- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Pinterest
- Share on LinkedIn
- Share on Reddit
- Copy Link to Topic
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Hello Sprouty
I only skimmed the article but it's not very surprising at all. We just take antibiotics for everything when a lot of the time they're not what is needed at all. Sometimes painkillers or simple rest is all that's needed but antibiotics are too quickly sought. I think some doctors also give them out too freely as their waiting lists are packing up with various other things and it's just easier to write a prescription for a pack of Amoxicillan or whatever when someone rings in with sore throat etc. I don't take antibiotics unless I am at deaths door (bit dramatic) but I do take way too many pankillers (pre-pregnancy) and noticed that I was getting resistant to normal paracetamol and needed stronger stuff.
Yeah Ells, I'm a bit reluctant to take stuff unless it's absolutely needed, but I know peeps do go to the docs for the trivialist of things and demand antibi's
Yeah Ells, I'm a bit reluctant to take stuff unless it's absolutely needed, but I know peeps do go to the docs for the trivialist of things and demand antibi's
.
I found it rather curious that Mr Cameron was on the BBC this morning banging on about it - the whole thing just seemed rather random, not the kind of thing you expect the Prime Minister to be chirping on about, more like the British Medical Council.
He's got to get his teefs into summat though.....before the election hasn't he EC
I will also add that this is not a new discovery, scientists have been talking about the issue for years. I know that doctors have been reluctant to prescribe antibiotics for a long time round our way.
So I'm wondering why it's suddenly risen to the top of the agenda?
The reason this has suddenly become "big news" is because "antibiotics" has just been chosen as the winning challenge for the Longitude Prize. I must admit it was the one I voted for...
http://www.longitudeprize.org/
The reason this has suddenly become "big news" is because "antibiotics" has just been chosen as the winning challenge for the Longitude Prize. I must admit it was the one I voted for...
http://www.longitudeprize.org/
It begs the question, if it had not have won would we have had Cameron on the box still talking about the challenges facing development of new antibiotics?
I think not... but we will never know, unless I can find the right parallel universe.
The reason this has suddenly become "big news" is because "antibiotics" has just been chosen as the winning challenge for the Longitude Prize. I must admit it was the one I voted for...
http://www.longitudeprize.org/
It begs the question, if it had not have won would we have had Cameron on the box still talking about the challenges facing development of new antibiotics?
I think not... but we will never know, unless I can find the right parallel universe.
I was listening to Cameron this morning, and thought "Oh that's a coincidence - he's talking about one of the Longitude challenges." I hadn't realized that the decision had already been made: as soon as I discovered that, the penny dropped.
I guarantee that the only reason Cameron is talking about antibiotics right now is because of the Longitude Prize.
He's got to get his teefs into summat though.....before the election hasn't he EC
I found it rather curious that Mr Cameron was on the BBC this morning banging on about it - the whole thing just seemed rather random, not the kind of thing you expect the Prime Minister to be chirping on about, more like the British Medical Council.
I heard it this morning too and though 'so he's a doctor now too..' I agree, it's not a new phenomenon, he's just jumping on the bandwagon because there's a new report out