This message was self-deleted by its author

[MountainFool]

This message was self-deleted by its author (MountainFool) on Sun Oct 8, 2017, 04:53 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[kag]

1. Read this!

One of those times when "common knowledge" isn't so common OR so knowledgeable.

[defacto7]

2. If true, this is huge...

Last edited Thu Jul 27, 2017, 04:43 PM - Edit history (1)

The question is, is it fact? Is this corroborated in multiple proper studies or could this be just another medical aberration that some like to latch on to like anti-vacc propaganda? I'm reticent until we have more than a "maybe not".

[trotsky]

3. I would imagine the issue is quite complex.

What type of infection? What strain(s) of bacteria are involved? Obviously you want to take enough antibiotic to eliminate the infection, or at least bring it under control for your body. If not, the germs that survived WILL be the ones that were more resistant to the antibiotic, and their descendants will inherit those genes.

[still_one]

5. Exactly, and the medical community correctly wants to error on the side of safety. Maybe I missed

it, but I don't see where the authors of this report cite any double blind study that supports their premise. What I did see was that they were suggesting that when a person "feels good", perhaps that is when they should stop the antibiotic, and that is as unscientific as it can be.

Are they going to recommend instead of a 7 to 10 course of an antibiotic for an URI, 3 day course, or "until you feel better". Are they lawyers, because I suspect this might provide an extra source of income for some of the lawsuits that follow

[defacto7]

6. Agree...

But logically, (no medical background here) if one takes the medication for the full time, the strongest survive to infect another day per the article. If taken for less time the strongest survive to infect another day... plus some weaker ones that may or may not be beneficial or problematic. In either case the strongest remain. So I'm not sure there's a benifit eithet way. The article gives the impression that the strong become stronger but I don’t think that's possible; it simply filters out the weakest leaving the winners intact.
Personally I.use them only if it's life threatening not to do so, but that's another discussion.

[MountainFool]

7. yup

I'm looking forward to reading followup study results. In the meantime, I'm doing what my doctor tells me to ))

[still_one]

4. People's lives are at stake. The reason they want people to finish the full course of antibiotics

has less to do with antibiotic resistance as it does with insuring complete eradication of the bacteria causing the infection.

The authors state there is no evidence based justification that people should take the full course of antibiotics, and suggests stopping it when they feel better would be an appropriate course.

Where is their double blind study to demonstrate that?

What is known is that if people stop an antibiotic is stopped too soon, the infection will come back, sometimes more virulent, and in the case of infections such as UTIs sepsis can insidiously creep into the picture, and the whole body is put at risk.

A few years back some in the medical community were saying there is no "evidence" that "older" adults needed to be concerned if their systolic BP went as high as 150.

Subsequent well done randomized studies have thrown cold water that, and have demonstrated that having a systolic BP lower than 140, or ideally below 130 is clinically significant.

Of course like everything one needs to be careful to insure that the BP doesn't get too low, because there are serious consequences that can result from that, but the vast majority of problems are due to BP not being controlled well.