Charlies dodgy influence strikes again

[Resurrection Man]

....
People who do not complete courses are responsible (1) for allowing more active bacteria to survive than could do, with the risk of reinfection, and (2) for introducing more antibiotics into the system than needs to be the case, giving a greater chance of resistance occurring because the antibiotics they do take are less effective or even useless.

I must confess that that is what I thought I had written !

[Julien Sorel]

THE danger to the individual is that the infection will recur, and will be more difficult to treat when it does. The danger to the rest of us is that the general population of the infecting bacterium will become more resistant to the antibiotic concerned. If you fail to complete a course of antibiotics, some of the bacteria causing the infection may survive - and these will be the ones with the greatest resistance to the antibiotic. This is an unnatural version of natural selection, and will result in the bacterial population in the afflicted patient having a higher than normal resistance to that antibiotic. As the surviving bacteria reproduce, the resulting infection would not be treatable with the same antibiotic. If the infection is passed on to someone else, their infection will also be resistant to the antibiotic.

Thanks for the explanation (and to Pabmusic for his explanation). It was a genuine rather than rhetorical question .

[Pabmusic]

I must confess that that is what I thought I had written !

Yes. I was supporting you (my only quibble was with one word).

[Resurrection Man]

Yes. I was supporting you (my only quibble was with one word).

[amateur51]

Yes, but it is pure natural selection, rather than an unnatural form.

After any course of antibiotics, there may still be bacteria left - not enough yet to reach an active level (so the infection is 'cured') but some nevertheless. Some may be alive still because they were never exposed to the antibiotic anyway, but (and here's the natural selection bit) some may have been exposed, but carry a mutation that gives protection against the antibiotic. It only takes one bacterium to carry such a mutation and, all other things being equal, over time the proportion of bacteria carrying the mutation will increase within the population until it becomes the dominant form. Hence resistance.

People who do not complete courses are responsible (1) for allowing more active bacteria to survive than could do, with the risk of reinfection, and (2) for introducing more antibiotics into the system than needs to be the case, giving a greater chance of resistance occurring because the antibiotics they do take are less effective or even useless.

When I was writing prescriptions for antibiotics, I was trained to tell the patient to take a double ('loading') dose initially so that the therapeutic blood level of antibiotic is established pretty quickly. Some antibiotics have to be taken with food,too. It's a tricky business sometimes and I don't have experience of modern antibiotics at all.

[umslopogaas]

#103 teamsaint, why do you claim that drug companies will not invest in developing new antibiotics? Of course, this is an expensive business and finding new ones is difficult, but the rewards are great. If they have a new drug that will work where the old ones fail, they are in the money, and if they dont have a new one, people will stop buying their old ones that dont work anymore and they will go out of business. My understanding is that they put an awful lot of money into such research, though no doubt they are very cagey about discussing it.

[teamsaint]

#103 teamsaint, why do you claim that drug companies will not invest in developing new antibiotics? Of course, this is an expensive business and finding new ones is difficult, but the rewards are great. If they have a new drug that will work where the old ones fail, they are in the money, and if they dont have a new one, people will stop buying their old ones that dont work anymore and they will go out of business. My understanding is that they put an awful lot of money into such research, though no doubt they are very cagey about discussing it.

I am just pointing out something that has been widely reported in the mainstream media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/10/opinion/teaming-up-to-make-new-antibiotics.html?_r=0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16203619

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/256416.php

Here are 3 respectable looking links.

It seems that they are more interested in drugs for chronic conditions.

[Pabmusic]

When I was writing prescriptions for antibiotics, I was trained to tell the patient to take a double ('loading') dose initially so that the therapeutic blood level of antibiotic is established pretty quickly. Some antibiotics have to be taken with food,too. It's a tricky business sometimes and I don't have experience of modern antibiotics at all.

Sounds like a good practice. Are you Dr Ams, Ams?

[amateur51]

Sounds like a good practice. Are you Dr Ams, Ams?

Patient: Oh are you a doctor then?

Hancock: Nah, I never really bothered

(The Blood Donor Galton & Simpson)

Aeons ago I trained as a dentist, Pabs.

That usually brings the conversation to a juddering halt

[Pabmusic]

...Aeons ago I trained as a dentist, Pabs..

I've always been scared of dentists.

[MrGongGong]

Aeons ago I trained as a dentist, Pabs.

That usually brings the conversation to a juddering halt

can I have a go in your Porsche ?

[amateur51]

can I have a go in your Porsche ?

If you'll be my carer for the day, I can get you into the British Museum free

[Deckerd]

No GP would tell a patient to take a double dose to start off now. That's almost in the realms of an Old wives' tale and yet I still know of people who do it religiously. There are so many different antibiotics, there are an almost equivalent amount of folklore that goes with them. I don't know how many people I've heard say to me "I'm on antibiotics so I can't drink alcohol" without actually looking at the instructions in the box - ever.

[MrGongGong]

So back OT (slightly)
given that we know that sometimes
antibiotics are misused
what has that got to do with faith healing being available and endorsed by the NHS ?

There are some interesting things here

http://whatstheharm.net/index.html

how come James Rhandi still has his $ million ?
not hard to work out why he does really .........

[amateur51]

So back OT (slightly)
given that we know that sometimes
antibiotics are misused
what has that got to do with faith healing being available and endorsed by the NHS ?

There are some interesting things here

http://whatstheharm.net/index.html

how come James Rhandi still has his $ million ?
not hard to work out why he does really .........

The Great Randi socks it to homeopathy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWE1tH93G9U