Tagged: antibiofilm agents, bioburden, biofilm and infections, biofilm infections, biofilm phenotype bacteria, chronic wounds, clinical culture, functional equivalent pathogroups, idsa, idsa guideline, molecular diagnostic methods, molecular diagnostics, pathogenius laboratories, personalised topical therapeutic gels, personalised topical therapeutics, polykingdom biofilm, polymicrobial infections, standard of care, topical antibiotics, wound biofilm, wound treatment
May 15, 2011 at 5:36 am #2750
April 28, 2012 at 4:40 am #2749HarrisonKeymaster2 pts
It’s really strange that in 2012, when biofilms have been documented for 328 years, the Infectious Disease Society of America has no mention of them in ENT infections. Even their new “guidelines” fail to mention:
1) Biofilms, what they are, how to detect them, and how they amplify the ability of bugs to exchange genes and resist antibiotics;
2) Molecular diagnostics and their superiority to cultures which are ancient, good for no more than 5% of bacteria and were abandoned by all other life sciences decades ago;
3) No mention of the many herbal, natural and technology methods of eradicating ENT infections (there are many);
4) How non-bacteria, particularly yeasts, create the chronic (polymicrobial) infections that make sinus infections difficult to eradicate.
These guidelines ultimately waste time (patients), money (patients, insurance companies); they perpetuate and CAUSE human suffering, relying upon absurdly imprecise imaging and cultures to detect chronic bacterial infections.
It is sad and inexplicable that an entire society of “experts” has the influence to issue guidelines that affect the quality of life for everyone in this country. It is surreal.
See file below. Folks, any ideas why this egregious behavior is accepted by most doctors?
Clin Infect Dis.-2012-Chow-cid_cir1043.pdf
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.