Health and Environment Educational Webinar Series – MIGs

Reading Tools for Practice Article can earn you MainPro+ Credits
Join NowAlready a CFPCLearn Member? Log in
Latest Tools for Practice
#389 An ASA a day keeps the Afib at bay?
How do ASA and direct oral anticoagulants compare in atrial fibrillation and bleeding risk?
#388 Stop the Drip: Tranexamic Acid Solution for Nosebleeds
Can topical tranexamic acid treat epistaxis?
#387 Side effects of long-term PPI use: Leaving a bad taste in your mouth?
What are the side effects of long-term proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use?
Thank you.
Thank you
Thank you
Thank you.
Would be helpful to have brief clinical summary that could be printable
NA
THANKS!!
n/a
Where to begin. First there was no rationale to the Jennifer’s work up including why an MRI Brain was needed. Second , I did not see any information that related sensitivity to various volatile compounds to harm… at least directly. I do note that there has been extensive work on the effects of these compounds on physiology, but I am alarmed that we can infer harm from this information. This is a TERRIBLE mistake made by health care professionals. Inferring harm from basic science is the basis of many misrepresentations. I see many non medical people use exactly the same techniques to advise against vaccination, for instance. I am VERY concerned when we use these kinds of techniques to instill fear, and doubt. Using basic scientific observation [valid, I assume] to infer harm is irresponsible, as it lets fear of the unknown to guide policy. For instance many antivaccination advocates during the recent covid -19 epidemic used the EXACT SAME arguments, citing the lack of long term data re safety of vaccinations as a reason NOT to get vaccinated. Shameful. With respect to the CMAJ articles there was a very old article that could not find direct evidence for harm from scents… and a few years later, a follow up article that suggested because people thought it was a problem, then scent free policies were either reasonable, or not unreasonable. Incidentally, I tried a search for the CMAJ 2002 article several different ways this morning, and the request timed out repeatedly. I did not see the bibliography promised, apologies if it was there but there were supposed to be over 50 citations. Nada. Lastly the questions were clearly staged, and the answers prepared in advance. While this isn’t bias, it does make the presentation less authoritative. Thank you for allowing me to vent. I do have a scent policy at my office however: some thing nice, two sprays only.
No reference to PEMF as a therapy
Thank you.
Thank you
None
excellent
I only do surgical assisting