Move over Kelly, Cheryl REALLY knows how to save $$$$

[Mama Mia]

The WASP approach (wait and see, then prescription) gives your body a short time to start fighting it. If it does, then take the medication. Most people's bodies WILL fight it off. No one's saying don't take antibiotics no matter what. What we're arguing is to give your body a chance first, and then take meds. Antibiotics affect more than just the specific bacteria it's prescribed for. Other bugs it fights that it doesn't kill entirely will leave behind the strongest, and those strongest are what will breed. That's a problem.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thank you. I think you put a common sense approach to antibiotic use very clearly.

I really don't understand how people are going from " antibiotics should be used cautiously" to " antibiotics are bad and should never be used" . No one has said anything remotely close to that.

I also don't get the idea that trips to the doctor and prescription medications as indespensible in every situation. Of course people get rid of some bactererial infections through means other than antibiotics. They have since time began. Does that mean ALL UTI's can be cured without prescription antibiotics? Of course not. But yeah, of course there are herbs and foods with anti- bacterial properties that people have used successfully in cultures around the world. It's like people think that every single person who ever got a UTI died before modern antibiotics were available. How does that make ANY sense? Yes, life expectancy was shorter. Yes people died from things that are now easily cured. But obviously there were people throughout history who did fight off these various infections.

Acknowledging that physicians aren't Gods and prescription medications aren't always the answer does not equal being against Physicians and prescription medications.

[snarkykitty]

Perhaps all of these people recieve random "gifts from God" like anonymous gift cards or extra appliances (or free passes to Disney or dinner out for 20) because they are always screaming it from the mountaintops how stretched/frugal/sacrificing they are to anyone and everyone.

I don't get the point of view that you deserve random stuff. SOMEONE is paying for that stuff, and it isn't God.

[Mama Mia]

Perhaps all of these people recieve random "gifts from God" like anonymous gift cards or extra appliances (or free passes to Disney or dinner out for 20) because they are always screaming it from the mountaintops how stretched/frugal/sacrificing they are to anyone and everyone.

I don't get the point of view that you deserve random stuff. SOMEONE is paying for that stuff, and it isn't God.

I think the whole money making/ freebie blog idea is over my head. Whether it's fundies or anyone. I just don't get it.

But, to be fair, the washing machine was a spare one from a cousin -- I think that's something that would be normal for pretty much anyone, right? A family member / close real life friend is upgrading or otherwise getting rid of an appliance or furniture -- they remember you had mentioned your washer breaking, or that you were using the laundramat. Wouldn't the natural thing be to offer you the washing machine they didn't need? Or even just shoot an email off to their immediate circle asking if anyone needed a washer?

[nelliebelle1197]

I think the whole money making/ freebie blog idea is over my head. Whether it's fundies or anyone. I just don't get it.

But, to be fair, the washing machine was a spare one from a cousin -- I think that's something that would be normal for pretty much anyone, right? A family member / close real life friend is upgrading or otherwise getting rid of an appliance or furniture -- they remember you had mentioned your washer breaking, or that you were using the laundramat. Wouldn't the natural thing be to offer you the washing machine they didn't need? Or even just shoot an email off to their immediate circle asking if anyone needed a washer?

Silly rabbit. A cousin didn't decide. Fundiegod decided to give them a washer. Nothing can be explained by people just being nice and looking out for their crazy cousins who breed like homeschooling hamsters.

[carebaer]

Hey no guilt trips intended. It's not just personal opinion on my part it is actually part of my day job. Not to guilt folk, just awareness and education.

Maybe not "intended" but the following certainly sounds like criticizing people for going to see the doctor when sick and then taking the antibiotics prescribed:

Well damn you poor old folk with C-diff and MRSA and damn the future generations .. My throat is sore.

.

[OkToBeTakei]

Maybe not "intended" but the following certainly sounds like criticizing people for going to see the doctor when sick and then taking the antibiotics prescribed:

.

Yeah. So what be your point? Do you have anything productive to add?

There has been some naive statements and some personal reasons for folks opinions, I respect that, whilst maybe not agreeing. Your type of post though... Yeah ... Pointless.

We can all cut and paste, across multiple posts.

[nelliebelle1197]

OKTBTK, I don't think you have room to criticize anyone AS LONG AS YOU FORCE ME TO LOOK AT THAT CHICKEN! :lol:

[FundieWatcher]

That chicken is reinforcing my vegetarianism.

[polecat]

Maybe not "intended" but the following certainly sounds like criticizing people for going to see the doctor when sick and then taking the antibiotics prescribed:

.

That comment of hers really has nothing to do with people who need to take abx for legitimate reasons (according to the way I read it).

If a person has an infection and is prescribed an abx, he or she should take it exactly as prescribed. There's no more reason for guilt in that scenario than there is when a depressed person takes antidepressants or a diabetic injects insulin.

However. If a person sneezes or has a sore throat due to a viral illness (or heck, allergies), bullies his or her doctor into prescribing an abx, and then takes a few pills before ditching the abx because he or she is now feeling better, he or she IS a part of the problem. Nothing to do with guilt trips -- just a fact.

[BlondeAgent007]

I get the feeling she is talking about using cloves to cure a toothache. Completely. It may be a good temporary solution, but you still need a dentist to tell you why your tooth is aching. It could be a tooth infection, and well, those kill people.

[OkToBeTakei]

Shit guys. The chicken. Time for another change I suppose.

It's ruining all my gravitas : lol:

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Right after I had my third child I got sick. I went to the OB who did a culture for a uti or other things. They said they would call if I had something and needed meds. Meanwhile, I took cranberry pills and juice and garlic and vitamins and I was fine a day later. Six WEEKS later they call me to ask how I was doing after my UTI. I said yall never called me to tell me I had a uti! And that I was fine. They tried to subscribe me antibiotics at that point "just in case." I refused. I think it's ridiculous they wanted to give me abx at that point. That's what I consider misuse. Luckily I haven't had a lot of doctors like that. I've only taken abx a couple times in my life and I think only one of my kids has had them even once (of course we are lucky in the health dept so far ::knock on wood::)

[Curious]

When I was at the rehab hospital after my surgery, the dr. there left something to be desired, IMO.

My poor husband was using Dr. Google to try and find meds to help me with certain problems and then the dr. would script them for me because his attitude seemed to be "what do you want to do," rather than I'm the medical professional and this is what I think would be a good course of action.

I was often not involved in these discussions at the beginning due to my condition, though my husband said I was there during them, I have no recollection of most of them.

Once I was more lucid and had started to recover better, I was having some UTI symptoms so asked for a test to be on the safe side. The dr. asked if I wanted antibiotics "just in case." I declined and the test came back negative and the ultrasound I had showed that my bladder, kidneys and all that stuff looked fine. The next time the dr. came in to see me and asked if the symptoms were better and I said no, he asked if I wanted antibiotics (again), just to be on the safe side. I declined again.

I had just had a major surgery on my spine and still have spinal issues that have not been fixed. The area that I had surgery on can cause issues like incontinence, so it made sense to me the non-medical professional that the symptoms were a result of nerves being aggravated/irritated, just like other nerves causing pain or weird symptoms unrelated to a potential UTI.

I still have the symptoms the majority of the time and my surgeon suggested another TEST just to make sure since perhaps it wasn't far enough along to be picked up or whatever. When I go to my dr. the next time, I may have him order another test, but I think it's pretty clear 4 months out that it's just nerves being wonky while they heal, which can take years in some cases depending on the amount of damage done to them.

The rehab dr. is one of the problems, IMO. If I was a different kind of person or not well educated about my particular conditions or this was my "first rodeo" in terms of the type of surgery I had, then I may have ended up on unnecessary antibiotics for much of my stay at the rehab hospital.

[church_of_dog]

For me, it's just a scent that helps me relax. When I get headaches, I get tense, and the tension makes them worse. So if I can physically relax and lose the tension, my headaches will go away faster. It's not like eucalyptus or peppermint that have an actual physical effect on most people, like it or not. It's a thing entirely in my head. It takes me to a happy play, and tension melts away because of my more relaxed mental state.

If you get tense during headaches, which will make them worse, but there's a scent that always makes you feel relaxed and light when you get a whiff, it couldn't hurt to give it a try. It might work for you, might not, but it's a case of it couldn't hurt to try.

I guess it's an off-label use of vanilla. :D In summer, cucumber works better since the smell of cucumber also makes me feel slightly cooler. A mental connection to chilled cukes from the fridge. :)

Thanks! This makes sense, and also gives me some ideas to try.

[carebaer]

That comment of hers really has nothing to do with people who need to take abx for legitimate reasons (according to the way I read it).

If a person has an infection and is prescribed an abx, he or she should take it exactly as prescribed. There's no more reason for guilt in that scenario than there is when a depressed person takes antidepressants or a diabetic injects insulin.

However. If a person sneezes or has a sore throat due to a viral illness (or heck, allergies), bullies his or her doctor into prescribing an abx, and then takes a few pills before ditching the abx because he or she is now feeling better, he or she IS a part of the problem. Nothing to do with guilt trips -- just a fact.

Maybe that is what she intended. But just as no one here said antibiotics are of the devil and should never be used, no one said "I demand antibiotics for any sore throat." And OkToBeTakei has been arguing that antibiotics should not be prescribed in many cases of infection. So I found responding to the question of why they are still routinely prescribed for those infections with an assumption that patients think "damn you all my throat is sore" to be overly critical.

In the same post she also said:

I'm sure not all these people are immuno-compromised or chronically ill. They ARE set and convinced though...hey ho!

Which implies that the other people in this thread who have said they take symptoms of certain infections very seriously and head straight to the doctor are part of the problem. Apparently where OkToBeTakei lives antibiotics are prescribed less routinely. It may be that that approach is a good idea. However, my experience with US doctors is infections come with a prescription. The last two times I took antibiotics I got a medical assistant calling me saying "The test results show so Dr. X has called in a prescription for " One of those times the doctor told me she thought I had a virus but wanted to do lab testing "just in case." So I had no discussion about antibiotics with the doctor. Maybe in places where antibiotics are prescribed less routinely one might assume that someone who was very concerned about a particular infection must also be pushy or demanding about antibiotics, but I don't see that as the case for anyone on this thread.

So that post came across to me as "I some random person you don't know who posts on an internet said I do research for my job so you people who go to the doctor and follow his/her directions must not care about future generations." It may not have been intended that way but it came across as overly critical of others here.

[OkToBeTakei]

Maybe that is what she intended. But just as no one here said antibiotics are of the devil and should never be used, no one said "I demand antibiotics for any sore throat." And OkToBeTakei has been arguing that antibiotics should not be prescribed in many cases of infection. So I found responding to the question of why they are still routinely prescribed for those infections with an assumption that patients think "damn you all my throat is sore" to be overly critical.

In the same post she also said:

Which implies that the other people in this thread who have said they take symptoms of certain infections very seriously and head straight to the doctor are part of the problem. Apparently where OkToBeTakei lives antibiotics are prescribed less routinely. It may be that that approach is a good idea. However, my experience with US doctors is infections come with a prescription. The last two times I took antibiotics I got a medical assistant calling me saying "The test results show so Dr. X has called in a prescription for " One of those times the doctor told me she thought I had a virus but wanted to do lab testing "just in case." So I had no discussion about antibiotics with the doctor. Maybe in places where antibiotics are prescribed less routinely one might assume that someone who was very concerned about a particular infection must also be pushy or demanding about antibiotics, but I don't see that as the case for anyone on this thread.

So that post came across to me as "I some random person you don't know who posts on an internet said I do research for my job so you people who go to the doctor and follow his/her directions must not care about future generations." It may not have been intended that way but it came across as overly critical of others here.

OH FER FUCK SAKE :lol:

Get over yourself, and yeah, add something to the conversation. Long critiques of posts...yeah been there done that. Those WERE the days 8-)

[polecat]

Maybe that is what she intended. But just as no one here said antibiotics are of the devil and should never be used, no one said "I demand antibiotics for any sore throat." And OkToBeTakei has been arguing that antibiotics should not be prescribed in many cases of infection. So I found responding to the question of why they are still routinely prescribed for those infections with an assumption that patients think "damn you all my throat is sore" to be overly critical.

In the same post she also said:

Which implies that the other people in this thread who have said they take symptoms of certain infections very seriously and head straight to the doctor are part of the problem. Apparently where OkToBeTakei lives antibiotics are prescribed less routinely. It may be that that approach is a good idea. However, my experience with US doctors is infections come with a prescription. The last two times I took antibiotics I got a medical assistant calling me saying "The test results show so Dr. X has called in a prescription for " One of those times the doctor told me she thought I had a virus but wanted to do lab testing "just in case." So I had no discussion about antibiotics with the doctor. Maybe in places where antibiotics are prescribed less routinely one might assume that someone who was very concerned about a particular infection must also be pushy or demanding about antibiotics, but I don't see that as the case for anyone on this thread.

So that post came across to me as "I some random person you don't know who posts on an internet said I do research for my job so you people who go to the doctor and follow his/her directions must not care about future generations." It may not have been intended that way but it came across as overly critical of others here.

Or maybe it was meant to come across as critical of those who abuse abx.

Really, I would like to think that no one here is going to be pushing for abx for colds or influenza. But it's ridiculous to pretend that people (in general, I mean) don't. And tbh, people NEED to be speaking out. It's the only way to educate those who really do believe that penicillin will cure a cold or Z-paks will cure the flu (I can't even tell you how many times I've read someone on FB talking about getting their Z-paks for the flu this past winter. Good lord.)

[FundieWatcher]

I wonder how many doctors visits and prescriptions happen simply because people need work notes.

I don't know how strictly it is enforced, but technically after 3 days of calling out of work you need a note from your provider at my job. Even if you just have a cold or the flu and it is getting better, you are suppose to get that note verifying you are really sick by that 4th day.

I can imagine many antibiotics, nasal sprays, chest rubs, etc... never get picked up from the pharmacy or never get used. The provider feels like they should offer you something, after all you waited for them and paid your copay. When really people just need that work excuse.

[littlemommy]

I know a mom (*cough* sister-in-law *cough*) that gets super aggressive if she thinks the kids need antibiotics, whether the doc agrees or not. I am willing to bet 50% of the antibiotics her kids have taken were prescribed by busy doctors just trying to get an insane mom out of their hair.

[Walking Cat Bed]

Or maybe it was meant to come across as critical of those who abuse abx.

Really, I would like to think that no one here is going to be pushing for abx for colds or influenza. But it's ridiculous to pretend that people (in general, I mean) don't. And tbh, people NEED to be speaking out. It's the only way to educate those who really do believe that penicillin will cure a cold or Z-paks will cure the flu (I can't even tell you how many times I've read someone on FB talking about getting their Z-paks for the flu this past winter. Good lord.)

I actually checked in with various administrative folks at my university about that -- antibiotics don't do anything for viruses. The cold/flu are viruses, which is why there are vaccines. I'm not a scientist, but they're different organisms that function differently, and so methods that work for one won't work for the other.

[Mama Mia]

I know a mom (*cough* sister-in-law *cough*) that gets super aggressive if she thinks the kids need antibiotics, whether the doc agrees or not. I am willing to bet 50% of the antibiotics her kids have taken were prescribed by busy doctors just trying to get an insane mom out of their hair.

But if the Doctor knows that the antibiotics are useless - it's really 100% on them to not prescribe them. Having your kids take unnecessary antibiotics is harmful. It's the Doctors responsibility to explain that they are worse than useless for a virus. No matter how busy they are, giving an uneccessary prescription for antibiotics is wrong.

Should the Dr. listen to the parent if they think the Doctor is missing something? Absolutely. Maybe the mom is demanding a test for strep because little Billy has a history of nasty strep infections. Or she knows, that Sally always gets a bad ear infection after a cold and that amoxicillin only damps it down but eurythreyicin knocks it out. So she insists on ruling those things out.

But that's different than a doctor caving in to pressure to prescribe antibiotics for a virus.

[Deist woman]

On the subject of strep and antibiotics: When my oldest daughter was 7, the whole family had some minor respiratory type illness, mild fever, sore throat, etc. The rest of us got over it, and I thought my daughter had, as well. But she was still acting tired, appetite poor, not really back to herself. A week or so after we thought she was well, she started running a low grade fever off and on. Then one day her fever was over 102 degrees, so I took her to the pediatrician. Positive strep screen, so they started her on antibiotics; I was to bring her back if she was still not improved after 48 hours. Back to the doctor again, and they changed antibiotics. 48 hours later, she has high fever, stiff neck, and headache. Back to doctor, and this time a spinal tap was done. The spinal tap was normal, so she was sent home. 48 hours later, her neck is so stiff, it is frozen in place with her chin almost touching her left shoulder, and she can't stand for her head to move at all. Back to doctor, and this time admitted to hospital.

After CT scans, she was diagnosed with an abscessed lymph node in her neck, that was putting pressure on the cranial nerve and causing her head to be frozen in that position. The abcess is the size of a large plum, and has taken up so much room in her neck that her trachea was pushed to one side. Two surgeries, one night in intensive care, and 16 days of IV antibiotics, I finally got to bring her home. It was another 6 weeks before she was completely recovered.

I was a nurse. I was going on the conventional advice that, if symptoms last longer than 48 hours, see the doctor. Come back if symptoms aren't improved in 48 hours. I did all those things, but what was a mild infection that the rest of the family fought off, ended up being a complication of strep throat that nearly killed my daughter. For 999 out of 1000 other kids, the belief that if the fever goes away within 48 hours, it probably is viral and isn't strep and does not need a doctor visit, was dead wrong for my one in a thousand daughter.

You can't always gamble on the odds that the illness will be fine without seeing a doctor. So, it really hits me wrong when parents base care considerations for their children on their own convenience. I knew a mother who was advised to take her young child to the ER because of a high fever, vomiting, and signs of dehydration. She decided to wait until her husband got home from work because "I am NOT taking 5 children out at 2 in the morning!" I feel that each child deserves all of the care and consideration of an only child, when it comes to health care. It is not that child's fault that the parents decided to have so many children that it is logistically inconvenient to take one to the hospital at an inconvenient hour. This child had to suffer longer, and become more ill while waiting for child care for the other four kids. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", doesn't really fly when it comes to kids, in my book.

[DGayle]

However, my experience with US doctors is infections come with a prescription. The last two times I took antibiotics I got a medical assistant calling me saying "The test results show so Dr. X has called in a prescription for "

There's less liability for a doctor. Giving a prescription is often seen as "doing everything the doctor can," in the event that you die, even if you would have died anyway. If you die without a prescription, people want to know why you weren't given anything. If you die while taking a prescription, nobody asks if it was really needed. So better safe for the sake of the doctors' liability, than sorry.

[DGayle]

It's the only way to educate those who really do believe that penicillin will cure a cold or Z-paks will cure the flu (I can't even tell you how many times I've read someone on FB talking about getting their Z-paks for the flu this past winter. Good lord.)

Which scares the shit out of me. That's the only, and I mean ONLY, non-IV antibiotic I'm not deathly allergic to. If Zithromax stops being effective, I'm fucked. Misusing it isn't helping those people, and if anybody wants to talk about "for the societal good," isn't it for the societal good not to misuse medication because if makes someone mentally think something is happening? People say everyone should be required to get vaccines, we've had people in this threat say if you get strep, you need to get antibiotics to make sure it doesn't spread, both "for the good of society." But try saying that antibiotics aren't always needed for the good of society, and suddenly it's really a decision that should be left up to a patient and doctor.

[DGayle]

I knew a mother who was advised to take her young child to the ER because of a high fever, vomiting, and signs of dehydration. She decided to wait until her husband got home from work because "I am NOT taking 5 children out at 2 in the morning!" I feel that each child deserves all of the care and consideration of an only child, when it comes to health care. It is not that child's fault that the parents decided to have so many children that it is logistically inconvenient to take one to the hospital at an inconvenient hour. This child had to suffer longer, and become more ill while waiting for child care for the other four kids. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", doesn't really fly when it comes to kids, in my book.

If a parent alone has 5 kids in the ER at a time like that, she might not be able to give her undivided attention to the sick kid, and could forget to mention some vital things if she's halfway paying attention to the other kids to make sure they aren't tearing the place apart. So it could be safer for the kid who was sick to wait a little longer.

A better example would be of a friend's toddler whose leg was injured. The dad was swinging the baby around, and whacked the baby's leg into a wall corner on accident. Poor little thing couldn't stand, but his dad would be damned before missing the rest of a sports game because THAT was inconvenient. And since she didn't have a license, she had to wait for him to get his ass out the door. The baby's leg was broken. (All little kids are babies to me when they're sick--this baby in question was 2 years old.)

At least the mom you knew was waiting for childcare because it would be easier to give the sick kid her undivided attention, and in that case, ease could have impacted the appropriate care.