davep wrote:Cog's right. Even outside it's bloody noisy. A problem neatly dealt with by my suppressor idea.
BTW I've not noticed a penury of .22LR in France. The rationale for them is obviously that they're so cheap and you can carry far more of them than any other round (and they don't go far over the speed of sound, even the non-subsonic ones).
The question is whether they have enough energy to do a zombie in.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:davep wrote:Cog's right. Even outside it's bloody noisy. A problem neatly dealt with by my suppressor idea.
BTW I've not noticed a penury of .22LR in France. The rationale for them is obviously that they're so cheap and you can carry far more of them than any other round (and they don't go far over the speed of sound, even the non-subsonic ones).
The question is whether they have enough energy to do a zombie in.
In the fiction novels I have read where the Mob shows up they prefer to use 22LR for executions, usually base of the skull behind the ear. I don't have a clue if that is how it is actually done and I have no desire to find out via personal experience.
Cog wrote:I'm thinking that the older and most wasted a zombie is the more mushier his skull is. From watching the episodes, I've seen zombies killed with a knife to the skull or a hammer. If I'm not mistaken didn't they kill some zombies with a high pressure water hose from a fire engine?
I believe the Mafia shoots people through the eyes with a .22 In the Sopranos there is a scene where one of the crew gets whacked and he says "Not the eyes!"Tanada wrote:In the fiction novels I have read where the Mob shows up they prefer to use 22LR for executions, usually base of the skull behind the ear. I don't have a clue if that is how it is actually done and I have no desire to find out via personal experience.
PrestonSturges wrote:Rule #2 - Always Double Tap
That's a problem with TWD where there is a shortage of guns and ammo. Probably one out of five abandoned car should have a gun in it. Besides the characters being as stupid as gerbils, we also often see the characters fail to pick up guns from bad guys and nobody ever checks for ammo. It's like the dumbest Sci-Fi channel movies where people keep tossing away their guns.Cog wrote:In the world that Rick and his group inhabit, you want to preserve your ammo for the real threat, which is other human predators. Zombies are rather trivially easily killed if you have a barrier between you and them. I'm thinking of the fence at the prison where the crew would go out everyday and poke the zombie's heads with metal stakes.
PrestonSturges wrote:
Also, who keeps cutting the grass in TWD? I seems like the zombies are keeping up with the yard work.
Lore wrote:PrestonSturges wrote:Also, who keeps cutting the grass in TWD? I seems like the zombies are keeping up with the yard work.
Your zombie neighbors would be complaining if you didn't.
Military research on drug expiration dates:
The program dates to a U. S. effort begun in 1981 to increase military readiness by buying large quantities of drugs and medical devices for the armed forces. Four years later, more than $1 billion of supplies had been stockpiled. The General Accounting Office audited Air Force troop hospitals in Europe and found many supplies at or near expiration. It warned that by the 1990s, more than $100 million would have to be spent yearly on replacements.
The Air Force Surgeon General's office asked the FDA if it could possibly extend the shelf life of these drugs. The FDA had the equipment for stability testing. And because it had approved the drugs' sale in the first place, it also had manufacturers' data on the testing protocols.
Testing for the Air Force began in late 1985. In the first year, 58 medicines from 137 different manufacturing lots were shipped to the FDA from overseas storage, among them penicillin, lidocaine and Lactated Ringers, an intravenous solution for dehydration. After testing, the FDA extended more than 80% of the expired lots, by an average of 33 months.
In 1992, according to the FDA, more than half of the expired drugs that had been retested in 1985 were still fine. Even now, at least one still is.
http://www.terrierman.com/antibiotics-WSJ.htm
Tetracycline degradation and kidney toxicity may be an issue:
Renal Toxicity of Tetracycline Degradation Products
http://ebm.sagepub.com/content/115/4/930.abstract
Only one report known to the medical community linked an old drug to human toxicity. A 1963 Journal of the American Medical Association article said degraded tetracycline caused kidney damage. Even this study, though, has been challenged by other scientists. Mr. Flaherty says the Shelf Life program encountered no toxicity with tetracycline and typically found batches effective for more than two years beyond their expiration dates.
http://www.terrierman.com/antibiotics-WSJ.htm
Safety and Toxicity. Contrary to common belief, there is little scientific evidence that expired drugs are toxic. There are virtually no reports of toxicity from degradation products of outdated drugs.
According to The Medical Letter the only report of human toxicity that may have been caused by chemical or physical degradation of a pharmaceutical product is renal tubular damage that was associated with use of degraded tetracycline (GW Frimpter et al, JAMA 1963; 184:111). Since then, tetracycline products have been changed to eliminate the problem (note: this may only apply to tetracycline products intended for human consumption) [2]. The lack of other reports of toxicity from expired medication is reassuring, however expired medication toxicity is not a well-researched field.
http://www.emedexpert.com/tips/expired-meds.shtml
Drugs that should never be used past their expiration date. Certain medications have a narrow therapeutic index and little decreases in the pharmacological activity can result in severe consequences for patients. Respect expiration date is obligatory for the following medications:
-Eye drops (or other liquid medications) - eyes are particularly sensitive to any bacteria that might grow in a solution once a preservative degrades.
-Anticonvulsants - narrow therapeutic index
-Dilantin, phenobarbital - very quickly lose potency
-Nitroglycerin - very quickly lose potency
-Warfarin - narrow therapeutic index
-Procan SR - sustained release procainamide
-Theophylline - very quickly lose potency
-Digoxin - narrow therapeutic index
-Thyroid preparations
-Paraldehyde
-Oral contraceptives
-Epinephrine - very quickly lose potency
-Insulin - very quickly lose potency
http://www.emedexpert.com/tips/expired-meds.shtml
steam_cannon wrote:Are the drugs in Walking Dead Pharmacies still good?
Well generally most OTC drugs are pretty stable as well as animal care products. 6 years out, I think most of the dry tablet drugs will probably be effective. Some drugs like hormones for birth control are so stable they can cause fish in rivers to have gender issues long after the drug has exited the human body. Though tetracycline is one of the drugs where there has been concern in the past as to it's safe shelf life.
vtsnowedin wrote:By ignoring the rules on taking antibiotics you have chosen to become one of the worst promoters of antibiotic resistant diseases. If I could identify you I would shoot you on sight.
pstarr wrote:C8, by not taking antibiotics for the full run, you have done your part to breed antibiotic-resistant strains of the pathogen that infected you. Not only will those resistant bugs infect you worse next time, but they may spread to the general population. You are responsible for a possible public health hazard, not unlike those created the anti-vaccination people.
Stop Taking Antibiotics When You Feel Better?
Taking a shorter course of antibiotics may be just as effective, plus do a better job at preventing antibiotic resistance.
By Adam Hadhazy|Thursday, August 28, 2014
Conventional wisdom: Antibiotic regimens should be taken in full, even after the patient feels healthy again.
Contrarian view: Shorter courses are often just as effective and do a better job at preventing antibiotic resistance.
You know the drill: When you’re prescribed a typical seven- to 14-day antibiotic course, do not, repeat, do not forget to take all the drugs. This take-all-your-pills orthodoxy, championed since the discovery of antibiotics some 70 years ago, is based on eliminating all bacterial culprits as quickly as possible.
Doing so, in theory, reduces the odds that the bugs will develop random mutations or pick up drug-resistant genes from other bacteria. Plus, the sustained antibiotic onslaught supposedly ensures that any hardier, partially drug-resistant bacteria also succumb, and thus don’t pass on “stepping-stone” genes leading to full-blown resistance.
An emerging view, however, suggests that standard long antibiotic courses are wrong on both counts — they’re no better than shorter courses and actually promote antibiotic resistance.
“The science is clear,” says infectious disease specialist Brad Spellberg of the Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute. “Every study that has been done comparing longer versus shorter antibiotic therapy has found shorter therapy just as effective.” A few days of taking antibiotics, it seems, should usually be enough to knock infections on their heels, allowing the patient’s immune system to come in and mop up.
Taking the full course of antibiotics unnecessarily wastes medicine, and more drugs translates to increased evolutionary pressure on the harmless bacteria in our bodies. These “good” bugs can develop drug-resistant genes, which can then transfer to bad bugs.
Furthermore, wiping out drug-susceptible bacteria in infections too quickly makes it easier for drug-resistant bacteria to compete over a host’s resources. Better access to nutrients lets the mutant bugs multiply far more rapidly, upping the odds that they’ll reach a so-called “transmissible density.” That means the resistant bacteria proliferate so much that they can escape and infect another person.
In essence, if you take all those extra antibiotics, you might be doing the worst bugs’ dirty work for them by removing a check on their growth.
Shorter antibiotic regimens, in contrast, intentionally allow some susceptible bacteria to survive in order to help suppress any resistant pathogens. A recent study showed just this: Mice infected with both drug-susceptible and drug-resistant malaria, when treated less aggressively, were 150 times less likely to pass on the resistant pathogens.
Multiple studies demonstrate how doctors might gauge when to end antibiotic therapy. (See “Less Is More? Selected Studies” below.) Thriving bacteria raise blood levels of the hormone precursor procalcitonin, for example; guiding treatment based on procalcitonin concentrations led to half as much antibiotic use across seven studies, with no drop in cure rates. More signs of improved health, such as fever alleviation, could also indicate antibiotics are no longer necessary.
Overall, the accumulating data lend support to the heretical notion of patients, in consultation with their doctors, stopping their pill-popping upon feeling better. “The issue of continuing therapy until all doses are done is an old wives’ tale,” Spellberg says. “There’s no data to support it. You can’t make a cured patient better.”
C8 wrote:This is good info. I get seriously sick about every 3-4 years and need a heavy duty antibiotic. I have found that, even though they tell you to take all 10 days worth, that if I stop medicating after day 2 the illness continues to decline and never comes back.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests