A Popular Sugar Additive May Have Fueled the Spread of Two Superbugs (latimes.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Popular Sugar Additive May Have Fueled the Spread of Two Superbugs (latimes.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday January 7, 2018 @03:34AM from the not-so-sweet dept.

Zorro (Slashdot reader #15,797) quotes the Los Angeles Times: Two bacterial strains that have plagued hospitals around the country may have been at least partly fueled by a sugar additive in our food products, scientists say. Trehalose, a sugar that is added to a wide range of food products, could have allowed certain strains of Clostridium difficile to become far more virulent than they were before, a new study finds. The results, described in the journal Nature, highlight the unintended consequences of introducing otherwise harmless additives to the food supply.
Nearly half a million people were sickened by C. difficile in 2011, when it was directly linked to 15,000 deaths. "The misuse and overuse of antibiotics has long been thought to be responsible for the rise of many kinds of antibiotic-resistant 'superbug'," notes the article, before citing a researcher who now believes "the circumstantial and experimental evidence points to trehalose as an unexpected culprit."

125 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

highlight by Mr+D+from+63 · 2018-01-07 03:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

...highlight the unintended consequences of introducing otherwise harmless additives to the food supply.
It seems like this 'highlights' one unique and unproven possibility, and nothing more. Getting ahead of ourselves....
1. Re:highlight by tomhath · 2018-01-07 04:56 · Score: 2
  
  What they've found is that certain strains of C.diff can convert trehalose into glucose; so the bacteria are using the sugar that's available to them. The important thing to keep in mind is that millions of people consume trehalose every day. It takes more than a bit of this sugar in one's food to cause the problem.
2. Re:highlight by mikael · 2018-01-07 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  There are petri dish experiments where you can take strains of bacteria which cannot digest particular sugars, place them in a large petri dish tray with nutrients and an "undigestable sugar", then watch as the mutations gradually build up until they are capable of digesting that particular sugar.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
3. Re:highlight by Cinnamon+Beige · 2018-01-07 05:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  ...highlight the unintended consequences of introducing otherwise harmless additives to the food supply.
  It seems like this 'highlights' one unique and unproven possibility, and nothing more. Getting ahead of ourselves....
  Actually, reading the paper over in Nature (sorry, paywall) and good science reporting from the kinds of places that'll link you straight to Nature? They're very clear that they've not gotten to do human trials--which is understandable, you're not going to get to do them without the paper, and even then you might have a severe amount of trouble getting permission to do them given that C. diff can be fatal.
  What it highlights, really, is that the current methods used to determine if a food additive is harmless are stupid. Animal models are only good at telling us if it's safe for that species--in this specific case, some of the weaknesses the researchers behind the paper note is that we don't know if trehalose makes it far enough in the human intestine to reach where C. diff gets found. (It totally does in mice.) The models they used, however, were a lot closer to human than is usual for safety testing: the mice were modified and set up to have human-like gut flora, which is what was required to catch this problem. That said, given that the enzyme required to break down trehalose is not abundant even in those people who have it? It's likely that the mouse models are close enough.
4. Re:highlight by interkin3tic · 2018-01-07 05:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is not idle unproven speculation. Scientists use phrases like "suggests" rather than "proves" only because they recognize their own data can be misleading. This is published in one of the most competitive journals, speculation doesn't cut it.
  
  The article can be found paywalled here The abstract highlights that any uncertainty is in the related details, not whether or not it happened.
  
  Clostridium difficile disease has recently increased to become a dominant nosocomial pathogen in North America and Europe, although little is known about what has driven this emergence. Here we show that two epidemic ribotypes (RT027 and RT078) have acquired unique mechanisms to metabolize low concentrations of the disaccharide trehalose. RT027 strains contain a single point mutation in the trehalose repressor that increases the sensitivity of this ribotype to trehalose by more than 500-fold. Furthermore, dietary trehalose increases the virulence of a RT027 strain in a mouse model of infection. RT078 strains acquired a cluster of four genes involved in trehalose metabolism, including a PTS permease that is both necessary and sufficient for growth on low concentrations of trehalose. We propose that the implementation of trehalose as a food additive into the human diet, shortly before the emergence of these two epidemic lineages, helped select for their emergence and contributed to hypervirulence.
  I haven't read the paper and don't have a background in it. Reviewers do sometimes make mistakes obviously. But you'd be an idiot to say this is "just an unproven possibility." Leave spewing "meh, scientists, what do they know, just a theory" FUD to the sleazeballs hired by the relevant industry. If you have an actual critique of their methods, by all means, post it here and on pubmed commons or wherever else. Publish a response in nature even. But don't fucking parrot cigarette company lawyers, climate change deniers, and creationists, here on slashdot.
5. Re:highlight by Hal_Porter · 2018-01-07 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  I saw a horrifying experiment where they had bacteria on agar blocks. The first one had no antibiotic, the next one had 1x, the one after that 10x , 100x, 1000x, and so on.
  So the bacteria spread all through the antibiotic free block. Then some mutant strain appears which is able to colonise the one with 1x antibiotic concentration. After a while another mutant strain appears and that colonises the one with 10x antibiotic concentration. Given enough time, the bacteria eventually colonise the block with 1000x antibiotic concentration.
  Of course the worrying thing about this experiment is that a malicious actor could presumably produce bacteria which are resistant to almost any antibiotic given a lot of time and agar even if they didn't know anything about the underlying resistance mechanism, thanks to the wonders of natural selection.
  I suppose in a sense hospitals are effectively doing this experiment given how common drug resistant bacteria are there.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
6. Re:highlight by mikael · 2018-01-07 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  This is the video:
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  https://www.wired.com/story/ba...
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
7. Re:highlight by Hal_Porter · 2018-01-07 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Another wonderfully devious mechanism is transcription errors in HIV. HIV is a retrovirus - it stores its genetic material as RNA and uses an enzyme called reverse transcriptase to copy RNA to DNA. Normally all copying goes the other way - DNA is copied to RNA which is then used as instructions to build proteins.
  So reverse transcriptase is in a sense going the wrong way - it's the biological equivalent of disassembling a binary to produce an assembler file. And the interesting thing it has a high transcription error rate. Of course if you make a bunch of viruses with a few errors some of them will fail to reproduce because they've got a mutation which stops reproduction. Some will be OK. Some will be mutations that aren't fatal to the virus. And some of those mutations will be resistant to drugs.
  So HIV and other retroviruses are actually good at evading drugs because their copying mechanism is bad. Yay evolution!
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
8. Re:highlight by rtb61 · 2018-01-07 12:11 · Score: 2
  
  Which is why composite anti-biotics should become the norm. More than one kind in the medication, larger overall dose but the combination should ensure similar side affects are compounded. This to push the bacteria beyond the point where it's DNA can incorporate all the required selective resistances. It can resist any one or two at a time but not multiples of three or more.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
9. Re:highlight by angel'o'sphere · 2018-01-07 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  It is even simpler.
  In the real world a specimem of bacteria does not livve alone, there are other bacteria around it.
  If one of them breaks up the long sugars, all of them can feed on on it.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
10. Re:highlight by mikael · 2018-01-07 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  I read that they had tubes that allowed fragments of DNA/RNA to be shared between each other. They also have signalling systems to tell everyone to go easy on the food when it is in short supply. They form biofilms as a defense mechanism. Under environmental stress, they actually accelerate mutations by doubling expression of genes.
  
  --
  Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
11. Re:highlight by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 20:30 · Score: 0
  
  Well, I'm sure that people suffering from such an infection will be relieved to hear your expert opinion, and will continue to consume trehalose without fear of worsening their problems.
12. Re:highlight by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 20:53 · Score: 0
  
  Scientists use phrases like "suggests" rather than "proves" only because they recognize their own data can be misleading.
  Scientists use "suggest" rather than "prove" because you can really prove things if you have incomplete information (and you always do). If Newton had "proved" his theory of gravitation, it would have been disproved by Einstein's theory of relativity. However, within a certain range of conditions (at slow speeds, relative to the speed of light) Newton's laws work. That doesn't prove the theory is correct, but within that range of conditions, it produces valid predictions for the behaviour of a body.
13. Re:highlight by dwywit · 2018-01-07 21:42 · Score: 1
  
  Quick, somebody with points mod this "Insightful". I'm glad we have such experts to guide us.
  Sheesh.
  
  --
  They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
14. Re:highlight by Hal_Porter · 2018-01-07 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  HIV probably evolved from similar T cell targeting retroviruses in chimps.
  Of course the viruses that survive in humans target human cells. Lots of mutations can't do that and they don't survive.
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
15. Re:highlight by Gilgaron · 2018-01-08 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  HIV has a very low percentage of infectious particles compared to many other viruses, because it mutates so much. So, yes, the parts that allow it to infect human cells get broken, too, but enough get made that function that it keeps on going. That's part of why it takes so long to become a big enough problem for you to develop symptoms versus, say, rabies that is easy to develop an immune response to but will kill you too fast.
16. Re:highlight by Gilgaron · 2018-01-08 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, designing a study to catch something like this would be extremely difficult and expensive, with the intersection with an infection followed up by antibiotic treatment. You'd have to have so many permutations for different treatment regimens and their affects on various microflora environments in the human body (and validated animal models for each!) that you're going to easily get to more than the whole industry spends on food additives in total, I'd bet.
The sugar is trehalose by blind+biker · 2018-01-07 03:55 · Score: 4, Informative

I was pissed that I had to click on the stupid article link just to find out the name of the sugar, so there it is.
From Wikipedia:

Trehalose, also known as mycose or tremalose, is a natural alpha-linked disaccharide formed by an ,-1,1-glucoside bond between two -glucose units. In 1832, H.A.L. Wiggers discovered trehalose in an ergot of rye,[3] and in 1859 Marcellin Berthelot isolated it from trehala manna, a substance made by weevils, and named it trehalose.[4] It can be synthesised by bacteria,[5] fungi, plants, and invertebrate animals. It is implicated in anhydrobiosis—the ability of plants and animals to withstand prolonged periods of desiccation. It has high water retention capabilities, and is used in food and cosmetics.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
1. Re:The sugar is trehalose by skam240 · 2018-01-07 04:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  FTS
  "Trehalose, a sugar that is added to a wide range of food products, could have allowed certain strain..."
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
2. Re:The sugar is trehalose by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  You obviously did not see the name of the sugar because you are blind.
  It is right in the unedited synopsis .
BULL$#1T and misdirection by chromaexcursion · 2018-01-07 03:57 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Trehalose may have contributed to the problem, just maybe.
Saying overuse of antibiotics is not the primary cause is a raft of shit.
The author obviously has an agenda.
the article isn't worth the electricity it cost to light up my screen.
1. Re: BULL$#1T and misdirection by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  You can prove them wrong by pulling your own stat out your ass.
2. Re:BULL$#1T and misdirection by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Saying overuse of antibiotics is not the primary cause is a raft of shit.
  I forgot to add, I know this because, well, everybody knows it. It seems to make sense, therefore it's absolutely true.
3. Re:BULL$#1T and misdirection by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 07:39 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, this kind of agressive rebutal is usually a very good indicator of an underlying agenda.
4. Re: BULL$#1T and misdirection by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 07:50 · Score: 0
  
  Calls claim shit, Makes counterclaim, provides no situations.
  Yep, welcome to slashdot.
5. Re:BULL$#1T and misdirection by HiThere · 2018-01-07 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Just because overuse of antibiotics is the primary cause of many problems doesn't make that the primary cause of all problems. Vaguely tested food additives are also the primary cause of many problems, and this may well be one of them.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"otherwise harmless additives" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 04:06 · Score: 0

You may want to consider using that wording very carefully. The number of cancer cases per capita in the west has literally grown ten-fold during the 1900's, with the increased usage of chemical additives we considered "harmless".
1. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  lol. Good one.
2. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Tobacco was considered "harmless".
  Leaded fuel was considered "harmless".
  Salt was considered "harmless".
  Sugar was considered "harmless".
3. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by Paradise+Pete · 2018-01-07 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  What's wrong with salt?
4. Re:"otherwise harmless additives" by Cinnamon+Beige · 2018-01-07 06:27 · Score: 2
  
  You may want to consider using that wording very carefully. The number of cancer cases per capita in the west has literally grown ten-fold during the 1900's, with the increased usage of chemical additives we considered "harmless".
  All current evidence supports the view that cancer is literally the result of sufficient accumulation of mutations & low immune function--there is no 'magic' way to avoid it, it's not proof of sinful indulgence in scary chemicals like dihydrogen monoxide or anything. You just did not die before your body stopped being able to kill off cancerous cells fast enough.
  Since the 1900s, life expectancy has steadily increased due to the discovery of such things as 'antibiotics' and other means to keep people from dying. Most of modern pharmacology doesn't date back to before the 1900s, damn few things date to before the 1850s or so, and a lot of the stuff used circa 1900 for medicine that isn't still in use was dropped from the pharmacopeia. (The only ways to pull off that feat is having truly horrible side effects and/or being proven to be snake oil. Only the second is 100% certain to result in removal.)
5. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by Cinnamon+Beige · 2018-01-07 06:56 · Score: 2
  
  From the perspective of somebody who actually studied physiology+biochemistry and then wandered into neuroscience?
  Absolutely nothing is wrong with salt, except most people don't consume anywhere near sufficient potassium. Sodium and potassium really, really need to be kept in balance--they're key to neurons' ability to generate action potentials and electrical signalling. (One interesting test on how to treat high sodium levels actually tried potassium supplementation instead of cutting salt intake to great success--it doesn't hurt that most Americans have a potassium deficiency. If you don't use the salt shaker and supplement potassium, then you should be fine and if you're not then you need to see a doctor & then a licensed dietician.)
6. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by BronsCon · 2018-01-07 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying I should eat a salted banana for breakfast every morning?
  
  But seriously, this information was actually useful as I recently increased my salt intake because I wasn't getting enough and have felt somewhat of a mental fog ever since; I'll add potassium into the mix and see how that goes. Now, why didn't my doctor tell me about this when he told me I wasn't getting enough sodium?
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
7. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  Apparently you need to find a doctor that reads slashdot ;)
  All the pros hang here.
8. Re:"otherwise harmless additives" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  It's irrelevant how and why OTHER causes of death have dropped drastically, cancer rates have still exploded, and it didn't happen by itself. Ignoring or hand-waving it is idiocy.
9. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by Cinnamon+Beige · 2018-01-07 08:40 · Score: 2
  
  Probably because he didn't do his undergrad as a biochemist--that's part of why the sequence I suggested included a registered dietician, because while your GP won't necessarily have a deep knowledge of biochemistry and physiology, it's pretty hard to become a registered dietician/nutritionist without it.
  But yeah, raising your potassium should help with the mental fog--you might want to step it up carefully, and it might also help some with the sodium since your body will do its best to keep them relatively even. Add in a decent source of calcium if you want to make sure you've got all three of the major ions for your nervous system just to be sure.
10. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by angel'o'sphere · 2018-01-07 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  If you eat a western diet, you get 5 - 10 times the amount of salt you "need" without any need to use a salt shaker.
  The idea "I did not get enough salt" is utter nonsense, unless you live on a special diet and avoid every standard food you would get in a shop or restaurant.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
11. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by BronsCon · 2018-01-07 12:44 · Score: 1
  
  Odd, the biochemist didn't raise that point. I think I'm going to trust them over you, thanks.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
12. Re:"otherwise harmless additives" by HiThere · 2018-01-07 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  I tend to consider that to be due to a "safe" level of multiple pesticide residues rather than to mainly be due to insufficiently tested food additives. Not saying there can't be interactions between the two phenomena.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
13. Re:"otherwise harmless additives" by jblues · 2018-01-07 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  Disgusting as it sounds, the use of Maggot Therapy has recommenced for the treatment of necrosis. Leeches are being used in plastic surgery. Phages and other potions are being employed for resistant bacterial infections.
  
  --
  If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
14. Re:"otherwise harmless additives" by Cinnamon+Beige · 2018-01-07 15:01 · Score: 1
  Pharmacopias would not include any of these things; they deal with pharmaceuticals, not therapies. I also chose the dates I did in part because of knowing the rough timeline of things. Going through your list...
  
  Maggot therapy is actually relatively new even though the observations can be traced to the American Civil War in the 1860s. Until around the time Lister went about spreading the word of germ theory and antiseptic surgery in the 1870s, necrosis was seen as good.
  Leeches were used in the past for trying to balance out the humors, not prevent blood from pooling as they're used in surgery now. They also are living things and not pharmaceuticals.
  Phages aren't a potion--they're viruses--and were discovered in 1915, so even if they were a drug as opposed to living things, they'd still be in the 'after 1900' period.
15. Re:"otherwise harmless additives" by jblues · 2018-01-07 20:08 · Score: 1
  
  So that's why my barber says "the necrosis is setting in nicely" - always wondered what he meant.
  
  --
  If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
16. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by Paradise+Pete · 2018-01-07 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  So you're saying I should eat a salted banana for breakfast every morning?
  Almonds are a great source of potassium and a tasty low-carb snack.
17. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by Paradise+Pete · 2018-01-07 20:54 · Score: 1
  
  the amount of salt you "need"
  
  Why would the scare quotes? People do need salt.
18. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by angel'o'sphere · 2018-01-07 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  Because parent was talking about a particular "salt" and another salt in the same context.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
19. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-08 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  After a few decades of having to go to the bathroom more and more often with less and less urine expressed each time, I started consuming ever to slightly more salt, and problem solved. I went from drinking a glass of water and having to take a piss 20-30 minutes later of clear urine that looked just like water, to finally having to wait an hour or two and having a slight yellow color. The worst part was I was so thirsty all the time and was very sensitive to heat, got dizzy quite easily on warm days and crazy thirsty.
  
  What was interesting is I went in for my yearly checkup every year, and my blood work always came back texbook perfect. I didn't even have to add much salt to my diet to see a quick effect. Around 20%-40% of the daily minimum added to my dinner every other night. Benefits realized in less than a week. I never thought I had a sodium issue because of the fast food and frozen dinners for lunch that I would eat. But I did notice that my religious breakfast of Frosted Miniwheats and homecooked dinners had little sodium. You can always add salt after you cook, but you can never take it out. So we tend to use 1/2 the salt that a recipe calls for.
20. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by jbengt · 2018-01-08 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  You can always add salt after you cook, but you can never take it out. So we tend to use 1/2 the salt that a recipe calls for.
  Now, that's just wrong if you're actually cooking/baking a dish, rather than just adding salt to a soup or something. Sometimes the salt is there for chemical reactions necessary for the result.
21. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by angel'o'sphere · 2018-01-08 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, that is odd, hence you should rather 'trust' me and read a book about it.
  A simple hot dog from the street shop contains more salt than you need per single day.
  You did not know that? You see ...
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
22. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by BronsCon · 2018-01-08 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  My doctor, the one I actually see in the flesh, not some rando who likes to argue with me on Slashdot, ran actual blood tests and determined that I had a sodium deficiency. A biochem undergrad who likely understands these things far better than you decided it wise to not argue with that and, rather, added something actually useful to the conversation. And before you jump in and point out how I never mentioned a doctor, I might suggest you read the entire post, as it ended with the following:
  
  Now, why didn't my doctor tell me about this when he told me I wasn't getting enough sodium?
  From a biochem perspective (I have background here, so I follow what Cinnamon Beige is saying; it's not my strong point so it tends not to click with me right away like a lot of other things) it makes sense that your body, in an attempt to maintain balance between sodium, potassium, and calcium levels would eliminate sodium (e.g. you pee it out) if you're not getting enough potassium or calcium. In fact, that's actually what happens so, yes, you can eat the LD50 of salt for your body weight every day and still have low sodium; you'd have to also be drinking a lot of water to eliminate that much sodium from your body and you'd have a litany of other issue along with it, but it's possible if your potassium and/or calcium intake is low enough. And that actually makes sense for me, as well, as I've been avoiding milk-based products -- which have been my primary calcium source for basically my entire life -- due to other recent (and temporary) issues, and the occasional mental fog of which I complain did start rolling in about a month or so after that change. Low calcium = biochem balancing act = low potassium = low sodium as both are eliminated through urine.
  
  But yes, I probably get a day's worth of salt from the ham and egg sandwich I have for breakfast every morning. I also probably piss most of it out an hour or so later; your book didn't point that out, so maybe you need to read another?
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
23. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by BronsCon · 2018-01-08 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed they are. I actually took a second look at this from a biochem perspective and realized I probably have low calcium intake due to some recent dietary changes, which would be bringing down my potassium and sodium as my body eliminates them in an attempt to maintain some semblance of balance between the three. It's amazing, the things I've learned and then later forgotten because they don't apply to anything that pays the bills or fills my leisure time -- then remember again when someone points out some little detail.
  
  For the record, I keep a bowl of almonds at my desk. I do get a small amount of calcium from them, but I only munch on them when I crave them, about once a week or so. Now that I realize there's probably a dietary reason for the craving, I'll step it up a bit. Your comment lead me to look into the calcium content of almonds and I was surprised to find that they're actually a better source than the milk I've recently (mostly) removed from my diet. Thank you.
  
  An additional note for the record, follower by a question: I've received two helpful replies to this post actually grounded in fact and genuine knowledge; and only one troll thus far. That, of course, is leading me to wonder: am I actually still on Slashdot?
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
24. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by Paradise+Pete · 2018-01-08 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  I've received two helpful replies to this post actually grounded in fact and genuine knowledge;
  Sorry, I don't know what I was thinking. I'll try not to do it again. :-)
25. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by angel'o'sphere · 2018-01-10 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Rofl,
  why that hostillity?
  I only pointed out that salt deficit for a modern western life styke is extremely unlikely.
  So bottom line you have no salt deficit but a deficit of other minerals? So why do you try to get more slat then?
  Seems I don't grasp it :)
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
26. Re: "otherwise harmless additives" by BronsCon · 2018-01-10 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  So bottom line you have no salt deficit but a deficit of other minerals? So why do you try to get more slat then?
  Seems I don't grasp it :)
  Indeed it seems you don't, as I'm no longer doing that. There's a timeline, here, that you might want to try and follow. Let's review:
  
  I went to see my doctor. Doctor tells me I need more sodium (specifically), so I follow that advice.
  
  Some time later, a biochemist comes along and points out something that, were I still involved in that field, would have been blatantly obvious to me.
  
  I use that information to further determine that, perhaps, a deficiency in some other nutrient is causing my body to eliminate what it deems to be excess sodium.
  
  I review the tests my doctor ran and note that none of them report calcium or potassium.
  
  Well, damn, looks like my problem may well lie elsewhere, then, because -- as you so astutely pointed out -- I'm obviously getting enough sodium.
  
  So, with that in mind, I'm no longer seeking more sodium in my diet but, rather, correcting the likely imbalance that caused the low sodium to begin with.
  
  Follow?
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Link to the actual article by Wrath0fb0b · 2018-01-07 04:08 · Score: 5, Informative

And shame on both the LA Times and /. for not ensuring that there was a link to the original article or at least a DOI.
1. Re:Link to the actual article by ColdWetDog · 2018-01-07 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, I'd go on about the Slashdot 'editors' but then, they're Slashdot editors.
  I'd be surprised if even a tiny fraction of the LA Times readership knew what a DOI was. And anyone who did could do exactly what you did.
  Lighten up, Frances.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Link to the actual article by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention the actual history.
  The sugar tax was part of the early Cuba boycott from the 1960s.
  It set off the boom in corn syrup production, and obesity, which continues.
  They can't remove the sugar tax without hurting the weight loss industry.
Written by a contact editor at the LA Tiimes by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 04:09 · Score: 0

Reader beware.
Something for Nothing by skam240 · 2018-01-07 04:16 · Score: 3, Informative

I've never trusted artificial sweateners. Call it irrational if you want but they just seem like getting something for nothing and I don't trust that. In this case we just discovered Trehalose's hidden "price".
I have a close friend who has been diagnosed c.diff free for almost three months now. It took him years of discomfort and our last line drug for the disease (which apperently is new enough insurance companies arent covering it yet) to get to this point.
To improve my own diet I just ate less and less sweet stuff over time. After a while you don't crave it any more.

--
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
1. Re:Something for Nothing by skam240 · 2018-01-07 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, correction.
  "In this case we may have just discovered Trehalose's hidden "price".
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
2. Re:Something for Nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  A lot of research is unfortunately rife with selection and confirmation biases.
3. Re:Something for Nothing by billyswong · 2018-01-07 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The article is confusing but Trehalose is a real sugar, providing energy similar to table sugar, and exists in nature too. The article should elaborate more on why food industries use this rare form of sugar now when they could have used table sugar instead.
4. Re: Something for Nothing by TheMeuge · 2018-01-07 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Recurrent C diff is most effectively treated by stool transplants. Been known for at least 6 years.
5. Re:Something for Nothing by DontBeAMoran · 2018-01-07 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  To improve my own diet I just ate less and less sweet stuff over time. After a while you don't crave it any more.
  The same thing happens with salt.
  
  --
  #DeleteFacebook
6. Re: Something for Nothing by skam240 · 2018-01-07 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Was tried. Failed.
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
7. Re:Something for Nothing by skam240 · 2018-01-07 05:03 · Score: 1
  
  Deffinitly. When i dip salted tortilla chips in store bought salsa it's far too salty for me nowadays.
  I generally buy unsalted tortilla chips and make my own salsa with little to no salt depending on the quality of the ingredients and the type I'm making.
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
8. Re:Something for Nothing by Paradise+Pete · 2018-01-07 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I've never trusted artificial sweateners. Call it irrational if you want but they just seem like getting something for nothing
  That's why I don't trust flavors. Sure, they seem to make food taste good, but is it really getting something for nothing?
9. Re: Something for Nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Because they can claim 'no sugar added' on the package.
10. Re:Something for Nothing by ColdWetDog · 2018-01-07 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  Except that it really is artificial in terms of 'not normally seen in this concentration in anything but highly processed foods'. Which are, for reasonable definitions of the term, artificial.
  But, yes, you point out that it can provide energy to bugs. So it's a real fuel source. If you're a bug.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
11. Re: Something for Nothing by ColdWetDog · 2018-01-07 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  No, actually does work. Sometimes. I can't recall correctly and I'm too lazy to lookIIRC it's about 50% with current 'technology'. People are working madly to figure it out. Something in there is helpful. And that's no shit.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
12. Re:Something for Nothing by Wild_dog! · 2018-01-07 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  I think I have a Japanese gene. I love love love salt. No amount seems to be too much except drinking pure ocean water. That is a bit edgy.
13. Re:Something for Nothing by CrimsonAvenger · 2018-01-07 05:31 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Because too many people have a rabid fear of sugar after listening to the anti-sugar nazis for decades?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
14. Re:Something for Nothing by king+neckbeard · 2018-01-07 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  But one of the pathways this bacteria used was breaking down trehalose into glucose, which it could then use. If that's the case, then table sugar would likely have the same problem, unless I'm missing something.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
15. Re: Something for Nothing by billyswong · 2018-01-07 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  So an addictive drug that change its chemical formula slightly from the standard form will suddenly gain legal status? Wow. If a food company can claim 'no sugar added' for a chemical that tastes like sugar and gives energy to body like sugar (trehalose is readily digested into glucose in human bodies), then it's not totally the food industries' fault. The regulation authority need to take responsibility too.
16. Re:Something for Nothing by yndrd1984 · 2018-01-07 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  The article should elaborate more on why food industries use this rare form of sugar now when they could have used table sugar instead.
  Since it can be extracted from starch, I'm going to guess cost.
17. Re: Something for Nothing by yndrd1984 · 2018-01-07 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Because they can claim 'no sugar added' on the package.
  I'm skeptical of that - trehalose doesn't appear to be like aspartame or sucralose. Do you have a citation?
18. Re:Something for Nothing by religionofpeas · 2018-01-07 06:45 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Yep, just like they have a rabid fear of cigarettes after listening to the anti-tobacco nazis.
19. Re: Something for Nothing by BronsCon · 2018-01-07 07:27 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Sucrose, glucose, and fructose are the sugars that the FDA actually considers sugar. Since trehalose is none of those, you can add it and claim "no sugar added" the same way you can add guarana to something and still call it "caffeine free". It's false advertising, but with a legal green flag.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
20. Re:Something for Nothing by BronsCon · 2018-01-07 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's also readily digested into glucose in the human digestive tract so, well, it can provide energy to humans as well.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
21. Re:Something for Nothing by Pinky's+Brain · 2018-01-07 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  More competition for glucose.
22. Re: Something for Nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 07:55 · Score: 0
  
  I would say apples and oranges.
  But you are comparing sugar to cigarettes? You jumped the shark.
  Weeeeeeeeeee, im the fonz, ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy chachiiiiiii
23. Re: Something for Nothing by yndrd1984 · 2018-01-07 09:36 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Sucrose, glucose, and fructose are the sugars that the FDA actually considers sugar.
  That's not a citation, that's just assertion. So I'll do the work for you:
  According to this the term "no sugar added" may only be used if no sugar was added using the definition of sugar found here, which states "sugars shall be defined as the sum of all free mono- and disaccharides (such as glucose, fructose, lactose, and sucrose)."
  Trehalose is a disaccharide, so...
24. Re: Something for Nothing by BronsCon · 2018-01-07 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  I always stand to be corrected, thanks for the information.
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
25. Re:Something for Nothing by skam240 · 2018-01-07 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Of course those aren't the same thing. The term "artificial" seems to have flown right over your head.
  Don't worry though, in spite of your sniping commentary I don't mind holding your hand and walking you through basic reading comprehension.
  We're all in this together my friend. We'll get you reading like a champ in no time.
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
26. Re:Something for Nothing by skam240 · 2018-01-07 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, type 2 diabetes has nothing to do with sugar intake. What an intelligent person you are.
  
  --
  I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
27. Re:Something for Nothing by HiThere · 2018-01-07 12:51 · Score: 1
  
  IIUC (not at all sure) Trehalose is digested further down the digestive tract than is sucrose. They also seem to imply that only some people have the enzymes needed to digest it.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
28. Re: Something for Nothing by yndrd1984 · 2018-01-07 14:06 · Score: 1
  
  And I always thank people when they're being unusually classy.
  So, thank you.
29. Re: Something for Nothing by BronsCon · 2018-01-07 15:21 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Did this exchange really just happen on Slashdot? Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
30. Re: Something for Nothing by king+neckbeard · 2018-01-07 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  You can blame the food industry while blaming the regulation authority, especially since there's a very high chance that we've got enough regulatory capture that treating them as separate entities doesn't make sense.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
31. Re: Something for Nothing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-08 01:44 · Score: 0
  
  You must not be new here...
32. Re:Something for Nothing by DarthVain · 2018-01-08 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure he had Cdiff? For "years"? I had it for 3 agony filled days. I'm pretty sure if you've had it for any length of time if would kill you. I'm pretty sure with the amount of pain I was in for 3 days I would have killed myself long before that at any rate if it didn't. Perhaps there is a range of severity, but I know with what I had there is no way I would have lasted anywhere as near as that long.
33. Re:Something for Nothing by jbengt · 2018-01-08 04:58 · Score: 1
  
  I've never trusted artificial sweateners[sic].
  The article is not about artificial sweeteners.
34. Re:Something for Nothing by Paradise+Pete · 2018-01-08 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  I think you give this "artificial" term too much value. Nothing flew over my head. I'm sorry if I haven't laid out everything in literal form for you. I'll try to do better next time and not make you have to think.
Re:TRUMP and JARVANKA by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 04:49 · Score: 0

Hillary lost the election. Get over it.
Maybe it's time by Grand+Facade · 2018-01-07 04:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

to get rid of the sugar import tax? And for the FDA to rescind some of the crap they allow in food products.
Very little sugar is still grown in the states so which farmers are being protected and how is the populace benefitting from this tax?
Yes, too much sugar is bad for you but, it seems like the corn sugar and the other products that are being used as a substitute for sugar are worse for the consumer.
I attribute this to the price of imported sugar being high, if the import tax on sugar has ANY bearing on this issue it's time to take action.
The upside of this is I don't purchase or consume much of these products because I read the labels and avoid particularly yellow #5 and sugar substitutes.
I prefer home made sweets where I can control the ingredients.
The FDA has allowed the use of these compounds (to the benefit of the corporations) based on their "recommended" consumption guidelines.
It is becoming obvious that the prolonged consumption of these products is harming the populace.
It's obvious that the populace is unable to police themselves and follow obscure product warnings, why are they still allowed to be used?

--
Rick B.
1. Re:Maybe it's time by billyswong · 2018-01-07 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  If a sugar tax can be bypassed by corn sugar or whatever both taste sweet and provide energy to bodies, then the tax legislation is flawed.
2. Re:Maybe it's time by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 06:36 · Score: 0
  
  Sugar tax is for corn farmers.
3. Re:Maybe it's time by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-01-07 09:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  A little Googling will reveal that Trehalose is about 11x more expensive than sugar, so this is not a financial play, it is used because of some unique gel behavior as it gets dehydrated, and it's stability at high temperatures. It naturally occurs in Shiitake mushrooms, among other things (15-25% by dry weight). It is also only half as sweet as table sugar, so you have to use more to achieve the same sweetness.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
4. Re:Maybe it's time by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 22:00 · Score: 0
  
  But that's why corporations push it - to increase profits. Not only the food, but through increased medical costs.The food industry carefully coordinates with the health industry on these matters.
5. Re:Maybe it's time by jbengt · 2018-01-08 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  Very little sugar is still grown in the states so which farmers are being protected and how is the populace benefitting from this tax?
  The farmers selling corn to ADM and it's not.
Otherwise harmless... by BronsCon · 2018-01-07 07:16 · Score: 1

Summary reads as though it was written by someone with a stake in the price of trehalose, calling it "otherwise harmless". A bullet can kill you if it enters your body at high speed, but they're are otherwise harmless; we still don't allow people to shoot guns randomly so long as they're not aiming at someone. I'd just like to point out that "otherwise harmless" is a weasel-word for "harmful".

--
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
1. Re:Otherwise harmless... by Gilgaron · 2018-01-08 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Its more like if carrots turned out to have an amino acid that a specific opportunistic pathogen really liked to grow on. Carrots would be mostly harmless, but in a specific scenario would be at fault for some people getting sick. Interestingly, replacing the additive with another sugar may well have more or less the same effect with a different opportunistic pathogen having a competitive advantage. It is actually a pretty difficult problem to decide how to catch.
2. Re:Otherwise harmless... by BronsCon · 2018-01-08 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  So the real headline is "Common bacteria able to feed on less common sugar, just like many other organisms". This really shouldn't surprise anyone in the field, nor should it alarm anyone at all -- yet the summary was worded in such a way as to cause alarm. I'll admit, I didn't read TFA; after all, this is Slashdot.
  
  I'm not saying the summary was written the way it was with the express intent of causing alarm, mind you; just that, for people without an understanding of the actual meaning of the findings, from a biological perspective, is to approach this new information the same way we've seen the masses approach anything else they hear might be the slightest bit bad for them. We replaced fat with sugar because we thought fat was making us fat, just as one example, and we all suffered for it because, as it turns out, it was actually the sugar that was making us fat in the first place.
  
  A few facts about trehalose:
  - You and I can use it -- we get about the same number of calories per gram as we to from common table sugar, making it a good energy alternative if you're seeking a sugar rush
  - Most tooth-decay-causing bacteria can't break it down into glucose -- it doesn't feed them and, thus, doesn't contribute as much to tooth decay as common table sugar, or corn syrup for that matter
  - While it has a higher glycemic index than sucrose, it triggers a much lower release of insulin than sucrose, fructose, or pure glucose; there are biochemical implications here that really won't fit in a Slashdot post, but I'll say this can be seen as a positive for some and a negative for others
  - For most cooking uses, it behaves quite similarly to table sugar, but is only 45% as sweet (which may be a positive for its use as a nutritive substitute for table sugar, as it allows you to maintain the consistency that table sugar will provide without making things too sweet)
  - As a non-reducing sugar, it does not take part in the Maillard reaction and, thus, does not use up amino acids within your body
  
  Your body will treat it more or less the same as it would treat sucrose or fructose, but with a smaller bump in insulin levels. If you're one of the many who likes things to be a little less sweet, but realizes that a certain amount of sugar does affect the texture of, say, a cake or cookie, trehalose might be a viable alternative.
  
  There are people here who are much more knowledgeable on this subject than myself, who I'm sure can provide more details (and likely correct an error or two in the ones I've provided), so take what I've written here with a grain of salt (to cut the bitterness and let the sweetness shine through, or course).
  
  --
  APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
3. Re:Otherwise harmless... by RockDoctor · 2018-01-09 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  we still don't allow people to shoot guns randomly so long as they're not aiming at someone.
  This sounds like you know what the NRA's next gun law removal campaign is going to be. "Got a gun? Now you'll be able to walk down the street firing off as long as you don't actually aim at someone!" If I were wanting to do this, I'd protect myself by not wearing my short-sightedness glasses. Then I could prove that I couldn't see anyone I actually hit.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
The Actual Process by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-01-07 07:30 · Score: 5, Informative

Yes and no. What they propose is happening is that Cdiff, which something like 30% of the world's population carries in their GI, has become an infectious problem (Cdiff infection, or CDI) in the last 15 years because of the following process: First, a patient takes life saving antibiotics for a medical problem. Without antibiotics something like 60% of infections are fatal (the bad old days before penicillin was discovered). Those antibiotics wipe out the infection, but also the good GI bacteria, but Cdiff is able to make an impervious spore form that is immune to all known antibiotics except for Metronidazole and Vancomycin (which are both not normally given for infections, Vancomycin especially has some very nasty side effects). Once the patient is better and they discontinue antibiotics, the Cdiff can flourish in the absence of other bacteria. It produces some very nasty toxins, one that destroys cells as well as a systemic poison that can kill you (toxin A and B).
The new discovery is that it is not just the absence of healthy bacteria in the GI that triggers CDI, but the presence of this food additive Trehalose that was previously thought to be safe, because the body doesn't absorb it very well (though it does get absorbed): "Trehalose is nutritionally equivalent to glucose, because it is rapidly broken down into glucose by the enzyme trehalase, which is present in the brush border of the intestinal mucosa of omnivores (including humans) and herbivores." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The bottom line is now that we know that Trehalose is a aggravating risk factor for CDI, any foods that contain it should be required to carry a large warning label on the front of the package (like cigarettes) describing the danger, if it is not banned altogether as a food additive. At the same time, the companies that are profiting from the manufacture and sale of Trehalose are looking at a serious lawsuit, since about 50,000 people in the US alone have died from Cdiff in the last 10 years.
There will be no human trials, other than to ban Trehalose for patients during and for a month after treatment with antibiotics (typical incidence time frame for CDI). If the cases of Cdiff drop precipitously, especially in high risk patients, that will be all the confirmation required.

--
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
1. Re:The Actual Process by tomhath · 2018-01-07 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  except for Metronidazole and Vancomycin (which are both not normally given for infections, Vancomycin especially has some very nasty side effects)
  Nonsense. Vancomycin is one of the more commonly prescribed antibiotics in hospitals.
  
  The new discovery is that it is not just the absence of healthy bacteria in the GI that triggers CDI, but the presence of this food additive
  That's not how I read it. There are a couple of strains of C.diff that can metabolize Trehalose, making it equivalent to glucose - as you state in your second paragraph. So hospitals should treat it with the same caution as they do other sugars when a patient might be at risk of a C.diff infection. Otherwise it doesn't pose any particular threat.
2. Re:The Actual Process by Hal_Porter · 2018-01-07 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  Great post!
  
  --
  echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
3. Re:The Actual Process by angel'o'sphere · 2018-01-07 12:12 · Score: 1
  
  That in case of infecctions 60% of the involved die is nonsense,
  Not even lung pneumona has such a high death rate.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
4. Re:The Actual Process by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 16:16 · Score: 0
  
  There have been some experiments recently involving high risk situations where giving the patient antibiotics results in a ~70% mortality rate from secondary bacterial infections because of no innocuous bacteria to crowd out opportunistic bacteria. Instead of killing off the bad bacteria with antibiotics, they instead gave them a wide range of innocuous and/or beneficial bacteria, and dropped the mortality rate to 20%.
5. Re:The Actual Process by DarthVain · 2018-01-08 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  If true, certainly ban it.
  I had a similar problem. Had oral surgery, doctor prescribed an antibiotic I've never taken before (I've had penicillin and amoxicillin plenty before without issue). I forget what it was called but I remember him warning me not to ever drink alcohol on it as I would end up vomiting explosively apparently. At any rate it absolutely nuked all the flora and fauna in my gut apparently, and the about the following weekend I got Cdiff (just before Hockey Pool no less). Had it for 3 excruciating days. Was some of the worst suffering I've ever gone though. Went into emergency pretty quickly (typically I would wait at least a week or 2 to see if things resolve themselves), who prescribed another antibiotic which cleared it up almost immediately (like the next day thankfully), and hilariously ginger-ale as apparently even after only a couple of days I was severely dehydrated from essentially living on a toilet.
  Anyway it was truly terrible, likely swallowing a half dozen angry scorpions, and I wouldn't wish in on my worst enemy. Anyway anything that contributes to it being a more infectious problem should be done away with, and quickly. I know having had it, if any food production contained something that could potentially dramatically increase your chances of getting Cdiff I certainly wouldn't be buying it...
6. Re:The Actual Process by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-01-08 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  In 2011, the CDC pegged almost 500,000 cases of CDI with 29,000 deaths. It is deadly shit (sorry for the pun), especially for the elderly. The only reason pneumonia is not as deadly is because of antibiotics. It used to kill a much higher percentage of those infected.
  http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
7. Re:The Actual Process by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-01-08 05:42 · Score: 2
  
  1. Oral Vancomycin is only marginally absorbed, in IV form it can damage multiple organs and patients must be monitored closely. Orally it can damage your intestinal lining for the same reason, it is less damaging than the CDI though, considering CDI can kill you. Metronidazole can damage nerve endings, causing peripheral neuropathy and other bad things.
  2. The problem with Trehalose is that it is not as quickly/easily absorbed by the body. The net effect is that this sugar makes it all the way through your GI. If it were all absorbed in the first 6" of small intestine, there would be no easy fuel for these virulent strains of Cdiff to feed on and they would have a much harder time competing with the other strains of GI bacteria, and might not cause a CDI at all... That is kind of the point, 1/3 of the world population carries Cdiff, but the rest of your GI bacteria keep it under control. People have been using broad spectrum antibiotics since penicillin in the 1940s without Cdiff infection, but something changed around the year 2000 we started to see an epidemic of CDI. The theory was that new antibiotics were better at killing all the GI bacteria and that was the cause, but it was supposition without evidence or scientific proof. Now we potentially have another culprit.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
8. Re:The Actual Process by Fieryphoenix · 2018-01-08 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think banning honey will go down very well.
9. Re:The Actual Process by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-08 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  Flagyl
10. Re:The Actual Process by RockDoctor · 2018-01-09 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  who prescribed another antibiotic which cleared it up almost immediately (like the next day thankfully), and hilariously ginger-ale as apparently even after only a couple of days I was severely dehydrated
  The ginger ale isn't in the least bit amusing. It - and variants - are SOP for dealing with significant dehydration where the patient is otherwise not suspected to have gut damage and is unlikely to lose consciousness unattended. Clearly, you want to get fluids into the patient ASAP.
  Now, the next bit is going to be heretical for those religiously sucking the nipple of their bottle of Perrier to "stave off dehydration".
  Water isn't much good for curing dehydration. Give most people a couple of litres of water and instructions to "drink that as soon as possible", and you're more likely than not to have puke on the floor, and still need to get several litres of water inside the patient. A WOMBAT. Do the same with orange juice, and as like as not you'll get over a litre of water (plus various salts and minerals) into the patients blood stream per hour. your quack prefers ginger ale to orange juice ; "meh".
  Of course, if your patient has (e.g.) a perforated gut, then you're making the problem worse. you do need to do your diagnosis first. I encountered this in the mountain rescue context with someone down through hypothermia or exhaustion, but no physical damage. With good patient management you can often get them to walk themselves back to safety. And the OJ is a useful tool in that.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
11. Re:The Actual Process by angel'o'sphere · 2018-01-10 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  What has that to do with the claimed death rate of the parent?
  If infections had a 60% death rate I would be probably dead 20 times now ... or do you think I'm superhuman that
  I survived 30 infections? Have to tell my siblings that we are from a superhuman family. Perhaps all germany is like this? Are we all .... oh my god ... Zomnies?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
12. Re:The Actual Process by LeftCoastThinker · 2018-01-10 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  ummm... RTFA I said "50,000 people in the US alone have died from Cdiff in the last 10 years." In my more recent post, I point out that in 2011 alone, there were 500,000 cases of CDI, so in 10 years, that would be 5,000,000 cases of CDI. So my ballpark number of 50,000 deaths was a fatality rate of about 1%. Put down your crack pipe and step away from the keyboard... http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news...
  Furthermore, I know that in 1999 there were very few CDI, but the cases and fatalities rose dramatically over the last 17 years, and between 2006 and 2016 the deaths were between 8,000 and 29,000 per year, see here: http://slideplayer.com/slide/3... This easily adds up to over 50,000 deaths between 2006 and 2016, so again, I think you need to leave off whatever you have been smoking for a while.
  Furthermore, you might want to educate yourself a bit instead of talking out of your ass about things which you are clearly ignorant "If infections had a 60% death rate I would be probably dead 20 times now." NO RTFA, PRE ANTIBOITCS MOST SERIOUS INFECTIONS WERE FATAL...
  Quoting from this article: https://www.healthychildren.or...
  
  "Before antibiotics, 90% of children with bacterial meningitis died. Among those children who lived, most had severe and lasting disabilities, from deafness to mental retardation.
  Strep throat was at times a fatal disease, and ear infections sometimes spread from the ear to the brain, causing severe problems.
  Other serious infections, from tuberculosis to pneumonia to whooping cough, were caused by aggressive bacteria that reproduced with extraordinary speed and led to serious illness and sometimes death."
  For more fun reading, you can see how mideval medicine was during WW1, which was pre antibiotics https://www.omicsonline.org/op...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
13. Re:The Actual Process by angel'o'sphere · 2018-01-10 19:32 · Score: 1
  
  First of all, it was not clear that you talk about CDIF.
  Then again, it makes no sense to talk about it in the context of antibiotics as the article is about the fact that cdif is resistent to antibiotics.
  Furthermore, you might want to educate yourself a bit instead of talking out of your ass about things which you are clearly ignorant "If infections had a 60% death rate I would be probably dead 20 times now." NO RTFA, PRE ANTIBOITCS MOST SERIOUS INFECTIONS WERE FATAL...
  
  And I pointed out that this is nonsense. As I I minimum had 20 infections where I did not get antibiotics, why should I?
  "Before antibiotics, 90% of children with bacterial meningitis died. Among those children who lived, most had severe and lasting disabilities, from deafness to mental retardation.
  Obviously. And why is that so? Because the immune system has not full access to the brain and surrounding areas. So super smart from you to pick one of the few examples where antibiotics actually are necessary.
  What about acne? Or as I pointed out, pneumonia, or you cut your finger and it gets infected? How is there the death rate without antibiotics? 60% ??? Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:TRUMP and JARVANKA by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 07:44 · Score: 0

You now have a democrat senator, in Alabama, of all states. Get over it.
not surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 08:40 · Score: 0

having just caught c diff during a hospital stay where the food was absolutely disgusting, it doesn't surprise me one bit that food additives are allowing bugs to thrive. i've never heard of trehalose, but it makes me wonder if more popular sweeteners are at fault too.
hospital blamed me for the problem, but the hospital is well known for issues with outbreaks and their cleaning procedures. as in they have none. this hospital is like dr nick riviera's discount health center.
1. Re:not surprising by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  i've never heard of trehalose, but it makes me wonder if more popular sweeteners are at fault too.
  Pretty unlikely. Trehalose is a naturally occurring disaccharide, one that life already uses. Most artificial sweeteners cannot be metabolized as an energy source by most lifeforms, thus their usefulness as non-caloric sweeteners.
See what screwing around with nature does? by p51d007 · 2018-01-07 12:02 · Score: 1

Scientist try to make bug resistant plants, jack around with DNA to stop this or that in NATURE. Oh, but it's 100% safe. Yeah, right. Granted, the over prescription of antibiotics in the 80's was a mess, but that isn't the only reason. I for one, am very fortunate...the number of times I've had to use just plain old run of the mill antibiotics you can count on one hand. My younger sister on the other hand, has to have those really jacked up price kind to do her any good.
Re: TRUMP and JARVANKA by Anonymous Coward · 2018-01-07 19:07 · Score: 0

Many parts of Alabama have been traditionally Democrat. Particularly back when there was such a thing as conservative Democrats. The remainder of many such conservative Democrats switched over to the Republican party during Clinton years. I'll also note that Alabama had a Democrat governor not long ago, until he was targeted by Bush/Cheney/etc and hit with corruption charges.