Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Glad that I am taking Lisinopril instead. And luckily, there are so many blood pressure medications out there for people who will be needing a change from Valsartan, they have options.
I did not make up the title, I'm only repeating it. It caught MY attention which is why I'm passing it along.
I don't take the medication and I didn't post to start a debate. Not EVERYTHING has to be a debate, does it?
Not even a "debate". Rather, it's a "debunk". It's over the slant of the link and the misleading content. Makes perfect sense to call that out and clarify it for those who might not know and end up here because of it. A pretty good justification for the discussion don't you think?
Not even a "debate". Rather, it's a "debunk". It's over the slant of the link and the misleading content. Makes perfect sense to call that out and clarify it for those who might not know and end up here because of it. A pretty good justification for the discussion don't you think?
It may be misleading and sensationalized but it could still be true which is why it's allowed. News outlets (especially internet news) do this all the time.
Yes, the drugs were recalled because they contain a known carcinogen and yes carcinogens DO give you cancer. It doesn't mean that anybody actually got the cancer from taking these meds. That does not really matter in a court of law does it? There will never be actual proof in cases like this, only circumstantial evidence. That is often enough to win a court case as we have seen many times before.
On C-D, there are a lot of anti-drug, anti-doctor, anti-modern medicine posters, and the way your post was titled seemed to be along that line. Rather than implying that "blood pressure medication causes cancer!", the title could have simply stated that a contaminant was found in a blood pressure medication, and the med was recalled.
Click bait titles are meant to catch your attention, and they are very often misleading.
It did not say ALL blood pressure medication. Who would jump to that conclusion? Plus, when you actually read it you would get the rest of the story. Can't put the whole story in the title..
Not even a "debate". Rather, it's a "debunk". It's over the slant of the link and the misleading content. Makes perfect sense to call that out and clarify it for those who might not know and end up here because of it. A pretty good justification for the discussion don't you think?
So, was the title of your post actually a click bait headline? It was quite misleading.
think that might be what the OP had hoped for, am not sure. I trust my doctor to let me know when a medicine I take has been recalled or might not be safe.
It did not say ALL blood pressure medication. Who would jump to that conclusion? Plus, when you actually read it you would get the rest of the story. Can't put the whole story in the title..
You gave two links in the OP with these titles:
Blood pressure medication recalled because it gives you cancer instead
FDA announces voluntary recall of several medicines containing valsartan following detection of an impurity
Why did you choose the first as the thread title rather than the second?
It's short and to the point which is why it caught my attention to begin with. The answer is in what you quoted.
"when you actually read it you would get the rest of the story"
Do you judge books by the cover?
It is misleading, because it is not the active drug that is suspected of causing cancer but an unwanted contaminant. The second link title makes that clear.
You could copy and paste the longer sentence just as easily.
It seems the one you used fits an agenda that the one you didn't choose does not.
Human exposure to N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) from foods and beverages was modeled and upper-bound cancer risks were predicted for the United States and Canada. Approximately 0.5 (0–10.8) cancer incidents per million population from lifetime exposure to NDMA in drinking water were estimated. Lifetime exposure to NDMA from the major exogenous sources may result in 49.6 (range: 17.7–171.7) cancer incidents per million population, while meat products contribute the most (15.9/million) followed by milk products (10.9/million).
it says...
Quote:
Drinking water may contribute approximately 1% to the exogenous cancer risk and holds the 10th position among 10 exogenous sources.
That to me says that water is an item in itself because it is listed as #10.
exogenous = originating externally; relating to external factors,
1% of 1,000,000 (1 million) people is 10,000 people possibly getting cancer from drinking water.
So how does this drinking water appear at #10 in the top 10 list?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
