Guest guest Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 In concept this seems like a great idea. I'm just wondering if its much harder to apply to real life; because my LLMD never mentioned testing pathogens for sensitivity; and I've never heard of a doctor who treats the chronic infections of CFS (lyme, mycoplasma, chlamidia) and related dissorders doing anything like that. I do think I may ask her about this though next time I see her. Also, in concept it does seem really scary to visualize superbugs being created from months or years of taking a broad spectrum antibiotic like doxycycline or minocycline; but if this actually happened i dont imagine they would give it out to people with some pimples on their face for years on end. I'm sure many strains of bacteria in the body do become resistant to a 'cycline if its taken for a long period of time, but there should be plenty of other antibiotics that would work. It does irk me that the pharmacist tells of all these people who get 100mg of doxy or minocycline twice/day for their acne and yet its very difficult to find a doctor who'll perscribe it for FMS or CFS; even though for a small subset of us it helps greatly. >>>Doesn't matter if you know which organism it is or not. All that matters is which abx it's sensitive to. And that can be done in the right culture medium. Ask any vet. They do it all the time. Unfortunately, for most docs (not dogs), it's a lost art. :-) penny >>>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2003 Report Share Posted January 30, 2003 Doesn't matter if you know which organism it is or not. All that matters is which abx it's sensitive to. And that can be done in the right culture medium. Ask any vet. They do it all the time. Unfortunately, for most docs (not dogs), it's a lost art. :-) penny > In a message dated 1/30/03 3:34:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, > writes: > > > > This broad spectrum approach worries me. I've been taking clindamycin > > and tetracycline for a couple weeks now. It's helping clear the brain > > fog, and must be working on the staph a bit, but when I got my test > > results, I have strep that's resistant to clindamycin and teracyline. > > So while I may be knocking down some bugs, I may be increasing > > others. And strep, although not the worst bacteria, is known to lead > > to heart problems. So it's much better to get your organisms > > identified with the sensitivites, and treat effectively, than blindly. > > > > I agree with what you're saying but when you say " get your organisms > identified with the sensetivities " you assume one is always able to identify > the organisms. When dealing with something like lyme or perhaps even some > unknown pathogen or spirochete (like what shows up in my Bowen test), this is > not feasible. I know two others who got well using abx so far, one of which > has no idea why he got well but just that buying doxy in Mexico and taking it > was the best decision he ever made and is (for now) cured. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 With mycoplasmas and chlamydia, the usual testing is pcr. From a pcr test it is possible to work out which abx to use because of the dna found in the bacteria in the pcr test. Staph are harder to pcr because we may end up pcr'ing the fragments of a staph we have killed off - remember we are surrounded and attacked by staph 24-7. Thus this is why culturing is useful because it'll only grow the staph that are active in the body at that time. Dave > In concept this seems like a great idea. I'm just wondering if its much > harder to apply to real life; because my LLMD never mentioned testing > pathogens for sensitivity; and I've never heard of a doctor who treats the > chronic infections of CFS (lyme, mycoplasma, chlamidia) and related > dissorders doing anything like that. I do think I may ask her about this > though next time I see her. > Also, in concept it does seem really scary to visualize superbugs being > created from months or years of taking a broad spectrum antibiotic like > doxycycline or minocycline; but if this actually happened i dont imagine they > would give it out to people with some pimples on their face for years on end. > I'm sure many strains of bacteria in the body do become resistant to a > 'cycline if its taken for a long period of time, but there should be plenty > of other antibiotics that would work. It does irk me that the pharmacist > tells of all these people who get 100mg of doxy or minocycline twice/day for > their acne and yet its very difficult to find a doctor who'll perscribe it > for FMS or CFS; even though for a small subset of us it helps greatly. > > > >>>Doesn't matter if you know which organism it is or not. All that > matters is which abx it's sensitive to. And that can be done in the > right culture medium. Ask any vet. They do it all the time. > Unfortunately, for most docs (not dogs), it's a lost art. :-) > > penny >>>> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 penny wrote: > Doesn't matter if you know which organism it is or not. All that > matters is which abx it's sensitive to. And that can be done in the > right culture medium. Ask any vet. They do it all the time. > Unfortunately, for most docs (not dogs), it's a lost art. :-) > > penny this astonishes me too. When I worked in vet clinics years ago and then sold vet supplies to vets (pre CFS crash that stole that carreer), the culture and sensitivity test was a given. Thats how we knew what antbx. to use in any given infection. Its SIMPLE technology, just stick the stuff in the petri dish with the culture medium and see which antbx. killed what grew. When I had my nose surg I called the docs office to make SURE that the infectious crud they were about to remove would be C & S/d. The office told me of OF COURSE we check everything, its sent to pathology. But she meant 'biopsied' in the cases of strange growths. As it turns out she didn't even know what a C and S was. Don't they do these at all anymore????? I was so dissappointed it wasn't done. Marcia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 Well, I'm living proof. I got my last culture analysis yesterday. The staph I have was tested with 14 antibioitics, and it was completely resistant to 12 of them (and possibly resistant to the 13th). All I've ever taken in my lifetime was penicillin as a child and cipro recently. So how did these staph get so resistant? If you don't hit them hard and appropriately, you have very little chance of eradicating them. Ask any infectious disease doc or orthopedic surgeon. You're going to have trouble convincing a doc who's been trained in standard medical school about this. I'd suggest you ask them to call Esoterix labs and talk to one of their microbiologists about the toxicity of these so called " normal flora " . Or to an infectious disease doc who knows his stuff. You can find them by asking people in the labs, 'who's the best infectious disease doc they know' (in other words, who's the biggest pain in the butt and hassles them in the lab all the time?). penny > In concept this seems like a great idea. I'm just wondering if its much > harder to apply to real life; because my LLMD never mentioned testing > pathogens for sensitivity; and I've never heard of a doctor who treats the > chronic infections of CFS (lyme, mycoplasma, chlamidia) and related > dissorders doing anything like that. I do think I may ask her about this > though next time I see her. > Also, in concept it does seem really scary to visualize superbugs being > created from months or years of taking a broad spectrum antibiotic like > doxycycline or minocycline; but if this actually happened i dont imagine they > would give it out to people with some pimples on their face for years on end. > I'm sure many strains of bacteria in the body do become resistant to a > 'cycline if its taken for a long period of time, but there should be plenty > of other antibiotics that would work. It does irk me that the pharmacist > tells of all these people who get 100mg of doxy or minocycline twice/day for > their acne and yet its very difficult to find a doctor who'll perscribe it > for FMS or CFS; even though for a small subset of us it helps greatly. > > > >>>Doesn't matter if you know which organism it is or not. All that > matters is which abx it's sensitive to. And that can be done in the > right culture medium. Ask any vet. They do it all the time. > Unfortunately, for most docs (not dogs), it's a lost art. :-) > > penny >>>> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2003 Report Share Posted January 31, 2003 , staph is the most resistant bacteria known and yet docs ignore it as " ordinary flora " . If Esoterix i.d.s staph and what it's sensitive too, you're going to be so covered. As long as you take the appropriate and agressive treatment path. Seriously, this used to be the way doctors diagnosed and treated illness. But these are just cheap lab tests, and nobody makes money off them anymore. They'd rather sell you some expensive computerized tests or do scans or biopsies or histology, etc., than simple lab pathology. And this IS the way science is done. This IS the way research labs work. It's even the way veterinarians treat their animal patients. It's pathetic that we don't get the basic care that animals get. Best of luck with those tests, looking forward to your results, penny > In a message dated 1/31/03 8:34:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, > writes: > > > > Doesn't matter if you know which organism it is or not. All that > > matters is which abx it's sensitive to. And that can be done in the > > right culture medium. Ask any vet. > > Penny, I am still not sure what you mean. If there are organisms in your > body that have yet to be discovered by your doctor, let alone say scientists, > how can you say all that matters is which abx it is sensitive to when you are > the one who first told me that playing a guessing game is not a good idea and > that you need to know the organism first so you can find out which abx it is > sensitive to? Now it sounds more like you are agreeing with my original > protocol idea. It was not too long ago that they discovered nanobacteria for > instance. Now, taking your argument, if they found lyme in the right culture > medium then that would be great, wouldn't it? But problem is that it is hard > to find lyme in the first place! This is not as much science as you may > think. I wish it were like how you make it sound as then it would be simple > to find out every little bug that may be affecting us (forget finding each > bug, finding the ones that are bad for us in the first place is still not > science--for instance, it is Shoemaker's idea that CNS is bad but you know > what, he may be proven wrong with time--that is a fact, and this comes from > one who did the Esoterix test just last week so you can't call me closeminded > on this issue) and then simply match up the best abx for the job. This would > seem tantamount to the US knowing exactly how many soldiers there are in each > area around Bagdad and the desert before you get to Bagdad and knowing where > each one was placed before the battle even began. I am glad Shoemaker is > getting more attention and with doc of the year award I'd say he can't be too > shaby but don't get your hopes up too much on his theories as they have yet > to be proven. FWIW I personally give patients a nod of approval if they wish > to see him as at least he is open to trying to find the causes of CFS and > does not cost an arm and a leg to see him and takes insurance and does phone > consultations to outsiders. Having said that, I wouldn't be the ranch on his > theories like you seem to be doing. But for your sake and ours I hope you > are right and then we all get cured by him! Take care. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 American Chemical Society (2011, March 30). Antibiotics wrapped in nanofibers turn resistant disease-producing bacteria into ghosts. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 3, 2011, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110329172236.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.