Antibiotic Resistance: Eye Infections

Antibiotics, their misuse and the risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria, have been things I have blogged about before at some length (e.g. here). My main focus has been the misuse of antibiotics in agriculture: the routine use of antibiotics in animal feed. This practice is considered one of the main reasons why there has been such an increase in antibiotic resistant bacteria in recent years.

But an article on BBC discussing medical treatments that are known to be ineffective reminded me of another source of selective pressure for the evolution of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria: misuse of antibiotics in people.

As a parent, I know full well the dread one feels when a child's eye starts looking red and oozy. That discharge in the corner of the eye tells you it is that dreaded ailment known as "pinkeye." Nothing to do but stay home from work and try to get a doctor's appointment...and start washing your hands like you have OCD to prevent spreading the germs.

You finally get to see the doctor, he takes one look, declares it pink eye...then prescribes antibiotics.

And therein is the problem. Antibiotics don't really work for pinkeye...it is a waste of money, effort in giving the poor mite drops, and it adds to the selective pressure for the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria, creating an actual health hazard.

Why do I say antibiotics don't work? Well, the majority of cases of pinkeye are caused by a virus. Antibiotics don't work against viral pinkeye. There is no reason at all to give antibiotics for viral pinkeye. The viral form has a more watery discharge, not green or yellow in color. If you child's pinkeye has a watery discharge, don't even bother with antibiotics. They do NOTHING except add to a growing health hazard, and viral pinkeye resolves itself in 7-10 days with no problems. It is, however, highly contageous in its early stages. It really is a good idea to avoid all contact with your eyes and to wash your hands like you have OCD.

What about bacterial pinkeye? In this case there is some logic to using antibiotics since antibiotics do affect bacteria. But first, how do you tell when it is bacterial? If the discharge is greenish or greenish-yellow rather than watery, it is probably bacterial. Anytime you see green or yellow discharge, that is a strong hint that your body is reacting to a bacteria because one of the immune cells that responds to bacterial infections is the neutrophil. These cells contain high doese of a protein called myeloperoxidase, a copper-containing protein that is part of the cell's anti-bacterial arsenal. Neutrophils respond in huge numbers to bacterial infections, and they act kind of like the Kamikaze pilots of the immune system, dying as they kill invading bacteria. The large number of dead and dying neutrophils are green because of the copper in the myeloperoxidase protein. Think of an old penny: turns green right? That is the copper oxidizing. Same happens with the copper atom in myeloperoxidase. So if the discharge is green, it means bacterial.

Problem is, it doesn't matter. Even with BACTERIAL pinkeye, there is no real evidence that antibiotics work to shorten the illness. According to an Oxford study, even in children with bacterial pinkeye, the cure rate did not differ significantly, 85% cured in 7 days for the antibiotic-treated group, compared to 80% for the placebo treated group. That means antibiotics don't really help if your child has pink eye! Again, all you are doing is adding to a growing health risk, antibiotic resistant bacteria.

So, eating meat that specifically says "raised without antibiotics" and not using antibiotics for pinkeye are two good ways you can help limit the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria. This does not mean you should not see a doctor if a child has pink eye. If for no other reason that the doctor may find other secondary infections that need treatment. But ASK your doctor if an infection is viral, and if so, don't use antibiotics: it is a waste of time andm money.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Submitted by mole333 on 12 April 2007 - 12:50pm.
antibiotics | Health | Science

» mole333's blog | add new comment | email this blog | printer friendly version

Visit our sponsors

culturekitchens

The Publisher
Liza Sabater

Daily servings of political dissent
culturekitchen

Grassroots News and
Activism for New Yorkers
Daily Gotham

Feminist Bloggers
Network
BlogSheroes

A new kind of vouyerism
Voogling

Art + Code + Philosophy
Potatoland.blog

Got any dirt, tips, leads or money for us? Then drop us a line or two at editors [at] culturekitchen [dot] com or use our general contact form to reach everybody in the editorial team ASAP.

Words to live by

These new-found tensions which are present at all stages in the real nature of colonialism have their repercussions on the cultural plane. In literature, for example, there is relative over-production. From being a reply on a minor scale to the dominating power, the literature produced by natives becomes differentiated and makes itself into a will to particularism. The intelligentsia, which during the period of repression was essentially a consuming public, now themselves become producers. This literature at first chooses to confine itself to the tragic and poetic style; but later on novels, short stories and essays are attempted. It is as if a kind of internal organisation or law of expression existed which wills that poetic expression become less frequent in proportion as the objectives and the methods of the struggle for liberation become more precise. Themes are completely altered; in fact, we find less and less of bitter, hopeless recrimination and less also of that violent, resounding, florid writing which on the whole serves to reassure the occupying power. The colonialists have in former times encouraged these modes of expression and made their existence possible. Stinging denunciations, the exposing of distressing conditions and passions which find their outlet in expression are in fact assimilated by the occupying power in a cathartic process. To aid such processes is in a certain sense to avoid their dramatisation and to clear the atmosphere. But such a situation can only be transitory. In fact, the progress of national consciousness among the people modifies and gives precision to the literary utterances of the native intellectual. The continued cohesion of the people constitutes for the intellectual an invitation to go farther than his cry of protest. The lament first makes the indictment; then it makes an appeal. In the period that follows, the words of command are heard. The crystallisation of the national consciousness will both disrupt literary styles and themes, and also create a completely new public. While at the beginning the native intellectual used to produce his work to be read exclusively by the oppressor, whether with the intention of charming him or of denouncing him through ethnical or subjectivist means, now the native writer progressively takes on the habit of addressing his own people.