Does dehydration have any role in anti-inflammation?

[nomadreid]

TL;DR

I do not understand the sentence, "Chloramphenicol has anti-inflammatory (dehydrating) and antimicrobial effects". What does dehydration have to do with inflammation in this case?

I came across (in an unpublished work, hence no citation) the sentence, "Chloramphenicol has anti-inflammatory (dehydrating) and antimicrobial effects". Does dehydration help fight inflammation, or what? Could it be a typo meaning "anti-inflammatory and dehydrating"?

 

[jim mcnamara]

https://www.rxlist.com/chloramphenicol-sodium-succinate-side-effects-drug-center.htm
does not mention dehydration.

If you are reading a physicians clinical report, then that is what the physician saw.

 

[gleem]

Fluid i.e. water is necessary to remove metabolic wastes? How can dehydration be anti inflammatory?

 

[jim mcnamara]

@gleem
If it is a clinical report, whatever a physician sees and wants to report can go in the report. That's the way it usually works.

As it stands: We do not know what the source is. If it purports to be science you are completely correct with your comment. If it is from clinical observations, you should let it slide.

Do not believe me, do some research on clinical notes, reports, and opinions.

 

[gleem]

Summary: I do not understand the sentence, "Chloramphenicol has anti-inflammatory (dehydrating) and antimicrobial effects". What does dehydration have to do with inflammation in this case?

came across (in an unpublished work, hence no citation) the sentence, "Chloramphenicol has anti-inflammatory (dehydrating) and antimicrobial effects". Does dehydration help fight inflammation, or what? Could it be a typo meaning "anti-inflammatory and dehydrating"?

Where did you come across this work?

 

[nomadreid]

Thanks for the helpful replies, jim mcnamara and gleem. This is from a forthcoming book dealing with a certain topic in medicine that I have been asked to translate. The chronology should explain my eventual conclusion:
Reading first section: "I don't understand this. It doesn't seem to make sense to me, but maybe this is due to the fact that this is not my field. I better turn to the nice people in Physics Forums." (my post).
Reading a bit further: "OMG, this is awfully sloppy. Lots of mistakes and sloppy reasoning. So, according to the helpful answers in Physics Forums, I guess this bit about dehydration is just a mistake of the author. I will put it on my list of points that the author should correct."
Reading even further: "Good grief! This is so bad that it verges on pseudoscience. I am sorry to have bothered the nice people in Physics Forums over it. But at least I learned something."
So, I have concluded that, giving the author the benefit of the doubt, she made an error. (If I didn't assume this, then the only conclusion would be that she doesn't know what she is talking about, or doesn't care. Which is also possible, but I wish to be generous.)
Therefore I believe the issue is settled, and thus the thread may be closed, with my gratitude and (where appropriate) apologies.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Closed