Does anyone here use antibiotics prophylactically?

[Guest Matias47]

I know this used to be done regularly by the sluttier section. In fact, it's one of denialist Gary Null's theories about the "true" cause of AIDS, along with poppers. (Both have been studied and debunked, not that he cares.)

I haven't done it because I know it's not a very good idea to abuse antibiotics. However, I have thought about it. I like to bareback and though I haven't gotten another STD, I figure it's just a matter of time and, frankly, I'd rather not get anything else.

Thoughts?

[bb1991]

I'd say it's a very bad idea.

There's quite a panic in the medical field about the overuse of antibiotics. Not just for STD treatment, but in general.

(How many times have you gone to the docs and they've given you a wishy washy diagnosis and fobbed you off with antibiotics).

We are becoming immune to them and the infections are adapting and becoming immune.

Only last week the Chief Medical Officer for the UK warned that we are on the brink of an "Antibiotic Apocalypse"

There's actually only 1 antibiotic left that can treat Gonorrhoea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21178718

In the short term taking antibiotics 'just in-case' might stop you getting a few infections. But you'l very quickly become immune to them and end up stuck with something you can't get rid of.

Lets hope they develop some new treatments for Gonorrhoea soon... It fucking hurts! and wouldn't want to be stuck with it!

[bbinbpark]

It's a very bad idea. Work in healthcare, and the diseases that the antibiotics don't wipe out are pretty rough. Imagine getting explosive diarrhea for days on end, we have c.dif to thank for that one since antibiotics don't work on it.

We already have one drug resistant STI, Gonorrhea, as mentioned in the last post, we don't need the rest of them to become drug resistant that currently respond to treatment.

[bearbandit]

Cryptosporidiosis (caused by the bug that's so small it can get through water company filters in the reservoir and leads to grave warnings on the news to boil all water) is another unaffected by antibiotics. It's endemic in areas used for grazing land (lke where I used to live). As above it causes explosive diarrhoea day AND night and kills by depletion of minerals and dehydration. Someone with an average immune system might flush it out in three or four days. With a compromised immune system it's a killer: it took me over five weeks to get rid of it and now I don't care how cute the lambs are, I will not help out at lambing time!

[Pig Bottom]

My doctor told me I could take a Doxycyline pill 24 hours before going out, I think he said to prevent Chlamydia and either gonorrhea or syphilis. (I forget which one) He also said that it's not an antibiotic that your body will get used to and stop working later. I"m allergic to penicillin so when I do get an STD I have to take this med 2 times a day for 30 days.

[bbinbpark]

My doctor told me I could take a Doxycyline pill 24 hours before going out, I think he said to prevent Chlamydia and either gonorrhea or syphilis. (I forget which one) He also said that it's not an antibiotic that your body will get used to and stop working later. I"m allergic to penicillin so when I do get an STD I have to take this med 2 times a day for 30 days.

I'd get a second opinion. Anything that is used to treat bacterial infections is an antibiotic so he doesn't know his drug classifications.

Doxycycline works differently than some other antibiotics, namely it slows the spread and growth of bacteria down http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682063.html By slowing bacterial growth down it levels the playing field for your immune system to do it's job and kill of the bacteria. Either you are misunderstanding your doctor, or you need a new one. While side effects of a drug, including antibiotics, may dictate whether or not you should take it, your body getting "used to" as you say does not necessarily dictate the drugs affect on the bad guys, the bacteria. The effect on the bacteria is what is most important aspect of the drug following the appropriateness for the patient.

The most effective treatments, when taken properly, don't kill off 100% of the bugs leaving the ones that were able to resist the treatment to multiply. This is how all the Drug Resistant infections have ended up being resistant, the bugs that resisted the medicine are those that survive to make new babies etc.

There are most likely strains of the common STD's that have already developed a resistance to the Doxycycline and are able to grow at normal rates in spite of being exposed to this drug.

[bbinbpark]

PS - In spite of the Debbie Downer post I just made, still like getting loaded and sticking my thick piece in a tight juicy hole

[HungLatinDom]

One thing: People do not get immune to antibiotics: bacteria do. Big difference.

Other than that, agreed.

[Guest Matias47]

Yeah. I know all of the resistant bugs that are slowly making the rounds. This is why I posted the question.

It seems the main culprits in driving the resistance builders are, theoretically anyway, prescribing them when not needed (like when you have a virus) and not completing the full cycle when they are prescribed correctly. And I know taking them often when you have no infection is not the best thing for your body and its own good bacteria -- but I've always got the idea lingering around in the back of my mind.

I haven't done it and don't really plan to, just wanted to know if anyone actually does it.

These are some really good responses, btw. Thanks.

[mike_thieriot]

I'd say it's a very bad idea.

There's quite a panic in the medical field about the overuse of antibiotics. Not just for STD treatment, but in general.

(How many times have you gone to the docs and they've given you a wishy washy diagnosis and fobbed you off with antibiotics).

We are becoming immune to them and the infections are adapting and becoming immune.

Only last week the Chief Medical Officer for the UK warned that we are on the brink of an "Antibiotic Apocalypse"

There's actually only 1 antibiotic left that can treat Gonorrhoea.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21178718

In the short term taking antibiotics 'just in-case' might stop you getting a few infections. But you'l very quickly become immune to them and end up stuck with something you can't get rid of.

Lets hope they develop some new treatments for Gonorrhoea soon... It fucking hurts! and wouldn't want to be stuck with it!

Keep in mind, too, that we may not always be reliant on antibiotics. For example, developments in nanobot technology could allow us to stop relying on the immune system. We could just target the individual bacterial/viral cells and take them out. There was actually a study done recently where they killed a virus by simply stabbing it with a spike-shaped piece of carbon nanotubing. If we could do this with nanobots, bacteria/viruses will never be able to evolve their way out of it, just like humans will never be able to evolve their way out of being vulnerable to gunshot wounds.

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

True. But until nanobot treatment is THE common treatment, we're dependent upon antibiotics. And resistance to them is too common, so casual use is a problem right now.