Talk:Reactive airway disease

The

The article used in the first citation has been misinterpreted. Reactive airway disease is not the term defined by Brooks and his colleagues, and it does not go by the acronym RADS. It clearly states that that is reactive airways dysfunction syndrome, a term that has real meaning in pulmonary medicine, unlike reactive airway disease.

---
I second the above, as I was about to write something similar, based on what I read in the Fahy-O'Byrne paper cited in the article. I don't actually claim to know anything about this subject, so I don't necessarily want to be the one to change the entry, but it sure seems that it should be changed.
--peter 00:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

___ I disagree. My husband is now an expert on the subject as he has had this disease over 15 years. Even 15 years ago, the diagnosis was stated as RAD - Reactive airway disease. Brooks may have not originally sighted as such; but for years that has been a common term and acronym. Other characteristics of having RAD include chronic sinusitus and in some cases as in ours, chronic sinus polups. The polups have invaded all sinus cavities and taken over his ear canals; leaching into the bone of the ears. He has had his ear drums replaced twice, same ear. This is only a temporary fixed, as is the removal of the polups which he has done five times now. While everyone is different; regular as asthma treatments usually do not work. It took four years of emergency room trips and hospital stays to finally be treated with Flovent. Once he took that, there has been no emergencies or hopital stays. He was taken off it once and immediately the severe symptoms returned. Flovent is the only drug that has assisted him in living a somewhat normal life. Even Advair did not work. We believe the exposure to sulphur dioxide was the damaging chemical. _ B. McCord - my source is 15+ years of experience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.184.178 (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

B. McCord (67.60.184.178): This is meant to be an encyclopedic entry. Therefore, you must provide verifiable sources when you make your points. To do otherwise reduces your comments to anecdotal original research, not allowed in such an article. Also, you consistently misspell the word "polyp"; doing so undermines your proclaimed expertise. I'm glad your husband is doing well and I hope he continues to do so. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Reference broken

The link on ref. #5 is now dead. IforgotAboutSemiProtection (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)