Jimmer Expected To Miss The Game @ UTEP

clemdiggitydog1 wrote:
Any physician worth his/her salt knows that if a person with mono is given an amoxicillin type antibiotic for strept,they'll frequently get a rash,in fact this is one way to know you've missed the correct diagnosis of acute infectious mono in the patient in question.My apologies to Jay Drew for his lack of medical knowledge aside.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

this is one of the reasons I love this board. I never would have known that. I guess they know what it is now.

clemdiggitydog1 wrote:
Any physician worth his/her salt knows that if a person with mono is given an amoxicillin type antibiotic for strept,they'll frequently get a rash,in fact this is one way to know you've missed the correct diagnosis of acute infectious mono in the patient in question.My apologies to Jay Drew for his lack of medical knowledge aside.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Aside from the fact that that same antibiotic can cause a rash without a diagnosis or existance of mono. I doubt Jimmer took the antibiotic while he was in the outpatient clinic.

He got diagnosed with strep got a prescription, filled it, and got a rash... not that unusual



not until he got the rash, I'm sure did they bother to do the bloodwork... again pretty par for the course

the point i was trying to make Craigo,and yes obviosly any antibiotic can cause a rash ,of course you're right,is that frequently in outpatient setting the sine quo non of mono is #1,patient gets treated for strept with positive strept test in clinic,#2 patient gets rash from amoxil type antibiotic,#3 patient then has confirmatory test ie. mono spot or EBV blood work and she or in this case he has concomittant mono,and the diagnosis is aided by the development of the rash which happens not due to amoxil allergy in that patient but due to the concomittant mono.anyway thats what probably happened in this case, thus the initial mystery

by the way Craig,i get what you're saying about he did not take the amoxil while still in the clinic,it's just that the media portrayed it rightly or perhaps wrongly,that there was some "mystery" diagnosis which had not yet been made,even after the development of the rash and for several daysthereafter,thus my initial comment.i can't invision any other reason though for his wearing the long sleeve shirt in the Vegas game, than that trainers may have thought even then that the rash itself was communicable?i know,speculation.(i guess maybe Jimmer did'nt think it looked purty)

clemdiggitydog1 wrote:
by the way Craig,i get what you're saying about he did not take the amoxil while still in the clinic,it's just that the media portrayed it rightly or perhaps wrongly,that there was some "mystery" diagnosis which had not yet been made,even after the development of the rash and for several daysthereafter,thus my initial comment.i can't invision any other reason though for his wearing the long sleeve shirt in the Vegas game, than that trainers may have thought even then that the rash itself was communicable?i know,speculation.(i guess maybe Jimmer did'nt think it looked purty)

The media didn't go to med school ... ;)



1. oh you have strep throat

2. here's your antibiotics

3. oh you're back and you have a rash

4. you're either allergic or immunocompromised; let's draw some blood

5. oh you have cmv/mono(ebv)



not much mystery

Ok,I can see this discussion with YOU isn't going anywhere,oh Omniscient One.the issue was several days brewing,as I indicated previously.that's it.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

clemdiggitydog1 wrote:
Ok,I can see this discussion with YOU isn't going anywhere,oh Omniscient One.the issue was several days brewing,as I indicated previously.that's it.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I have for all practical purposes agreed with you; I just don't think the media has gotten this right nor do I think we know or understand the true timeline.



I'm just a little putoff at the insinuations that the docs did anything wrong, when this seems like a pretty routine situation with a pretty standard timeline.

OK,there was no 'mystery',forget about it.On another subject,I was very impressed with your ability to keep the infidels at bay on the ESPN board post Zona game.Wat to represent,and keep your head.Cougar Nation thanks you.diggity



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">