4 ms·
I always assumed that it was to completely kill it and that resistance was a side effect of not killing it...
by awqrre 10y ago
I always assumed that it was to completely kill it and that resistance was a side effect of not killing it...
- beambot 10y agoYep, you're intelligent enough to make the correct assumption. Unfortunately, I presume many others are not and could really use a little extra education by the pharmacist dispensing meds -- so they also understand the why.
- ddt_Osprey 10y agoMeanwhile, here's me over here, thinking throughout my youth that it was advice to prevent the painful, avoidable side effects withdrawal symptoms. Stepping down off a high dosage in halves is the exact same strategy used to ease people out of addiction. As a kid, I thought anti-biotics were this far-out medicine, so strong and hazardous that coming down off them was something you had to do carefully.
- eru 10y agoA reasonable hypothesis for a kid. Though, if you ever take any antibiotics, they usually don't taper off the dose at the end, do they?
- awqrre 10y agoNot the ones that I've encountered... they used the same dose at the same intervals for the whole period of time... maybe to keep a lethal level in your system the whole time.
- eru 10y agoYes, exactly. And a smart kid might notice that. :)
- ddt_Osprey 10y agoI definitely remember receiving blister packs, decorated with directions and pill groupings that started with 2 pills, at high intervals like every 6 hours, then tapered to 2 pills every 12 hours toward the end of the first week, then 1 pill every 12 hours for the remainder of the pack, and included strict instructions to use the whole thing. I got strep throat a few times as a kid. I don't have perfect recall about the details of what I had to take and when or why, though. But I do remember having to vary dosage.