3 ms·
You say this is necessary, the author says it's not. Why should I believe you (and same question for him)? Has the argument about the risk of reinfection been e
by hyperpape 9y ago
You say this is necessary, the author says it's not. Why should I believe you (and same question for him)? Has the argument about the risk of reinfection been evaluated in the medical field?
- collyw 9y agoI studied microbiology at university (over 20 years ago admittedly), but that was pretty much what they taught us. People often don't take the full course because they feel better, then the infection reestablishes itself. They also taught us that vaccines are a good thing, yet plenty of people seem to be questioning that as well these days. Reading the replies here feels very like some of the smart sounding yet ignorant comments that some antivaccers make. :/
- hyperpape 9y agoThis guy says the conventional wisdom in the medical profession is wrong. I don't know if he's right, but just repeating the conventional wisdom seems like an unenlightening response.
- CamperBob2 9y agoProblem is, that's all the columnist does as well. He states, over and over, that the conventional wisdom is wrong, but he never seems to get around to explaining why. Incredibly weak article, IMO, regardless of the merits of what he's saying.
- hyperpape 9y agoThere's more than one medical authority and article cited (the 2007 piece, the more recent one, the WHO). It could be more detailed, I agree, but it's not like there's nothing there.
- erdojo 9y agoUnrelated. There's a growing body of science backing up the idea that antibiotics are very often way over-prescribed, and that over-prescribing does NOT prevent bacterial resistance.
- collyw 9y agoThis was also taught to us over 20 years ago. Patients will often demand antibiotics for viral infections.
- ComodoHacker 9y agoActually author links to only one article from 2007 by Louis B. Rice, backing his point. Some meta-analysis would be more convincing.