Drug-Resistant Superbugs Sweeping Across Europe 433
Pierre Bezukhov writes "Klebsiella pneumoniae is a common cause of pneumonia, urinary tract, and bloodstream infections in hospital patients. The superbug form is resistant even to a class of medicines called carbapenems, the most powerful known antibiotics, which are usually reserved by doctors as a last line of defense. The ECDC said several EU member states were now reporting that between 15 and up to 50 percent of K. pneumoniae from bloodstream infections were resistant to carbapenems. To a large extent, antibiotic resistance is driven by the misuse and overuse of antibiotics, which encourages bacteria to develop new ways of overcoming them. Experts say primary care doctors are partly to blame for prescribing antibiotics for patients who demand them unnecessarily, and hospitals are also guilty of overuse."
VS (Score:5, Interesting)
Any reason why this would not be the case in the US?
Re:VS (Score:5, Informative)
It is the case in the US.
Re:VS (Score:4, Insightful)
Drug-resistant tuberculosis (extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis - XDR-TB) and drug-resistant staph (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus - MRSA) have been reported in the U.S.
Very worrisome trend. Over-prescribing of antibiotics combined with misuse (taking a little, then stopping, instead of taking a full regimen to completely eliminate the pathogen) can result in the survival of resistant strains of microbes. It was bound to happen anyway, but now the trend has accelerated.
We'll have to resort to novel approaches very soon to attack these critters--nanotechnology holds a lot of promise, some forms of radiation, and new drugs.
We should be treating this as a public health emergency and providing appropriate funds to develop cures.
Re: (Score:3)
" (taking a little, then stopping, instead of taking a full regimen to completely eliminate the pathogen)"
that is the cause, far more the over prescribing. Over prescribing means you piss way antibiotic, and impact the good stuff. Which should be stopped, but it is foolish to say over prescribing is what is driving the evolutionary change.
Re: (Score:3)
So a few weeks ago my neighbor, a blue collar, beer drinkin, pot smoking guy in his 50s, gets a spider bite on his finger which gets infected. It keeps getting worse, his finger doubled in size, turned bright red, with red streaks going up his arm. Finally I convince him to go to the doctor.
He goes, gets powerful antibiotics, and starts to get better. I ask him a few days later how he's doing... his response? "Oh it's getting better, but I don't like how the antibiotics make me feel so I stopped taking
Re: (Score:2)
Only the cheap/poor timid ones or ones with stubborn doctors. You can be surprised how far "samples" can be stretched and how often handed out.
Re:VS (Score:5, Insightful)
USians pay for their medicine so they most likely are not prescribed as many by their doctors.
I don't think that is the case. Doctors might find it harder to say "just go home and take asprin" if someone is paying for the consultation. I can't find figures but my feeling is that its just as bad - the European report was issued because most emphasis up to now has been in the USA [eurosurveillance.org]. I know that multi-resistant TB occurred in the USA and then spread to Europe, not that one example shows much. In all likelihood it actually occurred first in a third-world country with endemic TB and antibiotics available over the counter but tests found it first in te USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:VS (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Per head, compared to Americans, very little.
Re:VS (Score:5, Insightful)
Compared to the US, they pay relatively little.
The US government spends as much *per American* on health care as the UK government does per UK citizen, and government spending in the US accounts for a bit under half of our medical expenses. So we pay about double.
The reason of course is monopoly powers. The UK government isn't as beholden to Pfeizer as the US government is, and so we charter monopolies to control the market and in an effort to correct those problems require people to buy into those monopolies. Idiocy on top of stupidity. If we wanted to tackle the problem of health care costs, we'd focus on increasing supply. John Medaille has made some proposals I would get entirely behind:
1) Compulsatory licensing for medical-related patents, in order to break up patent-based manufacturing monopolies for medication, medical devices, and the like.
2) Chartering medical guilds which would replace the AMA. The guilds would be bound into malpractice insurance pools, would be in charge of licensing their members, setting licensing requirements, etc. This would create downward pressure on costs of medical training, while creating upward pressures on professionalism.
But no, we think that disempowering consumers will rein in costs. I think Aristotle would have a few things to say about it, which might not account for much except that the last 2500 years of human experience has largely proven him right on this matter.
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK, obviously medicine IS getting paid for. But it's free at point of use (minus a flat-rate prescription charge for medicine from pharmacies). As most funding comes out of taxes, you're already paying for your medicine (whether you use it or not).
It's a good system in many respects. But it does remove an obvious barrier to a person going into their doctor's office and demanding a course of antibiotics for the disease they believe they've got after reading Wikipedia. If you knew you had to fork out
Re:VS (Score:4, Insightful)
That >2% comes from the funds that they don't spend invading other countries, feeling you up at the airport and paying spooks to pore over your Facebook profile.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
USians pay for their medicine so they most likely are not prescribed as many by their doctors.
"USians" pay for their doctors, and if the doctor won't prescribe them what they want, they'll take their money to one that will.
Re:VS (Score:5, Interesting)
It's actually more likely to build resistance - because USians pay for their medicine, they are much less likely to complete a course of antibiotics.
The article misrepresents the position - antibiotics don't "encourage bacteria to develop new ways of overcoming them", they just leave behind bacteria that have more resistance. It's therefore very important to go Darth Sidious on their ass and "wipe them out. All of them.", or the few that remain will multiply, unobstructed by their cream-puff peers who are all dead now.
Paying for your medicine gives you an incentive to stop taking it as soon as you feel well, rather then comply with the advice of your doctor and finish the course. A lot of people save the remainder of the course for future illnesses.
The doctor has no incentive to refuse you antibiotics, as pointed out by siblings. Because your perception of his care matters to his paycheck, he's far more likely to prescribe them. Even in a socialised healthcare system, doctors will prescribe antibiotics just to get the patient out of their office so they can see the next one.
This doesn't take into account that the other thing that USians do / did with antibiotics (do they still do this?) is feed them to their livestock. If the animal isn't funding the growth of bacteria with it's nutrients, it will grow more itself. Alas, this also promotes resistance.
The pharma companies have no incentive to fix this either, because they can sell newer (often less effective) antibiotics that have less communal resistance. They are ecstatic that the old antibiotics no longer work, because they are out of patent and anyone could make them for a few pennies a dose. Instead they can sell "last line" drugs that cost upwards of $100 a day.
Re:VS (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem with "last line" drugs is that they cannot really be given to many. They tend to cause things like complete kidney and liver failures you see. As a result, their profitability is quite shit due to small volumes - these drugs are literally something you only give when you see that patient will likely die. Also these antibiotics aren't "new", most of them have been known for a long time. They just weren't given because side effects were utterly devastating to human organs responsible for cleaning toxins out of the bloodstream.
I agree (Score:4, Interesting)
It is also worthy to note that this had to be administered intravenously, which means the resistant strains emerging would not be related to doctors prescribing oral antibiotics. The intravenous modality of these drugs decreases the occurrence of over-prescribing. This drug would quickly "ruin the site" as they said in the hospital, which meant the intravenous entry point had to be relocated frequently.
Re: (Score:3)
Thing is, most of the stuff that's "more strong" isn't really "new" per se. It's just that it's so harmful to human body, that it wasn't advised to ever really give it before, because the less nasty antibiotics worked on pretty much everything that more common ones couldn't get.
So nowadays there are cases where doctor/patient literally has to decide, do they risk letting the infection take its course, or do they kill the infection but also kill patient's kidneys/liver alongside the infection.
Re: (Score:3)
A couple of points:
1. You're correct that just 'not finishing the prescription' isn't a big part of antibiotic resistance. It's complicated (sigh). And feed lot supplementation is a big, big problem however, it alone doesn't explain, for example, floroquinolone resistance (as such drugs aren't usually given to feedlot animals). So there are multiple issues in play which makes it virtually impossible to stop the process.
2. I suspect that the 'ideologically taken' physician is relatively rare (never say n
Re: (Score:3)
I believe you're making some unjustified presumptions. It wasn't relevant in the original post to go into so much detail, but the patient in question was an insulin-dependent diabetic, and the first physician certainly should have seen a clear reason for using antibiotic in an infected -- or even a probably infected -- patient of this category. There was no mistranslation or misunderstanding by the patient, but there are frequently a whole lot of unjustified putdowns of patients by folk who assume with much
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it does. The fact that these soaps haven't been banned yet shows how serious the EU takes this problem.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
Giving antibiotics to farm animals also doesn't help and genetically mutilated crops is an other example of the same problem of making bacteria drug resistant.
There is enough talk about reducing antibiotics for humans and animals though, but the pharmaceutical industry is lobbying against this kind of regulation for obvious reasons. The more they sell, the better. For them that is. Go free economy where only money rules and common sense comes last...
Making antibiotics ridiculously expensive and inaccessible for people who really need them is indeed one way to "regulate" the use of antibiotics instead of simply not prescribing it for a simple cough.
But also for over consumption. Everybody knows this will become a huge problem sooner or later, but everybody also decides to look the other way and hope it will go away. It's human nature I think. But nature will definitely find a new balance. It's like a nuclear reactor. If you don't regulate, things will get out of hand. We might like the outcome. We might not. :)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
and genetically mutilated crops is an other example of the same problem of making bacteria drug resistant
I agree with most of the post, but this is just silly. Kinda takes away from credibility of the rest of it. WTF has GM food got with drug resistant bacteria, for crying out loud?
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
The banana story has absolutely nothing to do with drug resistant bacteria. The reason an entire species of banana can be wiped out by a single pathogen is because farmed bananas, as they are produced today, are all genetic clones. (They are not necessarily even GMO; they are just clones.) Thus, cultivated bananas do not have the same genetic diversity that other species do; you're unlikely to find a single banana that has resistance to something that another banana does not. And that's why when one plant goes, they can all go. But this is a completely separate issue from how bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry to nitpick. but a virus does not react to antibiotics at all - those are for bacteria. For a virus you need completely other classes of substances like tetracyclines or interferone.
Re: (Score:3)
This is one of the problems, people go to their doctor for anti-biotics for a cold or other Viral infection, and complain when the doctor (quite correctly) says it won't help ...
The other issue is that people are given a course of anti-biotics (e.g. 3 weeks) and stop after 2 "because they are feeling better" .. and so the remaining bacteria are the most resistant, and most likely to be treated by the same doctor with the same anti-biotic ...
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
This is one of the problems, people go to their doctor for anti-biotics for a cold or other Viral infection, and complain when the doctor (quite correctly) says it won't help ...
The other issue is that people are given a course of anti-biotics (e.g. 3 weeks) and stop after 2 "because they are feeling better" .. and so the remaining bacteria are the most resistant, and most likely to be treated by the same doctor with the same anti-biotic ...
That's a popular theme but I would point out that it doesn't make a whole like of sense and has never been demonstrated to be true.
Firstly, antibiotics never kill all of the bacteria. You need an intact immune system to help. That's one of the big issues with AIDS and cancer patients. You need to kill off enough bugs to let the immune system get the upper hand. So there will always be survivors and so there will always be relatively resistant drugs. The absolute magnitude of the effect is open to conjecture.
Even if you do take all of your antibiotics, the treatment length for the vast majority of infections is perfectly arbitrary. We really don't know how long to appropriately treat.
Then there is the issue of resident bacteria. You simply cannot and should not clear the body of useful bacteria such as staphylococcus and E.coli. Remember, most of "you" is bacteria. The pathogenic (disease causing) strains have this annoying habit of transferring genetic data to other strains and even other species with quite a degree of alacrity. In fact, the concept of 'species' in bacteria is getting strained because of rampant horizontal gene transfer. So Mr. Antibiotic resistant organism can send little packets of DNA glee to all of his friends and relatives, even at low numbers.
And, of course, then there is the problem of antibiotics in animal feed, antibiotics in soap, antibiotics in bog-knows-what-all.
It's a good idea to complete your course of antibiotics, or at least discuss stopping early with your provider, but it is not nearly as cut and dried as that.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
cattle are fed corn, because it is heavily subsidized
Obvious solution: end farming subsidies. If meat gets more expensive, import it from third world countries, where cattle is raised on the range. Use import duties and quotas to enforce good environmental practices in the producing countries.
Everybody wins, including the corn farmers who will end the monoculture that damages their soil. By rotating crops like alfalfa and soybeans they will need much less fertilizer.
Re: (Score:3)
But you guys banned imports from us because of our foot and mouth issues!
Re: (Score:3)
Cheaper isn't exactly true, or rather I think people are likely to understand it incorrectly.
Corn fed beef is cheaper for a variety of reasons, and cheap corn prices enable the feedlot style of beef ranching. Feedlots require a lot less land per animal and so are less expensive to start up and maintain. You don't have to worry about cattle getting lost or eaten by predators. Since corn has a much higher caloric value than grass the steers grow larger more quickly and have a higher % of body fat, which is ac
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Why do you hate America? Only liberals believe in actually paying our debts.
Here in the United Tea Party States we know that if we just pray real hard and eliminate all taxes, everything we need will be supplied by Jesus, riding on a golden unicorn.
So just stop it with your socialist ideas about providing for the common defense and general welfare. True patriots know that George Washington didn't like that sort of thing, and that's why he put the words "under God" into th
Re: (Score:3)
Buying non-industrial meat is a great idea anyway. Recently I found out we have a "biological" farm close by end they sell their meat to the biological supermarket close by. That meat has a lot more flavour than the regular saline injected (you pay for some added salty water. why?!) supermarket meat.
Re: (Score:3)
Then we eat the meat, laced with antibiotics, and the viruses in our bloodstream mutate to brush off this rather mild onslaught.
*sigh* Antibiotics do not kill viruses! Antibiotics only work for bacterial infections, which is why pennicillin won't cure the flu but will cure ghonnorea. YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, going to your doctor and demanding antibiotics for a virus. Worse is the doctor who capitulates and actually prescribes the antibiotics that won't do anything except breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
And
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, cattle are fed corn, because it is heavily subsidized, and this makes them ill. So cattle are raised on a diet of corn and antibiotics. Then we eat the meat, laced with antibiotics, and the viruses in our bloodstream mutate to brush off this rather mild onslaught.
No, that's not it. When you eat meat from animals that have been treated with antibiotics, the amount of effective antibiotics you're exposed to is going to be so minimal as to be at homeopathic levels. Then you cook the meat, which is likely to further break down any compounds in it.
Rather, the problem with giving livestock antibiotics is simply that it creates these resistant strains of bacteria, and then the bacteria escape the farmyard and move into the wild. The kind of bacteria that are in and around farm animals aren't so different from the ones that are found in and around human homes, and some of them can cause disease in humans (E. coli, for example).
Another problem is that many of the genes that confer antibiotic resistance exist on plasmids, which are little capsules of bacterial DNA that exist independently of bacterial cells. Plasmids can potentially move from one strain of bacteria to another. So, you might have one strain of harmless bacteria that gets exposed to a lot of antibiotics and develops resistance. If that bacterium later comes into contact with a harmful kind of bacteria, the plasmid could be transferred to the new bacterium, causing it to gain the same resistance.
So, again, the problem is not that the meat you buy contains antibiotics which causes your body to create bacteria with resistance; the problem is that the animals have already done this process for you, and you might be bringing home meat with that resistant bacteria on it.
Not buying beef that was raised on corn is a possible solution, but that just means you won't be raising superbugs, everyone else will still be doing it.
Here you're correct. Not buying beef raised on corn is pretty much just "voting with your dollar." It doesn't change the fact that the superbugs are still being created elsewhere. It doesn't really change your risk of exposure to harmful bacteria in any meaningful way, either (the same bacteria are probably on the meat that wasn't raised on corn and antibiotics; they just might be less likely to be the resistant kind).
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
"Viruses react to antibiotics" +4 informative.
Looks like this particular comment and its moderation proves the point made by OP about utter ignorance of even fairly intelligent members of the public about the important details of the problem.
You are too kind. The traditional /. method of dealing with basic errors like substituting 'virus' for 'bacteria' as above would have been to label me a moron who knows nothing about anything, and then slander my mother.
I never liked biology.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, you're the fourth person to say that, I get it, I fucked up.
I was prompted to go to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] and it turns out my preconceptions were in left field. The main point though is this: Livestock consume 70% of the antibiotics in the United States. (Albeit for different reasons than I stated) They are also injected with synthetic growth hormones.
I'm Canadian, and the article suggests that we haven't deregulated the cattle industry yet. i.e. it's still illegal to sell meat contaminated with antibiotics and hormones in this country. Comforting.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
I wonder if such a common thing as antibiotic soap can increase resistance over a period of time.
Probably. It's very unlikely to kill every bacterium, and the ones it doesn't kill may go on to breed stronger strains.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
Alchohol based and similar antibiotics don't have a drug to build a resistance to. It is just deadly in a high enough dose. Those that live are through dumb luck. So these products are safe to use without fear of adding to drug resistance.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
It will just train bacteria to become alcoholics :)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
The smiley suggests you think you're making a joke... but it's actually true: it will train the bacteria to become alcoholics, and build up a tolerance.
But there are good reasons to expect the bugs to need a lot longer to develop a resistance against alcohol. They will need to reinvent their cell walls for example, which is quite a dramatic change.
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Informative)
There is a *slight* difference in the function of alcohol and penicillin in how they serve as antiseptics: Penicillin interferes with cell wall construction, whereas alcohol flat-out denatures all the proteins. Random mutations that use completely different protein structures that aren't attacked by alcohol are a fair bit rarer, to say the least.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not really that they don't have a drug, as that the gap between a given current bacterium, an a super-bacterium version of it that can live in alcohol-rich environments, is large enough that it's basically a completely different organism, so less likely to appear via the usual evolutionary processes. If you had a species of bacteria that was just on the edge of being able to live in high-alcohol environments, somewhat but not highly tolerant of alcohol, it's plausible that they would actually evolve gr
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the ones I see contain tetracycline, which is the problem
I think you're confusing tetracycline and triclosan (which is commonly used in anti-bacterial soaps).
I personally won't let triclosan in my house (it has its own set of problems) but the mechanism of action isn't the same as tetracycline.
Re:I wonder (Score:4, Interesting)
Is that because you are stupid or ignorant?
Stay classy, geekoid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triclosan#Health_concerns [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely, however they still kill beneficial bacteria as well as pathogenic ones and thus most of the time do more harm than good.
Exactly! When you kill off the good bacteria, the bad ones can establish a foot-hold. This is a very dangerous trend (blame the gd education system for cranking out millions of half-educated fools).
A hospital in Europe did a study on surgical scrubbing comparing anti-bacterials with probiotics (yogurt washes, basically) and the patients in the 'yogurt' group did better.
...and patients who don't complete the course (Score:5, Informative)
The same whiny hypochondriacal medieval idiots who demand antibiotics to fight a virus.
I often think that 19th century physicians had it figured out. Blue pill (placebo), slime draught (nasty tasting placebo) and let some blood. Treat the root cause, i.e. the hypochondria.
Re:...and patients who don't complete the course (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not medieval idiots, they're ignorant fools who think they know better than the doctor, even when the doctor tells them that antibiotics will not work against viruses.
Re:...and patients who don't complete the course (Score:5, Insightful)
Also consider that up until recently there were classes of illnesses where antibiotics were defensively prescribed, such as in the case of ear aches, not because they were likely to do good in any particular case, but because the doctor feared malpractice suits if it was bacterial and happened to be the rare case that lead to hearing loss.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't know about you, but every ear infection I've had (many, eventually causing a burst eardrum) was nicely cleared up by antibiotics. (No, I didn't sue)
Re:...and patients who don't complete the course (Score:5, Interesting)
Which makes them better (or different) from medieval idiots... how, exactly?
The root cause remains an "ignorant" (your vocabulary) assumption that illness = bacteria. Bacteria are killed by magic drugs whose formulation and mechanism(s) of action most simply lack the education to understand. Because I am ill, the patient believes, I must seek this magic medicine to make the illness go away. Thus, even when a doctor says, "This magic medicine will do nothing," the patient insists that they receive it, presupposing the evil doctor must be withholding life-saving treatment to increase return visits. Despite the absence of education, the patient knows the medicine will work, denying physics, chemistry, and biology in the process.
The critical failure occurs when the patient makes the anecdotal correlation between close friends' or relatives' medical condition(s) manifesting in a similar way - this is a fundamental flaw in human cognition, not an effect that can be solved with the assumption that "modern" fools are not medieval idiots. They are medieval idiots - just with shinier toys.
Re: (Score:3)
Which makes them better (or different) from medieval idiots... how, exactly?
It doesn't it makes them worse. People in medieval times didn't know any better and didn't have any resources to know better. Ignorance is unfortunate but understandable, willful ignorance is no acceptable.
"K"? (Score:3)
What's the "K"? You can only abbreviate it if you've already written it in full beforehand
Re:"K"? (Score:5, Informative)
Klebsiella pneumoniae. [wikipedia.org] But you're right, /. editors should know how to write a blurp.
All true but (Score:5, Informative)
Re:All true but (Score:5, Informative)
Do you have a source for this? I'm not saying you're wrong, just wondering about the basis for the claim. It strikes me as possibly being one of those "common sense" ideas that turns out not to be true when you actually crunch the numbers.
I can't find comparative figures but this BMJ article [nih.gov] highlights the issue
Farmers feed cattle with 12000 tons of antibiotics (Score:5, Informative)
The concern centers on farmers' routine use of antibiotics. Its use on livestock accounts for roughly half of the 25,000 tons produced in the United States each year. - link - [purefood.org]
The question of whether we are creating ‘resistances' in zoomatic organisms (that affect both species) out in the feedlot and pastures and passing this on to humans with veterinary use of drugs, however, is still a very up-in-the air question. - link - [cattletoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While I think there are concerns that the antibiotics for livestock may get passed on to people a little bit through the meat it's more that some bacteria affect both people and livestock.
Create a resistance in the bacteria (to the antibiotics) attacking the livestock and then, maybe, the new and improved bacteria could be passed to humans (either from the animals themselves or improper handling of the raw meat).
And farmers pretty much feed all of their animals antibiotics because it's easier? cheaper? than
Re:Farmers feed cattle with 12000 tons of antibiot (Score:5, Informative)
And farmers pretty much feed all of their animals antibiotics because it's easier? cheaper? than only feeding it to animals once they're sick (in general it's a lot harder to tell when an animal is sick than a human). Or at least that's my understanding, I could be wrong.
Modern industrial cattle operations feed cows corn because calorie-for-calorie it is the cheapest food available for cows. The problem is that cows evolved to eat grass, not grains, so their stomachs aren't suited to it. They come down with stomach acidosis, and they will only live about six months once the corn diet begins.
While they are alive, they get infections via the stomach ulcers. So antibiotics are mixed into the corn to somewhat protect the stomach at least long enough for the cows to get obese for market.
I didn't choose the word 'obese' lightly. Industrial cows are literally obese, which is why their meat is so fatty. Fatty meat is easier to cook, and us dumb Westerners have been trained to prefer fatty meat ("nicely marbled").
Re: (Score:3)
Modern industrial cattle operations feed cows corn because calorie-for-calorie it is the cheapest food available for cows. The problem is that cows evolved to eat grass, not grains, so their stomachs aren't suited to it. They come down with stomach acidosis, and they will only live about six months once the corn diet begins.
Actually, it's more of a meat-per-acre argument. Cattle are often raised where there isn't enough land to let them graze, so they have to be fed with imported (read: more rural) food. Feeding them grass isn't feasible because the raw tonnage of grass would cost too much to transport, so they resort to corn (calorie/weight). In more rural areas, they are fed grass (every farmer I personally know).
Re: (Score:3)
Posting this kind of absurd fiction only helps discredit the very real problems caused by overfeeding with grains. A six-month death sentence?
The problem began with New Deal-era crop subsidies. Naturally, every progressive treats government power like violence (if it doesn't work, just use more of it) and instead of removing the subsidies, they want to tax the meat or corn and thus continue to cause hardship.
I agree that crop subsidies are teh stupid, but the corn health problems are real. In addition to acidosis, corn-fed cows have problems with liver failure from (corn) aflotoxin concentration, as well as founder and ulcers. It's not a secret either, just do some googling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Farmers feed cattle with 12000 tons of antibiot (Score:5, Informative)
People who think our ingestion of antibiotics from animals is a factor in antibiotic resistance are crackpots who don't pay attention to the fact that we've been eating trace amounts of penicillin for tens of thousands of years. That's not a serious concern. There are however a few serious concerns:
1) Some bugs like E coli and Salmonella sps can be hosted in animals or humans. Antibiotic resistance they pick up in animals will be a factor when the human gets sick.
2) Some bugs are known to swap DNA. This means that antibiotic resistance in a harmless bug could turn up in a harmful one later.
3) Bugs which are harmless today could jump species and become harmful tomorrow.
4) Environmental pollution around concentrated animal feeding operations could lead to antibiotic resistance in soil-borne bacteria.
Now, in the US, there is supposed to be a clear separation between classes of antibiotics used on animals and those used on people, although this is more porous than we might like to think. There are however no guarantees that other countries have the exact same divisions. Moreover even assuming that this is the case, it deprives us humans of the effectiveness of certain classes of antibiotics which might prove useful in the future.
We're not crackpots (Score:3)
"that we've been eating trace amounts of penicillin for tens of thousands of years."
Some modern antibiotics can get into the soft tissue of an animal and stay there until it is slaughtered and can then survive the cooking process. Penicillin can't.
Re: (Score:3)
Virtually *everything* we eat has traces of penicillin in it. The point is that if consuming trace amounts of antibiotics would cause antibiotic resistance generally, penicillin should never have worked in modern times but it did quite well (also despite sporadic uses in the ancient world I might add too).
For resistance to be developed, bacteria have to be exposed to enough of a background level to start killing the bacteria. Otherwise there is no natural selection.
"Worse bacteria under stress have a horr
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also I don't think we *know* what sorts of antibiotic resistance may be created in other countries through this practice. Consider simply that there are bugs that can use livestock and humans as hosts, and our insistence on routine feed of antibiotics to animals should be quite frightening.
Re: (Score:3)
This has been banned in the EU (for the last 5 years).
It's the culture (Score:5, Funny)
I think our etiology of antibiotic resistance is.. (Score:5, Informative)
oversimplified.
It's based on the idea, seen in insects with pesticide use, that if you kill x percentage of insects, some may survive and their offspring may have a much higher level of tolerance, meaning more pesticides are needed to kill the insects. No doubt this happens with bacteria too and is *a* cause of antibiotic resistance.
Consider that livestock may be given antibiotics, and they may have bacteria, like E. coli or Salmonella sps which can make humans ill. This represents an additional vector not generally covered in analysis.
However there may be several other big issues that are not currently included in the analysis. Many species of bacteria are known to assimilate genetic material from other bacteria even from other genuses. This means that there is a possibility that antibiotic resistance can spread between bacterial species as a result of hospital waste, causing a form of genetic pollution.
Nature is fundamentally more complex than we can model. Any sufficiently complex model would be nature itself.
However, the rise of superbugs is fascinating to watch.
Re:I think our etiology of antibiotic resistance i (Score:5, Insightful)
Fascinating until some gets into a casual scrape or cut in your skin...
Another cost of our overly-medicating society is that we forget how important it is to keep our immune systems healthy. We scrub and clean and sanitize everything at every turn thinking we can limit or even eliminate those dastardly bacteria which are always bad. (Not all bacteria are bad... how is the over-use of antibiotics harming the good bacteria we depend on?)
Good practices and good hygiene, of course, are important things to maintain... foods should be cooked and handled properly. Hands and bodies kept clean as well. But "sanitized" is just going too far in most cases. And so when people get sick, they have untrained immune systems which don't react as well as it should which necessitates the use of antibiotics.
George Carlin saw this problem long, long ago when he did his "swimming in raw sewage" routine. His point was to keep the immune system operating and working well. My point is that we can't seek to eliminate all "bad things" without serious consequence which includes upsetting nature's balances. Instead we should seek to coexist with bacteria in our world and seek ways to maintain a healthy balance. Instead, people seek to dominate and eliminate "their enemies" without considering the long term consequences of such reactions.
Re:I think our etiology of antibiotic resistance i (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with your points about the immune system and sanitizing everything. I would go further and say I enjoy beef tartare, sashimi, and good old fashioned home-made eggnog, plus a few scandinavian desserts with raw eggs.
I would however like to point out that with simple care, most bacterial infections can be treated without antibiotics. The last few times I have had skin infections, I have used sterilized kitchen knives to lance the infection and hot salt water to draw fluids, etc, out, and I got better at least as fast as I would have with antibiotics. I also travel a LOT and have had E coli and possibly even a mild case of cholera. None of these need to be treated with antibiotics either (with cholera the key concern is hydration, and with any diarrhea I have found the key is to go off all foods for a while to let one's immune system get a grip on what's in the digestive tract.
We use antibiotics a lot when we don't really have to, because we believe in modern medicine and all of that, and because it's easier than teaching people to soak infected fingers in hot salt water.
Re:I think our etiology of antibiotic resistance i (Score:5, Interesting)
Just adding to that last comment. One of the big issues with antibiotics is that they often target harmless bacteria as well as bad ones. This means impoverished microbial biodiversity, which means it is easier to get infected again with something else. And so one intervention leads to another.
Re:I think our etiology of antibiotic resistance i (Score:5, Funny)
I, too, base my health maintenance plan on comedy routines.
Often, not always (Score:5, Insightful)
I've had a doctor tell me that I / my kid has a bacterial infection but it's not that serious, so the best option is to rest and let the body's own immune system take care of it.
Yet, something tells me that those doctors would have prescribed antibiotics if I had cluelessly demanded that I get 'proper medicine'...
Re:Often, not always (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Often, not always (Score:5, Interesting)
In the UK a lot of doctors now have pre-printed notes that they can sign and give to patients that basically say: "Your illness is not bacterial and therefore prescribing antibiotics is pointless, if you don't believe me take this to another doctor and ask them"
The problem is that some GPs would still rather hand out the antibiotics than have the argument with the patient.
Re:Often, not always (Score:5, Insightful)
Completely true - well, most of the time.
NPR had a good series on problems in the healthcare system (unlike most treatments they seemed to take a holistic approach and not just find one issue and make it out to be the single thing that is driving up cost). They had a story about a doctor who didn't prescribe a CT scan for a girl who had a suspected spinal fracture. They ended up getting into a fight with the girl's dad who felt like the doctor was just cutting costs at the risk of the girl's health.
However, the doctor pointed out that he had every reason to do exactly what the father wanted. He would be paid more if he ordered the test. Nobody would dispute the test since doing so would expose them to liability. He was taking on risk of liability in the event he was wrong and she had a fracture. However, the fact was that the CT scan for a girl of her age carried a significant increase in risk of cancer much later in life, and based on his physical exam that risk was much greater than the risk that she might have an undetectable fracture. Of course, if she did get cancer later in life it could never be linked to the one test, and by then the doctor would probably be retired/dead/etc. So, the doctor was sticking his neck out, and taking on lots of personal risk, and declining the opportunity to make money, and wasting his time explaining all of this stuff to a father who would have just said yes no discussion needed to a CT scan, all because he wanted the girl to be healthy. How many doctors would do otherwise?
Antibiotics are a similar situation - the doctor can argue with their patient, and maybe lose them. Or, they can just take 30 seconds to fill out a prescription that they'll never get sued over and everybody is smiling since now when the patent gets better it will be because of what the doctor did. Happy patients lead to more patients, and more repeat business as well. Even if the doctor is employed by something like the NHS they probably have metrics and sending a patient on their way without hassle means more visits per hour. Or, even if they're completely unaccountable who wants to sit and argue with somebody all day?
I'm generally in favor of eliminating the need to get a prescription to get access to drugs, but antibiotics are one area where I'd make an exception. I don't see the role of government as protecting people from themselves. However, antibiotic abuse harms everybody and it is completely legitimate to regulate their use - probably more strictly.
I'd probably require doctors to submit a written justification for every prescription of an antibiotic that is less than 20 years old, and with stricter requirements on anything less than 10 years old (either documented testing that shows resistance to the alternatives, or an assessment which will be reviewed by a board that the patient would suffer irreversible harm if they waited for the results of that testing).
Of course, if you do this the market for new antibiotics is almost worthless (compared to being low-value which it is now). Who will spend a billion dollars working on new antibiotics only to release one and have 30 people take it in 10 years? The solution here is bounties - governments will have to decide how many new antibiotics they want and offer substantial bounties for their discovery (probably hundreds of millions of dollars), and use that money to buy the patent rights (the company has already been paid for their work). The bounties can be adjusted based on the number of candidates that are being submitted vs the number desired.
You could actually apply a similar model to other drugs, but it would get expensive (probably cheaper than what we're doing now, but this is completely socializing medicine which is of course much more expensive than having most of the costs be privately borne by patients and their employers). If it were successful enough you'd see the drug patent problem go away without even having to ban them, since patented drugs would be much more expensive than the generics bought with bounties, and companies would still have incentive to do R&D (but not marketing, etc).
Re: (Score:3)
Nice to see there are some other people who know about it. Studies have shown (sorry, I have no link), that the expected human sick days (iirc), where higher with antibiotics than without, because the side effects were more likely to manifest than a serious infection, which could be treated anyway.
Also, there are results hinting at the possibility that treating otitis media with antibiotics results in higher recurrence rates, cause afaik unknown.
Re: (Score:3)
Next time I have an ear infection, I'll try that.
Not a bug (Score:2)
Not a parasite bug but a bacteria. The human body is not a piece of software to call every problem a bug.
Tragedy of the Commons (Score:5, Insightful)
In America, this is because of legal system (Score:4, Insightful)
However, a big issue is that ag makes propholatic use of antibiotics. That is more true in Asia esp. china, than it is anywhere else.
That is what is about cause a massive lowering of the world population.
TOTAL BS (Score:5, Interesting)
"Experts say primary care doctors are partly to blame for prescribing antibiotics for patients who demand them unnecessarily"
Sorry, I have seen from personal experience over and over again. Patients never "demand them unnecessarily".
Rather, patients go to the doctor. And the first thing the doctor almost always tries is "Here's a prescription for antibiotics." It's almost more akin to a diagnosis test. Take these and we'll determine if it's viral or baterial.
Occasionally the doctor will call for a test such as flu, strep, etc. Just recently we were concerned about my 4 yr old daughter having been bit twice by ticks in a 2 week period. Short time later all her lymph nodes were swollen, she ached, and was generally miserable.
Rather than evaluate for any of the tick born infections. Our doctor was convinced it was the flu. We knew it was NOT the flu. They did a flu test, and guess what. We were right.
The truth of the matter is most American doctors are arrogant. 1/2 the time they are wrong. And very few care about treatment, they just want to prescribe and send away.
Medicine is in a second dark age.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
> which encourages bacteria to **evolve** new ways of overcoming them.
which encourages god to design new ways for bacteria of overcoming them.
Re:Develop ? (Score:5, Funny)
> > > which encourages bacteria to develop new ways of overcoming them.
> > which encourages bacteria to **evolve** new ways of overcoming them.
> which encourages god to design new ways for bacteria of overcoming them.
which encourages god to increase his research and development funding to develop evolution to allow new ways for bacteria of overcoming them.
Re:Develop ? (Score:4, Funny)
which encourages creationists to evolve new arguments to overcome all evidence.
-
Re: (Score:2)
> > which encourages bacteria to **evolve** new ways of overcoming them.
> which encourages god to design new ways for bacteria of overcoming them.
Which kills the weaklings and singles out the resistants to bread and progressively switch over the population (instead of allowing resistent genes to delude)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is going to lead to evolution, but you are overlooking horizontal gene transfer among bacteria that could be accelerating the problem. This isn't pure mutation and reproduction, but the bacteria equivalent of developing their own anti-anti-biotic and spreading it among their own kind too.
It is evolution + developed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Antibiotic myths don't help (Score:4)
This is a sobering article [bbc.co.uk]. A quarter of people think antibiotics cure colds?
Actually given a lot of people I come across day to day I find that very reassuring. Three quarters of people know that antibiotics don't cure colds! I would have expected at least a third to say "What's an antibiotic?" and one in ten to say "what's a cold?".
Re:Patients asking for drugs (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be far more concerned about doctors listening to drug companies. They send hordes of representatives who shower doctors with incentives if they prescribe a given drug.
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because in the EU it's been banned (since 2006 for growth promotion purposes).
But while you're blaming agriculture - don't forget the GM crops which use antibiotic resistance as a marker for the bacteria carrying the required genetic modifications.