Posted on 10/26/2013 10:13:54 AM PDT by MinorityRepublican
A high-ranking official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has declared in an interview with PBS that the age of antibiotics has come to an end. 'For a long time, there have been newspaper stories and covers of magazines that talked about "The end of antibiotics, question mark?"' said Dr Arjun Srinivasan. 'Well, now I would say you can change the title to "The end of antibiotics, period.”' The associate director of the CDC sat down with Frontline over the summer for a lengthy interview about the growing problem of antibacterial resistance. Srinivasan, who is also featured in a Frontline report called 'Hunting the Nightmare Bacteria,' which aired Tuesday, said that both humans and livestock have been overmedicated to such a degree that bacteria are now resistant to antibiotics.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The point was that that over prescribing either one can have unintended consequences. In response in 110 you sumbit that the point is irreleveant because they don’t have exactly the same consequences. There’s no expanation as to why the consequences must be exactly the same, just the declaration that because they aren’t, that’s enough.
It’s fun to watch you flail around, so thanks for another entertaining bombastic response. I can explain it to you, but it takes a person with at least some mental faculties to grasp what I am explaining to you.
You may wish to continue to dismiss it as you have, but controled substances are prescribed with a lot more factors involved, than a simple prescription medication.
Physicians have to jump through hoops, involving their compliance and physical records keeping. There is oversight. It’s different.
Your response to my mentioning this to you, is to reference it as my ‘just saying so’.
How old are you, 12?
Physicians do have a different mindset when it comes to narcotics. Making a comparison of their willingness to prescribe either, just doesn’t make sense.
Yes, if a person takes a barrel full of an OTC item, it will cause harm. And this was one of your benchmarks for why a physician shouldn’t see any difference between prescribing Class II meds or an antibiotic. It’s just laughable. Dismiss it as my just saying so, but you’re the one coming off looking like a nut-job who won’t stick to logic and reason.
I have also mentioned that pediatricians are not the major prescribers of narcotics. This flew right over your head despite the discussion being related to pediatric related antibiotics, and another poster trying to equate physicians being able to refuse narcotics, but not refuse antibiotics. And for this to have relevancy, it gains merit if were talking about the same physician. We’re not.
On a number of levels, this example failed the test.
Not the same type of med
Not the same level of lethality
Not the same prescribing physician base
Not the same regulatory impact
These are valid points, that you have sought to reduce to the idea I was more or less claiming it was true without reason, just because I said so.
FAIL.
Duh. That's why they're called "controlled". The doctor's behaviour is more a product of the controls than the actual properties of the drugs.
So on some level, you are actually able to comprehend part of what we are discussing. Surprising...
One item is a Controlled substance. One is not.
Yes, the doctor’s behavior is partially as a result of the controls. Exactly.
Therefore a comparison for the sake of saying if a physician can so no to one item, why not the other? There are factors on one item there isn’t for the other. NOT A GOOD COMPARISON
Steroids, asthma medications, there are other good examples. Narcotics isn’t one of them.
It’s all about addiction, isn’t it?
It’s about a valid vs non-valid comparison, isn’t it?
It is. The quesion is why the potential negative effects of over prescribing narcotics is elevated to a status of being the only ones worth considering.
Sometimes what people won’t say tells you more than what they will.
It is. The question is why the potential negative effects of over prescribing narcotics is elevated to a status of being the only ones worth considering.
In a contemporary setting, we have to address the ball field as it is. We may not like the bases being 90' apart, but they are 90' apart. So complaining because a guy was thrown out by 30', is silly. Until the rules change, he can't be safe having only gone 60'.
That's essentially what your argument is here. Until the FDA changes the laws, we have to address reality as it is.
What my advocacy is related to FDA rules, isn't germane to this discussion. The rules simply are. That's it.
Agree. If antibiotics are being prescribed inappropriately, the responsibility is on the shoulders of the medical profession.
It's that simple.
I gather from your posts that you have specialized knowledge in the medical field. If so, and if it’s not too personal, what is your area of expertise?
Let’s say I’m a dog catcher Ken.
It wouldn’t make the things I stated any less relevant or accurate. But then if you have expertise in the field you already know that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3083953/posts?page=122#122
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.