#11630: "Sorry if my previous post was unhelpful and negative."
No need to apologize! You didn't say anything in need of apologizing, and I found your comments regarding your personal experience helpful in highlighting how one's reaction to a given drug can be very different than others' reactions. This is certainly good insight.

Stannarad: "TC12 is reading from the insert that comes in these products, which unfortunately doesn't mean as much as human experience."

I tried to do just that -- strictly give the clinical study numbers just as they were reported without any assumptions, while still being careful to comment that "...your bloodstream levels of M would have been incidental, not that this couldn't necessarily affect your body in inadverdent and unexpected ways." To automatically assume that, "It had Antibiotics in it, therefore it caused problems in a separate organ of your body" would not only be a wild assumption, but might be completely false. The only thing we know for sure is that her blood exposure was roughly 1/33rd what it would have been if she had taken the Antibiotic orally. That't it, that's the only fact we know.

Might this incidental amount have caused complications for Jesser? Yes, certainly that's a possibility, and I obliquely suggested same in my post. But should we automatically ASSUME it caused problems? No doctor or researcher would -- that's not the scientific method. The problem with assumptions is that half the time, they're wrong.

"EVERYTHING we apply externally is absorbed into our bodies." That's a seemingly logical assumption. But Metrogel vaginal studies showed bloodstream levels as "not detectable." Such an assumption would have been incorrect. Once again, personal experience is critical, and if use of such gels might cause problems for some folks, then their use should be reduced or ended. But one should never assume, especially when clinical study results are available, that "Such-and-such happened to me when I took it, therefore the same will happen to you." Posts on these boards prove time-and-again that sometimes just the opposite occurs. ©†ƒ……•™¼‡_Original_Message_¾€š½ž¢«»¬ï°©

#11630: "Sorry if my previous post was unhelpful and negative."
No need to apologize! You didn't say anything in need of apologizing, and I found your comments regarding your personal experience helpful in highlighting how one's reaction to a given drug can be very different than others' reactions. This is certainly good insight.

Stannarad: "TC12 is reading from the insert that comes in these products, which unfortunately doesn't mean as much as human experience."

I tried to do just that -- strictly give the clinical study numbers just as they were reported without any assumptions, while still being careful to comment that "...your bloodstream levels of M would have been incidental, not that this couldn't necessarily affect your body in inadverdent and unexpected ways." To automatically assume that, "It had Antibiotics in it, therefore it caused problems in a separate organ of your body" would not only be a wild assumption, but might be completely false. The only thing we know for sure is that her blood exposure was roughly 1/33rd what it would have been if she had taken the Antibiotic orally. That't it, that's the only fact we know.

Might this incidental amount have caused complications for Jesser? Yes, certainly that's a possibility, and I obliquely suggested same in my post. But should we automatically ASSUME it caused problems? No doctor or researcher would -- that's not the scientific method. The problem with assumptions is that half the time, they're wrong.

"EVERYTHING we apply externally is absorbed into our bodies." That's a seemingly logical assumption. But Metrogel vaginal studies showed bloodstream levels as "not detectable." Such an assumption would have been incorrect. Once again, personal experience is critical, and if use of such gels might cause problems for some folks, then their use should be reduced or ended. But one should never assume, especially when clinical study results are available, that "Such-and-such happened to me when I took it, therefore the same will happen to you." Posts on these boards prove time-and-again that sometimes just the opposite occurs.