However, the in vitro and the in vivo antibiotic susceptibilities of Bartonella do not correlate well for a number of antibiotics; for instance, penicillin has no in vivo efficacy, despite the very low MICs observed in vitro.
the problem may be the use of the many ways to determine efficacy--MIC is only but one and it may not be that good.
The MIC is the lowest concentration of antimicrobial agent which inhibits the growth of the microorganism
in a culture tube or plate the lowest concentration of a drug that will INHIBIT the growth of an organism will not necessarily say anything about the drug effect in the body; or even if it has the same MIC in the body at all. OR if it did have the same MIC what mechanisms are being affected--and that assumption of relativity isnt assumed anyway.( meaning I havent seen any study say unequivocably that a low MIC in lab guarantees antibacterial action in body---or that it works the same way
maybe in the body, its slowing a protein synthesis but in culture its simply blocking nutrient uptake.
Unfortunately as poor as the comparisons may be between in vivo and in vitro--its all we have as a start point to look at the actions of a drug against an organism.and when comparing drug choices to what we already have.
there are also verbage usage issues as well
many labs use this definition
http://www.bionewsonline.com/2/what_is_mic.htmA current definition of the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration, MIC, is "the lowest concentration which resulted in maintenance or reduction of inoculum viability".
and frankly maintianing viability is NOT what we want inside ourselves--so WHICH definition is any study using at any time???
BUT when you use that parameter of MIC to compare drugs to each other OR to compare drugs vs organsism in matched pairs of efficacy--then maybe it again becomes more useful.
( for example if you can show macrolides have better MIC than cephalosporins against gram negatives then you wouldnt want to choose Suprax to combat a gram neg infection over Zithromax)
you are trying to take as absolutes many things not meant to be used as such, and then cant obviously be assigned to expectations ( or failed expectations) according to your falsely assigned absolutes. in other words when all we have are generalizations and you try to make them into specifics then bemoan their failure, whose fault is that?
aside to Hammy
apparently you still think it necessary to get personal and passive-aggressively hint at anothers' deficits when again I say to you--methinks the POT is calling the old Kettle BLACKI worry about you because you wouldn't have made that mistake (oversight) in the past; you started that thread only about a year ago.
I worry about YOU and your apparent need to slyly attack others
and btw when you ask:
usually the answer is YES, so why bother asking??? I can only hope you knew the answer and was attempting a cutesy post, unless we have to worry even more about YOUR state of health?? I hope notWould it be impudent of me
before Cave even clarified her meaning of "remission" youre leaping at assumptions and presumptions--and I know exactly what she meant and Im guessing you did as well-- a stop of the progression of an illness along with an improvement of symptoms ( or even just a leveling off so symptoms dont worsen).
which has NOTHING to do with pain sensors being in the brain or not--so I find your thought process as worrisome as you find Cave's
ultimately I beleive her conclusion was that she didnt care IF any drug had in vitro vs in vivo differences as long as it did the job for her when she did take it. and ya know that DOES happen Hammy--having a drug that seems a poor candidate in the lab nonetheless effect major disease improvement once delivered into the body.