I used to generally agree with Bill Maher

[3NF]

Maybe RLS is real - I guess I can't say that it isn't, but sounds cheesy to me. I still think big pharma makes stuff up for the sake of making a buck. Kind of sad really - doesn't make a whole lot of sense to profit from keeping people alive.

Anyway, I think I have RCS - restless c*ck syndrome. Probably explains why I want to have sex with practically every woman I meet.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: Jeff7
The immune system and viruses/bacteria have been at war for eons. Each makes incremental improvements to try to overcome the other. It was a two-sided war, fought at a sluggish pace.

Not really. It was a very very one sided war. In all but a few situations (many of the diseases that we fear to a great extent, like Ebola or anything similarly severe and fatal), the human immune system will kick the everliving shit out of whatever pathogen was stupid enough to invade your tissues with a custom made, this-week-only (but we're keeping the blueprint on file), antibody carpet bombing of *massive* shock and awe with the virus's/bacteria's/parasite's name written on the side of it.

While the immune system is indeed supremely awesome, before the onset of modern medicine people died from influenza, TB, malaria, syphillis, bronchitis, pneumonia, gangrene, dysentery, smallpox, typhoid, diphtheria, appendicitis, tetanus, rabies, cholera, "childbirth fever", encephalitis, and many other infections ALL THE TIME. And that's not even mentioning fungal or parasitic infections. It's a credit to our systems that ANYONE was able to survive what passed for "surgery" back then, given how much of your body was laid open to infection...but the immune system can and did fail us time and again before we were able to back it up with the heavy artillery.

 

[ja1484]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: Jeff7
The immune system and viruses/bacteria have been at war for eons. Each makes incremental improvements to try to overcome the other. It was a two-sided war, fought at a sluggish pace.

Not really. It was a very very one sided war. In all but a few situations (many of the diseases that we fear to a great extent, like Ebola or anything similarly severe and fatal), the human immune system will kick the everliving shit out of whatever pathogen was stupid enough to invade your tissues with a custom made, this-week-only (but we're keeping the blueprint on file), antibody carpet bombing of *massive* shock and awe with the virus's/bacteria's/parasite's name written on the side of it.

While the immune system is indeed supremely awesome, before the onset of modern medicine people died from influenza, TB, malaria, syphillis, bronchitis, pneumonia, gangrene, dysentery, smallpox, typhoid, diphtheria, appendicitis, tetanus, rabies, cholera, "childbirth fever", encephalitis, and many other infections ALL THE TIME. And that's not even mentioning fungal or parasitic infections. It's a credit to our systems that ANYONE was able to survive what passed for "surgery" back then, given how much of your body was laid open to infection...but the immune system can and did fail us time and again before we were able to back it up with the heavy artillery.

It's not to say it failed us so much as was either expected to perform miracles, at least in the example you provide. If you incur a massive septic issue in someone and expect the immune system to suddenly be able to counter with almost no time to adapt, it's not going to happen.

No, the immune system didn't fail us, it failed certain people. The diseases you mention could (and still can be) fatal, but it was a crapshoot depending on how the immune system responded and the immune ability of the individual. People *survived* those diseases ALL THE TIME as well.

What antibiotics have done is allow those who would normally succumb to difficult diseases surive them, and then pass on their immunologically inferior genes.

Other people can argue over whether that's good or bad, depending on their beliefs.

People STILL die from infections all the time - usually when they are elderly, immuno-compromised, or attempting to heal many co-morbidities at once. Antibiotics have done nothing to stem death itself, they've merely changed the mechanism. While third world deaths are still primarily disease related, here in the west, we die from diseases of affluence, such as atherosclerosis, heart failure, diabetes, etc.

The death rate is still 1 per person, and all modern medicine has really done is prolong the trip there.

It's important to understand that in your example of olden-times, it's not like the immune system was (nor is it now) combating a single pathogen at a time. Like everything else, it has a capacity. If your sanitation is poor (as it was back then) and daily living requires 50% of your immune capacity just to prevent infections from setting in, what happens if you contract a bug that requires 80% capacity to eliminate and yet don't change the sanitary situation?

Saying the immune system failed us because people have died of diseases is like saying the car is a failed invention because some people have crashed them. There's a reason all vertebrates have some form of immune response: It's impossible to survive for longer than a few hours in this world without one. The fact that we're still here *as a species* is a testament to the ability of our little system.

 

[shocksyde]

Some pretty good arguments on both sides, here. I still feel that medicine is more useful than not. Substance abuse (be it intentional or not) will always show it's ugly face with any drug or medication.

 

[Noobtastic]

He can be a real d**k sometimes, especially his zealotry plays. "Religion is the root of all evil" or "Ron Paul is crazy."

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: ja1484

Originally posted by: Jeff7
The immune system and viruses/bacteria have been at war for eons. Each makes incremental improvements to try to overcome the other. It was a two-sided war, fought at a sluggish pace.

Not really. It was a very very one sided war. In all but a few situations (many of the diseases that we fear to a great extent, like Ebola or anything similarly severe and fatal), the human immune system will kick the everliving shit out of whatever pathogen was stupid enough to invade your tissues with a custom made, this-week-only (but we're keeping the blueprint on file), antibody carpet bombing of *massive* shock and awe with the virus's/bacteria's/parasite's name written on the side of it.

Many of them do. But some do a darn good job of causing lots of damage. I'll give you two: malaria and HIV. Massive shock and awe with HIV, except it's the virus that's doing it all, disabling the immune system as it goes about its business. I'm sure most of Africa would disagree with the idea that it's "all but a few situations" where the immune system kicks the everliving shit out of just about anything.

As an immunologist I have to disagree with this generalization... as I tell my students, when you study the immune system you'll wonder why we ever get sick, when you study the pathogens you'll wonder why we aren't all dead.

There are quite a few disease that if you don't get treatment for you'll probably never be cured. TB, most STDs, a large number of parasites, most any chronic viral infections, a few fungi.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
I've been feeling sub-acutely unwell for several weeks,plugged nose,cough,run down feeling.On wed I suddenly began to feel even worse while at work,I started also having pain and making frequent restroom trips.By thursday morning I was having chills that left me shaking like a leaf.

I was in my doctor's office by noon.. he feels I had some sort of virus that weakened my immune system and left me open for the bacterial infection he treated.I started zithromax a couple days ago and am already beginning to feel better..better enough to realise just how lousy I've been feeling for weeks.I let the 1st illness run it's course without seeking treatment
and ended up slammed down by the second illness.


I try to avoid unneeded pills but three cheers for doctors and medication when you need them and all the science that makes these things possible.

I'm finally getting over either the 2nd flu bug since the start of the year, or the first one kicked into 2nd gear after almost 2 weeks...Sinuses packed full yet draining, heavy chest congestion, generally felt like shit...Now, the "bad stuff" has finally gone, and I'm just dealing with the residual chest congestion...gettting rid of all the "lung butter."
]After about the 2nd or 3rd day of round 1 I started on Keflex. When that ran out, I started on some residual Cipro my wife had left over from her flu and ear infection.

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Squisher
I think we should go back in time when just eating good natural foods and getting good exercise kept us alive to the ripe old age of 45.

You do realize that ~45 used to be the average life span for a human, not the ripe old age that a healthy adult was expected to live, don't you?

If you have a hard time understanding that, you need to take into account that a good percentage of infants either died at birth or in the first couple years of their life.

If 3 children are born, 1 living to 70, the other to 74, and the other dying at 1, the average lifespan of that generation was a little over 48 years old.

So, you don't believe there has ever been a time in the past where healthy adults lived to an average age of 45?

The whole "people used to die earlier" thing is a misinterpretation of average life expectancy.

For one thing, it depends on the period of history. During hunter/gatherer times people probably lived pretty long because they lived very healthy lifestyles. Agriculture and settling reduced lifespans by concentrating people, making disease easier to spread. Hygiene improved lifespans again and by 500 BC, people were living to their 90s IF they made it through war. And it's war and childhood death that caused life expectancy to be lowered for much of the history of civilization, compared to what the environment allowed

Really? Because in my lifetime the average age of life expectancy for males has gone from 62 to 72 years. And, I maybe my assumtions that this is a natural projection are wrong. So, you're saying that the average hunter/gatherer lived to his 70s barring an outside influence?

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Squisher
I think we should go back in time when just eating good natural foods and getting good exercise kept us alive to the ripe old age of 45.

You do realize that ~45 used to be the average life span for a human, not the ripe old age that a healthy adult was expected to live, don't you?

If you have a hard time understanding that, you need to take into account that a good percentage of infants either died at birth or in the first couple years of their life.

If 3 children are born, 1 living to 70, the other to 74, and the other dying at 1, the average lifespan of that generation was a little over 48 years old.

So, you don't believe there has ever been a time in the past where healthy adults lived to an average age of 45?

The whole "people used to die earlier" thing is a misinterpretation of average life expectancy.

For one thing, it depends on the period of history. During hunter/gatherer times people probably lived pretty long because they lived very healthy lifestyles. Agriculture and settling reduced lifespans by concentrating people, making disease easier to spread. Hygiene improved lifespans again and by 500 BC, people were living to their 90s IF they made it through war. And it's war and childhood death that caused life expectancy to be lowered for much of the history of civilization, compared to what the environment allowed

Really? Because in my lifetime the average age of life expectancy for males has gone from 62 to 72 years. And, I maybe my assumtions that this is a natural projection are wrong. So, you're saying that the average hunter/gatherer lived to his 70s barring an outside influence?

Yes, at least that it's feasible. Can an anthropologist or archaeologist chime in? I don't have any evidence and I can't find any free articles. But doesn't it make sense that people who eat a healthy diet with a balance of fruit, meat, and nuts, getting plenty of exercise, and in sparse populations would live a long tme?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Squisher
I think we should go back in time when just eating good natural foods and getting good exercise kept us alive to the ripe old age of 45.

You do realize that ~45 used to be the average life span for a human, not the ripe old age that a healthy adult was expected to live, don't you?

If you have a hard time understanding that, you need to take into account that a good percentage of infants either died at birth or in the first couple years of their life.

If 3 children are born, 1 living to 70, the other to 74, and the other dying at 1, the average lifespan of that generation was a little over 48 years old.

So, you don't believe there has ever been a time in the past where healthy adults lived to an average age of 45?

The whole "people used to die earlier" thing is a misinterpretation of average life expectancy.

For one thing, it depends on the period of history. During hunter/gatherer times people probably lived pretty long because they lived very healthy lifestyles. Agriculture and settling reduced lifespans by concentrating people, making disease easier to spread. Hygiene improved lifespans again and by 500 BC, people were living to their 90s IF they made it through war. And it's war and childhood death that caused life expectancy to be lowered for much of the history of civilization, compared to what the environment allowed

Really? Because in my lifetime the average age of life expectancy for males has gone from 62 to 72 years. And, I maybe my assumtions that this is a natural projection are wrong. So, you're saying that the average hunter/gatherer lived to his 70s barring an outside influence?

Yes, at least that it's feasible. Can an anthropologist or archaeologist chime in? I don't have any evidence and I can't find any free articles. But doesn't it make sense that people who eat a healthy diet with a balance of fruit, meat, and nuts, getting plenty of exercise, and in sparse populations would live a long tme?

No because back then medical care sucked and people died from a host of problems that a healthy diet can't fix. Lets not forget "getting plenty of exercise" back them meant constant physical activity that overstresses the body which increases aging. It's not like they were hitting the treadmill a couple of hours a day then taking a nap. They're tracking prey for days trying to score a meal.

 

[Geekbabe]

if it weren't for modern medicine I'd have most likely died in childbirth at age 28
I needed an emergency c-section for an undignosed placenta previa that started detaching when I went into labor.

100 years ago pregnancy and child birth complications felled a lot of women

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
I've been feeling sub-acutely unwell for several weeks,plugged nose,cough,run down feeling.On wed I suddenly began to feel even worse while at work,I started also having pain and making frequent restroom trips.By thursday morning I was having chills that left me shaking like a leaf.

I was in my doctor's office by noon.. he feels I had some sort of virus that weakened my immune system and left me open for the bacterial infection he treated.I started zithromax a couple days ago and am already beginning to feel better..better enough to realise just how lousy I've been feeling for weeks.I let the 1st illness run it's course without seeking treatment
and ended up slammed down by the second illness.


I try to avoid unneeded pills but three cheers for doctors and medication when you need them and all the science that makes these things possible.

I'm finally getting over either the 2nd flu bug since the start of the year, or the first one kicked into 2nd gear after almost 2 weeks...Sinuses packed full yet draining, heavy chest congestion, generally felt like shit...Now, the "bad stuff" has finally gone, and I'm just dealing with the residual chest congestion...gettting rid of all the "lung butter."
]After about the 2nd or 3rd day of round 1 I started on Keflex. When that ran out, I started on some residual Cipro my wife had left over from her flu and ear infection.

I work in a hospital and have a boss who tries to avoid sick days..he comes to work barks germs all over us then gives up the ghost,goes and gets treated and is out of work several days..then like trees the rest of us who work with him every day get sick,falling one by one.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
if it weren't for modern medicine I'd have most likely died in childbirth at age 28
I needed an emergency c-section for an undignosed placenta previa that started detaching when I went into labor.

100 years ago pregnancy and child birth complications felled a lot of women

Originally posted by: Geekbabe


I work in a hospital and have a boss who tries to avoid sick days..he comes to work barks germs all over us then gives up the ghost,goes and gets treated and is out of work several days..then like trees the rest of us who work with him every day get sick,falling one by one.

That's two tree metaphors in one thread.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: shocksyde

Originally posted by: sandorski
The vast majority of Prescription Drugs have nasty side effects. He is correct, but sometimes they are all that will help certain conditions.

Penicillin?

I haven't cared enough to do my own research, but I've heard liberal use of anti-biotics is promoting mutation and resulting in viruses and whatnot that are immune to traditional anti-biotics.
It's natural for every living thing to adapt to it's environment in order to survive. Over many generations of bacteria or viruses, it's not hard to believe that they'll eventually mutate to the point where penicillin has no affect.

Ok, so which scenario is worse:

1. Nobody takes antibiotics and bacteria run wild in your body
2. People take antibiotics and at some point in the future all bacteria become immune to it and then run wild in your body

this isn't a situation where there are only two logical options

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Squisher
I think we should go back in time when just eating good natural foods and getting good exercise kept us alive to the ripe old age of 45.

You do realize that ~45 used to be the average life span for a human, not the ripe old age that a healthy adult was expected to live, don't you?

If you have a hard time understanding that, you need to take into account that a good percentage of infants either died at birth or in the first couple years of their life.

If 3 children are born, 1 living to 70, the other to 74, and the other dying at 1, the average lifespan of that generation was a little over 48 years old.

So, you don't believe there has ever been a time in the past where healthy adults lived to an average age of 45?

The whole "people used to die earlier" thing is a misinterpretation of average life expectancy.

For one thing, it depends on the period of history. During hunter/gatherer times people probably lived pretty long because they lived very healthy lifestyles. Agriculture and settling reduced lifespans by concentrating people, making disease easier to spread. Hygiene improved lifespans again and by 500 BC, people were living to their 90s IF they made it through war. And it's war and childhood death that caused life expectancy to be lowered for much of the history of civilization, compared to what the environment allowed

Really? Because in my lifetime the average age of life expectancy for males has gone from 62 to 72 years. And, I maybe my assumtions that this is a natural projection are wrong. So, you're saying that the average hunter/gatherer lived to his 70s barring an outside influence?

Yes, at least that it's feasible. Can an anthropologist or archaeologist chime in? I don't have any evidence and I can't find any free articles. But doesn't it make sense that people who eat a healthy diet with a balance of fruit, meat, and nuts, getting plenty of exercise, and in sparse populations would live a long tme?

No because back then medical care sucked and people died from a host of problems that a healthy diet can't fix. Lets not forget "getting plenty of exercise" back them meant constant physical activity that overstresses the body which increases aging. It's not like they were hitting the treadmill a couple of hours a day then taking a nap. They're tracking prey for days trying to score a meal.

It takes a plague or something to kill a large number of people at, say, age 40. Otherwise I don't see what's stopping people from living to 70. People in modern hunter-gatherer societies seem to have long lifespans if they don't die in childbirth or to an injury. Even if you're 50 and your joints are wearing out, your tribe isn't going to let you starve.

 

[Throckmorton]

Good discussion on hunter-gatherer vs modern life... even if it is a little TOO much like ATOT

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about22329.html

 

[Geekbabe]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
if it weren't for modern medicine I'd have most likely died in childbirth at age 28
I needed an emergency c-section for an undignosed placenta previa that started detaching when I went into labor.

100 years ago pregnancy and child birth complications felled a lot of women

Originally posted by: Geekbabe


I work in a hospital and have a boss who tries to avoid sick days..he comes to work barks germs all over us then gives up the ghost,goes and gets treated and is out of work several days..then like trees the rest of us who work with him every day get sick,falling one by one.

That's two tree metaphors in one thread.

hehehe I got wood

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Yes, at least that it's feasible. Can an anthropologist or archaeologist chime in? I don't have any evidence and I can't find any free articles. But doesn't it make sense that people who eat a healthy diet with a balance of fruit, meat, and nuts, getting plenty of exercise, and in sparse populations would live a long tme?

Yes, but not necessarily a normality. Many of the Ancient Greeks including Philosophers lived til their 70's. Plato, for example died when he was about 76 years of age. Pericles, famous statesman of Athens and Lead Strategos died when he was 66--and he was killed by the huge and sudden plague that hit Athens at the end of the second Peloponesian War. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides died when he was 65.


That's Classical Greece.


Even medieval rulers could live long periods of time. Edward III of England lived 65 (1312-1377) years as well. He outlived his own son, The Black Prince, by one year.

Although he had a few others.


So yes, it's quite possible, depending on lifestyle, culture, and skills of the people.

The Greeks had made skilled drawings of the body later duplicated by Byzantine and Jewish physicians in the East, and of course, these traditions passed to the Muslims in the 8th century. All above mentioned cultures understood the risks of infection and ways to prevent it. I'm not going to make my major the History of Medicine, but from what I have studied, that's what I can provide. Hope it helps.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Yes, at least that it's feasible. Can an anthropologist or archaeologist chime in? I don't have any evidence and I can't find any free articles. But doesn't it make sense that people who eat a healthy diet with a balance of fruit, meat, and nuts, getting plenty of exercise, and in sparse populations would live a long tme?

No because back then medical care sucked and people died from a host of problems that a healthy diet can't fix. Lets not forget "getting plenty of exercise" back them meant constant physical activity that overstresses the body which increases aging. It's not like they were hitting the treadmill a couple of hours a day then taking a nap. They're tracking prey for days trying to score a meal.

Physical activity could also have included running frantically from predators, or bringing down large ungulates for food. Another problem long ago was basic hygiene. Oops, got a cut. Oh well, it hurts. Maybe rubbing dirt in it will make it feel better. OW! Nope, ok, I'll try sucking the dirt out of it with my filthy mouth. Maybe urine will make it go away.....etc etc. A few days later, you've got a gangrenous limb, which started from a small cut.
Or maybe a tooth starts to rot out, and after awhile you've got an abscess up into your skull, and I think that sort of thing can be fatal, assuming you don't starve to death because the pain stops you from eating.
Another stress to deal with - not knowing when your next meal might come. It wasn't until relatively recently for our species that we learned how to create long-lived stores of food. Before that, you get it fresh, risk eating partly decayed food, or go hungry.

Long ago, you'd be lucky to live to be 30. Childbirth was dangerous for women. In my World History class, we heard a bit about that. I think it was in the Middle Ages, the average lifespan for women was 24.

Originally posted by: TehMac
Yes, but not necessarily a normality. Many of the Ancient Greeks including Philosophers lived til their 70's. Plato, for example died when he was about 76 years of age. Pericles, famous statesman of Athens and Lead Strategos died when he was 66--and he was killed by the huge and sudden plague that hit Athens at the end of the second Peloponesian War. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides died when he was 65.
.....

Those are the well-off folk though, the important ones we hear about in history. How about the average peasants and working slobs? What kind of life did they face?
The simple random chance of living a long time also gives people more time to do something historically noteworthy - die early, and you never get a chance to make a name for yourself.
And of course, those you mentioned were all men - no risk of dying during childbirth.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: TehMac
Yes, but not necessarily a normality. Many of the Ancient Greeks including Philosophers lived til their 70's. Plato, for example died when he was about 76 years of age. Pericles, famous statesman of Athens and Lead Strategos died when he was 66--and he was killed by the huge and sudden plague that hit Athens at the end of the second Peloponesian War. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides died when he was 65.
.....

Those are the well-off folk though, the important ones we hear about in history. How about the average peasants and working slobs? What kind of life did they face?
The simple random chance of living a long time also gives people more time to do something historically noteworthy - die early, and you never get a chance to make a name for yourself.
And of course, those you mentioned were all men - no risk of dying during childbirth.

Which is why I said "Not necessarily a normality."


To give you a female historical figure, Eleanor of Aquatine, bore 10 kids, lived til she was 82. Lived from 1122 to 1204.

"Not necessarily a normality."

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Those are the well-off folk though, the important ones we hear about in history. How about the average peasants and working slobs? What kind of life did they face?
The simple random chance of living a long time also gives people more time to do something historically noteworthy - die early, and you never get a chance to make a name for yourself.

Strictly speaking, there were no such things as "peasents" in terms of later context of medieval world. There were soldier-farmers, and the average age, roughly speaking could be around 55-65 years of age. The reason was because in Ancient Greece, diet was good, excercise was...mandatory. War and disease were the two major concerns.

Hippocratics in Classical Greece mention older women in their cliente, writing them down as "dry" suggesting they are going through menopause or perhaps beyond that. So while childbirth was a serious issue, the average age was anything from 36-47, simply because mothers had children around the age of 14 and died.

 

[lyssword]

greece != hunting-gather society. Hunter society = group of around ~40 ppl, classical greece 1000's of people in a city

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: lyssword
greece != hunting-gather society. Hunter society = group of around ~40 ppl, classical greece 1000's of people in a city

yes I know, but he asked if it was possible, and I answered his question.

 

[Locut0s]

Originally posted by: DangerAardvark
I just watch him because his stand-up is brilliant and for the format of his show... when he has good guests on at least. It's one of the only shows on television that will let a panel debate uninterrupted for as long as it does. I agree with a lot of what he says, but disagree with a lot too. And what's wrong with that? He's a comedian, not a role model.

He's a board member of PETA. He's pro-gun control. He has some odd ideas about Iraq. But I can still watch his show and laugh at his jokes because he's a comedian, not my personal Jesus.

He's been very outspoken against the pharmaceutical industry for a long time. Stating that all medication will eventually kill you is hyperbole at best, so I'm certainly not defending that. I haven't watched tonight's episode yet.

:thumbsup: Same reasons I like him.

 

[sdifox]

I agree with him. Most medicines are bad for you, you just hope it kills of whatever ails you first so you have a chance to stop taking the drug before it takes you out.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
I've been feeling sub-acutely unwell for several weeks,plugged nose,cough,run down feeling.On wed I suddenly began to feel even worse while at work,I started also having pain and making frequent restroom trips.By thursday morning I was having chills that left me shaking like a leaf.

I was in my doctor's office by noon.. he feels I had some sort of virus that weakened my immune system and left me open for the bacterial infection he treated.I started zithromax a couple days ago and am already beginning to feel better..better enough to realise just how lousy I've been feeling for weeks.I let the 1st illness run it's course without seeking treatment
and ended up slammed down by the second illness.


I try to avoid unneeded pills but three cheers for doctors and medication when you need them and all the science that makes these things possible.

I'm finally getting over either the 2nd flu bug since the start of the year, or the first one kicked into 2nd gear after almost 2 weeks...Sinuses packed full yet draining, heavy chest congestion, generally felt like shit...Now, the "bad stuff" has finally gone, and I'm just dealing with the residual chest congestion...gettting rid of all the "lung butter."
]After about the 2nd or 3rd day of round 1 I started on Keflex. When that ran out, I started on some residual Cipro my wife had left over from her flu and ear infection.

Your wife was supposed to use ALL of the Cipro. It's an antibiotic. I thought that was common knowledge, that you use the entire prescription of an antibiotic or else you may end up creating resistant bacteria which will be even harder to get rid of. Then using some of the dose yourself is just as bad.