On infant dosed antibiotics and childhood obesity – setting the scene for the adult obesity plague?



More and more and more manure on antibiotics. Check out these maps. Of course, we know that the more doses of antibiotics given to children, the higher their BMI as they age! Shout it out: Use of antibiotics is CAUSING obesity, not vice versa.

“When we mashed up the data behind these maps, we confirmed the strong correlation between obesity and antibiotic prescription rates (we got an r of 0.74, for the statistically inclined). We also found a correlation between the states’ median household incomes and antibiotic prescription rates: States with below-average median incomes tend to have higher antibiotic prescription rates. This makes sense, considering that high obesity rates correlate with low income levels. (You can see the data sets for antibiotic prescription rate, obesity, and median household income level here.)

Hicks and her team can’t yet explain the connection between obesity and high rates of antibiotic prescription. ‘There might be reasons that more obese people need antibiotics,’ she says. ‘But it also could be that antibiotic use is leading to obesity.'”

The states with some of the highest usage of antibiotics and rates of obesity: Well, of course, W VA and MS — also the states with the most heavily vaccinated population of kids. Err, ya think the poor still are being used to make drug cos. rich in the U.S.? Ya think?



Looks like this news will hit hard in the U.S “Antibiotics not for running noses, warn doctors”. [Most] doctors won’t like it!


Chris Hemmings

Which is why “this issue” is taking a long time to highlight – there’s clearly several factors acting to compound each of the inputting problems. Whilst the resultant damage is clear to everyone, pinning that on the “individual cause” is often well nigh impossible – there being NO SINGLE CAUSE.

So then it must be – what is/are the underlying problem(s) and what are simply compounders?

To me, antibiotics fall into the latter category such that if they are put aside the underlying problem(s) will remain present.

1 – Why are the antibiotics prescribed? IE – for what ailment?

2 – Why did the individual succumb to it?

3 – What is the vaccine status of each obese child?

4 – Is there a correlation between an individual’s usage of antibiotics and obesity? Population studies do not illuminate this at all.

Yeah, antibiotics have for many decades be used in chicken feed so’s they gain weight quickly as well as so they can be packed at high density. But this is prophylactic use which is less common for humans (altho’ not wholly absent, I know!)


Chris, so far, the epidemiology bears out the fact that antibiotic administration to children leads to higher BMIs as they age, especially when antibiotics are given to children under the age of six months. I have the links to the original article on this research published last year in Nature as well as to NIH’s acceptance of the theories which underlie this conclusion. The biological explanation as to how antibiotics, in fact, do lead to obesity in children as they age strikes me as very, very sound.

I fortunately was born about a decade after antibiotics hit the market. By that time, doctors had discovered the hard way that these drugs actually may kill children. My brother almost died after a shot of penicillin given to him as an infant (1948 or 1949), and I myself developed a form of cancer (which I miraculously beat) from an antibiotic given to me in the early 1960s. It became standard good medical practice back then NOT to give antibiotics to children unless their lives were at immediate risk of loss if antibiotics were not attempted. All of this had changed a bit by the late 1970s when tetracycline was discovered to take out teenage acne easily and, of course, in the late 1980s when vaccine mania began (since all vaccinations contain multiple doses of different antibiotics).

Antibiotics may do a whole lot more than just enable a body to get well more quickly from an infection, so I tend to favor judicious use of these drugs. But for Ceclor in the late 1980s, I would have had to undergo some extensive surgery on my sinuses. This was surgery that would have disrupted my life beyond description at that time (I was in law school) and which had a very low success rate anyway. Another point in that second article is the mention that “green” stuff which drains from the nose does NOT indicate an Rx for an antibiotic. From all that I know, whenever anything drains from the nose that is putrid green in color, doctors whip out that prescription pad and order up antibiotics as fast as they may write!


Yeah, my interest in antibiotics began with doing research on antibiotic resistance genetics within bacteria and its ease of cross species transfer (in “plasmids”, being tiny, independent genetic units in the bacterial cell).

Conclusion was my advice to minimise their use and ban prophylactic applications!

But (to paraphrase what I guess is the suggested rationale in relation to the results you quote) “the microbial biome in the gut is put out of balance and takes time to reassemble” does not really EXPLAIN why obesity follows. Truth is that every meal alters the gut microbial content – there is a constant adaptation to ITS environment (Sugars, carbohydrates, other bacteria, green vegetables…..)

So although the effect of an obesogenic diet will almost certainly be compounded by an already skewed gut flora it will still generate obesity when antibiotics have not been administered. Wheat flour is highly obesogenic, for example, as it has practically the highest Glycemic Index (GI) of any food – higher than table sugar. Eat wheat and your blood sugar shoots up and remains high until your next burger, cookie or organic wholewheat sandwich.

High blood sugar leads to obesity and diabetes…….


“These effects are broad across vertebrate species, including mammals (cattle, swine, sheep) and birds (chickens, turkeys), and follow oral administration of the agents, either in feed or water, indicating that the microbiota of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is a major target. That the effects are observed with many different classes of antibacterial agents (including macrolides, tetracyclines, penicillins and ionophores) indicates that the activity is not an agent-specific side effect, nor have the effects been observed with antifungals or antivirals.

The vertebrate GI tract contains an exceptionally complex and dense microbial environment, with bacterial constituents that affect the immune responses of populations of reactive host cells8 and stimulate a rich matrix of effecter mechanisms involved in innate and adaptive immune responses9. The GI tract also is a locus of hormone production, including those involved in energy homeostasis (such as insulin, glucagon, leptin and ghrelin) and growth (for example, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1))10. Alterations in the populations of the GI microbiota may change the intra-community metabolic interactions11, modify caloric intake by using carbohydrates such as cellulose that are otherwise indigestible by the host12, and globally affect host metabolic, hormonal and immune homeostasis13. Full (therapeutic) dose antibiotic treatments alter both the composition of the gastrointestinal microbiota14 and host responses to specific microbial signals15. In combination with dietary changes, antibiotic administration has been associated with changes in the population structure of the microbiome.”


“In related work, Dr. Leonardo Trasande, Blaser and colleagues analyzed data from over 11,000 children in a British study, examining body mass and antibiotic exposures during infancy. The results appeared on August 21, 2012, in the online edition of the International Journal of Obesity.

The researchers found that children who were given antibiotics during the first 6 months of life were more likely to have a higher body mass and were more likely to be overweight by 3 years of age than those who weren’t given the drugs. Exposure between 6 and 14 months wasn’t associated with body mass index at any time point. While exposure to antibiotics between 15 and 23 months appeared to affect body mass index at 7 years of age, none of the exposures were linked to being overweight or obese at 7.”



Its war with criminals killing American’s not stupid people who did not know they gave us all the real cause of AIDS.


As I witnessed, the word was out in the arena of academic medicine by 1982 that Salk and Sabin had created AIDS.


OK, read that Margaret and can only see support of my observations – at 7 years old, the impact of earlier antibiotic use falls off, it seems, and has no impact on predicting, ie precipitating, future obesity.

Use in poultry is, of course, continuous from chick to dispatch, being in the food.

The complexity of gut biome is why I use the phrase “Bio-medical Ecology” to cover these interactions, in the human system. I’ve tried to push this for years and yet, a few months back, it seemed as if modern science was only just realising the gut contained a bacterial flora at all. What woke them up? Why the chance of producing some new vaccines…….



Chris: Thank you so much for that article! But for the money infused into it, of course, I always wonder why research which focuses on how to “boost” human immune response to disease must concentrate its efforts on vaccination-created changes to the human immune system. No paradigm could be more outdated or dangerous.

Here is the full text to that article on the 11.5K kids examined from the International Journal of Obesity (London). You might find reading ALL the results to be more telling than just that conclusion which NIH reports above.

“This longitudinal study found that early-life antibiotic exposure was associated with subsequent increases in body mass. Of the three time windows analyzed, only exposure during the period before 6 months of age was consistently associated with increases in body mass. At 38 months, children who had been exposed to antibiotics during this earliest period had significantly higher standardized BMI scores, and were 22% more likely to be overweight than children who had not been exposed. In contrast, exposures after 6 months were not consistently associated with body mass increases. Those in the 6- to 14-month period showed no association, while those in the period 15–23 months were significantly associated only with elevated standardized BMI score at 7 years, but not with consistently elevated scores in the interim.

“Our finding of an association of antibiotic exposure at <6 months with later-life body mass is consistent with a prior report. It adds important evidence that exposure timing matters. We also add a test of spuriousness, with the finding that exposure to non-antibiotic medications during the same early windows is not associated with elevations in body mass. This makes it less plausible that exposure to antibiotics reflects a greater receptivity to medications, which is also correlated with increases in body mass. Unlike the previous study, however, we did not find an association with antibiotic exposure at <6 months persisting to 7 years of age.

“Perhaps this reflects differences in the antibiotics used in the two samples, or different doses. Given that intravenous antibiotics are used in these first 6 months of life (often for neonatal sepsis), antibiotic type (that is, Gram-positive or Gram-negative/anaerobic coverage) and route of administration (intravenous or orally administered antibiotics) might have differential effects on gut microbiota composition and development. This is consistent with a recent analysis finding associations of intravenous vancomycin, but not amoxicillin, treatment in adults with the development of obesity. Alternatively, our failure to find a significant association may simply reflect our somewhat smaller sample size.”



Mm, yes, and you could have put up this, their conclusions, as well:

  1. “Exposure to antibiotics during the first 6 months of life is associated with consistent increases in body mass from 10 to 38 months.
  2. “Exposures later in infancy (6–14 months, 15–23 months) are not consistently associated with increased body mass.
  3. “Although effects of early exposures are modest at the individual level, they could have substantial consequences for population health.
  4. “Given the prevalence of antibiotic exposures in infants, and in light of the growing concerns about childhood obesity, further studies are needed to isolate effects and define life-course implications for body mass and cardiovascular risks.”

And then:

“While the composition of the microbiota of adults appears relatively stable, the microbiota of children may be considerably more variable and more vulnerable to antibiotic perturbation.

“Increased risks from childhood antibiotic exposure for atopic dermatitis,asthma and inflammatory bowel disease have been reported.”

Whilst in Denmark they found:

“Antibiotics during the first 6 months of life led to increased risk of overweight among children of normal weight mothers and a decreased risk of overweight among children of overweight or obese mothers .” At age 7.


There’s clearly stuff happening and also it’s abundantly clear that it has not been looked at anything like well enough yet. I’m always aware of the fact that the whole alimentary canal is external to the human body, just contained within it, and so the whole gut lining is body surface tissue, akin to the skin, interacting with the environment surrounding it.

I think antibiotics might have saved my life once (infected arm injury) as well, and so I am also ambivalent about them. My early research conclusions I still maintain – but sadly far too much prophylactic use continues and is compounded by it’s extension into prolonged use in human medication. This can only decrease their effectiveness in emergency situations, select for even more powerful antibiotic-resistance plasmids and provide an environment where problems like obesity may well be encouraged or compounded.


I, too, have much for which to thank antibiotics.

On the other hand, PROPHYLACTIC administration of chloramphenicol to me via twice daily injections, when I was about a six year old, caused me to develop a form of cancer, aplastic anemia. I am one of the extremely rare kids with this drug-induced disease from the early 1960s who has lived to tell the story. Interestingly, there were NO medicines other than iron and some “sugar formulations” available back then, so one might say that my own body won that battle. What precipitated the doctor’s decision to use this drug? His fear that the SOS, recently forced onto me then, was about to cause some “awful” disease in me. Two of my friends at that time had developed glomerulonephritis from the SOS; both almost died and had to spend almost a year in bed while recovering.

One persistent problem with drugs: They always are used to make money and the careers of scientists first. If only mankind were able to cut out the greed and use drugs only when they are indicated and known to be of some genuine benefit to human health.


Pardon my dumdness but “SOS”?


Sabin Oral Solution, aka OPV today.

Want to be made even sicker: The three doses (the little pink sugar cubes) were handed out at local high schools (or other public buildings) after church on three consecutive Sundays. SOS then stood for “Sabin Oral Sunday.” Man, those memories almost bring me to vomit. Yet, that type of hoodwinking of the pubic by health authorities goes on in spades to this day.

My mother was absolutely frantic when she discovered that she could not get me exempted from the SOS. Most people in the know back then, I think, were well aware of the fact that this vaccination was a “death shot.” My family moved to NYC a couple of years after the SOS campaign. My doctor there was Harvard educated, not a pediatrician but a cardiologist (our family doctor). He told my parents that he managed to get each and every pediatric patient in his practice exempted from the SOS. He called Salk, Sabin, and the entire polio vaccination fiasco a “sad joke.”

For the sake of history, this doctor also had a unique way of having his pediatric patients vaccinated with the smallpox vaccination (no one got out of that one back then): He chose a spot on the back of the forearm where the scar never would be seen. How kind of him.


Name changing, shape shifting, alchemical practices. It’s all so Medieval but, hey, the irony of “SOS” is not lost on me!

Help, help.

About greencentre

Non grant supported hence independent scientist, green activist, writer and forest planter.
This entry was posted in Antibiotics, Biomedical-ecology, Diet and nutrition, Diet and weight issues, Digestive process and its efficiency, Ecology of disease, Gut bacterial flora. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s