For those of you who object to the existence of evolution, here’s a handy sticker to place on your health insurance card so you don’t get vaccinated by accident. Just print PDF onto sticker paper … and give extras to your like-minded friends. The flu virus is constantly evolving, so hoping these will come in handy. Or, if you don’t think the flu virus is evolving, ask for last year’s vaccine … it’s much cheaper!
Tag Archives: flu
The CDC designated this week as “Get Smart About Antibiotics Week.” I know, pretty exciting.
Although I’m all on board with awareness, and its goal (reducing resistance evolution in bacteria), I think the people at the CDC are actively ignoring an insanely easy way to educate the public: simply stop using the word “antibiotic,” and instead say “antibacterial”. E.g., people at the CDC should open up all their Word documents and web pages and do a global search/replace. Would take a week to fix the formatting changes caused by the extra characters. The cost of doing this would probably be much less than what they spend getting all those cartoons for their posters on antibiotics.
The reason I suggest this is that most people assume antibiotics work against viruses. And who can blame them? It’s what the word use to mean. Below is a sample definition from 1910:
Of course, the CDC loves the word “antibiotics.” And thus it would take an Executive Order to get them to do what I suggest. But if you agree with me and eventually become President, could you please consider sending them that memo?? You’d make me happy, and save a lot of lives.
More details at “Curbing the misuse of antibiotics.”
Just a Public Service Announcement from Charles Darwin: get a flu shot now so that you’ll (likely) be alive to fret endlessly about Ebola.
And if you don’t get the vaccine and end up getting the flu, please consider quarantining yourself: you are infectious because flu is airborne and kills a lot of us (36,000+). From the CDC:
“Most healthy adults may be able to infect other people beginning 1 day before symptoms develop and up to 5 to 7 days after becoming sick. Children may pass the virus for longer than 7 days. Symptoms start 1 to 4 days after the virus enters the body. That means that you may be able to pass on the flu to someone else before you know you are sick, as well as while you are sick. Some people can be infected with the flu virus but have no symptoms. During this time, those persons may still spread the virus to others.”
(Charles Darwin painted by Carl Buell. Background mural by Borgny Bay. Photo by me.)
In my ongoing quest to show that “antibiotic” is a word that does more harm than good to public health outreach, I frequently encounter people on the Internet who insist that confusion over antibiotic efficacy is not due, at all, to the word itself. I value these people’s insight, of course, because their views certainly might be true for the planet they live on. There are probably a lot of habitable planets in the Universe (40 billion just in our galaxy!), and I don’t presume to know what reality is like for those places.
On Earth, however, the belief that antibiotics treat viruses is rampant, generates over-prescription, and is clearly related to the word itself. Here are Exhibit A (from answers.com) and Exhibit B (from Google definitions):
People believe that antibiotics treat viruses because on Earth we regularly use a word’s roots to infer meaning. So for the average person who doesn’t remember any biology from middle school, parsing the meaning of antiviral, antibacterial, antifungal, etc. is easy … as long as he/she knows what anti-, viral, bacterial, and fungal mean. But that same trick doesn’t work for antibiotic. And because people don’t realize their inference is incorrect, the misconception becomes forever entrenched in public opinion, and on the internet. The CDC (and others) waste millions of dollars each year trying to quash the misconception, but such efforts will always fail because the strength of the “antibiotics” misnomer is always truthier to the average Joe than a bunch of patronizing posters on a doctor’s waiting room wall.
[As an aside, misnomers are words (you can probably guess, based on the roots … if you live on Earth) that deliver an incorrect meaning. “Pencil lead” (two words, of course) is a great example, and there are thousands of parents each year who call their doctors in a panic after Jimmy gets stabbed during math class with a pencil. Or they search the internet for “pencil lead poisoning“. Luckily, pencil lead is graphite (always has been), a harmless crystal of carbon that is not going to cause Jimmy to be developmentally delayed.]
So how bad a misnomer is “antibiotics”? How should physicians decide whether to use “antibiotics” or “antibacterials” when discussing treatment of illnesses? Like any medical question, the decision should be evidence-based. Here is how to get the evidence (Pew Research Center folks, this means you):
Responses for questions #1 and #2 show that approximately 10% and 36% (pdf) of adults are confused about the correct answers, respectively. That’s a HUGE fraction given the daily importance of bacteria and viruses in our lives and in the news. Unfortunately, there are no poll data for #3 and #4. But my guess is that the fraction of incorrect responses for #3 and #4 will be 1% and 5%, respectively. “Antibacterials” clearly suggests the drug kills bacteria — only people unfamiliar with English might be clueless. And I’m guessing that 5% of the public think viruses are bacteria (I’ve asked dozens of virologists … and none knew of poll data on classification ignorance). No matter what the actual numbers, the level of confusion for “antibacterials” is going to be dramatically less than that caused by “antibiotics.”
So if you are a doctor hoping to improve patient understanding and patient care, using “antibacterials” is a no-brainer. And if you are worried that “antibacterial” is a rare word, stop worrying: it’s from the 1890s (that’s old!) and is found 13,200,000 times on the internet (that’s less than the 23.8 million for “antibiotic”, but still totally respectable). Don’t wait for the CDC, WHO, AMA, ACP, APA, etc. to recommend the change, because chances are they won’t — they love the word, “antibiotic” (I’ve emailed them all, trust me). So just tell your colleagues and staff on the floor to get on board. And then let me know how it goes.
Below are my other posts on the topic, if you need further convincing. All posts have graphics that you are encouraged to use for your talks on the topic (this week is Antibiotic Awareness Week, after all). Please consider sharing these links with others on Twitter and Facebook if you are on board with my suggestion, and if you can forward to impressionable medical students, you get bonus points.
- Curbing the misuse of antibiotics
- Antibiotics are antiviral
- How doctors can reduce antibiotic demands from patients
- Antibiotic Awareness Week poster
- Antibiotics work against viruses
- How to improve Antibiotic Awareness Week
- Seasonal plea for informed antibiotic usage
- Antibacterial soap
- The Walking Dead need antivirals, not antibacterials (Shopping list for anti-infectives)
- Venn guide to pills that kill things
[If you’re curious why I am so interested in this issue, it’s because I witnessed, first-hand, confusion over “antibiotics” when I lectured on antibacterial resistance in my evolution courses at Swarthmore College. My students were (largely) bright, and were often bound for medical school … yet they frequently made the same incorrect assumptions about efficacy that totally uneducated people make. Misuse of “antibiotics” became one of my pet peeves. Because I have a blog, I thought it would be worth a try to effect some change.]
Ten interesting facts about antibiotics, for Antibiotic Awareness Week (Nov 18 -24, 2013). Below is an image that can be used for presentations. PDF version for printing: facts-about-antibiotics.pdf.
I’ve tried to craft the above poster with information that is mildly interesting, with the hope that people (people like you?) might pass the link along. There are 100s of posters on the internet … but they seem to be completely ineffective at educating the public (according to an experiment). In my view, the problem is that all of these posters use “antibiotics” instead of the correct term, “antibacterial.” Please see my page, “Curbing the misuse of antibiotics” for details on why antibiotic/antibacterial choice matters for the public, even if it doesn’t matter to you (who probably have a higher degree).
Below are some links that explore some of statements in the PDF above. I’m putting them below the fold because they are probably TMI for 99% of the people who might be interested in the above PDF. If you are that 1%, go crazy.
- To reduce the number of patients demanding antibacterials for viral infections (often for their kids), doctors are urged to think carefully how they speak to patients. See this paper (from The Alliance for Prudent Use of Antibiotics) for insightful suggestions on linguistic “levers” that physicians can use toward this goal. My suggestion: say, “An antibacterial will not treat your viral infection,” rather than “An antibiotic will not treat your viral infection.”
- Antibiotics are generally assumed to be primarily defensive compounds, but that assumption is under review: see excellent articles by Julian Davies, Raaijmakers and Mazzola, Alicia Fajardo and José L Martínez, and Aminov.
- 10% of Americans believe antibiotics are addictive. Source: Pew Research Center (pdf). Also discussed here.
- Percentage believing viruses can be killed by antibiotics. Also, see this pdf. In my opinion, the bulk of this misconception is actually due to people’s belief that viruses are bacteria. See haiku at right. I was forced to make this because I didn’t have “% believing viruses are bacteria” poll data. Why do those doing STEM surveys not ask this? If you are a teacher and use “clickers” in class, can you please assess this at the start of class some year? Ideally in a huge class with freshman. Ideally not a science course. And then tell me??
- Effect of antibacterials on mitochondria.
- Etymology of antibiotic.
- Definition of antibiotic from the 1913 edition of the 1900 Webster’s dictionary. (The dictionary does not have an entry for antibiotic.)
- Modern definitions of “antibiotic” from multiple dictionaries. Many still define the word as applying to compounds that are active against microorganisms (i.e., not just bacteria).
- How Selman Waksman stole the discovery of antibacterials from his own graduate student. And, in doing so, likely stole the Nobel Prize that Waksman eventually was awarded.
- Antibiotics can be produced by bacteria, too. Waxman’s earlier papers (e.g.), in fact, say that antibiotics can be derived from any microorganism. And his claim to fame was streptomycin, which comes from a bacteria, though the organism was originally classified as a fungus (oopsies!). Microbiologists today like to define antibiotics as “just from fungi”, but that seems to be a recent fad.