Slashdot Mirror
Seaweed Antibiotics?
Dan Gaffney writes "A new treatment for cholera and perhaps a new type of antibiotic medicine may emerge from compounds discovered in an Australian seaweed. University of New South Wales researchers have found that furanones - isolated from the seaweed Delisea pulchra - can prevent the bacteria that cause cholera from switching on their disease-causing mechanisms. Furanones don't kill such microbes but simply "jam" their ability to signal each other, meaning their use less likely to create the drug-resistance problems."
While any new antimicrobial drug would be very welcome in this time of increase resistance and decreased antibiotic innovation, this research has just started the animal testing phase and as such there are no live trials yet. If furanones disable the ability of microbes to send signals to each other this could have a very detrimental effect on our health. Our bodies are partialy controled by the symbiotic relationship we have with certain benevolent bacteria that we carry around with us. The human intestinal microbiota plays an important role in maintaining human health by preventing colonization by pathogens and increased nutrient uptake by the body. While antibiotics are somewhat targeted toward a specific type of bacteria, furanones disrupt basic microbial communication. I'm not saying this wont work, just that without live testing this is way too early to be news.
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
You are right. You are so right, in fact, that it verges on a straw man argument. Or maybe I see this more than the average person.
From the doctor's perspective, I see patients all the time who complain of infectious symptoms. I have a choice: the slow way or the fast way. The slow way is: I explain to them why it is important to finish the full course of antibiotics. More likely, though, I spend the time to tell them why it is more likely that they have a viral illness where they don't need antibiotics. If I do that, then I need to make sure that they really don't have a bacterial infection (or at least one that should be treated). Even if I am confident that they don't need antibiotics, I need to show to the patient that I took their concern seriously, or else they will simply ignore my medical advice and go to another doctor, who might do it the fast way.
The fast way is: I write a prescription for "amoxicillin 875mg PO bid; mit: #20". Done! Boy, that was fast. Zip in, zip out. I could see 10 patients an hour this way, and make so much money that I could afford to buy Windows XP. In this day and age, you add a disclaimer to the patient: "It's mostly likely a virus where the antibiotic doesn't work, but just in case ... I want to make sure you get better, you know." There, now you can't be classified as "doctor who tells patients that antibiotics will treat viruses."
I almost invariably choose the slow way, but the choice is not always that black & white. Not only is there time pressure to do it the fast way (think about this the next time you complain about waiting room times), but there is pressure from the patients who demand the antibiotic. Even for these demanding patients, I try to explain why the antibiotic is probably not effective, hoping to wear away at their resistance to conservative (non-medical) treatment, knowing full well that I will end up writing a prescription, at least this time.
It's not all the patient's fault either. Suppose you are a coder working for EA Games or something. You need to be at work, but you have infectious symptoms. You want something to make it go away, quickly and reliably. Can you be blamed for wanting an antibiotic? You know, *just in case* it's bacterial. And, geez, it's been 7 days of sore throat already --surely a visit to the doctor is justified? And surely you don't want to walk out of there with the doctor merely patting you saying, "There there, there there"? Besides, what good are drug benefits if you don't take advantage of them?
Maybe you decide to get the antibiotic, but you won't take them if your symptoms improve --that way you don't overuse antibiotics, right? Two months down the road, George in the next cubicle goes home sick with strep throat during one of those Death March sessions, and you can't afford to go home sick either! Hey, didn't you have some antibiotics from last time that you never used? You'd go to a doctor and all, but, geez, you're already behind schedule with 12-hour days. Might as well use the antibiotics before they expire.
You see, even with an educated populace it's difficult to do the right thing, simply because the acute problem is so much more overwhelming than the abstract concept of "population epidemiology". Surely if you pop that one antibiotic, it wouldn't cause spiraling Medicare costs ten years down the road? If this is so, what can you expect of citizens of impoverished countries who get these magical pills that make things all better?
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
Funny how the guy *is* a medical expert, and how his rant is consistent with the informed conventional wisdom. Funny how you betray your own attitude with your oblique reference to an "activist", like that's something bad. Passivists are funny when they actually dare to do something, and look stupid.
--
make install -not war