• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Sore Throat Coming- What shall i take?

Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
581
Likes
0
#1
Got a sore throat coming,
its geting dry right now.
anyone know what i should take?
like paracetamol or ibupofren?
what works best to stop it happening before it takes full effect?
 

digidude

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2001
Messages
24,610
Likes
229
#2
go up the chemists and get diflam spray m8, its what i use as i get strep throat a lot for some reason, and the docs here are useless fookers so i eventually then end up with scarlet fever, but i always got this in the house and as soon as i feel anything start to use it, and within 36 hours at the most its usually gone
 

muskrat

DW Regular
Joined
Dec 1, 2005
Messages
2,974
Likes
78
#6
Hi all,

Chloroseptic (think thats how it's spelt), the spray from Vicks, is really good for sore throats but tastes like sh1te.

Muskrat
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
3,175
Likes
204
#7
Salt water gargles
Drinking salty liquid got him the sore throat in the first place.

Vicks Chloraseptic deffo.

Or a trip to docs early. Any sign of infection and don't let him kick you out without some anti-biotics.
 

nozzer

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
6,662
Likes
72
#8
Or a trip to docs early. Any sign of infection and don't let him kick you out without some anti-biotics.
Its the over prescription of antibiotics for common ailments that have got us into the problem with superbugs that are now resistant to most of the standard antibiotics. You might not like it but the best defence for things like sore throats is often to allow the infection to take its course and the body to generate its own antibodies to fight the infection.

Temporary relief from symptoms can often be acomplished with simple remedies like honey and/or lemon (in either drink or lozenge form) and possibly, if the discomfort gets bad, a mild painkiller like paracetomol. If things get bad enough that you require a stronger painkiller then its time for a trip to the Dr's as it may be you have a more serious problem than a simple sore throat !
 

Munkey

Inactive User
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
5,831
Likes
169
#9
Its the over prescription of antibiotics for common ailments that have got us into the problem with superbugs that are now resistant to most of the standard antibiotics. You might not like it but the best defence for things like sore throats is often to allow the infection to take its course and the body to generate its own antibodies to fight the infection.
I agree. Don't take any medicine unless you absolutely need it. Things like Paracetamol and other pain killers should be avoided as well.

I do think that salt water gargles is a genuine way to relieve sore throats though. I thought that this was common knowledge and not an old housewives tale.
 
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
747
Likes
3
#12
When the misses has a sore throat i always sugest that i give her something salty in her mouth but she just looks at me and says NO! :)
 

Jackel

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
2,510
Likes
33
#15
Yes got to go with TCP Salt water also i never take any tablets unless im on deaths door let your body fight it off.
 
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
3,175
Likes
204
#16
There is no causal link between prescription of anti-biotics and the power of viruses that exist, or new viruses that are found to exist.

It is received wisdom to think otherwise. A few doctors/microbiologists posited a theory some years ago, and it has stuck.

It is MUCH more dangerous to not treat infections, that can be contagious, or morph into a much more serious condition (such as digidudes problems described in this thread).

Top down management from the NHS pass on voguish theorem down to hapless GPs who stop caring because they are mere vessels for NHS dogma, leaving their investigatory skills to fester and die (not all, I know).

I work in a medical practise, and my experience coupled with having a doctor in the family, has suggested that a lot of the times these ideas are wrong/dangerous. I have another example about GPs reluctance to prescribe: steroid based topical creams. They will fight tooth and nail to keep patients on E45 etc, instead of actually using the stuff that will aid recovery, when a patient has dermatitis for example.

There is a correlation between increased use of anti-biotics and 'new' viruses. But then again, I get an erection every morning, and the sun rises every morning too. Does the sun give me a hard on? Or is it a correlation/coincidence?

Anyway, everybody has ignored my cracking semen joke, so Im not happy.

/mozr waits for someone to say 'what about MRSA'?
 

english

Inactive User
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
5,571
Likes
99
#18
It is MUCH more dangerous to not treat infections, that can be contagious, or morph into a much more serious condition (such as digidudes problems described in this thread).
i have to disagree with u there m8. i don't need to be threatened into taking ur medicine lol

the last time i used antibiotics was 6 years ago because i had catarrh and it was driving me nuts, i knew it would go eventually but i wanted it off quick. there's nothing worse than not being able to breath out of ur nose ;)
 

nozzer

VIP Member
VIP Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
6,662
Likes
72
#19
There is no causal link between prescription of anti-biotics and the power of viruses that exist, or new viruses that are found to exist.
Thats because antibiotics aren't designed to fight viruses. There are actually very few medicines that can affect a virus in any way whatsoever. Most virus treatments involve genetically engineered and/or deactivated versions of the original virus which are then used to encourage the bodies own defences to do the job.

Antibiotics are for bacterial infections and have absolutely no effect on viruses. Any antibiotics given during a viral infection are only given to prevent a secondary bacterial infection from taking hold.

And yes, there is a large body of evidence which suggests a link between the over use of antibiotics in innapropriate circumstances and the emergence of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. Whilst the resistant strains would undoubtably of evolved eventually careful and controlled usage of antibiotics would certainly of slowed that development.

Bacterial mutation is a simple darwinian process ruled by survival of the fittest for any given circumstance. If there is less antibiotic usage then there is a correspondingly smaller chance of a resistant bacteria strain emerging.
 

mozr

Banned
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Messages
3,175
Likes
204
#20
You are right. You got me.

As I was typing it last night I knew that I was mis-using virus for bacterial infection, I just couldn't consciously recognize it. So on a point of terminology you got me. Makes the rest of my argument sound a bit stupid. :)

(I thought about editing my post - replacing all 'virus' with 'bacterial infection', and calling you a liar! ;) )

As you have mentioned, you can treat few viral infections by slowing down bacterial infection, to allow the host immune system to create the anti-bodies to destroy the virus. I got confused somewhere along this line, and feel daft.

However my poorly made point remains valid. By applying evolutionary theory to the situation is all well and good. But, your point means every time we use an anti-biotic we increase the chance of genetic mutation. I will concede that people should not be on them 24/7 as this would be tempting fate in this regard. I still maintain that when needed anti-biotics should be prescribed. It is a balancing act, but one that is poorly managed at the moment.

Some people (not you necessarily) use Darwinian logic but then place themselves in a vacuum of permanence. For of course, are we not evolutionary beings ourselves? Just as Streptococcus can mutate, so can our ability to fight the mutation. We have not spent all our research on a few anti-biotics, and now we are stuck. It is a constantly evolving process where new strains are identified and research is conducted to try and counter act the new strain.

Indeed, there is no test 'race' where we can see if rationing of anti-biotics in a closed environment can scientifically prove that it works in the defence of the creation of new bacterial strains. Therefore the concept of anti-biotic rationing will always be a theory based upon the Darwinian method.

As I've already said, I think rationing has not been managed properly, and have seen many patients become ill quickly because of inaction of GPs regarding the prescription of anti-biotics. I can speak of cases where the lack of anti-biotics at an early stage, coupled with poor wound care has led to pateints losing limbs, where it need not have happened.

Anyway. You were right. I did not use the correct terminology. I have lost all credibility. Please beat me with a bamboo cane.