You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Thinking about requesting 2-weeks in the hospital
- Thread starter Andi2007
- Start date
Nightwriter
New member
Andi,
I cannot tell you whether to take antibiotics or not. I don't know how anyone can tell you what to do. I can talk a little about my own experience with exacerbations and antibiotics. And I think for those people who think proactive means taking antibiotics, if that is what you and your doctor think that is best, than you must do what seems right in your particular case.
To address the general discussion about antibiotic use in the bigger picture.
For most of my battle with CF, I was on antibiotics all the time. I had bronchiectasis almost as soon as I became symptomatic which makes the fight with bacteria even harder. When I first got sick, I took Bactrim every single day for over ten years. I still got sick every 3 months requiring more antibiotics plus intermittent IV meds. So I know that regime well. But without trying to be condescending to others on this thread (as in Saving Ferris calling me, "Honey") I must beg to differ to those claiming that antibiotics are the ONLY way to prevent lung damage.
Because my doctor thinks very much like Warwick, another original thinker, who treats each patient in a different way, not following conventional rules. I have been off of IV antibiotics for 12 years. I have been off of any antibiotic for as long as 2 years at a time. And you know what? My CT scan shows improvement in many ways, particularly in the airways. My aveoli are no longer swollen where I ALWAYS had crackles in my lungs. That's gone. The holes in my lungs appear smaller because of the reduced swelling. Actual lung damage cannot be reversed. You can't grow new tissue. My FEV1 has gone up steadily. It is higher now that in was in the 1990's. Even with extensive lung damage that I sustained under more traditional treatment.
My need for antibiotics grew less and less. I started following my doctor's protective measures when my lungs were already damaged with an FEV at about 37% (it had been 32%). I can only imagine what my life would have been like if I started protective measures when I had a 100%FEV1. And many protective measures anyone can do starting today, some as simple as cleaning up the air that you breathe. This is not to replace anything that you are doing.
Certainly, taking an antibiotic for every exacerbation, at the beginning of symptoms or taking them when they are not required is an option. Touting this as the ONLY way to prevent lung damage? Citing an article that discusses Dr. Warwick, as a reason to take antibiotics as the major way to prevent lung damage is misrepresenting Warwick's basic contention -- his first line of defense is getting the airways open and practicing mucus clearance so that you won't need antibiotics. Which in essence is controlling inflammation and the asthma component to CF. The young man who came to Warwick with only 20% lung function who then improved greatly did not have the damage reversed in lungs. If Warwick used his own principles, it was reducing inflammation, getting the airways open, and getting the bacteria filled mucus out of his lungs. Remember Warwick says this is his secret.
This is why Warwick invented the vest. Certainly someone can have high lung function and require antibiotics - infections occur in people with high lung function. The other thing I love about Dr. Warwick, over the years he says he is always changing the way he treats patients. I read an article where he said he advised against hypertonic saline because he thought that the saline would possibly inflame or damage the lungs. I then read a later article where Warrick said he had reconsidered his opinion, because his patients were having really good results. And certainly people who aren't Warwick's patients cannot make all decisions based on what they read about him or someone interpreting his words. And he is retired. Who knows how his practice would change even more, if he were still practicing full time?
So Warwick's approach is a reflection of good medicine as the article said --mostly by not using a cookie cutter approach, trying new things, and proving that one size does not fit all. Nothing is in stone - because medicine is always changing as new things are being discovered. They are just starting to do studies on how the environment affects CF. As a result of these types of studies, don't be surprised if you see more and more changes in how CF is being treated.
I cannot tell you whether to take antibiotics or not. I don't know how anyone can tell you what to do. I can talk a little about my own experience with exacerbations and antibiotics. And I think for those people who think proactive means taking antibiotics, if that is what you and your doctor think that is best, than you must do what seems right in your particular case.
To address the general discussion about antibiotic use in the bigger picture.
For most of my battle with CF, I was on antibiotics all the time. I had bronchiectasis almost as soon as I became symptomatic which makes the fight with bacteria even harder. When I first got sick, I took Bactrim every single day for over ten years. I still got sick every 3 months requiring more antibiotics plus intermittent IV meds. So I know that regime well. But without trying to be condescending to others on this thread (as in Saving Ferris calling me, "Honey") I must beg to differ to those claiming that antibiotics are the ONLY way to prevent lung damage.
Because my doctor thinks very much like Warwick, another original thinker, who treats each patient in a different way, not following conventional rules. I have been off of IV antibiotics for 12 years. I have been off of any antibiotic for as long as 2 years at a time. And you know what? My CT scan shows improvement in many ways, particularly in the airways. My aveoli are no longer swollen where I ALWAYS had crackles in my lungs. That's gone. The holes in my lungs appear smaller because of the reduced swelling. Actual lung damage cannot be reversed. You can't grow new tissue. My FEV1 has gone up steadily. It is higher now that in was in the 1990's. Even with extensive lung damage that I sustained under more traditional treatment.
My need for antibiotics grew less and less. I started following my doctor's protective measures when my lungs were already damaged with an FEV at about 37% (it had been 32%). I can only imagine what my life would have been like if I started protective measures when I had a 100%FEV1. And many protective measures anyone can do starting today, some as simple as cleaning up the air that you breathe. This is not to replace anything that you are doing.
Certainly, taking an antibiotic for every exacerbation, at the beginning of symptoms or taking them when they are not required is an option. Touting this as the ONLY way to prevent lung damage? Citing an article that discusses Dr. Warwick, as a reason to take antibiotics as the major way to prevent lung damage is misrepresenting Warwick's basic contention -- his first line of defense is getting the airways open and practicing mucus clearance so that you won't need antibiotics. Which in essence is controlling inflammation and the asthma component to CF. The young man who came to Warwick with only 20% lung function who then improved greatly did not have the damage reversed in lungs. If Warwick used his own principles, it was reducing inflammation, getting the airways open, and getting the bacteria filled mucus out of his lungs. Remember Warwick says this is his secret.
This is why Warwick invented the vest. Certainly someone can have high lung function and require antibiotics - infections occur in people with high lung function. The other thing I love about Dr. Warwick, over the years he says he is always changing the way he treats patients. I read an article where he said he advised against hypertonic saline because he thought that the saline would possibly inflame or damage the lungs. I then read a later article where Warrick said he had reconsidered his opinion, because his patients were having really good results. And certainly people who aren't Warwick's patients cannot make all decisions based on what they read about him or someone interpreting his words. And he is retired. Who knows how his practice would change even more, if he were still practicing full time?
So Warwick's approach is a reflection of good medicine as the article said --mostly by not using a cookie cutter approach, trying new things, and proving that one size does not fit all. Nothing is in stone - because medicine is always changing as new things are being discovered. They are just starting to do studies on how the environment affects CF. As a result of these types of studies, don't be surprised if you see more and more changes in how CF is being treated.
Nightwriter
New member
Andi,
I cannot tell you whether to take antibiotics or not. I don't know how anyone can tell you what to do. I can talk a little about my own experience with exacerbations and antibiotics. And I think for those people who think proactive means taking antibiotics, if that is what you and your doctor think that is best, than you must do what seems right in your particular case.
To address the general discussion about antibiotic use in the bigger picture.
For most of my battle with CF, I was on antibiotics all the time. I had bronchiectasis almost as soon as I became symptomatic which makes the fight with bacteria even harder. When I first got sick, I took Bactrim every single day for over ten years. I still got sick every 3 months requiring more antibiotics plus intermittent IV meds. So I know that regime well. But without trying to be condescending to others on this thread (as in Saving Ferris calling me, "Honey") I must beg to differ to those claiming that antibiotics are the ONLY way to prevent lung damage.
Because my doctor thinks very much like Warwick, another original thinker, who treats each patient in a different way, not following conventional rules. I have been off of IV antibiotics for 12 years. I have been off of any antibiotic for as long as 2 years at a time. And you know what? My CT scan shows improvement in many ways, particularly in the airways. My aveoli are no longer swollen where I ALWAYS had crackles in my lungs. That's gone. The holes in my lungs appear smaller because of the reduced swelling. Actual lung damage cannot be reversed. You can't grow new tissue. My FEV1 has gone up steadily. It is higher now that in was in the 1990's. Even with extensive lung damage that I sustained under more traditional treatment.
My need for antibiotics grew less and less. I started following my doctor's protective measures when my lungs were already damaged with an FEV at about 37% (it had been 32%). I can only imagine what my life would have been like if I started protective measures when I had a 100%FEV1. And many protective measures anyone can do starting today, some as simple as cleaning up the air that you breathe. This is not to replace anything that you are doing.
Certainly, taking an antibiotic for every exacerbation, at the beginning of symptoms or taking them when they are not required is an option. Touting this as the ONLY way to prevent lung damage? Citing an article that discusses Dr. Warwick, as a reason to take antibiotics as the major way to prevent lung damage is misrepresenting Warwick's basic contention -- his first line of defense is getting the airways open and practicing mucus clearance so that you won't need antibiotics. Which in essence is controlling inflammation and the asthma component to CF. The young man who came to Warwick with only 20% lung function who then improved greatly did not have the damage reversed in lungs. If Warwick used his own principles, it was reducing inflammation, getting the airways open, and getting the bacteria filled mucus out of his lungs. Remember Warwick says this is his secret.
This is why Warwick invented the vest. Certainly someone can have high lung function and require antibiotics - infections occur in people with high lung function. The other thing I love about Dr. Warwick, over the years he says he is always changing the way he treats patients. I read an article where he said he advised against hypertonic saline because he thought that the saline would possibly inflame or damage the lungs. I then read a later article where Warrick said he had reconsidered his opinion, because his patients were having really good results. And certainly people who aren't Warwick's patients cannot make all decisions based on what they read about him or someone interpreting his words. And he is retired. Who knows how his practice would change even more, if he were still practicing full time?
So Warwick's approach is a reflection of good medicine as the article said --mostly by not using a cookie cutter approach, trying new things, and proving that one size does not fit all. Nothing is in stone - because medicine is always changing as new things are being discovered. They are just starting to do studies on how the environment affects CF. As a result of these types of studies, don't be surprised if you see more and more changes in how CF is being treated.
I cannot tell you whether to take antibiotics or not. I don't know how anyone can tell you what to do. I can talk a little about my own experience with exacerbations and antibiotics. And I think for those people who think proactive means taking antibiotics, if that is what you and your doctor think that is best, than you must do what seems right in your particular case.
To address the general discussion about antibiotic use in the bigger picture.
For most of my battle with CF, I was on antibiotics all the time. I had bronchiectasis almost as soon as I became symptomatic which makes the fight with bacteria even harder. When I first got sick, I took Bactrim every single day for over ten years. I still got sick every 3 months requiring more antibiotics plus intermittent IV meds. So I know that regime well. But without trying to be condescending to others on this thread (as in Saving Ferris calling me, "Honey") I must beg to differ to those claiming that antibiotics are the ONLY way to prevent lung damage.
Because my doctor thinks very much like Warwick, another original thinker, who treats each patient in a different way, not following conventional rules. I have been off of IV antibiotics for 12 years. I have been off of any antibiotic for as long as 2 years at a time. And you know what? My CT scan shows improvement in many ways, particularly in the airways. My aveoli are no longer swollen where I ALWAYS had crackles in my lungs. That's gone. The holes in my lungs appear smaller because of the reduced swelling. Actual lung damage cannot be reversed. You can't grow new tissue. My FEV1 has gone up steadily. It is higher now that in was in the 1990's. Even with extensive lung damage that I sustained under more traditional treatment.
My need for antibiotics grew less and less. I started following my doctor's protective measures when my lungs were already damaged with an FEV at about 37% (it had been 32%). I can only imagine what my life would have been like if I started protective measures when I had a 100%FEV1. And many protective measures anyone can do starting today, some as simple as cleaning up the air that you breathe. This is not to replace anything that you are doing.
Certainly, taking an antibiotic for every exacerbation, at the beginning of symptoms or taking them when they are not required is an option. Touting this as the ONLY way to prevent lung damage? Citing an article that discusses Dr. Warwick, as a reason to take antibiotics as the major way to prevent lung damage is misrepresenting Warwick's basic contention -- his first line of defense is getting the airways open and practicing mucus clearance so that you won't need antibiotics. Which in essence is controlling inflammation and the asthma component to CF. The young man who came to Warwick with only 20% lung function who then improved greatly did not have the damage reversed in lungs. If Warwick used his own principles, it was reducing inflammation, getting the airways open, and getting the bacteria filled mucus out of his lungs. Remember Warwick says this is his secret.
This is why Warwick invented the vest. Certainly someone can have high lung function and require antibiotics - infections occur in people with high lung function. The other thing I love about Dr. Warwick, over the years he says he is always changing the way he treats patients. I read an article where he said he advised against hypertonic saline because he thought that the saline would possibly inflame or damage the lungs. I then read a later article where Warrick said he had reconsidered his opinion, because his patients were having really good results. And certainly people who aren't Warwick's patients cannot make all decisions based on what they read about him or someone interpreting his words. And he is retired. Who knows how his practice would change even more, if he were still practicing full time?
So Warwick's approach is a reflection of good medicine as the article said --mostly by not using a cookie cutter approach, trying new things, and proving that one size does not fit all. Nothing is in stone - because medicine is always changing as new things are being discovered. They are just starting to do studies on how the environment affects CF. As a result of these types of studies, don't be surprised if you see more and more changes in how CF is being treated.
Nightwriter
New member
Andi,
I cannot tell you whether to take antibiotics or not. I don't know how anyone can tell you what to do. I can talk a little about my own experience with exacerbations and antibiotics. And I think for those people who think proactive means taking antibiotics, if that is what you and your doctor think that is best, than you must do what seems right in your particular case.
To address the general discussion about antibiotic use in the bigger picture.
For most of my battle with CF, I was on antibiotics all the time. I had bronchiectasis almost as soon as I became symptomatic which makes the fight with bacteria even harder. When I first got sick, I took Bactrim every single day for over ten years. I still got sick every 3 months requiring more antibiotics plus intermittent IV meds. So I know that regime well. But without trying to be condescending to others on this thread (as in Saving Ferris calling me, "Honey") I must beg to differ to those claiming that antibiotics are the ONLY way to prevent lung damage.
Because my doctor thinks very much like Warwick, another original thinker, who treats each patient in a different way, not following conventional rules. I have been off of IV antibiotics for 12 years. I have been off of any antibiotic for as long as 2 years at a time. And you know what? My CT scan shows improvement in many ways, particularly in the airways. My aveoli are no longer swollen where I ALWAYS had crackles in my lungs. That's gone. The holes in my lungs appear smaller because of the reduced swelling. Actual lung damage cannot be reversed. You can't grow new tissue. My FEV1 has gone up steadily. It is higher now that in was in the 1990's. Even with extensive lung damage that I sustained under more traditional treatment.
My need for antibiotics grew less and less. I started following my doctor's protective measures when my lungs were already damaged with an FEV at about 37% (it had been 32%). I can only imagine what my life would have been like if I started protective measures when I had a 100%FEV1. And many protective measures anyone can do starting today, some as simple as cleaning up the air that you breathe. This is not to replace anything that you are doing.
Certainly, taking an antibiotic for every exacerbation, at the beginning of symptoms or taking them when they are not required is an option. Touting this as the ONLY way to prevent lung damage? Citing an article that discusses Dr. Warwick, as a reason to take antibiotics as the major way to prevent lung damage is misrepresenting Warwick's basic contention -- his first line of defense is getting the airways open and practicing mucus clearance so that you won't need antibiotics. Which in essence is controlling inflammation and the asthma component to CF. The young man who came to Warwick with only 20% lung function who then improved greatly did not have the damage reversed in lungs. If Warwick used his own principles, it was reducing inflammation, getting the airways open, and getting the bacteria filled mucus out of his lungs. Remember Warwick says this is his secret.
This is why Warwick invented the vest. Certainly someone can have high lung function and require antibiotics - infections occur in people with high lung function. The other thing I love about Dr. Warwick, over the years he says he is always changing the way he treats patients. I read an article where he said he advised against hypertonic saline because he thought that the saline would possibly inflame or damage the lungs. I then read a later article where Warrick said he had reconsidered his opinion, because his patients were having really good results. And certainly people who aren't Warwick's patients cannot make all decisions based on what they read about him or someone interpreting his words. And he is retired. Who knows how his practice would change even more, if he were still practicing full time?
So Warwick's approach is a reflection of good medicine as the article said --mostly by not using a cookie cutter approach, trying new things, and proving that one size does not fit all. Nothing is in stone - because medicine is always changing as new things are being discovered. They are just starting to do studies on how the environment affects CF. As a result of these types of studies, don't be surprised if you see more and more changes in how CF is being treated.
I cannot tell you whether to take antibiotics or not. I don't know how anyone can tell you what to do. I can talk a little about my own experience with exacerbations and antibiotics. And I think for those people who think proactive means taking antibiotics, if that is what you and your doctor think that is best, than you must do what seems right in your particular case.
To address the general discussion about antibiotic use in the bigger picture.
For most of my battle with CF, I was on antibiotics all the time. I had bronchiectasis almost as soon as I became symptomatic which makes the fight with bacteria even harder. When I first got sick, I took Bactrim every single day for over ten years. I still got sick every 3 months requiring more antibiotics plus intermittent IV meds. So I know that regime well. But without trying to be condescending to others on this thread (as in Saving Ferris calling me, "Honey") I must beg to differ to those claiming that antibiotics are the ONLY way to prevent lung damage.
Because my doctor thinks very much like Warwick, another original thinker, who treats each patient in a different way, not following conventional rules. I have been off of IV antibiotics for 12 years. I have been off of any antibiotic for as long as 2 years at a time. And you know what? My CT scan shows improvement in many ways, particularly in the airways. My aveoli are no longer swollen where I ALWAYS had crackles in my lungs. That's gone. The holes in my lungs appear smaller because of the reduced swelling. Actual lung damage cannot be reversed. You can't grow new tissue. My FEV1 has gone up steadily. It is higher now that in was in the 1990's. Even with extensive lung damage that I sustained under more traditional treatment.
My need for antibiotics grew less and less. I started following my doctor's protective measures when my lungs were already damaged with an FEV at about 37% (it had been 32%). I can only imagine what my life would have been like if I started protective measures when I had a 100%FEV1. And many protective measures anyone can do starting today, some as simple as cleaning up the air that you breathe. This is not to replace anything that you are doing.
Certainly, taking an antibiotic for every exacerbation, at the beginning of symptoms or taking them when they are not required is an option. Touting this as the ONLY way to prevent lung damage? Citing an article that discusses Dr. Warwick, as a reason to take antibiotics as the major way to prevent lung damage is misrepresenting Warwick's basic contention -- his first line of defense is getting the airways open and practicing mucus clearance so that you won't need antibiotics. Which in essence is controlling inflammation and the asthma component to CF. The young man who came to Warwick with only 20% lung function who then improved greatly did not have the damage reversed in lungs. If Warwick used his own principles, it was reducing inflammation, getting the airways open, and getting the bacteria filled mucus out of his lungs. Remember Warwick says this is his secret.
This is why Warwick invented the vest. Certainly someone can have high lung function and require antibiotics - infections occur in people with high lung function. The other thing I love about Dr. Warwick, over the years he says he is always changing the way he treats patients. I read an article where he said he advised against hypertonic saline because he thought that the saline would possibly inflame or damage the lungs. I then read a later article where Warrick said he had reconsidered his opinion, because his patients were having really good results. And certainly people who aren't Warwick's patients cannot make all decisions based on what they read about him or someone interpreting his words. And he is retired. Who knows how his practice would change even more, if he were still practicing full time?
So Warwick's approach is a reflection of good medicine as the article said --mostly by not using a cookie cutter approach, trying new things, and proving that one size does not fit all. Nothing is in stone - because medicine is always changing as new things are being discovered. They are just starting to do studies on how the environment affects CF. As a result of these types of studies, don't be surprised if you see more and more changes in how CF is being treated.
Nightwriter
New member
Andi,
I cannot tell you whether to take antibiotics or not. I don't know how anyone can tell you what to do. I can talk a little about my own experience with exacerbations and antibiotics. And I think for those people who think proactive means taking antibiotics, if that is what you and your doctor think that is best, than you must do what seems right in your particular case.
To address the general discussion about antibiotic use in the bigger picture.
For most of my battle with CF, I was on antibiotics all the time. I had bronchiectasis almost as soon as I became symptomatic which makes the fight with bacteria even harder. When I first got sick, I took Bactrim every single day for over ten years. I still got sick every 3 months requiring more antibiotics plus intermittent IV meds. So I know that regime well. But without trying to be condescending to others on this thread (as in Saving Ferris calling me, "Honey") I must beg to differ to those claiming that antibiotics are the ONLY way to prevent lung damage.
Because my doctor thinks very much like Warwick, another original thinker, who treats each patient in a different way, not following conventional rules. I have been off of IV antibiotics for 12 years. I have been off of any antibiotic for as long as 2 years at a time. And you know what? My CT scan shows improvement in many ways, particularly in the airways. My aveoli are no longer swollen where I ALWAYS had crackles in my lungs. That's gone. The holes in my lungs appear smaller because of the reduced swelling. Actual lung damage cannot be reversed. You can't grow new tissue. My FEV1 has gone up steadily. It is higher now that in was in the 1990's. Even with extensive lung damage that I sustained under more traditional treatment.
My need for antibiotics grew less and less. I started following my doctor's protective measures when my lungs were already damaged with an FEV at about 37% (it had been 32%). I can only imagine what my life would have been like if I started protective measures when I had a 100%FEV1. And many protective measures anyone can do starting today, some as simple as cleaning up the air that you breathe. This is not to replace anything that you are doing.
Certainly, taking an antibiotic for every exacerbation, at the beginning of symptoms or taking them when they are not required is an option. Touting this as the ONLY way to prevent lung damage? Citing an article that discusses Dr. Warwick, as a reason to take antibiotics as the major way to prevent lung damage is misrepresenting Warwick's basic contention -- his first line of defense is getting the airways open and practicing mucus clearance so that you won't need antibiotics. Which in essence is controlling inflammation and the asthma component to CF. The young man who came to Warwick with only 20% lung function who then improved greatly did not have the damage reversed in lungs. If Warwick used his own principles, it was reducing inflammation, getting the airways open, and getting the bacteria filled mucus out of his lungs. Remember Warwick says this is his secret.
This is why Warwick invented the vest. Certainly someone can have high lung function and require antibiotics - infections occur in people with high lung function. The other thing I love about Dr. Warwick, over the years he says he is always changing the way he treats patients. I read an article where he said he advised against hypertonic saline because he thought that the saline would possibly inflame or damage the lungs. I then read a later article where Warrick said he had reconsidered his opinion, because his patients were having really good results. And certainly people who aren't Warwick's patients cannot make all decisions based on what they read about him or someone interpreting his words. And he is retired. Who knows how his practice would change even more, if he were still practicing full time?
So Warwick's approach is a reflection of good medicine as the article said --mostly by not using a cookie cutter approach, trying new things, and proving that one size does not fit all. Nothing is in stone - because medicine is always changing as new things are being discovered. They are just starting to do studies on how the environment affects CF. As a result of these types of studies, don't be surprised if you see more and more changes in how CF is being treated.
I cannot tell you whether to take antibiotics or not. I don't know how anyone can tell you what to do. I can talk a little about my own experience with exacerbations and antibiotics. And I think for those people who think proactive means taking antibiotics, if that is what you and your doctor think that is best, than you must do what seems right in your particular case.
To address the general discussion about antibiotic use in the bigger picture.
For most of my battle with CF, I was on antibiotics all the time. I had bronchiectasis almost as soon as I became symptomatic which makes the fight with bacteria even harder. When I first got sick, I took Bactrim every single day for over ten years. I still got sick every 3 months requiring more antibiotics plus intermittent IV meds. So I know that regime well. But without trying to be condescending to others on this thread (as in Saving Ferris calling me, "Honey") I must beg to differ to those claiming that antibiotics are the ONLY way to prevent lung damage.
Because my doctor thinks very much like Warwick, another original thinker, who treats each patient in a different way, not following conventional rules. I have been off of IV antibiotics for 12 years. I have been off of any antibiotic for as long as 2 years at a time. And you know what? My CT scan shows improvement in many ways, particularly in the airways. My aveoli are no longer swollen where I ALWAYS had crackles in my lungs. That's gone. The holes in my lungs appear smaller because of the reduced swelling. Actual lung damage cannot be reversed. You can't grow new tissue. My FEV1 has gone up steadily. It is higher now that in was in the 1990's. Even with extensive lung damage that I sustained under more traditional treatment.
My need for antibiotics grew less and less. I started following my doctor's protective measures when my lungs were already damaged with an FEV at about 37% (it had been 32%). I can only imagine what my life would have been like if I started protective measures when I had a 100%FEV1. And many protective measures anyone can do starting today, some as simple as cleaning up the air that you breathe. This is not to replace anything that you are doing.
Certainly, taking an antibiotic for every exacerbation, at the beginning of symptoms or taking them when they are not required is an option. Touting this as the ONLY way to prevent lung damage? Citing an article that discusses Dr. Warwick, as a reason to take antibiotics as the major way to prevent lung damage is misrepresenting Warwick's basic contention -- his first line of defense is getting the airways open and practicing mucus clearance so that you won't need antibiotics. Which in essence is controlling inflammation and the asthma component to CF. The young man who came to Warwick with only 20% lung function who then improved greatly did not have the damage reversed in lungs. If Warwick used his own principles, it was reducing inflammation, getting the airways open, and getting the bacteria filled mucus out of his lungs. Remember Warwick says this is his secret.
This is why Warwick invented the vest. Certainly someone can have high lung function and require antibiotics - infections occur in people with high lung function. The other thing I love about Dr. Warwick, over the years he says he is always changing the way he treats patients. I read an article where he said he advised against hypertonic saline because he thought that the saline would possibly inflame or damage the lungs. I then read a later article where Warrick said he had reconsidered his opinion, because his patients were having really good results. And certainly people who aren't Warwick's patients cannot make all decisions based on what they read about him or someone interpreting his words. And he is retired. Who knows how his practice would change even more, if he were still practicing full time?
So Warwick's approach is a reflection of good medicine as the article said --mostly by not using a cookie cutter approach, trying new things, and proving that one size does not fit all. Nothing is in stone - because medicine is always changing as new things are being discovered. They are just starting to do studies on how the environment affects CF. As a result of these types of studies, don't be surprised if you see more and more changes in how CF is being treated.
Nightwriter
New member
Andi,
<br />
<br />I cannot tell you whether to take antibiotics or not. I don't know how anyone can tell you what to do. I can talk a little about my own experience with exacerbations and antibiotics. And I think for those people who think proactive means taking antibiotics, if that is what you and your doctor think that is best, than you must do what seems right in your particular case.
<br />
<br />To address the general discussion about antibiotic use in the bigger picture.
<br />
<br />For most of my battle with CF, I was on antibiotics all the time. I had bronchiectasis almost as soon as I became symptomatic which makes the fight with bacteria even harder. When I first got sick, I took Bactrim every single day for over ten years. I still got sick every 3 months requiring more antibiotics plus intermittent IV meds. So I know that regime well. But without trying to be condescending to others on this thread (as in Saving Ferris calling me, "Honey") I must beg to differ to those claiming that antibiotics are the ONLY way to prevent lung damage.
<br />
<br />Because my doctor thinks very much like Warwick, another original thinker, who treats each patient in a different way, not following conventional rules. I have been off of IV antibiotics for 12 years. I have been off of any antibiotic for as long as 2 years at a time. And you know what? My CT scan shows improvement in many ways, particularly in the airways. My aveoli are no longer swollen where I ALWAYS had crackles in my lungs. That's gone. The holes in my lungs appear smaller because of the reduced swelling. Actual lung damage cannot be reversed. You can't grow new tissue. My FEV1 has gone up steadily. It is higher now that in was in the 1990's. Even with extensive lung damage that I sustained under more traditional treatment.
<br />
<br />My need for antibiotics grew less and less. I started following my doctor's protective measures when my lungs were already damaged with an FEV at about 37% (it had been 32%). I can only imagine what my life would have been like if I started protective measures when I had a 100%FEV1. And many protective measures anyone can do starting today, some as simple as cleaning up the air that you breathe. This is not to replace anything that you are doing.
<br />
<br />Certainly, taking an antibiotic for every exacerbation, at the beginning of symptoms or taking them when they are not required is an option. Touting this as the ONLY way to prevent lung damage? Citing an article that discusses Dr. Warwick, as a reason to take antibiotics as the major way to prevent lung damage is misrepresenting Warwick's basic contention -- his first line of defense is getting the airways open and practicing mucus clearance so that you won't need antibiotics. Which in essence is controlling inflammation and the asthma component to CF. The young man who came to Warwick with only 20% lung function who then improved greatly did not have the damage reversed in lungs. If Warwick used his own principles, it was reducing inflammation, getting the airways open, and getting the bacteria filled mucus out of his lungs. Remember Warwick says this is his secret.
<br />
<br />This is why Warwick invented the vest. Certainly someone can have high lung function and require antibiotics - infections occur in people with high lung function. The other thing I love about Dr. Warwick, over the years he says he is always changing the way he treats patients. I read an article where he said he advised against hypertonic saline because he thought that the saline would possibly inflame or damage the lungs. I then read a later article where Warrick said he had reconsidered his opinion, because his patients were having really good results. And certainly people who aren't Warwick's patients cannot make all decisions based on what they read about him or someone interpreting his words. And he is retired. Who knows how his practice would change even more, if he were still practicing full time?
<br />
<br />So Warwick's approach is a reflection of good medicine as the article said --mostly by not using a cookie cutter approach, trying new things, and proving that one size does not fit all. Nothing is in stone - because medicine is always changing as new things are being discovered. They are just starting to do studies on how the environment affects CF. As a result of these types of studies, don't be surprised if you see more and more changes in how CF is being treated.
<br />
<br />
<br />I cannot tell you whether to take antibiotics or not. I don't know how anyone can tell you what to do. I can talk a little about my own experience with exacerbations and antibiotics. And I think for those people who think proactive means taking antibiotics, if that is what you and your doctor think that is best, than you must do what seems right in your particular case.
<br />
<br />To address the general discussion about antibiotic use in the bigger picture.
<br />
<br />For most of my battle with CF, I was on antibiotics all the time. I had bronchiectasis almost as soon as I became symptomatic which makes the fight with bacteria even harder. When I first got sick, I took Bactrim every single day for over ten years. I still got sick every 3 months requiring more antibiotics plus intermittent IV meds. So I know that regime well. But without trying to be condescending to others on this thread (as in Saving Ferris calling me, "Honey") I must beg to differ to those claiming that antibiotics are the ONLY way to prevent lung damage.
<br />
<br />Because my doctor thinks very much like Warwick, another original thinker, who treats each patient in a different way, not following conventional rules. I have been off of IV antibiotics for 12 years. I have been off of any antibiotic for as long as 2 years at a time. And you know what? My CT scan shows improvement in many ways, particularly in the airways. My aveoli are no longer swollen where I ALWAYS had crackles in my lungs. That's gone. The holes in my lungs appear smaller because of the reduced swelling. Actual lung damage cannot be reversed. You can't grow new tissue. My FEV1 has gone up steadily. It is higher now that in was in the 1990's. Even with extensive lung damage that I sustained under more traditional treatment.
<br />
<br />My need for antibiotics grew less and less. I started following my doctor's protective measures when my lungs were already damaged with an FEV at about 37% (it had been 32%). I can only imagine what my life would have been like if I started protective measures when I had a 100%FEV1. And many protective measures anyone can do starting today, some as simple as cleaning up the air that you breathe. This is not to replace anything that you are doing.
<br />
<br />Certainly, taking an antibiotic for every exacerbation, at the beginning of symptoms or taking them when they are not required is an option. Touting this as the ONLY way to prevent lung damage? Citing an article that discusses Dr. Warwick, as a reason to take antibiotics as the major way to prevent lung damage is misrepresenting Warwick's basic contention -- his first line of defense is getting the airways open and practicing mucus clearance so that you won't need antibiotics. Which in essence is controlling inflammation and the asthma component to CF. The young man who came to Warwick with only 20% lung function who then improved greatly did not have the damage reversed in lungs. If Warwick used his own principles, it was reducing inflammation, getting the airways open, and getting the bacteria filled mucus out of his lungs. Remember Warwick says this is his secret.
<br />
<br />This is why Warwick invented the vest. Certainly someone can have high lung function and require antibiotics - infections occur in people with high lung function. The other thing I love about Dr. Warwick, over the years he says he is always changing the way he treats patients. I read an article where he said he advised against hypertonic saline because he thought that the saline would possibly inflame or damage the lungs. I then read a later article where Warrick said he had reconsidered his opinion, because his patients were having really good results. And certainly people who aren't Warwick's patients cannot make all decisions based on what they read about him or someone interpreting his words. And he is retired. Who knows how his practice would change even more, if he were still practicing full time?
<br />
<br />So Warwick's approach is a reflection of good medicine as the article said --mostly by not using a cookie cutter approach, trying new things, and proving that one size does not fit all. Nothing is in stone - because medicine is always changing as new things are being discovered. They are just starting to do studies on how the environment affects CF. As a result of these types of studies, don't be surprised if you see more and more changes in how CF is being treated.
<br />