to this particular discussion or medications in question.


>I am obliged to take two drugs to
>control what otherwise might happen to my heart. As an aside I find
>today's medical technology absolutely astounding. I have no problems
>with that and I have carefully checked whether I can, or can't,
>continue to dive. Fortunately the experts have decided that I can
>continue to dive.

So, what's the problem?  Cardiac and cardiovascular drugs are
prescribed by physicians everyday for their patients, and very few
of these have adverse effects in diving, for which we can all be
thinkful, for MODERN MEDICINE and TECHNOLOGY!

You want to go back to the good old stone age?  :-)


>I also suffer, a lifetime complaint, from something called "Acne
>Roseata" which it appears is incurable and which can be, well, sort
>of, "controlled" by a drug calledDoxycycline.

A very COMMON ailment, related to the W.C. Field's syndrome. :-)
Condition often associated with excessive drinking, but not necessarily
so.  Just look at the bumps on (older) people's noses. :-)  Doxycycline,
Tetracycline, and similar drugs arrest the "breakouts".

>The downside to this
>drug is that it makes your skin sun sensitive,

Lots of drugs make the skin sun-sensitive.  Every drug has potential
side-effects, and that's just ONE of them, for that one drug.

So what?  It's good that the medical profession KNOWS about the
potential side-effects and warns patients about them.


>The point? Apart from the fact that I hate drugs

That's your RELIGION, if the drugs are medically proven to be
effective against certain ailments you possess!   :-)

Now comes the anecdotal parts:

>There is one person on the dive boat that I usually go out with that
>uses Sudafed routinely, as in, before EVERY dive.

That MAY be an "abuse".  S/he would consult a diving physician for
proper diagnosis and treatment of the chronic congestion.  It's
not a proper indictment of the use of the drug Sudafed itself, for
occasional minor sniffles.

As for equalization ...

> All I know is that it's not the Valsalva. I find that it
>works safely, and reliably. I'm not prepared to argue which other
>method it might be, I *am* prepared to state that I can "clear my
>ears" at will, without recourse to anything physical other than my
>breathing. It's a pretty useful trick.

So, what's the point?   If's well-known that different methods of
ear-clearing works better for different people.  Different
Folks, different strokes.  :-)

( snip )

>There is another advantage to this method of compensation. There is no
>potential (cannot be) brute force involved, unlike the Valsalva.

Okay, your method (whatever it is) has a less potential for THIS
particular kind of "abuse".

>Disadvantage? You don't know that you're performing it, it becomes
>automatic. Therefore it does not "warn" you if you are going deeper as
>the "physical", hand to nose, Valsalva tends to do.

That's YOUR abuse of Valsalva, if you use it to gauge depth.  :-)
That's what your depth gauge or computer are for!

>I make *very* sure
>that I set my Aqualand to the maximum depth that I intend to go to,
>especially on walls. Been there, made that mistake also.

That particular use of the alarm in the Aqualand IS an abuse itself!!!

Don't you MONITOR your depth and air CONSTANTLY?  You not only will
NEVER be too deep unknowlngly, but you should NEVER be unknowingly
OOA because you failed to monitor your air supply.  You rely on
your AI-computer to beep you?  ;-)

>Tom Mount of IANTD, some years ago now, wrote very negatively about
>Sudafed and what he said made sense, to me anyway. I quote:
>
>> CAUTION! DO DECONGESTANTS THREATEN YOUR DIVE SAFETY?
>by Tom Mount.

( snipped )

Another anecdotal tale of good caution of the use of COMMONSENSE.
Sound like a good case of the "abusive use of pseudoepheddrine"
but an anecdotal tale of little or no general MEDICAL relevance.

>We vaguely questioned if this may
>have contributed to, or even caused the accident.

The "vaguely" and "may" can be said of just about ANYTHING!

>The only thing he had
>done different than normal was to take Sudafed prior to the dive.

How would Tom Mount know?   Replace "take Sudafed prior to the dive"
everywhere with "didn't shit that morning" in a DIFFERENT anecdotal
tale, would you have a new medical discovery?

>IANTD EANx
>IT#13 sent me a copy of the 1991 PDR description of pseudoephedre
>hydrochloride, Sudafed's active ingredient. It states: ADVERSE
>REACTIONS include nausea, cardiac palpitations, irritability,
>excitement, headache, dizziness, tachycardia, diarrhea, drowsiness,
>stomach pain, SEIZURES, slowed heart rate, shortness of breath, and/or
>troubled breathing;

It should have stated "POSSIBLE side effects" instead of "ADVERSE
REACTIONS".  Those are NOT definite adverse reactions associated
with the drug.  It's definitely a case of MISINFORMATION by the
PDR description, unless said description was mis-represented in
the article you included.

Do you know how many OTHER medications that have similar labels
of the SAME "potential side effects" in the everyday over-the-counter
drugs?   Go take a free lesson in your over-the-counter drugs in
your pharmacy.  :-)

That's not to mention the prescription drugs divers routinely take
for medical reasons, and dive safely taking them.

Whatever you read, cycle them through the computer between your ears!

-- Bob.