20% of patients continued to have symptoms after ten days in each case, by my reading. This indicates to me the formation of a strong biofilm, which antibiotics will be next to useless against.
Also, slashdot was never great. It's not much different now than it has been for the last ten years, except that now there are a lot fewer dupe articles.
Antibiotics are fast going the way of the dodo. Phage is the future. Bacteriophages can be (and are) subjected to artificial evolution in small clinics to kill any strain of bacteria, no side effects, no long term resistance, no multibillion dollar research needed.
And that doesn't even mention new methods of drug design coming down the pike.
But you are exactly right, while those treatments are developed/gain acceptance in the West (phage therapy was originally developed in the nation of Georgia prior to the Soviet conquest), we must avoid antibiotic resistance. It should simply be noted that there are alternative technologies out there.
For such problems, phage is likely a better treatment. An old friend of mine is working on introducing therapeutic phage to America. His results are quite stunning.
Sounds dumb, but it's actually highly effective. Unless the tissue itself is compromised (it always will be to some extent), the mucus production will float the infected mass away and confine it. It is also helpful to use a neti pot (clean water please), as that will wash away anything that is physically jammed in your upper sinuses. That is personal experience, not a course advised by systematic studies (my lab does only in vitro and animal work).
That is why you combine the treatment with antibiotics. Planktonic bacteria are highly susceptible to all manner of natural and artificial defenses. If the area has the release enzyme in place, then they won't settle on a surface and start growing. The body can deal with individual bacteria in the bloodstream pretty easily. It's likely clots of biofilm that cause problems.
Certainly. In addition to research performed by my own research group, the "Big Daddy" of biofilm research is Bill Costerton. His group puts out oodles of papers on the subject. This was merely the first that popped up in a Google Scholar search, though it is one that we have referenced for our own publications: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673601053211
You can't effectively treat biofilms with antibiotics. And that is exactly what this type of infection is--a biofilm.
A better approach is the use of biofilm "release" enzymes that signal the cells within the biofilm to stop producing EPS and detach from whatever surface they are clinging to. Use of such enzymes alongside antibiotics in a medical setting is likely to work even better.
So if I get a grant from the church, do ten years of research on the motion of planetary bodies, and submit a paper postulating that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and submit it to a journal run by people receiving money from the same Church, that's science?
Further, if those same people received funding from the International Heretical Belief Society, does that make them wrong?
No, science doesn't have anything to do with source of funds or collective agreement and everything to do with openness and repeatability. Current climate models don't pass that test. Without the ability to have a fair and open discussion MUCH LESS examine the models and the raw data, it isn't science. It's reading golden tablets out of a hat.
You clearly don't understand what ad hominem is. Ad hominem is an attempt to attack someone's character or an attempt to associate them with something negative, and then using that as evidence that their argument is wrong. Simple insult, or correctly pointing out negative character traits is NOT ad hominem, you fucking idiot:)
No, the real issue is how poorly we treat our capital. A well, developed free market would pay good money for that toxic waste because it is full of valuable chemicals that have other uses. The more developed the industrial base, the less waste there is.
I see, so people making claims are not required to back them up or produce evidence now. That should make things easy on new PhDs. Now they don't have to give a "defense", they can just give an "assertion".
I would like to get the source code for this model, as well as unaltered/adjusted data from core samples. But neither are available. Odd for something so "proven".
That's actually true, but you are guilty of it too. You and your children will be able to afford more expensive everything that results from government-mandated AGW remediation efforts. People in the third world won't. There has been no real cost-benefit analysis done in your camp. You have instead taken one half of an economic argument, packaged it as science, and tried to sell the world down the river so a few Al Gores can get ultra rich.
All of them, collectively, decided to give up? That's funny. In science, giving up an argument normally means your argument is invalid. Did they "give up" against anti-evolutionists?
Slashdot Mirror
My name isn't Ted. I was a student of architecture before I switched to chemistry when I was in college, though.
20% of patients continued to have symptoms after ten days in each case, by my reading. This indicates to me the formation of a strong biofilm, which antibiotics will be next to useless against.
Also, slashdot was never great. It's not much different now than it has been for the last ten years, except that now there are a lot fewer dupe articles.
Antibiotics are fast going the way of the dodo. Phage is the future. Bacteriophages can be (and are) subjected to artificial evolution in small clinics to kill any strain of bacteria, no side effects, no long term resistance, no multibillion dollar research needed.
And that doesn't even mention new methods of drug design coming down the pike.
But you are exactly right, while those treatments are developed/gain acceptance in the West (phage therapy was originally developed in the nation of Georgia prior to the Soviet conquest), we must avoid antibiotic resistance. It should simply be noted that there are alternative technologies out there.
For such problems, phage is likely a better treatment. An old friend of mine is working on introducing therapeutic phage to America. His results are quite stunning.
Sounds dumb, but it's actually highly effective. Unless the tissue itself is compromised (it always will be to some extent), the mucus production will float the infected mass away and confine it. It is also helpful to use a neti pot (clean water please), as that will wash away anything that is physically jammed in your upper sinuses. That is personal experience, not a course advised by systematic studies (my lab does only in vitro and animal work).
That is why you combine the treatment with antibiotics. Planktonic bacteria are highly susceptible to all manner of natural and artificial defenses. If the area has the release enzyme in place, then they won't settle on a surface and start growing. The body can deal with individual bacteria in the bloodstream pretty easily. It's likely clots of biofilm that cause problems.
Certainly. In addition to research performed by my own research group, the "Big Daddy" of biofilm research is Bill Costerton. His group puts out oodles of papers on the subject. This was merely the first that popped up in a Google Scholar search, though it is one that we have referenced for our own publications: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673601053211
You can't effectively treat biofilms with antibiotics. And that is exactly what this type of infection is--a biofilm.
A better approach is the use of biofilm "release" enzymes that signal the cells within the biofilm to stop producing EPS and detach from whatever surface they are clinging to. Use of such enzymes alongside antibiotics in a medical setting is likely to work even better.
So if I get a grant from the church, do ten years of research on the motion of planetary bodies, and submit a paper postulating that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and submit it to a journal run by people receiving money from the same Church, that's science?
Further, if those same people received funding from the International Heretical Belief Society, does that make them wrong? No, science doesn't have anything to do with source of funds or collective agreement and everything to do with openness and repeatability. Current climate models don't pass that test. Without the ability to have a fair and open discussion MUCH LESS examine the models and the raw data, it isn't science. It's reading golden tablets out of a hat.
You clearly don't understand what ad hominem is. Ad hominem is an attempt to attack someone's character or an attempt to associate them with something negative, and then using that as evidence that their argument is wrong. Simple insult, or correctly pointing out negative character traits is NOT ad hominem, you fucking idiot :)
What, you think China isn't better not than it was 50 years ago?
All that "exploitation" urbanized them and raised salaries to the point that their economy is almost as large as ours.
No, the real issue is how poorly we treat our capital. A well, developed free market would pay good money for that toxic waste because it is full of valuable chemicals that have other uses. The more developed the industrial base, the less waste there is.
Nope, that's the American programming.
Don't forget about laws, Laws and more LAWS!
Yes, markets only enrich all participants and solve real problems. They don't navel gaze and solve imaginary ones.
Where's the evidence? In the books. I already told you an audit is needed, and that it will never happen.
Also, nice ad hominem and assuming the question.
So you are then willing to concede that grant funding from conservative groups and oil companies is legitimate? Or are you just another hypocrite?
Right, so grant money coming from one side is legitimate, while grant money going to the other side is the devil.
Smell that hypocrisy.
I see, so people making claims are not required to back them up or produce evidence now. That should make things easy on new PhDs. Now they don't have to give a "defense", they can just give an "assertion".
Please do.
I would like to get the source code for this model, as well as unaltered/adjusted data from core samples. But neither are available. Odd for something so "proven".
I see, so you are unable to refute it, so you characterize it as "old". That's dumb.
If it is, then they have already won. I wonder how long they can hold it? I doubt if they can beat Marco's high score. Or even Hitler's.
That's actually true, but you are guilty of it too. You and your children will be able to afford more expensive everything that results from government-mandated AGW remediation efforts. People in the third world won't. There has been no real cost-benefit analysis done in your camp. You have instead taken one half of an economic argument, packaged it as science, and tried to sell the world down the river so a few Al Gores can get ultra rich.
Model at best. Certainly not fact.
All of them, collectively, decided to give up? That's funny. In science, giving up an argument normally means your argument is invalid. Did they "give up" against anti-evolutionists?