3 ms·
The message could be right, but the unnecessarily condescending and derisive tone of this article undermines its effectiveness. I for one don't feel any more in
by danmaz74 9y ago
The message could be right, but the unnecessarily condescending and derisive tone of this article undermines its effectiveness. I for one don't feel any more informed about the data showing that longer courses of antibiotics create enhance the chances of creating resistant bacteria, nor about why this happens.
- gozur88 9y agoHe describes himself as an expert two or three times in the short article. When I see that it makes me wonder if it's really true. It's like when people repeatedly describe themselves as strong or independent - who are they trying to convince? Based on his cv he probably really is an expert, but still, it's bad writing.
- mikk14 9y agoI think the mechanism might work like this (disclaimer, I'm not a doctor, I'm just making a theoretical guess): What can an antibiotic do? Kill bacteria that are not resistant to it. If a bacterium is resistant to it, it will be unaffected. Now, if you stop taking it "early" the antibiotic didn't have the time to kill 100% of non-resistant bacteria. You leave your body in a mixed environment where non-resistant and resistant bacteria have to compete. If you keep taking it once you feel better maybe you killed all the non-resistant bacteria. So you leave your body in an homogeneous environment where only resistant bacteria live, don't have to compete, and can prosper undisturbed.
- danmaz74 9y agoMakes sense; in the end, only experimental data could show how this works compared to the other mechanism, ie, that strains that aren't yet fully resistant, but have some genes that help resistance, are favored by a partial course, and thus have "time" to develop full resistance (especially if the patient then uses the same antibiotic again).