badposting
badposting is a comm where you post badly
This is not a !the_dunk_tank@hexbear.net alternative. This is not a !memes@hexbear.net alternative. This is a place for you to post your bad posts.
Ever had a really shitty bit idea? Joke you want to take way past the point of where it was funny? Want to feel like a stand-up comedy guy who's been bombing a set for the past 30 minutes straight and at this point is just saying shit to see if people react to it? Really bad pun? A homemade cringe concoction? A cognitohazard that you have birthed into this world and have an urge to spread like chain mail?
Rules:
- Do not post good posts.
- Unauthorized goodposting is to be punished in the manner of commenting the phrase "GOOD post" followed by an emoji that has not yet been used in the thread
- Use an emoticon/kaomoji/rule-three-abiding ASCII art if the rations run out
- This is not a comm where you direct people to other people's bad posts. This is a comm where you post badly.
- This rule intentionally left blank.
- If you're struck for rule 3, skill issue, not allowed to complain about it.
Code of Conduct applies just as much here as it does everywhere else. Technically, CoC violations are bad posts. On the other hand: L + ratio + get ~~better~~ worse material bozo
view the rest of the comments
The full dose of antibiotics is kind of a myth actually. Once you've cleared the infection you're pretty much good to go. The bigger risk comes from exposing your normal flora to repeated rounds of unnecessary antibiotics and developing resistance that gets scooped up by pathogens at some later point. Also agriculture.
Isn't the worry that you'd stop taking antibiotics before the infection is actually clear? Like, you'd feel fine, but there's enough there that it could flare back up.
Yeah that poster is dangerously wrong about not finishing your antibiotic regimen. Furthermore as I said above doxycycline is ~~meant for dogs not people.~~ for dogs and specific ailments that other antibiotics are not effective on and people allergic to amoxycillin and you should probably not get medical advice in the shitposting comm of a shitposting forum
Doxycycline is prescribed to humans too. It targets skin infections and as a result makes your skin photosensitive while using it.
Yeah I edited my post but the reason I was panic posting about it was mainly because I mostly only see it used for animals (specifically dogs but you're right about skin conditions) and because the person was saying that you shouldn't finish your prescription once symptoms are gone because that is literally how we may end up with AB resistant bacteria. That and of course overprescription which is also a legitimate concern but more of a concern with livestock that just get pumped full of unneccessary antibiotics.
Yeah I remember looking it up years ago and had that rattling around in my head, glad to know I didn't misremember!
I was also sort of wrong. It is in fact prescribed for people but typically only those allergic to amoxycillin and only for specific bacterial infections that may be resistant to amoxy.
Furthermore you would not prescribe antibiotics for an ingrown hair unless there were other factors. I think badposting should probably not allow people to spread dubious medical information/misinformation.
I'm not dangerously wrong, I'm dangerously up to date on medical literature. There's been a lot of debate about the subject but it came to a head about ten years ago and most modern evidence points to the advice being mainly a relic of early antibiotic studies and anecdotes.
There are certain treatment courses that are long for a reason and certain courses that are long because "it can't hurt to make sure" and almost no one is knowledgeable about which is which and why. Medicine is stubborn and takes multiple generations to shift practices from something that "has always worked" to something new that is supported by evidence.
Ah well I stand corrected thank you.
This still worrying. This country sucks so much when it comes to trying to sort through actual concrete medical science vs. misinformation. Apologies if that came off as an attack on your character.
No worries at all and you're 100% in the right place. I've had this same interaction with multiple MDs that I know so it's not like this is widespread information. I just have the right mixture of ASD and science training that collects weird information and doesn't let it go.
Right on, part of the reason why I am pretty open to self crit on this is that I was also a student of evolutionary biology but not in academia for almost 20 years now.
You have nothing to criticize yourself over here.
That essentially used to be the case at the dawn of antibiotics when someone was septic and they took some penicillin and went from (accurately) feeling like they were about to die to feeling dramatically better but still needing to continue the course to adequately clear the infection from the bloodstream. Now if you're septic you'll get pumped full of IV Augmentin in a hospital and ramp it up from there if it's not clearing, you don't get the option of deciding to stop early.
Modern medical evidence points to the importance of always finishing your antibiotic course to be a myth that leads to unnecessary extended antibiotic exposure.
I would need to see a source for this. That is a hefty claim when talking about potentially developing antibiotic resistant pathogens.
Yes definitely always finish your prescribed antibiotic regimen for the exact opposite reason above poster mentioned. Also as I am in training to replace a vet tech I also find this post extra funny because doxycycline is specifically an antibiotic that is intended ~~meant for dogs not people.~~ for dogs and specific ailments that other antibiotics are not effective on and people allergic to amoxycillin and you should probably not get medical advice in the shitposting comm of a shitposting forum
Doxycycline is a very common antibiotic for humans if they are allergic to penicillin and sulfa
I'm dog??
Here's a random paper from 2013 talking about it. It's something that is a little tough to nail down but the evidence since then consistently points to antibiotic resistance genes arising in native flora rather than the pathogens themselves and then getting opportunistically picked up by pathogens later.
It makes intuitive sense if you know how horizontal gene transfer works in bacteria (which most people don't because it's complicated and weird), but imagine exposing a single strep infection to a single course of antibiotics. Even if you don't kill every cell with the drug, you've almost certainly weakened it enough for a competent immune system to finish mopping the floor with the infection. Now imagine the trillions of other bacteria that are always present in your body being exposed to every course of antibiotics that you've ever taken and, rather than being cleared by the immune system, repopulating. Which of those scenarios is more likely to encourage resistance? Now add in the fact that most bacteria can drink each other's milkshakes and you've got an inevitable MDR crisis brewing.
But also agriculture. My God is agriculture bad for developing drug resistance genes.
That paper doesn't really prove your point, just shows it as potential and is early research.
Big assumptions on the competent immune system. Moreover If you stop taking the antibiotics and the strep comes back, you've now made developing antibiotic resistance twice as likely through both mechanisms. I simply do not see this as a compelling argument against taking your entire antibiotic regiment.
I agree on the ag stuff though, its a huge issue.
I can't post the entire body of evidence from the intervening 13 years since that paper was published but it agrees with what I'm saying because my opinions are based on that body of evidence.
A deliberate assumption. You need one of those to clear an infection, if you've got a compromised immune system and a doctor tells you to fuck off and take some pills for a bacterial infection they're committing malpractice.
That's just not what is seen clinically. People stop their antibiotics early all the time, it's practically baked into the treatment protocols. If that were the primary or even a major mechanism of drug resistance people would be dropping dead left right and center from common infections.
The other thing is that I'm not advocating for "just do whatever you want with antibiotics," that's the opposite of what I'm saying. Every time you take antibiotics you are exposing hundreds of millions of distinct microbial populations to that drug, not just the single pathogenic organism. People should be much more aware of when it is necessary to use antibiotics and when it is unnecessary and understand that unnecessary use is potentially harmful.
Ultimately, take your full course or stop a couple of days early if you're already better, it makes little difference, just don't go out begging for antibiotics every time you've got a runny nose. Also jail agricultural executives.
Immune system issues are not all or nothing. I take immune suppressants to lower the number of B-cells for example. If I got a bacterial infection, the doctor would probably be fine with just giving me antibiotics, but if I stop because I feel better before my T-cells have kicked in, then we're looking at a growing infection of bacteria that could be resistant to the previous antibiotic.
So you hate waffles?
Obviously, antibiotics should be taken with care to try to limit microorganism exposure as much as possible. But when you have an infection and are prescribed antibiotics, take them and take all of them.
I'm doing my best to try not to be combative, I am well-versed in immunology. I obviously wasn't accusing you personally of seeking out antibiotics in the same way I wasn't calling for you personally to go out and jail anybody.
The body of medical literature disagrees with what you are saying. There was a time where doctors would deride you if you tried to explain disease as something other than an imbalance of the humors. There was a time beyond that when laypeople would do the same. Eventually evidence won but medicine moves slowly. The evidence does not support the notion that longer courses of antibiotics are necessary, beneficial, or even harmless.
That paper does not suggest that you should just stop taking antimicrobials, however. You are preaching to the wrong target. That paper, with only 15 citations, suggests that research should be done to find better antimicrobial regimes per disease and patient, not to ignore your doctor and stop taking the medication whenever. I would suggest reading through the rapid responses for this cited paper for issues with that logic. It even lists a disease in which antibiotics should be taken for longer. While the idea that different situations could call for shorter antibiotic regimens, I don't believe it is responsible to suggest that it is a myth that taking the full round of antibiotics is necessary for a mystery disease for a relatively new hypothesis. If this is where the medical field ends up moving, then it would still be important to follow the advice of a doctor.
Also holy god is that what counts as an article in medicine? I should've become a doctor.
The problem with this is that you don't actually know when you've cleared the infection. Becoming asymptomatic is not a good guide. Take the full cycle.
It's a pretty good indication actually. Your body is extremely well-tuned to pick up on the presence of bacterial infection.
[citation needed]
but unironically. Your symptoms come from your immune response, not the bacteria. When the molecular machinery that can detect femtomolar levels of bacterial antigen turns off it's a solid sign that it's been kicked.
I remain unconvinced of the original claim for reasons that KnilAdlez articulated, but I'm not trying to provoke you or make you feel bad or anything. I was just hoping there was good experimental evidence directly supporting your claim.
Rule 3.
Here's a paper with lots of evidence cited. There's lots and lots and lots and lots more. Note that when these authors say "traditional" courses of treatment they mean the length of treatment that every single doctor in the Western world will prescribe. That it's vitally important that you take all of. But it's longer than it needs to be. Why not take them for six weeks "just in case?" Ultimately, the more we use antibiotics the less time we will have where they are useful. It's better to use them as sparingly as possible within safe margins if we want to be able to keep using them.
I appreciate the positivity in your response by the way. I really struggle with not coming off as a huge asshole online and that's an excellent way to soften a point that you don't mean to be harsh. I'm going to try and start using it.