Pet meds for human use

[abelru]

This thread, and several others like it have posed questions, presumably in the hopes that some of the qualified medical folks in this community could chime in and lend their $0.02. Several have been gracious enough to take the time to help illustrate several of the pitfalls and trappings of antibiotic administration (including safety concerns regarding vet meds).

I've seen absolutly nothing "illustrating" the safety concerns related to veterinary medicines in this thread. Other than calling upon authority and false dichotomies, I haven't seen any medical studies or any reasons to back up their claims, despite being asked for these specifics a few dozen times.

Absolutely, 100%, and with total crystal clarity there has never been a political agenda. And while it is true that most of us with licenses at stake would stop short of advocating certain ideas, the reasons provided as to why taking pet meds is not advisable is based largely upon training/science/evidence/experience.

There is a world of difference between advocating a treatment and discussing a chemical or compound. I'd like to think that a Pharm.D. could offer more than "FIND ME A STUDY THAT SAYS ITS OK". Perhaps "Ah, but Pill X contains substance Y that doesn't hurt fish but can hurt humans". We've got none of that here.

The legality issues are many as well, and I would like to address this. We are not cowards for being concerned about potential sanctions or litigation. This is our livelihood. This is how we feed our families, and ensure our future. Would you risk it all to dispense advice to a perfect stranger?

Giving advice and discussing chemistry are two different things.

1. The safety concerns are that there Is no evidence that they are safe. While it may say "amoxicillin" on the label, are the excipients and other compounds safe for human consumption? Don't know. Very brief lit search turned up nothing. I doubt the data exist to demonstrate it, one way or another. Ergo, cannot say that they are safe.

2. I would hope every Pharm D would do the same, and ask critical questions (I.e. show me the evidence) before making a recommendation

3. Calling this a "chemistry discussion" is like asking a gunsmith how to make your M4 full auto in a public Internet forum, and calling it a discussion of mechanics. Very illegal act, and as such is a bad idea. Constitutionally, may be protected, but as per the rules of this forum as I understand them, it is verboten.

And please remember that possession/administration of antibiotics (and all prescription meds) by humans without a valid prescription is illegal.

[ptAltered]

1. The safety concerns are that there Is no evidence that they are safe. While it may say "amoxicillin" on the label, are the excipients and other compounds safe for human consumption? Don't know. Very brief lit search turned up nothing. I doubt the data exist to demonstrate it, one way or another. Ergo, cannot say that they are safe. [/quote

I can accept "I don't know" or "more research is required". I can not accept "Fish and human antibiotics are radically different, trust me, don't take them".

3. Calling this a "chemistry discussion" is like asking a gunsmith how to make your M4 full auto in a public Internet forum, and calling it a discussion of mechanics. Very illegal act, and as such is a bad idea. Constitutionally, may be protected, but as per the rules of this forum as I understand them, it is verboten.

And please remember that possession/administration of antibiotics (and all prescription meds) by humans without a valid prescription is illegal.

That's an interesting point.

I wonder what "law" is being broken if a lay person takes fish antibiotics? I know that antibiotics aren't in the CSA but do require a prescription. Sterile water in a bottle requires a prescription, however, and I don't see any regulations against discussing boiling water on the Internet.

[CG]

And please remember that possession/administration of antibiotics (and all prescription meds) by humans without a valid prescription is illegal.

That's an interesting point.

I wonder what "law" is being broken if a lay person takes fish antibiotics? I know that antibiotics aren't in the CSA but do require a prescription. Sterile water in a bottle requires a prescription, however, and I don't see any regulations against discussing boiling water on the Internet.

Is it illegal to possess veterinary antibiotics if they are not intended for human use?

PtAltered, quit giving them ideas.

[Liff]

You came back, so I came back too.

I can accept "I don't know" or "more research is required". I can not accept "Fish and human antibiotics are radically different, trust me, don't take them".

Who ever advocated that point? I know I didn't (quote is from page two).

I am not saying that all medicines labeled for vet use will kill you, or hurt you, or even that they are ineffective in humans. <Snip.>

This side of the paw, it is negligent to recommend veterinary medicine for human use. The other side is a different matter. Sure, if it really, truly was the other side I would be taking amoxicillin no matter what was on the label if it was that important.

Troll away brother, troll away.

The SOLE ingredient is Amoxicillin.

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/dr ... m?id=68523

Amoxicillin capsules, tablets and powder for oral suspension are intended for oral administration.
Amoxicillin Capsules provide amoxicillin trihydrate equivalent to 250 mg or 500 mg amoxicillin. Amoxicillin Capsules, USP also contain Magnesium Stearate, NF; Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, NF. The capsule shell contains D&C red No. 33; FD&C blue No. 1; FD&C red No. 40; FD&C yellow No. 6; Gelatin, NF; Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, NF Titanium Dioxide, USP. Each 250 mg capsule contains up to 0.0027 mEq (0.062 mg) of sodium; the 500 mg capsule contains up to 0.0052 mEq (0.119 mg) of sodium.
Amoxicillin Tablets provide amoxicillin trihydrate equivalent to 875 mg. In addition each tablet contains the following inactive ingredients: Sodium Starch Glycolate, NF; Pregelatinized Starch, NF; Colloidal Silicon Dioxide, NF; Povidone, USP; Magnesium Stearate, NF; Polyvinyl Alcohol, USP; Titanium Dioxide, USP; Talc, NF; Polyethylene Glycol, NF and Lecithin, NF. Each tablet contains up to 0.032 mEq (0.74 mg) of Sodium.
Amoxicillin for Oral Suspension is a dry powder and when reconstituted according to directions, contains amoxicillin trihydrate equivalent to 125 mg or 250 mg of amoxicillin per 5 mL. Amoxicillin for Oral Suspension, USP also contains flavors; casing color (FD&C red No. 40 and FD&C yellow No. 6); Microcrystalline Cellulose and Carboxymethylcellulose Sodium, NF; Colloidal Silicon Dioxide, NF; Sodium Citrate, USP; Sodium Propionate, NF; Sucrose NF. Each 5 mL of the 125 mg reconstituted suspension contains up to 0.209 mEq (4.80 mg) of sodium; each 5 mL of the 250 mg reconstituted suspension contains up to 0.417 mEq (9.60 mg) of sodium.

I am not sure we are using the same meaning for the word, "SOLE".

[abelru]

3. Calling this a "chemistry discussion" is like asking a gunsmith how to make your M4 full auto in a public Internet forum, and calling it a discussion of mechanics. Very illegal act, and as such is a bad idea. Constitutionally, may be protected, but as per the rules of this forum as I understand them, it is verboten.

And please remember that possession/administration of antibiotics (and all prescription meds) by humans without a valid prescription is illegal.

That's an interesting point.

I wonder what "law" is being broken if a lay person takes fish antibiotics? I know that antibiotics aren't in the CSA but do require a prescription. Sterile water in a bottle requires a prescription, however, and I don't see any regulations against discussing boiling water on the Internet.[/quote]

It's no so much the 'what' as it is the context of administration.

It is illegal to dispense concentrated oxygen without a prescription or prescriptive protocol to do so. Is it then illegal for me to breathe? Clearly not.

I briefly searched Google for laws pertaining specifically to fish antibiotics or veterinary antibiotics and human administration and must admit I do not know how to properly search law databases. But there is a great deal of law enforcement interest in medication diversion and illegal procurement and consumption of medications obtained on-line without a prescription using unscrupulous pharmacies. I am sure someone more capable than myself in this arena (Cop, JD, etc) could be of more help.

And the issue of what can and cannot be discussed in this forum is a separate issue than that of what can be discussed on the internet. This falls under the same mandate as every discussion on looting or illegal use of weapons, etc. ZS is pretty clear on this issue.

[Jamie]

So...you didn't look at this link in my earlier post...

http://www.truthistreason.net/guide-to- ... -post-shtf

Every “drug” manufactured, sold, or brought into the United States must pass FDA regulations (don’t get me started on the FDA), and is listed within the United States Pharmacopeia, or USP. This is a compendium recognized officially by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that contains descriptions, uses, strengths, and standards of purity for selected drugs and for all of their forms of dosage.
Use of the USP Verified Pharmaceutical Ingredient Mark helps ingredient manufacturers assure their customers that the quality of the ingredients they are supplying has been rigorously tested and verified by an independent authority. When the mark appears on an ingredient container or carton, it represents that USP has evaluated the ingredient and found that:
1. The participant’s quality system helps to ensure that the ingredient meets its label or certificate of analysis claims for identity, strength, purity, and quality.
2. The ingredient has been prepared under accepted good manufacturing practices (GMP) that ensure consistency in the quality of ingredients from batch to batch.
3. The ingredient meets its specifications’ acceptance criteria.
So what does all of this FDA jargon mean? Overall, it translates to assuring you that if you see an animal drug that is labeled, “UPS Pharmaceutical grade Amoxicillin,” it is the exact same pharmaceutical grade Amoxicillin that your doctor would prescribe you for various infections.
As for the identification or verification process, should you still feel uneasy, we can look to the FDA (yet again, ugh).

Per the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/ ... r206.7.pdf), each capsule, tablet, or pill must be uniquely marked. Two tablets with identical colors, shapes, and markings cannot, by law, have different ingredients. This is for a variety of reasons, but not limited to assisting Poison Control hotlines, hospitals, doctors, etc., in determining what someone might have ingested, overdosed on, or is causing side effects.

I've checked the antibiotics that I got from cal-vet, and they had markings and labeling consistent with FDA registered pills...

Jamie


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[ptAltered]

So...you didn't look at this link in my earlier post...

http://www.truthistreason.net/guide-to- ... -post-shtf

Every “drug” manufactured, sold, or brought into the United States must pass FDA regulations (don’t get me started on the FDA), and is listed within the United States Pharmacopeia, or USP. This is a compendium recognized officially by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that contains descriptions, uses, strengths, and standards of purity for selected drugs and for all of their forms of dosage.
Use of the USP Verified Pharmaceutical Ingredient Mark helps ingredient manufacturers assure their customers that the quality of the ingredients they are supplying has been rigorously tested and verified by an independent authority. When the mark appears on an ingredient container or carton, it represents that USP has evaluated the ingredient and found that:
1. The participant’s quality system helps to ensure that the ingredient meets its label or certificate of analysis claims for identity, strength, purity, and quality.
2. The ingredient has been prepared under accepted good manufacturing practices (GMP) that ensure consistency in the quality of ingredients from batch to batch.
3. The ingredient meets its specifications’ acceptance criteria.
So what does all of this FDA jargon mean? Overall, it translates to assuring you that if you see an animal drug that is labeled, “UPS Pharmaceutical grade Amoxicillin,” it is the exact same pharmaceutical grade Amoxicillin that your doctor would prescribe you for various infections.
As for the identification or verification process, should you still feel uneasy, we can look to the FDA (yet again, ugh).

Per the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/ ... r206.7.pdf), each capsule, tablet, or pill must be uniquely marked. Two tablets with identical colors, shapes, and markings cannot, by law, have different ingredients. This is for a variety of reasons, but not limited to assisting Poison Control hotlines, hospitals, doctors, etc., in determining what someone might have ingested, overdosed on, or is causing side effects.

I've checked the antibiotics that I got from cal-vet, and they had markings and labeling consistent with FDA registered pills...

Jamie


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I mentioned that earlier and was told that it's irrelevant. I asked Liff how he'd identify a pill by visual inspection and he obfuscated.

Once again; Liff, if you were presented with a pill that met the identification requirements as 500mg Amoxicilin, how would you,as a Doctor of Pharmacy, know that it's for humans or other animals? If such a safety concern exists, surely these organizations and entities that you've cited already would have documentation on how to differentiate between the two?

Please answer that direct question, it's really what the whole thing hinges upon. Your recent paste shows that much more than Amox is in a pill but it doesn't mention how to tell the species for which it's intended.

[Liff]

That link is irrelevant Jaime. That law only applies to human use. In fact, that link helps prove that the vet use medicine is held to a different standard.

Once again; Liff, if you were presented with a pill that met the identification requirements as 500mg Amoxicilin, how would you,as a Doctor of Pharmacy, know that it's for humans or other animals?

I couldn't tell the difference.

If such a safety concern exists, surely these organizations and entities that you've cited already would have documentation on how to differentiate between the two?

Ah, but there is documentation on how to tell the difference. It is called the bottle that the capsule came out of and the prodigy of the supply chain.

It isn't like there are counterfeit drugs, are there? Well, actually there is counterfeit drugs. How could I, as a Doctor of Pharmacy (not that that matters in the slightest in this context), know a good counterfeit drug from a real one based only off of the appearance of the capsule? Same with the vet medicine, I couldn't.

What if some wiseass were to open the capsule, fill the capsule with baby powder, and close up the capsule? Same with the human use, vet use, counterfeit, and now the altered medicine: I couldn't tell the difference.

Now lets say the wiseass was to fill the capsule with cyanide. How could I tell the difference between the human use, vet use, counterfeit, altered, and now poisonous capsule? I couldn't tell the difference.

And that is why I can't ethically recommend to anyone to take something that was not manufactured or compounded in accordance with the current regulations. If your entire argument boils down to, "If the outer capsule looks the same, then the insides must also be the same", then I would suggest that your logic may be flawed.

And as to the capsules, nothing could be bad with just the outer capsule, right?

[Jamie]

I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree on the relevance of that article, and the various points it discusses...along with the use of vet meds.

I'm out of this for now, as it seems less a discussion than a couple of people re-posting their position again and again...and again (me included).

Jamie

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Liff]

We are a lot closer to agreement I would say. I think that article brings up some excellent points and is spot on for a great many things. I disagree with using that link because, just and only that link, is irrelevant to veterinary medications. The link embedded in that article is irrelevant to his blog posting.

I think that my position has been misunderstood repeatedly, over and over, was one of the issues itt. The second issue is that positive claims require positive evidence. Other posters (plural, not singling anyone out) have made the positive claim that vet medicine and human medicine are the same thing. Other than a fairly well written blog article that references a regulation that does not apply to veterinary medicine, what positive evidence has been put forward to support that claim?

Rejecting the claim for lack of evidence is not making a positive claim, and as I have said over and over,

I am not saying that all medicines labeled for vet use will kill you, or hurt you, or even that they are ineffective in humans. <Snip.>

This side of the paw, it is negligent to recommend veterinary medicine for human use. The other side is a different matter. Sure, if it really, truly was the other side I would be taking amoxicillin no matter what was on the label if it was that important.

abelru understands:

1. The safety concerns are that there Is no evidence that they are safe. While it may say "amoxicillin" on the label, are the excipients and other compounds safe for human consumption? Don't know. Very brief lit search turned up nothing. I doubt the data exist to demonstrate it, one way or another. Ergo, cannot say that they are safe.

I am not claiming that they are unsafe. I am rejecting the claim that they are safe due to lack of evidence. I remain open to being shown wrong, and I encourage anyone to demonstrate, or provide evidence, that I am wrong. Positive claims require positive evidence.


Different way of looking at this: I don't buy reloaded ammo. Know why? Same reasons I don't buy veterinary medications. I am not sure what is actually in the round/capsule.

[EricinVirginia]

Ah Fish Mox... basically amoxicillin. I've used it. Because it isn't Human Mox, I have noticed that my stomach gets a lot more messed up by it like borderline cramping. But it works just fine besides that. I wish more things were available in the vet arena...

[duodecima]

Actually, patient managed treatment is not a verboten topic at all in mainstream medicine. There are mainstream, evidence based treatment protocols which involve calling in antibiotics for a patient rather than seeing them in certain cases. A lot of research is done in Europe, where the government systems doing the research have no economic incentive to make people go to the doctor if there isn't a reason. I haven't found any research on patient-initiated or patient-managed antibiotics - I think it would be a fascinating topic to research, if anyone has published data (not anecdote. not opinion no matter how expert), I'd love to be pointed to it.

People asked for sources, which I gave, and they didn't like. I gave better sources, from a M.D. no less, and no reply comes.

So, one MD is a "better source" but one PharmD (waves in Liff's direction) isn't? Ain't nobody here claiming our credentials make us perfect, and that applies to all of our colleagues as well.

Your source on this isn't one I would quote as an authority, given that that source, in another article, states that amoxicillin may be used for the following diseases (I have reformatted the list to save space):

Anthrax (Prevention or treatment of Cutaneous transmission), Chlamydia Infection (sexually transmitted), Urinary Tract Infection (bladder/kidney infections), Helicobacter pylori Infection (causes peptic ulcer), Lyme Disease (transmitted by ticks), Otitis Media (middle ear infection), Pneumonia (lung infection), Sinusitis, Skin or Soft Tissue Infection (cellulitis, boils), Actinomycosis (causes abscesses in humans and livestock), Bronchitis, Tonsillitis/Pharyngitis (Strep throat)

4 of these are correct. 3 are partially correct, or correct with limitations. 5 are basically wrong. I'm sure, somewhere, there's a source with this list - but in clinical practice, in 5/12 cases on this list, amoxicillin is not likely to work, and there are much better (and still simple!) choices.

If you can't sort out which are correct or incorrect... maybe you can see why a lot of us who can, just can't let this topic go?

[abelru]

I haven't found any research on patient-initiated or patient-managed antibiotics - I think it would be a fascinating topic to research, if anyone has published data (not anecdote. not opinion no matter how expert), I'd love to be pointed to it.

This was a popular approach to antibiotic administration for AOM when I worked in the ED.
Worked fairly well.

Chao JH, Kunkov S, Reyes LB, Lichten S, Crain EF. Comparison of two approaches to observation therapy for acute otitis media in the emergency department. Pediatrics. May 2008;121(5):e1352-6. [Medline].

Spiro DM, Tay KY, Arnold DH, Dziura JD, Baker MD, Shapiro ED. Wait-and-see prescription for the treatment of acute otitis media: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. Sep 13 2006;296(10):1235-41. [Medline].

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... eid=203330

http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/544692

Admittedly limited in its scope (AOM only), but none the less interesting food for thought.

[duodecima]

I haven't found any research on patient-initiated or patient-managed antibiotics - I think it would be a fascinating topic to research, if anyone has published data (not anecdote. not opinion no matter how expert), I'd love to be pointed to it.

This was a popular approach to antibiotic administration for AOM when I worked in the ED.
Worked fairly well.

facepalm!
I use that one all the time myself, I'd already read one of those.

I don't think of them in the context of veterinary antibiotics because the diagnosis piece (yes, indeed, it's acute otitis media) and there's the specific directions. I guess I assume, in the case of veterinary antibiotics, they're usually being used in conjunction with self diagnosis, but I suppose that doesn't have to be the case.

[run faster]

To those who believe we can take vet meds with no ill effects, how do we know what to take? is there a pdf or book I can find that shows what antibiotics go with what problems?


To those who believe we cannot take vet meds with no ill effects, or shouldnt risk it. What should we do if we can not afford the proper medicine, and in a PAW situation, what are our choices?



I have no medical training or knowledge so keep it simple lol

[run faster]

well I remembered something called google, and I guess thats probably my best answer.

This was a decent article, I thought.
http://www.urbanprepping.com/2012/04/11 ... tibiotics/

But Im sure there will be lots more research to do

[SteelWolf]

UPDATE

AFTER 10 DAYS - ALL signs of infection gone. No drainage, no redness, skin feels cool to the touch. Still a bit tender, but its gotten about 150% better than 10 days ago. So, Fish Cephalexin worked for me.

[dallas]

UPDATE

AFTER 10 DAYS - ALL signs of infection gone. No drainage, no redness, skin feels cool to the touch. Still a bit tender, but its gotten about 150% better than 10 days ago. So, Fish Cephalexin worked for me.

Or 10 days time allowed your bodies defenses to kill the germs. Your getting better proves nothing. Do you even have a culture and sensitivity to show the bacteria was sensitive to cephalexin?

This is from 2009. It is even more true now.

"Due to increased CA-MRSA incidence, cephalexin should not be prescribed to treat cellulitis in the outpatient setting because it does not provide coverage for the pathogen.13 Instead, oral antibiotics (e.g., clindamycin or trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole) should be prescribed. Doxycycline, minocycline, rifampin (usually prescribed in combination with fusidic acid to prevent resistance development), and linezolid are additional therapeutic options.

Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and clindamycin have several advantages: good oral bioavailability, familiarity to physicians, and general affordability. A disadvantage to using both trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole and doxycycline is that they provide inadequate coverage for group A streptococci, which are a common cause of cellulitis. Therefore, the simultaneous use of a beta-lactam antibiotic with either of these medications may improve outcomes for “nonpurulent” cellulitis.13,15 Linezolid has proven effective for skin and SSTI caused by MRSA, even though it is not bactericidal."

http://www.the-hospitalist.org/details/ ... litis.html

I hate to sound harsh, but that is the same as saying I wear the same socks every day and have not died. They must be keeping me alive. You have not proved causality.

[ptAltered]

That link is irrelevant Jaime. That law only applies to human use. In fact, that link helps prove that the vet use medicine is held to a different standard.

I'm wondering which lawyer I should hire to represent me against the microbes that can cause infections? Should I hire a bacterium as my attorney (do they take the bar?) or perhpas a virus? Oh well, I'm sure that some lawyers will save my life when I've got an infection! Maybe little lawyer nano-tech bots can go into my blood stream with cease and desist orders. Ah the importance of lawyers!

/blue

I couldn't tell the difference.

So you've studied Pharmacy stuff for at least five years and worked in the field presumably more and you couldn't, though the safeways installed by the US Federal Government and more lawyers than you can shake a stick at, differentiate between "fish" and "human" or "unicorn" antibiotics? That's kinda what I thought.

It isn't like there are counterfeit drugs, are there? Well, actually there is counterfeit drugs. How could I, as a Doctor of Pharmacy (not that that matters in the slightest in this context), know a good counterfeit drug from a real one based only off of the appearance of the capsule? Same with the vet medicine, I couldn't.

Totally irrelevant to the discussion. Obviously we have no way of knowing if ANYTHING is tampered with. Once we consider the fact that any medicine could have been tampered then it's all up in the air, why bother ever taking anything again? I know how great those FDA Regulations are (Remember when the lawyers saved those people that ate cyanide-laden Tylenol???) that you enforce.
[quote]
And that is why I can't ethically recommend to anyone to take something that was not manufactured or compounded in accordance with the current regulations. If your entire argument boils down to, "If the outer capsule looks the same, then the insides must also be the same", then I would suggest that your logic may be flawed.
[/quote
Face. Fucking. Palm.

Thats not "my argument", or Jamies argument. I didn't sit here and just happen to notice that, by pure coincidence, all pills that are the same substance have the same identifying characteristics. That's how the FDA and the tons of alphabet soup agencies responsible for compliance have set things up.

I just want to hear your answer to this question; It's pure on SHTF out there, EMP's, zombies, russians with AK's, it's fucking go-time. One of your kids (wife, whatever) gets whacked in the leg by a rusty nail. Fortunately you find a blister pack of "AMOXICILLIAN 500MG" (Or whatever antibiotic you like), the marking match up to your PDA or your pharmacy reference books. You throw them right away and don't use them, right?

Also, someone mentioned having to prove positive. Incorrect. I'm not trying to "prove" what antibiotics do, that's well known. I'm saying that if Amoxicillian 500mg in a pill identifying it as such is the recommended antibiotic then you should use that Amox to tread that specific infection. Are you saying that Amoxicillian is "Different" for humans and fish (I feel as if I've asked this question before but I'm game) and if they are different, show me exactly how they are. I wouldn't use the reference posted by Jamie earlier as it CLEARLY shows that the pill he bought, a "FISH" antibiotic (Trout? Bluegill? THE FDA DIDNT TELL ME:( ) is the same thing as a human antibiotic.


So, whats the missing factor here, besides the CYA madness thanks to lawyers (you can tell how much I love lawyers, right? That's not political, is it?)?

ANTIBIOTIC X WORKS ON INFECTION Y
THE FEDERAL GUBMINT MANDATES LABELING OF PILLS IN A SPECIFIC FASHION
THE PILL YOU HAVE DOESNT SAY FISH, HUMAN, EEL, UNICORN OR ALLIGATOR BUT IT MATCHES UP IN YOUR MAGICAL BOOK OF DRUGS TO Amox 500mg

What's the issue here? Take the recommended antibiotic in the recommended fashion, right? Not even a pharmacist can tell the difference between "Fish" and "human" antibiotcs and they can't talk about anything that might cause adverse effects

[Doctorr Fabulous]

Something that keeps coming to mind: isn't it illegal (felony, no?) to practice medicine without a license? Ergo, buying medicine labelled not for human consumption with the intent of using it on a human being would seems to fall under that definition.

Thoughts? (PtAltered, do us a favor and try not to btich so much about lawyers and government. It smacks of tinfoil.)

[Liff]

I don't think that this falls under the practice of medicine. Every state has their own definition of what the practice of medicine means, so this would vary by location.

I know that substituting fish labeled antibiotics is illegal in the practice of pharmacy. First with the FDA. If I were to give out this fish medicine instead of human medicine when the patient is a human, then the term is called misbranding. Or for a pharmacist to dispense prescription medicine with out a prescription, that is also illegal.

So how are the vet medicines obtained without a prescription? The intended use. Because these medicines are not intended for human use, laws that regulate the markings of oral dosage forms intended for human use do not apply. That link gets posted a lot in this thread. And that link is irrelevant. Also, all of the other regulations that apply to drugs intended for human use also do not apply.

Simply because some people need to read this again:

I am not saying that all medicines labeled for vet use will kill you, or hurt you, or even that they are ineffective in humans. <Snip.>

This side of the paw, it is negligent to recommend veterinary medicine for human use. The other side is a different matter. Sure, if it really, truly was the other side I would be taking amoxicillin no matter what was on the label if it was that important.

It is not CMA medicine, it is evidence based medicine. The lawyers can go fuck themselves. Ask the question, "What evidence is there that these medicines are safe and effective in humans?" I can't find any and no one has shown any evidence. Is it ethical to use this vet medicine over medicine intended for human use in the practice of pharmacy? Again, ignore the lawyers: No, it is not ethical. Is it negligent as I claimed earlier? Ask yourself what would happen if Walgreen's was using this fish medicine instead of human medicine. Think that would make the news? I think it would too.



Here is how integrity works: Don't misquote someone or misrepresent their position on a debate.


Here is how positive claims work: Lets say that I think that the Loch Ness monster was real, and I make that positive claim. It is up to me to prove that the monster does in fact exist. It is not up to anyone else to prove that the monster does not exist.

Lets say that someone claims that medicine intended for veterinary use is safe and effective in humans, and they make that positive claim. It does not matter the specific medicine. It is up to the person making that positive claim to prove that the medicine is safe and effective. It is not up to anyone else to prove that the medicine is not safe or not effective.

[dallas]

Here is how positive claims work: Lets say that I think that the Loch Ness monster was real, and I make that positive claim. It is up to me to prove that the monster does in fact exist. It is not up to anyone else to prove that the monster does not exist.

Lets say that someone claims that medicine intended for veterinary use is safe and effective in humans, and they make that positive claim. It does not matter the specific medicine. It is up to the person making that positive claim to prove that the medicine is safe and effective. It is not up to anyone else to prove that the medicine is not safe or not effective.

Exactly!

The statement:

"AFTER 10 DAYS - ALL signs of infection gone. No drainage, no redness, skin feels cool to the touch. Still a bit tender, but its gotten about 150% better than 10 days ago. So, Fish Cephalexin worked for me."

Does Not prove it is safe or effective. One could argue that he got better despite his taking the Fish Cephalexin.

Was the fish med always cool and away from light? You know it degrades from heat and light both into unkown compounds?
http://www.basra-science-journal.org/content5e/119.pdf

[Liff]

Was the fish med always cool and away from light? You know it degrades from heat and light both into unkown compounds?
http://www.basra-science-journal.org/content5e/119.pdf

That's only what the lawyers want you to think. You are so wrong. Facepalm. What is it with you arrogant medical people? Do you think you know more than me just because you went to years of school and have been doing this as a job for years and years more?! Forget your clinically published, peer reviewed, repeatable studies that used a control group. That is just lawyer crap. I read this blog that ....

And medicines never expire. That is just pharmaceutical lawyers (the WORST kind) lying to us.

[Kelvar]

That link is irrelevant Jaime. That law only applies to human use. In fact, that link helps prove that the vet use medicine is held to a different standard.

I'm wondering which lawyer I should hire to represent me against the microbes that can cause infections? Should I hire a bacterium as my attorney (do they take the bar?) or perhpas a virus? Oh well, I'm sure that some lawyers will save my life when I've got an infection! Maybe little lawyer nano-tech bots can go into my blood stream with cease and desist orders. Ah the importance of lawyers!

It isn't like there are counterfeit drugs, are there? Well, actually there is counterfeit drugs. How could I, as a Doctor of Pharmacy (not that that matters in the slightest in this context), know a good counterfeit drug from a real one based only off of the appearance of the capsule? Same with the vet medicine, I couldn't.

Totally irrelevant to the discussion. Obviously we have no way of knowing if ANYTHING is tampered with. Once we consider the fact that any medicine could have been tampered then it's all up in the air, why bother ever taking anything again? I know how great those FDA Regulations are (Remember when the lawyers saved those people that ate cyanide-laden Tylenol???) that you enforce.

I just want to hear your answer to this question; It's pure on SHTF out there, EMP's, zombies, russians with AK's, it's fucking go-time. One of your kids (wife, whatever) gets whacked in the leg by a rusty nail. Fortunately you find a blister pack of "AMOXICILLIAN 500MG" (Or whatever antibiotic you like), the marking match up to your PDA or your pharmacy reference books. You throw them right away and don't use them, right?

So, whats the missing factor here, besides the CYA madness thanks to lawyers (you can tell how much I love lawyers, right? That's not political, is it?)?

Alright, listen. If you have some beef with the FDA or you think drugs shouldn't be regulated or whatever, ZS is not the place for you to find a platform. You're obviously trolling now because your post is little more than a bunch of sarcasm.

There are many things some people might do if the SHTF, but that doesn't mean it is okay to advocate them here.

Typing in all caps does not make one's point more compelling.

You need to stop posting in this thread. If you think that's too harsh, please feel free to PM me or any other Moderator.

Also, no one gives a shit if you don't like lawyers. We have a rule against hate here, and leveling that hate against an entire, legitimate profession seems to run afoul of that rule.

Back away from this thread. Next time, try to argue the merits of your position, if it has any.

ETA: Liff--please lay off the sarcasm as well.