4 ms·

The author here clearly has an axe to grind. Is this an established fact now, or an exaggeration of one study?

• jameskilton 9y ago
  Pretty sure the point of the article is that the idea that we need to take the full round of antibiotics is itself an exaggeration of one study that's now known to be wrong, and dangerously so. If we've been creating resistant bacteria because we've been following this "take it all" mentality, then I don't really blame the author for getting a little worked up over this.
• zellyn 9y ago
  If by "grinding an axe" you mean "trying to ensure that humanity preserves some of its best weapons against disease instead of squandering them". Seems fine to be emphatic about that.
• DennisP 9y ago
  From the article: "in the last two decades, we actually have had dozens of clinical trials published demonstrating that shorter courses of antibiotics are just as effective as longer courses." And from the linked WHO page: "There has been a lot of research into how long antibiotic courses should be, to determine the shortest possible length of course needed to completely kill all bacteria....Evidence is emerging that shorter courses of antibiotics may be just as effective as longer courses for some infections....They also reduce the exposure of bacteria to antibiotics, thereby reducing the speed by which the pathogen develops resistance." http://www.who.int/features/qa/stopping-antibiotic-treatment/en/ http://www.who.int/features/qa/stopping-antibiotic-treatment...
  • Retric 9y ago
    'Reducing the speed' Is this being measured or just an assumption? Because resistance shows up extremely quickly with short dosage. But, it seems like a dangerous experiment.