<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The danger of decreasing antibiotic use</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.medrants.com/archives/1681/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/1681</link>
	<description>Internal medicine, American health care, and especially medical education</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 15:15:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/1681/comment-page-1#comment-2929</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Dec 2003 01:34:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2003/12/16/the-danger-of-decreasing-antibiotic-use/#comment-2929</guid>
		<description>Read the small print and the tables. First, this was a study funded totally by one of the biggest manufacturers of antibiotics, ie Abbott. Is is any surprise then that it found that less antibiotics are apparently bad? I say apparently because it did not show this - if you look at the raw data, it shows that pneumonia was increasing at the same time as antibiotic use was on the increase for the first few years.  They&#039;ve used a very elaborate statistical model to tweak out a weak negative association between antibiotic use and pneumonia, in the midst of many other confounding factors. What it actually shows is that influenza is by far the most important factor in relation to pneumonia. It&#039;s also done a good job of planting a seed of doubt in the minds of many physicians. Money well spent for Abbott, obviously.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read the small print and the tables. First, this was a study funded totally by one of the biggest manufacturers of antibiotics, ie Abbott. Is is any surprise then that it found that less antibiotics are apparently bad? I say apparently because it did not show this &#8211; if you look at the raw data, it shows that pneumonia was increasing at the same time as antibiotic use was on the increase for the first few years.  They&#8217;ve used a very elaborate statistical model to tweak out a weak negative association between antibiotic use and pneumonia, in the midst of many other confounding factors. What it actually shows is that influenza is by far the most important factor in relation to pneumonia. It&#8217;s also done a good job of planting a seed of doubt in the minds of many physicians. Money well spent for Abbott, obviously.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Anderson</title>
		<link>http://www.medrants.com/archives/1681/comment-page-1#comment-2928</link>
		<dc:creator>John Anderson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Dec 2003 12:51:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medrants.com/archives/2003/12/16/the-danger-of-decreasing-antibiotic-use/#comment-2928</guid>
		<description>Another case of &quot;the dose is the poison&quot;? I want antibiotics, but I don&#039;t want to lose those friendly little critters in my digestive tract that let me handle milk... As to drug-resistant strains arising, wouldn&#039;t they do so at any level of usage? Slower to spread and/or fewer types, perhaps, but occuring in any case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another case of &#8220;the dose is the poison&#8221;? I want antibiotics, but I don&#8217;t want to lose those friendly little critters in my digestive tract that let me handle milk&#8230; As to drug-resistant strains arising, wouldn&#8217;t they do so at any level of usage? Slower to spread and/or fewer types, perhaps, but occuring in any case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

