werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) (12/10/85)
Yes, John Gurian was right about Kaopectate, and Steve Dyer was correct
in predicting the source of my error. The actual pathophysiology of the error
was as follows:
The spoken sentence:
"Kaopectate formulations which contain weak opiates inhibit gut mobility"
became
"Kaopectate formulations, which contain weak opiates, inhibit gut mobility"
in my notes. (Actually the above are paraphrases)
Note how the extra commas change the meaning of the sentence.
I would have noted the first time I ever read the label that normal Kaopectate
doesn't contain any weak opiates, which in and of themselves do potently
inhibit gut mobility.
Either way, lest you indict the system of medical education, the above
point was moot to the content of the lecture (infectious diarrhea), since they
were advising us not to use such Kaopectate elixirs as worse than doing nothing.
In fact, Kaopectate (Kaolin-Pectin suspension) is as John Gurian
mentioned, simply a GRAS (Pronounced Gee-ras in this neck of the woods, and
standing for Generally Recognized As Safe) formula of unproven efficacy. Its
mechanism of action is probably as follows:
Uncomplicated Diarrhea usually lasts 1-2 days if untreated, while
Kaopectate can effectively eliminate it in 24-48 hours, minus any time for
Placebo effect.
OK, I goofed. Astute net observers will record that this is the
3rd retraction/clarification I have made in my 15 months of posting. Sorry.
--
Craig Werner
!philabs!aecom!werner
"Time flies when you're streaking out N. gonorrheae." tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (12/14/85)
> [Craig Werner] > Yes, John Gurian was right about Kaopectate, and Steve Dyer was correct > in predicting the source of my error. The actual pathophysiology of the error > was as follows: > The spoken sentence: > "Kaopectate formulations which contain weak opiates inhibit gut mobility" > became > "Kaopectate formulations, which contain weak opiates, inhibit gut mobility" > in my notes. (Actually the above are paraphrases) > > Note how the extra commas change the meaning of the sentence. ------ Actually, they don't. The first form of the sentence just uses improper punctuation. In either case, the sentence implies that all Kaopectate contains weak opiates and inhibits gut mobility. The conjunction "which" can only introduce nonrestrictive clauses. On the other hand, the following: "Kaopectate formulations THAT contain weak opiates inhibit gut mobility" implies that some Kaopectate, namely that containing weak opiates, inhibits gut mobility. The conjunction "that" introduces restrictive clauses. Let's try to keep our whichs which and our thats that. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan