G
gary
Having begun this thread AND now
Having begun this thread AND now
fully informed by my G.P., maybe this will help bring some clarity.
His nurse who asked him about my query says:
The shots were not then and are not now totally 'unnecessary'. But, over time, the body could become 'immune' to the power of penicillin when administered in such large doses at monthly intervals, especially in the years and decades long usage some of us endured.
So today, an infection that would be damaging to the heart valves can be dealt with within 24 hours by most patients seeing a doctor or going to an emergency room so the preventive once-a-month shots were overkill, subsequent to the powerful antibiotics that have been developed since the 40s and 50s, when the once-a-month a regime was nearly all that there was, proven to prevent further valve damage.
HOWEVER. If traveling in a fashion in which medical facilities are not immediately at hand within hours of onset, the protocols used in 'getting 'shots' for say, malaria, or Dengue Fever, tetanus, etc. should be sought after by the patient.
In other words, getting that penicillin or other antibiotic with 'shelf life' in the body is a pretty good idea if done just before travelling.
When I asked her if taking along a syringe to inject oneself instead, immediately after injury, is an even better one, she said I might hurt myself giving myself a shot and that I would in all likelihood be seeing a doctor at some point within a day of the injury, no?
I asked is that main objection: giving oneself a shot may be MORE damaging than the infection? She said not just that but there are other considerations, depending on the nature of the infection or disease one may contract.
Then, presupposing I have an adequate skill in giving myself intramuscular injections, is that not what the physician would do if I get a contaminated fish hook stuck in an artery? ( Maybe not what he'd do for a malarial fever or Dengue but just focusing on the cut or the stab) Would the injection be a far better idea? Vital to Protection of the valve?
She said the GP still felt that it was best to take the oral amoxycillin after injury and then get to medical treatment to cover ALL the bases and that an accurate, professionally administered injection without injuring onself would be beneficial but not necessarily when taken in the context that after a major injury, a trip to the doctor or hospital, as soon as possible, is the most intelligent tack to take, with little downside risk of damaging the new implant.
Those of us who carry amoxycillin (who are not allergic to it!) at all times seem to be on the right if not necessarily the most foolproof course.
Having begun this thread AND now
fully informed by my G.P., maybe this will help bring some clarity.
His nurse who asked him about my query says:
The shots were not then and are not now totally 'unnecessary'. But, over time, the body could become 'immune' to the power of penicillin when administered in such large doses at monthly intervals, especially in the years and decades long usage some of us endured.
So today, an infection that would be damaging to the heart valves can be dealt with within 24 hours by most patients seeing a doctor or going to an emergency room so the preventive once-a-month shots were overkill, subsequent to the powerful antibiotics that have been developed since the 40s and 50s, when the once-a-month a regime was nearly all that there was, proven to prevent further valve damage.
HOWEVER. If traveling in a fashion in which medical facilities are not immediately at hand within hours of onset, the protocols used in 'getting 'shots' for say, malaria, or Dengue Fever, tetanus, etc. should be sought after by the patient.
In other words, getting that penicillin or other antibiotic with 'shelf life' in the body is a pretty good idea if done just before travelling.
When I asked her if taking along a syringe to inject oneself instead, immediately after injury, is an even better one, she said I might hurt myself giving myself a shot and that I would in all likelihood be seeing a doctor at some point within a day of the injury, no?
I asked is that main objection: giving oneself a shot may be MORE damaging than the infection? She said not just that but there are other considerations, depending on the nature of the infection or disease one may contract.
Then, presupposing I have an adequate skill in giving myself intramuscular injections, is that not what the physician would do if I get a contaminated fish hook stuck in an artery? ( Maybe not what he'd do for a malarial fever or Dengue but just focusing on the cut or the stab) Would the injection be a far better idea? Vital to Protection of the valve?
She said the GP still felt that it was best to take the oral amoxycillin after injury and then get to medical treatment to cover ALL the bases and that an accurate, professionally administered injection without injuring onself would be beneficial but not necessarily when taken in the context that after a major injury, a trip to the doctor or hospital, as soon as possible, is the most intelligent tack to take, with little downside risk of damaging the new implant.
Those of us who carry amoxycillin (who are not allergic to it!) at all times seem to be on the right if not necessarily the most foolproof course.
