# 103 fever in 6.5 month old WWYD? UPDATE post #52



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

My non vax's EBF baby has a fever of 103.1....he is 6.5 months and normaly healthy baby...he's had a few colds with runny nose...but nothing like this.
We flew on 4/2 and were on 2 different airplanes....before we left for our flights he had started a little bit of a runny nose and a slight cough....mainly saw those symptoms in the morning when he woke up and then by noon...no more symptoms....the past 2 days and nights he's gotten worse...still nursing good...just a congested cough that's wet....clear nasal drainage....today i noticed the temp and decided to check it and it was 102.1 under his arm...which you add one point and that makes it 103.1.
I've been giving him echineachea(sp) mixed with small amounts of breastmilk for the past 3-4 days.
Any suggestions as to what i should do next?
I just dont feel comfortable with the high fever....he's way above his weight on the charts...he's around 21 lbs or more.


----------



## JaneSmith1010 (Apr 22, 2007)

For a child that young, I understand you being nervous. However, I just read that a fever of about 103 is optimal for killing invading microorganisms. So, that may mean that your child has an effective immune response. According to some of this info, baby is not in danger of brain damage or anything with a fever of this temp--however, it is recommended in various websites that you seek medical attention to be safe--not ER IMO, but doc tomorrow.

I personally am against fever reduction when it is not necessary, and med pros usually do it for any fever. I have noticed that my friends who give tylenol and motrin for every little temp increase, the temps come back higher and higher. I think the body tries to compensate for the interference. Perhaps the fever reduction allows the invading microorganisms to proliferate again and so the body has more work to do once it is allowed to fever again?

I am sorry that I cannot tell you what to do, but to my knowledge this temp will not harm your baby. If LO is not seeming to be in pain or severe discomfort, I would BF as often as possible, give rest and monitor the temp. If LO is not improving, then take to doctor. I have an NP I really trust and would just take my baby to her ASAP, but only since I feel completely comfortable that she will not intervene unnecessarily.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-part-two.aspx
it says in the above linke to mercola.com that for a child his age with a fever above 102.2F you should see a med pro _if they seem ill_. Whatever that means. Visit the link to see fever benefits and naturopathic ways to suppress if necessary.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/e...cle/003090.htm
" Brain damage from a fever generally will not occur unless the fever is over 107.6°F (42°C)... Untreated fevers caused by infection will seldom go over 105°F unless the child is overdressed or trapped in a hot place."
"Once a child is already known to have a high fever, a febrile seizure is unlikely with the current illness. In any event, simple febrile seizures are over in moments with no lasting consequences."


----------



## Heavenly (Nov 21, 2001)

The recommendation is over 103 degrees for a 6 month old child means a call to the doctor. I would watch it carefully and if it stays this high or goes higher you need to get him seen. I don't mess around with high fevers in babies. I hope he's better soon.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

I called our doc..he's great with me not vaxing etc.....he did mention to give tylenol when a babies fever hit's 103...he said if it was 102 or under....but when over 103 he gets a bit nervous....i understand as my daughter has hearing loss and she was not born with it....she used to get high fevers 104...sometimes i wonder if her hearing loss was from those high fevers...so i get nervous to.
Off to pick up some baby tylenol....


----------



## mamabird83 (Nov 26, 2008)

I have been in your situation. I know how horrible it feels to see how miserable your LO is when they are feverish. I felt torn when my 6 month old developed her first high fever. I did not want to use any medication but I could not bare to watch her scream and cry through the fever. I have read that when their fever reaches 103 you should give them some infant tylenol and see how that works. If the fever does not come down then you will want to call a Doctor. (I have read studies that say different but I chose to err on the side of caution and give mine the tylenol).
After I gave my dd the tylenol her temp dropped to a low grade fever. At 101 she was more comfortable and still using her body's heat to fight the virus. The way I see it, a baby who is spending all of their energy crying and tossing and turning is wasting energy that could be used to heal. A well rested, comfortable, happy baby is one that will get better faster.
I know it is a hard decision to make. I can tell you that I felt so much better after I gave my dd the tylenol and I watched her relax and go to sleep.

How is the Echinacea working? I personally find that it makes me dizzy and my NP says that Echinacea only works for about 50% of people.

For my 6 month old I was told to use .8 mL of the infant tylenol every 4 hours, but found that .6 mL every 6 hours worked great. I use the infant tylenol that is dye free. I also do warm baths and keep dd skin to skin.

Keep up the good nursing and you will both get through this. You can do it mama. Best wishes.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
I called our doc..he's great with me not vaxing etc.....he did mention to give tylenol when a babies fever hit's 103...he said if it was 102 or under....but when over 103 he gets a bit nervous....i understand as my daughter has hearing loss and she was not born with it....she used to get high fevers 104...sometimes i wonder if her hearing loss was from those high fevers...so i get nervous to.
Off to pick up some baby tylenol....

Fever is not damaging- it doesn't cause hearing loss









-Angela


----------



## luminesce (Aug 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Fever is not damaging- it doesn't cause hearing loss









-Angela









: I wouldn't worry about the fever itself - only the underlying infection in a baby so young. I would only use a little reducer if necessary for sleep or pain relief. Fever reduction impedes the healing process.

I'd probably see a pediatrician if the fever doesn't resolve pretty quickly though.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

I did use the regular dose and his fever came down...i havent checked what it is now though...sleep derprived..he's still waking every hour...i'm more worried now about his cough...he's grunting sometimes to breathe...i am taking him in first thing in the morning....he also has some wheezing going on...


----------



## karika (Nov 4, 2005)

a fever is not dangerous or to be 'fought' according to many sources. Even the AAP now says a fever is the body's natural mechanism to heal itself. Since you mentioned travel, your son most likely encountered some new germs and his body is making the adjustment for them. I would nurse, nurse, nurse, staying in bed with him. cool cloth for his head occasionally if he likes it. there are many germs our los have to encounter and make antibodies for. I would not involve a health care professional unless my child has has had a highish fever for over 60 hours, is listless and unresponsive (that would warrant emergency care). my reasons are that to have to take them out while they are sick possibly makes them more uncomfortable and definitely exposes them to more germs while they are already compromised. also, the chance of a MD giving abx is pretty high, regardless of what the infection is caused by (and I would only use abx in a life or death situation). I do not offer any immune system support other than breastmilk to a baby so young, i have not heard of using echenacia in one so young. If I wanted to get something through to the baby, I would likely ingest it myself and have it go through the breastmilk. echenacia can upset the stomach btw. sounds like you will see a health care professional tomorrow and I wish you well and hope your baby is feeling better soon.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

I have a great doc who practices natural alternatives to medicine....he did not rx'd antibiotics...my ds has wheezing and is having difficulty breathing....he had to be seen....We have a nebulizer and i'm doing treatments as i feel that he needs them. His fever is staying around 101.5....i dont want to use tylenol any more...however i'm willing to use it if the fever goes over 103....i dont feel safe leaving it at that level....


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
however i'm willing to use it if the fever goes over 103....i dont feel safe leaving it at that level....

Why? Fever is not dangerous.

Hope he feels better soon!

-Angela


----------



## Gitti (Dec 20, 2003)

My grandson had something going on three weeks ago. He had a fever of 104.6 off and on (mostly on) for 5 days. He slept most of the time and ate almost nothing. He did drink whenever we put a straw to his mouth and coaxed him to take a sip.

After 5 days the fever broke and it took him another 2 days to get his strength back up because he had lost quite a bit of weight. But by the 8. day he was back on his bike and eating like food was going out of style. He was completely over whatever he had.

We tried to put "vinegar socks" on him to bring the fever down but he would not let us, so we did nothing except keep him covered and offer him drinks (Vita C, Ecchinacea and goldenseal liquid in home made juice).

I am just telling you so that you know you are not alone and kids are resilient. They will fight off some virus and get back to health as quickly as they can as long as we don't interfere.

I hope your LO feels better soon. He is just building natural immunity. Fever is his best friend right now.


----------



## Bea (Apr 6, 2008)

I just wanted to say, for the anti antipyretic crowd (tylenol etc) that a good going fever makes you feel like cr*p.

I'd give tylenol for a fever of 103 despite that fact that 'fever is the bodies way of fighting infection' etc simply because, I'll say it again, a high fever makes you feel like cr*p. Reduce the fever and that awful hot and cold shivery, removed from reality, shaky dizzy feeling goes away.

I well remember a bout of tonsillitis in my early 20's with a fever of 104 and 'clock watching' just to be able to take some more fever reducer and feel somewhat human again.

It's not something I'd put up with myself and therefore, there's no way I'd do it to my baby. Just because they can't express their suffering doesn't mean they aren't experiencing the exact same unpleasantness we do.

Personally, I'm not encouraged to allow my child to suffer by tales of near dehydration or semi comatose states. I'd rather treat the high fever ( tepid sponging, cool clothing, light bedclothes, medication) rather than stand by and cheerlead a state of misery.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bea* 
It's not something I'd put up with myself and therefore, there's no way I'd do it to my baby. Just because they can't express their suffering doesn't mean they aren't experiencing the exact same unpleasantness we do.

Personally, I'm not encouraged to allow my child to suffer by tales of near dehydration or semi comatose states. I'd rather treat the high fever ( tepid sponging, cool clothing, light bedclothes, medication) rather than stand by and cheerlead a state of misery.

I have to agree with all of this. When a child is obviously suffering I don't see the purpose of withholding pain relief (which happens to bring down the fever as well). There have been studies that have shown that the healing effects of fevers are not eliminated when giving fever reducers. Our bodies are still putting up a defense. I was just sick yesterday, and did everything I could to feel better, but the body aches from my slight fever were just keeping me from properly resting. So I took a bit of tylenol. I rested much easier.

Quote:

I am just telling you so that you know you are not alone and kids are resilient. They will fight off some virus and get back to health as quickly as they can as long as we don't interfere.
As for this comment, sometimes children aren't resilient, sometimes they do need our help, and sometimes they need the help of others. There are times when illness, especially in babies needs evaluation. It might be nothing, it might be something more serious. I don't like antibiotics, and my son has never had them in his 5 years, but it wouldn't take a life or death situation for me to give them to him if he needed it. Sometimes kids breathing becomes strained when sick, and they need more than just what we can offer them to keep their oxygen levels up. My kid had an episode years ago where he needed breathing treatments to get his oxygen level up, and this isn't something we as parents can always realize. I think sometimes we can be a little too cavalier about the health of children on this board, sometimes allopathic medicine is needed.


----------



## luminesce (Aug 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bea* 
I just wanted to say, for the anti antipyretic crowd (tylenol etc) that a good going fever makes you feel like cr*p.

I'd give tylenol for a fever of 103 despite that fact that 'fever is the bodies way of fighting infection' etc simply because, I'll say it again, a high fever makes you feel like cr*p. Reduce the fever and that awful hot and cold shivery, removed from reality, shaky dizzy feeling goes away.

I well remember a bout of tonsillitis in my early 20's with a fever of 104 and 'clock watching' just to be able to take some more fever reducer and feel somewhat human again.

It's not something I'd put up with myself and therefore, there's no way I'd do it to my baby. Just because they can't express their suffering doesn't mean they aren't experiencing the exact same unpleasantness we do.

Personally, I'm not encouraged to allow my child to suffer by tales of near dehydration or semi comatose states. I'd rather treat the high fever ( tepid sponging, cool clothing, light bedclothes, medication) rather than stand by and cheerlead a state of misery.

I'm not saying we all must suffer (or make our children suffer) the wrath of a fever constantly. If you need it to ease great discomfort or to sleep, by all means take (or give) it. But to take it 'round the clock to just feel a bit better is for me, in the same category as getting an epidural during labor, which I didn't (and wouldn't) do. Now, I'm not saying those who did (or would) are wrong. I'm just clarifying my perspective.







In general, I tend to think the way I do because I think our body knows what it is doing when it produces a fever. I believe taking strong, repeated action against it likely impedes the natural healing process.

I don't have a lot of time to gather a lot of research links but here is a quick excerpt and overview from Wikipedia:

Quote:

There are studies using warm-blooded vertebrates[9] and humans[10] in vivo, with some suggesting that they recover more rapidly from infections or critical illness due to fever. A Finnish study suggested reduced mortality in bacterial infections when fever was present.[11]

Theoretically, fever can aid in host defense.[7] There are certainly some important immunological reactions that are sped up by temperature, and some pathogens with strict temperature preferences could be hindered.[12] Fevers may be useful to some extent since they allow the body to reach high temperatures, causing an unbearable environment for some pathogens. White blood cells also rapidly proliferate due to the suitable environment and can also help fight off the harmful pathogens and microbes that invaded the body.[citation needed]

Research[13] has demonstrated that fever has several important functions in the healing process:

* increased mobility of leukocytes
* enhanced leukocytes phagocytosis
* endotoxin effects decreased
* increased proliferation of T Cells[14]
* enhanced activity of interferon[14]

Our bodies have a thermostat and our temperatures will never get too high as a result of an illness.

As a child, who, at age 4 was admitted to the hospital for a kidney infection and forced to first to take cold showers, then actually sit in a bathtub of water with ice in it -- well, lets just say, I'd rather have suffered the fever.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:

Our bodies have a thermostat and our temperatures will never get too high as a result of an illness.
If you read the wikipedia article, you will see mentioned that there is a risk of extreme fevers above 106. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpyrexia


----------



## karika (Nov 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bea* 
I just wanted to say, for the anti antipyretic crowd (tylenol etc) that a good going fever makes you feel like cr*p.

I'd give tylenol for a fever of 103 despite that fact that 'fever is the bodies way of fighting infection' etc simply because, I'll say it again, a high fever makes you feel like cr*p. Reduce the fever and that awful hot and cold shivery, removed from reality, shaky dizzy feeling goes away.

I well remember a bout of tonsillitis in my early 20's with a fever of 104 and 'clock watching' just to be able to take some more fever reducer and feel somewhat human again.

It's not something I'd put up with myself and therefore, there's no way I'd do it to my baby. Just because they can't express their suffering doesn't mean they aren't experiencing the exact same unpleasantness we do.

Personally, I'm not encouraged to allow my child to suffer by tales of near dehydration or semi comatose states. I'd rather treat the high fever ( tepid sponging, cool clothing, light bedclothes, medication) rather than stand by and cheerlead a state of misery.


I am one that does not use tylenol. I did try it with dd1 and it did nothing to her fever (it was 105, she was 3, it was her first high fever and i was scared too) but then she did get better as soon as I followed the advice of a naturopath and got her some GSE and kefir and aconitum napellus. There are studies to show that using fever reducers do not interfere with the bodies ability to fight it off. If my child seemed uncomfortable, I would give her the medicine too. They do sell natural alternatives to tylenol however. that don't have all the nasty little chemicals. DD1 was the type that never acted sick when she had a cold. She would just keep playing, and nursing and acting normal even if her fever was 102. so i didnt give her anything. recently she had a fever of 104+ and she did feel badly, was in bed (she is 5 now) I got a magnesium supplement for her headache and hyland's 'headache' tablets. I gave her two doses of GSE and one of each of the above. I helped her with the symptoms that made her feel crappy. It was not the fever itself that created the 'crappy' feeling, it is just a reaction of the body. oh and if a child is ever listless or seems comatose, I agree help is needed immediately. it was the flu and she was sick for less than 48 hrs. So I think what I am trying to say is that what makes an adult feel like crap usually doesn't faze otherwise healthy children. It has to be really bad to make them slow down, or maybe that is just me as a kid and dd1... I am hoping ponnie's child is better today and will be looking for an update, it is always good for us all to learn from each other and our experiences.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
If you read the wikipedia article, you will see mentioned that there is a risk of extreme fevers above 106. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpyrexia

heh- I don't go to wiki for health info









More reliable sources say that the body won't let the fever go too high short of poisoning situations.

-Angela


----------



## lotusdebi (Aug 29, 2002)

Once upon a time, I would've waited it out for as long as I could stand it. But, since my youngest had a febrile seizure from a 102 fever that suddenly spiked, I now treat his fevers over 100 with Tylenol. I don't ever want to put any of us through another febrile seizure! Not only was the seizure terrifying, but I also had to put up with hospital personnel who decided I was neglectful. I was red-flagged for not giving him infant Tylenol, for not vaxing, and for having a homebirth. I was harassed by the doctor and they sent a social worker into the hospital room to make sure I was cooperating with their invasive, over-the-top treatment. No, we're not going through any of that again. Tylenol is the lesser of evils.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
heh- I don't go to wiki for health info









More reliable sources say that the body won't let the fever go too high short of poisoning situations.

-Angela

I don't either, the OP did.

The real problem with extreme fevers is the high chance that it is a symptom of severe bacterial infection. It is also likely that it's viral, but the difference between SBI and viral is huge and definitely demands different treatment.


----------



## Ackray (Feb 11, 2004)

OP, I hope your baby is feeling better.

I'm confused about some of the comments above. I'm not going to quote them. How can having a febrile seizure or cooking a brain be better than giving tylenol? Fevers can cause damage and sometimes the body's "thermostat" let's the fever get too high. Saying otherwise seems crazy to me.


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
I have to agree with all of this. When a child is obviously suffering I don't see the purpose of withholding pain relief (which happens to bring down the fever as well). There have been studies that have shown that the healing effects of fevers are not eliminated when giving fever reducers. Our bodies are still putting up a defense. I was just sick yesterday, and did everything I could to feel better, but the body aches from my slight fever were just keeping me from properly resting. So I took a bit of tylenol. I rested much easier.

As for this comment, sometimes children aren't resilient, sometimes they do need our help, and sometimes they need the help of others. There are times when illness, especially in babies needs evaluation. It might be nothing, it might be something more serious. I don't like antibiotics, and my son has never had them in his 5 years, but it wouldn't take a life or death situation for me to give them to him if he needed it. Sometimes kids breathing becomes strained when sick, and they need more than just what we can offer them to keep their oxygen levels up. My kid had an episode years ago where he needed breathing treatments to get his oxygen level up, and this isn't something we as parents can always realize. I think sometimes we can be a little too cavalier about the health of children on this board, sometimes allopathic medicine is needed.


I agree.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
I don't either, the OP did.

The real problem with extreme fevers is the high chance that it is a symptom of severe bacterial infection. It is also likely that it's viral, but the difference between SBI and viral is huge and definitely demands different treatment.

I agree that the concern comes from the underlying condition.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ackray* 
OP, I hope your baby is feeling better.

I'm confused about some of the comments above. I'm not going to quote them. How can having a febrile seizure or cooking a brain be better than giving tylenol? Fevers can cause damage and sometimes the body's "thermostat" let's the fever get too high. Saying otherwise seems crazy to me.

Brains don't "cook" at fever levels. Febrile seizures are scary (and I certainly understand medicating fevers if your child has them) but they are not dangerous.

-Angela


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

I've been wanting to update...however i've been busy with the baby...and kiddo's out on spring break.
I have read lots of articles about fevers and baby's and fevers and infections...however when my baby was crying when i picked him up...crying when i changed his diaper...crying with any touch...i felt that i had to help him....i gave a room temp bath...wiped down with wet cloth...tried chamomilla and breastmilk....echineachea(sp)....I felt that i had to do something for my baby.
One dose of tylenol was all he got...his fever was over 103 and the tylenol brought it down a few degrees...didnt take it all the way to normal...just brought it down...i've had 2 sleepless nights...baby still has a low grade fever...but nothing like 2 nights ago. He's taking the nebulizer a few times a day and the wheezing is getting much better.
He's also nursing more than ever...which is great! I'm praying that we get some sleep tonight...baby mozart was a life saver last night...
I have suffered from 3 bouts of mastitis over the past 6 months and the last bout brought on a fever of over 101...now in a adult that is massive...i couldnt function....i felt horrible...it hurt to lay down it hurt to stand up...i hurt all over...I was in so much agony i was close to going to the hospital...i took 2 ibuprofen and went to sleep and with in a few hours my fever broke..it probably would of broke with out the meds...but i felt that i had to do something to feel better and i took the meds.
I do feel that i am open to all ways of helping keep the body healthy....i lean more towards the holistic approach...however there have been times where i felt that I had to reach outside that approach and do something else...and that is ok with me.
We all have different comfort levels and different trust levels....and that is ok...it doesnt put me off that one mama may not offer tylenol or any meds at that....nor do i frown upon another mama for going mainstream....we all do what we feel is best for our health and our childrens health....i let my mama intuition guide me....as we all should.


----------



## LBMarie9 (Jan 3, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
I've been wanting to update...however i've been busy with the baby...and kiddo's out on spring break.
I have read lots of articles about fevers and baby's and fevers and infections...however when my baby was crying when i picked him up...crying when i changed his diaper...crying with any touch...i felt that i had to help him....i gave a room temp bath...wiped down with wet cloth...tried chamomilla and breastmilk....echineachea(sp)....I felt that i had to do something for my baby.
One dose of tylenol was all he got...his fever was over 103 and the tylenol brought it down a few degrees...didnt take it all the way to normal...just brought it down...i've had 2 sleepless nights...baby still has a low grade fever...but nothing like 2 nights ago. He's taking the nebulizer a few times a day and the wheezing is getting much better.
He's also nursing more than ever...which is great! I'm praying that we get some sleep tonight...baby mozart was a life saver last night...
I have suffered from 3 bouts of mastitis over the past 6 months and the last bout brought on a fever of over 101...now in a adult that is massive...i couldnt function....i felt horrible...it hurt to lay down it hurt to stand up...i hurt all over...I was in so much agony i was close to going to the hospital...i took 2 ibuprofen and went to sleep and with in a few hours my fever broke..it probably would of broke with out the meds...but i felt that i had to do something to feel better and i took the meds.
I do feel that i am open to all ways of helping keep the body healthy....i lean more towards the holistic approach...however there have been times where i felt that I had to reach outside that approach and do something else...and that is ok with me.
We all have different comfort levels and different trust levels....and that is ok...it doesnt put me off that one mama may not offer tylenol or any meds at that....nor do i frown upon another mama for going mainstream....we all do what we feel is best for our health and our childrens health....i let my mama intuition guide me....as we all should.


just a ?--what are the dangers in not giving a nebulizer? I mean --if my DD is congested =but obviously breathing enough (if she seemed to be working too hard I would take her right in)---but those treatments are sad crap- I gave them to my son- made him shaky and feel crappy.

is there some sort of damage that being weezing puts my child at risk for that I'm not thinking of--if i try my best to open up her lungs (bundled up in the night air) -? or is the only risk--that they stop breathing and/or have to work VERY hard to not get enough air.

(could I be causing my DD brain damage by letting her be congested and weezy a bit for a week?)


----------



## LBMarie9 (Jan 3, 2008)

more questions about fevers...why do they say that you should see a dr after 60 hr or more? why is that? isn't the fever just doing the same thing all along fighting "soemthing" off if it's there a week?

my son had a fever 2 weeks ago for a week...I took him in finally at the end (in case it was something I should worry about him having my dd might get)--and they said it was VIRAL pnemonia--I put him through a stupid xray to verify since he's allergic/unresponsive to most antibiotics and I didn't want to treat unless I had to.

my DD has had the same thing this week--a fever for about a week (though it's trailed off and only slightly how the last couple days--she's acting almost normal again)--but it has been since last wed when she got her 103 fever...so was I stupid both times for waiting a week? (I'm not taking her in since she's getting better)--why is that so? (I'm sure I'll get a lot of different opinions)

the other reason I didn't just take them in was because we were on vacation and our only options were the ER.


----------



## Make(. )( .)NotWar (Apr 8, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Fever is not damaging


Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Fever is not dangerous.

This is wrong. To new mothers reading this, you must understand that the above is misinformation. Fevers CAN sometimes be dangerous.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bea* 
It's not something I'd put up with myself and therefore, there's no way I'd do it to my baby. Just because they can't express their suffering doesn't mean they aren't experiencing the exact same unpleasantness we do.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
I have to agree with all of this. When a child is obviously suffering I don't see the purpose of withholding pain relief (which happens to bring down the fever as well).











Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
heh- I don't go to wiki for health info









More reliable sources say that the body won't let the fever go too high short of poisoning situations.

-Angela

Then please share your sources.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Febrile seizures are scary, but they are not dangerous.

-Angela

*During a seizure, there is a small chance that the child may be injured by falling or may choke from food or saliva in the mouth.*

They CAN be dangerous. It is not common, but it is a possibility, and it has happened. Please do not make untrue statements as though they were fact.

Now, as to: WWYD? I use natural soothers, reducers, and immune support. Just various teas, tinctures, homeopathic remedies, etc. Feverfew, chamomile, catnip, astragulus (I think I may have spelled that incorrectly, hmm....) etc. For very young infants you can give them tea baths as well, which help, and taking herbal capsules will help deliver some elements through your milk. Also there are alternatives, such as acupressure and massage. And of course, tepid baths can help sooth their discomfort as well. I too believe that it's best for the human body to fever. My DH and I try to let all of our fevers go as far as possible, we give in to ourselves and our children (tylenol) anywhere between that 103 and 104 point, do to pain and suffering. It's just not worth it in our opinion.

I'm glad your LO is better!


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LBMarie9* 
more questions about fevers...why do they say that you should see a dr after 60 hr or more? why is that? isn't the fever just doing the same thing all along fighting "soemthing" off if it's there a week?

A long-lasting high fever has a higher chance of being either bacterial or more serious and something underlying that needs medical attention.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Make(. )( .)NotWar* 
This is wrong. To new mothers reading this, you must understand that the above is misinformation. Fevers CAN sometimes be dangerous.


Evidence?

Quote:


Then please share your sources.
They've been posted here a hundred times. Search any medical site.

Quote:

*During a seizure, there is a small chance that the child may be injured by falling or may choke from food or saliva in the mouth.*

They CAN be dangerous. It is not common, but it is a possibility, and it has happened. Please do not make untrue statements as though they were fact.
That is a valid point. Something could happen during the seizure. For whatever reason, that seems to be particularly rare with febrile seizures, but is worth mentioning.

What I meant is that the febrile seizures themselves are not damaging to the child.

-Angela


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LBMarie9* 
more questions about fevers...why do they say that you should see a dr after 60 hr or more? why is that? isn't the fever just doing the same thing all along fighting "soemthing" off if it's there a week?

my son had a fever 2 weeks ago for a week...I took him in finally at the end (in case it was something I should worry about him having my dd might get)--and they said it was VIRAL pnemonia--I put him through a stupid xray to verify since he's allergic/unresponsive to most antibiotics and I didn't want to treat unless I had to.

my DD has had the same thing this week--a fever for about a week (though it's trailed off and only slightly how the last couple days--she's acting almost normal again)--but it has been since last wed when she got her 103 fever...so was I stupid both times for waiting a week? (I'm not taking her in since she's getting better)--why is that so? (I'm sure I'll get a lot of different opinions)

the other reason I didn't just take them in was because we were on vacation and our only options were the ER.

i havent read all the threads here, but just wanted to ask what tests they did to confirm a viral infection? they can not tell whether something is viral or bacterial from an xray. yes, they can detect infection, but not the type.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

{just a ?--what are the dangers in not giving a nebulizer? I mean --if my DD is congested =but obviously breathing enough (if she seemed to be working too hard I would take her right in)---but those treatments are sad crap- I gave them to my son- made him shaky and feel crappy.

is there some sort of damage that being weezing puts my child at risk for that I'm not thinking of--if i try my best to open up her lungs (bundled up in the night air) -? or is the only risk--that they stop breathing and/or have to work VERY hard to not get enough air.

(could I be causing my DD brain damage by letting her be congested and weezy a bit for a week?) }

Nebulizer question...........your childs blood oxygen level can lower if the child can not get enough oxygen in through his or her lungs....after prolonged amounts of time....i'm sure it's not a good thing...i dont have any info to back that up....however i know it's not a good thing to have prolonged o2 stats.
Also when the childs becoming distressed to breathe...blue lips...concaved chest...all signs that something else needs to be done asap.
A humidifyer helps with congestion...not sure if it would be enough to bring up o2 levels though.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
What I meant is that the febrile seizures themselves are not damaging to the child.

-Angela

There are symptoms to be mindful of if your child has a febrile seizure;

# Rush to the emergency medical facility in these cases:

* The seizure lasts more than 5 minutes.

* The child has serious trouble breathing or stops breathing.

* The child develops cyanosis (blueness of the skin) indicating insufficient oxygen in the bloodstream.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
{just a ?--what are the dangers in not giving a nebulizer? I mean --if my DD is congested =but obviously breathing enough (if she seemed to be working too hard I would take her right in)---but those treatments are sad crap- I gave them to my son- made him shaky and feel crappy.

is there some sort of damage that being weezing puts my child at risk for that I'm not thinking of--if i try my best to open up her lungs (bundled up in the night air) -? or is the only risk--that they stop breathing and/or have to work VERY hard to not get enough air.

(could I be causing my DD brain damage by letting her be congested and weezy a bit for a week?) }


Yes, the nebulizer treatments do have crappy side effects, but they are just temporary, whereas not treating the breathing difficulty will have much more serious long term effects. I have asthma, I wheeze, I cough, the wheezing, the coughing causes restriction in the airways, which in turn lower the oxygen levels. That is the immediate effect. The long term results of asthma, which even if your child doesn't have, the wheezing and coughing have the same effects. It can weaken the lungs, make them more prone to breathing problems/diseases and increased chance of contracting lung infections and pnuemonia.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Quote:
Originally Posted by LBMarie9 View Post
<more questions about fevers...why do they say that you should see a dr after 60 hr or more? why is that? isn't the fever just doing the same thing all along fighting "soemthing" off if it's there a week?>

A long-lasting high fever has a higher chance of being either bacterial or more serious and something underlying that needs medical attention.

-Angela
__________
Yes, basically the body cannot tolerate a long term assault and the risk of much more serious problems is higher, including death. Sepsis, which is a bacterial infection CAN kill and does. Think of Jim Henson, he died from sepsis. The organs of the body cannot tolerate long term fevers, assault from viral or bacterial infections, etc, etc. That's why it should be evaluated. There are weird things that can come up that we cannot recognize, that could be more serious than just a simple illness.


----------



## MCatLvrMom2A&X (Nov 18, 2004)

My cousin had febrile seizures and he stopped breathing during them and turned blue. The one time he would have died had his older brother not went in where he was sleeping and came back out and told his mom that he was blue.

So yeah febril seizures can kill.

I still dont buy that fevers dont cause brain damage and neither does my mother who had a perfectly healthy 8yo boy one day and after a 106 fever and rising he was never the same after. He had pnumonia at the time and had to be packed in ice at the hospital to bring it down.

I always treat a fever over 102 myself because of this.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

http://uimc.discoveryhospital.com/main.php?id=946

Quote:

A fever greater than 106 degrees Fahrenheit can result in brain damage and death in some cases. This level of fever is hardly ever brought on by common illnesses. It can be seen in bacterial meningitis, in a rare reaction to anesthesia called malignant hyperthermia, or if a person is in a situation where he or she cannot cool himself or the body's temperature regulation mechanism has failed (heat stroke).

Quote:

You should always trust your instincts and the advice of your trusted medical provider. Never let information on this website or any website substitute for a qualified diagnosis and advice from your health provider, and don't delay treatment or disregard advice based exclusively on the stuff you find floatin' around. Be informed, and be prudent!
I think this website gives a good listing of possible problems with fevers. http://www.hippiedippiebebe.com/heal...ds-fever-cold/

There IS a danger with extremely high fevers. Basically it can be a sign of some sort of meningitis, which can damage the "thermostat" control of the body, the hypothalamus. That's why they can get such a high fever, normally the body won't let itself get that high, but damage to the hypothalamus can cause serious problems. Any fever above 105 should be evaluated immediately.


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

I think this part is important enough to quote again:

Quote:

You should always trust your instincts and the advice of your trusted medical provider. Never let information on this website or any website substitute for a qualified diagnosis and advice from your health provider, and don't delay treatment or disregard advice based exclusively on the stuff you find floatin' around. Be informed, and be prudent!


----------



## veganone (May 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Brains don't "cook" at fever levels. Febrile seizures are scary (and I certainly understand medicating fevers if your child has them) but they are not dangerous.

-Angela

Really? You are okay with people treating fever with Tylenol if they chose to? I've heard you say otherwise many times on this board. I'm happy that you are willing to understand why people chose to medicate high fevers.


----------



## veganone (May 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LBMarie9* 
more questions about fevers...why do they say that you should see a dr after 60 hr or more? why is that? isn't the fever just doing the same thing all along fighting "soemthing" off if it's there a week?

Because most viruses resolve in a few days. If it goes on longer than that it may have progressed into a bacterial infection and require treatment. DD is just getting over a virus with a high fever (104.7) that turned into a raging ear infection and required abx. (Yes, I realize people here often don't treat ear infections - I had many as a child and won't let DD hurt like that if I can help it.) We were on day 8 of her fever when I took her into the ped. After about 36 hours she was feeling better and she's now almost 100% (and is eating again, thank goodness).


----------



## preemiemamarach (Sep 7, 2007)

I'm delighted there are mamas here who are willing to accept that allopathic medicine can sometimes help. I am biased, as my kid would be dead without it, but it's refreshing to hear your voices.


----------



## OakBerry (May 24, 2005)

I medicate a fever with Tylenol if it's over 101.5
I know when it's that high, because my son automatically vomits (even if there is no stomach bug), and lays like a wet rag on his bed. He will not drink or eat anything.

So with the Tylenol:
1. He is not in pain or nauseous
2. He doesn't vomit, unless it's a GI bug
3. He drinks fluids! Which is a good way to keep him out of the hospital from dehydration.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

My wife works in an ER, and is part of a team of people who save lives everyday. I think there is definitely a place for alternative treatments, especially for prevention, or for low level things. But when things get really serious, serious treatment is needed, and yes, sometimes that can get into life or death situations. I would hate to see someone lose a child, or have a child suffer permanent damage because they delayed appropriate treatment. I see people posting on this board, when if you were to ask me, their loved needs evaluation. It could be nothing, or not. Who knows?

I do think there are many natural ways to reduce fever, or to relieve pain, it just depends on the situation. I am not opposed to them, and I am concerned with the crap they put in children's tylenol products (and seek the ones with the least crap) as well. But sometimes our children might need a little more. I personally do not use homeopathic products, I have never found them effective for me or my family. Doesn't mean others don't find them useful.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBMarie9 View Post
<more questions about fevers...why do they say that you should see a dr after 60 hr or more? why is that? isn't the fever just doing the same thing all along fighting "soemthing" off if it's there a week?>

A long-lasting high fever has a higher chance of being either bacterial or more serious and something underlying that needs medical attention.

-Angela
__________
Yes, basically the body cannot tolerate a long term assault and the risk of much more serious problems is higher, including death. Sepsis, which is a bacterial infection CAN kill and does. Think of Jim Henson, he died from sepsis. The organs of the body cannot tolerate long term fevers, assault from viral or bacterial infections, etc, etc. That's why it should be evaluated. There are weird things that can come up that we cannot recognize, that could be more serious than just a simple illness.

To clarify- even in these situations, it is NOT the fever that damages or kills. It's the underlying infection.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veganone* 
Really? You are okay with people treating fever with Tylenol if they chose to? I've heard you say otherwise many times on this board. I'm happy that you are willing to understand why people chose to medicate high fevers.










Sure. I just maintain that there's no medical need to









And I advocate treating symptoms- if the child is uncomfortable or in pain, I'm all for lowering the fever to make them comfortable. As a general rule, I prefer ibuprofen to tylenol- tends to be more effective for pain.

-Angela


----------



## LBMarie9 (Jan 3, 2008)

wow-some weird feelings between members here--

however--someone asked me what test they did to confirm it was a viral infection and I am not sure they did anything except the xray and the RSV snot test?!! he's feeling better--does that mean it WAS viral since a bacterial would need to be treated?

dang it--I was hoping that we cold confirm each time if it was viral or bacterial because--my son had chronic ear infections as a baby (until recently going off dairy)--and we gave lots of antibiotics--he is allergic to three different types and the others were unresponsive to any of his remaining ear infections--so I would like to find a way to know if I he needs to be treated--because if it was bacterial I would choose to give him one of the less allergic ones-the lesser of two evils if he did have bac pneumonia.

just let me clarify about prolonged fevers....
a fever at ALL over a couple days is a problem? or just a HIGH fever is a problem for that long? meaning if they have a high fever and it gets lower everyday however after 6 days they still are 100.something--this is a prolonged fever to be concerned about? I have known a lot of people to treat fevers (with tylenol) for this long before nad never had a dr say something..or is the problem in letting the child HAVE the fever?

sorry if that makes no sense--I just want all the ideas in my head when the times come as a mommy to make the choices for my kids' health.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LBMarie9* 
wow-some weird feelings between members here--

however--someone asked me what test they did to confirm it was a viral infection and I am not sure they did anything except the xray and the RSV snot test?!! he's feeling better--does that mean it WAS viral since a bacterial would need to be treated?

dang it--I was hoping that we cold confirm each time if it was viral or bacterial because--my son had chronic ear infections as a baby (until recently going off dairy)--and we gave lots of antibiotics--he is allergic to three different types and the others were unresponsive to any of his remaining ear infections--so I would like to find a way to know if I he needs to be treated--because if it was bacterial I would choose to give him one of the less allergic ones-the lesser of two evils if he did have bac pneumonia.

just let me clarify about prolonged fevers....
a fever at ALL over a couple days is a problem? or just a HIGH fever is a problem for that long? meaning if they have a high fever and it gets lower everyday however after 6 days they still are 100.something--this is a prolonged fever to be concerned about? I have known a lot of people to treat fevers (with tylenol) for this long before nad never had a dr say something..or is the problem in letting the child HAVE the fever?

sorry if that makes no sense--I just want all the ideas in my head when the times come as a mommy to make the choices for my kids' health.

The problem/ danger is NOT the fever itself. It's the possibility of what could be causing it. Personally I would worry about a *high* fever (for my kids that's over 104- we run high fevers) that lasted more than 2-3 days. I'd worry about a fever of any sort that lasted more than 5-7 days.

-Angela


----------



## babygrace (Aug 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
The problem/ danger is NOT the fever itself.
-Angela

what is the basis of the above statement?


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bea* 
I just wanted to say, for the anti antipyretic crowd (tylenol etc) that a good going fever makes you feel like cr*p.

Personally, I'm not encouraged to allow my child to suffer by tales of near dehydration or semi comatose states. I'd rather treat the high fever ( tepid sponging, cool clothing, light bedclothes, medication) rather than stand by and cheerlead a state of misery.

i dont sit by and allow my child to suffer needlessly either but my children are generally laying on the sofa watching TV at 103 and 104..they are not dehydrated and semi comatose states. my son just went through a major bacterial infection and showed no signs of what you describe. However, his fever was instrumental in his cure. no, he didnt feel GREAT but he wasnt dehydrated at all...he nursed A LOT during that period.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LBMarie9* 

however--someone asked me what test they did to confirm it was a viral infection and I am not sure they did anything except the xray and the RSV snot test?!! he's feeling better--does that mean it WAS viral since a bacterial would need to be treated?

dang it--I was hoping that we cold confirm each time if it was viral or bacterial because--my son had chronic ear infections as a baby (until recently going off dairy)--and we gave lots of antibiotics--he is allergic to three different types and the others were unresponsive to any of his remaining ear infections--so I would like to find a way to know if I he needs to be treated--because if it was bacterial I would choose to give him one of the less allergic ones-the lesser of two evils if he did have bac pneumonia.

just let me clarify about prolonged fevers....
a fever at ALL over a couple days is a problem? or just a HIGH fever is a problem for that long? meaning if they have a high fever and it gets lower everyday however after 6 days they still are 100.something--this is a prolonged fever to be concerned about? I have known a lot of people to treat fevers (with tylenol) for this long before nad never had a dr say something..or is the problem in letting the child HAVE the fever?

sorry if that makes no sense--I just want all the ideas in my head when the times come as a mommy to make the choices for my kids' health.

bacterial infections don't NEED to be treated. It depends on the child and how his immune system is reacting (a good fever will kill almost any bacteria...anything that will survive in a 103/104 environment is pretty scarey stuff).

an Xray can not show whether an infection is viral or bacterial. as far as the RSV swab, if that is all they took, and that was negative, then no, you still dont know what the cause of his fever was. When i take the kids in to our dr (which is rare), i have them run a culture to determine what is causing the fever. I want to know that FIRST...before any "just in case" antibiotics. You CAN confirm each time what the infection is. But most dr. offices are not used to that being the course of action. Most offices will simply look at the sick kid and guess its bacterial and prescribe medicine. You have to be very proactive to get them to change the way they are used to behaving. Kids get better without antibiotics. They really do. I know that is blasphemy to some here...but its a simple fact.

Fevers are not really a problem..its more an indication of how your child's immune system is reaction to the underlying problem. A prolonged fever simply means its taking your child longer to win the war..he may need help. Increase vit. C and other things depending on what it is. A fever that comes and goes could also be a problem (a reason my kids recently went to the dr. office..which we don't normally do for a simply cold or flu).

there are 3 camps here, i think. one who use tylenol for anything and everything..one who will use it for a relatively low fever (or for a fever that is over 100, 101, or 103...people vary in their comfort level) and those who will not use it at all for fevers (i think for most of us, that includes a fever of 106/107 range). I fall into the later category. Ive never had a kid with 107 fever, so i dont really know what i would do. i would more than likely bring that fever down a bit...short of the 106/107 fever range, i dont give tylenol for fever reduction.

However, i dont snarl my nose at the other camp. People have a different comfort level. And thats ok. None of us need to accuse each other of not caring about our kids though. I can guarantee you that i love my kids as much as anyone on this planet. And Im sure you (general you) feel the same. You just need to figure out which camp you are in and be comfortable with that position...b/c it is definitely the minority position.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
what is the basis of the above statement?

Biology? Fact? Not sure what your question is.

-Angela


----------



## preemiemamarach (Sep 7, 2007)

Quote:

bacterial infections don't NEED to be treated. It depends on the child and how his immune system is reacting (a good fever will kill almost any bacteria...anything that will survive in a 103/104 environment is pretty scarey stuff).

What?? bacterial infections DO need to be treated a good deal of the time. Sepsis, anyone?


----------



## babygrace (Aug 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
The problem/ danger is NOT the fever itself.
-Angela


Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
what is the basis of the above statement?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Biology? Fact? Not sure what your question is.

-Angela

we understand the symptomatic nature of fever. what you are saying additionally- "fever is not dangerous or problematic". can you point to references or studies that support this "biology/fact"?


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

UPDATE....originally took baby in on monday the 6th for high fever and wheezing and coughing....have been doing nebulizer treatments a few times a day...baby's fever broke wednesday night...he woke up sweaty. Still bad cough...he would start coughing and then it would turn into him crying because the coughing hurt...so it would be a vicious cycle of coughing and crying...we havent gotten much sleep at all this week. Today-thursday....baby's eyes are sunken in....he's lost half a pound...not smiling and active...not nursing well.
Baby overall was worse today than on monday....i took him back to our GP...who practices integrative medicine and holistic practices....he listened to the baby's lungs and said that his right lung sounds worse than the left and he was a bit concerned...as the baby did not seem to be any better.
We did a chest x-ray and the right lung showed pneumonia....i kept asking about viral vs bacterial...and he mentioned we could do a blood test to figure out which one....he also mentioned that in a baby this young ...he feels that we should treat right away...rather than wait and see...we've waited 4 days and it's gotten worse...i was almost in tears....as i had originally never wanted to take my baby to any doctors...i didnt want to give my baby medicine....i'm asking my self....what did i do wrong...did i not take care of my baby the way i should have...i feel so guilty right now....But i feel that he has to have the antibiotics and steriod....i am giving him a probiotic...plus i took him to our chiro who did did accupuncture today too.
I felt better after seeing our chiro....however i still feel so bad as a mommy that my baby is so sick.
I need some mama support yall.


----------



## Th1Th2 (Feb 17, 2009)

Q & A for concerned mamas:

Quote:

126. Once a fever starts to rise, unless the physician treats it, it will continue
to rise to dangerous levels.
A. True
B. False

Correct answer is B. False.

128. Which of the following statements is true?
A. Fever will cause brain damage.
B. Vigorous use of antipyretics in young children will prevent
febrile seizures.
C. Studies have reported a benefit of fever in the overall outcome of
infections.
D. The therapeutic index of acetaminophen is safe in children at all
times.

Correct answer is C.

130. Inappropriate reasons to treat a fever include all of the following
*except*:
A. parent comfort.
B. provider comfort.
C. patient comfort.
D. the urge to do something.

Correct answer is C.
Treating fever is like treating cough with antitussives (cough suppressants). These beneficial symptoms (fever and cough) aid in the proper detoxification processes being initiated by the liver and lungs respectively. Toxins need to be eliminated outside the body otherwise they will be re-absorbed causing adverse toxicity. Other symptoms like mild pain and inflammation tend to hasten the healing process. Untreated fever, like all other symptoms, is a self-limiting symptom that will eventually resolve once the detoxification process is over. The use of drugs is worthless and even more harmful by inhibiting detoxification thus retaining toxins inside the body. Its putative practice is based on bad science that has evolved to superstitious belief.

Nature knows best.


----------



## babygrace (Aug 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
UPDATE....originally took baby in on monday the 6th for high fever and wheezing and coughing....have been doing nebulizer treatments a few times a day...baby's fever broke wednesday night...he woke up sweaty. Still bad cough...he would start coughing and then it would turn into him crying because the coughing hurt...so it would be a vicious cycle of coughing and crying...we havent gotten much sleep at all this week. Today-thursday....baby's eyes are sunken in....he's lost half a pound...not smiling and active...not nursing well.
Baby overall was worse today than on monday....i took him back to our GP...who practices integrative medicine and holistic practices....he listened to the baby's lungs and said that his right lung sounds worse than the left and he was a bit concerned...as the baby did not seem to be any better.
We did a chest x-ray and the right lung showed pneumonia....i kept asking about viral vs bacterial...and he mentioned we could do a blood test to figure out which one....he also mentioned that in a baby this young ...he feels that we should treat right away...rather than wait and see...we've waited 4 days and it's gotten worse...i was almost in tears....as i had originally never wanted to take my baby to any doctors...i didnt want to give my baby medicine....i'm asking my self....what did i do wrong...did i not take care of my baby the way i should have...i feel so guilty right now....But i feel that he has to have the antibiotics and steriod....i am giving him a probiotic...plus i took him to our chiro who did did accupuncture today too.
I felt better after seeing our chiro....however i still feel so bad as a mommy that my baby is so sick.
I need some mama support yall.









mama...it is difficult (to say the least) to see your baby in this condition. you are doing what is needed to help make baby feel better again. easier said than done, i know, but, please don't be too hard on yourself. sending healing vibes to your baby...
thank you for keeping us updated.


----------



## veganone (May 10, 2007)

I'm so sorry LO is so sick. The dehydration would really worry me. What is your GP recommending to address that issue? Babies get sick. People get sick. Natural remedies are lovely, but they aren't 100%. There is a valid reason people sometimes need western medicine. Your child's health is more important than any ideal.










Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
UPDATE....originally took baby in on monday the 6th for high fever and wheezing and coughing....have been doing nebulizer treatments a few times a day...baby's fever broke wednesday night...he woke up sweaty. Still bad cough...he would start coughing and then it would turn into him crying because the coughing hurt...so it would be a vicious cycle of coughing and crying...we havent gotten much sleep at all this week. Today-thursday....baby's eyes are sunken in....he's lost half a pound...not smiling and active...not nursing well.
Baby overall was worse today than on monday....i took him back to our GP...who practices integrative medicine and holistic practices....he listened to the baby's lungs and said that his right lung sounds worse than the left and he was a bit concerned...as the baby did not seem to be any better.
We did a chest x-ray and the right lung showed pneumonia....i kept asking about viral vs bacterial...and he mentioned we could do a blood test to figure out which one....he also mentioned that in a baby this young ...he feels that we should treat right away...rather than wait and see...we've waited 4 days and it's gotten worse...i was almost in tears....as i had originally never wanted to take my baby to any doctors...i didnt want to give my baby medicine....i'm asking my self....what did i do wrong...did i not take care of my baby the way i should have...i feel so guilty right now....But i feel that he has to have the antibiotics and steriod....i am giving him a probiotic...plus i took him to our chiro who did did accupuncture today too.
I felt better after seeing our chiro....however i still feel so bad as a mommy that my baby is so sick.
I need some mama support yall.


----------



## veganone (May 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
we understand the symptomatic nature of fever. what you are saying additionally- "fever is not dangerous or problematic". can you point to references or studies that support this "biology/fact"?

My question with the statements you quoted is that saying "fever is not dangerous" implies that no treatment is ever necessary when there is a fever. Sure, it's not the "fever" you treat, but the illness causing the fever MAY require treatment. And to just say "fever is not dangerous" implies that the underlying illness isn't either.

It's misleading at best.


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *preemiemamarach* 
What?? bacterial infections DO need to be treated a good deal of the time. Sepsis, anyone?

thats an irrational fear to most bacterial infections.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
UPDATE....originally took baby in on monday the 6th for high fever and wheezing and coughing....have been doing nebulizer treatments a few times a day...baby's fever broke wednesday night...he woke up sweaty. Still bad cough...he would start coughing and then it would turn into him crying because the coughing hurt...so it would be a vicious cycle of coughing and crying...we havent gotten much sleep at all this week. Today-thursday....baby's eyes are sunken in....he's lost half a pound...not smiling and active...not nursing well.
Baby overall was worse today than on monday....i took him back to our GP...who practices integrative medicine and holistic practices....he listened to the baby's lungs and said that his right lung sounds worse than the left and he was a bit concerned...as the baby did not seem to be any better.
We did a chest x-ray and the right lung showed pneumonia....i kept asking about viral vs bacterial...and he mentioned we could do a blood test to figure out which one....he also mentioned that in a baby this young ...he feels that we should treat right away...rather than wait and see...we've waited 4 days and it's gotten worse...i was almost in tears....as i had originally never wanted to take my baby to any doctors...i didnt want to give my baby medicine....i'm asking my self....what did i do wrong...did i not take care of my baby the way i should have...i feel so guilty right now....But i feel that he has to have the antibiotics and steriod....i am giving him a probiotic...plus i took him to our chiro who did did accupuncture today too.
I felt better after seeing our chiro....however i still feel so bad as a mommy that my baby is so sick.
I need some mama support yall.











I hope he feels better soon.

Alternatives are for when things are going well, when things get bad do what you need to do to take care of that baby.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
i dont sit by and allow my child to suffer needlessly either but my children are generally laying on the sofa watching TV at 103 and 104..they are not dehydrated and semi comatose states. my son just went through a major bacterial infection and showed no signs of what you describe. However, his fever was instrumental in his cure. no, he didnt feel GREAT but he wasnt dehydrated at all...he nursed A LOT during that period.

bacterial infections don't NEED to be treated. It depends on the child and how his immune system is reacting (a good fever will kill almost any bacteria...anything that will survive in a 103/104 environment is pretty scarey stuff).


what kind of bacterial infection did your son have and how was it diagnosed?

also, in order to sterilize in an autoclave the temperature needs to be 250 degrees Fahrenheit. I know we're not looking for sterilization in the human body but that gives some idea of the high temperatures needed to kill off bacteria. 105 degrees is not really very hot when ya think about it.


----------



## babygrace (Aug 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veganone* 
My question with the statements you quoted is that saying "fever is not dangerous" implies that no treatment is ever necessary when there is a fever. Sure, it's not the "fever" you treat, but the illness causing the fever MAY require treatment. And to just say "fever is not dangerous" implies that the underlying illness isn't either.

It's misleading at best.

it would be more accurate to quote the poster who made those comments regarding fever, not me.







i, too, agree that it is misleading and unclear.

OP,







to you.


----------



## BoringTales (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veganone* 
I'm so sorry LO is so sick. The dehydration would really worry me. What is your GP recommending to address that issue? Babies get sick. People get sick. Natural remedies are lovely, but they aren't 100%. There is a valid reason people sometimes need western medicine. Your child's health is more important than any ideal.










Exactly. There's also a reason that life expectancies have risen and infant mortality has fallen as medicine advances as well. YOU didn't give her this illness. Babies sometimes get ill. You do the best you can for them in the meantime.


----------



## mamakay (Apr 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
what is the basis of the above statement?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/23/he...-bugaboos.html

Quote:

FEVER -- The fear of fever among parents or what doctors have called ''fever phobia,'' has contributed to abundant use of children's fever reducers, acetaminophen, popularly Tylenol, and ibuprofen, or Motrin.

Many parents mistakenly believe that a high fever is dangerous, possibly leading to brain damage or seizures, and needs to be treated.

*''The only time fever is associated with brain damage is when it's from an external source such as heat stroke from being locked in a car on a hot day,'' Dr. Brown said. ''Intrinsic fever is not associated with brain damage.''*

http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/89/1/89-a

Quote:

Fever phobia is a term that was coined some years ago to describe exaggerated fears that parents have about fever in children. At the time the original research was done these fears included brain damage, seizures, death, coma, and blindness. Twenty years later many of these fears remain,2 leading to the possibility of over-aggressive treatment and unnecessary worry.

*As there is no evidence that fever, as distinct from hyperthermia, causes any harm, therapy is usually aimed at promoting comfort rather than the aggressive pursuit of normothermia*.

http://blogs.webmd.com/healthy-child...er-phobic.html

Quote:

So repeat after me: fever is our friend, fever is our friend... It lets us know that an infection may be brewing, and, at the same time, it helps to fight off that infection. And that *infection-induced fever doesn't go high enough (typically >106.5) to carry a risk of causing damage to the brain and body.*

**********

Then why treat a fever?

The body's thermostat is rarely satisfied; it usually wants the temperature in the body to be a few degrees warmer than it is. That's why we feel cold or chilled when really we are already too warm. Hence, the main reason to treat a fever: to make your child feel more comfortable. Period.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *veganone* 
My question with the statements you quoted is that saying "fever is not dangerous" implies that no treatment is ever necessary when there is a fever. Sure, it's not the "fever" you treat, but the illness causing the fever MAY require treatment. And to just say "fever is not dangerous" implies that the underlying illness isn't either.

It's misleading at best.

I will say once more that fever can indicate serious health conditions that DO need treatment. The fever in and of itself is not dangerous.

-Angela


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BoringTales* 
Exactly. There's also a reason that life expectancies have risen and infant mortality has fallen as medicine advances as well.


actually, our life expectancies are falling.


----------



## Scullery (Oct 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I will say once more that fever can indicate serious health conditions that DO need treatment. The fever in and of itself is not dangerous.

-Angela

A prolonged fever can be very dehydrating, especially in young children.

We went through something similar with my son. It's rough when you're in the middle of it and trying to make the best choices. Thinking of your little one.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Scullery* 
A prolonged fever can be very dehydrating, especially in young children.

You're correct- thanks for pointing it out.







I was assuming good basic nursing care- but I tend to forget that many people are no longer aware of the basics.

-Angela


----------



## Scullery (Oct 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
You're correct- thanks for pointing it out.







I was assuming good basic nursing care- but I tend to forget that many people are no longer aware of the basics.

-Angela

Good basic nursing care? Do you mean tending to a sick baby or breastfeeding?

Babies tend to decrease their intake when ill, and depending on how high the fever is and for how long, their intake sometimes won't be enough to make up the loss of fluid just in respiration so you need to watch carefully for signs of dehydration. I learned this with my own child unfortunately, and now treat fevers if they are uncomfortable or it's been longer than 12 hours or so.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Scullery* 
Good basic nursing care? Do you mean tending to a sick baby or breastfeeding?

Babies tend to decrease their intake when ill, and depending on how high the fever is and for how long, their intake sometimes won't be enough to make up the loss of fluid just in respiration so you need to watch carefully for signs of dehydration. I learned this with my own child unfortunately, and now treat fevers if they are uncomfortable or it's been longer than 12 hours or so.

Nursing as in caring for the sick- not nursing as in breastfeeding









-Angela


----------



## formerluddite (Nov 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
UPDATE....originally took baby in on monday the 6th for high fever and wheezing and coughing....have been doing nebulizer treatments a few times a day...baby's fever broke wednesday night...he woke up sweaty. Still bad cough...he would start coughing and then it would turn into him crying because the coughing hurt...so it would be a vicious cycle of coughing and crying...we havent gotten much sleep at all this week. Today-thursday....baby's eyes are sunken in....he's lost half a pound...not smiling and active...not nursing well.
Baby overall was worse today than on monday....i took him back to our GP...who practices integrative medicine and holistic practices....he listened to the baby's lungs and said that his right lung sounds worse than the left and he was a bit concerned...as the baby did not seem to be any better.
We did a chest x-ray and the right lung showed pneumonia....i kept asking about viral vs bacterial...and he mentioned we could do a blood test to figure out which one....he also mentioned that in a baby this young ...he feels that we should treat right away...rather than wait and see...we've waited 4 days and it's gotten worse...i was almost in tears....as i had originally never wanted to take my baby to any doctors...i didnt want to give my baby medicine....i'm asking my self....what did i do wrong...did i not take care of my baby the way i should have...i feel so guilty right now....But i feel that he has to have the antibiotics and steriod....i am giving him a probiotic...plus i took him to our chiro who did did accupuncture today too.
I felt better after seeing our chiro....however i still feel so bad as a mommy that my baby is so sick.
I need some mama support yall.

i've been there with a 3 month old, tiny thing with an IV and O2 taped on. her snotty nose of a couple days suddenly (overnight) turned into 103.7, lethargic, breathing too fast (50-60 resp/min) to nurse well, O2 sats ~90%. thankfully the xray showed pneumonia (right upper lobe), so we avoided a lumbar puncture (but she did have a straight cath to check for a UTI







).

that night was the longest i ever spent, no room to nurse her in the chair pull out bed, so i crawled into the giant crib and hoped i wouldn't fall out to nurse her and cuddle up on and off through the night.

you will get through this, so will he. you didn't do anything wrong, illness happens. i second guessed every decision (should we have stayed home the day before? we went on a play date for her older sister, it was just a snotty nose...), but you can't live your life holed up in bed for every snotty nose.

i hope by the time you read this you are home again and he is recovering.


----------



## BoringTales (Aug 1, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
actually, our life expectancies are falling.









Falling since when?

At THIS link there is a table, from 2001. The US has the highest life expectancy of any country listed, 77 years. Compare that to Africa where the average life expectancy is 54 years.

Since 1950 our life expectancies have actually been rising...(2nd table on the page linked earlier)

*North America (U.S. and Canada)*

1950-1955 ~ 69
1960-1965 ~ 70
1970-1975 ~ 72
1980-1985 ~ 75
1990-1995 ~ 76
1995-2000 ~ 77

Steadily rising...

Looks like western medicine isn't he big bad wolf some people like to make it out to be.

What's your source for saying they are falling?


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Th1Th2* 

Nature knows best.









:

Nature doesn't care if you die. Nature just goes along. Cycles and all that. Humans are given the tools to work with, and fight nature so we don't die "naturally". Nature doesn't have it out for any of us, but also doesn't try to help any of us out. If "nature knew best", nature would know how to make all organisms live in harmony so we don't have MRSA attacking us. Nature just is. It doesn't know anything.

/really tired of people leaving their health care in the hands and ideals of mumbo jumbo.

Alegna, post some links. YOUR links - the links YOU got your information from, please.


----------



## mamakah (Nov 5, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 







:

Nature doesn't care if you die. Nature just goes along. Cycles and all that. Humans are given the tools to work with, and fight nature so we don't die "naturally". Nature doesn't have it out for any of us, but also doesn't try to help any of us out. If "nature knew best", nature would know how to make all organisms live in harmony so we don't have MRSA attacking us. Nature just is. It doesn't know anything.

/really tired of people leaving their health care in the hands and ideals of mumbo jumbo.

Alegna, post some links. YOUR links - the links YOU got your information from, please.

























Nature doesn't try to help us out?!?!?!?! EVERYTHING that you have and are is because of nature. You have food because NATURE has a system of taking a seed, germinating it, letting it grow, providing sunlight to it, providing rain so it gets water, creating little creatures and insects that will help it along (worms, bees, etc.) What would you have without nature? EVERYTHING in nature is planned perfectly. We humans have been messing with it for so long, trying to manipulate it, that we have royally screwed it up. As far as MRSA goes, it is on the rise BECAUSE of vaccination. Many organsims do work and live in harmony together. Then, after injecting toxins into the system and ingesting them through food, our body does not recognize some of those organisms as friendly anymore and attacks them, leaving you with the various problems we have now. Did you know the human immune system has HIB bacteria all around it. It recognizes it and brushes it off as a friendly bacteria unless that immune system is too over sugared. Then, it cannot recognize that as a friend and attacks it, with the Hib fighting back. So, technically, a disease we are now vaccinating for was once not a big problem when it was in natures hands. Enter in the egotistical human to mess that up with lab made food and sugars.
I am so tired of people not paying attention to the repercussions of trying to manipulate nature and the human body. Everything is interfered with these days. From the moment of conception to birth to natures intention for mothers to breastfeed, to the developing immune system, and on and on and on. And what do we have to show for it? A population of healthy and thriving humans? Quite the opposite actually. If you disagree with this, you should look at some of the latest health statistics. People are overweight and sick thanks to our disgusting food that is stuffed with pesticides, hormones, preservatives, you name it. We have fantastic ingredients like High Fructose Corn Syrup that does nothing but slowly kill us and it is in EVERYTHING! Childhood diabetes is on the rise. That is a fact. What is your theory on that? Is that nature finally deciding to plague these kids with such a disease? Or could it possibly be that they are fed bad food from the day they are born? Even parents with the best nutritional intentions get blindsided by some of the ingredients in food these days. Or better yet...could it possibly be the fact that we take a brand new baby with a pure body and shoot them up with aluminum, formaldehyde, various human and animal cells, protiens and DNA, etc.?
I could go on and on about this, but I have a 11 month old who desperately needs my attention. To be continued...


----------



## anewmama (Feb 25, 2007)

If my daughter had had a 103 fever at 6.5 months that lasted more than 48 hours, I would have been at the doctor's or ER ASAP. I would not mess around with waiting it out, playing a guessing game on what is causing it. I would want to start to find out. I would also probably only treat in the case of no sleep. I feel sleep is so incredibly important that I would not allow a baby that young to remain feverish and with seriously interrupted sleep as in not sleeping in at least one or 2 blocks of time typical for your child. Or whatever is typically the pattern for your own child at that age. I would also include in my evaluate of the 24/48 hour period dehydration. It really is pretty impossible to do much with a young infant. At least in my experience with my daughter. The things I thought I would do to help her she wanted nothing to do with.

I think it's really important to remember that not every child is the same and a 103 fever in one child could be really bad whereas for another, it might be the norm and no big deal. I think it is hard to separate the fever from the underlying cause. If we all assume all 6.5 month's old have the same biological constitution, then one answer fits all would work. But what if a child has weak lungs, is developing pneumonia and has 103 fever? Versus a strong healthy lunged child with the same fever? If you look at the fever alone, you could be making a really bad decision on waiting it out as in waiting before seeing a doctor, not waiting it out on reducing the fever. The fever is just a SMALL symptom in knowing when to move on something. Assuming a high fever is always ok, is a bad judgement and even a distraction from what might be going on.

And in a baby so young, there could be some serious medical unknown conditions at that point where a 103 fever for over 24 or 48 hours would be a very bad idea for my comfort level. I would want to engage outside monitoring/experience help at that point. Now 103 in a 2 year old or 4 year old... many things apply but it's quite a different game, IMHO.


----------



## lindberg99 (Apr 23, 2003)

OP - I hope your baby is doing better today! Post an update when you get a chance.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 

Alegna, post some links. YOUR links - the links YOU got your information from, please.









Mamakay posted great links!









She's a link godess. I rarely keep them after I read them.

-Angela


----------



## lindberg99 (Apr 23, 2003)

OP - I hope your baby is doing better today! Post an update when you get a chance.


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BoringTales* 
Falling since when?

Looks like western medicine isn't he big bad wolf some people like to make it out to be.

What's your source for saying they are falling?

i dont have time to search for research links but a quick google search came up w/ this article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...fespan22m.html

there are a few more.

western medicine isnt the answer all the time. i venture to say it isnt the answer most of the time. i have attempted to convey my opinion in a respectful tone here but it seems there are some who just can not see the opposing viewpoint presented here.

there are MANY articles in Mothering supporting the apparent minority view presented in this thread.


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

sages... I had a hard time reading the block of text, please excuse me if I leave something out.

You seem to take what I said very personally. You also seem to think because I am fine with some western medicine, that I know nothing about alternatives?

Nature would do those things without us. Humans have died from nature since man kind came to being. It's not a sentient being that is there to serve us. Nature doesn't grow new because we want it to, it does it because that's just what it does. Nature was here before humans and will continue after we all die out. It's just there. It would be there if we left it alone and all died at 40 years old from infections and diseases (and yes, we would get them, man kind has been getting sick long before any medicines came to being), it would be there to evolve all on it's own and create new diseases without us mutating them, and it'll be there no matter what we do with it.

I don't vaccinate and don't agree with vaccines, but there are many drugs and procedures that prolong our life and give us the life expectancy we're seeing today. Without asprin, tylenol, antibiotics, surgery, etc we would be living much shorter life spans. Not all western medicine is out to make "the man" money....some is, sure, but not all. Shunning all of western medicine is foolhardy.

MRSA is on the rise because of of the overuse of antibiotics. I know MRSA pretty well, my dad lost his foot while under my care because of it. Unless you have real, valid links to back up your claim?

No, nature doesn't try to help us out. I repeat, it's not a sentient being. Scientists try to help us out. Big pharma gets in the way of that to make a buck, but it's us humans that are trying to use nature as a tool.


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 







:

/really tired of people leaving their health care in the hands and ideals of mumbo jumbo.

it may be mumbo jumbo to you, but for me, i get tired of ppl expecting me to "do something" just b/c there is a "chance" something bad could happen. most of us drive, we take risks every day. I prefer to gamble on the natural progression of things and allow my family to heal naturally....which they always have.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sages* 















I am so tired of people not paying attention to the repercussions of trying to manipulate nature and the human body. Everything is interfered with these days. From the moment of conception to birth to natures intention for mothers to breastfeed, to the developing immune system, and on and on and on. And what do we have to show for it? A population of healthy and thriving humans? Quite the opposite actually. If you disagree with this, you should look at some of the latest health statistics. People are overweight and sick thanks to our disgusting food that is stuffed with pesticides, hormones, preservatives, you name it. .

thanks for posting that. i was beginning to wonder where i was.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 
Without asprin, tylenol, antibiotics, surgery, etc we would be living much shorter life spans.

I agree wholeheartedly that western medicine has done many things to improve health and life-spans. Antibiotics have been a miracle in many situations. Surgery saves lives in hundreds of ways.

However, asprin and tylenol have done nothing to extend life spans. Are they useful tools? Absolutely. Do I use them? You bet. Do they save lives? Not really. It could be argued that asprin saves lives when used as a blood thinner. I can't think of a situation where tylenol could possibly be a life-saver.

-Angela


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

You are correct - I lumped tylenol in with life saving when I should have added a second category of "making life more comfortable". Cramps, headaches, high fevers, all made better by the (occasional) use of tylenol, and of course other drugs. Asprin as I see it is more of a heart medicine then for pain, though I do have excedrin.

And please, "beginning to wonder where you are"? MDC is not the be all end all of uber-crunch. The exchange of information both natural and less then natural is vital for people to make a choice. When hyland's teething tablets don't work, you bet I would reach for the other stuff to keep my baby out of complete misery (this never actually happened, I didn't even need the tablets). Anyone's use of western medicine doesn't exclude them from being natural minded.

FTR? I've brought out motrin one time for my kids in the last 2 years. I think I medicated a fever 3 or 4 years ago, I don't know how long before that. I don't vax. There are no OTC drugs in the house except pain relievers and they're all for me and my stupid migraines. Oh, I do have antibiotic cream, we got that when my 4 year old decided to throw a weeding tool into his foot. I didn't take him to the ER and get a tetnus vaccine, but I did use a lot of betadine, clean water, ointment and bandaids. None of my kids have seen a doctor in years (except the dentist). We use SA almost religiously for illness, teas for colds and sore throats, etc. I don't use fluoride. I have plenty of MDC worthy things that I am against, but this whole "never medicate for fever" - or whatever....not good to pass around.


----------



## veganone (May 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *babygrace* 
it would be more accurate to quote the poster who made those comments regarding fever, not me.







i, too, agree that it is misleading and unclear.

OP,







to you.


Oh right - it was a quote that you quoted...


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 

And please, "beginning to wonder where you are"? MDC is not the be all end all of uber-crunch. The exchange of information both natural and less then natural is vital for people to make a choice. When hyland's teething tablets don't work, you bet I would reach for the other stuff to keep my baby out of complete misery (this never actually happened, I didn't even need the tablets). Anyone's use of western medicine doesn't exclude them from being natural minded.

the comment was in response to your statement that this is all mumbo jumbo. thats not a comment i would expect to see here on MDC.

it is nice to come to MDC and be able to get support from like minded ppl. and whether or not you use tylenol to dose a fever, i simply dont see the need to beat a dead horse..some of us simply don't use it for a fever. comfort, perhaps....but fever no. i have no reason to care whether someone does use it for a 101, or 103 fever...just seems that ppl get upset if someone posts that they don't (which i dont). the implications that those of us who do not are risking our children's lifes is just wrong. no, i dont care what implications are being made...but it woudl be nice to be given the same respect as those who dont use tylenol for fevers give those who do...and statements like "all this mumbo jumbo" certainly dont favor good will to all....just my observations.

there are a lot of ppl who believe homeopathics are mumbo jumbo. im not one. there are a lot of ppl who think chiropractice care and acupuncture are mumbo jumbo. i dont believe either are mumbo jumbo; however, chiro care has worked well for my family; acupuncture never has. doesnt mean i believe it is mumbo jumbo..i just dont believe it works for us.

ftr, ive never used tylenol as a fever reducer..and ive never had a baby or child "in complete misery". ive had kids with high fevers though.


----------



## babygrace (Aug 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamakay* 
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/23/he...-bugaboos.html

http://adc.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/89/1/89-a

http://blogs.webmd.com/healthy-child...er-phobic.html

none of the links you provided state studies/research to back up their statements. but, the webmd link has the following caveat (in quotes) which is interesting, because it provides a clue that fever itself, depending on the child, can be worrisome and treatment worthy: http://blogs.webmd.com/healthy-child...er-phobic.html

Quote:

A few caveats

* This discussion does not apply to children who have seizures with fever ("febrile seizures"). They need their fever to be managed more aggressively to try to prevent recurrences.
* Any fever in the first months could indicate a possible significant infection requiring immediate attention.
* Don't get too caught up in the exact temperature. While it is true that higher fevers may signify a more worrisome infection, more important are your child's symptoms, such as respiratory distress, irritability, listlessness, lethargy, poor feeding, fewer interactions with then environment, rash, vomiting, diarrhea, etc. I'm much more worried about a listless child with a temperature of 101, than a smiling playful one with a temp of 103.
* If your baby/child looks sick in any of the ways mentioned above, call your pediatric provider, even if the temperature is not high enough to be called a fever.


----------



## babygrace (Aug 23, 2006)

OP, i apologize for the ongoing parallel discussion in a thread you started for a situation which you are undergoing IRL. i hope baby is doing better today.


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

I didn't say "this is all mumbo jumbo" though. I said I was "really tired of people leaving their health care in the hands and ideals of mumbo jumbo"...I suppose I should have NOT used that phrase, I forget people can't translate what I say vs what I mean in my head. What I meant by mumbo jumbo is not taking care of medical conditions that really need to be taken care of using outside resourses, but the parent/person in charge thinks the body will just fix itself because that's what bodies do. Our bodies don't always work right. They fail us, they need help. People died of common stuff not so long ago because the tools of western medicine (and better alternative medicine) weren't available. If alternative medicine works to bring a (high) fever down, or make a kid not completely miserable, by all means, please use it. I'm not all up to date on alternative medicine, but I adore chiropractors. I use peppermint oil for migraines. And the other stuff I posted before.

Does that explain what I mean any better?

Oh! I apologize for the snippity "oh please", wasn't so nice of me









Quote:


Originally Posted by *PassionateWriter* 
the comment was in response to your statement that this is all mumbo jumbo. thats not a comment i would expect to see here on MDC.

it is nice to come to MDC and be able to get support from like minded ppl. and whether or not you use tylenol to dose a fever, i simply dont see the need to beat a dead horse..some of us simply don't use it for a fever. comfort, perhaps....but fever no. i have no reason to care whether someone does use it for a 101, or 103 fever...just seems that ppl get upset if someone posts that they don't (which i dont). the implications that those of us who do not are risking our children's lifes is just wrong. no, i dont care what implications are being made...but it woudl be nice to be given the same respect as those who dont use tylenol for fevers give those who do...and statements like "all this mumbo jumbo" certainly dont favor good will to all....just my observations.

there are a lot of ppl who believe homeopathics are mumbo jumbo. im not one. there are a lot of ppl who think chiropractice care and acupuncture are mumbo jumbo. i dont believe either are mumbo jumbo; however, chiro care has worked well for my family; acupuncture never has. doesnt mean i believe it is mumbo jumbo..i just dont believe it works for us.

ftr, ive never used tylenol as a fever reducer..and ive never had a baby or child "in complete misery". ive had kids with high fevers though.


----------



## mamakah (Nov 5, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 
sages... I had a hard time reading the block of text, please excuse me if I leave something out.

You seem to take what I said very personally. You also seem to think because I am fine with some western medicine, that I know nothing about alternatives?

Nature would do those things without us. Humans have died from nature since man kind came to being. It's not a sentient being that is there to serve us. Nature doesn't grow new because we want it to, it does it because that's just what it does. Nature was here before humans and will continue after we all die out. It's just there. It would be there if we left it alone and all died at 40 years old from infections and diseases (and yes, we would get them, man kind has been getting sick long before any medicines came to being), it would be there to evolve all on it's own and create new diseases without us mutating them, and it'll be there no matter what we do with it.

I don't vaccinate and don't agree with vaccines, but there are many drugs and procedures that prolong our life and give us the life expectancy we're seeing today. Without asprin, tylenol, antibiotics, surgery, etc we would be living much shorter life spans. Not all western medicine is out to make "the man" money....some is, sure, but not all. Shunning all of western medicine is foolhardy.

MRSA is on the rise because of of the overuse of antibiotics. I know MRSA pretty well, my dad lost his foot while under my care because of it. Unless you have real, valid links to back up your claim?

No, nature doesn't try to help us out. I repeat, it's not a sentient being. Scientists try to help us out. Big pharma gets in the way of that to make a buck, but it's us humans that are trying to use nature as a tool.

I didn't take your post personally at all. Sorry if that is how it came across.
I still disagree with you on this.
Mothers create a special milk for their child specifically. That milk is formulated to protect baby and build immunity to diseases/infections that may take their life or weaken them. That is nature made my friend. In that case nature IS helping us along. Do you disagree? Science has tried to copy it, with no success and has caused much more harm than good by doing so. Do you agree?
This thread is about fever which I admit can get scary. All I can do is go with my own experience with fever.
My 11 month old had his first fever a couple weeks ago. In the middle of the night his temp was 103. I was scared and worried, but decided to let it go for a bit because I knew it was fighting something. He had it through out the night and I kept him hydrated. He seemed irritated but not miserable. Finally in the wee hours of the morning, he was starting to act uncomfortable. I decided then to treat the child not the fever and gave him a very small dose of tylenol to attempt to take the edge off.
His fever went away, he slept for a long time and woke up fine! That day my SIL called hysterical because her 2 yr old had been up all night with a 103 fever and they had to give her tylenol and Motrin all night (My son and her daughter had been playing all day together). She calls hysterical again after Dr. appt because her LO was diagnosed with RSV. Long story short, my son NEVER got sick past that fever. I KNOW he was fighting off the virus. I BELIEVE that by letting his fever do its work for as long as he was comfortable, he was able to fight the virus off. I believe that natures design to have fevers fight disease HELPED him along.
I don't think one can say "Nature doesn't help us." You can say nature doesn't "save" us or "protect" us, but I believe that however you want to look at it, we get our help.








I agree with you about big pharma. I also agree that not all modern medicine is bad.
This link mentions MRSA and antibiotics but also brings up the link between prevnar and MRSA.
http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/...ld-flu-deaths/


----------



## hummingmom (Apr 18, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
Alternatives are for when things are going well, when things get bad do what you need to do to take care of that baby.

While I appreciate the sentiment behind this post (and certainly don't intend to criticize the OP for seeking conventional medical treatment for a baby with pneumonia), I have to disagree strongly with the idea that's implied, i.e., that alternative medicine is somehow a lightweight option that's ineffective or inappropriate for truly serious problems. Having just read through this thread for the first time, I've noticed that "alternatives" have generally been presented in a very limited way. For instance, there have been references to things like Hyland's teething tablets, vitamin C, or just doing nothing and hoping for the best. To me, all of these would fall in the category of "home remedies." They may be helpful in many cases, but they're basically the alternative version of a dab of neosporin, an aspirin tablet, or some other simple and not-always-effective allopathic remedy. If you've tried them, and your child is still getting sicker and sicker, you clearly need to find something more effective, ASAP.

On the other hand, if we compare apples to apples... i.e., _diagnosis and treatment by a skilled MD, vs. diagnosis and treatment by a skilled practitioner of an established alternative medical discipline_... then the alternative approach is IMO a valid one, whether things are going "well" or "badly." Of course, there are some situations that are beyond the scope of these disciplines; nobody is going to be able to use homeopathy to re-attach a severed leg, or acupuncture to correct a congenital heart defect. But this is due to the type of ailment, not to its severity. For example, those who strongly support the homeopathic approach would rather choose an expert homeopath than an expert MD to treat an infection, even (or perhaps especially) if it were a potentially dangerous one. (Needless to say, it can be hard to find a real expert in any healing profession... which is why we would do well to form relationships with one or more trusted practitioners, before an emergency happens. Even if they can't solve the problem, they'll likely be able to refer us to someone who can.)

It seems as if a strong preference for alternative medical care -- even when our children are actually _sick_ -- is somewhat of a minority view on this thread, and perhaps isn't even considered "respectable" by some people.







That comes as a surprise, especially given the forum header:

_Health and Healing is a forum for discussion that reaches beyond mainstream health care norms. It embraces the wide variety of natural and alternative healing modalities as well as necessary conventional medical care. To further this aim please use the term "health care practitioner" rather than "doctor" to embrace the reality that there are other professionals out there to consult for health care needs._

Anyway, just to add my 2 cents on the topic of medicating a feverish child: I'll do it on occasion (usually with ibuprofen), if he or she seems really miserable and nothing else is helping. I don't medicate for the fever itself, though I probably would if it stayed at 105 for a significant length of time. In that case, the medication would be my last step before going to the ER -- as it's the first thing they're going to ask about when you get there, anyway. And this does make sense, from a diagnostic perspective. A fever of 105 that's reducible to 101 with medication, is a very different beast from a fever that's still at 105 _after_ medication.

It's also important to note that a fever "breaking" isn't the same thing as a fever going down due to antipyretics. When a fever is lowered artificially, the patient might seem somewhat relieved, but the illness itself is just as strong as ever. As a PP said, Tylenol can certainly make people more comfortable, but it doesn't cure anything.

When a fever breaks on its own, it's a dramatic change: the patient is immediately, noticeably better; and recovery is generally very rapid afterward. It's obvious what's happening, even without a thermometer. I've read about this many times in older books, but have only personally experienced it once, in the small hours of the morning after my son had been treated homeopathically for his croup. It was amazing to see, though also kind of scary. After the remedy, his fever (which had been moderate) started going up and up... and then crossed 105, and then... just as I was wondering if I should give him the Advil, or start packing up to go to the hospital... POOF, it was all over. His breathing went back to normal, his face relaxed and lost its flushed look, and he fell into a deep, restful sleep. Just like the old-time books said. And he hasn't had croup since.


----------



## hummingmom (Apr 18, 2008)

BTW, here's a page from what appears to be a very mainstream pediatric practice: Parent Information About Fever. This information is similar to what I've read elsewhere (also on mainstream medical sites), which is how I settled on my personal "comfort zone" of keeping my childrens' fevers from going above 105 for long periods. Not that a temperature of 105 is dangerous in itself, but I prefer to be on the more cautious side of things and keep a bit of a safety margin.

Medicating fevers between 102-104 is considered optional, and the only purpose is to keep the child more comfortable, not to reduce the fever per se. If this is done, the temperature shouldn't be lowered below 100. And it's not recommended that parents give fever reducers for temperatures under 102. (Of course, with a young baby or a very sick-acting child, you might still need to take them in to be examined, even if they only have a low-grade fever.)

It's also interesting to note that their "Myths and Facts" section matches much of what Angela has been saying: fevers produced by the body don't cause brain damage, febrile seizures aren't harmful, etc.


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

great post hummingmom. i never have enough time to type out a long thoughtful post. thanks for doing so.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

My baby is much better this week. I only gave him 2 dose's of antibiotic...i just couldnt give him any more....our chiropractor did another adjustment on him today and mentioned that he did have a ball where his lung function is effected on his back....so he released that...i feel so much better having him see the chiro.
My chiro also mentioned that he doesnt vax his son.....yipeee...i'm so excited to find like minded professional out there.
Great thread by the way...i learned alot about fevers since posting this thread. Thanks mama's.


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

Please give him the full course of antibiotics.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antibiotics/FL00075

Quote:

Take antibiotics exactly as prescribed. Follow your doctor's instructions when taking prescribed medication, including how many times a day and for how long. Never stop treatment a few days early if you start feeling better - a complete course of antibiotics is needed to kill all of the harmful bacteria. *A shortened course of antibiotics, on the other hand, often wipes out only the most vulnerable bacteria, while allowing relatively resistant bacteria to survive.*


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
My baby is much better this week. I only gave him 2 dose's of antibiotic...i just couldnt give him any more....our chiropractor did another adjustment on him today and mentioned that he did have a ball where his lung function is effected on his back....so he released that...i feel so much better having him see the chiro.
My chiro also mentioned that he doesnt vax his son.....yipeee...i'm so excited to find like minded professional out there.
Great thread by the way...i learned alot about fevers since posting this thread. Thanks mama's.

Please please please give him the full course of antibiotics.


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 
Please give him the full course of antibiotics.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antibiotics/FL00075

I agree. Unfotunately, you have probably made things worse by just giving him two doses of antibiotics. I'm actually shocked any chiropractor would suggest just an adjustment for such a serious illness.


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amylcd* 
I agree. Unfotunately, you have probably made things worse by just giving him two doses of antibiotics. I'm actually shocked any chiropractor would suggest just an adjustment for such a serious illness.


Same here.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama* 
Please please please give him the full course of antibiotics.

Yes please finish the course of antibiotics - stopping mid-course can be much much more dangerous than avoiding them at all. My hubby just got out of the hospital after being diagnosed this past week with pneumonia - his pulmonologist said that this has been a very bad year for pneumonia. My husband struccled, I can only imagine his suffering in such a small baby.

Please finish the antibiotics or his pneumonia may return resistant to the meds and much more dangerous.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

Yes, please finish the full course of antibiotics. Antibiotics are totally called for in a case of pneumonia. This is my concern with the anti-antibiotics sentiment you see so often here. Yes, they are over prescribed, yes we should resist them when they are not called for, but please, there is a time and a place for them. They do save lives as well as someone's health! They are not evil in and of themselves, it's only the over prescribing of them that is.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

First, to the OP, this is *not* your fault. You are doing your best to take care of the child, go with your instincts. Hope your babe feels better soon.








But yes, please stick with the antibiotics, you need to give it all, or it might just make things worse and pneumonia is serious. (I'm also shocked that the chiro would suggest that.)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
More reliable sources say that the body won't let the fever go too high short of poisoning situations.

-Angela

That is not true. One of our kids have fevers up to 106/107 with *no* reason known to man.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
What I meant is that the febrile seizures themselves are not damaging to the child.

-Angela

Again, not true.
Our kid (same one) has had lots of febrile seizures which have caused her to stop breathing, and not starting again on her own, even caused her heart to stop. She would have died from the febrile seizures w/o us doing CPR, giving o2, cooling her down, and calling an ambulance.
Also, our same kid has had febrile seizures that just didn't end, so she needed medication to stop it or she would have gone to status epilepticus, that is extremely dangerous and can cause both brain damage and death very easily. She even has gone to status from it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Sure. I just maintain that there's no medical need to









-Angela

Again, not true, for the reasons stated above.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
The problem/ danger is NOT the fever itself.

-Angela

And again, not true, see above.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LBMarie9* 
just a ?--what are the dangers in not giving a nebulizer? I mean --if my DD is congested =but obviously breathing enough (if she seemed to be working too hard I would take her right in)---but those treatments are sad crap- I gave them to my son- made him shaky and feel crappy.

is there some sort of damage that being weezing puts my child at risk for that I'm not thinking of--if i try my best to open up her lungs (bundled up in the night air) -? or is the only risk--that they stop breathing and/or have to work VERY hard to not get enough air.

(could I be causing my DD brain damage by letting her be congested and weezy a bit for a week?)

I'm just assuming not everybody has a pulseox at home to check the kids stats, but the oxygen level in the blood can get to low. If it's under 90% the kid should get additional o2 and treatment to make him/her breathe properly and get the o2 levels up. Low o2 levels over time can cause brain damage. So, it can be dangerous, but you would have to check with a pulseox (they can do that in a hospital/at the doctors when the kid is having problems breathing/weezing/working hard to get air). You might not see it, becuase you can have too low sats w/o turning blue.


----------



## Bri'sgirl (Apr 4, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
UPDATE....originally took baby in on monday the 6th for high fever and wheezing and coughing....have been doing nebulizer treatments a few times a day...baby's fever broke wednesday night...he woke up sweaty. Still bad cough...he would start coughing and then it would turn into him crying because the coughing hurt...so it would be a vicious cycle of coughing and crying...we havent gotten much sleep at all this week. Today-thursday....baby's eyes are sunken in....he's lost half a pound...not smiling and active...not nursing well.
Baby overall was worse today than on monday....i took him back to our GP...who practices integrative medicine and holistic practices....he listened to the baby's lungs and said that his right lung sounds worse than the left and he was a bit concerned...as the baby did not seem to be any better.
We did a chest x-ray and the right lung showed pneumonia....i kept asking about viral vs bacterial...and he mentioned we could do a blood test to figure out which one....he also mentioned that in a baby this young ...he feels that we should treat right away...rather than wait and see...we've waited 4 days and it's gotten worse...i was almost in tears....as i had originally never wanted to take my baby to any doctors...i didnt want to give my baby medicine....i'm asking my self....what did i do wrong...did i not take care of my baby the way i should have...i feel so guilty right now....But i feel that he has to have the antibiotics and steriod....i am giving him a probiotic...plus i took him to our chiro who did did accupuncture today too.
I felt better after seeing our chiro....however i still feel so bad as a mommy that my baby is so sick.
I need some mama support yall.

You are NOT a bad mommy! My youngest DS has been so sick, he's spent 4 separate nights in the hospital...sickness happens.

Have you given another update? I may have missed it...but how is your baby doing? I've been thinking about you.


----------



## iamleabee (Jul 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jwebbal* 
Yes, please finish the full course of antibiotics. Antibiotics are totally called for in a case of pneumonia. This is my concern with the anti-antibiotics sentiment you see so often here. Yes, they are over prescribed, yes we should resist them when they are not called for, but please, there is a time and a place for them. They do save lives as well as someone's health! They are not evil in and of themselves, it's only the over prescribing of them that is.









:


----------



## Jilian (Jun 16, 2003)

I agree with the others, please give the full course of antibiotics. Pneumonia is not something to mess with, especially in a child so young. I'd also be very concerned about what the "ball" was. My younger son suffered lung damage related to a CHD and they removed a few "balls" from his lungs with deep suctioning and they were called mucous plugs that caused him serious breathing issues. I wonder if this "ball" could have been the same thing?


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hummingmom* 
While I appreciate the sentiment behind this post (and certainly don't intend to criticize the OP for seeking conventional medical treatment for a baby with pneumonia), I have to disagree strongly with the idea that's implied, i.e., that alternative medicine is somehow a lightweight option that's ineffective or inappropriate for truly serious problems. Having just read through this thread for the first time, I've noticed that "alternatives" have generally been presented in a very limited way. For instance, there have been references to things like Hyland's teething tablets, vitamin C, or just doing nothing and hoping for the best. To me, all of these would fall in the category of "home remedies." They may be helpful in many cases, but they're basically the alternative version of a dab of neosporin, an aspirin tablet, or some other simple and not-always-effective allopathic remedy. If you've tried them, and your child is still getting sicker and sicker, you clearly need to find something more effective, ASAP.

On the other hand, if we compare apples to apples... i.e., _diagnosis and treatment by a skilled MD, vs. diagnosis and treatment by a skilled practitioner of an established alternative medical discipline_... then the alternative approach is IMO a valid one, whether things are going "well" or "badly." Of course, there are some situations that are beyond the scope of these disciplines; nobody is going to be able to use homeopathy to re-attach a severed leg, or acupuncture to correct a congenital heart defect. But this is due to the type of ailment, not to its severity. For example, those who strongly support the homeopathic approach would rather choose an expert homeopath than an expert MD to treat an infection, even (or perhaps especially) if it were a potentially dangerous one. (Needless to say, it can be hard to find a real expert in any healing profession... which is why we would do well to form relationships with one or more trusted practitioners, before an emergency happens. Even if they can't solve the problem, they'll likely be able to refer us to someone who can.)

It seems as if a strong preference for alternative medical care -- even when our children are actually _sick_ -- is somewhat of a minority view on this thread, and perhaps isn't even considered "respectable" by some people.







That comes as a surprise, especially given the forum header:

_Health and Healing is a forum for discussion that reaches beyond mainstream health care norms. It embraces the wide variety of natural and alternative healing modalities as well as necessary conventional medical care. To further this aim please use the term "health care practitioner" rather than "doctor" to embrace the reality that there are other professionals out there to consult for health care needs._

Anyway, just to add my 2 cents on the topic of medicating a feverish child: I'll do it on occasion (usually with ibuprofen), if he or she seems really miserable and nothing else is helping. I don't medicate for the fever itself, though I probably would if it stayed at 105 for a significant length of time. In that case, the medication would be my last step before going to the ER -- as it's the first thing they're going to ask about when you get there, anyway. And this does make sense, from a diagnostic perspective. A fever of 105 that's reducible to 101 with medication, is a very different beast from a fever that's still at 105 _after_ medication.

It's also important to note that a fever "breaking" isn't the same thing as a fever going down due to antipyretics. When a fever is lowered artificially, the patient might seem somewhat relieved, but the illness itself is just as strong as ever. As a PP said, Tylenol can certainly make people more comfortable, but it doesn't cure anything.

When a fever breaks on its own, it's a dramatic change: the patient is immediately, noticeably better; and recovery is generally very rapid afterward. It's obvious what's happening, even without a thermometer. I've read about this many times in older books, but have only personally experienced it once, in the small hours of the morning after my son had been treated homeopathically for his croup. It was amazing to see, though also kind of scary. After the remedy, his fever (which had been moderate) started going up and up... and then crossed 105, and then... just as I was wondering if I should give him the Advil, or start packing up to go to the hospital... POOF, it was all over. His breathing went back to normal, his face relaxed and lost its flushed look, and he fell into a deep, restful sleep. Just like the old-time books said. And he hasn't had croup since.









My response was to her post about pneumonia.

I didn't say anything about fever.

Alternatives are fine for some things. My dad has a cousin who was treated for Polio with NA medicine. A traditional remedy is even found in AIDs drugs today.

But for a possibly serious infection in an infant I think one should examine all the choices.


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

Quote:

That is not true. One of our kids have fevers up to 106/107 with no reason known to man.
Mine too. My youngest frequently gets fevers over 105 with NO sign of illness. (frequently, as in at least monthly). All of her testing always comes back perfect. No one has been able to find a reason for her temp. going up so high.

My step father was admitted to the hospital last month with a collapsed lung. Two weeks before, he was given antibiotics for pneumonia. He took a few doses, felt better and stopped. He was told that if he had not gone in when he did, he would most likely have died within 24 hours. He said he felt fine until his lung actually collapsed. So, maybe your baby is feeling better but I would not chance it.


----------



## vloky (Apr 29, 2006)

Pneumonia is not something to mess around with, grown, healthy ADULTS die from it fairly frequently, my mom died of it last fall, and the majority of people in the ICU were there for PNEUMONIA it can have life long effects. Do your son a favor and give him the rest of the series of antibiotics and see a real medical doctor.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *vloky* 
Pneumonia is not something to mess around with, grown, healthy ADULTS die from it fairly frequently, my mom died of it last fall, and the majority of people in the ICU were there for PNEUMONIA it can have life long effects. Do your son a favor and give him the rest of the series of antibiotics and see a real medical doctor.


I have to second this - my grown healthy husband spent the last week in the hospital on heavy duty antibiotics - I can only imagine what a child would go through unmedicated.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

If you don't believe in antibiotics, don't start them.

If you start a course of antibiotics, please finish them.

Please don't start and stop and only give a few doses. What you've just done is killed the most easily killed bacteria, leaving the strongest to survive and reproduce.

My grandfather was a public health officer in the 1940s. Before antibiotics. He witnessed the introduction of pennicilin and the beginnings of widespread use of it.

And he witnessed, and talked about, and RANTED about, the beginnings of antibiotic resistance. When pennicilin was first available, it was a miracle drug. Because nothing like it had ever been available before, NOTHING was antibiotic resistant. Often, just one dose would make the patient feel like they'd been cured -- and then they wouldn't take the whole course.

I understand being loath to medicate a child unnecessarily. But once you've started down the antibiotic road, it is in your child's best interest, as well as the community at large, to finish what you've started.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

Wow...I'm not sure what to say about the antibiotics....First thing is this...we do not know if the pneumonia was viral or bacterial.....thus....that is one reason why i stopped the antibiotics...second reason is he was pooping every 5 min...his little bottom got so sore the first day he started the antibiotics...it's been 4 days since the last dose and he's still pooping 10times more than he's ever had in his whole life. I also started pro-biotics with the antibiotics and he's still having a ton of poop's.
He is back to his normal baby self....clear lungs...no cough...happy baby...sleeping good.
So should i really really finish the abx? He only has 3 more dose's which means..one dose a day...so 3 more days...geez..i just dont see a clear cut reason for me to go back to them. I need more info on this...i need clear cut medical advice on this one....a good website or a medical reference.
Also..my chiro did not tell me to stop anything....i stopped them on my own....about the ball that he felt....he mentioned something about lung function and he manipulated an area on his back....and i think he explained it like a ball....i could have my wording off. I will make sure i ask him about the ball when we go back on thursday.


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

Did you read the link I posted? That is "clear cut medical advice" from a "good website or medical reference". Diaper rash ointment is great for protecting his skin from antibiotic poops. You say he's got clear lungs, no cough - did you go into an MD and get a clear bill of health, and does the doctor know he hasn't gotten the full course of abx? Because without one, the bacteria can still be in there. Why don't you know if it's viral or bacterial, I thought that was getting tested?


----------



## skai (Apr 21, 2007)

*Yes, you should really REALLY finish the antibiotics.* Otherwise the pneumonia might soon be back, only a lot WORSE. People often start to feel better when the abx start working. That does not mean you don't have to finish them.


----------



## savithny (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
Wow...I'm not sure what to say about the antibiotics....First thing is this...we do not know if the pneumonia was viral or bacterial.....thus....that is one reason why i stopped the antibiotics...second reason is he was pooping every 5 min...his little bottom got so sore the first day he started the antibiotics...it's been 4 days since the last dose and he's still pooping 10times more than he's ever had in his whole life. I also started pro-biotics with the antibiotics and he's still having a ton of poop's.
He is back to his normal baby self....clear lungs...no cough...happy baby...sleeping good.
So should i really really finish the abx? He only has 3 more dose's which means..one dose a day...so 3 more days...geez..i just dont see a clear cut reason for me to go back to them. I need more info on this...i need clear cut medical advice on this one....a good website or a medical reference.
Also..my chiro did not tell me to stop anything....i stopped them on my own....about the ball that he felt....he mentioned something about lung function and he manipulated an area on his back....and i think he explained it like a ball....i could have my wording off. I will make sure i ask him about the ball when we go back on thursday.

If you didn't want to do abx, you shouldn't have started them. Having given him 2 of 5 doses, you've done 40% of a course. YOu have killed the most easily killed bacteria in his system now, and if this is bacterial (which you still don't know!), the remaining ones will not be killed, and will now be the only ones reproducing. If this *is* bacterial (whic you say you don't know), you've now set the stage for your baby having a more antibiotic resistant case.

I respect that people dont' want to medicate unnecessarily. I am the first to rant and rave about the overuse of antibiotics (try finding a hand soap that's not antibiotic anymore!). They are not my first line go-to answer to everything (though I do have no problem using them when necessary). But if you decide to go that route, you really have to GO THAT ROUTE ALL THE WAY. You CAN'T hop on and off the modern medicine train without some very serious consequences. If not for your baby (that is possible) then for someone else who gets that antibiotic-resistant infection you've now bred.

If you want reading material:

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/ant...prevention.htm

http://www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/ant...ealthIssue.htm
(This one lists penicillin-resistant streptococcus pneumonia as one of the bacteria showing increased antibiotic resistance)


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

Quote:

You say he's got clear lungs, no cough - did you go into an MD and get a clear bill of health, and does the doctor know he hasn't gotten the full course of abx?








:

Like I said, my step father appeared fine. No cough, no fever, nothing out of the ordinary until he was basically on his death bed. At the very least, get a re-check with his doctor.


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *skai* 
*Yes, you should really REALLY finish the antibiotics.* Otherwise the pneumonia might soon be back, only a lot WORSE. People often start to feel better when the abx start working. That does not mean you don't have to finish them.









: That's why they tell you to finish them even if you start to feel better. Just because he appears to be better doesn't mean he actually is.
I would take him back to be looked at and tell the dr. that he didn't finish his course of antibiotics.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *savithny* 
If you don't believe in antibiotics, don't start them.

If you start a course of antibiotics, please finish them.

Please don't start and stop and only give a few doses. What you've just done is killed the most easily killed bacteria, leaving the strongest to survive and reproduce.









:

If you've started them, finish them.

-Angela


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Since it's been a few days I take it, I would call the dr. who prescribed the antibiotics and explain the situation and see what he says.

-Angela


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

Our doc is out of town till monday....should i just give him the rest of the abx that i have left? I'm not sure what to do now.....i can call the office and see what the on call doc has to say. I'm in a funk right now...i want to do what's best for my little one....he was also prescribed prednizone by mouth for 3 days along with the abx...i gave him all the prednizone...just not all the abx.
We have a follow up on monday with our doc. I will call the office first thing in the morning and see what they say i should do.
See when i took him back to the doctor....the day they took the xray and he was dx'd with pneumonia...the doc said that we could do one of 2 things....not give the abx and wait it out...see how baby was the next day..if he was seeming better then cont to take it one day at a time with out the abx....or we could go full force and treat with abx as if it was bacterial pneumonia...I wasnt sure what to do so i went with the abx....And now i'm not sure what to do.


----------



## skai (Apr 21, 2007)

You started with the abx, you finish the abx. Simple really.


----------



## hummingmom (Apr 18, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
My response was to her post about pneumonia.

I didn't say anything about fever.

Alternatives are fine for some things. My dad has a cousin who was treated for Polio with NA medicine. A traditional remedy is even found in AIDs drugs today.

But for a possibly serious infection in an infant I think one should examine all the choices.

The thing is, it's pretty rare for full-blown infections to arise suddenly. Nature usually gives us a few days of warning. In the case of the OP, the baby doesn't seem to have been terribly ill last Sunday or Monday. If the family were under the care of a homeopath (or TCM doctor, or other alternative HCP), he would almost certainly have been treated by them at this time, if not earlier. They tend to believe in intervening sooner rather than later, especially with children's illnesses. Even if the wrong remedy were chosen at first, there would still be time to try a couple of others. Of course, we can't say how things would have turned out, but IMO there's every reason to believe that such a treatment would prevent things from reaching the "crisis stage." Homeopathy has a very strong track record in treating influenza and pneumonia.

http://www.lifemedical.us/flu/dewey.htm
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/didyouknow=3

As it turned out, after a few days of conventional medical treatment (a nebulizer -- I'm guessing albuterol?), the baby was getting sicker, which led to the diagnosis of the pneumonia on Thursday. It would be kind of iffy to suddenly "switch trains" at that point, as a PP put it. But, again, that's not because the alternative disciplines are incapable of treating potentially serious infections. It's just that it's much harder to apply naturopathic or homeopathic principles after the situation has been complicated by allopathic treatment.

At that point, it's probably simpler for everyone just to let the conventional MD's finish what they've started.


----------



## Scullery (Oct 23, 2008)

Babies are not little adults. They compensate longer, and crash harder.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

That makes alot of sense....so is it ok to go ahead and finish the abx...or have the doc rx a new one.
Can we keep the tone here with positive energy...i'm already feeling like a failure.


----------



## iamleabee (Jul 28, 2005)

i would finish the ones you have. since the infection responded to the abx, it's likely not viral pneumonia.


----------



## Scullery (Oct 23, 2008)

I would continue on with the antbx as prescribed and call the ped's answering service tomorrow morning. He or she has to have someone as backup and they can deal with it.


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

Your baby needs to finish the antibiotics. You can't just stop a course halfway through - it opens your baby up to an even worse case of pnumonia (and he'll have to have stronger abx for it, which will cause an even worse rash).

Since it responded so well to the abx it was probably bacterial.


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

Yes, finish what you have, and call the doc as soon as possible. Let him know you started it, how many he took, how many days between stopping and starting - every detail. He needs to be closely monitored to make sure the bacteria doesn't return worse then before.


----------



## Jilian (Jun 16, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *graceomalley* 
Your baby needs to finish the antibiotics. You can't just stop a course halfway through - it opens your baby up to an even worse case of pnumonia (and he'll have to have stronger abx for it, which will cause an even worse rash).

Since it responded so well to the abx it was probably bacterial.

I agree. If you need medical advice call the doctor who diagnosed the pneumonia and prescribed the antibiotics, I don't think anyone here is qualified to give medical advice in regards to treating pneumonia.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

If your doctor is away till Monday, is there a nurse's hotline you can call in your area to ask about the abx? What is the name of the antibiotic?


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

zithromax....it is a 5 dose abx...take one dose a day for 5 days...doc said it stays in system for 10 days.


----------



## youngwife (Apr 5, 2009)

To Mamato3wildponie,

I am *very* thankful that you appropriately sought medical treatment for your young child. It was warranted, and you listened to your motherly instinct!

In the past, I also have avoided fever reducers, until my son had a febrile seizure....that was one of (if not the) scariest day of my life! O.O

Now, I treat high fevers or when they seem uncomfortable. And, my children have all still managed to build healthy immune systems inspite of occasional Tylenol use.

Moderation and balance....

Blessings,
Rebecca


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

Thank you.
Here is a website that suggests viral pneumonia...one must read the whole article or scan about 1/4 to the bottom and read the section...preschool-aged children...it lumps children 4 months to 5 years in this catagory.....http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040901/899.html
Also suggest that bacterial pneumonia is comes with a sudden onset, as a viral case comes after viral symptoms....which my little one had...he had a runny nose..slight cough for about a week before the fever...and then 4 days after fever started the chest x-ray was done.
The day of the x-ray my baby did not have a fever any more...it had broke in the night...(the night before i took him back in)....he woke up in a cold sweat and the fever was gone. So then the next day i took him in because he was still coughing bad and the wheezing seemed to be worse.
SO i guess i'm wanting to understand how is it that his fever broke..no fever..and the pneumonia was there...if it was bacterial wouldnt the fever still be present?
The website also suggests treating both bacterial and viral with abx...in younger children.
I'm guess i'm searching for info to give me a better understanding whether or not this is viral or bacterial.
I have a call in to the doc's office already...


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

A fever is not always present with a bacterial infection. My oldest DD has had many infections, but only one or two fevers in her entire life (and even those were very mild - 101 at the most and short lived)


----------



## cat2116 (Sep 20, 2007)

Quote:

Thank you.
Here is a website that suggests viral pneumonia...one must read the whole article or scan about 1/4 to the bottom and read the section...preschool-aged children...it lumps children 4 months to 5 years in this catagory.....http://www.aafp.org/afp/20040901/899.html
Also suggest that bacterial pneumonia is comes with a sudden onset, as a viral case comes after viral symptoms....which my little one had...he had a runny nose..slight cough for about a week before the fever...and then 4 days after fever started the chest x-ray was done.
The day of the x-ray my baby did not have a fever any more...it had broke in the night...(the night before i took him back in)....he woke up in a cold sweat and the fever was gone. So then the next day i took him in because he was still coughing bad and the wheezing seemed to be worse.
SO i guess i'm wanting to understand how is it that his fever broke..no fever..and the pneumonia was there...if it was bacterial wouldnt the fever still be present?
The website also suggests treating both bacterial and viral with abx...in younger children.
I'm guess i'm searching for info to give me a better understanding whether or not this is viral or bacterial.
I have a call in to the doc's office already...
BACTERIAL PNEUMONIA DOES NOT ALWAYS CAUSE A FEVER. This is really important to understand, my daughter had bacterial pneumonia at 17 months and was VERY, VERY ill, she needed a week long course of IV antibiotics and then a two week course of oral antibiotics. She NEVER had a fever.

Unfortunately I have experience of both viral and bacterial pneumonia my daughter has had both, bacterial 3 times and viral once (she does have an underlying health condition) and in my experience it is not true that bacterial pneumonias always starts suddenly. It can start very quickly, or it can develop more gradually, sometimes after a viral infection as the immune system is lowered.

I really don't understand why you are so concerned about giving antibiotics if they are making your baby better. A short course of antibiotics is not going to be harmful in any way. Anitibiotics are over-prescribed but they are also lifesavers, my DD would almost certainley have died without them.

Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, did you say your LO has pneumonia in her right upper lobe? I have been told (by a pediatric consulutant) that lobal pneumonias are nearly always bacterial.

Does it matter if its bacterial or viral??? I would always give antibitics for pneumoni, just in case, bacterial pneumonia can get VERY bad, VERY quickly. Trust me on this one.


----------



## D_McG (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cat2116* 

I really don't understand why you are so concerned about giving antibiotics if they are making your baby better. A short course of antibiotics is not going to be harmful in any way. Anitibiotics are over-prescribed but they are also lifesavers, my DD would almost certainley have died without them.

I agree. I don't understand why you are agonizing about the abx so much. Just finish the course. Or at the very least, take your child to an MD today and get their opinion.


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
zithromax....it is a 5 dose abx...take one dose a day for 5 days...doc said it stays in system for 10 days.

Zithromax is awesome. I remember when it first came out. Before then it was a really long course of amoxicillin for ear and other infections and kids just didn't do so well on it! Viral pneumonia wouldn't have responded to the abx. He would likely be still very sick if it was viral. Maybe better, but not much better like you report. You can safely assume it's bacterial just based on that. Going on that, now think about the low amount of abx he's gotten and how it's only killed the weakest bacteria, allowing him to seem better, but there's still bacteria in there. It's more important for him to get them JUST IN CASE. It will not harm him to get abx even if it were viral. The side effects will clear up, his system will be fine.


----------



## BugMacGee (Aug 18, 2006)

I'm concerned that not everyone knows the importance of finishing courses of antibiotics once started. I thought that was pretty common knowledge. I guess doctors/ pharmacists aren't stressing that enough?


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BugMacGee* 
I'm concerned that not everyone knows the importance of finishing courses of antibiotics once started. I thought that was pretty common knowledge. I guess doctors/ pharmacists aren't stressing that enough?

I find that they don't stress it _nearly_ enough considering how important it is!! It should be printed in giant *RED* letters on every bottle with a big warning sign.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 
Zithromax is awesome. I remember when it first came out. Before then it was a really long course of amoxicillin for ear and other infections and kids just didn't do so well on it! Viral pneumonia wouldn't have responded to the abx. He would likely be still very sick if it was viral. Maybe better, but not much better like you report. You can safely assume it's bacterial just based on that. Going on that, now think about the low amount of abx he's gotten and how it's only killed the weakest bacteria, allowing him to seem better, but there's still bacteria in there. It's more important for him to get them JUST IN CASE. It will not harm him to get abx even if it were viral. The side effects will clear up, his system will be fine.









:


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I'm just starting to read the thread. But, here are a few of my old posts about fevers, antibiotics, and antibiotic induced diarrhea, and alternative treatment options.

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...r#post13182649
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ghlight=damage
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ighlight=fever
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...r#post13380198
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...r#post13380198

I am concerned with the duration of the illness with such a young child, since your OP is dated 10 days ago. I'll go read some more of the thread.

Pat


----------



## monkeybum (Jan 1, 2005)

I'm really glad you posted this and thank you to everyone for the info. I have found myself in this exact situation so many times, (twice with my older son when he was an infant - he's now 5yo, and 3 times my now 2-year old, the first time he was only 8 months old). They had the cough and wheezing, sometimes a fever, I take them to the doc only to get a note for work







and they were diagnosed with pneumonia each time, (never via x-ray though). They were prescribed abx each time. I gave it for a day or two, they got better so I never finished the abx. I had no idea it was a bad idea. (The chest infection - whatever it was - never came back).

My 2 year old was diagnosed with pneumonia two more times this past winter (again, no chest xray) and I didn't even bother with the abx - just chiro visits, chest clapping, steamy baths, cold air, nursing, humidifier, etc.).

My chiropractor says that MDs are not generally used to breast-fed babies who are not vaccinated and who generally have strong immune systems, so they tend to over-prescribe abx. However, if I do use them in the future, I'll be sure to finish the dose. Thank you for this info!

OP, I hope your wee one is doing better. It is so scary and exhausting when they are that sick at such a young age.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 
If "nature knew best", nature would know how to make all organisms live in harmony so we don't have MRSA attacking us. Nature just is. It doesn't know anything.


Ummm...we didn't have MRSA before we were an antibiotic-mongering culture. Natural antibiotics, natural antifungals, natural antiparasitics, natural antimicrobials have been around for eons. Same with microbials in our soil and environment. The mass commercialization of chemicals in our food and "medicine" is relevant to the development of MRSA, IMO.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hummingmom* 
While I appreciate the sentiment behind this post (and certainly don't intend to criticize the OP for seeking conventional medical treatment for a baby with pneumonia), I have to disagree strongly with the idea that's implied, i.e., that alternative medicine is somehow a lightweight option that's ineffective or inappropriate for truly serious problems. Having just read through this thread for the first time, I've noticed that "alternatives" have generally been presented in a very limited way. For instance, there have been references to things like Hyland's teething tablets, vitamin C, or just doing nothing and hoping for the best. To me, all of these would fall in the category of "home remedies." They may be helpful in many cases, but they're basically the alternative version of a dab of neosporin, an aspirin tablet, or some other simple and not-always-effective allopathic remedy. If you've tried them, and your child is still getting sicker and sicker, you clearly need to find something more effective, ASAP.

On the other hand, if we compare apples to apples... i.e., _diagnosis and treatment by a skilled MD, vs. diagnosis and treatment by a skilled practitioner of an established alternative medical discipline_... then the alternative approach is IMO a valid one, whether things are going "well" or "badly." Of course, there are some situations that are beyond the scope of these disciplines; nobody is going to be able to use homeopathy to re-attach a severed leg, or acupuncture to correct a congenital heart defect. But this is due to the type of ailment, not to its severity. For example, those who strongly support the homeopathic approach would rather choose an expert homeopath than an expert MD to treat an infection, even (or perhaps especially) if it were a potentially dangerous one. (Needless to say, it can be hard to find a real expert in any healing profession... which is why we would do well to form relationships with one or more trusted practitioners, before an emergency happens. Even if they can't solve the problem, they'll likely be able to refer us to someone who can.)

It seems as if a strong preference for alternative medical care -- even when our children are actually _sick_ -- is somewhat of a minority view on this thread, and perhaps isn't even considered "respectable" by some people.







That comes as a surprise, especially given the forum header:

_Health and Healing is a forum for discussion that reaches beyond mainstream health care norms. It embraces the wide variety of natural and alternative healing modalities as well as necessary conventional medical care. To further this aim please use the term "health care practitioner" rather than "doctor" to embrace the reality that there are other professionals out there to consult for health care needs._

Anyway, just to add my 2 cents on the topic of medicating a feverish child: I'll do it on occasion (usually with ibuprofen), if he or she seems really miserable and nothing else is helping. I don't medicate for the fever itself, though I probably would if it stayed at 105 for a significant length of time. In that case, the medication would be my last step before going to the ER -- as it's the first thing they're going to ask about when you get there, anyway. And this does make sense, from a diagnostic perspective. A fever of 105 that's reducible to 101 with medication, is a very different beast from a fever that's still at 105 _after_ medication.

It's also important to note that a fever "breaking" isn't the same thing as a fever going down due to antipyretics. When a fever is lowered artificially, the patient might seem somewhat relieved, but the illness itself is just as strong as ever. As a PP said, Tylenol can certainly make people more comfortable, but it doesn't cure anything.

When a fever breaks on its own, it's a dramatic change: the patient is immediately, noticeably better; and recovery is generally very rapid afterward. It's obvious what's happening, even without a thermometer. I've read about this many times in older books, but have only personally experienced it once, in the small hours of the morning after my son had been treated homeopathically for his croup. It was amazing to see, though also kind of scary. After the remedy, his fever (which had been moderate) started going up and up... and then crossed 105, and then... just as I was wondering if I should give him the Advil, or start packing up to go to the hospital... POOF, it was all over. His breathing went back to normal, his face relaxed and lost its flushed look, and he fell into a deep, restful sleep. Just like the old-time books said. And he hasn't had croup since.

















:







:







:

Last fall sometime, ds (at age 7) had fever, diarrhea, vomiting, lethargy for about 24-48 hours. Temp max 104, up and down to 102. At about 48 hoiurs, we gave a homeopathic remedy specifically for those symptoms and he was significantly improved, and got up to play and fever went down. Part of the symptom picture when choosing a remedy were that he had no thirst at the time. It was amazing, literally, just after the remedy he said "I'm thirsty" and drank a whole glass of water and kept it down!

When fever, diarrhea, vomiting and lethargy resumed about the same time 24 hours later, again I dosed the homeopathic remedy and he felt better within an hour and fever was no longer present. He no longer had symptoms. Perhaps, it had "just run its course"; but the benefit to his fever, diarrhea, vomiting and lethargy were immediate.









Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

ETA:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...r#post13046243
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...g#post12730726

Here are some homeopathic options for fever, if it gets very high (103 F. for infant, 104 F. for child).

I'd use the Belladonna and other homeopathic antipyretics for fevers:

http://www.articlesbase.com/alternat...hy-537017.html
http://www.1-800homeopathy.com/topic...u&sub=flufever
http://www.holisticonline.com/remedi...s-for-cold.htm
http://www.locateadoc.com/articles/5...nd-flu-93.html
http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/letzel-fever.asp

Here is an article called *"Fevers In Children, A Blessing in Disguise"*. It was first printed in Mothering Magazine. It discusses the dangers of fever reducers.
http://www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/child_health/fever.html

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...r#post13249226

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

*Here is more information regarding avoiding drug-resistant bacteria: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...5&postcount=12

Basically, UNNECESSARY antibiotics are the cause, not avoiding antibiotics when NOT needed.

*Drug resistance results when a bacterial infection is not being treated adequately (broad spectrum antibiotics vs. bacterial specific antibiotics), or when antibiotics are given for viral illnesses inappropriately. The bacteria develop resistance due to *exposure* to the "wrong" (ie. ineffective) antibiotics. If the antibiotic is the appropriate one, the infectious bacteria are killed. Antibiotics are NOT indicated for a viral illness.

*Continuing exposure to the antibiotics unnecessarily, just strengthens the potential for resistance TO develop.* http://www.cdc.gov/NARMS/faq_pages/3.htm

Here is info from the FDA regarding "The Rice of Antibiotic Resistant Infections": http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/795_antibio.html

"Superbugs" develop due to inappropriate use of *multiple different* antibiotics. "Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop. Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of *methicillin* resistance. Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, *unnecessary prescriptions*, improper use of antibiotics by patients, the impregnation of household items and children's toys with low levels of antibiotics, and the administration of antibiotics by mouth in livestock for growth promotion."

"Improper use of antibiotics by patients" is *when* the antibiotic given is indicated, *but* the patient doesn't continue it for the duration to effectively kill the bacteria. There is no indication for antibiotics in simple ear infections, based upon the research, noted above.

"Multiple resistance, multiple causes
Any time bacteria are exposed to an antibiotic, they are under "selective pressure" that allows only resistant forms to survive and reproduce. So the basic rule in slowing the evolution of resistance is reducing the unnecessary use of antibiotics."
http://whyfiles.org/038badbugs/scope.html

"Every time antibiotics are used unnecessarily, they add to the selective pressure we are putting on microbes to evolve resistance. Then, when we really need antibiotics, they are less effective." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_104_03.html

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-editi...stant-bacteria
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance
http://www.cdcfoundation.org/healtht...esistance.aspx
*
superbugs, infections that are drug-resistant because of the over-prescription of antibiotics.* http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in614935.shtml

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

*Actually, yes, one round of antibiotics can damage the gut integrity and immune system:* http://www.mothering.com/discussions...078&highlight=

The mama's baby developed C.Diff with just a short round of unnecessary antibiotics.

Pat


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *monkeybum* 
I'm really glad you posted this and thank you to everyone for the info. I have found myself in this exact situation so many times, (twice with my older son when he was an infant - he's now 5yo, and 3 times my now 2-year old, the first time he was only 8 months old). They had the cough and wheezing, sometimes a fever, I take them to the doc only to get a note for work







and they were diagnosed with pneumonia each time, (never via x-ray though). They were prescribed abx each time. I gave it for a day or two, they got better so I never finished the abx. I had no idea it was a bad idea. (The chest infection - whatever it was - never came back).

My 2 year old was diagnosed with pneumonia two more times this past winter (again, no chest xray) and I didn't even bother with the abx - just chiro visits, chest clapping, steamy baths, cold air, nursing, humidifier, etc.).

My chiropractor says that MDs are not generally used to breast-fed babies who are not vaccinated and who generally have strong immune systems, so they tend to over-prescribe abx. However, if I do use them in the future, I'll be sure to finish the dose. Thank you for this info!

OP, I hope your wee one is doing better. It is so scary and exhausting when they are that sick at such a young age.


Are you saying your children are generally healthy? Because this makes me think that their immune systems are not working as they should be.

Quote:

My 2 year old was diagnosed with pneumonia two more times this past winter
Two more times this past winter? As in, they have had pneumonia multiple times in their life and two times in one winter?

Quote:

My chiropractor says that MDs are not generally used to breast-fed babies who are not vaccinated and who generally have strong immune systems, so they tend to over-prescribe abx.
I can not see a child with a strong immune system getting pneumonia this often.


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
...

You do realize before antibiotics were developed that LOTS of people died from infections, and you do also realized that bacteria mutated all on it's lonesome before then?

Antibiotics are over prescribed. Yes. They have caused super bugs to develop. Yes. We.still.need.them.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 
You do realize before antibiotics were developed that LOTS of people died from infections, and you do also realized that bacteria mutated all on it's lonesome before then?

Antibiotics are over prescribed. Yes. They have caused super bugs to develop. Yes. We.still.need.them.

I agree wholeheartedly that antibiotics are a WONDERFUL thing in so many situations.

However I have read in numerous places that the usefulness of antibiotics is SEVERELY limited time-wise and we are reaching the end of their run. It is likely that within our lifetime, and nearly certain that within our children or grandchildren's lifetime that antibiotics will no longer be useful.

Interesting (and admittedly scary!) idea to ponder.

-Angela


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Mama, I believe that the "symptoms" have resolved due to the prednisone. I agree that bacterial pneumonia may NOT have a fever. However, your baby DID have a fever. Prednisone could *mask* the fever. The prednisone also resolves the fluid and wheezing, the lack of symptoms AFTER taking prednisone does not indicate that baby is "better", IMO.

When we _suppress the reactions_ with antihistamines or steroids, the toxins are not eliminated. We just halt the body's *ability* to respond to the toxin and to remove it. Thus the toxins affect other body organs: lungs (asthma), gut (more and more allergies develop), stomach (poor digestion, reflux, ulcers), mouth (thrush, dental cavities, gingivitis), liver overloaded, etc. (but those aren't the acute issues, yet)

Also, the skin is an excretory mechanism for us to eliminate toxins. Does baby have any eczema, green mucusy stools, red ring around anus, rash, reflux, restless sleep "normally"?
*
However, I do NOT AGREE that "once one starts antibiotics, that one must finish antibiotic" IN THE EVENT of them being *unnecessary in the first place**, like with an ear infection in a child over age 2, or after antibiotic-induced diarrhea has started.

0800AM tomorrow morning, *I* would call the MD's office and notify them of the extensive and continuing *diarrhea, which I believe is a much more dangerous problem than a fever in an infant.* I would have a medical assessment of baby's lungs and hydration, for a professional opinion about the current "wellness". If MD feels that further antibiotic treatment is indicated, they will prescribe a DIFFERENT antibiotic. I'd also *INSIST* they *send a stool for C. Diff*, since the diarrhea has been ongoing. I would Not give the same antibiotic further. Nor would I wait until Monday to have my child medically assessed. I'd call FOR AN APPOINTMENT first thing in the morning, whoever is covering for the MD.

I would not have treated the fever, wheeze, cough with antibiotics without first consulting our professional homeopath. *However, when one is wheezing, it means that their oxygen intake is impaired.* Wheezing IS dangerous. There isn't "ok" wheezing.

The issue is that wheezing is a symptom that your baby's immune system is impaired. _Why?_ Unfortunately, steroids and antibiotics further suppress the immune system. *I* would see a professional homeopath immediately, personally. There are many alternatives to improve the immune function. I imagine there is some underlying allergy issue, either environemental or dietary.

Basically, the medical treatments just masked the symptoms. Doesn't mean your baby is "better", imo.

Here is more information about eliminating environmental allergens: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...l#post13380214

I'd recommend consulting a professional homeopath for prescribing a classical homeopathic remedy specifically for his individual constitution. The homeopath would take into consideration other issues and address them concurrently, as they are part of the picture: dietary issues, sleep, eczema, the runny eyes, throat clearing, behaviors, fears, aversions, cravings, etc. All come into play, birth issues, chronic illness, etc.
*
I always prefer whole food probiotics.* Not sure which probiotics you all are using. But, none of the bottled probiotics have the same ability to withstand the stomach acid and remain viable into the large intestine as non-dairy kefir, fermented vegetables. Those are quite easy, if you need more info.

I would eliminate dairy from your diet. Dairy is the most common source of dietary allergen and mucus production. Here is a list of hidden diary: http://www.kellymom.com/store/handou...dden-dairy.pdf

I recommend vitamins and minerals come from whole foods. But, have you been following the digestion, absorption, detox pathways discussions to gut healing and allergy resolution? Basically, if we *digest* the proteins, they don't leak and thus we have fewer toxins to detox. Proper stomach acid (HCl) and specific nutrients are required for detox. You can read more about all of this here: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...e#post13406780

_Corn seems to be an issue for many folks, especially GMO-corn, which is about 70% of the food supply now, unfortunately. I'd consider eliminating that. But, it is hard as it is everywhere also._ http://www.cornallergens.com/list/co...ergen-list.php

I'm no expert about gluten removal, but I believe I heard 6-12 weeks to see significant improvements. Dairy is quicker to see improvements (1-3 weeks). Gluten is hard to avoid completely also. And apparently, it is more important to be 100% gluten-free, or reactions are worse with any slight exposure, I believe.

Corn and wheat allergies are more commonly associated with wheezing, I believe.









HTH, Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 
You do realize before antibiotics were developed that LOTS of people died from infections, and you do also realized that bacteria mutated all on it's lonesome before then?

Antibiotics are over prescribed. Yes. They have caused super bugs to develop. Yes. We.still.need.them.

I'm not "against" antibiotics. I am a advocate of optimizing our immune system, preferably with natural microbial balance in the gut, nutrient dense whole foods (especially cultured and fermented probiotics), and natural exposure to common diseases, and avoidance of unnecessary chemicals including pharmaceuticals for those common illnesses. I believe we can avoid and treat most diseases with nutrition and holistic health practices. Unfortunately, most people are not informed and healthy enough to choose a non-mainstream alternative. There is a cascade of _side-effects_ and _consequences_ of our mainstream health choices, ime.

Pat


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

That's all well and good for prevention, but this isn't the time. Also, this child is obviously not healthy and needs treatment.
Please take your lo to be looked at again just to make sure that everything is ok. I'm not one to take meds or run to the dr. for every little thing, but breathing issues (esp. in a baby) is not something to mess with. I'm glad he seems to be doing better, but when it comes to my kids, I like to be sure. Kwim?


----------



## Scullery (Oct 23, 2008)

You're basically outlining a medical treatment plan for her to follow, and I don't know if that is a good idea. She already sounds confused and overwhelmed, suggesting a C-diff culture and an allergy elimination diet protocol is not very effective. This is a little baby, too. Poor bug.


----------



## purplepaisleymama (Jan 31, 2007)

I am not a medical professional but I do have a child who has had reactions to every abx that he has been prescribed. I will say that I have never been told by any of his doctors to have him continue a rx that he was reacting to. He has had diarrhea and vomiting and hives from taking an rx and they have always told me to discontinue the rx and they have said that if he were sick enough to have to have continued that they would use another rx. He is now considered allergic to more than 4 abx and if he were to need to take penicillin he would have to be hospitalized and desensitized to it. We have discussed this thoroughly with more than one of his docs as he is immune compromised and he has been very ill lately.
Last week he did have a very severe illness and his fever reached 106.5, I thought that our thermometer was broken and I found two more and used them, they were both the same. I had not had a child ever have a fever over 105 and I called his doctor. He was comfortable with us monitoring him at home and though he did have fever seizures, he has had them before and we were watching him. After the fever began to interfere with his sleep I gave him motrin. He threw it up and continued to do so the next two times that I have it to him. His fever broke at around 4:30 that morning. It was exactly as a pp described, he visibly relaxed and drifted into a restful sleep. Our children all ended up with the plague and they all reacted differently to the fever, a few were up and about with higher than 104 playing and a few went to bed and slept from just over a hundred. They all revovered at the same rate, regardless of the med given. Though I do not medicate often I did give tylenol if it was requested for headache, they never asked for it to relieve the fever.
In the past 4 years we have used less than one box of childrens tylenol for my older children, my youngest is another story. He has been different and has health issues that have made me have to reassess my parenting decisions and how we view medicine.

I do think that you have done a great job as a mother, your child is very important to you and it is very hard to not be stressed while in the midst of a health crisis with your child. You made decisions based on what you knew best at the time and you are learning more to educate yourself to help him for the future .......that is what parenting is. Please do not think yourself a failure, you are doing everything you can for your child. I would call your doctor and speak directly with him, if he is not available I would talk with his backup as soon as possible and discuss all of the choices you have made, be clear that you did not finish the abx and see what they suggest. I would guess that they will change the rx to another drug that may not have the same reaction and might test for c diff as that is a danger with any abx, especially with the severe diarrhea. They will be concerned about that as small children can dehydrate very quickly and it sounds as if he had some issues with this already in this illness. I hope that he and you feel better soon and that you can begin to feel more confident in your decisions as a parent.
Hugs mama

Laura


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I agree wholeheartedly that antibiotics are a WONDERFUL thing in so many situations.

However I have read in numerous places that the usefulness of antibiotics is SEVERELY limited time-wise and we are reaching the end of their run. It is likely that within our lifetime, and nearly certain that within our children or grandchildren's lifetime that antibiotics will no longer be useful.

Interesting (and admittedly scary!) idea to ponder.

-Angela

Can you please link to some sources for this?







Thanks.


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Scullery* 
You're basically outlining a medical treatment plan for her to follow, and I don't know if that is a good idea. She already sounds confused and overwhelmed, suggesting a C-diff culture and an allergy elimination diet protocol is not very effective. This is a little baby, too. Poor bug.









I agree. Isn't offering that type of medical advice against the new UA? Can a mod please weigh in here?


----------



## cat2116 (Sep 20, 2007)

Quote:

You do realize before antibiotics were developed that LOTS of people died from infections, and you do also realized that bacteria mutated all on it's lonesome before then?

Antibiotics are over prescribed. Yes. They have caused super bugs to develop. Yes. We.still.need.them.








:

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Honestly I am a lttle concerned that there seems to be such negative attitude to antibiotics being portrayed in this thread. Antibiotics are in some cases absolutely essential.

Diarrhea is not an allergic reaction to antibiotics, it is a side-affect and no it's not pleasant but preferable to the alternative in many cases. C.diff is not common after one course of antibiotics.

Quote:

I believe we can avoid and treat most diseases with nutrition and holistic health practices. Unfortunately, most people are not informed and healthy enough to choose a non-mainstream alternative.
I believe this is not true and dangerous advice. Bacterial pneumonia NEEDS treatment with antibiotics. People die without them, and no this is not scare-mongering it is the truth.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Scullery* 
You're basically outlining a medical treatment plan for her to follow, and I don't know if that is a good idea. She already sounds confused and overwhelmed, suggesting a C-diff culture and an allergy elimination diet protocol is not very effective. This is a little baby, too. Poor bug.









I trust that parents can choose to *initiate* requests to a physician for testing. AND that they can choose to *initiate* elimination diets, if they are concerned about allergies. I don't believe that thinking for oneself is reserved to "medical treatment plans". Also, I advised calling the physician first thing this morning.

Please note if I wrote "you should" in any way.

Respectfully,
Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I reported my post, due to stated concerns, for further evaluation by administration. OP contacted me by PM specifically requesting that I respond to her thread.

Pat


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cat2116* 
Bacterial pneumonia NEEDS treatment with antibiotics. People die without them, and no this is not scare-mongering it is the truth.

Absolutely! Not giving the full course of antibiotics to an infant with bacterial pneumonia is almost guarranteeing that the illness will return much worse than before.

PLEASE finish the course of antibiotics for your child's sake.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I reported my post, due to stated concerns, for further evaluation by administration. OP contacted me by PM specifically requesting that I respond to her thread.

Pat

If you felt it important enough to report your own post wouldn't the best thing be for you to delete it as well so that others do not rely on that information before a decision is made by the mods as to if it is appropriate.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Everything else aside - I'm an ICU nurse, and besides trauma patients, our biggest group of vents are pneumonia patients.

I've seen several otherwise healthy young to middle age adults die from pneumonia. The scary part is that it's a quick downhill slide, one minute they're fine, satting at 95% - next you have someone who we literally can not ventilate properly.

Please do finish the antibiotics, and contact a physician if you have questions.

My daughters and I also see a chiropractor and have a naturopath; however, working where I do and seeing what I see - I have an MD when I need access to stronger meds and testing.


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
I agree wholeheartedly that antibiotics are a WONDERFUL thing in so many situations.

However I have read in numerous places that the usefulness of antibiotics is SEVERELY limited time-wise and we are reaching the end of their run. It is likely that within our lifetime, and nearly certain that within our children or grandchildren's lifetime that antibiotics will no longer be useful.

Interesting (and admittedly scary!) idea to ponder.

-Angela


I would love to see some links please?


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

I haven't examined every single post in this threads but from what I can see of the recent ones they are within the new posting guidelines









I do want to remind everyone to please keep the thread OT, debating the pros and cons of abx may be better for a different thread, but offering opinions on what the OP should do is fine!

Kristi


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

Are we still required to show links to back up info?


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

There is no requirement to show links to back up info


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

Am I missing something?

http://www.mothering.com/discussions....php?t=1069028

Quote:


Originally Posted by *georgia* 
Thanks! Yes, I definitely agree about the links, which is why I added "provide information or link" at the end of the example









http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ement.php?f=45

Quote:

Responses to Health Questions
In an effort to avoid giving the appearance of offering medical advice, we ask that members attempt to respond to health-related questions with general information regarding conditions, alternative approaches and/or evidence-based research rather than offering specific personal instruction. Members are welcome to share their personal experiences and opinions, but please avoid telling others what they "should" do in their unique situation. Trust members to make their own personal healthcare decisions, in conjunction with a trained care provider as necessary.

Phrases like in my experience, you might consider, many find, research shows, studies find, some find xyz successful/helpful, you could try, etc. are all helpful ways to provide information and express personal opinion rather than personalized instruction.

Quote:
Providing information: You might consider applying ______ or offering______, many parents find that _____works well for _____ and here is how I personally determine if one needs medical attention *(provide information or link).
*
vs.

Providing medical advice: You should immediately administer _____ or you have xyz condition and should start taking _______.


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grisandole* 
There is no requirement to show links to back up info









I really don't want to contradict a mod (please don't give me the smack down) but I'm really confused because of the recent thread where abimommy said you must show links to back up any medical information - you can't just say "I read that ..." or "research shows that ..." and you can't offer treatment plans?

Here's the announcement in UC, I thought the admin clarified that it was a board wide announcement?

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ment.php?f=306


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

Oops, we cross posted. I'm glad I'm not imagining things and that others have the same concerns.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
*However, when one is wheezing, it means that their oxygen intake is impaired.* Wheezing IS dangerous. There isn't "ok" wheezing.

Well, yeah there is. We have a kid that can wheeze and that being ok.
So, that's not really true. (And yeah, we have a pulseox, so we check.)
Wheezing just means that some part of the respiratory system is more narrow than usual/obstructed. It does *not* have to be dangerous.
But, it can be, so if you don't have a pulseox at home I'd take the kid to a doc to check it out.


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

Sorry, I was short on time before. The new guidelines state to post link or information...so that does not mean you need to necessarily link...posting the information is okay as well. At least that is how I take it, I will double check!


----------



## grisandole (Jan 11, 2002)

Checked with admin....links are NOT required when posting what one might do in a certain situation or regarding one's overall opinion on a topic.

If there are further questions about the new rules, please pm and admin or post to Q&S!









Kristi


----------



## graceomalley (Dec 8, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grisandole* 
Checked with admin....links are NOT required when posting what one might do in a certain situation or regarding one's overall opinion on a topic.

Thanks for that.

Just to clarify - you must post a link when you say something like 'research shows that ...' or 'I've read that ...' as abimommy stated in the Q&S thread, right?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *graceomalley* 
Thanks for that.

Just to clarify - you must post a link when you say something like 'research shows that ...' or 'I've read that ...' as abimommy stated in the Q&S thread, right?


Could you post a link to "research shows that..." "as abimommy stated in the Q&S thread", please? I believe you mean this thread: http://www.mothering.com/discussions....php?t=1059954 When I search that thread for "research" with user "abimommy", I didn't find any hits.









ETA: perhaps you are referring to this thread: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...highlight=link Where *Georgia* indicates "Links can be a very _helpful way_ to provide further information so the OP can make a personal determination based on her/his unique circumstances."

And it would be scary for most folks if I link MORE.









Pat


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

I was actually asking because of o post further up where a poster mentioned that antibiotics will no longer work within the next generation or so.


----------



## momofmine (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:



Originally Posted by *cat2116*


A short course of antibiotics is not going to be harmful in any way.


This is simply not true, and when people and medical professionals say things like this, I don't believe you are giving someone all the information they need to decide what is the best choice for their own particular situation.

Of course, we all know that there are times when abx save lives. We get that, yes, it's true, not many people would deny that (though there are probably a few who would). HOWEVER, I get frustrated when I hear people say things like, "Oh just one short course of abx is not going to hurt/cause damage/whatever." It is simply NOT true. You can have an allergic reaction. It can cause major gut damage that takes years to overcome, if ever, and can lead to food allergies, malabsorption, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in that person.

Now, you might say the benefit of the abx in certain situations are worth taking those risks. Well, that's fine, but you canNOT make a choice if you are only being given half of the story.

Gosh, mamas, I think this is what the heart of MDC is all about, that we will all make different choices based on listening to our mama instinct and to what we feel our child needs in a particular situation. There really is no way to make blanket statements, like "all bacterial infections require abx". Because it's just not true. Yes, there were people years ago who died from pneumonia who would have lived had they had access to abx. But guess what, there are people who have died from allergic reactions to abx too. And there are people who have died from pneumonia even with getting abx.

We talk about seeing healthy strong people int he hospital dying from pneumonia, and yes that does happen, but no one can say what might have happened if that person had received a different treatment, such as classical homeopathy, for example. Or if that person in the hospital with pneumonia hadn't been fed hospital jello with high fructose corn syrup and red dye.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon*


Zithromax is awesome. I remember when it first came out. Before then it was a really long course of amoxicillin for ear and other infections and kids just didn't do so well on it! Viral pneumonia wouldn't have responded to the abx. He would likely be still very sick if it was viral. Maybe better, but not much better like you report. You can safely assume it's bacterial just based on that. Going on that, now think about the low amount of abx he's gotten and how it's only killed the weakest bacteria, allowing him to seem better, but there's still bacteria in there. It's more important for him to get them JUST IN CASE. It will not harm him to get abx even if it were viral. The side effects will clear up, his system will be fine.


Zithromax was awesome for *you*. It is not awesome for everyone. My children reacted very badly to it and are now still trying to heal their guts over a year later from the damage it did. It is a very strong and powerful antibiotic.

And, yes, actually it CAN harm someone to take abx when the illness is viral. The abx can weaken the immune system and leave them vulnerable to abx-resistant bacteria.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *WuWei*


*Actually, yes, one round of antibiotics can damage the gut integrity and immune system:* http://www.mothering.com/discussions...078&highlight=

The mama's baby developed C.Diff with just a short round of unnecessary antibiotics.

Pat


Yes, this, above.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon*


You do realize before antibiotics were developed that LOTS of people died from infections, and you do also realized that bacteria mutated all on it's lonesome before then?

Antibiotics are over prescribed. Yes. They have caused super bugs to develop. Yes. We.still.need.them.


Of course we still need them, but we should have support to choose what is best for us. If you want to give abx, great, I am really glad they are available to you. I am not saying that sarcastically, I really, really mean that. But, if someone else doesn't want to give abx and wants to use homeopathy and supplements instead, then great, I am glad that choice is also available to them.

I just really wish we could do more sharing of information here, so people can feel supported in what choice they ultimately make.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *cat2116*









:

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Honestly I am a lttle concerned that there seems to be such negative attitude to antibiotics being portrayed in this thread. Antibiotics are in some cases absolutely essential.

Diarrhea is not an allergic reaction to antibiotics, it is a side-affect and no it's not pleasant but preferable to the alternative in many cases. C.diff is not common after one course of antibiotics.

I believe this is not true and dangerous advice. Bacterial pneumonia NEEDS treatment with antibiotics. People die without them, and no this is not scare-mongering it is the truth.



Are you kidding me? There have been only a handful of people in this thread even supporting the fact that maybe you don't always want to use abx, and the majority have said, do it, don't worry, they are not so bad. Diarrhea is not just a side effect, and no it does not always just "go away when you cease the abx" or even soon after. I can attest to that.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ceinwen*


Everything else aside - I'm an ICU nurse, and besides trauma patients, our biggest group of vents are pneumonia patients.

I've seen several otherwise healthy young to middle age adults die from pneumonia. The scary part is that it's a quick downhill slide, one minute they're fine, satting at 95% - next you have someone who we literally can not ventilate properly.

Please do finish the antibiotics, and contact a physician if you have questions.

My daughters and I also see a chiropractor and have a naturopath; however, working where I do and seeing what I see - I have an MD when I need access to stronger meds and testing.


Again, I just don't think it's either "abx" or "do nothing and sit and watch". There are a hundred other choices on the spectrum, many of which are valid. Who are we to know what is right and what is wrong? None of us do. We will know things 100 years from now that we can't even dream of now, just as we know things today that they never would have considered 100 years ago. So, I think we have to be humbler in our assurance of knowing what has to be done or not done. There are many different choices, and that's just what they are. Different. Not right or wrong. All the mamas here love their children with every fiber of their being. We wouldn't be here if we didn't. And we are all making the very best choices we can in each hour, each day.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Been out today- am now looking for specific links. Everything about antibiotic resistance alludes to it, but I'm looking for something cut and dried









Any scholarly article on antibiotic resistance will tell you that every antibiotic individually has a limited lifetime. And there are only so many new directions they've been able to go in antibiotic discovery/creation. Nearly all bacteria are becoming resistant as noted in numerous places:

"The number of bacteria resistant to antibiotics has increased in the last decade. Nearly all significant bacterial infections in the world are becoming resistant to the most commonly prescribed antibiotic treatments."

From:
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002356.html

A quote within a quote:
"However, if the world fails to mount a more serious effort to fight infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance will increasingly threaten to send the world back to a pre-antibiotic age...""

from:
http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/News/A..._WHO_June2.htm

This may reference the same quote:
"...insufficient overall coordination of US (and international) efforts could mean a literal return to the preantibiotic era for many types of infections."

from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...d_Discovery_RA

-Angela


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

momofmine, honest question here - would you have a 6 month old baby diagnosed with pnuemonia, and not give them antibiotics? Do you understand how deadly pneumonia is?

I'm guessing the answer is yes, and I'm guessing you'll say you'd do other natural healing methods in addition to the abx, and that's fine. But a baby with pnuemonia needs abx. Everything the OP has said has indicated her baby has a bacterial infection - mostly because he started getting better while on the abx. Do you think it's not indicated here? No vague answers, please. I'm talking about OP, 6 month old baby, pnuemonia that is most likely bacterial.


----------



## momofmine (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 
No vague answers, please. I'm talking about OP, 6 month old baby, pnuemonia that is most likely bacterial.

It's not about being vague. Absolutely every single situation would be different. It would be very scary to have a 6-month old baby to be that sick, that is about all we can say and concur on.

We are seeing a mere snapshot of things in an online forum. There was no bloodwork done, no cultures grown. I am not saying the OP's baby did or did not need antibiotics.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *momofmine* 
We are seeing a mere snapshot of things in an online forum. There was no bloodwork done, no cultures grown. I am not saying the OP's baby did or did not need antibiotics.

Please see post #52:

Quote:

We did a chest x-ray and the right lung showed pneumonia....i kept asking about viral vs bacterial...and he mentioned we could do a blood test to figure out which one....he also mentioned that in a baby this young ...he feels that we should treat right away...rather than wait and see...we've waited 4 days and it's gotten worse...i was almost in tears....as i had originally never wanted to take my baby to any doctors...i didnt want to give my baby medicine....i'm asking my self....what did i do wrong...did i not take care of my baby the way i should have...i feel so guilty right now....But i feel that he has to have the antibiotics and steriod....i am giving him a probiotic...plus i took him to our chiro who did did accupuncture today too.
The Dr did offer a blood test, no indication what the OP decided.


----------



## momofmine (Jan 8, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 
momofmine, honest question here - would you have a 6 month old baby diagnosed with pnuemonia, and not give them antibiotics? Do you understand how deadly pneumonia is?

I have had a child diagnosed with pneumonia, and I did give them antibiotics. I have no idea if I would do the same thing again, in that same or in a different but similar situation, because that was years ago. What I am trying to say is that there are many alternatives. There are just too many variables, like how early/late in the illness alternative treatments are employed.

But it's not just a matter of "alternative treatments work for mild illnesses and not for serious ones". I am not passing judgment on either side, I am simply keeping an open mind that there are many possible choices.


----------



## cat2116 (Sep 20, 2007)

Quote:

momofmine, honest question here - would you have a 6 month old baby diagnosed with pnuemonia, and not give them antibiotics? Do you understand how deadly pneumonia is?

I'm guessing the answer is yes, and I'm guessing you'll say you'd do other natural healing methods in addition to the abx, and that's fine. But a baby with pnuemonia needs abx. Everything the OP has said has indicated her baby has a bacterial infection - mostly because he started getting better while on the abx. Do you think it's not indicated here? No vague answers, please. I'm talking about OP, 6 month old baby, pnuemonia that is most likely bacterial.
Once again, I agree completley. Bacterial pneumonia is deadly, I nearly lost my DD at 17 months. In the case of pneumonia I would always give antibiotics just in case, unless you are 100% sure the pnuemonia is viral doing anything else is effectively gambling with your childs life.


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
Been out today- am now looking for specific links. Everything about antibiotic resistance alludes to it, but I'm looking for something cut and dried









Any scholarly article on antibiotic resistance will tell you that every antibiotic individually has a limited lifetime. And there are only so many new directions they've been able to go in antibiotic discovery/creation. Nearly all bacteria are becoming resistant as noted in numerous places:

"The number of bacteria resistant to antibiotics has increased in the last decade. Nearly all significant bacterial infections in the world are becoming resistant to the most commonly prescribed antibiotic treatments."

From:
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002356.html

A quote within a quote:
"However, if the world fails to mount a more serious effort to fight infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance will increasingly threaten to send the world back to a pre-antibiotic age...""

from:
http://www.tufts.edu/med/apua/News/A..._WHO_June2.htm

This may reference the same quote:
"...insufficient overall coordination of US (and international) efforts could mean a literal return to the preantibiotic era for many types of infections."

from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...d_Discovery_RA

-Angela

I'd like to say that while I _think_ Angela and I are on opposing sides to this argument (one can never really know on MDC! lol) I do agree with the general position that antibiotics are much, much overused - and to dangerous results.

Leaning again on my intensive care experience, I can say that we are now seeing strains of pneumonia (type A for example) that are extremely resilient, very difficult to treat, and scary for any age group. Antibiotics that we used a short time ago as our 'go to for anything' are becoming useless against pretty basic things now.

Antibiotics like Ceftriaxone and Flagyl - those were/are the big guns. Now though, we have to hang some of these three and four times a day (IV) to see results; that's a scary issue to me... one that needs re-examining.

The one issue I hope we all agree on though, is that once you start taking an antibiotic, for the love of G!d - please finish the course. You're setting your system up for a losing battle. Take the rest, then marshal your resources and do research for what seems to suit your health/medical stance best.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 
The one issue I hope we all agree on though, is that once you start taking an antibiotic, for the love of G!d - please finish the course.

I agree- however, if you or your child is having a reaction you find unacceptable- IMMEDIATELY go back to your care provider and explain. See what they say. In some cases/situations it may be okay to end early, in others there may be an alternate antibiotic to finish off with. But don't just stop on your own.

We all need to be more cognizant and judicious in our antibiotic use if we want them to be any use to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

-Angela


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Absolutely. My sixteen month old had a horrific reaction to a sulpha based antibiotic. It's important to document, and to not be afraid to be pushy with health care providers. Remember - they're there to help _you_.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Dragon* 
momofmine, honest question here - would you have a 6 month old baby diagnosed with pneumonia, and not give them antibiotics? Do you understand how deadly pneumonia is?

I'm guessing the answer is yes, and I'm guessing you'll say you'd do other natural healing methods in addition to the abx, and that's fine. But a baby with pnuemonia needs abx. Everything the OP has said has indicated her baby has a bacterial infection - mostly because he started getting better while on the abx. Do you think it's not indicated here? No vague answers, please. I'm talking about OP, 6 month old baby, pneumonia that is most likely bacterial.

Actually baby began getting "better" (ie. fewer symptoms) on Prednisone, a steroid which suppresses the inflamatory reactions. Baby had 'cold like symptoms', runny nose, etc. BEFORE the "diagnosis" of pneumonia. A chest X-ray has subjective interpretation, and in no way indicates bacterial or viral origin. Only a culture and sensitivity could declare this is a "bacterial" pneumonia. Labs could also indicate some viral or bacterial origin. I didn't read the whole thread, but there was some lab, iirc. ??

The onset of fever, further indicates a likely viral origin. Bacterial pneumonia in a healthy infant is less likely than viral origin, imo.

I would do alternative health for respiratory illness, and only antibiotics with a confirmed sputum for C&S.

A healthy body CAN handle bacterial pneumonia. It is not always deadly, as suggested. More likely, is an aspirate pneumonia, if it were in the right upper lobe. And plenty of folks recover from mild aspirate pneumonia without antibiotics. There are many sources and degrees of "pneumonia". This baby was obviously ill. But, *I disagree with* _"Everything the OP has said has indicated her baby has a bacterial infection - mostly because he started getting better while on the abx."._

Viral pneumonia does not need antibiotics, unless baby has progressively not improved and is at significant risk _of developing_ a SECONDARY bacterial infection. The steroid eliminates the excess mucus and allows improved airway exchange, that alone will improve healing.

I agree that it is very important to TRUST the assessment and intervention skills of your health care provider.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ceinwen* 
The one issue I hope we all agree on though, is that once you start taking an antibiotic, for the love of G!d - please finish the course. You're setting your system up for a losing battle. Take the rest, then marshal your resources and do research for what seems to suit your health/medical stance best.

No, I do NOT agree. Please see posted links regarding administration of UNNECESSARY antibiotics in viral illness. Posts #140, 141, 142 in this thread.

Pat


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna* 
however, if you or your child is having a reaction you find unacceptable- IMMEDIATELY go back to your care provider and explain. See what they say. In some cases/situations it may be okay to end early, in others there may be an alternate antibiotic to finish off with. But don't just stop on your own.

We all need to be more cognizant and judicious in our antibiotic use if we want them to be any use to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

-Angela









:

Pat


----------



## Ceinwen (Jul 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
No, I do NOT agree. Please see posted links regarding administration of UNNECESSARY antibiotics in viral illness. Posts #140, 141, 142 in this thread.

Pat

Sorry Pat, I just disagree with your link.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

WOW...i've been off line since wednesday...THANK YOU WuWei....i respect your wisdom and knowledge.
To clear somethings up: Doc did mention blood testing to rule out bac vs. viral...however we decided that it would be traumatic for baby...so i decline.
Baby's fever dropped the day before he was dx with pneumonia.
The xray was done in a GP's office.....the GP dx'd himself.
Not sure if a Radiologist dx'd xray.
A oxygen level was not taken on baby the day of pneumonia diagnosis.
Baby saw chiro same day xray and diagnosis...same day first dose of antibiotic/predinsone was taken.
Babys stool's started to be super runny with in 8 hours of first dose of abx.
I went through 42 diapers in 3 days.
I called the doctors office on wed..they called back thursday..our doc is out of town till monday....his nurse called me back....our conversation was a waste of time....i told her exactly what i have told you all....she gave me advice without checking with another dr......her personal advice was this:
"finish what you have left of the abx...give the baby yogurt..to help with his bowls."...i said "my baby is only 7 months old today...he has not started solids...we are not offering him dairy until he is 18+ months or more"...well then you can talk to dr on your appointment day..if baby gets a fever or starts coughing take him to the ER".
I saw that talking with her was going no where....
So my plan is this...as i have pondered over what is the right thing to do all week.
Cont with the chiro/accupuncture.....mama's taking echineacha(sp) 3 times a day....ebf..offering no solids...watching baby for clues...see doc on monday.
I talked to a NP yesterday who mentioned colidoil silver....has anyone used this for a baby?
I've been told that it works wonders....
I am leaving the states in 1 week to back to our hometown in MX.....we will be close to the TX/MX border...so i can cross over if any need arises me to.

There is a wealth of info in this thread....i have learned so much...but i've also learned that my mama instinct is a powerful one.....i must listen to my mama energy.
This is baby number 4 for me.....all of my children have taught me what i know today...i'm also a LC and have somewhat of a medical back ground.
I feel comfortable listening to my mama energy. It's always lead me in the right direction.
I felt that i did what was best for my baby at the time. I have let go of the guilty feelings...as i realize i did what my energy told me to do.
I am a awesome mama..a super woman mama...And my baby will be healthy and strong.


----------



## USAmma (Nov 29, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *skai* 
*Yes, you should really REALLY finish the antibiotics.* Otherwise the pneumonia might soon be back, only a lot WORSE. People often start to feel better when the abx start working. That does not mean you don't have to finish them.

Haven't read all the threads, but stopping antibiotics is how superbugs are created. If that antibiotic is causing that much diarrhea, you can ask for another one instead.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

If baby is ill still, I'd go to urgent care for an assessment.

Pat


----------



## polyhymnia (Jan 6, 2007)

I would be very, very nervous travelling with a baby that young and that sick, if you felt the need to seek help it must have been bad, and now to ignore the advice of the provider you saw and lots of people on this board - well, it's frightening, to be honest. Is there any way you can postpone your trip? I think you are risking your baby's health and well-being. Pneumonia can go wrong very, very quickly.


----------



## purplepaperclip (May 19, 2008)

I say this as gently as possible, but there is a lot more to science than instincts. Please, please, please (!!!) continue to have your baby monitored as closely as possible by a doctor that knows that the baby was diagnosed with pneumonia, you declined a blood test and also discontinued the abx before the cycle was complete. I really hope baby gets a clean bill of health. Good luck.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

To put it like this....My baby is not ill anymore....with in 2 days..of the pneumonia dx.... his cough and wheezing went away....he is happy, nursing well, sleeping well, playing well...am i supposed to sit here and wait for my baby to get sick again? No...he is fine...if anything comes up i will take action asap.
We are going to see the doctor on monday to get "that clean bill of health".
My baby is 7 months today, weighs 20+pounds...he is ok.


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

Well, hopefully you are right. It's not the decision I would've made, but we all have different comfort levels.
Please keep us updated!


----------



## Amylcd (Jun 16, 2005)

Quote:

To put it like this....My baby is not ill anymore....with in 2 days..of the pneumonia dx.... _his cough and wheezing went away_
Yeah, it did with step father too. I really hope your child is ok, and does not end up like him.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

Let's keep apples to apples here.


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

How is it so different?


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amylcd* 
Yeah, it did with step father too. I really hope your child is ok, and does not end up like him.

My DH too - he seemed completely fine when we arrived in the ER last week but blood tests and XRays diagnosed bacterial pneumonia. He was hospitalized for 4 days on heavy duty antibiotics via IV and was only released because his fever fell below 100 for more than 24 hours. We have already been back to the Dr for one follow up Xray and will return next week to see if the pneumonia has cleared. The Dr made a point of having us understand that if not completely treated and cleared from the lungs it can and most certainly will return worse than before. My hubby sure seems fine now after the antibiotics are in him but there is no way in hell that we are risking his life because he seems to be better, no way.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
Let's keep apples to apples here.

You're right - it isn't really fair to compare our husbands and step fathers to your child - an infant is at a far greater risk of developing complications from untreated pneumonia than an adult would be considering their immature immune system.


----------



## PassionateWriter (Feb 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
I felt that i did what was best for my baby at the time. I have let go of the guilty feelings...as i realize i did what my energy told me to do.
I am a awesome mama..a super woman mama...And my baby will be healthy and strong.

good for you. im glad your baby is feeling better. just came back to see how all is going with you (took awhile to find your update).

im not into telling another mama what she should/should not do, but i definitely agree that mama instinct is a huge thing to listen to. sounds like you are listening.

have a good trip.


----------



## Jwebbal (May 31, 2004)

I hope the baby continues to be well.

As for colloidal silver, honestly, I will never understand the recommendation to use this for illness on this board. Studies have shown that there are much better medicines out there to treat illnesses than colloidal silver. Not to mention the HUGE concern about thimerosal and aluminum as heavy metals, but folks are willing to give silver? Silver builds up in the body.


----------



## babygrace (Aug 23, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *USAmma* 
Haven't read all the threads, but stopping antibiotics is how superbugs are created. If that antibiotic is causing that much diarrhea, you can ask for another one instead.









:. people seem to comparing this class of antibiotics to something like (overused) hand sanitizers.

OP, we can't/won't tell you what you should do, so no comments on that front. ultimately, people listen to what they want to hear.

but, this is a very, very young baby who has just been through a illness. to *me*, it seems less than optimal, to travel at this time. wishing you guys the best.


----------



## Mamato3wild ponnie (Jan 6, 2007)

I think it's best for me to not post here anymore....as this thread has taken a negative turn. I refuse to listen to anymore negativity.
Thanks to all the mama's who have been supportive and who listened when i need them to.
A


----------



## Maeve (Feb 21, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
I think it's best for me to not post here anymore....as this thread has taken a negative turn. I refuse to listen to anymore negativity.
Thanks to all the mama's who have been supportive and who listened when i need them to.
A


How does concern=negativity? Nobody here is tryting to make you feel bad, we are just trying to stress how serious it can be and how esp. with infants, we feel it is best to err on the side of caution. Not everyone feels that way, I understand, but we at least wanted you to hear the other side.


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
I think it's best for me to not post here anymore....as this thread has taken a negative turn. I refuse to listen to anymore negativity.
Thanks to all the mama's who have been supportive and who listened when i need them to.
A

You only took the advice of posters who gave you advice you wanted to hear. I really, really hope your DS doesn't have pneumonia because if it comes back, it's going to be harder to fight. I truly wish your son the best health. I hope this is the worst you have to deal with.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I'm awed that folks believe that whatever broad spectrum antibiotic was prescribed is perceived to be the "correct" medication and panacea.

I trust the mama to listen to her baby, her heart, and to want what is best for her baby. We all make decisions based upon what we _believe_ and what we _feel_ is "best" for us, individually, in the moment with incomplete information. We are unable to be all knowing, including MDs. And the belief that physicians are all knowing, is dangerous, imo.

Assuming baby has bacteria A, and if antibiotic for bacteria B is prescribed, she is no better or worse for having not taken the antibiotic. Only if antibiotic B *was indicated*, is is useful. Antibiotics are not indicated for treating viral illness. *I would want a more complete diagnosis before taking an antibiotic which could be *unnecessary* and *harmful*.* I would seek further assessment IF baby is ill. Mama indicates baby is no longer ill. I don't recall the exact dates baby had the couple doses of antibiotics, but it is about a week ago. Seems that the situation is resolved.

I would be reluctant to fly within 4 weeks of a "diagnosis" of pneumonia, personally. And I'm still concerned that wheezing is not normal in a healthy infant. So, I'd seek an *underlying* reason for the immune system impairment.

Pat


----------



## skai (Apr 21, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I trust the mama to listen to her baby, her heart, and to want what is best for her baby. We all make decisions based upon what we _believe_ and what we _feel_ is "best" for us, individually, in the moment with incomplete information. We are unable to be all knowing, including MDs. And the belief that physicians are all knowing, is dangerous, imo.

IMHO, the belief that individual feelings and "mama intuition" are unerring when making medical decisions is even more dangerous.

I wish the best for the OP's baby.


----------



## BugMacGee (Aug 18, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I'm awed that folks believe that whatever broad spectrum antibiotic was prescribed is perceived to be the "correct" medication and panacea.

I trust the mama to listen to her baby, her heart, and to want what is best for her baby. We all make decisions based upon what we _believe_ and what we _feel_ is "best" for us, individually, in the moment with incomplete information. We are unable to be all knowing, including MDs. And the belief that physicians are all knowing, is dangerous, imo.

Assuming baby has bacteria A, and if antibiotic for bacteria B is prescribed, she is no better or worse for having not taken the antibiotic. Only if antibiotic B *was indicated*, is is useful. Antibiotics are not indicated for treating viral illness. *I would want a more complete diagnosis before taking an antibiotic which could be *unnecessary* and *harmful*.* I would seek further assessment IF baby is ill. Mama indicates baby is no longer ill. I don't recall the exact dates baby had the couple doses of antibiotics, but it is about a week ago. Seems that the situation is resolved.

I would be reluctant to fly within 4 weeks of a "diagnosis" of pneumonia, personally. And I'm still concerned that wheezing is not normal in a healthy infant. So, I'd seek an *underlying* reason for the immune system impairment.

Pat


Unfortunately, cultures and sensitivities take time 48-72 hours in some cases. Meanwhile, baby is getting sicker. You treat with broad spectrum first, then once the c&s comes back, you can treat more specifically. It's not that the broad spectrums don't work, they just kill ALL the bacteria. And the c&s require blood, urine, spinal fluid, in this case, maybe sputum, or whatever happens to be the infection sourse.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

Unfortunately, cultures and sensitivities take time 48-72 hours in some cases. Meanwhile, baby is getting sicker. You treat with broad spectrum first, then once the c&s comes back, you can treat more specifically. It's not that the broad spectrum don't work, they just kill ALL the bacteria. And the c&s require blood, urine, spinal fluid, in this case, maybe sputum, or whatever happens to be the infection source.
Ummm...not exactly. C&S do take time. A broad spectrum antibiotic doesn't kill ALL bacteria; or we wouldn't need so many different antibiotics, if one killed all and every type of bacteria. Unfortunately, there ARE antibiotic-resistant bacteria, precisely *BECAUSE of over-prescribing of unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotics, by MDs.*

C&S of urine is not indicated for respiratory illness. Blood and spinal cultures are not indicated on outpatient basis. "Meanwhile, baby is getting sicker" is speculative, not based in OP's experience. Yes, it is beneficial to *get C&S* based on infection source, we agree.

There are many alternatives for treating respiratory illness other than antibiotics. I would not treat with antibiotics as the first alternative, BECAUSE I don't want to be feeding antibiotics to bacteria unnecessarily and CAUSING the bacteria to become antibiotic-resistant, in my child or myself.

Pat


----------



## Scullery (Oct 23, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
C&S of urine is not indicated for respiratory illness. Blood and spinal cultures are not indicated on outpatient basis. "Meanwhile, baby is getting sicker" is speculative, not based in OP's experience. Yes, it is beneficial to *get C&S* based on infection source, we agree.

C+S of urine is SOP for sick infants, blood and spinal cultures for infants seen in ERs. Infants are not little adults, their illness patterns are unique to their age and development, and not entirely comparable to research on adults.

To the OP, I understand wanting to bow out of this thread. My comments have been based entirely on love and concern for your little boy. I hope you finished the antibiotic course and he continues to thrive.


----------



## polyhymnia (Jan 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I'm awed that folks believe that whatever broad spectrum antibiotic was prescribed is perceived to be the "correct" medication and panacea.

I trust the mama to listen to her baby, her heart, and to want what is best for her baby. We all make decisions based upon what we _believe_ and what we _feel_ is "best" for us, individually, in the moment with incomplete information. We are unable to be all knowing, including MDs. And the belief that physicians are all knowing, is dangerous, imo.

Assuming baby has bacteria A, and if antibiotic for bacteria B is prescribed, she is no better or worse for having not taken the antibiotic. Only if antibiotic B *was indicated*, is is useful. Antibiotics are not indicated for treating viral illness. *I would want a more complete diagnosis before taking an antibiotic which could be *unnecessary* and *harmful*.* I would seek further assessment IF baby is ill. Mama indicates baby is no longer ill. I don't recall the exact dates baby had the couple doses of antibiotics, but it is about a week ago. Seems that the situation is resolved.

I would be reluctant to fly within 4 weeks of a "diagnosis" of pneumonia, personally. And I'm still concerned that wheezing is not normal in a healthy infant. So, I'd seek an *underlying* reason for the immune system impairment.

Pat

I somewhat agree with you, but once she started giving the baby antibiotics, to me she is obligated to continue to do so. If she didn't want to, she shouldn't have started them. Full stop.


----------



## BugMacGee (Aug 18, 2006)

I have a lot of experience with infants with pneumonia. We don't usually know the pathogen causing it right away. Time is critical with these kids. If it is bacterial and we've awaited 48 hours for the cultures to grow to start treatment, well, let's just say that that's way too long. And often, there are secondary bacterial infections.

So, in some cases, the antibiotics may in retrospect be "unnecessary" but who wants to take that chance just to avoid antibiotics?

I too hope that the OP's little one is doing well.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Assuming baby has bacteria A, and if antibiotic for bacteria B is prescribed, she is no better or worse for having not taken the antibiotic. Only if antibiotic B *was indicated*, is is useful. Antibiotics are not indicated for treating viral illness. *I would want a more complete diagnosis before taking an antibiotic which could be *unnecessary* and *harmful*.* I would seek further assessment IF baby is ill. Mama indicates baby is no longer ill. I don't recall the exact dates baby had the couple doses of antibiotics, but it is about a week ago. Seems that the situation is resolved.

The problem is that the OP decided not to have bloodwork done on her child so how exactly were the Dr's to determine which antibiotic was the right one.

OP - no one here was trying to attack you, they were only trying to help you understand the serious nature of your son's illness. Sometimes it is hard to hear advice when it is not what you were hoping for but every single poster here only has the best interest of your son in mind with their messages. My DH is still recovering from bacterial pneumonia that he was diagnosed with over 10 days ago. While you maay dislike using antibiotics the alternate is much much worse.

If nothing else please make sure that your child is given a clan bill of health from a Dr before you board a plane.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I have a few dead horses which I choose to beat. The MYTH and FEAR associated with discontinuing UNNECESSARY antibiotics, in the event of improperly prescribed (viral illness), or excessive diarrhea (antibiotic induced diarrhea-which could be dangerous *C. difficile* overgrowth), is one of them. There is no "rule" or "obligation" to continue an UNNECESSARY antibiotic "once started". That just *further* sensitizes bacteria to the antibiotic, INCREASING the risk of developing antibiotic-resistant bacteria in your child, or in your own gut.
*
I fully support consulting or notifying the prescribing physician to discuss follow-up, if antibiotics are started and need to be discontinued.*

However, it is NOT "harmless", and is potentially dangerous, to continue the same antibiotics with excessive diarrhea, due to dehydration and electrolyte imbalance risks, _especially with an infant pooping 42 times in three days._ *Greater than SIX diarrhea stools in a 24 hour period should be reported to the prescribing physician, and NOT continue the antibiotic blindly due to some perceived "obligation".

*Children get upper respiratory infections on average 6-8 times per year. *The healthy body can recover from bacterial and viral illnesses, without antibiotics.

* "Pneumonia" is a subjective diagnosis, not one which is black or white, without more complete testing and clinical data. *

Unnecessary antibiotics ARE dangerous! Antibiotics damage the integrity of the microbial balance in the gut.* The healthy gut microflora is 70-80% of the immune system. Impaired immune systems are less effective at healing the body. *

Question antibiotics.* Do not continue them blindly.

[/rant]
Pat


----------



## Mama Dragon (Dec 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
Unnecessary antibiotics ARE dangerous! Antibiotics damage the integrity of the microflora in the gut.[/B]
Pat

Technically, *necessary* antibiotics aren't great for the gut either.

To keep it short:
Baby comes in sick, diagnosed with pneumonia (based on symptoms and xray). Do you wait 12, 24, 48, 72 hours to make sure it's bacterial, risking the baby's LIFE, or treat, risking having to repair the gut? Cause the gut can be repaired. Dead babies can't. A baby with pneumonia might not have 12 hours to try homeopathic/natural methods on while you wait on cultures, or even 6 hours.

If there is a life threatening diagnosis, it's always better to err on the side of caution. Even if it mean the baby/person might get unnecessary antibiotics.

I'm talking *pneumonia* here - not simple or easy to treat infections. Pneumonia is very dangerous and waiting (or forgoing) antibiotic treatment is more dangerous yet.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
I have a few dead horses which I choose to beat. The MYTH and FEAR associated with discontinuing UNNECESSARY antibiotics, in the event of improperly prescribed (viral illness), or excessive diarrhea (antibiotic induced diarrhea-which could be dangerous *C. difficile* overgrowth), is one of them. There is no "rule" or "obligation" to continue an UNNECESSARY antibiotic "once started". That just *further* sensitizes bacteria to the antibiotic, INCREASING the risk of developing antibiotic-resistant bacteria in your child, or in your own gut.

Slightly OT, but do you have links about this? I thought I had read that once you start antibiotics, *even if not needed*, they should be finished because of all the bacteria that we are usually colonized with that are not usually harmful, but can sometimes be. I thought that part of the concern was making THOSE resistant as well. But I well could be wrong. I would love to have more info on this.









thanks!

-Angela


----------



## cat2116 (Sep 20, 2007)

Quote:

A baby with pneumonia might not have 12 hours to try homeopathic/natural methods on while you wait on cultures, or even 6 hours.
I agree, or you may get to the stage my DD was, on a ventilator and IV antibiotics.

I really wish your baby all the best, but please be aware, pneumonia can be very serious, I'm not saying it is 100% of the time, but it can be.


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WuWei* 
<snip>There is no "rule" or "obligation" to continue an UNNECESSARY antibiotic "once started". That just *further* sensitizes bacteria to the antibiotic, INCREASING the risk of developing antibiotic-resistant bacteria in your child, or in your own gut.
Pat

With respect, this is innacurate. Bacteria do not become "sensitized" to antibiotics. They are either incompletely or completely susceptible to the antibiotic or they are not. Antibiotic resistance occurs when a population of bacteria are incompletely killed by an incomplete course of antibiotics.

Just like any population, there are bacteria in any given bacterial population that are more susceptible to an abx than others. When you start a course of antibiotics, the most susceptible are killed off first and the less susceptible take longer. If you do not take the antibiotic long enough to kill the less susceptible, those are left at the end of the treatment. These grow and produce a new population of less susceptible bacteria. One or two may develop complete resistance and this complete resistance can be transfered by a variety of ways (plasmid transfer etc) so that the entire population is now resistant to the drug.

Completing a full course of antibiotics does not increase the chances of microbial resistance.

I do agree that if a particular antibiotic is making an individual very ill and it has been determined that the abx was not necessary in the first place, it may be beneficial to stop taking the drug. The pros and cons of this must be carefully weighed before proceeding though.

OP, I hope your baby makes a speedy recovery. In a child that young, I would not hesitate to give antibiotics for confirmed pneumonia.

ETA: In terms of pneumonia, it's usually not ever a choice between antibiotic A and antibiotic B and only one or the other will work. Generally a broad spectrum antibiotic that covers most causative agents implicated in bacterial pneumonia it the first course of treatment. IF the infection does not respond to the broad spectrum, a swab/sputum sample etc. will be taken and a more specific causative agent will be determined if possible. In this case, a more specific antibiotic may be used.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Ironically, I'm running out the door to do a presentation for our local Holistic group about probiotics. Please see the links about developing antibiotic resistance in post #141. http://www.mothering.com/discussions...&postcount=141

Pat


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mamato3wild ponnie* 
To put it like this....My baby is not ill anymore....with in 2 days..of the pneumonia dx.... his cough and wheezing went away....he is happy, nursing well, sleeping well, playing well...am i supposed to sit here and wait for my baby to get sick again? No...he is fine...if anything comes up i will take action asap.
We are going to see the doctor on monday to get "that clean bill of health".
My baby is 7 months today, weighs 20+pounds...he is ok.


It's very possible that the antibiotics your baby did take were enough to kill most of the bacteria causing his issues. Stopping them may or may not have put him at risk. I hope he continues to improve!


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

Good links.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pumpkinhead* 
Completing a full course of antibiotics does not increase the chances of microbial resistance.

Do you have a link with evidence to show this? My understanding is that even full courses, used as directed, absolutely contribute to the resistance issue.

-Angela


----------



## pumpkinhead (Sep 15, 2003)

Alegna, it is my personal understanding that any antibiotic use carries with it the risk of contributing to resistance. However, completing a full course of an appropriate antibiotic as directed does not or should not increase the chances of contributing resistance over the basal risk. I'm sorry, I wasn't very clear in making that statment.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs194/en/

Quote:

Much evidence supports the view that the total consumption of antimicrobials is the critical factor in selecting re*sistance.


----------



## monkeybum (Jan 1, 2005)

I am not saying it's "right" but I can understand where OP is coming from. My DS was "diagnosed" with pneumonia 5 times before he was 2, but the diagnosis was only ever by a doc listening to his chest and prescribing abx. 4 of the 5 times I took him to the doc were only to get a note for work, not b/c he seemed particularly sick, and we never ended up giving the abx. (The one time he seemed particularly sick - the first time - after the walk in doc said he had pneumonia and we should give abx I went to the ER, where the doc said not to give him the abx prescribed and sent us home saying he just had a cold). It is hard to know what to do.

To the posters response to my earlier post:

Quote:

Are you saying your children are generally healthy? Because this makes me think that their immune systems are not working as they should be.
Yes, they are generally healthy. Not sure what you mean. DS is in daycare and puts EVERYTHING in his mouth so I'm sure his immune system was getting bombarded. He recovered within 24 hours of being "diagnosed" (without blood test/chest xray) so I'm assuming his immune system is fine?

Quote:

_My 2 year old was diagnosed with pneumonia two more times this past winter_

Quote:

Two more times this past winter? As in, they have had pneumonia multiple times in their life and two times in one winter?
He was "diagnosed" 3 times last winter, and twice this past winter by walk in docs - prescribed abx each time with no tests. The first time, we were sent to the ER where they said (after just listening to his chest) that he did NOT have pneumonia, said no abx, sent us home. The other times, we took him home, no abx, and he was better by the next day. I am not convinced he ever actually HAD pneumonia as the ER doc said he didn't and we never gave abx and he always recovered within 24 hours of these "diagnoses" by walk-in docs. Maybe he did and we are lucky, but now I understand why they don't take the "wait and see" approach...I'll probably be more careful in the future. I just thought they were overreacting. Again, I only took him to the doc to get a note, not because I thought he was very sick - seemed like every time he presented with a cough, they said he had pneumonia...

Quote:

_My chiropractor says that MDs are not generally used to breast-fed babies who are not vaccinated and who generally have strong immune systems, so they tend to over-prescribe abx._

I can not see a child with a strong immune system getting pneumonia this often.
Again, I'm not convinced he actually had pneumonia, even though this was their "diagnosis" and prescription, they never did chest xrays or blood tests, just listened to his chest. He has had 5 chest colds in the last 2 years. Being in daycare from 9months+ he is much healthier than any of the kids at his daycare.


----------

