4 ms·

This does nothing to solve the real problem. The issue isn't (or wasn't) that we couldn't cure MRSA at all, it was a gradual evolution. In the 1960's we had 5 w

by iofj 10y ago

This does nothing to solve the real problem. The issue isn't (or wasn't) that we couldn't cure MRSA at all, it was a gradual evolution. In the 1960's we had 5 working drugs that would kill essentially any bacteria. And then we had 4. We discovered new ones, at one point I believe up to 7. But resistance made it go down pretty much by one per decade, but each next one ended faster. And then it hit zero, in 2012 I believe. Now we may (maybe) be back up to one. Big whoop. Not going to last. The problem is that evolution is out-researching us, the problem is that we're losing the war, not any particular battle. Antibiotics used to last 3-5 decades. Now we're down to years. While we do find new antibiotics on a regular basis, the problem is the speed of adaptation. The problem is that science is losing/has lost the "battle with darkness" as it was called 700 years ago. We are now in the situation that there are people dying because they entered hospitals for unrelated reasons (where they were exposed to these bacteria). The problem is that we need to let millions of people die of curable diseases constantly or risk a Spanish flu like incident that can be reasonably expected to kill somewhere between 500 million and a billion humans today.

ss248 10y ago
"The problem is that we need to let millions of people die of curable diseases constantly" Not the case at all. Biggest use of antibiotics today is in food production(agriculture etc.), not in hospitals. And it's also completely unregulated. "The problem is that evolution is out-researching us" Evolution also has a simple rule: "Use it or lose it". So don't be afraid. There are ways around acquired immunity.
- refurb 10y ago
  And it's also completely unregulated. I think the FDA might disagree with you on that point.
- djrogers 10y ago
  >Biggest use of antibiotics today is in food production(agriculture etc.), not in hospitals. And it's also completely unregulated. Completely false - antibiotic (and all drug) use in animals is absolutely regulated in nearly all countries, including the US [1,2,3]. Said regulations may not be what you'd like, but to claim they don't exist is silly. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Regulatory_context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Re... [2]http://modernfarmer.com/2015/10/california-antibiotic-livestock-regulations/ http://modernfarmer.com/2015/10/california-antibiotic-livest... [3]https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/03/2015-13393/veterinary-feed-directive https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/03/2015-133... edit formatting
  - kpil 10y ago
    True, but it must go down or we will never have functional antibiotics. It seems to be possible, in Italy they use 50 times more antibiotics per pig than here in Sweden, due to the stricter regulation. Denmark is doing good but still uses twice as much as in Sweden. This is due to our regulations, and it costs more to keep the pigs healthy, but due to EU:s strict trade rules, there are no way we can protect our farmers from the cheaper meat. And somehow Italian ham is considered to be of higher quality...
  - ss248 10y ago
    Yeah, I guess I was wrong about regulation. But point still stands. From your second link: "In the U.S., about 80 percent of antibiotics are used for livestock and 20 percent for humans"
danmaz74 10y ago
AFAIK bacteria aren't developing a way to get resistant faster; the problem is antibiotics over-use (and misuse). Also, if an antibiotic for which resistance was developed doesn't get used for a long enough time, the bacteria lose the resistance. The bottom line is that we need to use newly developed antibiotics more carefully, continue researching new ones, and no Spanish flu like incident will happen (even without considering that the Spanish flu was a virus, not a bacterium).
- visarga 10y ago
  > if an antibiotic for which resistance was developed doesn't get used for a long enough time, the bacteria lose the resistance That would suggest that we need a few more antibiotics to cycle though, by the time we get back to the older ones they will be efficient again.
  - iofj 10y ago
    That's not really true. While it's true that bacteria will become vulnerable again - after dozens of years - they will adapt back to resistence far faster as well.
jryan49 10y ago
When the bacteria evolve they also have a chance to lose past immunities, especially if we back off some of the old ones.
zuzzurro 10y ago
We are basically applying selective breeding in order to create the bacteria that will wipe the humanity out, and we are doing a very good job at that..
- dpark 10y ago
  You realize people died from bacterial infections before antibiotics, right? Bacterial resistance to antibiotics doesn't make the bacteria more likely to kill us than before.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by iofj 10y ago

ss248 10y ago

"The problem is that we need to let millions of people die of curable diseases constantly" Not the case at all. Biggest use of antibiotics today is in food production(agriculture etc.), not in hospitals. And it's also completely unregulated. "The problem is that evolution is out-researching us" Evolution also has a simple rule: "Use it or lose it". So don't be afraid. There are ways around acquired immunity.

refurb 10y ago
And it's also completely unregulated. I think the FDA might disagree with you on that point.
djrogers 10y ago
>Biggest use of antibiotics today is in food production(agriculture etc.), not in hospitals. And it's also completely unregulated. Completely false - antibiotic (and all drug) use in animals is absolutely regulated in nearly all countries, including the US [1,2,3]. Said regulations may not be what you'd like, but to claim they don't exist is silly. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Regulatory_context https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Re... [2]http://modernfarmer.com/2015/10/california-antibiotic-livestock-regulations/ http://modernfarmer.com/2015/10/california-antibiotic-livest... [3]https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/03/2015-13393/veterinary-feed-directive https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/06/03/2015-133... edit formatting
- kpil 10y ago
  True, but it must go down or we will never have functional antibiotics. It seems to be possible, in Italy they use 50 times more antibiotics per pig than here in Sweden, due to the stricter regulation. Denmark is doing good but still uses twice as much as in Sweden. This is due to our regulations, and it costs more to keep the pigs healthy, but due to EU:s strict trade rules, there are no way we can protect our farmers from the cheaper meat. And somehow Italian ham is considered to be of higher quality...
- ss248 10y ago
  Yeah, I guess I was wrong about regulation. But point still stands. From your second link: "In the U.S., about 80 percent of antibiotics are used for livestock and 20 percent for humans"

danmaz74 10y ago

AFAIK bacteria aren't developing a way to get resistant faster; the problem is antibiotics over-use (and misuse). Also, if an antibiotic for which resistance was developed doesn't get used for a long enough time, the bacteria lose the resistance. The bottom line is that we need to use newly developed antibiotics more carefully, continue researching new ones, and no Spanish flu like incident will happen (even without considering that the Spanish flu was a virus, not a bacterium).

visarga 10y ago
> if an antibiotic for which resistance was developed doesn't get used for a long enough time, the bacteria lose the resistance That would suggest that we need a few more antibiotics to cycle though, by the time we get back to the older ones they will be efficient again.
- iofj 10y ago
  That's not really true. While it's true that bacteria will become vulnerable again - after dozens of years - they will adapt back to resistence far faster as well.

jryan49 10y ago

When the bacteria evolve they also have a chance to lose past immunities, especially if we back off some of the old ones.

zuzzurro 10y ago

We are basically applying selective breeding in order to create the bacteria that will wipe the humanity out, and we are doing a very good job at that..

dpark 10y ago
You realize people died from bacterial infections before antibiotics, right? Bacterial resistance to antibiotics doesn't make the bacteria more likely to kill us than before.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]