Author Topic: antibiotics???  (Read 15281 times)

Offline Greekman

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 3976
  • Karma: 203
  • New TSP Forum member

Offline Alan Georges

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4589
  • Karma: 210
  • Still trying to reason with hurricane season.
Re: antibiotics???
« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2016, 10:18:41 PM »
Thanks GM.  I get the main points Hubbard and TheMountainRN are making:
- no USP "chain of custody" guarantees
- may be substandard, fake, or adulterated product
- reduced bioavailability / no IV dosing
- no MD supervision of treatment

OK, all of those are certainly issues.  So the questions become:
- is the "chain of custody" through vet supply companies good enough? (pretty good)
- do you trust that it's the same pills? (head-to-head comparisons, yes)
- how much of an issue is the lack of IV treatment? (matters ~10% of the time)
- do you have enough knowledge and reference material on hand to responsibly use them? (generally yes; in a SHTF scenario with no MD around, it beats nothing at all)

After reading Doc Bones & Nurse Amy and listening to The Patriot Nurse, vet antibiotics certainly aren't my first choice during normal times.  I just go to my MD and go through normal channels.  But weighting the risks in a SHTF situation vs. some of the concerns raised, I'd rather have some basic antibiotics on hand.

Here's some more discussion:
Dr. Bones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRbrhm5fRuo
The Patriot Nurse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaL4fLXXEJg

Just one of those things where we look a the facts as we can get them, and make up our own minds.

Offline RitaRose1945

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 5526
  • Karma: 403
  • Asking the uncomfortable questions since 1964
Re: antibiotics???
« Reply #32 on: December 22, 2016, 05:27:09 AM »
After reading Doc Bones & Nurse Amy and listening to The Patriot Nurse, vet antibiotics certainly aren't my first choice during normal times.  I just go to my MD and go through normal channels.  But weighting the risks in a SHTF situation vs. some of the concerns raised, I'd rather have some basic antibiotics on hand.


Exactly.

Offline Smurf Hunter

  • Survival Veteran
  • ********
  • Posts: 7172
  • Karma: 334
Re: antibiotics???
« Reply #33 on: December 22, 2016, 10:27:08 AM »

Exactly.

+1

so many things like this in the prepping world. 

Slightly expired preserved food, improvised tools and supplies are all examples. 
Reminds me of bushcrafters who light their campfires with bow drills or flint steel.  While it's a good skill to maintain, who chooses to go hiking with matches or lighter?

Offline FreeThinker

  • Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • Karma: 9
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: antibiotics???
« Reply #34 on: December 22, 2016, 01:43:46 PM »
Thanks GM.  I get the main points Hubbard and TheMountainRN are making:
- no USP "chain of custody" guarantees
- may be substandard, fake, or adulterated product
- reduced bioavailability / no IV dosing
- no MD supervision of treatment

OK, all of those are certainly issues.  So the questions become:
- is the "chain of custody" through vet supply companies good enough? (pretty good)
- do you trust that it's the same pills? (head-to-head comparisons, yes)
- how much of an issue is the lack of IV treatment? (matters ~10% of the time)
- do you have enough knowledge and reference material on hand to responsibly use them? (generally yes; in a SHTF scenario with no MD around, it beats nothing at all)

After reading Doc Bones & Nurse Amy and listening to The Patriot Nurse, vet antibiotics certainly aren't my first choice during normal times.  I just go to my MD and go through normal channels.  But weighting the risks in a SHTF situation vs. some of the concerns raised, I'd rather have some basic antibiotics on hand.

Here's some more discussion:
Dr. Bones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRbrhm5fRuo
The Patriot Nurse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaL4fLXXEJg

Just one of those things where we look a the facts as we can get them, and make up our own minds.

I'd only quibble on the possibility they're misbranded/adulterated drugs, and on the "vet antibiotics" reference. 

I've ordered many fish/bird antibotics in pill/capsule form in the past 2 decades (from Thomas Labs and other distributors) and have never received any that were veterinary drugs.  I would estimate in that time I've probably made about 2 dozen orders, and received roughly 30-40 individual bottles of 9 different varieties of antibiotics - and never once when I looked them up in a pill identifier did I find they were a veterinary product.  I know the distributors market them for aquarium/bird use, but I have never received for example Amoxi-Tabs (a veterinary amoxicillin tablet), but always the human generic variety of Amoxil (FDA approved amoxicillin for humans). 

In fact in all my internet wanderings, I've never seen or heard of anyone that ordered a fish/bird ABX and, upon investigation, found it was a veterinary drug.  If anyone has ever ordered from Thomas Labs or other distributor and received a true veterinary drug that would be very, very, important for all preppers to know.

So what are these pills/capsules/tablets really?  By law, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, every drug sold in solid oral dosage form (so the powdered varieties of fish/bird ABX do not apply here) must be uniquely identifiable:

Quote
Sec. 206.10 Code imprint required.

(a) Unless exempted under 206.7, no drug product in solid oral dosage form may be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce unless it is clearly marked or imprinted with a code imprint that, in conjunction with the product's size, shape, and color, permits the unique identification of the drug product and the manufacturer or distributor of the product. Identification of the drug product requires identification of its active ingredients and its dosage strength. Inclusion of a letter or number in the imprint, while not required, is encouraged as a more effective means of identification than a symbol or logo by itself. Homeopathic drug products are required only to bear an imprint that identifies the manufacturer and their homeopathic nature.

(b) A holder of an approved application who has, under 314.70 (b) of this chapter, supplemented its application to provide for a new imprint is not required to bring its product into compliance with this section during the pendency of the agency's review. Once the review is complete, the drug product is subject to the requirements of the rule.

(c) A solid oral dosage form drug product that does not meet the requirement for imprinting in paragraph (a) of this section and is not exempt from the requirement may be considered adulterated and misbranded and may be an unapproved new drug.

(d) For purposes of this section, code imprint means any single letter or number or any combination of letters and numbers, including, e.g., words, company name, and National Drug Code, or a mark, symbol, logo, or monogram, or a combination of letters, numbers, and marks or symbols, assigned by a drug firm to a specific drug product.

So they must either be the (human) drug product they claim to be, or they are adulterated/misbranded drugs being illegally manufactured by somebody, then sold to distributors, who have then been selling and delivering them for decades (in the case of Thomas Labs anyway) in violation of federal law:

Quote


The following acts and the causing thereof are prohibited:
(a) The introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, tobacco product, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.
(b) The adulteration or misbranding of any food, drug, device, tobacco product, or cosmetic in interstate commerce.
(c) The receipt in interstate commerce of any food, drug, device, tobacco product, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded, and the delivery or proffered delivery thereof for pay or otherwise.

If they are counterfeits/misbranded/adulterated drugs, a lot of people are going to a lot of trouble to make them identical (externally as well as the internal contents of the capsules) and selling them illegally at the cost of pennies per pill.   That just wouldn't make sense, or any profit for them.

That's my take on it anyway, and having used them on occasion for both animals and myself with the expected results I'm satisfied.  If anybody has received anything other than something that was a human ABX product when ordering the fish/bird varieties please share so we can all avoid that retailer in the future.

Offline Greekman

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 3976
  • Karma: 203
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: antibiotics???
« Reply #35 on: December 22, 2016, 01:56:02 PM »
NOTE: freethinker posted just before I do... original text follows bellow


just a sec...
we are talking FISH antibiotics, not Vetenarian.

Fish are "the same", vetenerian NOT.

Quote
substandard, fake, or adulterated product
I think this is taken care when you buy Name Brand fish antibiotics

my main worry would be the fish versions not having the same "potency" or being out of spec in other issues. As a result of production variation when making it for humans.
Then the lot is sold for Fish.

also "Bioavailability" is an issue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioavailability

yes i would take them if human would not be available. THEN I would go for the vetenery ones.

luckily i live where I can get most antibiotics without a prescription so for now I stock the real stuff

Offline Odin's Son

  • Prepper
  • **
  • Posts: 72
  • Karma: 8
  • New TSP Forum member
Re: antibiotics???
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2017, 03:13:24 PM »
I know some people have been confused about how the new laws would effect them as of 1 Jan 17.  Just FYI, I bought some Amoxicillin for my fish tank on the 6th and received them already.  No fuss no muss.  I went with the 250mg bottle of 100 pills for the dosing options.  Yall stay healthy. 

Offline Alan Georges

  • Survival Demonstrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 4589
  • Karma: 210
  • Still trying to reason with hurricane season.
Re: antibiotics???
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2017, 06:44:57 PM »
Pure FUD:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/here-are-reasons-you-shouldnt-take-fish-antibiotics-180964523/
Expect to see more of this in the future.  I think all of the author's major points have been adequately addressed already on this thread.  I'm just posting this as a heads-up on what some people are thinking.