|
|
|
|
|
|
by rplst8
3190 days ago
|
|
|
> I'm really struggling to see why your advice is any better than: Treat when sick, stop when well. Even if you get sick again: treat when sick, stop when well. First, bacteria multiply very quickly. In the days between the first and second course, the bacteria could recolonize to the same number you had before. So it's not just as simple as taking the remainder of the course of antibiotics or even a slightly shortened one. You may need to take another full course. Additionally, those bacteria have had time to evolve and possibly become resistant. Second, when you take antibiotics, it doesn't just kill the bad bacteria. Sometimes good bacteria dies as well. This can be disastrous to your health if done too many times. |
|
|
Sure, but where's the data collection that states taking it for a standard longer period is better than a repeated dose? Even if you have to bump the second dose to something like "Take until well plus 2 days, since you got sick again last time"? Not even mentioning that in most cases, your body actively gets better at handling the infection...
>>Second, when you take antibiotics, it doesn't just kill the bad bacteria. Sometimes good bacteria dies as well. This can be disastrous to your health if done too many times.
I agree, my issue is with the idea that taking it more times is ANY different than taking it longer. Why would two doses of seven days with a 3 day break between be any different than one 14 day dose?
----
Edit: I want to add, I'm aware that the idea with a longer dose is to lower total levels of the bacteria below the amount the immune system can handle. And if we don't hit that target re-infection can occur. My issue is that we're assuming here that longer is always better, and I simply don't think we actually have data to back that up.