June 19th, 2011 at 13:11
As with any new innovation comes debate. As experienced by countless examples in decades of military and law enforcement weapon and gear development. There has always been detractors. Those who by their very wiring are stuck in a comfort zone having this reflex reaction of naysaying. Only to have themselves converted by operators in the field who did the correct application of evaluation by field testing.
Debate should always be welcomed. However, I would suppose that would be better said as educated debate. Surely, not just jaded statements based on skepticism or quoting some other supposed authority.
In understanding ORAL IV, one must keep in mind that it is shallow thinking to assume that the 11, again that is “eleven” separate ions in ORAL IV is somehow able to be called “saline”. ORAL IV is far more than Sodium chlorine dissolved in water and is far more than traditional ORS.
The product write up above is obviously for introduction purposes not a prose for the establishment of the science.
It is absolutely erroneous to say that what makes the difference to whether or not a solution will rehydrate you is the salt content. Taking a look at actually medical application in every hospital around the world proves that ignorant. So the “military doctor friend” being quoted is sadly devoid of valid intel.
To properly understand rehydration in the first place one must educate themselves on the differences between Osmolarity vs. Tonicty and Osmolarity vs. Osmolality. Each of these areas is effected by other laws such as Gibbs-Donnan Equilibrium, Starling’s forces, and Debye–Hückel limiting law.
With all due respect, a “background in life sciences” being a qualifier of being able to state something is a scam is like saying anyone who has a “background in shooting firearms” is qualified to teach urban warfare force-on-force tactics. I suggest the poster who thinks that its an outright lie, that altered charged ions do not have different effects on cell membrane transports should become familiar with the laws I mentioned above.
It is not suggested that ORAL IV replaces the need for overall volume of fluids. Its accolades are seated in the effect ORAL IV has on the rapidity of rehydration, how fluids are dispersed in the organs of the body, and how water metabolism is effected. It simply supports efficiency of fluid characteristics at the cellular level.
It is embarrassing obtuse of a mind set to think that a new innovation that one has not even field tested themselves is to be categorically discarded