Beware the Clostridiapocalypse!

This post reflects the medical skool "received wisdom" that, if one has a virus, antibiotics cannot help one's condition. Leaving aside that this ignores the experience of the patient, whut about the research that shows that the people who take the most antibiotics live longer than those who don't take them. Just askin'.

I have always responded to antibiotics in a way that is positive except for upset stomach for certain. I am going on gut reaction and have given some layman's thought to the anti-antibiotic hair pulling and came to the conclusion it is a non event. The theater needs to show another feature.

Call me old fashioned if you will, but I don't think I would use such a method to teach the youngsters.

It requires simultaneous dancing and rap "singing"

Not to mention the Clostridium / autism 'connection'...

@ Doktor Bimler

How about the Autism / MMS / Clostridium 'connection'?

Struggling to find a rhyme for "Fecal transplant by nasogastric tube"...

Something something something lube.

I was also working along the lines of "Antibiotics lose their allure. When coprophagia's the only cure."

I was also working along the lines of "Antibiotics lose their allure. When coprophagia's the only cure."

Some weird behavior from this blog at present. Apologies for the hiccup.

And for that awfully painful sinusitis/Could be abcess, see a dent-itist (sorry, had to make it rhyme)

Did I catch hints of "Another One Bites The Dust" in there?

Dum, dum, dum... Another butt goes bust.

Hmph. Just doesn't have the same vibe as "T'was brillig and the slithy toves."

Hmph. Just doesn't have the same vibe as "T'was brillig and the slithy toves."

Bil Pal,

First, I'd have to see what research you're talking about before I could comment on whether or not it's applicable. Second, how on Earth are antibiotics supposed to help a virus? That's like changing a flat to fix your brakes.

Now, I *can* believe that people who take antibiotics live longer than those who don't. After all, people who let nature take its course when they get bacterial pneumonia will probably have a poorer outcome. I'm not sure that's a good justification for indiscriminate antibiotic use (although many farmers certainly do use that justification, using prophylactic antibiotics to avoid losses in their herds or flocks -- they do have better survival rates if given antibiotics, but it's a scattershot approach to the problem and does *create* other problems).

This post reflects the medical skool “received wisdom” that, if one has a virus, antibiotics cannot help one’s condition.

Under what dense theory would anyone expect antibiotics to treat a viral disease? That's like expecting the Roomba on your carpet to straighten out the papers on your desk.

Leaving aside that this ignores the experience of the patient,

If the patient tries to claim that the anecdote of their personal "experience" demonstrates the truth of a particular far-fetched claim such as "this antibiotic alleviated my viral infection" or "this yoga exercise alleviated my viral infection," ignoring it is probably the best response.

whut about the research that shows that the people who take the most antibiotics live longer than those who don’t take them.

1. What research? Citation needed. For all we know, you're talking about a paper published in Medical Hypotheses, the scientific equivalent of a supermarket tabloid.
2. Even if that correlation were correct, correlation does not equal causation; "antibiotics treat viral infections and thus prolong life" is not the only or even the most plausible explanation for the observed phenomena. Where do the people who take the most antiobiotics get those antibiotics? Could it be, oh, I don't know, the doctor's?? The causal relation "People who make frequently use of medical resources live longest, and also use the most antibiotics" is far more plausible than "antibiotics treat viral infections."

Just askin’.

JAQing off, in other words. Noted.

Well, this is a scary topic, and since there are doctors on board this thread, I'd like to ask a question that has been gnawing on my mind for many years: When does one know it is appropriate to take antibioitcs? Also, is there anything one can so (e. g. changes to diet) to make sure nothing screwy goes on in the intestine while one is on an antibiotic regimen? I never like to contibute to a problem, especially one as serious as this.

"how on Earth are antibiotics supposed to help a virus? That’s like changing a flat to fix your brakes."

Not the virus itself, but maybe a secondary bacterial infection. I once had enough of an ear infection, after a bad cold, that it was worth ten days' worth of amoxicillin to the medicreature at my campus clinic. If someone were particularly sensitive to that sort of thing, I could see why they might want the antibiotics as soon as they got the cold, but we aren't all such that we might need it every time, or...well, we'd need it every time (or, feel the lack thereof, almost every time).

What research? Citation needed.

Three quatloos on some sort of rapamycin trip.

ebrillblaiddes:

Not the virus itself, but maybe a secondary bacterial infection.

Which often only happen with rather severe viral illness like measles and chicken pox. Not with your average "just feeling under the weather" cold.

thank you for making me smile while recovering from c.diff.

Though I feel the video did not quite accurately portray what it feels like to have your body try to turn itself inside out through the colon...be wary of broad-spectrum, friends!

many farmers certainly do use that justification, using prophylactic antibiotics to avoid losses in their herds or flocks

I can see that antibiotics allow for factory farming of chickens and pigs, with overcrowding to a level that would be lethal without the drugs, but in addition isn't there a general appetite-stimulant side-effect?

@ebrillblaiddes

Have you ever discussed this with a physician?