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

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Boadicea

But, but, science.

Yes, science. This is exactly how science is supposed to work you know, progression forward.
Just because it changed doesn't mean it was wrong or irrelevant.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Boadicea

I tend to do it this way every time that I'm given antibiotics (which isn't very often...maybe once every two years, at most). I understand that antibiotics doesn't just target the bad in the body, but also starts to deplete the good, and I prefer to preserve the good.

I tend to agree... I can't help but wonder what role probiotics could play in improving this situation. Among other things, our gut flora ("good" bacteria) helps break down the biofilm around bacterial cells, thus aiding our own macrophages, and presumably prescription antibiotics, work better against the infection. So, for example, if probiotics were taken in conjunction with the antibiotics -- perhaps between doses of antibiotics -- thus keeping the good flora replenished, would we see better results all around?

Once an infection starts to subside, I generally stop taking them, even if I have multiple days' worth left. I am a very big advocate of the claim that antibiotics are massively overprescribed.

I agree... and I don't believe it's because us awful patients are demanding them...

originally posted by: strongfp

Yes, science. This is exactly how science is supposed to work you know, progression forward.

Nope, I don't know that -- and neither do you, because it's not true, because it's not science.

Science demands absolute proof. And absolute proof requires that the premise can be replicated each and every time by anyone and everyone. When the same results can be replicated each and every time by anyone and everyone, then and only then is it science.

Therefore science is proven and cannot "progress."

Just because it changed doesn't mean it was wrong or irrelevant.

The science is, was and always will be, so therefore, it does mean that science cannot "change". And if the reality does not match the "science," then yes, the "science" is not science and is very wrong.

And as for relevancy, let me assure you, for those of us who are dealing with the pain and misery of antibiotic resistant diseases, and who have pumped full of this, that and the other prescription antibiotic without cure, we know just how relevant it is that those very antibiotics only made our conditions worse. And if more people understood that conventional medical practice is creating a superbug pandemic/epidemic that no one is safe from, more people would be just as concerned.

You bet it's relevant.

a reply to: Boadicea

Science as a whole doesn't need to be 100% correct hence why we have the scientific method.
Just because the doctors of the past were technically wrong, or right doesn't mean it's false science. What we are seeing is literally how science works, it's weeding out good or bad theories to get to the point of becoming factual.

You are right, but you are missing the whole point of science completely.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Boadicea

Science as a whole doesn't need to be 100% correct hence why we have the scientific method.
Just because the doctors of the past were technically wrong, or right doesn't mean it's false science. What we are seeing is literally how science works, it's weeding out good or bad theories to get to the point of becoming factual.

You are right, but you are missing the whole point of science completely.

I have to profoundly disagree. It is absolutely vital to understand and respect the difference between proven science and an unproven hypothesis... and especially when that hypothesis is based on one anecdotal case from 80+ years ago, NOT controlled clinical research.

Our current superbug crisis is proof of that... as are the countless clinical studies which have demonstrated that there is no one-size-cures-all dosage amount. It is exactly this combination of ignorance and arrogance that brought us to this point. The "ignorance" mistakes theory for science, and the arrogance demands strict obedience to the "gods" of medical science.

And in the process, real people are suffering and dying because conventional medical wisdom isn't working, and no one wants to admit they were wrong all along and find new answers.

As I suggested in another comment, it could be as simple as adding probiotics to the course of treatment to replace the good flora killed off by antibiotics, and thus strengthening the effectiveness of both the prescription antibiotic and the body's own immune system.

But that cannot and will not happen if we continue to mistake theory for facts.

a reply to: Boadicea

Thank you - you're a great thread researcher

a reply to: Boadicea

My first post literally means what you just wrote.

Science can be wrong or right. It has no end game.
The theory of evolution is still a theory, because it still has dozens, and dozens of hypothesis regarding it. But it's still a fact, because it happens.

I don't know what you are trying to argue here.

Alao, I am not arguing against the people who suffer from medical science discoveries or wrong doings. I am arguing that science has it's ups and downs, it's how it works. Without failure it cannot work.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Boadicea

Thank you - you're a great thread researcher

Thank you -- I appreciate that... and I'm glad you appreciate the thread

a reply to: strongfp

I think we actually pretty much agree... I'm don't want to beat a dead horse and I don't want to play semantics, but the distinction is important to understand because... well... garbage in and garbage out.

This command to "take ALL your antibiotics" is founded upon an unfounded theory presented as solid science with little to no effort to actually prove the theory. Medical science accepted it as fact and proceeded on that basis, designing treatments upon a faulty premise which has now backfired big time. That's the ignorance.

Even when superbugs were understood to be a growing problem, rather than reconsider and re-examine their faulty premise -- in accordance with many studies which demonstrate the overuse of antibiotics leads to superbugs! -- they doubled down, and blamed those suffering most because they dared not to take the full course of antibiotics. Thus, the arrogance: The widespread bullying and browbeating of patients who failed to take all their antibiotics, which no doubt resulted in even more people taking too many antibiotics and further escalating the problem. Even children, who are among the hardest hit with these superbugs.

All under the guise of "best medical science" that isn't science at all.

But who is going to do that research and conduct those clinical studies and jump through the FDA's hoops to prove that less is more in order to get the FDA's golden seal of approval? Not the government. Not the pharmaceutical companies who have nothing to gain and everything to lose... who are required by law to put profit FIRST.

And these are the people who control our access to medicine and healthcare. That's a big problem.

I totally agree that there will always be research to be done and clinical trials to run and much to learn. I totally agree that we have to understand that finding out what doesn't work is an important part of the process. I totally agree that mistakes will be made and when we know better, those mistakes will be corrected.

But all of that can only happen if we recognize and respect what we know and what we don't know and act accordingly. Anything less will create problems because garbage in and garbage out. And in this case, those problems include an escalating epidemic of superbugs with absolute agony and excruciating pain for sufferers -- and even death.

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist
It is just my experience, but have seen it way to often. a patient stops taking their antibiotic when they feel well, and 2 or 3 days later end up sick again, back in the pharmacy with another prescription because the infection was not entirely eradicated.

Then these people should look at a diet and lifestyle change.


Antibiotics should only be taken as a last resort. They really screw up your gut bacteria and it can take years to repair if at all.

Anyone with cdif should look at fecal transplants as an option, same goes with anyone that has gut problems.

a reply to: Boadicea

I don't think I've ever completed a full course of penicillin. I always save a few for a rainy day. The sad thing is though, if you tell a doctor you've self medicated with leftover antibiotics, they generally frown upon it and treat you like crap. In my experience...

This is just my experience, so I don't want anyone doing what I have done. I haven't taken a single pharmaceutical drug in over 20 years, (other than the occasional Excedrin when I get a real bad headache), and I am almost never sick. I might get a mild flu every 5 years or so, but nothing a little water and rest can't overcome in a couple days. Personally, I believe being too sterile, or taking medication, actually lowers your immune system and leads you to be sick more often and more severe. Again this is just my experience, I'm not advocating anyone follow my lead, but unless I am in a mortal condition, I will not take a medication, and so far it has worked out very well for me.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Antibiotics should only be taken as a last resort.

And for a minimal quantity/duration.

They really screw up your gut bacteria and it can take years to repair if at all.

So very true!

Our gut flora also plays a role in our overall immune system and ability to heal, which is destroyed by prescription antibiotics.

I was quite impressed when my daughter's doctor advised her to take probiotics with the prescription antibiotics she was given. My daughter already knew to do so, but she was happy to hear her doctor say it as well. She also recommended EmergenC to keep her mineral levels up. I had never heard that antibiotics negatively impacted mineral levels before, but I'm glad the doctor was on it!

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Boadicea

I don't think I've ever completed a full course of penicillin. I always save a few for a rainy day. The sad thing is though, if you tell a doctor you've self medicated with leftover antibiotics, they generally frown upon it and treat you like crap. In my experience...

My mom used to do the same thing -- save a few for rainy days -- and with the doc's approval (perhaps even his suggestion?) That doesn't work these days. I have even heard that some doctors are not monitoring blood levels to make sure the patient is taking their prescriptions as prescribed, and if not then the patient is told to go elsewhere. Not cool.

It's one of the reasons I found this information so disturbing.

a reply to: Boadicea

Interesting thread.

You have tried to use it to further your anti science and anti established medicine agenda, but have actually shown the opposite. It's also quite funny because it's been pointed out to you yet you still refuse to see it, Mike Adams, is that you??

You have shown studies dating back to 2006 and STILL don't get it.

Science does work...it takes time though, the average time for a new drug to reach a patient is 12 years.

You might be susceptible to instant gratification, fortunately though, the scientific method is not.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Boadicea

But, but, science.

This is how science, especially medical science works.

If we flip flopped after every study, we'd get nowhere.

I don't expect you to understand.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Oh dear.... another "science" pretender...

This is how science, especially medical science works.

If we flip flopped after every study, we'd get nowhere.

I don't expect you to understand.

Allow me to quote my previous reply:

Science demands absolute proof. And absolute proof requires that the premise can be replicated each and every time by anyone and everyone. When the same results can be replicated each and every time by anyone and everyone, then and only then is it science. Therefore science is proven and cannot "progress."

It's okay. I don't expect you to understand.

a reply to: Boadicea

Your opinion on thinking that science demands absolute proof is just that, an opinion.

A wrong one at that.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: Boadicea

Your opinion on thinking that science demands absolute proof is just that, an opinion.

A wrong one at that.

Use whatever weasel words you want to obscure the truth and true science.... Something is either proven or it's not. When it's not proven, then it's a scientific theory -- not "science." The study of science includes theories, but true science is based on fact -- not guesses or theories or estimations -- and anyone and everyone can replicate the results each and every time.

a reply to: Boadicea

God you're full of it.

Here, go nuts:

Superseded scientific theories

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)