>>12736966Not him but that's not how it works: you take something (a new medication, a broad spectrum antibiotic, an anabolic steroid, whatever) and your kidneys can't break it down so it physically builds up in the tissue until it destroys the cells.
The first few doses or even the first dose can be enough even though your physician is going to wait a few months before testing you.
>why don't they test sooner if the damage is being done immediately?Because the tests are crude (over simplifying here but) it either looks for evidence of cellular damage via free floating stuff in your blood (think looking for evidence of a car crash by seeing wreckage strewn about) or a failure on the part of the kidneys to do its normal functions.
The problem with both is that 1) it takes a lot of damage all at once to create enough stuff to be detected and 2) your kidneys will compensate for their diminishing functionality by working harder, meaning you won't see signs of a failure to keep up until they're just about giving out.
>why can't you detect the built up medication sludging up the kidneys?Because we don't have a test for that, maybe an MRI would find it but maybe not since it may be a near microscopic amount of material that would really require a kidney biopsy
