Why Use Fluconazole Treatment

One of the nastiest types of infection is fungal infection.  Although they are more likely to grow on the skin, there are more serious ones though that develops in the respiratory system and infect not just the lungs, but also the blood and other parts of the body’s internal structure.  When you develop a fungal infection, it is vital that you treat the infection as soon as possible to prevent further growth, development, and spread of the infection.  Failure to do so may mean longer and costlier treatment.  Fluconazole treatment is needed for treating fungal infection.  Fluconazole treatment is an antifungal medication treatment that you take orally.

Most antifungals are applied on the skin directly to where the infection has developed.  However, if the infection has buried further or deeper in to the skin, or the infection has developed inside of the body, such topical type of antifungal will not work on such.  For cases like this, fluconazole treatment is necessary as fluconazole treatment comes in pill form which you take orally.  The treatment process in using fluconazole treatment is the purging of the infection from the inside of your body.  This effectively gets rid of the infection from your system.

For antifungal fluconazole treatment, it is necessary that you use fluconazole treatment for a course of several days.  The number of days you need to use fluconazole treatment depends on the type of infection that you have developed and the severity that it has.  Course treatment is necessary in completely getting rid of an infection from the body.  This is the very reason why doctors prescribe patients with several days of use of fluconazole treatment when they have a fungal infection.  By completing the course of fluconazole treatment, you will be able to completely purge the fungal infection out of the body. Read more…

Think twice about politics, doc

Last August, at the Canadian Medical Association's annual meeting, in Montreal, doctors eagerly asked guest speakers Liberal MP Martha Hall Findlay, former New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord and NDP MP Thomas Mulcair about how to kick off a run for public office.

This year's CMA meeting is coming up in just a couple of weeks, and the political overtones of the organization's policy recommendations will surely once again provide a nice backdrop for ambitious MDs with political aspirations.

But by coincidence, just as the conference draws near, Maclean's magazine yesterday to the dark side of the lives of those high-powered government movers and shakers: endless campaigning.

Behold: Dr Hedy Fry, a family physician turned Liberal MP who got her start in politics as a representative in the BC Medical Association and the CMA, courting votes at the Vancouver Pride Parade last weekend. Just check out what she's wearing!


The political life, regrettably, isn't all pomp and circumstance and incredibly consequential decision-making. That's the unfortunate truth. What the political bigwigs at the CMA conference should be telling doctors is: much of what amounts to politics these days is no more glamorous than some of the uncomfortable things you have to do as a family doctor -- like, say, asking your 16-year-old patient whether he's sexually active, or examining a 70-year-old's infected toenail. Like Dr Fry in her space-age get-up, you just have to smile and pretend you're not mortified to be doing what you're doing.

Photo:

H1N1 flu vaccine is a "eugenics weapon": Quebec ex-MD/conspiracy theorist

Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

Quebec resident Ghislaine Lanctôt, who lost her medical licence in 1997 after publishing an anti-vaccination book called Medical Mafia and now goes by the name Ghis, is capitalizing on all the news about this fall's forthcoming H1N1 flu vaccine to once again air her views.

In a pamphlet called (PDF) published late last month on her website, Ghis wrote:

"The impending massive vaccination (2009) is the direct result of a pseudo-pandemic of swine flu (A-H1N1) officially declared by the UN. The long-term ploy of the global elite is to reduce the world population to 500 millions. The new vaccines contain an extremely vicious cocktail of avian, swine and human influenza viruses."
Ghis garnered some attention from the conspiracy-theory website PrisonPlanet.com last month, which described her position :
Lanctôt warns that the elite and their minions will introduce a compulsory vaccination that will contain a deadly virus and this will be used specifically as a eugenics weapon for “massive and targeted reduction of the world population.” Moreover, a pandemic will also be used to further establish martial law and a police state, according to Lanctôt, and activate concentration camps “built to accommodate the rebellious” and eventually transfer power from all nations to a single United Nations government and thus fulfill the sinister plans of the New World Order.
Ghis's assertions are, frankly, at best insane and at worst intentionally dangerous. But they bear mentioning because they serve as a reminder of the sorts of influences acting on the public, and thereby as a reminder to physicians and government officials of the lengths to which they must go to convince the public that a flu vaccine is not just safe but may be necessary for many people in high-risk groups.

It's easy to dismiss people like Ghis as wackos ("In reality, I am omnipotent and immortal. I need no vaccines, no doctors, nor governments," she wrote) but simply dismissing your patients' concerns introduces the risk that they may be getting inaccurate and crazy advice from people like her rather than from their physicians and the people whom they should rely on to protect their health.

Ghis and her tinfoil-hat-wearing pals should serve as a wake-up call for this fall's flu vaccination program. The lesson? Many people are exposed to this kind of anti-vaccination rhetoric. It is doctors' responsibility to educate patients about the real risks and benefits of vaccination and to encourage them not to be persuaded by eccentric quacks online.

Readers of Canadian Medicine may recall Ghis (right) from a short entry in 2008. At the time, she was jailed for a few months when she refused to respond to a Quebec court that was investigating her refusal to pay taxes.

Well, we can now give you an : her case was heard this past January. Her defense strategy consisted of telling the judge that the person named Ghislaine Lanctôt was dead and providing a Declaration of Individual Sovereignty. Unfortunately for her, the judge wasn't buying any of that. She was found guilty and assessed a $1,000 fine, which it sounds like she is planning on ignoring. The legal saga continues.

Like I said: nobody could make this stuff up.

Should the H1N1 flu vaccine be required for doctors and nurses?

That's one of the questions Parkhurst Exchange will explore in a Q&A with chief public health officer Dr David Butler-Jones (right), set to be published in the September issue.

But in the meantime Canadian Medicine offers you this sneak preview of Dr Butler-Jones's comments on the matter:

"We’ve kind of gone around that a few times and generally courts have not supported compulsory immunization for healthcare workers. It is, at the end of the day, an issue of choice. It is prevention, not treatment. That being said, I think every professional body encourages its members to be immunized. The reality is, if I am not immunized and I get flu, I kill my patients. I mean, that’s the reality. We’re the ones -- doctors and nurses -- who take it, by and large, into the nursing home, and spread it around. The fact that we are lucky to get 50% of our colleagues who take actually take the vaccine is amazing, when you think of it. I mean, it’s different if you have a contraindication or whatever, but in so many other realms if you basically give a noxious agent to a patient and kill them, that’s malpractice. And yet a totally or largely preventable disease that we carry and then share with our patients, somehow that’s okay? I don’t think it’s okay. At the end of the day, it is a matter of choice but my hope is, unless there is a reason not to, basically why would we not protect, as physicians or nurses or healthcare workers, why would we not protect not only ourselves but our patients and families besides?... The ethical position would be: why not do anything reasonable? I don't go drunk into surgery, so why not be immunized?"
Doctors, nurses and patients: what do you think?

Is the refusal of so many thousands of healthcare workers to be immunized against the flu (a pattern all but certain to repeat itself this fall with the pandemic H1N1 flu) tantamount to operating under the influenza? Legal issues aside, should doctors and nurses be pushed harder by their workplaces or by their professional associations to receive the vaccine?

Photo: Public Health Agency of Canada