This is the scariest story I've read all year

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/health/first-superbug-cre-case-in-us

Basically a bacteria has been identified that is resistant to all antibiotics. This is the sort of thing that's been warned about for decades due to antibiotic overuse but wasn't heeded.

Only one patient means that this one can be contained....but there will likely be more in the future.

[RFayette]

This is terrible.  This means that the gene pool of bacteria contains the mutation potential to produce more bacteria with the same antibiotic-resistant genetic mutations.

This is going to be an extremely pressing issue in the future IMO.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It was only a matter of time. Nature will always have a way to compensate for human advances. It's the same general reason why I don't think we'll ever find a cure for cancer.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Alls I can say is... stop using antibacterial anything.  Let yourself get dirty now and then.  Use regular soap and hot water to scrub away bacteria and by all means... AVOID THE HOSPITAL/SURGERY as much as possible.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This was inevitable.

[DINGO Joe]

Atlas during the 12 Monkees.

[dax00]

This is awful. Now humanity will have to find a way to physically attack bacteria, as opposed to chemically attacking them. Microrobotics will have to make speedy progress.

[Virginiá]

This is terrible.  This means that the gene pool of bacteria contains the mutation potential to produce more bacteria with the same antibiotic-resistant genetic mutations.

This is going to be an extremely pressing issue in the future IMO.

The weakness of capitalism. There is no real money in antibiotics (yet), so pharma companies aren't really doing much research, and the government doesn't yet fully grasp the scope of this problem... or they do and there is just no real will to seriously address it. Even if they did, opponents of government spending would fight tooth and nail any meaningful expenditures regarding it, just like Zika.

A lot of people are going to have to die before this country wakes up.

[RFayette]

This is terrible.  This means that the gene pool of bacteria contains the mutation potential to produce more bacteria with the same antibiotic-resistant genetic mutations.

This is going to be an extremely pressing issue in the future IMO.

A good old-fashioned plague.  Just what this year needs!

There is something insidious about the fact that these harmful bacterial had within their genome the potential capacity to resist antibiotics well before the actual invention of antibiotics.  Evolution can be very cruel, thwarting human progress when we think we've solved a problem.

[Associate Justice PiT]

This is terrible.  This means that the gene pool of bacteria contains the mutation potential to produce more bacteria with the same antibiotic-resistant genetic mutations.

This is going to be an extremely pressing issue in the future IMO.

The weakness of capitalism. There is no real money in antibiotics (yet), so pharma companies aren't really doing much research, and the government doesn't yet fully grasp the scope of this problem... or they do and there is just no real will to seriously address it. Even if they did, opponents of government spending would fight tooth and nail any meaningful expenditures regarding it, just like Zika.

A lot of people are going to have to die before this country wakes up.

     You mean, the weakness of oversight of pharmaceutical usage. Bacteria can adapt faster than we can deal with them. It takes over a decade to approve a drug, and it took S. aureus just two years to begin showing strains resistant to just such a drug. Unless you want to shut down the FDA, it is not really possible for us to keep up with microorganisms that can reproduce on the scale of minutes. Alternatively, the weakness of being large mammals, because we just can't keep up with the pace at which bacteria operate.

     FYI I'm being sarcastic. I shouldn't have to say it, but I'm not actually advocating we eliminate the FDA.

[Virginiá]

The weakness of capitalism. There is no real money in antibiotics (yet), so pharma companies aren't really doing much research, and the government doesn't yet fully grasp the scope of this problem... or they do and there is just no real will to seriously address it. Even if they did, opponents of government spending would fight tooth and nail any meaningful expenditures regarding it, just like Zika.

A lot of people are going to have to die before this country wakes up.

     You mean, the weakness of oversight of pharmaceutical usage. Bacteria can adapt  faster than we can deal with them. It takes over a decade to approve a drug, and it took S. aureus just two years to begin showing strains resistant to just such a drug. Unless you want to shut down the FDA, it is not really possible for us to keep up with microorganisms that can reproduce on the scale of minutes.

Yes, that is definitely a failure on the part of the government. However, that only addresses prevention. We're at the point where prevention is no longer a viable option and we now have to address the consequences of overuse - Something that is not best to rely entirely on the private industry for, as we can see now the lack of incentive has created a lack of investment. If we just decide to wait on them to do something about it, a lot of people are going to get sick / die before anything happens.

This issue is really something the govt should have been spending to address long ago. Doing their own research into new antibiotics would be a start. They can cheaply sell off the research as long as companies agree to make cheap generics.

[Zache]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/everybody-be-cool-a-nightmare-superbug-has-not-heralded-the-apocalypse-yet/

[Associate Justice PiT]

The weakness of capitalism. There is no real money in antibiotics (yet), so pharma companies aren't really doing much research, and the government doesn't yet fully grasp the scope of this problem... or they do and there is just no real will to seriously address it. Even if they did, opponents of government spending would fight tooth and nail any meaningful expenditures regarding it, just like Zika.

A lot of people are going to have to die before this country wakes up.

     You mean, the weakness of oversight of pharmaceutical usage. Bacteria can adapt  faster than we can deal with them. It takes over a decade to approve a drug, and it took S. aureus just two years to begin showing strains resistant to just such a drug. Unless you want to shut down the FDA, it is not really possible for us to keep up with microorganisms that can reproduce on the scale of minutes.

Yes, that is definitely a failure on the part of the government. However, that only addresses prevention. We're at the point where prevention is no longer a viable option and we now have to address the consequences of overuse - Something that is not best to rely entirely on the private industry for, as we can see now the lack of incentive has created a lack of investment. If we just decide to wait on them to do something about it, a lot of people are going to get sick / die before anything happens.

This issue is really something the govt should have been spending to address long ago. Doing their own research into new antibiotics would be a start. They can cheaply sell off the research as long as companies agree to make cheap generics.

     The worst problems of overuse happened decades ago and we've long since pulled back and tried to be careful about it. Even so, we are continuing to see more of these things emerging. It's pretty inevitable that as we exterminate bacteria, they will continue to evolve and overcome antibiotics, and they have a big advantage in speed.

     My point is that the differences in timespan just doesn't make it feasible for us to be keeping up with these things. We can and should try to meet this challenge, but there is something a little silly about pouring many millions into an antibiotic that will be used for a tiny fraction of infections for a few years until the pathogens start to become resistant to that too.

[Nhoj]

Alls I can say is... stop using antibacterial anything.  Let yourself get dirty now and then.  Use regular soap and hot water to scrub away bacteria and by all means... AVOID THE HOSPITAL/SURGERY as much as possible.

Mild problem compared to the real issue. Which is farmers.

[Virginiá]

     The worst problems of overuse happened decades ago and we've long since pulled back and tried to be careful about it. Even so, we are continuing to see more of these things emerging. It's pretty inevitable that as we exterminate bacteria, they will continue to evolve and overcome antibiotics, and they have a big advantage in speed.

     My point is that the differences in timespan just doesn't make it feasible for us to be keeping up with these things. We can and should try to meet this challenge, but there is something a little silly about pouring many millions into an antibiotic that will be used for a tiny fraction of infections for a few years until the pathogens start to become resistant to that too.

You're right, it will be expensive and a long war, but if we don't keep researching new antibiotics, it will have an enormous impact on the world. Antibiotics are necessary in many types of surgery and other illnesses. Average lifespans would begin to decrease. We have to do what it takes for this.

As for running out of antibiotics - Nanotechnology is still probably decade(s) away from widescale use against viruses and bacteria, but the R&D is there and the concepts are viable. We can most definitely develop enough antibiotic strains until then.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The worst problems of overuse happened decades ago and we've long since pulled back and tried to be careful about it. Even so, we are continuing to see more of these things emerging. It's pretty inevitable that as we exterminate bacteria, they will continue to evolve and overcome antibiotics, and they have a big advantage in speed.

     My point is that the differences in timespan just doesn't make it feasible for us to be keeping up with these things. We can and should try to meet this challenge, but there is something a little silly about pouring many millions into an antibiotic that will be used for a tiny fraction of infections for a few years until the pathogens start to become resistant to that too.

You're right, it will be expensive and a long war, but if we don't keep researching new antibiotics, it will have an enormous impact on the world. Antibiotics are necessary in many types of surgery and other illnesses. Average lifespans would begin to decrease. We have to do what it takes for this.

As for running out of antibiotics - Nanotechnology is still probably decade(s) away from widescale use against viruses and bacteria, but the R&D is there and the concepts are viable. We can most definitely develop enough antibiotic strains until then.

     Your nanotech reference made me think: what about boosting the immune system? Bacteria evolve at an incredible pace, yet they struggle to defend themselves against white blood cells (except, again, S. aureus). A drug that artificially boosted the potency of the immune system might not be a challenge that most bacteria could meet. People with severely weakened immune systems or with certain deadly infections would still need traditional antibiotics, but it could potentially represent a substantial reduction in the need for antibiotic usage.

[RFayette]

     The worst problems of overuse happened decades ago and we've long since pulled back and tried to be careful about it. Even so, we are continuing to see more of these things emerging. It's pretty inevitable that as we exterminate bacteria, they will continue to evolve and overcome antibiotics, and they have a big advantage in speed.

     My point is that the differences in timespan just doesn't make it feasible for us to be keeping up with these things. We can and should try to meet this challenge, but there is something a little silly about pouring many millions into an antibiotic that will be used for a tiny fraction of infections for a few years until the pathogens start to become resistant to that too.

You're right, it will be expensive and a long war, but if we don't keep researching new antibiotics, it will have an enormous impact on the world. Antibiotics are necessary in many types of surgery and other illnesses. Average lifespans would begin to decrease. We have to do what it takes for this.

As for running out of antibiotics - Nanotechnology is still probably decade(s) away from widescale use against viruses and bacteria, but the R&D is there and the concepts are viable. We can most definitely develop enough antibiotic strains until then.

     Your nanotech reference made me think: what about boosting the immune system? Bacteria evolve at an incredible pace, yet they struggle to defend themselves against white blood cells (except, again, S. aureus). A drug that artificially boosted the potency of the immune system might not be a challenge that most bacteria could meet. People with severely weakened immune systems or with certain deadly infections would still need traditional antibiotics, but it could potentially represent a substantial reduction in the need for antibiotic usage.

The problem with this is that we run the risk of creating a very overreactive immune system, which is often the cause of people's allergies, which are already climbing as it is.  Do you think there's a way to address this problem while still being able to strengthen people's immune system to fight bacteria?

[Virginiá]

You're right, it will be expensive and a long war, but if we don't keep researching new antibiotics, it will have an enormous impact on the world. Antibiotics are necessary in many types of surgery and other illnesses. Average lifespans would begin to decrease. We have to do what it takes for this.

As for running out of antibiotics - Nanotechnology is still probably decade(s) away from widescale use against viruses and bacteria, but the R&D is there and the concepts are viable. We can most definitely develop enough antibiotic strains until then.

     Your nanotech reference made me think: what about boosting the immune system? Bacteria evolve at an incredible pace, yet they struggle to defend themselves against white blood cells (except, again, S. aureus). A drug that artificially boosted the potency of the immune system might not be a challenge that most bacteria could meet. People with severely weakened immune systems or with certain deadly infections would still need traditional antibiotics, but it could potentially represent a substantial reduction in the need for antibiotic usage.

Actually, they are doing this for to help kill cancer. Some of the newest, most novel treatments involve reprogramming a patient's immune system to target the problem. Turns out that unleashing the immune system on cancer cells is highly effective.

http://killingcancer.vice.com/ - Vice did a report on this. It's worth watching if you ask me. This link is just a preview or summary of the actual special report, though.

But to do this for all cases where antibiotics would be used might result in what RFayette was talking about - A hyperactive immune system that eventually begins accidentally targeting benign cells/molecules. We can surely use this method for more serious, untreatable bacteria / viruses, but probably not for everything.

Finally I think it is worth noting that various treatments and conditions suppress the immune system, so we do need treatments that operate independently of it. That is partially why I mentioned nanotechnology. Tiny things are the future

[Associate Justice PiT]

The problem with this is that we run the risk of creating a very overreactive immune system, which is often the cause of people's allergies, which are already climbing as it is.  Do you think there's a way to address this problem while still being able to strengthen people's immune system to fight bacteria?

     
     I do wonder, as is how does the immune system manage to target pathogenic bacteria and leave harmless symbiotic bacteria alone? It evidently has some way of distinguishing, since white blood cells aren't busy massacring gut flora.

Actually, they are doing this for to help kill cancer. Some of the newest, most novel treatments involve reprogramming a patient's immune system to target the problem. Turns out that unleashing the immune system on cancer cells is highly effective.

http://killingcancer.vice.com/ - Vice did a report on this. It's worth watching if you ask me. This link is just a preview or summary of the actual special report, though.

But to do this for all cases where antibiotics would be used might result in what RFayette was talking about - A hyperactive immune system that eventually begins accidentally targeting benign cells/molecules. We can surely use this method for more serious, untreatable bacteria / viruses, but probably not for everything.

Finally I think it is worth noting that various treatments and conditions suppress the immune system, so we do need treatments that operate independently of it. That is partially why I mentioned nanotechnology. Tiny things are the future

     That's really interesting stuff. As I noted above, this wouldn't work for people with, say, HIV, whose immune systems are depressed. The immune system is quite an amazing thing all in all.

[MaxQue]

The issue with antibiotics is that pretty much the only pharmas do right now is replacing small parts of a current antibiotic by other ones.

Any serious solution needs a new starting point, but that would be extremely expensive to develop (and would not happen without government bankrolling it, because pharmas don't want to fund that by themselves).