Slashdot Mirror
New Superbug Weapon to Replace Failing Antibiotics
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers in British Columbia have identified a peptide that can fight infection by boosting the immune system. Because antibiotics are under threat due to an explosion of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, this may be just in time."
I, for one, hope it doesn't work. I have a lot of shotgun shells and canned foods that will go to waste if my prediction of bacteria wiping out the human race doesn't come true.
I don't respond to AC's.
Let's inject it into all our livestock.
We are all just people.
Why do I have a hard time trusting a source like "curedeath.com"?
We need to develop a new, superstrong antibiotic called Placebocillin. If that doesn't work, we can always try intravenous Cephplacebo.
Man, you really need that seminar!
The article is a link to a spam blog. The original content is in this press release, which was copied without attribution. The original source and contact information were removed, six ads were added, and a false claim of copyright was made.
The people behind this are Web Doodle LLC of Missoula, MT, run (as of 2002) by Branden Long. They have other similar spam blogs.
Actually, there has never ever ever ever been any causal link between antibiotic prescriptions for personal, in-home use and the development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria. Given the number of studies by people trying to scare people away from antibioitics, it is likely that such a link simply does not exist, as it would likely have been found by now if it did.
Antibiotic resistance develops as a direct result of hospital use of antibiotics. Unfortunately, hospital use usually equates with life-threatening. The reason that resistant strains take hold in hospitals is that you have a higher concentration of sick people breathing the same air, using some of the same shared facilities, etc. with doctors and nurses moving from patient to patient. As much as they try to minimize the spread of illness among patients, it still occurs, and unlike in your home, the people in the hospital are often already sick or in poor health, and are thus more susceptible to bacteria that (barely) survived a round of antibiotics.
By contrast, letting yourself "wait a few days while you get better" from bacterial infections has been linked to numerous diseases, including several varieties of arthritis, rheumatic fever, Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, and even heart damage. Waiting it out is absolutely the worst thing you can do.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Actually, stopping when you feel better is a pretty good idea. The bug is gone, and the body will take care of the rest. The more time you expose organisms to antibiotics, the more time they have to adapt to it.
...
It doesn't work that way. When you're infected, some of the bacteria have more resistance than others -- resistance is a fairly complicated trait; it's not binary. So if you stop "as soon as you feel better," what this means is that you've killed off just enough of the least resistant bacteria so that you don't notice the symptoms of infection any more; there are still plenty of somewhat-more-but-not-completely resistant bacteria in your body, and you've created a massive selective pressure favoring those strains. Whereas if you finish the prescribed course of antibiotics, you're wiping out all but the very most resistant -- and that's likely to be a fairly small number, which your immune system can indeed deal with on its own, now that most of the bacteria overall are out of they way.
I hate to bring up such a politically charged analogy, but this is the best way I can think of to explain it: suppose you're planning to invade a country and eliminate all resistance. You have two courses of action available:
(a) Attack, keep attacking, kill anyone who resists, and even after visible resistance has ceased, keep aggressively patrolling every square foot of the country until well after you're sure that everyone who might oppose your rule is dead.
(b) Attack, kill off the most visible opponents, ease up until a rebellion starts, kill a few more people until things quiet down, ease up until a rebellion starts, kill a few more people
Which option do you think is likely to be most effective? Conversely, which one do you think is most likely to produce a hardened and pretty much ineradicable resistance? Hint: (b) is pretty much what people who stop taking antibiotics as soon as they feel better are doing.
Of course, my analogy should only be interpreted in medical terms. Doesn't have anything to do with anything else that's going on in the world. Uh-uh. Not a bit. No sirree.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
My mother was a nurse trained in the 40's. Since this was before major antibiotic use, significant training was about sanitation control. No wrist watches (since you might not wash), how to change bed sheets (to minimize airborne dust), and proper washing.
Now we have keyboards, remote controls, and all kinds of stuff that can't be cleaned. She died from an infection carried by improperly sterilized diagnostic equipment.
Today, hospital care seems to be more about pushing pills and foregoing the basics so it's no wonder we have resistant bugs.