Posted by Lou Pilder on February 8, 2008, at 8:46:29
In reply to Re: Lou's request for clarification-husonfrst » Lou Pilder, posted by Phoenix1 on February 8, 2008, at 8:18:08
> > > Just to cap this off, as the guy who started it all, I certainly would not want to overgeneralize - some people may find an auto wrist-cuff unit works fine for them. But specifically:
> > >
> > > 1) My _particular_ wrist-cuff unit gave erratic readings (20 points or more systolic different on readings taken one after another), was consistently higher than my GP measured, and was hard to adjust with a very high error rate (no reading because of incorrect position, no pulse (!) etc. at least 3 times out of 4).
> > >
> > > 2) My GP gave as his personal experience over several years that wrist-cuff units were unreliable. Automatic (no stethoscope) units that go around the upper arm, in his opinion, were much more reliable.
> > >
> > > 3) After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistent and consistent with his office readings (and not ER-panic level, either!).
> > >
> > > It really does go to show how careful we must be about generalizations, "over-" or not, with respect to everything we experience, including meds. I've read many threads along the lines of "Xxxx does nothing, it's just an expensive placebo" ... "No, Xxxxx is the best AD since coffee and ECT" ... etc. Bless this board (& you Dr. Bob) for its motto YMMV; I don't see it in posts as often as I used to but (as an atypical, trx-resistant, mixed(-up) patient, I really believe in it most strongly.
> > >
> > > Tony P
> >
> > Tony P,
> > In regards to your statement,[...After using an automatic arm-cuff unit given me by my GP for a couple of weeks, I'm getting readings that are both self-consistant and consistant with his office readings...].
> > I am unsure as to the grammatical structure of your statement as to if your GP was comparing your readings with another automatic upper-arm device used in the office or if it was being compared with a manual device.
> > I had posted a citation of a research study that concluded that the two automatic types, one the wrist unit and the other the upper-arm unit, had the wrist unit agree more closely with the manual type. The link could not actuate the report.
> > Here is a link to another research report that concludes,[...Blood pressure measurments taken using the wrist device agreed more closely with those obtained using a conventional aneroid sphygmomanometer than the arm device...]citation F5
> > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10878742
> > Lou
> >
> >
>
> Hi Lou,
>
> I'm just wondering what you are hoping to achieve on the admin board at this point? I think it's great that you are defending Phillipa, as she is definitely a highly valued member of the community, as are you. But it seems you aren't able to get much of a debate going with Dr. Bob.
>
> Maybe you could focus your energy elsewhere? I love your posts on the faith board! I read everything, but I'm not at a level to discuss some of the high level theological things you discuss there. Anyways, I would hate to see all the hard work you are doing on the Admin board be fruitless, but I don't think you are going to get a satisfactory debate going with Dr. Bob at this point. History speaks for itself...
>
> Regards,
>
> PhoenixPhoenix,
You wrote,[...what you are hoping to achieve...I think it's great...you arn't able to get much...with Dr. Bob...elseware?...I love your posts...high level theological things...I would hate to see..fruitless..I don't think that you are going to get a satisfactory debate...History speaks...]
When a person is asked about what they wrote, and that person does not respond to the request for clarification in a timely manner, then in your opinion, is that response of no response a response? If so, in your opinion, what could the {no response} mean to you?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:810306
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20080204/msgs/811493.html