The End of Antibiotics?

[Guest032516]

I seem to be reading about this more and more:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...cs-free-world/

Here is the CDC statement:

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20...h-threats.html

But the implications of a "post-antibiotics era" are pretty staggering:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/end-abx/

Obviously, we lose the ability to fight an active infection. But there are a lot of collateral effects you don't even think about. Key quotes:

----------------------------
If we really lost antibiotics to advancing drug resistance — and trust me, we’re not far off — here’s what we would lose. Not just the ability to treat infectious disease; that’s obvious.

But also: The ability to treat cancer, and to transplant organs, because doing those successfully relies on suppressing the immune system and willingly making ourselves vulnerable to infection. Any treatment that relies on a permanent port into the bloodstream — for instance, kidney dialysis. Any major open-cavity surgery, on the heart, the lungs, the abdomen. Any surgery on a part of the body that already harbors a population of bacteria: the guts, the bladder, the genitals. Implantable devices: new hips, new knees, new heart valves. Cosmetic plastic surgery. Liposuction. Tattoos.

We’d lose the ability to treat people after traumatic accidents, as major as crashing your car and as minor as your kid falling out of a tree. We’d lose the safety of modern childbirth: Before the antibiotic era, 5 women died out of every 1,000 who gave birth. One out of every nine skin infections killed. Three out of every 10 people who got pneumonia died from it.

And we’d lose, as well, a good portion of our cheap modern food supply. Most of the meat we eat in the industrialized world is raised with the routine use of antibiotics, to fatten livestock and protect them from the conditions in which the animals are raised. Without the drugs that keep livestock healthy in concentrated agriculture, we’d lose the ability to raise them that way. Either animals would sicken, or farmers would have to change their raising practices, spending more money when their margins are thin. Either way, meat — and fish and seafood, also raised with abundant antibiotics in the fish farms of Asia — would become much more expensive.

And it wouldn’t be just meat. Antibiotics are used in plant agriculture as well, especially on fruit. Right now, a drug-resistant version of the bacterial disease fire blight is attacking American apple crops. There’s currently one drug left to fight it. And when major crops are lost, the local farm economy goes too.
-----------------------------------------------------

When you consider the difficulties that hospitals are having getting rid of MERSA infections, it really hits home.

Basically, any medical procedure that involves cutting you open suddenly becomes dangerous again. Even appendectomies and simple joint replacements.

[Jackie S]

We can only hope that modern science will continue to develop new drugs that can combat some of the strains of bacteria that are ever becoming resistant to the current crop.

In the mean time it would behoove us to be more diligent about what we let in this Country.
But with World travel the way it is, that might be a task that is now impossible.

Humankind has through the century's beed face with devastating plagues. We forget that in the Middle Ages, s many as 1/3 of the European Population was wiped out by Bubonic Plague.

No easy answers to this.

[gnadfly]

I'm not believing all the hype around "superbugs" and anti-biotics.

Question: Why aren't they outlawing anti-bacterial soap? I mean, other than at Assup E.'s house?

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Question: Why aren't they outlawing anti-bacterial soap? I mean, other than at Assup E.'s house?

Probably because they don't actually do anything - at least not the hand sanitizers. They are a waste of money. As soon as you get done cleaning your hands, you typically touch something - like a door knob, your wallet, a phone handset, your mouth - that makes the whole exercise futile.

However, the anti-bacterial soap does generally kill bacteria without making survivors stronger. But it can only be used externally. You can't drink it without killing yourself.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I'm not believing all the hype around "superbugs" and anti-biotics.

Why? This isn't the same issue as vaccines.

We have actual evidence of antibiotics that used to be wonder drugs but now no longer work or barely work. What don't you believe about that?

The number of new antibiotics being developed has practically come to a halt. What happens next?

Not every type of bacteria will become resistant. Antibiotics will still continue to work against a lot of infections. But not all. And the resistant ones may wreak havoc.

[BJerk]

No doubt someone is cooking up a program to get the government to pay several billion dollars to some pharmaceutical company for a new antibiotics program. These scare tactics are the way to see which way the wind is blowing. Conservatives love big government programs when business gets the welfare.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I'm not believing all the hype around "superbugs" and anti-biotics.

Question: Why aren't they outlawing anti-bacterial soap? I mean, other than at Assup E.'s house?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Probably because they don't actually do anything - at least not the hand sanitizers. They are a waste of money. As soon as you get done cleaning your hands, you typically touch something - like a door knob, your wallet, a phone handset, your mouth - that makes the whole exercise futile.

However, the anti-bacterial soap does generally kill bacteria without making survivors stronger. But it can only be used externally. You can't drink it without killing yourself.

Actually the theory is the same. The anti-bacterial soap only kills 99%+ of the germs (look at the packaging) so therefore, the remainder germs are theoretically stronger, just like with anti-biotic drugs.

This 'superbug' evolution argument has been going on for at least 30 years. It about 10 years ago that my doctor actually brought up the anti-bacterial soap.

The first and third article you posted really deals with anecdotal evidence with a couple of broadbrush scare numbers thrown in. Remember I said I don't believe ALL the hype.

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Why? This isn't the same issue as vaccines.

We have actual evidence of antibiotics that used to be wonder drugs but now no longer work or barely work. What don't you believe about that?

The number of new antibiotics being developed has practically come to a halt. What happens next?

Not every type of bacteria will become resistant. Antibiotics will still continue to work against a lot of infections. But not all. And the resistant ones may wreak havoc.

You are qualifying the hysteria. The second article had the numbers but it was a conference call so they we very broadbrush...and scary. I couldn't tell if they were actual numbers or estimates. Have any of the "flesh-eating" bacteria ever been receptive to any anti-biotics? Of the confirmed MRSA deaths, how many people were very old, had compromised immune systems or waited very long for treatment? I don't know about you but if somebody died of samonella in my area, for example, you'd hear it on the local news. I haven't in a long time.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

No doubt someone is cooking up a program to get the government to pay several billion dollars to some pharmaceutical company for a new antibiotics program. These scare tactics are the way to see which way the wind is blowing. Conservatives love big government programs when business gets the welfare.

And then, when infectious diseases make a comeback, you will no doubt blame pharma companies for NOT developing new antibiotics.

BTW, if the government pays pharma companies to develop new antibiotic, how is that welfare?

It is a fee for a service. No different than paying a construction company to build a bridge or a highway. Or do you think that is welfare, too?

Welfare involves paying money to some person or entity and getting nothing in return.

Not everything the government pays for is welfare. Money paid to doctors, teachers, contractors, police, fire departments, etc. is not welfare. Those people have to work for the money. You can argue that too much money is spent on certain things, but that is an issue of inefficiency and waste, not welfare.

But leave it to the "progressive" mind to be unable to distinguish between government giving money to recipients who do work in return and government giving money to recipients who do nothing in return.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Actually the theory is the same. The anti-bacterial soap only kills 99%+ of the germs (look at the packaging) so therefore, the remainder germs are theoretically stronger, just like with anti-biotic drugs.

That depends on how the 99.9% are distributed. Often the active ingredient is alcohol. Certain strains of bacteria simply may not be affected by alcohol. That is why surgical instruments are sterilized in an autoclave by heat, rather than just dumping them in alcohol. So the alcohol may kill 100% of most strains (hence the 99.9% number), but not affect the remaining strains. The survivors don't really get stronger - they just aren't affected.

I also think that the 99.9% is intended to cover the manufacturer's ass for liability purposes. Some bacteria that are deep in pores or embedded in the skin may not be reached by the antibiotic. And some people just don't scrub that well. So the 99.9% warning protects them from lawsuits because they never gave a guarantee.

This 'superbug' evolution argument has been going on for at least 30 years. It about 10 years ago that my doctor actually brought up the anti-bacterial soap.

The first and third article you posted really deals with anecdotal evidence with a couple of broadbrush scare numbers thrown in. Remember I said I don't believe ALL the hype.

You are qualifying the hysteria. The second article had the numbers but it was a conference call so they we very broadbrush...and scary. I couldn't tell if they were actual numbers or estimates. Have any of the "flesh-eating" bacteria ever been receptive to any anti-biotics? Of the confirmed MRSA deaths, how many people were very old, had compromised immune systems or waited very long for treatment? I don't know about you but if somebody died of samonella in my area, for example, you'd hear it on the local news. I haven't in a long time.

Good questions, but I think you are missing a point.

Some antibiotics have become effective and others less effective. But so long as at least ONE still works a patient won't die.

So the death numbers don't reflect a case in which a patient did not respond to the first two antibiotic treatments before a third drug was successful. But what happens when the third one no longer works?

There is no dispute that some antibiotics are now as useless as aspirin against some infections. So what happens if we don't stop the trend?

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I'm not believing all the hype around "superbugs" and anti-biotics.

Question: Why aren't they outlawing anti-bacterial soap? I mean, other than at Assup E.'s house?

key word ... bacterial not viral


study up !

[BJerk]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

And then, when infectious diseases make a comeback, you will no doubt blame pharma companies for NOT developing new antibiotics.

BTW, if the government pays pharma companies to develop new antibiotic, how is that welfare?

It is a fee for a service. No different than paying a construction company to build a bridge or a highway. Or do you think that is welfare, too?

Welfare involves paying money to some person or entity and getting nothing in return.

Not everything the government pays for is welfare. Money paid to doctors, teachers, contractors, police, fire departments, etc. is not welfare. Those people have to work for the money. You can argue that too much money is spent on certain things, but that is an issue of inefficiency and waste, not welfare.

But leave it to the "progressive" mind to be unable to distinguish between government giving money to recipients who do work in return and government giving money to recipients who do nothing in return.

I'm calling it welfare because they could clearly fund their own research into new and improved antibiotics. If they could get the government to pay for their R & D, you know they would. Since they don't need it, IMHO, it is welfare for businesses.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by Bert Jones

I'm calling it welfare because they could clearly fund their own research into new and improved antibiotics. If they could get the government to pay for their R & D, you know they would. Since they don't need it, IMHO, it is welfare for businesses.

They are businesses. And the purpose of any business is TO MAKE MONEY.

So, pharma companies DO fund their own research - in drugs that are most likely to return the greatest profit.

That's why you get a lot of drugs for treating heart disease, obesity, erectile dysfunction, diabetes, cancer, etc. Watch some TV commercials some time.

Apparently, big profits don't include antibiotics. At least not yet, while cheaper antibiotics still work. When people start getting sick and dying in greater numbers, I expect THEN you will see pharma invest its own money.

So, if Congress wants pharma to invest money NOW in antibiotics R&D instead of 10-15 years from now, then Congress will have to provide the incentives to make pharma switch away from more profitable endeavors.

That isn't welfare. That is paying companies to work on drugs the government prefers rather than the drugs pharma would normally prefer.

This has been done before - like the Orphan Drug Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Drug_Act_of_1983

Pharma normally does not invest in treating diseases that affect only a small number of people (i.e., orphan drugs). There is no profit in it. Money is always limited so pharma invests R&D money in drug treatments that millions of people will want - like diabetes meds and cancer meds. That is how they make a profit.

The victims of a disease that only affects 500 people a year could never afford the costs of the R&D (multiple millions or more) required to develop an orphan drug treatment.

So Congress tilted the field in favor of promoting research into orphan drugs back in the 1980s. They use a number of schemes including tax incentives.

Again, that is not welfare. Without the incentives, pharma would do something else with its money. So you would end up with all the drug companies chasing treatments for the same small group of 20 or 30 diseases that affect millions of people.

And the many, many orphan diseases would get nothing.

[CJ7]

That's why you get a lot of drugs for treating heart disease, obesity, erectile dysfunction, diabetes, cancer, etc. Watch some TV commercials some time


and notice the long line of lawyers advertising their trade trying to hook the people that suffered side effects from all those drugs...

just sayin'

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by CJ7

That's why you get a lot of drugs for treating heart disease, obesity, erectile dysfunction, diabetes, cancer, etc. Watch some TV commercials some time

and notice the long line of lawyers advertising their trade trying to hook the people that suffered side effects from all those drugs...

just sayin'

Yes, but it's not clear what.

The lawyers actually have the same motivations.

There isn't much money to be made for suing over the orphan drug side effects, either. By definition, the number of patients is small and the number of victims of side effects will likely be even smaller. So, there isn't much money to be made.

Which is why tort lawyers are a lot more interested in side effects caused by Viagra, for example, than in the side effects for a drug that treats Lou Gehrig's disease.

A MUCH bigger victim pool. And much more money to be made.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

Yes, but it's not clear what.

The lawyers actually have the same motivations.

There isn't much money to be made for suing over the orphan drug side effects, either. By definition, the number of patients is small and the number of victims of side effects will likely be even smaller. So, there isn't much money to be made.

Which is why tort lawyers are a lot more interested in side effects caused by Viagra, for example, than in the side effects for a drug that treats Lou Gehrig's disease.

A MUCH bigger victim pool. And much more money to be made.

just watched a commercial begging victims to step forward.. the claim was the government awarded $2.2billion in damages ...