Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by 35bge57dtjku 3068 days ago
> I don't follow your point

You appeared confused as to why someone would say what they'd said. I pointed out one of the glaringly obvious reasons why someone could have done that. And there's also the fact that the study cited is fairly recent and news doesn't spread instantly...
1 comments
nonbel 3068 days ago
Can you acknowledge that you realize the parent specifically said "non-aspirin", and everything you are talking about is regarding aspirin? It isn't clear to me that you realize this.

Also, the cardiovascular issues in question are not something recent. They were already widely reported in 2005 to the point the FDA commented:

>"Back in 2005, the FDA warned that taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) like ibuprofen and naproxen increased the risk of having a heart attack or stroke." https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/fda-strengthens-warning-...

I asked that question because the advice was so opposite the usual, and the tone so playful ("Prostaglandin system is fun"), that it almost seemed to be a troll who had gone too far.

link
35bge57dtjku 3068 days ago
Are there really no sources that state that things other than aspirin inhibit platelet aggregation?
link
nonbel 3067 days ago
1) I've read enough biomedical literature to know there is a source claiming just about anything you can think of. So regardless of what you mean, my answer is: "there is at least one such source".

2) Why is your question so loosely connected to the topic? Why say "things" instead of "non-aspirin NSAIDs", and "inhibit platelet aggregation" instead of "reduce risk of heart attack"?

3) If you are thinking of a particular paper, why not just say it?

But ok, I am probably being trolled at this point.

link
35bge57dtjku 3067 days ago
> I've read enough biomedical literature to know there is a source claiming just about anything you can think of

Then as I initially said, it really shouldn't be hard for you to imagine why someone would give the advice that the original person gave. This really isn't a difficult concept, yet you still act perplexed by it...

> Why is your question so loosely connected to the topic? Why say "things" instead of "non-aspirin NSAIDs", and "inhibit platelet aggregation" instead of "reduce risk of heart attack"?

Because I was hoping you were capable of following the thread. And because the specific things arn't all that important to whether or not one should be able to think of a reason why that piece of advice was given.

> If you are thinking of a particular paper, why not just say it?

Because if you're not just here to whine about being trolled, you can easily find it with Google.

link