I know there has been a lot of talk on the forum, both for and against using abx for strep, but I would just like to talk about the idea of not using them, with those who are in that camp.
My first question is, for those who have treated without abx: If you have taken abx in the past for strep, and you get it again, do you think you can try to skip them again the 2nd time? I guess what I am getting at is do you think the body can heal from the abx and then overcome the strep the second time? I feel that the reason I had strep repeatedly as a child is because of the anitbiotics. My body never had a chance to fire up an immune response.
I know people believe you must treat strep with abx to eliminate the risk of complications like rheumatic fever, but I wonder if treating strep with abx might actually make you more susceptible, because you may later be vulnerable to a strep infection that goes unnoticed, etc. Does that make sense?
I also wonder if you do go through it without abx, can you still get it again? In the past, when people got scarlet fever, they did not get it again. But there are many strains of strep (not all that cause scarlet fever), so does getting it once, if not treated with abx, give you immunity to the other strains?
I am really just curious about this. Also because there is a difference between not treating it at all, and just treating it with something other than abx (like homeopathy, or natural remedies).
Thanks for any opinions!