Slashdot Mirror


"Killer Flu" Emerging On Both Sides of the Pacific

mallorean writes "The spread of SARS ( Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ) worldwide is just about making the headlines. The WHO has issued an advisory. American Scientist had two very timely articles relevant to SARS in the current issue. The first is about the rapidly growing antibiotic resistance in bacterial diseases and the origin and possible sources of this resistance. The second article talks about Type A Influenza and the possibility of a world pandemic similar to the 1918 Global Flu Pandemic. The transmittable nature of SARS, the lack of epidemological information and its severe resistance to antibiotics seems tailor made to fit the scenario outlined in the second article ( it even originated in the far east and is a strain of avian flu )." Read below for a related link.

jake-in-a-box points to a New York Times article which says that the illness "has affected hundreds in China and Southeast Asia, and now spread to Vancouver, BC. It does not respond to antibiotics or antivirals and apparently nobody has fully recovered yet. Transmission appears to be via aerosol droplets - coughs, sneezes etc."

82 comments

  1. Virus vs antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Er, the Flu is a virus, and antibiotics only work against microrganisms and bacteria, therefore it's not suprising that the flu is totally unaffected by antibiotics.

    Duh.

    1. Re:Virus vs antibiotics by KDan · · Score: 5, Informative

      They don't know whether it's a virus yet (according to most of the accounts I've read, findable on Google News).

      Daniel

      --
      Carpe Diem
    2. Re:Virus vs antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PLEASE MOD THIS DOWN.

      antibiotics are important to pneumonia and the flu can often turn into pneumonia because of a weak immune system. educate yourselves, it's very important!

    3. Re:Virus vs antibiotics by spotted_dolphin · · Score: 3, Informative

      antibiotics are important to pneumonia
      Antibiotics would only be effect against bacterial pneumonia. There are some cases where pneumonia is thought to be caused by viruses.
      http://www.lungusa.org/diseases/lungpneumoni.html# viral

    4. Re:Virus vs antibiotics by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      This is usually classified as pneumonia, which is an inflammation of tlung tissues, caused by viruses, bacteria, or irritation by other causes.

      As far as this goes, though, They don't know what it is, so they're throwing everything at it, and hoping something will do some good. Not the most medically sound procedure there is, but when nothing works, try anything.

      --Dan

    5. Re:Virus vs antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is scary... it reminds me of The Gray Death (Deus Ex). Anyone else that played it remember how the "unknown factor" "influenza" "no known cure (until ambrosia came out)" and "high mortallity rate of those infected" all seem to match up?

      Remember that newspaper in a store in Hong Kong reads that in 2005 or something, the second gulf war started up a major uprising of terrorism? I dare say we might be ahead of schedule :)

      Makes you wonder doesn't it?

      -P

      PS - I wish I'd made an account for as long as I've been reading /. but that's life.

  2. Damn it... by KDan · · Score: 0

    not fair, I posted this 3 hours ago, all well formatted and very informative, I guarantee you. I guess it wasn't on BBC World yet.

    Anyway, I'm not a doctor but this is really scary. They seem to say that you need intravenous antibiotics to have a good chance to survive this. Coming from south east asia, this disease seems like it could easily spread to, say, Africa... can you imagine how many deaths there will be if it does?

    :-(

    Daniel

    --
    Carpe Diem
  3. From bash.org by akpcep · · Score: 3, Funny

    [Thumb] do you know of any major organizations that are similar the CDC?
    [Lucent] who?
    [Thumb] center for disease control
    [Lucent] i said WHO
    [Thumb] what? i'm asking you
    [Lucent] World Health Organization

    --
    Hmmm.
    1. Re:From bash.org by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

      I admit I was ignorant. I thought Pete Townsend had taken up a cause or something.

      -----------
      OnRoad: Junkyard Wars meets SCCA

    2. Re:From bash.org by unitron · · Score: 2, Funny
      So even if you can't be Doctor Who you can still aspire to be a WHO doctor?

      Third base.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    3. Re:From bash.org by NewWazoo · · Score: 1

      Damn you! I just spilled my Dew from laughing so hard!

      (Kudos)

      Brandon

    4. Re:From bash.org by unitron · · Score: 1
      "I just spilled my Dew..."

      Darn, I was going for a high velocity nostril to monitor trajectory :-)

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    5. Re:From bash.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose that what you mean is a respectable cause.

  4. Difference between this and other diseases? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's the difference between this latest outbreak and any other outbreak?

    These articles talk about a strain influenza virus (and then they talk about a second disease) which is spreading to dozens of countries and which has killed hundreds of people in Asia. WHO issued an advisory. The deaths are tragic, but these happenings don't seem very unusual to me. Thousands of people die from influenza every year, WHO issues advisories every year, viruses spread every year.

    So how is this new disease different? I couldn't get a good sense from the articles.

    Is this just hype? Perhaps now that we're on the verge of war, and many folks (at least here in the US) are scared of a biological attack. Perhaps that fear is just contributing to the hype?

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    1. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by barakn · · Score: 4, Interesting
      What's the difference between this latest outbreak and any other outbreak?

      So how is this new disease different?

      The new illness is probably not influenza. The flu does not present as a pneumonia, although it can weaken the respiratory tract and allow secondary infection by opportunistic bacteria or viruses. Furthermore, there are rapid tests available for the diagnosis of the flu virus. I presume these have been performed and came back negative. So this is a new, dangerous, highly-infectious disease.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    2. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by dhk42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Darn it! I wanted to moderate, but I'm going to have to post because everyone seems to have missed something important here. (donates his moderator points to the ether)

      The really really scary thing about this is that no one who has been infected is getting better.

      That by itself might not be enough to have everyone in an uproar, but throw in moderate mortality and extremely infectious and completely unknown infectious agent and it is definitely time to be concerned.

      Just in case you still don't see the implications, imagine a disease that spreads with the same ease as the flu or the common cold, but from which you never recover. OK, that's scary right? I have a cold (or flu) at the moment, so I know that I find this scary.

      Now imagine that EVERYONE who has caught it is a carrier of it forever, but they don't tend to die, so there are LOTS of carriers. OMG, very scary.

      OK, now imagine that the symptoms can be relatively mild for long periods, meaning people will travel and go to work and to school for quite some time before they seek professional help (and thus be quarantined). Jeez. Too scary for words, really.

      How long before a significant fraction of the population of the earth could be infected by such a disease?

      Let's just hope the actual disease turns out not to be as bad as my hypothetical one.

      -dhk-

    3. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it can weaken the respiratory tract and allow secondary infection by opportunistic bacteria

      which is where the weird part comes in of giving antibiotics to people with a viral infection. Everyone knows antibiotics are useless agains virii, but they can be life-savers if a secondary bacterial infection takes hold in the weakened body.


    4. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by js7a · · Score: 1
      The really really scary thing about this is that no one who has been infected is getting better.

      Indeed; I have seen no reports contradicting that thus far.

    5. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by barakn · · Score: 1

      Or I'm wrong. Recent reports indicate that it could be a new influenza virus. If so, it must be radically different, otherwise the standard flu tests would have detected it by now.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    6. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by allism · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, an article posted a little further down from here says that one person has recovered. Here's the link.

      Not that I'm getting my hopes up over one person, but maybe the 'no one has recovered' is media hype.

    7. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      The really really scary thing about this is that no one who has been infected is getting better.

      But how long have people had the disease? If it's only been a week, then it's not a big problem.

      Last year I was hit with a really nasty flu during a very stressful time in my life. With a weakened immune system, I was sick for over 3 weeks (First Flu, then presumably some secondary infection). Even in my battered state, I was probably healthier then many people in other parts of the world.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    8. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by Perdo · · Score: 1

      Influenza killed 20% of the world's population in 1917-1918. WWI was on so it got all the press. In the meantime bodies were being loaded into dump trucks to be placed in mass graves in central park.

      So, when something new, different and deadly arrives, no one is immune and no medicine cures it.

      That is why there is all the hype. Because this is very different from any of the hundreds of diseases you come in contact with every day, but are immune to.

      That would be an interesting turn of events eh? I mean 20% of the world's population dieing in the next 9 months? Perhaps it is worth a little hype? Naw, better to stay cynical and assume you will be part of the 80% and not the 20%. Or your wife. Or your Kids. Or your parents. Or the people at burning man. Or the drummers on Salano. Or just one person on BART... then you will be next.

      See you around "Steve"

      --

      If voting were effective, it would be illegal by now.

    9. Re:Difference between this and other diseases? by allism · · Score: 1

      (Actually, I thought this should have been moderated +1 Redundant - for those somewhat useful but still redundant posts)

  5. Antibiotics are not for viral infections by baz00f · · Score: 1

    The transmittable nature of SARS, the lack of epidemological information and its severe resistance to antibiotics seems tailor made to fit the scenario outlined in the second article ( it even originated in the far east and is a strain of avian flu ).

    Influenza is a virus. Repeat: antibiotics are NOT for viral infections. Someone needs to get on the ball and crank out a vaccine.

    1. Re:Antibiotics are not for viral infections by kmellis · · Score: 2, Informative
      This isn't influenza, as far as they know. They haven't identified a pathogen. They don't know whether its a bacteria or virus. I repeat: they don't know what this is. They'll naturally try both antibiotics and antivirals until they figure it out.

      SARS is acting like an airborne pathogen, which is scary.

    2. Re:Antibiotics are not for viral infections by KnightNavro · · Score: 2, Informative

      If it isn't a virus, it isn't the flu. The flu is caused by the influenza virus, so if it isn't caused by that virus, calling it the flu (as in the Slashdot headline) is misleading.

    3. Re:Antibiotics are not for viral infections by pfdietz · · Score: 1

      But there are antiviral drugs that are effective against the flu. Tamiflu, for example, is one of a class of recently introduced drugs called neuraminidase inhibitors that binds to and inactivates a protein on the virus necessary for its spread within the body.

    4. Re:Antibiotics are not for viral infections by kmellis · · Score: 1

      You're right. But some other media outlets have been calling it "flu".

  6. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nature is fighting back

    1. Re:Good by VendingMenace · · Score: 5, Insightful

      nature is not "fighting back" any more that is was when mammals took over for reptiles after thee climate changed. Nature does not fight back, it evolves :)

    2. Re:Good by monthos · · Score: 1

      sometimes it must evolve to fight back :)

  7. The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    My mom died from a case of the flu that turned into pneumonia in 1995. Anti-biotics *are* relevant to flu viruses, because the flu can ofter turn into pneumonia through a weakened immune system. That is why it is so important for people to take anti-biotics sparingly and only when absolutely necessary. When the doctor gives you them please take *all* of them and please do not use anti-biotic soap or any of those kinds of products.

    1. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by cmburns69 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Antibiotic soap is really not the problem most people think it is. Its antibiotic properties work on completely different principles than the antibiotics your doctor gives you.

      If everybody uses these topical antibiotics, they will become less effective and eventually completely non-effective, but it will not affect the potency of your doctors penicillin.

      An online Starcraft RPG? Only at

      --
      Online Starcraft RPG? At
      Dietary fiber is like asynchronous IO-- Non-blocking!
    2. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by X-rated+Ouroboros · · Score: 5, Informative

      please do not use anti-biotic soap or any of those kinds of products.

      Not to imply that the AC made this mistake, but don't confuse "Anti-Bacterial" with "Anti-Biotic". Soap is naturally antibacterial, so having this on the label is right up there with selling water by trumping up the fact that it's wet. BUT, one manufacturer does it, so they all do it...
      Oh, the best part is that the mechanical action of washing your hands is what does most of the work in sanitizing your hands, soap can actually make you MORE susceptible to illness by removing a variety of products your skin exudes onto its surface to combat infection (membrane lysing ribozymes and the like) and drying the skin.

      The main abusers of antibiotics are livestock industries, though, not poorly informed doctors and irresponsible patients. Just about every animal is given astounding amounts of antibiotics but not so much for their disease fighting effects (in fact, certain antibiotic classes have been so abused that there are bacterial strains that can use them as FOOD). Someone noticed that animals given antibiotics gained weight more rapidly and reached a higher average weight overall than similarly treated animals that were not given the antibiotics. At first it was thought "oh, it's just because they're more healthy" but, in fact, the antibiotics themselves were causing the animals to bulk up, as proven by the fact that many of the antibiotics still given to livestock are no longer effective as antibiotics (go go evolution) yet the animals still bring more meat to market in less time.

      So, why get upset about argindustrialists overusing admittedly ineffective antibiotics? Because they also do still give the animals doses of currently effective antibiotics... and I don't expect Frank the Farmhand to draw the distinction between the two, so we find abuses of the newer, still effective, antibiotics simply because of the conditioning to overdose the animals.

      The thing that bothers me most about the general availability of antibiotics is that, while Carla the Crackwhore is only destroying her life, Henry the Hypochondriac is busily breeding the new strains of this, that, and/or the other that may just spread around the world one day and kill us all. Tuberculosis is already a growing problem. Post operative infection (by antibiotic/antiviral resistant strains, of course) is a major player in hospital deaths these days. It is my opinion that antibiotics should be controlled with handling restrictions silimar to Schedule I, Class A drugs... as they pose a greater threat to more people than heroin ever has.

      --
      Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
    3. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by andrewski · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think that soap that claims to be anti-bacterial has Triclosan as its active ingredient. Soap is not 'naturally' anti-bacterial - many bacteria enjoy very basic environments, and some can probably live off of it.

    4. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by Kizzle · · Score: 1

      This post would make a great novel or movie. It has great characters such as Carla the Crackwhore and Frank the Farmhand.

    5. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antibiotics weren't relevant to the virus, because as stated before antibiotics take no action on virii. The flu doesn't 'turn into' the flu through a weakened immune system but rather the immune system is unable to prevent a second infection which gave rise to the pneumonia. AFAIK, pneumonia is caused by pneumococcus spp. bacteria, which WOULD be susceptible to the antibiotic treatment.

      As far as antibiotic soap goes, the antibiotics used aren't really considered to be *strong* antibiotics by any means, I've read a bunch of studies already which show that these soaps don't have any real effect whatsoever. Not a cause for the rise of 'resistant' organisms they talk about in the news because these antibiotics in the soaps aren't used in the treatment of people's illnesses anyways.

    6. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. The Active Ingredient in my bar of Lever 2000 Moisture Response Anti-Bacterial bar soap is "0.2% Triclosan. There is no such active ingredient in my Irish Spring Icy Blast Deodorant Soap, although it does smell really good.

    7. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My father worked as a reasearch chemist in the pharmaceutical industry for over 20 years, and his attitude was the anti-bacterial soaps were pointless, since you are washing away the bacteria off your hands anyways. Killing them is a moot point :-p

    8. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      *The many lives of hucksworth county, staring in order:*
      "Carla the Crackwhore" as Sweet Virginia Appleseed
      "Frank the Farmhand" as Honest John Smith
      "Henry the hypocondriact" as Sickly Steven Engleburk
      "Lucy the lunatic" as Crazy Mary Jane
      Nancy the nyphomaniac as John Smith's daughter Louise
      And
      "Lester the molester" as Rev. Dick Holden

      Yeah...

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    9. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i read somewhere (I tried to google for info with little help) that explained how a hospital started to ionize all the air in the hospital and saw thier post-op infections drop dramatically. sorry about the lack of supporting evidence

    10. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      anti-bacterial soaps were pointless, since you are washing away the bacteria off your hands

      not all soaps are used for handwashing, and not all handwashing is thorough

      anyways

      it's "anyway"

    11. Re:The flu/pneumonia and anti-biotics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anyways" is an accepted variant. Reply to the content you nit-picking nitwit.

  8. CBC Article... by Sentry21 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The CBC has a story on the cases in Canada as well.

    --Dan

    1. Re:CBC Article... by jake-in-a-box · · Score: 2, Informative

      In a follow-up report the Times reports that SAR does not appear to be propagated by casual contact. It takes continuous exposure, such as would be seen by family members or care-givers. This is reassuring, because if it were to be spread easily it could be a problem. The statement that neither virus nor bacterial agent can be identified is interesting. Exactly what is meant by "a previously unknown infectious agent" is unclear.

      Epidemiologists have been watching for indications of a repeat of the 1918 Swine Flu and expect it to emanate from Southeast Asia, primarily because so many people live in close proximity to other animals, as in the farm animals live on the first floor and the family lives on the second floor.

      --
      To hear the gods laugh tell them your plans.
  9. I just got over the flu by arcadum · · Score: 0

    All last week I had a 103+ degree fever and a cough that left me wishing I was dead. I'm better now but it was close to when I had pnuemonia.

    1. Re:I just got over the flu by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 1
      It must be an epedemic, then, because all last week I was wishing you were dead too!

      Sorry. Hope you're all better soon. :)

      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

    2. Re:I just got over the flu by SyFryer · · Score: 1

      And we listened to the radio, as the salesmans body burnt, raiding his car for cigarettes.

      So long Captain Trips

  10. solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If we only used antibiotics in humans, only when they are clearly warranted (dangerous infection that is plausibly of bacterial origin), and with proper isolation of the patients, there would probably not be enough evolutionary pressure on bacteria to develop resistance.

    Instead, we feed antibiotics to livestock and hand them out to anybody who asks for them. It's not surprising that that leads to resistance. The consequence is already a lot of disease that would have been treatable otherwise, and it will likely be lots of deaths in the future. And simply researching new antibiotics won't be a solution: they'll become ineffective as quickly as the current crop; this is a race that we are losing.

    If you prescribe or take antibiotics unnecessarily, or if you buy meat from animals that have been fed antibiotics, you are responsible for the deaths of others pretty much as if you put a gun to their head; it's just that you are never going to meet the people you killed.

    1. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by g4dget · · Score: 1
      you are responsible for the deaths of others pretty much as if you put a gun to their head

      Actually, a better analogy might be firing a gun randomly into the street while not looking.

    2. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by dacarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is, there are people who insist on amoxycillin to treat their strain of the common cold. I don't know why doctors don't just kick them out of their offices....

      --
      This sig no verb.
    3. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by gyratedotorg · · Score: 1

      If we only used antibiotics in humans, only when they are clearly warranted (dangerous infection that is plausibly of bacterial origin), and with proper isolation of the patients, there would probably not be enough evolutionary pressure on bacteria to develop resistance.

      i think your logic is flawed here. evolution doesnt work that way. organisms dont evolve in order to better survive their environments and whatnot. random mutations are constantly happening, and if it just so happens that a certain mutation results in the organism being able to reproduce more efficently than usual, then that organism's new mutated genes are passed on. this keeps on happening until the new organisms with the new mutated genes completely replace the old ones.

      at least thats what i remember bio 101. ;)

      --
      Gyrate Dot Org - "Where high-tech meets low-life"
    4. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by OS2_will_prevail! · · Score: 1

      If we only used antibiotics in humans, only when they are clearly warranted (dangerous infection that is plausibly of bacterial origin), and with proper isolation of the patients, there would probably not be enough evolutionary pressure on bacteria to develop resistance

      Indeed, and if we just shot all people with a bacterial infection, bacterial resistance would not be a very big issue either.

      As another poster said, people walk into their doctor's office and demand antibiotics for whatever ails them. Whats more the doctors *give* it to the patients! What is up with that? Why not examine the patient, and treat them accordingly. Don't just prescribe antibiotics because the patient says that is what they need! For Christsakes, didn't you (the doc) go to school for 8 or 10 years or so, so that you would have more knoweldge about how to treat ailments than "joe sixpack"?! Come on! Do your job doctors!

      And, what's worse, people that actually *do* need the antibiotics often stop taking them once they begin to feel better, and do not finish the treatment regimine. This is a major factor in resistance buildup. Just as you can build up a tolerence to poision by taking sub-leathal doeses over a long period of time, gradually increasing the dose, so to with bacteria. The patient stops the treatment one treatment before the sick bacteria was to recieve the leathal dose.

      I am curious though...can you name me one research project that has conclusively linked feeding animals antibiotics has resulted in antibiotic resistance in bacteria that infect humans? I have not seen any to this point.

      --
      People are more violently opposed to fur than leather
      because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
    5. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by VendingMenace · · Score: 1

      it is true that organisms do not evovle in order to better survive in an evironment. It is also true that mutations are random and are happening all the time. Again, true that it just so happens that certain mutations improve an organisms chances of reproduction. Now, then, lets look at them all together. A particular environment exudes pressures on an organism that selects traits that improve the organisms fittness in that environment. Thus the frequencies of hte genes that allow for this greater fitness will increase in the population. Now, lets consider an environmnet that includes the overuse of anti-biotics. The selective pressures of this environment causes bacteria with ressistances to these ani-biotics to be more fit. Therefor, the frequecies of bacterial with these genes will increase in the population. and the end result is "as if" the organism evolved in order to better survive in this environment. Now we must consider what would happen if anti-biotics were not used as much. What would bappen is that the evolutionary pressure resulting from the presence of hte anti-biotics would lessen. THis would lead to a smaller fraction of hte population having resustance genes as well as a slower rate of change in teh frequecies of these resistance genes.

    6. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by VendingMenace · · Score: 1

      consider this, we prescribe more stringent guidlines for the use of antibiotics. Thus, less peeps get them. Then a fraction of the peeps that don't get them, die, from complications that could have been prevented by the use of antibiotics....since these people came in and were personally denied anubiotics, it really is as if you held a gun to their head and pulled the trigger

    7. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by Darby · · Score: 1

      organisms dont evolve in order to better survive their environments and whatnot. random mutations are constantly happening, and if it just so happens that a certain mutation results in the organism being able to reproduce more efficently than usual, then that organism's new mutated genes are passed on.

      But antibiotics create the situation to which the resistant organisms are adapted.
      If you take antibiotics for one day, then you have killed all of the bacteria which can't survive one day. All the rest are weakened somewhat, but the ones that are left are all able to do this. Also, the ones with the better resistance than the others are stronger, hence more likely to reproduce more quickly.

    8. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by g4dget · · Score: 1
      You could consider that, but it would be wrong. Feeding antibiotics to livestock and giving them to people with viral infections are completely avoidable and they do not result in additional deaths.

      It's your illogical attitude of "well, let's take them just to be sure" that's the cause of these problems.

    9. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by g4dget · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry, but what does any of what you wrote have to do with anything that I wrote? What's your point? Are you trying to argue that because evolution works by random variation and selection, there is no causal relationship?

      If that is what you are trying to argue, it is simply wrong. Antibiotics use causes resistant organisms to become widespread and to become a public health risk. If you use less antibiotics, the risk decreases. This is a causal relationship as strong as any in physics.

      In fact, by your reasoning, people would not be responsible for most kinds of acts. After all, shooting a gun also involves just the random bouncing around of gas molecules, it "just so happens" that that takes place in a barrel shaped device that then may often propel a projectile in the direction of a victim.

    10. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by g4dget · · Score: 1
      Indeed, and if we just shot all people with a bacterial infection, bacterial resistance would not be a very big issue either.

      And? Are you proposing that? Because I clearly was not.

      And, what's worse, people that actually *do* need the antibiotics often stop taking them once they begin to feel better,

      Well, gee, that's why I said "with proper isolation", which includes supervision.

      I am curious though...can you name me one research project that has conclusively linked feeding animals antibiotics has resulted in antibiotic resistance in bacteria that infect humans? I have not seen any to this point.

      Will an FDA press release do?

    11. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by VendingMenace · · Score: 1

      hmmmm....perhaps you should have read my post more clearly...i did not mention anything about giving antibiotics to animals. This is clearly unessesary and irresponsible. Also, i said nothing about treating viral diseases with antibiotics. Now, i didn't expressly say that i wasn't talking about this, i just assumed you were smart enought to know that this was a given.

      What i ment was this....
      you said that we should only give antibiotics to people with "dangerous infection that is plausibly of bacterial origin." My point was that what counts as a "dangerous infection" no mater the definition it will most likely leave out some form of bacterial infection. This bacterial infection carries with it some danger of causing death, the danger is reduced with use of antibiotics. So, all i ment to point out is that denying people antibiotics also carries with a danger. That is all. I am sorry that you didn't get that from my post, perhaps i was assuming too much while writting it. :)

    12. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by VendingMenace · · Score: 1

      NO. that FDA press release will not do.

      That was a press release, not a research project, as was ask for by the poster. Also, the press release used many words like "may cause" and "might cuase." Not very strong language. Furthermore, the acticle provides no meaningful statistics. It just thows out numbers, without any statistical analysis. The only numbers even presented are comparing two years. N=2 is not a very large sample size :( Anyways, the acticle provides nothing that any self-respecting scientist would cite, and only aludes to projects that may happen eventually, so i don't think it adresses the problem.

      anywayz, so if you do know any reseach project that has linked feeding animals antibiotics to resistance of said antibiotics, then post it please. Don't worry i will be able to hang with the science :)

      I hope that i am not seeming mean, i don't intend to, i just really want to be informed. and by a document that actually carries some authority with it.

    13. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by OS2_will_prevail! · · Score: 1
      From the press release you cite:
      another kind of bacteria--Campylobacter--may build up resistance to these drugs. And that's the root of the problem.
      People who consume chicken or turkey contaminated with fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter are at risk of becoming infected with a bacteria that current drugs can't easily kill. Campylobacter is the most common bacterial cause of diarrheal illness in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It's estimated to affect over 2 million persons every year, or 1 percent of the population.


      Campylobacter may build up a resistance. Mind you, no one has proven this to be the case. Indeed, along with being the most common cause of bacterial diarrhea, it is also one of the most common bacteria period. I am fairly certain that we could pull bacterial cultures from various areas in your home and find that campylobacter is present, and even fluoroquinolone resistant strains, even if there has never been a piece of chicken meat in your home. While this bacteria may affect over 2 million people each year, this is not the same as 2 million people being affected because they have consumed resistant bacterial strains that were contained in poultry that consumed antibiotics. (As the press release would want people to believe) This release is just for the purpose of spreading the FUD

      This is not to say that antibiotics should be fed to animals as a matter of course, certainly they should not. This is only to say that there is not one documented case of resistant bacteria being caused by animal production.

      Well, gee, that's why I said "with proper isolation", which includes supervision

      Alas, the chances of proper supervision with proper isolation happening are very nearly zero. Furthermore, they will continue to be so as long as the medical field is told what to do by the medical insurance companies. (i.e. the insurance company decides that they will pay amount $X for condition Y.) Regardless if the doctor spends his entire week treating and supervising one patient with a certain contdition, the pay is the same on a per patient basis as if he sees 30 patients in the same week for the same condition.

      It is up to individuals (doctors and patients) to make good decisions and help reduce the prevelence of resistant bacteria. Prepare and cook your food properly (mentioned in the press release) Antibiotics should only be used when there is a medical reason to do so. (i.e. a bacterial infection, not just "because I feel crummy" or for the flu, etc) And patients should complete their treatment regimines. We are not a bunch of six-year-olds, we should not have to be constantly reminded and supervised in order to do the right thing.
      --
      People are more violently opposed to fur than leather
      because it's safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs
    14. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by Sgt+York · · Score: 1
      You're going to have a tough time finding any real scientific study as strongly worded as you may wish. To a scientist, "strongly suggests" is about as close to an unequivical (sp) statement as you can get.

      To get you started, though:

      Nutr Rev 2002 Aug;60(8):261-4 (review article on the impact of antibiotic use in animals on humans)

      J Am Diet Assoc 2002 Jun;102(6):768 (article on how to communicate the issue to patients, written to Dieticians)

      J Environ Health 2002 May;64(9):66, 62 (WHO data summary)

      And lastly...

      Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 99, Issue 9, 5752-5754, April 30, 2002 If you only read one, read the last one; it's a great outline of the debate. It presents the issue as formally unresolved (as any good paper this early on the debate should), and presents a good case.

      The issues you introduced are true...especially in the case of TB; it's a six month treatment program, and people genrally feel better within a month or so, and they quit taking their pills. The blanket application of ABs to patients for no good reason is an issue that hospitals have been trying to tackle for years (at least since 1995, I wasn't even in the clinical side, but I still got the memos about curbing the use of broad spectrum AB's).

      However, if you go through those articles, you will see that over half of all manufactured antibiotics in the US are used as on livestock, mostly as prophylactics. It is certainly not the only factor, but it is certainly a factor. At the very least, it increases ABR strains of zoonotics (Salmonella, E. coli, etc.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    15. Re:solving antibiotic resistance is pretty simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By killing weaker bacteria with antibiotics might give the resistant bacteria less competition. Better resistance might not necessarily mean that bacteria is better in reproducing. On the contrary: it could diminish that capacity. If it wasn't, wouldn't they be doomed to overcome the "lesser bacteria" wich would have no chance of surviving the competition? Instead the resistant bacteria might need the help of antibiotics (in this case) to cut down competition to survive (and cause severe sickness). This a known phenomenon.

      Maybe we ought to give natural bactreria a chance to overcome the really bad guys, if they possibly can.

  11. Geeks to the rescue by braddeicide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We need more Distributed Computing disease curing programs aka http://folding.stanford.edu/

    tecks and scientists unite! :)

    (stop looking abroad while there's problems at home (SETI))

  12. He's a comin' by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 2, Funny
    1. Re:He's a comin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Twas Flagg, Twas Flagg!!

      The moon is full, and so am I.

      Come to the desert Nadine. Come to the desert and be my bride.

      My life for you! My life for you!

      Ciabola, bumpity bump.

      Hello East Texas.

      Baby can you dig your man?
      He's a righteous man.

      I saw a pale horse and a pale rider upon it. The name of the horse was pestilence. The name of the rider was death.

      It's time to make yo stand!

      Pleased to meet you Lloyd, hope you guess my name.
      Huh?
      It's a classical reference.

    2. Re:He's a comin' by unicron · · Score: 1

      Roland will defeat all. All worlds, all levels of the tower, all will feel his guns.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
  13. New Flu ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it spread by stale sweat on the upper lip?

    1. Re:New Flu ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's the damn homos, using diarrhea as lube again. Silly faggots, asses are for shit!

  14. We have been waiting for the Killer Flu, it's late by dan.hunt · · Score: 1

    The killer flu is something that we have been hearing about, planning for, for years. It is either been averted, postponed, or is just not the threat that it was in the history of the earth. Let's think what would happen when health and emergency service workers are either home sick or too scared to come to work. Even more threatening are the lack of logistic services, road crews, transportation drivers to deliver medicine to the hospital pharmacy. Oh and the sudden need for extra people to work in the "negative patient care outcome" services. ( Funeral Homes ) As an emergency health care services volunteer, I have heard, "the pandemic is coming", for years and years. It is not related to the lack of peace on earth. This flu watch website from Health Canada seems like a good spot to watch for scary trends. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/pphb-dgspsp/fluwatch/02-03/ w09_03/index.html The good news, nothing is out of line. Please return to your regularly scheduled activities, and remember to wash your hands, and if it is wet and sticky and not yours, don't touch it.

  15. Scary by tsa · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is really scary. I have a heart disorder. People with heart disorders are extra vulnerable to the flu, so I hope my doctors will warn me in time and tell me what (not) to do... I heard it takes about 10 years to make a vaccin against a new type of flu so that will probably come too late.
    I think I'll stay indoors and only invite people if I really have to :-)

    --

    -- Cheers!

  16. Why antibiotics are fed to the livestock by Muhammar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Cows and pigs are not supposed eat grains and soya all the time - but it makes them grow quick and their meat is more tender & juicy (=intramuscular fat). High calory/low fieber diet can make the animals sick - the bacteria in the gut would produce a lot of acidic products that irritate/cause inflamation of the gut, resulting in indigestion, diarrhea and poor absorbtion of the feed. But if you suppress bacteria by adding antibiotics, you can feed this stuff with impunity.

    Although, the antibiotic resistance may not have anything to do with this: the pathogen looks to me more like a virus, quite possibly of the influenza variety. Please remember that influenza viruses are *exceptionaly* variable, fast- mutating. They have their natural reservoir in birds (wild population and chicken as weel) and also pigs, and only infect humans when they mutate. Influenza virus needs the host to have a protease capable of activating the key virus protein. Most often these proteases are specific to the particular tissue and animal species - that is until the key virus protein eventualy mutates and a new host becames vulnerable to it.
    When the mutation would happen is unpredictable and if the new influenza virus is only a cousin-relative to the common influenza virus, the neuramidinaze inhibitors may not work at all on it.
    Muhammar

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    1. Re:Why antibiotics are fed to the livestock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Another reason they're fed grain is for consistency. Meat from grass-fed animals tends to vary a lot, and McDonalds wants all their hamburgers to be exactly the same. (See Fast Food Nation).

      From a human health perspective, though, grain-fed is terrible. The resulting balance of fatty acids is much less healthy for you, and you get a lot more e coli...in fact, just feeding the critters grass for the last week has been shown to reduce e coli problems by about 99%.

  17. Omega Post! by dexter+riley · · Score: 4, Funny

    So few posts about a killer bug sweeping the globe? This could mean only one thing...

    I am the LAST SLASHDOT READER ALIVE ON EARTH!!!

    Last Post!!!







    ...damn, I'm lonely.

    1. Re:Omega Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try at last post. But seriously, we'll be by to kill you, say, after dark? Ta ta.

      Sincerely,
      Matthias

  18. "...40,000 people go everyday..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do I have Blue Oyster Cult going through my head?

    And, why am I dreaming about an old black woman who like to say, "may-hab" instead of "maybe"???

  19. Air conditioning / sick building syndrome by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    It takes continuous exposure, such as would be seen by family members or care-givers.

    Or, perhaps, work in buildings with "air conditioning" instead of windows that open and have folk show up to work sick. I realize that "air conditioners" are a big ticket status item among managers, but I would posit that they reduce effectivity by lowering the air quality (low rates of fresh air, higher mold or other contaminants), reducing acclimitization, and work place noise. At least a few years ago in the U.S., it was also a status thing to show up to work sick.

    Proper sick leave policies which do not penalize/prevent employees from taking time to get healthy would go a long way in reducing the potential for such a disease spreading. Ditching the air conditioning and opening the windows would allow clean air in (excepting certain cities).

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  20. Al-Queda terrorist plot? by boy_afraid · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that thought this might be a terrorist plot? Hmmm.... going to war with Iraq, then all of a sudden we hear about all this sick people and this flu with no cure. Now it's in Canada. Hmmm, remeber the movie "The Stand"?

  21. Query X-rated Ouroboros: by Snaller · · Score: 1

    lysing ribozymes

    Is that a typo or how its spelled? :)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Query X-rated Ouroboros: by X-rated+Ouroboros · · Score: 1

      It's not a typo. You might be thinking about ribosomes, though, the RNA/enzyme assemblies that translate mRNA into proteins. Ribozymes are catalytic bits of RNA (incidentally, the part of the ribosome that's responsible for forming the peptide bond between the growing protein and the next amino acid is a ribozyme).

      Base pairing will cause single stranded RNA to fold back on itself and take a specific conformation, much the same as the properties of different amino acids will give a protein it's ultimate shape and function.

      --
      Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions