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…

Get ready for the H1N1 flu's second wave: Butler-Jones

The good news is that the vast majority of the pandemic H1N1 flu cases in Canada have been mild and the number of fatalities has been held to fewer than 70 as of late summer. The bad news is that we probably haven't seen the worst of it yet.

Dr David Butler-Jones, the nation's first Chief Public Health Officer, is leading the Public Health Agency of Canada's preparations for the anticipated second wave of pandemic H1N1 flu, expected to arrive this fall with the potential to cause far greater damage than the virus has caused so far. He spoke with Parkhurst Exchange about what physicians need to know.

To read the online-only full version of the Q&A, click .

Photo: Public Health Agency of Canada

Good or bad? Assessing recessions' health effects

Is a recession good or bad for people's health?

Readers of Canadian Medicine have already had a taste of this question, in two recent articles: last month in "Economic turmoil is hurting Canadians' health: CMA" and then this month in "Maybe the recession was good for healthcare, after all". In the former, we cited a survey in which Canadians self-reported cutbacks on out-of-pocket health and nutritional spending and exercise. And in the latter, we noted a recent infusion of cash to healthcare infrastructure via federal stimulus spending.

So which is it: a recession is healthful or a recession is harmful?

Well, that very question is examined in a new review published this month in the Canadian Medical Association Journal by University of Washington public-health professor and emergency physician (and University of Toronto grad) Dr Stephen Bezruchka (right), who found that "contrary to what might have been expected, economic downturns during the 20th century were associated with declines in mortality rates."

Dr Bezruchka's paper is worth a full read, but I'll point out for you a few of the most interesting items in the paper:

  • The "procyclical" (positively related) relationship between recession and decreased mortality rates was less pronounced in countries like the United States and Canada which spend less than many European nations on social programs.
  • "Health care has not been found to be a major factor in producing health in populations."
  • This is a simplification of his point, but in essence he posits that higher unemployment = less money = less money to buy cigarettes and alcohol with, and less overeating. (This logic seems questionable to me, but it's something to ponder nonetheless.)
  • Work can be stressful, and unemployment can relieve pregnant women's stress. (Highly questionable, in my opinion.)
  • Is Dr Bezruchka a socialist? See especially his assertion that redistributing wealth from rich countries to poor ones would actually be of longterm benefit to the health of everyone, from countries both rich and poor, and the claim that the "current economic crisis offers an opportunity for rich countries to rethink the social purposes of their economies."
Photo: