HeyLeroy
Vegan Cannibal
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2005
- Messages
- 5,567
-
Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
-
You may need to edit your signatures. When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.
Are Antibiotics Killing Us?
- Thread starter HeyLeroy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- antibiotics
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Well, I am not sure that anti-biotics are killing us, they should be udes to restore balance to a sustem that is out of whack, but thier use does need to be weighed against potential consequences.
Considering that the human body is an eco-system it makes ense that antibiotics do not remove all 'bad bacteria', they help the body restore balance.
In my own case I have had at least two life threatening infections one that made me totaly miserable and that my body couldn't fight until the tooth was removed, another that if left untreated would have led to the amputation of my leg, so while antibiotics may be overused they are a useful tool.
Considering that the human body is an eco-system it makes ense that antibiotics do not remove all 'bad bacteria', they help the body restore balance.
In my own case I have had at least two life threatening infections one that made me totaly miserable and that my body couldn't fight until the tooth was removed, another that if left untreated would have led to the amputation of my leg, so while antibiotics may be overused they are a useful tool.
From the above-linked article:
Excuse me, but ... Gulf War syndrome?! Throwing that "disease" into the list brings this whole topic under suspicion.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Some of it is a bit out there; but misuse of antibiotic is a serious problem. In much of Oceana and East Asia, antibiotics are commonly available over the counter, and used as frequently as aspirin. New, highly-resistant strains of diseases though to be more or less dead are starting to crop up, thanks to the suppression of natural immune responses that turn the body into one big bacteria breeder. I dread to think what is likely to show up in the next 5 to 10 years because of that.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Er, no. New, highly resistant strains are cropping up because of the selection pressure imposed on the organisms by indiscriminate use of antibiotics. Nothing to do with suppressing natural immune responses.
Rolfe.
Rolfe.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,956
And nothing to do with "balances" either, that's just Kumar speach. Antibiotics kill germs. If they stop killing germs (because they evolve resistant strains), the germs might kill us. But that is not antibiotics killing us, that is germs killing us, just like in the old days before we had antibiotics.
Hans
Hans
Are we very sure of that, natural immune responses or our immune strength or our strength is not effected by the indiscriminate use of antibiotics due to their indicated side/adverse effects?
Mr. Hans,
Can we name this topic as "Are indiscriminate use of antibiotics evolving resistant strains which are/will be killing us"?
I have a big suspicion about TB and other latencies in this regard. I think I have previously indicated it in some other topic.
Can a person with latent infection or cancer, if progressing towards cure by strengthened natural immune responses show some(not all) acute symptoms of that disease during this progress, so treated, may get his naturally strengthened immunity weakened by treatments so......?
Last edited:
Specifically, the theories were about how our bodies might be harboring more benign bacteria than we'd previously suspected, and that by killing those bacteria as well as the malicious ones, antibiotics could have unforeseen adverse effects on our bodies, including possible effects on the immune system.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Yes, it is. Using antibiotics indiscrimnately results in more bugs being exposed; but suppressing natural immune responses creates an ideal breeding ground for the bugs, allowing them more opportunity to develop a tolerance to specific antibiotics. Both conditions are important to the process. Non-immuno-suppressed people can harbour the germs, and impart resistances; but the germs do not develop quite as quickly, and it takes many generations of reproduction to develop a large enough base for them to be a serious threat. Under normal conditions, immuno-suppressed individuals -- such as the elderly -- don't survive long enough to pass along resistant bugs.
A short while ago, I found an interesting book written by a couple of epidemiologists who had spent quite a lot of time in the Far East, which made some disturbing predictions about future strains of supposedly dead diseases. I can't seen to find it at the moment, though (probably in storage with most of my books). According to the doctors who wrote the book, immuno-suppression is a natural result of indiscriminate over-use of antibiotics. Something which I've heard from a number of different sources.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,956
We all agree that indiscriminate use of anitbiotics is a bad thing. However, you need to present evidence to back up the rest of your claims.
Oh, and Kumar: Your quotations do not support your position (as usual
).Hans
We all agree that indiscriminate use of anitbiotics is a bad thing. However, you need to present evidence to back up the rest of your claims.
Oh, and Kumar: Your quotations do not support your position (as usual
Hans
Mr Hans,
Then you can try here;
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=drug+resistance&btnG=Google+Search
Which of my position?
There can be following thoughts on indiscriminate use of modern drugs:-
1. Creating Different resistant strain.
2. Effect on our immune strength or immuno-suppressions.
3. Side/adverse/toxic effects.
4. Cost & getting proper treatments.
5. If we/our cells becoming resistant/immune to drugs effects.
Shadownexius
Student
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2005
- Messages
- 38
In the terms of antibotics as a means of killing us unintentionally or intentionally is highly undoubtful, but it is possible in the most extreme simplicity of scientific mistakes. We know that viruses and bacteria evolve more advanced with each new threat to their existance, which in turn will force it to become something worse. If the antibodic forces the virus or bacteria to feel pressured under its affects, then the viruse or bacteria could adapt into something that could be worse or equivialent to that of HIV. Besides we only have a limited about of antibotics anyway, and each time we create one to kill something or fight against it, they viruses and bacteria adapt and mutate untill we reach a point where antibotics will be completely ineffective at all. Antibotics posses one other possible threat that you could consider important. if the Antibotic is engineered to fight against an illness in your body, what do you think happens if you White blood cells attack it and then attempt to break it down inside themselves. Your Antibotics give false impressions to your body that work like HIV to disable the bodies natural methods of expelling a illness (fever, coughing, etc) the result is that your body become dependant on that new antibotic to do the work, that is why they want you to resort to vacinnes and let your body heal the natural way. All it takes is for your cells to grow attached to the antibotic and thye could all together stop producing white blood cells and rely only on the antibotic.
Either way you look at it, your childrens' children's children will most likely be the genereation they have calculated for having the most problems with antibotic resistance by the viruses and bacteria. So in two more generations or so, this will not matter any how.
Either way you look at it, your childrens' children's children will most likely be the genereation they have calculated for having the most problems with antibotic resistance by the viruses and bacteria. So in two more generations or so, this will not matter any how.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,956
Still no support for your position.Mr Hans,
Then you can try here;
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=drug+resistance&btnG=Google+Search
Don't you know your own position? ..Can't say I'm really surprised.
There can be following thoughts on indiscriminate use of modern drugs:-
1. Creating Different resistant strain.
Correct. That is what we have been talking about
2. Effect on our immune strength or immuno-suppressions.
Doubtful.
3. Side/adverse/toxic effects.
Certainly.
4. Cost & getting proper treatments.
Not really. Antibiotics are rather cheap. That is exactly the reason they are overused in ome places. And for proper treatment, well, for bacterial infections, antibiotics ARE the proper treatment.
5. If we/our cells becoming resistant/immune to drugs effects.
No, that is a misunderstanding. Our cells have ALWAYS been immune to the effects of antibiotics. Otherwise they would kill us, just like the bacteria. It is the bacteria that evolve immunity.
Hans
Really I don't know/understand. Can you explain it in detail?
Thanks for the rest. By drug, I mean all modern medicines, not just antibiotics. Side/Adverse/toxic effects, if any drug can have, may cause some weakness to our body or immune system. Is it not correct?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,956
Kumar, you have various opinions on medicine, health etc. You post a lot of references, but the references do not provide any support for your opinions. I suspect that you either don't actually read your references, or else you cannot understand them.
Well, this therad is about antibiotics, so I suggest you stay on topic.
Weakness, yes. Suppression of immune system, no, that is a rare effect.
Hans
Good forsight & dynamic thought. We may group it in durg's resistance & dependence to our cells/immunity. But if such treatment for today is must with no other choice then how/why to consider for tommorow?
Can it be due to my knowing & indicating some dynamic/different type of thinking on some still unclear conditions?
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,956
Ok, I shall try my best to just ask about my doubts in future. Will it be ok?
To start;
Can our body systems become drug dependance on regular use of modern durgs?
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,956
One problem with your questions is that they are far too general. Forinstance the above. There is simply no straight answer to this. Some drugs can create dependence. Others can't. For instance, if you take laxatives every day, you will get constipated when you stop. And there are different kinds of dependence, too. You problem is that you want to pick out some statement and apply it universally, and that simply doesn't work.
Another problem, of course, is that you try to read complex scientific texts, but your command of English is barely adequate to read simple common texts. I'm sorry that this sounds so harsh, but that is the way it is: You are like a child picking out random shiny pieces from a storage of auto parts, and trying to build a formula I racer from them. And you blame it on the storage when you find that there are parts missing.
I have told you all this before, several times.
Hans
Thanks, but whether drug dependence or some specific drug dependence can effect strength of our immune system?
Rest is bit clear/indicative to all so we may not derail this thread by repetitions.
Btw, What is responsible for immuno-suppression? How can we judge/check that one is immuno-suppressed/deficient?
One healing agent's physico-chemical reactions indicates:-
"It(healing agent) destroys old-senile worn out cells, esp. RBCs, WBCs and macrophases in the liver by taking away their water. Therefore, its defficiency results into excessive useless circulating, wandering cells in blood vessels and causes spherocytosis. Cells are enlarged but with poor performance. They block capilalary ends and cause local ischemic and necrotic changes...
Its defficiency causes sepretion of old cells from growing tissues. They circulate in the body and become antigenic in nature. Thus the body produces auto-immune bodies against these cells. Therefore, it is usful in auto-immune disorders.."
Whether above note clear immune defficiency & autoimmunity due to presence of wandering old, senile worn out cells in body?
Sorry, it may be bit off-topic but impotant in understanding.
One healing agent's physico-chemical reactions indicates:-
"It(healing agent) destroys old-senile worn out cells, esp. RBCs, WBCs and macrophases in the liver by taking away their water. Therefore, its defficiency results into excessive useless circulating, wandering cells in blood vessels and causes spherocytosis. Cells are enlarged but with poor performance. They block capilalary ends and cause local ischemic and necrotic changes...
Its defficiency causes sepretion of old cells from growing tissues. They circulate in the body and become antigenic in nature. Thus the body produces auto-immune bodies against these cells. Therefore, it is usful in auto-immune disorders.."
Whether above note clear immune defficiency & autoimmunity due to presence of wandering old, senile worn out cells in body?
Sorry, it may be bit off-topic but impotant in understanding.
"If immunity is strong, infections aren't a problem. This traditional analogy makes it clear. The body is like a farm. A bacteria is like a seed. The seed won't grow unless the farm land is fertile and feeds it. Antibiotic drugs are designed to attack the seed. They kill the disease bacteria along with healthy bacteria. The drug becomes ineffective when a resistant strain of the bacteria develops. "
What about above note? Do antibiotics also kill healthy bacterias while killing disease bacterias? What about becoming resistant strains of healthy bacterias?
What about above note? Do antibiotics also kill healthy bacterias while killing disease bacterias? What about becoming resistant strains of healthy bacterias?
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Point of correction: resistant/ce not immune/ity in both instances.
Yes. Eagle's eye.
To understand this aspect more clearly--a question;-
How a first time user of any antibiotic can be resistant to the effects of that antibiotic? Many new antibiotics are introduced nowadays.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
In antibiotic resistance it's not the patient that is resistant to the antibiotic. It's the bacteria infecting the patient that are resistant.
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Not eagle's eye. Hans slipped up, but the point is that this is the kind of intuitive understanding that comes from studying a subject properly. This is what you don't get and never have. The ability to pick up little technical slips comes from having a lot of background. What you see is only the tip of the iceberg. All of your Googling just hops you from the tip of one ice peak to another without ever realising whether you are still on the same berg.
To switch metaphors, you have no hinterland Kumar just a paperthin facade that we see through all the time.
(Sorry, Hans. Not meaning to rub your nose in it and I'm sure you get the point I'm making. I'd bet good money that Hans will slot this correction into his understanding because he has put the groundwork in even though medicine is outside his original field of training).
Do you understand what Mojo has just said?
"In antibiotic resistance it's not the patient that is resistant to the antibiotic. It's the bacteria infecting the patient that are resistant."
How about you rephrase and explain that in your own words?
Do You mean to say that our body system or our cells accept antibiotic's exposure without any hesitance/resistance or adverse/toxic effect on them? How? They are also living entities?
How about you look up, oh I don't know... how antibiotics work? Cause you obviously have no clue.
Badly Shaved Monkey
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,363
Clearly. It's quite amazing really. Like I said already, Kumar has no hinterland.
I know these are designed to work only on bacterias not on host. Why then some said, we or our cells are immune or resistant to antibiotics? I think better words will be that these are "ineffective" on our cells.
Anyway, is it immunity, resistance or ineffectiveness of antibiotics on our bodies/cells?
Last edited:
Who is this "some"? Can I see a link?
I think it is there in my last post--may it be in that edited version. Pls re-read.
Btw, I noticed you are not able to read my edited posts(even immediately edited after initial posting), how?
Last edited:
You think "ineffective" would be a better term? In this instance I'd prefer "resistant." In any case, as Mojo said, the issue is with bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. If my pancreas cells get more resistant well, more power to them.
Guess.
Edit: and to address your issue of why our body is resistance to antibiotics, think about it for a second. Antibiotics don't appear on your pharmacy by spontaneous generation. Pharmaceutical companies find them and test them so that they a) kill the bacteria and b) are safe (in relative terms) to us.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
That is the whole point of antibiotics. They kill bacteria but not the patient. To know this, you don't even need to find out how they work. All you need to do is look up the definition of the word "antibiotic" in a bloody dictionary!
Rolfe
Adult human female
Some antibiotics do have some effects on eukaryotic cells. Chloramphenicol for one. Streptomycin can have damaging effects on the ears. It's a risk/benefit calculation. You have to know what you are doing, and which drugs you have to be careful with.
But it's basically the case that antibiotics and antibacterials are compounds which will kill bacteria or prevent them multiplying while having little or no effect on the host's cells. Bacteria can and do evolve resistance, and if this happens then anyone infected with the resistant strain will not be helped by the antibiotic, even if they have never met that organism before, and never taken that antibiotic before, personally.
This reminds me of an earlier thread where someone's girlfriend refused to take antibiotics at all, because of fears of resistance. Of course that was pointless if others were taking them - it only meant that she was rejecting the antibiotics while they might have helped her, for no benefit in the future because she'd be in the same boat as everyone else if she caught a resistant strain.
If all bacteria became resistant to all antibiotics (unlikely) then it's hardly Armageddon. Actual virulence isn't really any different. We'd just be back to the 1930s before the things were invented. And we'd have to dust off our expertise in infection control by other means. By the way, my mother recovered from serious osteomyelitis in about 1930, without any help from antibiotics.
Antibiotic resistance of benign commensals isn't a problem, except insofar as they may transmit resistance plasmids to pathogens. Antibiotics killing commensals is of course a problem. Why do many people get diarrhoea when treated with antibiotics? Why do people on antibiotics get yeast infections? But again, it's hardly the end of the world. These things aren't fatal in themselves, unless the patient is severely immunocompromised or something like that.
I think the article is mainly speculating about the possibility that eliminating commensals might affect the immune system by affecting its "education". Similar to the way that too-clean houses are thought to predispose to asthma, because the immune system evolved to be "educated" in early life by exposure to a range of ordinary common antigens. It's an interesting subject, but I very much doubt that this is "killing us". It's possible that immune system education may be facilitated in future by better vaccines. Exciting topic!
Rolfe.
But it's basically the case that antibiotics and antibacterials are compounds which will kill bacteria or prevent them multiplying while having little or no effect on the host's cells. Bacteria can and do evolve resistance, and if this happens then anyone infected with the resistant strain will not be helped by the antibiotic, even if they have never met that organism before, and never taken that antibiotic before, personally.
This reminds me of an earlier thread where someone's girlfriend refused to take antibiotics at all, because of fears of resistance. Of course that was pointless if others were taking them - it only meant that she was rejecting the antibiotics while they might have helped her, for no benefit in the future because she'd be in the same boat as everyone else if she caught a resistant strain.
If all bacteria became resistant to all antibiotics (unlikely) then it's hardly Armageddon. Actual virulence isn't really any different. We'd just be back to the 1930s before the things were invented. And we'd have to dust off our expertise in infection control by other means. By the way, my mother recovered from serious osteomyelitis in about 1930, without any help from antibiotics.
Antibiotic resistance of benign commensals isn't a problem, except insofar as they may transmit resistance plasmids to pathogens. Antibiotics killing commensals is of course a problem. Why do many people get diarrhoea when treated with antibiotics? Why do people on antibiotics get yeast infections? But again, it's hardly the end of the world. These things aren't fatal in themselves, unless the patient is severely immunocompromised or something like that.
I think the article is mainly speculating about the possibility that eliminating commensals might affect the immune system by affecting its "education". Similar to the way that too-clean houses are thought to predispose to asthma, because the immune system evolved to be "educated" in early life by exposure to a range of ordinary common antigens. It's an interesting subject, but I very much doubt that this is "killing us". It's possible that immune system education may be facilitated in future by better vaccines. Exciting topic!
Rolfe.
Last edited: