I don't know if I should quote the post from the other thread on this topic that was closed due to the double thread issue, so I'll just address the issue without quoting.
The concern was that, since the overuse of abx has resulted in abx resistant bacteria, we would still be in danger. Obviously, that's true. However, even MRSA is usually still susceptible to
something. MRSA stands for methicillin resistant staph aureus. By definition, MRSA does NOT mean "resistant to
all antibiotics". It means resistant to a
certain type of abx (beta-lactams). There are other types and that's why culture and sensitivity testing is so important. Now that we've created the monster of abx resistance, there will definitely always be deaths as a result. It doesn't mean, however, that antibiotics are completely useless. They aren't. They usually still work and by testing for susceptibility before blindly throwing abx at a serious infection, we can improve our odds.
Furthermore, I think most MDCers would agree that there are other ways of dealing with bacterial infections. It's not like abx are the
only thing we have at our disposal. Sometimes they are the only thing that will work, but that's not always the case. It won't help everyone because most people and medical professionals either don't know or refuse to admit that there are alternatives. WE do know, though, and it's easier to fight an enemy when you know what it actually is, rather than the false thing they tell you it is.
I have a particular interest in the 1918 pandemic.
.
:
