Antibiotics

[LSkylizard]

...farmers regularly administer antibiotics to their livestock to promote growth and keep them healthy ... makes me wonder about how the bird flu got so viscous???

The flu is a virus has nothing to do with antibiotics. The deadly strains of flu have to do with cross species viral transmission. This is sometimes secondary to farm practices (i.e. keeping ducks in pens next to swine) and sometimes it is just dumb luck of having an odd animal arrive near some other species and carrying a virus it can cross infect. Antibiotics have NEVER been implicated in viral disease pathogenicity as far as I know. However, treating a virus with an antibiotic is well associated with the development of resistent pathogenic bacteria strains.

 

[LSkylizard]

...I would only ever use them in a real life or death situation. and would hope never to have to use them. If within reach of medical help i would always seek that. I trust a doctor a WHOLE lot more than some animal pills

So it seems like i'v got to look for dog ones instead of fish ones then.
From what iv read here & and people saying they've used them it seems the need greatly outwieghs the risk...

It is common human nature to use that rationalization... People often say they should be the exception to safety standards and protocols becauase their situation is different or just in case of an emergency. You should go to a proper human health care provider knowledgeable in medications and with access to travel recommendations. He or she should determine what is the appropriate course. Individuals will often believe they know more or claim they know more then the properly trained individual in order to avoid seeing the healthcare provider. Why? Because,....he or she with their training and better understanding of the bigger picture might not give you what you want! You say you trust an MD but then proceed to speak of taking canine medications.

Your little exception for "just in case of emergency" to carry animal meds will likely not harm you, likely not help you but does (however small) carry the risk of further impacting the community at large with further over contamination of the environment with antibiotics. Your little exception is not unique. Everyone uses that kind of logic. Everyone says, "I believe in the laws...trust the MD...but my situation is this...so just in case...". There are standards, guidelines, and regulations for a reason. They are not perfect. However, they are there mostly to benefit society as a whole and to protect the public from both further environmental risk and being sold bottom dollar crap from unauthorized dealers.

...it seems the need greatly outwieghs the risk...

There are not millions/thousands/hundreds/or even tens of hikers/campers dropping dead from infected wounds that they could have treated themselves with a handful of pills in the bush. There is no true "need"...just the paranoia of those uninformed. You have the freedom to do what you want. Take responsibility in how you use your freedoms. Do not use these old and tired rationalizations . People want what they want and will exclude the appropriate individual if it facilitates their own objective...even if it is an irresponsible and/or misinformed objective.


Just for fair disclosure: I do not have any financial interest nor do I receive any benefit from the pharmaceutical industry for sale or distribution of antibiotics. I do not work in a travel/primary care clinic that would benefit from patients seeking physician care and travel counseling... I, unlike vets selling meds, do NOT have any conflict of interest in this area.

 

[jollycat]

+++++++++++++++++===

 

[mr_calico]

POSTED BY DARTANYON:
"Hey I even thought of how to try and use penacillin from fungus??"
Thought about it, i know id end up killing myself if i ever did it tho

@ LSkylizard
The reason i asked about the dangers of animal pills is because after looking on the net for humans ones and only finding animal ones. And asking my friend, who used to be a medical student, about the possibility of asking a doctor to give me a coarse to put in a survival kit and he told me that the doctor would never give them to me even for a reason like that.
I asked the question to find out if animal pills would do more damage than good and from the answers here it seems they wont. I only want them for real life or death situations. Havent i made that clear enough?
Please, dont think im just some idiot whose happy to go around taking dog pills for a deep cut. If i was i wouldnt ask the question.

"There is no true "need"...just the paranoia of those uninformed."

Then why would John Wiseman tell you to put antibiotics in a survival kit? He seems to think they are a good idea.

I will almost certainly never need to use them them, but for the small amount of room they take up i would be happier to have them. But i have got my answers now anyway- their not going to kill me and from one person saying he uses them i dont think there is any longterm damage or bad side-affects caused.
They cost very little, use up very little space and are the only antibiotics i can get hold of. I know that id prefer to have them and not need them, than need them and not have them.....

 

[Rainmaker870]

Truth be told, in this day and age it's unlikely that any of us will be away from contact long enough to need antibiotics in a wilderness survival situation. Modern SAR techniques are pretty good.

I have a 4-person course of antibiotics in my bug-out bag, however, that I started keeping after the anthrax scare in the post 9-11 world. Will it help me? Maybe. Will it hurt me? No, 'cause I'm not going to take it for a scrape on my knee - that's what the neosporin ointment is for (or the ointment of your choice, whatever it may be.)

The last time I was in a drop camp on a hunting trip I took antibiotics with me. There was no outside contact for up to a week at a time, and having them along seemed like a good idea. I also took Immodium, Aspirin, Ibuprofen, etc - didn't need to use those either, but it was still nice to have them around.

The medical community - and my own current physician - say I shouldn't have access to antibiotics unless they think I need them. I will agree that I shouldn't take them unless I need them, leaving some gap between the two schools of thought. Those two entities also deny that I'm responsible enough to own and carry a firearm for self-protection. In both cases I prefer to decide what I should and shouldn't have, and in both cases I take responsibility for my own actions. I can live with their disapproval.

Having said all that, I also believe that if you're sick you should go see a doctor. Untrained self-diagnosis and treatment should be everyone's (distant) second choice.

 

[LSkylizard]

...Then why would John Wiseman tell you to put antibiotics in a survival kit? He seems to think they are a good idea...

You have stated there exists a “need” relative to risk. This seems to me to be a perceived need on some individuals behalf. Do you have any data on how many campers/hikers died from infections in the bush that could have been treated with self carry antibiotics? Do you have any data on how many campers/hikers were saved by self treating? You can find data very easily on the relative risks of taking each antibiotic approved for use in humans. This data has been established. These risks have been assessed through trials and studies. So, tell us the true risk? How many hikers and/or campers in 100,000 have fallen to an infection that they could have properly diagnosed and treated appropriately in the bush with Keflex? The media will sensationalize things. You can be drawn into that if you like. If you truly believe a need exists, then show us. Just because someone recommends it does not mean there is a “need”. There is need and then there is false sense of security. I dare say you seek the false sense of security. To address the "need" you claim as do others, you should then carry multiple types of antibiotics. You should also be able to determine the right one for the situation. I again say this topic is dangerous and untrained individuals should not be carrying and self treating with home stock meds.

...I have a 4-person course of antibiotics ...Will it hurt me? No...

It might. Even aspirin has side effects. The rate may be low but any medication carries risks. Numerous people have in fact died or suffered greatly from aspirin just in the last 5 years. People have died from taking immodium inappropriately for the “wrong” diarrhea.

...I started keeping after the anthrax scare in the post 9-11 world...

There are numerous individuals stocking antibiotics because of a perceived risk of anthrax. A large number of people were running around on it because they thought they got exposed. Some ran to their doctors within 24 hours. They weren’t infected but they had just exposed millions of bacteria to a short course of antibiotics. These are antibiotics that are needed and there is rapidly developing resistance. Anthrax was supposedly being transmitted by mail. If you think you get exposed you could easily go to the hospital. What is your risk of anthrax? The media will sensationalize things. How many people in the US have died of anthrax in the last 5 years? How many died because the diagnosis was missed? If a healthcare provider with training misses the diagnosis, how likely is it that Joe Camper is going to be an expert? I again say this is a perceived need based on misinformation and paranoia. Why don’t you pack a biochemical/gas mask? If you work in a tall building, keep a parachute in case terrorist are going to fly there plane into it.

...The medical community... deny that I'm responsible enough to own and carry a firearm for self-protection...

Let’s keep this out of here….please. Your primary MD may be opposed to firearms (a socio political belief/opinion...not a professionally trained skill). However, not all physicians or the medical community as a whole oppose ownership of firearms or the right to bear arms. The AMA and other such organizations do not necessarily speak for all or the majority of the physicians. Again, Let’s keep this out of here it does not apply.


I am done with this topic. I think an adequate perspective has been given. Each person is free to do as they choose. There is no free lunch. You can follow a path of fear and misinformation if you desire. Just know that each individual does effect others. Your choices may not only have a negative impact on you but others around you. There is no real “need” for what you propose or claim to currently do. There is only a false sense of security. Hold on to your illusions if you must.

 

[Rainmaker870]

Each person is free to do as they choose. There is no free lunch. You can follow a path of fear and misinformation if you desire. Just know that each individual does effect others..... Your choices may not only have a negative impact on you but others around you. There is no real “need” for what you propose or claim to currently do. There is only a false sense of security. Hold on to your illusions if you must.

Wow...... that's pretty, um..... dramatic. Your input has value and merit, and I appreciate those portions of it that have been constructive.

 

[mr_calico]

@ LSkylizard
Yeah mate i see what your saying. I can see that i need to look into this subject a lot more.
Any good links to places i could find out more about this?

I am not lulling myself into a false sence of security at all, to feel completely secure would be stupid and im sure would give you a confidence that can only lead you into trouble eventually. But surely it is still worth being prepared for a very unlikely but still possible scenario? which is just what i am trying to do...
You seem to be more hung up on trying to prove that it is an unlikely scenario, surely you can see that there is a possibilty that they could be a lifesaver in a genuine survival situation?

I think i need to do quite a bit more research on alternatives before splashing out on my dog pills now though



(edited to correct rushed crappy grammer)

 

[mr_calico]

Rainmaker. How did you manage to aquire Human antiboitics for your Hiking bag/BOB, if you dont mind me asking?

 

[Rainmaker870]

Rainmaker. How did you manage to aquire Human antiboitics for your Hiking bag/BOB ?

It pays to know folks.

And I'm glad you asked. Since an earlier post I made in this thread, two (2) other forumites have asked me via email if I could provide them with human antibiotics. My answer was, and remains for all time, an emphatic "No."

 

[2dogs]

dartanyon I don't know about other livestock operations but with cattle antibiotics are not given "promote growth and keep them healthy". Actually the opposite is true, antobiotics given freely reduces the overall health of the herd. Just as in humans over use of antibiotics leads to resistant strains of bacteria that cannot be fought off with conventional Rx. Even in our small operation we have had to change to "stronger" Rx such as Nuflor rather than staying with tetracycline (LA200) and sulfa (boluses).

If antibiotics promoted growth they would still be widely used. There was belief some years ago that the use of massive amounts of antibiotics would promote weight gain in feed lot cattlebut not anymore. In addition public outcry has stopped the practice. You may be thinking of growth hormones which are given at certain ranches and in the feed lot. Now,do these hormones effect the human population? No one knows for sure but it pays to know where your beef comes from and how it was grown. For my family I won't buy cow meat or fast food hambugers.

 

[Evolute]

LSkyLizard,

First, I want to make clear that I agree with several important points you've made:

(A) Misuse of antibiotics can lead to antibiotic-resistant strains, which is very bad for everyone, and care should be taken in the prevention of creating antibiotics resistant strains;

(B) Mail ordered antibiotics may not have been shipped and handled properly, and their efficacy (and perhaps even non-toxicity) deserves questioning;

(C) Treatment by a trained medical professional is generally better informed, safer, more likely to be properly targeted and effective, and is overall preferable to untrained self-diagnosing and untrained self-medicating;

(D) There can be significant risks involved with misdiagnosing and mismedicating.

I appreciate your informative input to this discussion, regarding the above.

That said, I don't think you are looking at some of the other issues entirely reasonably.

There is no true "need"...just the paranoia of those uninformed.

Except, of course, when there is a true need. To answer your quote, above, with your own words: "That is an EXTREMELY broad & dangerous generalization to make!" Do you think that serious bacterial infections never happen outdoors, without ready access to professional medical help? Of course they do. In civilization, serious bacterial infections (for which doctors often legitimately and sensibly prescribe medications) occur quite commonly. Do you think that it is somehow significantly less likely that someone in the deep wilderness will develop an infection than someone in civilization? This is purely guessing on my part, but I would bet that it is significantly more likely. Someone in the deep wilderness is going to be exposed to much greater risks in general, and rates of injury with open wounds are much higher. Further, the greater level of exertion, exposure, etc., is likely to lead to lowered immune response for wounded people in the wilderness.

Do you have any data on how many campers/hikers died from infections in the bush that could have been treated with self carry antibiotics?

No, I don't. Do you have any data to suggest that the relatively common risk of serious infection among people in civilization disappears when people enter the deep wilderness?

Do you have any data on how many campers/hikers were saved by self treating?

I don't have any careful studies I can cite. I do personally know one fellow who nearly died from a tooth infection by the time he was able to get out of the wilderness and get medical attention. Also, though this is not a wilderness case, my own mother nearly died of a very rapidly developing infection from a cut on her knee, by the time she was able to get medical attention. Strictly from anecdotal sources, it seems that dangerous infections are a real enough risk to warrant carrying antibiotics when entering a wilderness situation where (1) risk of injury is greatly increased, and (2) trained medical attention cannot be accessed for at least several days.

Let’s keep this out of here….please.

I think that Rainmaker870's firearms example quite validly makes the point that letting others decide for us, just because they believe themselves to be in a better position to decide for us than they think we are to decide for ourselves, is often foolish. It's wiser to listen to good counsel and consider it, then decide for ourselves how it applies to us.

I am done with this topic.

That's your prerogative, but I urge you to reconsider. Many of us are simply trying to have as complete and informed of a discussion of this topic as possible, and value whatever insight you can provide.


Mike

 

[2dogs]

If you want to learn more about cows click on the link.
Then click the cheese wheel.
Then Happy Cows.
Then Happy Cow TV.
Then your connction speed.
http://realcaliforniacheese.com/

 

[2dogs]

My previous Md insisted I carry a Z-pack (green) with me on all my trips. I'm prone to ear infections and have considerable scarring. He felt I could loose my hearing in my right ear if I had an infection that went untreated for more than a week. My current doc was outraged that I had my own antibiotics and refused to write script for a refill even though I gave him back the old meds.

 

[Outdoors]

I had a more detailed post typed, but deleted it.
Instead, I'll simply say Thanks to LSky for trying to shed some light on this issue.

Pat

 

[LSkylizard]

Good luck folks.
Keflex would not be the right drug for a tooth abscess.

A trained MD prescribed your ZPack. You can find another MD if you do not feel you current one has a good handle on your health conditions.

Grandma with a severe progressive infection was likely not treated with Keflex and most likely received IV antibiotics and possible surgical debridement.

As I referred to...."need", was in context of the statement of need outweighing the risks.

...it seems the need greatly outwieghs the risk...

No-one has demonstrated any true need for carrying antibiotics "just in case" (i.e. carrying a random treatment for an unspecified illness/infection/bacteria) you get cut or injured in a way that requires antibiotics. Even more, no need outweighing the risk. Then the question becomes what medication do you carry? Something to treat a tooth abscess? Something to treat a rapid necrotizing soft tissue infection? Something to treat ear infections...(ear infections are often viral in origin thus it is a good idea to have an MD that knows the specifics of your condition and can keep you healthy). How about something to treat anthrax? Maybe something to treat plague (you are more likely to get this then anthrax in the USA)?

This conversation is going into the usual direction that physicians trained in the diagnosis of disease, proper treatment, and use/prescribing of medications somehow just don't know as much as you. It is the usual. Individuals have a relatively unfounded fear and so the stockpiling of "just in case" meds begins. The fear is fueled by media hype and alot of drama. It is an overall bad idea for someone to stock antibiotics "just in case". There is a high likelyhood of untrained people treating things improperly. It is impossible to plan for everything especially if you are not trained for everything!

As for the firearms comment, I do not think it is remotely related. A physician is trained in medicine and some in home safety. A physician does have a far better understanding then the untrained Joe Camper in the safety and use of medications. They are licensed to prescribe and use these regulated medications. They are not trained in the whole constitional firearms debate(a socio political belief/opinion...not a professionally trained skill). That is not their field. It is simply not the same topic or issue.

Good luck folks...goodbye.
It is sad, I had had the pleasure of knowing some people a little more rational on another forum once. I hear there are some of those here too. I hope to hear from them more.
_____________________________________

Thanks Pat

 

[Rainmaker870]

(hoping to bait Pat into continuing sharing information until he gets back into the spirit of the discussion)

This conversation is going into the usual direction that physicians trained in the diagnosis of disease, proper treatment, and use/prescribing of medications somehow just don't know as much as you.

The only person who has referred to that argument is you. I don't think anyone involved has suggested they're more qualified than a physician. I certainly haven't... and in fact, an earlier post of mine said "go see your doctor if you're sick."

As for the firearms comment, I do not think it is remotely related. A physician is trained in medicine and some in home safety. A physician does have a far better understanding then the untrained Joe Camper in the safety and use of medications. They are licensed to prescribe and use these regulated medications. They are not trained in the whole constitional firearms debate. That is not their field. It is simply not the same topic or issue.

I think the issue is relevant whether it's firearms or pookie beads. Any time someone tells me they are more qualified to decide something for me than I am, I dispute their right to do so. Educate me, make me aware of the pros and cons, and then allow me to make my own decision.

Good luck folks...goodbye.
It is sad, I had had the pleasure of knowing some people a little more rational on another forum once. I hear there are some of those here too. I hope to hear from them more.
_____________________________________

Thanks Pat

Don't go away mad (Don't go away at all.) Don't be so doggone defensive over the subject, especially when you have knowledge to offer. Geeeze...

 

[Evolute]

Keflex would not be the right drug for a tooth abscess.

Nor did I ever suggest it was. In the case of the person I mentioned, if I'm remembering correctly, he was treated with Ciprofloxacin, which he now carries for future such events. I may be misremembering specifically which he was treated with and now carries... but he sure as hell isn't.

carrying a random treatment for an unspecified illness/infection/bacteria

We have a mix of several loosely related scenarios being discussed simultaneously, with some resulting confusion. I certainly did not mean to imply a scenario of a random treatment for an unspecified illness. I do not see it as impossible, not even unlikely for serious outdoorspeople who like to be informed and prepared, that someone could carry multiple types of antibiotics, could have a strong idea of proper diagnosis and/or have a good reference, and could choose treatment appropriately.

I do agree with you that random treatment for an unspecified illness is problematic.

Maybe something to treat plague (you are more likely to get this then anthrax in the USA)?

Funny you should mention this. My ex caught the plague from a blackfooted ferret she was raising outside Fort Collins, Colorado, for wilderness re-introduction in Montana.

This conversation is going into the usual direction that physicians trained in the diagnosis of disease, proper treatment, and use/prescribing of medications somehow just don't know as much as you.

You will note that I said:

"(C) Treatment by a trained medical professional is generally better informed, safer, more likely to be properly targeted and effective, and is overall preferable to untrained self-diagnosing and untrained self-medicating;

(D) There can be significant risks involved with misdiagnosing and mismedicating."

Hardly in congruence with your quote, above. Others have had similar comments to mine about this. I think this "usual direction" that the conversation seems to you to be going is your imagination. We are just trying to have the best discussion we can of the subject.

Good luck folks...goodbye.
It is sad, I had had the pleasure of knowing some people a little more rational on another forum once. I hear there are some of those here too. I hope to hear from them more.

My goodness... Would you please stop with the melodrama and simply try to participate in a potentially informative conversation to the best of your ability? When you have rational points to make, make them rationally, and we will listen, likely be persuaded, and be grateful.

Mike

 

[2dogs]

Side note. Two weeks ago today my next door neighbors left for Disneyland. Their 16mo daughter had been getting sick for the past day so the morning they left they stopped at the local Doc in the Box for Tx. The doc gave her a Rx for amoxicillin and sent them on the way. Bon voyage, have a nice trip, bring me back a t-shirt. An hour into the drive the daughter had a reaction to the Rx. Fortunately all that happened was she looked like she had been sprayed with a texturing gun loaded with red mud. The ear infection/sickness wasn't effected by the Rx at all.


I screwed up the story, here is the correction. The daughter fist went on amoxicillin with no relief. The departure daythe doc switched her to augmentin (sp) and that is what she reacted to. Sorry about this!

 

[beezaur]

2dogs,

I was thinking along the same lines. I am allergic to penicillin (sp?) and would do the same thing if given the wrong meds.

I'll keep my opinions and knowledge out ot it, except to say that there is a lot of potential for badness with survival kit medicines.

Scott