Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / General / February 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Q:Is there a benefit to non-overuse of antibiotics with regards to a person's immune system and the ability of the body to cope with superbugs antibiotic resistant bacteria.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
stan k. - 22 Feb 2004 22:43 GMT
Question about the resistance a non-antibiotic taker would have to
superbugs

Background:
I am currently sick with a bad head/chest cold for which my dr
prescribed me antibiotics. Because I prefer not to use antibiotics
unless I really have to, my dr said he would leave it up to me as to
when to start taking the antibiotics if I felt I ended up needing them
at all.

Why I am cautious about using antibiotics:
1) A recent article links overuse of antibiotics to breast cancer -
perhaps in the future it will be linked to other types of cancer?
2) I feel it's the socially responsible thing to do - to not overuse
(or underuse / incompletely use) antibiotics. Avoiding overuse /
underuse of antibiotics hopefully prevents antibiotic resistant
bacteria, superbugs, from spawning.

My Question:
Is being socially responsible in this regard helping me at all with
regards to a scenario of being infected with an antibiotic-resistant
bacteria (a superbug) or would I be just as vulnerable as the person
who has abused antibiotics regularly for their entire life. Are
prudents users of antibiotics still paying the price of the misuse of
antibiotics by others (IE: irresponsible patients, dishonest food
companies etc)?

I hope the answer will be that, socially responsible people in this
regard will be blessed with stronger immune systems that can adapt to
fight superbugs better than a socially irresponsible abuser of
antibiotics, and that the socially responsible person will also be
less prone to cancer as a result of his prudence with antibiotic use.

I think that if the answer to this question turns out to be that
"everyone loses" when a few people abuse antibiotics, then many people
such as myself will just throw their hands up in the air and give up
on social responsibility (with regards to antibiotic use) since we are
all going down the tubes anyway -- in particular if the person who
refrains from antibiotic use is then even more vulnerable to the
superbugs than his irresponsible antibiotic-abuser fellow citizen is.

Looking forward to comments

Thanks in advance,

Stan
anon - 23 Feb 2004 01:09 GMT
> Because I prefer not to use antibiotics
> unless I really have to, my dr said he would leave it up to me as to
> when to start taking the antibiotics if I felt I ended up needing them
> at all.

Well that's certainly a cop-out on his/her part.

> Why I am cautious about using antibiotics:
> 1) A recent article links overuse of antibiotics to breast cancer -
> perhaps in the future it will be linked to other types of cancer?

Who knows? That article was (typically) way overhyped in the media. It
basically doesn't mean a thing at this point. It only *suggests* the
possibility of a link, much as the existence of the pyramids *suggests*
extraterrestrial life.

> 2) I feel it's the socially responsible thing to do - to not overuse
> (or underuse / incompletely use) antibiotics. Avoiding overuse /
> underuse of antibiotics hopefully prevents antibiotic resistant
> bacteria, superbugs, from spawning.

Well there ya go. [Applause]

> My Question:
> Is being socially responsible in this regard helping me at all with
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> antibiotics by others (IE: irresponsible patients, dishonest food
> companies etc)?

If "superbugs" are created, they will not be solely the problem of the
person they originated with. Bacteria *spread*. Yes, "everyone loses."
But throwing up your hands to the problem of antibiotic resistance is
basically the same as throwing up your hands to other social problems
(littering, obesity, etc.) Change starts with *you*. If everyone just
did the right thing, we wouldn't have these problems to begin with.
PF Riley - 23 Feb 2004 04:40 GMT
>> Because I prefer not to use antibiotics
>> unless I really have to, my dr said he would leave it up to me as to
>> when to start taking the antibiotics if I felt I ended up needing them
>> at all.
>
>Well that's certainly a cop-out on his/her part.

Not necessarily. Perhaps he had some of the more specific signs of
acute post-viral sinusitis but, in the physician's judgment, he could
also easily improve spontaneously over the next few days, so the
doctor felt his subsequent clinical course could help make the
decision of whether to start antibiotics, and that the patient himself
would be capable of observing the course.

And, in fact, there is support in the literature now for doing just
that in the U.S. for ear infections in older children, which tend to
resolve spontaneously without antibiotics, albeit with more pain than
in kids who are treated. In Denmark, kids are brought in every day
after a diagnosis of otitis media and, if not seen to begin improving
within a few days, antibiotics are started. They see plenty resolve
without antibiotics, and they have by far the lowest rates of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the industrialized world. However,
they also have a higher rate of mastoiditis, which, in their social
and political climate, I suppose, is tolerable. Not so in the U.S.
Without a national medical program and with probably much less
tolerant employers, fewer parents here are going to be keen on coming
in daily to have an ear checked to try to avoid an antibiotic, with
the trade-off being more missed days of school and work, and prolonged
pain. Add to that the fact that serious suppurative complications
could increase, and we'd also probably see more lawsuits. Errors of
omission are deemed worse than errors of comission, it appears. Would
you ever hear about a parent suing a doctor for prescribing an
antibiotic for an ear infection that the parent later deemed was not
necessary? Hardly. But you could bet doctors would be sued for not
treating an ear infections that progressed to mastoiditis.

Back to the literature support for a sort of middle-ground. The SNAP
("safety net antibiotic prescription") is one given for an ear
infection that, in the physician's judgment, does not require urgent
treatment and may spontaneously resolve. The parent is instructed to
start the antibiotic within a few days if the ear still hurts, and to
throw it away otherwise if the child spontaneously improves. Parents
were satisfied, most prescriptions were not filled, few extra visits
were needed, and there was no increase in suppurative complications.
Sounds like a good idea to me, rather than a "cop-out."

PF
stan k. - 26 Feb 2004 01:10 GMT
Hi again,

Sorry for the duplicate post earlier. Thanks for all the thoughtful
replies.
So far, based on the replies I've gathered the following and have the
following questions:

1) That the immune system is not weakened by excessive antibiotic use.
(I was under the impression that the immune system would weaken from
lack of use if a person constantly allowed antibiotics to deal with
fighting bad bacteria.)

QUESTION: Are there any scientifically proven methods (exercises,
foods etc) to strengthen the immune system beyond it's normal level?
and the dynamics behind the duration of this effect similar to
physical strengthening via exercise?)

2) That overuse of antibiotics is harmful to the *individual* only in
a temporary sense in that the person's naturally dwelling bacteria
also become temporarily resistant to antibiotics and therefore if
these same bacteria later become harmful such as via viral infection,
then a stronger antibiotic would have to be used.

However if a person allows a bit of time in between antibiotic use,
the body's natural dwelling bacteria lose their resistance to the last
antibiotic taken and as a result the individual is in good standing
for reuse of the same antibiotic again in the future.

3) That an individual or minority group who acts responsibly with
antibiotics will not have any advantage over the majority group of
antibiotic abusers who, as a result of their behaviour, contribute to
the prevalence of superbugs (antibiotic resistant bacteria). In other
words everyone is at risk for the mistakes made by a large portion of
the population.

QUESTION: For the threat of superbugs to truly be a concern - does
the group of
antibiotic abusers have to be a majority? or can you have a scenario
where an  entire society is ravaged by superbugs due to the overuse of
antibiotics within a minority group.
EX: A superbug that lives in central air ducts that was spawned in
hospital settings, eventually spreads to become prevalent in *all*
buildings with central air infecting everyone regardless of whether
they had been over using antibiotics in hospital stays or not.

Regards,
Stan K.
anon - 26 Feb 2004 02:47 GMT
> Are there any scientifically proven methods (exercises,
> foods etc) to strengthen the immune system beyond it's normal level?

If by "scientific" you mean *good* science (as opposed to the "junk
science" that infests the Internet and mass media), the answer is "no."
Basically, take good care of yourself (healthy diet, healthy weight,
don't smoke, exercise regularly, etc., etc., etc, blah, blah, blah) and
you'll stack the deck in your favor. If you neglect your general
overall health, you neglect your immune system, and no pills or potions
will take the place of good all-around healthy lifestyle habits.

> That overuse of antibiotics is harmful to the *individual* only in
> a temporary sense in that the person's naturally dwelling bacteria
> also become temporarily resistant to antibiotics and therefore if
> these same bacteria later become harmful such as via viral infection,
> then a stronger antibiotic would have to be used.

Antibiotic resistance is not "temporary." Once bacteria develop
resistance, they pass it on to their offspring, and so on and so on.
Resistance doesn't disappear unless the resistant bacteria themselves
disappear.

>  However if a person allows a bit of time in between antibiotic use,
> the body's natural dwelling bacteria lose their resistance to the last
> antibiotic taken and as a result the individual is in good standing
> for reuse of the same antibiotic again in the future.

False.

>  QUESTION: For the threat of superbugs to truly be a concern - does
> the group of
>  antibiotic abusers have to be a majority? or can you have a scenario
> where an  entire society is ravaged by superbugs due to the overuse of
> antibiotics within a minority group.

"Yes" to that last part.

>  EX: A superbug that lives in central air ducts that was spawned in
> hospital settings, eventually spreads to become prevalent in *all*
> buildings with central air infecting everyone regardless of whether
> they had been over using antibiotics in hospital stays or not.

Theoretically possible, but statistically improbable. Resistant bugs
spread the same way nonresistant bugs spread. They're just harder to
kill.
PF Riley - 27 Feb 2004 05:01 GMT
>> That overuse of antibiotics is harmful to the *individual* only in
>> a temporary sense in that the person's naturally dwelling bacteria
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Resistance doesn't disappear unless the resistant bacteria themselves
>disappear.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of whether we are referring to
bacteria themselves losing resistance, or to individuals losing
resistant strains.

>>  However if a person allows a bit of time in between antibiotic use,
>> the body's natural dwelling bacteria lose their resistance to the last
>> antibiotic taken and as a result the individual is in good standing
>> for reuse of the same antibiotic again in the future.
>
>False.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=9
402367&dopt=Abstract


He should say, "...the body loses its natural dwelling
antibiotic-resistant bacteria..."

PF
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.