Doom :cry:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28633-resistance-to-last-resort-antibiotic-has-now-spread-across-globe/
Quote
7 December 2015
Resistance to last-resort antibiotic has now spread across globe
The last drug has fallen. Bacteria carrying a gene that allows them to resist polymyxins, the antibiotics of last resort for some kinds of infection, have been found in Denmark and China, prompting a global search for the gene.
The discovery means that gram-negative bacteria, which cause common gut, urinary and blood infections in humans, can now become "pan-resistant", with genes that defeat all antibiotics now available. That will make some infections incurable, unless new kinds of antibiotics are brought to market soon.
Colistin, the most common polymyxin, is a last-resort treatment for infections with bacteria such as E. coli and Klebsiella that resist all other available antibiotics.
In November, Yi-Yun Liu at South China Agricultural University in Guangzhou and colleagues discovered a gene for resistance to colistin in infected livestock, meat and humans. The mcr-1 gene can pass easily between bacteria, and the researchers predicted it could soon go global.
In circulation
Unknown to them, it already had. After their announcement, Frank Aarestrup of the Danish Technical University in Lyngby immediately searched for the sequence in a Danish database of bacterial DNA sampled from people, animals and food. He found it in one person who had a blood infection earlier this year, and in five bacterial samples from poultry meat imported from Germany between 2012 and 2014.
The poultry could have been raised outside Germany, says Aarestrup – he doesn't know its origin. But ominously, all the bacteria also carried genes conferring resistance to many other antibiotics, including penicillin and cephalosporins.
The genes found in Denmark and China are the same, says Aarestrup, suggesting mcr-1 has travelled, rather than arising independently in each place. It is thought to have emerged originally in farm animals fed colistin as an antibiotic growth promoter.
Livestock origin
The gene has not yet been found in North America, says Lance Price of George Washington University in Washington DC, but researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, are now checking genetic databases. One reason for its absence could be that North American livestock farmers use relatively little colistin – although that will not keep the gene from migrating among bacteria.
"We do not now know where in the world it originated," Aarestrup cautions. His team is now trying to get some idea by collecting information and different strains via existing global and European Union research projects that compile genetic sequences from pathogens.
An origin in China seems most probable as antibiotics are widely fed to animals to promote growth. The bulk of the 12,000 tonnes of colistin fed to livestock yearly around the world is used in China, say Liu and colleagues, which would favour the evolution of mcr-1. Antibiotic growth promoters have been banned in Europe precisely because they promote drug-resistant bacteria. Denmark, ironically, was among the first to ban them.
Worldwide concern
The drugs are still heavily used, however, to treat infections common in crowded livestock barns, such as diarrhoea. In 2012, the World Health Organization called colistin critically important for human health, meaning its use in animals should be limited to avoid promoting resistance. Yet in 2013, the European Medicines Agency reported that polymyxins were the fifth most heavily used type of antibiotic in European livestock.
Colistin is used in both humans and animals in India, says Abdul Ghafur of the Apollo Hospital in Chennai. The country is another hotbed of antibiotic resistance because of weak controls on the drugs. "I have treated colistin-resistant infections," Ghafur says, and researchers in India plan to test bacterial samples for the gene.
"If mcr-1 is present in India then that will be a disaster," says Ghafur, who fears it will spread as fast as did genes for resistance to another antibiotic of last resort, carbapenem.
We're all going to die. :(
Who needs Daily Mail and Bild when there is Tim.
ISIS wins... :(
Thanks china
I had a thread about this a few weeks ago, but nobody cared.
it's what you get for overuse
Quote from: Syt on December 09, 2015, 03:11:25 AM
I had a thread about this a few weeks ago, but nobody cared.
You probably didn't word it as bombastic as Tim.
Quote from: Syt on December 09, 2015, 03:11:25 AM
I had a thread about this a few weeks ago, but nobody cared.
Did you put a smiley before the article?
No: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,13524.msg927698.html#msg927698
I did blame mono, though.
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2015, 02:36:39 AM
Who needs Daily Mail and Bild when there is Tim.
To be fair, he has cited New Scientist which is fairly reliable in these matters.
Quote from: Brazen on December 09, 2015, 05:19:51 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 09, 2015, 02:36:39 AM
Who needs Daily Mail and Bild when there is Tim.
To be fair, he has cited New Scientist which is fairly reliable in these matters.
Ouch.
Tim, the Ebola epocalypse didn't get 'us', saving the poors souls who died and those that caught it, so I'm not awaiting TEOTW any time soon.
In short, despite some real mistakes, humanity will pull through this impending crisis and go on to better things*. :cool:
* Colonising Mars etc.
We have never had such a period of peaceful prosperity, it is just that we also have continual breaking news about the bad things that have befallen some small fraction of the world's 7.3bn people.
Unfortunately, there are serious issues that do get glossed over. That can no longer be said about global warming but it can still be said about this issue. As one of the small fraction of the population that does depend on antibiotics working I have to say this is a big concern for me personally. But also for the much larger percentage of the population who do not have a chronic medical condition but who will from time to time have an infection that requires antibiotics this wont be a major issue until it is too late.
Doctors have been calling for banning wide use of antibiotics for livestock for a long time now. Its really too bad that too many people think that this isn't a serious issue and that it is only a bad thing that has befallen some small fraction of the world's 7.3bn people.
I can't recall the first time I heard about the misuse of antibiotics in raising livestock, must be well over 20 years ago though; nothing was done of course, which was an obvioyus mistake then and now.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 12:23:41 PM
Unfortunately, there are serious issues that do get glossed over. That can no longer be said about global warming but it can still be said about this issue. As one of the small fraction of the population that does depend on antibiotics working I have to say this is a big concern for me personally. But also for the much larger percentage of the population who do not have a chronic medical condition but who will from time to time have an infection that requires antibiotics this wont be a major issue until it is too late.
Doctors have been calling for banning wide use of antibiotics for livestock for a long time now. Its really too bad that too many people think that this isn't a serious issue and that it is only a bad thing that has befallen some small fraction of the world's 7.3bn people.
I'm quoting you, bu it ain't for you specifically.
I'm wondering if the opposite can happen. Meaning, once antibiotic resistance has settled in a bacteria, can it be undone? If we change our ways, stop feeding antiobitics to animals and give it to people with a simple cold, could we see these bacterias losing this gene over time? (I know nothing about the subject, forgive me if I sound stupid)
Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2015, 02:03:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 12:23:41 PM
Unfortunately, there are serious issues that do get glossed over. That can no longer be said about global warming but it can still be said about this issue. As one of the small fraction of the population that does depend on antibiotics working I have to say this is a big concern for me personally. But also for the much larger percentage of the population who do not have a chronic medical condition but who will from time to time have an infection that requires antibiotics this wont be a major issue until it is too late.
Doctors have been calling for banning wide use of antibiotics for livestock for a long time now. Its really too bad that too many people think that this isn't a serious issue and that it is only a bad thing that has befallen some small fraction of the world's 7.3bn people.
I'm quoting you, bu it ain't for you specifically.
I'm wondering if the opposite can happen. Meaning, once antibiotic resistance has settled in a bacteria, can it be undone? If we change our ways, stop feeding antiobitics to animals and give it to people with a simple cold, could we see these bacterias losing this gene over time? (I know nothing about the subject, forgive me if I sound stupid)
Well, if the gene doesn't give any survival advantage to the bacteria, then it
might die out. But we're talking about a specific gene that gives the bacteria a resistance to a specific antibiotic. The general problem will probably never go away--for any new antibiotics we develop, some bacteria will eventually develop resistance to it, and natural selection will then the strain that carries that mutation will be favored by natural selection as long as that particular antibiotic is part of the bacteria's environment. All else being equal, the more widely an antibiotic is used, the quicker a strain of germs resistant to that drug will develop and spread.
There was a podcast on this a while back, and some researchers where trying to re-create this recipe to treat eye infections that came out of a medieval medical text.
Lots of hocus pocus involved of course, and a bunch of stuff that didn't really appear to make much sense.
But the odd thing it...it worked. The soup/mess the recipe created effectively killed some 99+% of the stapholococus bacteria in a lab.
They speculated that perhaps this was an early "antibiotic", but that it fell out of use once staph grew a resistance to it, hence the knowledge faded away...but after a few thousands of bacterial generations, that resistance is now gone, and hence it works again.
They were going to follow up with more analysis of the concoction to try to localize that active ingredient.
But the advantage we do have is that bacteria has a very fast generational cycle time (well, that is an advantage and disadvantage, of course). That means that while they can quickly develop resistance, that resistance would likely go away relatively quickly as well...if we could somehow stop using the particular class of anti-biotic.
on the other hand, some experts in the field suspect that it may very well be the case that the last several decades of human ability to decisively treat bacterial infections might be just a blip in human history, and long term we will go back to lots of people dying from these...
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2015, 04:46:46 PM
some experts in the field suspect that it may very well be the case that the last several decades of human ability to decisively treat bacterial infections might be just a blip in human history, and long term we will go back to lots of people dying from these...
OTOH, even if they're correct, that puts a bit of perspective on the issue--we managed to survive as a species for thousands of years without antibiotics.
Quote from: dps on December 09, 2015, 04:53:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2015, 04:46:46 PM
some experts in the field suspect that it may very well be the case that the last several decades of human ability to decisively treat bacterial infections might be just a blip in human history, and long term we will go back to lots of people dying from these...
OTOH, even if they're correct, that puts a bit of perspective on the issue--we managed to survive as a species for thousands of years without antibiotics.
In dramatically smaller numbers and for dramatically shorter periods of time with a dramatically higher mortality rate. So yes, it does provide a great deal of perspective.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2015, 04:46:46 PM
But the advantage we do have is that bacteria has a very fast generational cycle time (well, that is an advantage and disadvantage, of course). That means that while they can quickly develop resistance, that resistance would likely go away relatively quickly as well...if we could somehow stop using the particular class of anti-biotic.
Probably doctors will prescribe cocktails of antibiotics that each are potentially effective, diminishing the chance resistance will go away.
Quote from: dps on December 09, 2015, 04:53:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2015, 04:46:46 PM
some experts in the field suspect that it may very well be the case that the last several decades of human ability to decisively treat bacterial infections might be just a blip in human history, and long term we will go back to lots of people dying from these...
OTOH, even if they're correct, that puts a bit of perspective on the issue--we managed to survive as a species for thousands of years without antibiotics.
We wouldn't be talking about it if we hadn't, would we? Millions of years of survival can be canceled out by one moment of non-survival.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 08:07:55 PM
In dramatically smaller numbers and for dramatically shorter periods of time with a dramatically higher mortality rate. So yes, it does provide a great deal of perspective.
The increases in population and longevity are more to do with improved nutrition and public health initiatives like sanitation than antibiotics.
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2015, 04:46:46 PM
on the other hand, some experts in the field suspect that it may very well be the case that the last several decades of human ability to decisively treat bacterial infections might be just a blip in human history, and long term we will go back to lots of people dying from these...
It seems more likely that in the not to distant future we will have much more sophisticated means to target bacterial infections through newly developed medicines. We understand bacterial chemistry and genetics quite well. If we are talking about the timeline of human history scale, and assuming we aren't all bathed in nuclear fire before then, I have to think we will be able to use that knowledge to attack infections much better than now.
Quote from: Tyr on December 09, 2015, 02:49:40 AM
Thanks china
I didn't know you were South African.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2015, 08:16:32 PM
We wouldn't be talking about it if we hadn't, would we? Millions of years of survival can be canceled out by one moment of non-survival.
Enough about grumbler.
When you're talking about this species, it's more like seven billion moments of non-survival, within a fairly short time span. Drug-resistant bacteria still have the problem that killing their host makes it harder to spread. And there's the odd survivor or person who's immune to the disease.
I'm ready to go, sitting on the shitter like Elvis. Who's with me?
We can go back to testing silver as a antimicrobial. They where making advances before penicillin became the go to antibiotic.
Quote from: Scipio on December 09, 2015, 09:35:02 PM
I'm ready to go, sitting on the shitter like Elvis. Who's with me?
Dude, nobody here wants to sit on the shitter with you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 08:07:55 PM
Quote from: dps on December 09, 2015, 04:53:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2015, 04:46:46 PM
some experts in the field suspect that it may very well be the case that the last several decades of human ability to decisively treat bacterial infections might be just a blip in human history, and long term we will go back to lots of people dying from these...
OTOH, even if they're correct, that puts a bit of perspective on the issue--we managed to survive as a species for thousands of years without antibiotics.
In dramatically smaller numbers and for dramatically shorter periods of time with a dramatically higher mortality rate. So yes, it does provide a great deal of perspective.
Yeah, I don't think the concern here is that without antibiotics humanity will cease to exist.
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 09:25:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 09, 2015, 08:07:55 PM
Quote from: dps on December 09, 2015, 04:53:12 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2015, 04:46:46 PM
some experts in the field suspect that it may very well be the case that the last several decades of human ability to decisively treat bacterial infections might be just a blip in human history, and long term we will go back to lots of people dying from these...
OTOH, even if they're correct, that puts a bit of perspective on the issue--we managed to survive as a species for thousands of years without antibiotics.
In dramatically smaller numbers and for dramatically shorter periods of time with a dramatically higher mortality rate. So yes, it does provide a great deal of perspective.
Yeah, I don't think the concern here is that without antibiotics humanity will cease to exist.
On the bright side, it would do wonders for our global warming problem. :D
Quote from: alfred russel on December 09, 2015, 08:14:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 09, 2015, 04:46:46 PM
But the advantage we do have is that bacteria has a very fast generational cycle time (well, that is an advantage and disadvantage, of course). That means that while they can quickly develop resistance, that resistance would likely go away relatively quickly as well...if we could somehow stop using the particular class of anti-biotic.
Probably doctors will prescribe cocktails of antibiotics that each are potentially effective, diminishing the chance resistance will go away.
Doctors already prescribe wide spectrum antibiotics. The problem is a growing resistance to even the most powerful of those wide spectrum drugs. If it was really as simple as putting together a new "cocktail" then there would be no problem. But it is not that simple.
I would like to think the medical community has learned a powerful lesson in our battle with bacterial infection that will be useful in future efforts and not so much 'DOOOMED' but we will see.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 11:33:24 AM
I would like to think the medical community has learned a powerful lesson in our battle with bacterial infection that will be useful in future efforts and not so much 'DOOOMED' but we will see.
The issue isn't with the medical community. They already know the problem and who is causing it. The problem is frankly the livestock industry and everyone who buys medicated meat to eat.
It is a classic economics problem.
there is a HUGE hidden cost to giving individuals antibiotics that should result in doctors being very careful about doing so. However, there is also huge and immediate pressure to value the current health of a patient over the largely invisible and collective cost of over-prescribing antibiotics. This is well known, well understood, and has been very visible in theory for a very long time within the medical community...and yet largely ignored because at the end of the day doctors answer to their immediate patients needs.
I don't know if there is any possible solution to this that would work in a basically free society. you would need the government to take control of antibiotics or something.
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 11:46:45 AM
It is a classic economics problem.
there is a HUGE hidden cost to giving individuals antibiotics that should result in doctors being very careful about doing so. However, there is also huge and immediate pressure to value the current health of a patient over the largely invisible and collective cost of over-prescribing antibiotics. This is well known, well understood, and has been very visible in theory for a very long time within the medical community...and yet largely ignored because at the end of the day doctors answer to their immediate patients needs.
I don't know if there is any possible solution to this that would work in a basically free society. you would need the government to take control of antibiotics or something.
You have not identified the correct economic problem. The rise in drug resistant bacteria is mainly a problem of using the drug to raise meat on an industrial scale. The benefit is relatively cheap and abundant meat so that everyone can still buy an inexpensive hamburger. The huge hidden cost is the resulting drug resistant bacteria.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 11:57:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 11:46:45 AM
It is a classic economics problem.
there is a HUGE hidden cost to giving individuals antibiotics that should result in doctors being very careful about doing so. However, there is also huge and immediate pressure to value the current health of a patient over the largely invisible and collective cost of over-prescribing antibiotics. This is well known, well understood, and has been very visible in theory for a very long time within the medical community...and yet largely ignored because at the end of the day doctors answer to their immediate patients needs.
I don't know if there is any possible solution to this that would work in a basically free society. you would need the government to take control of antibiotics or something.
You have not identified the correct economic problem. The rise in drug resistant bacteria is mainly a problem of using the drug to raise meat on an industrial scale. The benefit is relatively cheap and abundant meat so that everyone can still buy an inexpensive hamburger. The huge hidden cost is the resulting drug resistant bacteria.
Is that the primary driver, or is it just prescribing antibiotics in humans itself?
edit: I know this is what THIS particular article focused on, but I've been reading about the overall issue long before anyone brought up antibiotic use in livestock. I don't doubt that this could accelerate the problem, of course. But I am skeptical that absent it, the problem doesn't still exist.
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 11:58:34 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 11:57:12 AM
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 11:46:45 AM
It is a classic economics problem.
there is a HUGE hidden cost to giving individuals antibiotics that should result in doctors being very careful about doing so. However, there is also huge and immediate pressure to value the current health of a patient over the largely invisible and collective cost of over-prescribing antibiotics. This is well known, well understood, and has been very visible in theory for a very long time within the medical community...and yet largely ignored because at the end of the day doctors answer to their immediate patients needs.
I don't know if there is any possible solution to this that would work in a basically free society. you would need the government to take control of antibiotics or something.
You have not identified the correct economic problem. The rise in drug resistant bacteria is mainly a problem of using the drug to raise meat on an industrial scale. The benefit is relatively cheap and abundant meat so that everyone can still buy an inexpensive hamburger. The huge hidden cost is the resulting drug resistant bacteria.
Is that the primary driver, or is it just prescribing antibiotics in humans itself?
It is. There is some drug resistance which occurs when prescribing to a human patient to deal with an infection but that normally occurs when the patient doesn't take the drug properly - ie to the end of the prescription and they simply stop taking it when they start feeling better. Under those circumstances some of the infecting bacteria can survive and pass on their resistance so that the next generation of that bacteria is resistant to that dose. But when the drug is taken properly it is rare for the bacteria being treated to survive.
As an anecdote - in the years I have needed to take antibiotics to clear an infection from my lungs I have been able to take the same one and the same dose each time. I am very careful of course to take the drug exactly as prescribed so I don't slowly kill myself by building my own drug resistant strains. But I am still obviously at risk of coming into contact with other resistant strains.
There is also the problem of prescribing to people who don't actually have an infection. That is probably the biggest problem.
Interesting - I am sure you know more about this than myself, since it directly affects you of course.
This is actually pretty good news, since it does mean that there could be a solution at least. Get fucking China to quit feeding cows our antibiotics!
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:07:16 PM
It is.
Well then we have an straightforward solution don't we? Outlaw antibiotics for use in livestock. That is sure much more straightforward than regulating doctor prescriptions.
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 12:09:25 PM
This is actually pretty good news, since it does mean that there could be a solution at least. Get fucking China to quit feeding cows our antibiotics!
Yep.
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 12:09:25 PM
Interesting - I am sure you know more about this than myself, since it directly affects you of course.
This is actually pretty good news, since it does mean that there could be a solution at least. Get fucking China to quit feeding cows our antibiotics!
Good and bad. There is a possible solution but I am doubtful consumers will stop buying medicated meat in large enough numbers to change the industry in North America or elsewhere.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:13:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 12:09:25 PM
Interesting - I am sure you know more about this than myself, since it directly affects you of course.
This is actually pretty good news, since it does mean that there could be a solution at least. Get fucking China to quit feeding cows our antibiotics!
Good and bad. There is a possible solution but I am doubtful consumers will stop buying medicated meat in large enough numbers to change the industry in North America or elsewhere.
Shrug.
This is a perfect example of why I am a "small-l" libertarian.
A classic case where you need some kind of intervention because the free market (certainly the global free market) does not suffice to protect society as a whole.
Simply make it part of the licensing process for sale of meat. It cannot be treated with these kinds of antibiotics.
Of course, the problem then becomes how do you force a country like China to play ball. Not so hard to do if they want export said meat, but the problem is that even their domestic consumption has impacts outside China.
Isn't this what we have the UN for???
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:13:05 PM
Good and bad. There is a possible solution but I am doubtful consumers will stop buying medicated meat in large enough numbers to change the industry in North America or elsewhere.
Um if medicated meat is going to endanger all of our lives I am pretty sure we will. And why wouldn't a major health crisis not be regulated?
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 12:19:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:13:05 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 12:09:25 PM
Interesting - I am sure you know more about this than myself, since it directly affects you of course.
This is actually pretty good news, since it does mean that there could be a solution at least. Get fucking China to quit feeding cows our antibiotics!
Good and bad. There is a possible solution but I am doubtful consumers will stop buying medicated meat in large enough numbers to change the industry in North America or elsewhere.
Shrug.
This is a perfect example of why I am a "small-l" libertarian.
A classic case where you need some kind of intervention because the free market (certainly the global free market) does not suffice to protect society as a whole.
Simply make it part of the licensing process for sale of meat. It cannot be treated with these kinds of antibiotics.
Of course, the problem then becomes how do you force a country like China to play ball. Not so hard to do if they want export said meat, but the problem is that even their domestic consumption has impacts outside China.
Isn't this what we have the UN for???
Before you start looking at China, take a closer look at what is happening in the US. Everyone is using industrial meat production. I think it is going to take a serious outbreak of an untreatable strain of bacteria before that is stopped.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 12:19:30 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:13:05 PM
Good and bad. There is a possible solution but I am doubtful consumers will stop buying medicated meat in large enough numbers to change the industry in North America or elsewhere.
Um if medicated meat is going to endanger all of our lives I am pretty sure we will. And why wouldn't a major health crisis not be regulated?
Yeah, that's the point Valmy. Why hasn't it been regulated?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:27:06 PM
Yeah, that's the point Valmy. Why hasn't it been regulated?
This is not common knowledge. But if this is true then surely it cannot go on much longer. I have heard a big public discussion on over-prescribing anti-biotics and how important it is you use the entire prescription. I have never heard anybody say this was about livestock before.
If nobody is talking about it it is kind of hard for the consumers to stop buying the meat isn't it?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:26:24 PM
Before you start looking at China, take a closer look at what is happening in the US. Everyone is using industrial meat production. I think it is going to take a serious outbreak of an untreatable strain of bacteria before that is stopped.
We have been using large scale industrial meat production long before anti-biotics were a thing though.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 12:30:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:27:06 PM
Yeah, that's the point Valmy. Why hasn't it been regulated?
This is not common knowledge. But if this is true then surely it cannot go on much longer. I have heard a big public discussion on over-prescribing anti-biotics and how important it is you use the entire prescription. I have never heard anybody say this was about livestock before.
Its been true and has been talked about for at least the last 20 years. But its like global warming. Scientists had been warning about it for years but nobody really starting paying attention until the general public began to actually experience the effects of 1 in 100 year storms happening regularly.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 12:31:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:26:24 PM
Before you start looking at China, take a closer look at what is happening in the US. Everyone is using industrial meat production. I think it is going to take a serious outbreak of an untreatable strain of bacteria before that is stopped.
We have been using large scale industrial meat production long before anti-biotics were a thing though.
Really? What do you have in mind?
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:32:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 12:30:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:27:06 PM
Yeah, that's the point Valmy. Why hasn't it been regulated?
This is not common knowledge. But if this is true then surely it cannot go on much longer. I have heard a big public discussion on over-prescribing anti-biotics and how important it is you use the entire prescription. I have never heard anybody say this was about livestock before.
Its been true and has been talked about for at least the last 20 years. But its like global warming. Scientists had been warning about it for years but nobody really starting paying attention until the general public began to actually experience the effects of 1 in 100 year storms happening regularly.
Not in anyway I personally have noticed and I remember talking about Global Warming, and having it be a subject of public discussion, in the early 90s so it is not getting anywhere near the play of Global Warming. As I said it has not even been brought up when discussing anti-biotics. I always hear the doctors being blamed for over-prescribing, which goes well with the general paranoia over big pharma. If scientists are united about this why aren't we seeing doctors and health professionals making noise and the FDA taking action?
Having said that all the meat I get notes it was not made using anti-biotics, but I had never heard the significance. So I guess I was helping out before I even knew the problem.
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 12:38:08 PM
Having said that all the meat I get notes it was not made using anti-biotics, but I had never heard the significance. So I guess I was helping out before I even knew the problem.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 12:38:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:32:44 PM
Quote from: Valmy on December 10, 2015, 12:30:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 10, 2015, 12:27:06 PM
Yeah, that's the point Valmy. Why hasn't it been regulated?
This is not common knowledge. But if this is true then surely it cannot go on much longer. I have heard a big public discussion on over-prescribing anti-biotics and how important it is you use the entire prescription. I have never heard anybody say this was about livestock before.
Its been true and has been talked about for at least the last 20 years. But its like global warming. Scientists had been warning about it for years but nobody really starting paying attention until the general public began to actually experience the effects of 1 in 100 year storms happening regularly.
Not in anyway I personally have noticed and I remember talking about Global Warming, and having it be a subject of public discussion, in the early 90s so it is not getting anywhere near the play of Global Warming. As I said it has not even been brought up when discussing anti-biotics. I always hear the doctors being blamed for over-prescribing, which goes well with the general paranoia over big pharma. If scientists are united about this why aren't we seeing doctors and health professionals making noise and the FDA taking action?
I am with Valmy here - I've heard a lot about the problem of AB resistant bacteria, but this is actually the first I've ever heard that a significant part of the problem is NOT over-prescription, but rather livestock practices.
If that is actually the case (and intuitively it seems like it would be) then I would think if nothing else doctors groups would be saying things like "Hey, leave us the fuck alone! We are not the problem here!".
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 02:48:33 PM
I am with Valmy here - I've heard a lot about the problem of AB resistant bacteria, but this is actually the first I've ever heard that a significant part of the problem is NOT over-prescription, but rather livestock practices.
If that is actually the case (and intuitively it seems like it would be) then I would think if nothing else doctors groups would be saying things like "Hey, leave us the fuck alone! We are not the problem here!".
It's both. Antibiotics over-prescribed to humans are more likely to cause resistance in bacteria strains that are dangerous to humans (see resistant TB) but the huge amount of usage in animals means that many more bacteria are exposed and develop resistance. Few of these strains are likely to be dangerous to humans, but the ones that are become problematic.
And to be clear the over prescribing issue mainly relates to patients with no bacterial infection. That is, as I described earlier a problem.
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 09:25:36 AM
Yeah, I don't think the concern here is that without antibiotics humanity will cease to exist.
Of course not. But Timmay overhypes it as if that were the fear. Granted, he takes his cue on that from the media.
Quote from: Berkut
This is a perfect example of why I am a "small-l" libertarian.
A classic case where you need some kind of intervention because the free market (certainly the global free market) does not suffice to protect society as a whole.
Simply make it part of the licensing process for sale of meat. It cannot be treated with these kinds of antibiotics.
Of course, the problem then becomes how do you force a country like China to play ball. Not so hard to do if they want export said meat, but the problem is that even their domestic consumption has impacts outside China.
Agree.
Quote from: crazy canuckAnd to be clear the over prescribing issue mainly relates to patients with no bacterial infection. That is, as I described earlier a problem.
Yeah, doctors will
still sometimes prescribe antibiotics to patients with the flu or a bad cold, but those are viral infections, and antibiotics don't do shit against viruses. Or, the doctor doesn't know why the patient is sick, but will give them antibiotics in the hope that that will clear up whatever it is.
The USFDA has already issued guidelines to curb the use of antibiotics as routine feed additives to livestock (the law itself won't be changed so long as the Luddite Republicans are the majority). Some drug companies have already consequently relabeled drugs to require a veterinary's approval for their use. Violations of such labeling is a crime. It's still not clear that voluntary efforts will be enough, however, as the farm industry has a lot of clout.
I've not seen anything that indicates that animal feed antimicrobial additives are the leading cause of drug-resistant bacteria. I rather suspect that this is a convenient boogieman. It seems, rather, that it's a problem, not the problem.
Quote from: dps on December 10, 2015, 05:47:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on December 10, 2015, 09:25:36 AM
Yeah, I don't think the concern here is that without antibiotics humanity will cease to exist.
Of course not. But Timmay overhypes it as if that were the fear. Granted, he takes his cue on that from the media.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that.