antibiotic overuse ???

Human Anatomy, Physiology, and Medicine. Anything human!

Moderators: honeev, Leonid, amiradm, BioTeam

Post Reply
androspandros
Garter
Garter
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:21 am

antibiotic overuse ???

Post by androspandros » Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:43 am

Firstly can I say that my knowledge is degree level only and secondly that I only joined today.
I wanted to find a place to air my opinions on this matter as this discussion seems to be another "is there such a thing as global warming" argument. With the no camp having one prime motivation?....money.

Is this another argument along the same lines ?

At first, the people who brought this up seemed to have a point and I must admit I was not only convinced but scared into agreeing with the argument.It seemed almost common sense.

Then I thought about it and came up with a completely different conclusion. It's about saving money ??

My logic (though flawed??):

a) the body has a natural defence against bacteria....not some strains, but ALL bacteria. I don't believe there is a bacteria capable of completely resisting at least some form of attack from the nody.
b) at times... the body's defences alone are not sufficient and the bateria will grow in number.
c) by adding an antibiotic, the bacteria is defeated and we recover.
Excellent! success for the antibiotics.
BUT and this is my guess!
d) there will always be amongst any strain of bacteria eventuallly a resistant mutant form and the most important point ?
e) if there is only a small number of the strain, the body is capable of its defeat still whereas the antibiotic would fail even in small numbers. The bacteria would be seen as resistant to the antibiotic.
f) if the population however was to grow in number...then you would have a resistant population of bacteria. and the above point is proved...
g) BUT....it was NOT the overuse of the antibiotic that was the problem but rather other factors that caused the population growth.

Yes, if the antibiotic hadn't been used in the first place it could never have happened. However the PRIME cause was down to the doctors not hitting the infection initially with a strong enough antibiotic and for long enough ????
The solution therefore changes...
The doctor must obviously treat the infection immediately (and not as suggested play the wait and see game, causing the patient considerable pain and perhaps even costing their lives. Also, and this is the important point...after EVERY use of the drug, there must be ongoing monitoring to ensure its the right drug and at the right strength, taken for long enough to kill the germ.
i.e. hit it hard enough for long enough, and the drug AND the body will ensure no mutant strains survive.

But hey....that costs MORE money!
surprise surprise.

You can then get to the industries that ARE a problem which have been left well alone during this issue. (the evil global corporate empire once more?)
farming and cleansing products ect....

I'll leave this to you specialists out there to explain my mistakes.
Nicely please :)

Have I got a point??

boron
Garter
Garter
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:14 am

Post by boron » Wed Sep 24, 2014 12:07 pm

What is your exact question?

androspandros
Garter
Garter
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 7:21 am

Re: antibiotic overuse ???

Post by androspandros » Mon Sep 29, 2014 3:31 pm

Looks like I don't have a point ?

My question based on my confusing logic ? Is more of a statement...
To ensure that resistant bacteria is not allowed to grow inside a human body requires the administration of the right antibiotic, given early, and for a long enough period of time (hence my suggestion of monitoring of every antibiotic use).
NOT (as suggested and what has been put into practice already) to leave an infection and hope the body can handle it, allowing the proliferation of the mutant, resistant bacteria to take hold.

Sorry if I wasted the 123 peoples time for reading the flawed logic.

:oops:

boron
Garter
Garter
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:14 am

Re: antibiotic overuse ???

Post by boron » Thu Oct 02, 2014 7:24 am

So, you suggest antibiotics should be used more aggressively and precisely to destroy resistant bacterial species before they take hold?

I agree with more precise use of antibiotics based on microbiological tests.

If you leave a mild infection in the body without treating it with antibiotics, this does not mean resistant species will overgrow. But if you treat an infection with an antibiotic, few of the bacteria that may be already resistant to the antibiotic used will overgrow easier when you kill the surrounding bacteria. It is overuse of antibiotics that triggers bacteria resistance, not underuse.

The same thing happens with flu vaccines. They need to produce new flu vaccines each year because new flu virus strains appear each year. Regular vaccination does not prevent flu viruses to change.
http://www.ehealthstar.com/what-is-the- ... nd-flu.php

vera2015
Garter
Garter
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 7:23 am

Post by vera2015 » Thu Apr 30, 2015 8:59 am

As far as i know, antibiotic overuse has many disdavantages. First, increasing the risk of cancer; Second, anaphylactic reaction;Third, disorganizing effective microbial community in intestine and destorying the intestinal ecological balance; Fourth, increasing microbial resistance; Fifth, hysteresising immune function; Sixth, more harmful infection to intestine; Seventh, causing chronic fatigue syndrome; Eighth, causing malnutrition; ninth, fake effects; Tenth, high cost. But every coin has two sides, no matter what thing is, wo can not use it too much or use it too less, especially drugs.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests