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
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.