Slashdot Mirror
Antibiotic-Resistant E Coli Reaches The US For The First Time (reuters.com)
New submitter maharvey writes: A woman in Pennsylvania has contracted a strain of E Coli that is unaffected by all known legal antibiotics, including the antibiotics of last resort. We have had bacteria that were resistant, but this is the first bacteria that is completely immune. Such bacteria were known in China, but since the woman has not traveled recently it means she contracted it in the wild in the USA. This is a major step toward the terrifying post-antibiotic world.
Perhaps this woman's imminent death can serve as a rallying point to ban the (grossly irresponsible) use of antibiotics in foodstock fodder.
Expect the foodstock industry to fight any such suggestion tooth and nail of course. Such a ban will cost them money since foodstock put on weight more slowly when not dosed with low levels of antibiotics, and any scare stories about antibiotics-resistant bacteria are "so many radical treehuggers' fantasies" of course.
"Huh ... it's already happened you say? I thought we had another five years at least. Hmm ... denounce the linkage a speculation based on evolution theory, increase the lobbyist budget, and see if we can't get a deal with a nice understanding conservative presidential candidate."
Why oh why do we need to actually see an antibiotics-resistant bacteria infect somebody before we'll acknowledge the blindingly obvious about to happen?
Sorry you are unable to follow the Google suggestion. When you learn to read before you rant you will eventually discover that the FUD about silver safety is a scam. You need to consume gallons over a long period of time to experience a change of skin color, and even then it doesn't seem to have health consequences.
When you are selling an expensive patented antibiotic and competing against less expensive OTC silver, will you spread the joy that silver is more effective? Or will you look for any way to eliminate the competition? Use your head when you read various opinions. Or join the marketing staff at Monsanto where they need shills like you.
...omphaloskepsis often...
This is a stupid question, but I've always wondered why old (very old, unused for decades) antibacterials can't be resurrected with a restored effectiveness. I liken it to the idea of rotating crops so the field soils aren't totally stripped of nutrients by planting the same crop year after year.
I mean: what does in benefit rather simple organisms to continue to pass along resistance to a spectrum of anti-biotic that their ancestors hadn't been exposed to in decades (and that's how many bacterial generations)? Isn't there a 'carrying capacity' or 'memory limit' to what can be added to their code that has to be slowly deprecated / de-prioritized just for physical space constraints? Asserting they have the Borg-like ability to perfectly add to their defenses without end, sounds a bit too apocalyptic to me.