'Don't finish the course of antibiotics' - experts turn medical advice on its head

And a quote from Berkeley University that sums it up nicely..

Accepted theories are the best explanations available so far for how the world works. They have been thoroughly tested, are supported by multiple lines of evidence, and have proved useful in generating explanations and opening up new areas for research. However, science is always a work in progress, and even theories change.

undsci.berkeley.edu...

originally posted by: Chadwickus
And a quote from Berkeley University that sums it up nicely..

Accepted theories are the best explanations available so far for how the world works. They have been thoroughly tested, are supported by multiple lines of evidence, and have proved useful in generating explanations and opening up new areas for research. However, science is always a work in progress, and even theories change.

undsci.berkeley.edu...

Strange thing is that they only come up with that spiel when they want to change your mind about something.

Let someone come up with an opposing theory and what has been previously accepted becomes fact and is cut in stone.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Accepted theories are the best explanations available so far for how the world works. They have been thoroughly tested, are supported by multiple lines of evidence, and have proved useful in generating explanations and opening up new areas for research. However, science is always a work in progress, and even theories change.

Pretty much all weasel words... "accepted" -- "best" -- "available" -- "supported" -- "useful" -- and so on. Absolutely nothing definitive or provable there. And evidence is not proof. Evidence is what we make of it according to our own limited understanding and experience.

And when these opinions/interpretations/theories are substituted for fact and proof, and the explanations generated are mistaken for truth and fact, and the medical establishment refuses to see the faults in their theory, and force patients to do exactly the wrong thing based on their dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance, we then have superbug epidemics and people get hurt and die.

Defend your "science" all you want... and thus defend and protect those inflicting major harms on not just individuals, but humanity as a whole. If you want to be THAT person, I can't stop you... but it's damn good to know.

a reply to: Chadwickus

What a load of tripe. Antibiotics screw with our bodies, the less you can get away with the better. I see antibiotics as a backup for my immune system. Why do you think that diseases are evolving to become resistant to antibiotics?

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

What's a load of tripe?

Medical science can be slow to change. Fact.

Since there have been a number of studies since 2006, it shows that scientists have been giving this a thought for a good decade already.

It's not set in stone like the OP seems to want us to believe.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I have thought this way before.
Antibiotics should be used to help your body fix infections not fix it for the body.

More settled science..

Ranchers and farmers have been feeding antibiotics to the animals we eat since they discovered decades ago that small doses of antibiotics administered daily would make most animals gain as much as 3 percent more weight than they otherwise would. In an industry where profits are measured in pennies per animal, such weight gain was revolutionary. Although it is still unclear exactly why feeding small "sub-therapeutic" doses of antibiotics, like tetracycline, to animals makes them gain weight, there is some evidence to indicate that the antibiotics kill the flora that would normally thrive in the animals' intestines, thereby allowing the animals to utilize their food more effectively.

The meat industry doesn't publicize its use of antibiotics, so accurate information on the amount of antibiotics given to food animals is hard to come by. Stuart B. Levy, M.D., who has studied the subject for years, estimates that there are 15-17 million pounds of antibiotics used sub-therapeutically in the United States each year. Antibiotics are given to animals for therapeutic reasons, but that use isn't as controversial because few argue that sick animals should not be treated.

www.pbs.org...

Antibiotics are substances that can destroy bacteria. They are widely used for the prevention, control and treatment of diseases and infections.

www.meatinstitute.org.../sp/i/102248/pid/102248

a reply to: SeaWorthy

That is why we have many butchers around here that supply hormone and antibiotic free meat and that's what I buy.

a reply to: Boadicea

That is exactly what I, my husband, and kids do with the full blessing of - and endorsement from - our doc. We don't take antibiotics often but when it gets so 'bad' that I feel we do need to... we always accompany them with probiotics.

a reply to: Chadwickus

You're the one saying science is definitive and absolute, and then you say nothing is definitive or provable...

Is reading comprehension a weak point for you? Or is twisting and contorting words your strong point?

I was speaking specifically to the subjective and even arbitrary weasel words used by your Berkeley link trying to conflate unproven theory with proven science -- not to the theory or science itself. In other words, those weasel words have proven nothing... NOT that nothing can be proven.

...that's what I'M trying to say ffs.

Are you high or something?

Because you're flip flipping around like an idiot...

Make some since will you!

Some since, eh???

Your first comment was to bash me -- without even addressing the actual topic -- and you have continued to bash me personally in subsequent comments, again without even addressing the actual topic of the OP.

You have made piss poor excuses for the dangerous combination of ignorance and arrogance which has created a superbug epidemic, endangering and ending millions of lives, with absolutely no thought or regard for their best interests... much less the billions of people who are still in danger of contracting these superbugs.

I'm done with you.

originally posted by: nicevillegrl
a reply to: Boadicea

That is exactly what I, my husband, and kids do with the full blessing of - and endorsement from - our doc. We don't take antibiotics often but when it gets so 'bad' that I feel we do need to... we always accompany them with probiotics.

That is so good to hear! It's great that more doctors are recommending natural supplements that complement the prescriptions... and maybe even recommending natural remedies before handing that prescription out. We can hope, right? I was fortunate to have a really great doctor that told me about probiotics way back in the 90s, and we've been doing it ever since also. The same doctor also told me about natural antibiotics for my son, who had severe allergic reactions to the most common ones -- not fun.

I've often suspected that the main push for Obamacare was because too many folks were seeking out natural remedies and self-treating before going to doctors... and they just couldn't have that!

Sounds wrong.

Take 5 days of antibiotics will get rid of bacteria.

Take 10 days of antibiotics will make them resistant.

Shouldn't they be all but gone by day 5 with your body doing clean up with or without the other 5 days of the course?

originally posted by: daskakik
Sounds wrong.

Take 5 days of antibiotics will get rid of bacteria.

Take 10 days of antibiotics will make them resistant.

Shouldn't they be all but gone by day 5 with your body doing clean up with or without the other 5 days of the course?

Apparently not always or not necessarily. From the links quoted in the OP:

Taking the full course of antibiotics unnecessarily wastes medicine, and more drugs translates to increased evolutionary pressure on the harmless bacteria in our bodies. These “good” bugs can develop drug-resistant genes, which can then transfer to bad bugs.

Furthermore, wiping out drug-susceptible bacteria in infections too quickly makes it easier for drug-resistant bacteria to compete over a host’s resources. Better access to nutrients lets the mutant bugs multiply far more rapidly, upping the odds that they’ll reach a so-called “transmissible density.” That means the resistant bacteria proliferate so much that they can escape and infect another person.

And --

In fact, for most otherwise healthy people, significantly reducing, but not necessarily totally eliminating, the bacteria causing the infection allows the body’s natural defences to take over and mop up the remaining few.

It would appear that the problem is that the antibiotics are not letting the immune system do its job (which includes the gut flora -- the "good" bacteria -- which is killed off by antibiotics as well as the "bad" bacteria)... and, potentially, damaging the immune system to the extent that it cannot do its job. Both of which allow any remaining bacteria to be stronger than our immune system -- as well as the antibiotics.

Their logic is that by minimizing prescription antibiotics we can maximize our own immune systems to beat the superbugs before they become superbugs.

a reply to: Boadicea

If you need an antibiotic then your body wasn't able to beat the bug in the first place.

I understand the waste of medication and lower doses for the full course would counter the fast eradication of competing bugs.

The study (at least the abstract) doesn't say that "minimizing prescription antibiotics we can maximize our own immune systems".

Also, if they got it wrong before why do you trust what they are now saying?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Boadicea

If you need an antibiotic then your body wasn't able to beat the bug in the first place.

Not necessarily and not always. The body is capable of fighting many bacterial (as other infections) without antibiotics; many people seek out medical care (and prescriptions) without first giving the body a chance to fight it, and many doctors pass out those prescriptions without first giving the body a chance to fight it. So there's that.

But let's say the antibiotic was needed and does its job perfectly and kills every single solitary bacteria cell... the immune system is now depleted and is absolutely defenseless against any and all bacteria they come in contact with until the immune system can rebuild itself.... and, as already noted several times, these superbugs are now in the community -- not just healthcare settings. But at this point, any new bacteria -- not just superbugs -- have the upperhand from the gitgo and can mutate into a superbug as an already taxed and compromised immune system struggles to not just rebuild itself, but has to fight a battle with a proverbial blindfold and one hand tied behind its back.

It may also be a matter of re-thinking how we use antibiotics. For example, one school of thought I read about suggests that external MRSA infections should be treated with a topical antibiotic ointment to directly attack the bacteria, but no oral antibiotics to prevent impairing the body's own immune system, thus possibly allowing for the immune system to fight both simple bacterial infections, as well as superbugs. With the help of the topical antibiotics -- as opposed to the threat of the antibiotics -- it's possible our immune systems would learn and develop ways to fight superbugs.

The study (at least the abstract) doesn't say that "minimizing prescription antibiotics we can maximize our own immune systems".

Of course not -- it would have been in quotes if I was quoting the study. If you don't like the way I characterize it, and if you truly want to understand the totality of the issue and research, etc., then I strongly suggest reading the works I linked to -- and of course anything else you feel relevant.

Also, if they got it wrong before why do you trust what they are now saying?

Because the longstanding conventional wisdom was based on one anecdotal case from 80 years ago as opposed to the much more thorough recent clinical medical research... and the real consequences all around us.

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm not sure where you get the immune system becomes depleted because someone took antibiotics. It doesn't work that way.

and if you truly want to understand the totality of the issue and research, etc., then I strongly suggest reading the works I linked to

That is what I did and what I'm pointing out is where I think you misunderstood what the study is saying.

a reply to: daskakik

I'm not sure where you get the immune system becomes depleted because someone took antibiotics. It doesn't work that way.

Yes, it does. And I'm pretty sure you know that. I will post the following for those with a sincere desire to understand the issue...

How Antibiotics Wreak Havoc on Your Gut

We Now Know HOW Antibiotics Kill off Good Bacteria in the Gut

Scientists show how antibiotics enable pathogenic gut infections

Building An Antibiotic To Kill Bad Microbes While Sparing Good Ones

The effects of antibiotics on the microbiome throughout development and alternative approaches for therapeutic modulation

Antibiotics, microbiota, and immune defense

If you would like to present a counter argument, with clinical research to back it up, please do. I am more than happy to have well-rounded discussion. But if you just want to parse words to create specious arguments... well, then I'm done with you.

a reply to: Boadicea

Good bacteria in the gut is only part of the immune system, you just need to rebuild the flora after the course. It isn't that hard and it doesn't create the hyperbolic scenario you posted.

I don't need clinical research to point out that the study isn't saying what you are saying.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Boadicea

Good bacteria in the gut is only part of the immune system...

Yeah... and the gas tank is only one part of a vehicle but it sure isn't going anywhere without it!

However, at least you're now acknowledging that the gut flora is a part of the immune system AND that it is indeed depleted by oral antibiotics.

...you just need to rebuild the flora after the course.

Um hum... that's all...

It isn't that hard...

Except that cannot and will not happen if it's trying to fight an infection simultaneously... and in some people under some circumstances, it may not happen at all.

...and it doesn't create the hyperbolic scenario you posted.

Again, for those with a sincere desire to understand:

Antibiotic Overuse Behind 'Superbug' Outbreak - WebMD

Antibiotic-resistant superbugs now a global epidemic | New Scientist

Epidemic of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections: A Call to Action

Deadly, Drug-Resistant 'Superbugs' Pose Huge Threat, W.H.O. Says

I don't need clinical research to point out that the study isn't saying what you are saying.

Which study? I posted links to several studies -- and much more. I've also said much more than what is in any one study, which by their very nature tends to be quite focused and specific. Thank you for providing the impetus to post further helpful information for greater understanding by others...

And now I'm done with you.