4 ms·

Practically, there's no way to stop anti-microbial resistance. We've only been capable of using said drugs for an x number of years because of the relatively lo

Practically, there's no way to stop anti-microbial resistance. We've only been capable of using said drugs for an x number of years because of the relatively long time it takes for these resistant spores to become dominant in most soil around the planet. The problem isn't really the development of resistance itself but our way of farming is the perfect petri-dish for fungal and bacterial evoluton. E.G. large monocrop fields with single-use anti-fungal spray and rinse.

kubb 1y ago
Found the „it can’t be done” guy.
- worthless-trash 1y ago
  At least its now out in the open.
- bravetraveler 1y ago
  Found the German, can vs. should matters. Save this criticism for the people who aren't nuanced, they left avenues. Mitigation, not eradication. Before you take this personally, I'm talking about the quotes. Not history. edit: downvoters and I would also disagree RE: Sisyphus. The punishment is worth it, bro. /s
  - kubb 1y ago
    I upvoted you in lieu of an olive branch.
    - bravetraveler 1y ago
      Points all around, this is more in jest than text generally allows
jakobnissen 1y ago
I don't think that's right. * There is limited evidence that farming use of antibiotics is what drives resistance in clinical cases. That is - we use enormous amounts of antibiotics in farming, but the resistance it creates doesn't really seem to move into the hospitals. * There is no reason to believe we've hit a wall and can't invent more antibiotics in the future. Historically we haven't focused much on antibiotics because we already have a bunch, and because there is less money in developing those drugs compared to e.g. lifestyle drugs or chemotherapy. * We can still adopt better policies in the future to fight against resistance. For example, some countries crazily overprescribe antibiotics, or prescribe broad spectrum ones. We can also still amp up hygiene in hospitals - literally paying more people to scrub and boil and sterilize stuff will work. * There are still some antimicrobial treatment techniques we haven't put a lot of resources in. Like, bacteriophage treatments, or cycling antibiotics.
- _heimdall 1y ago
  > There is no reason to believe we've hit a wall and can't invent more antibiotics in the future That just kicks the can down the road though. Assuming that the use of any antibiotic will eventually lead to a predominance of resistance, we would have to continue to invent new, effective antibiotics indefinitely. > For example, some countries crazily overprescribe antibiotics, or prescribe broad spectrum ones I don't think its as simple as over prescription being the problem. My grandmother is pretty I'll these days, she suffers from dementia, is sick frequently, and generally just very warn down. She had a respiratory infection this week and while at the doctor they also found that she has a UTI. The prescribed her two different, non-broad spectrum antibiotics. I don't think anyone would consider that over prescribing, and she likely would have a very bad outcome without it, but it also seems totally reasonable that her scenario could still lead to antibiotic resistance. Her immune system just doesn't work well anymore, the antibiotics will take out most of the infection and her symptoms will likely go away but I wouldn't expect her body to do the job of cleaning up the rest of the infection, leaving the more resistant strains around in her system.
  - sarchertech 1y ago
    We don’t have to keep creating new antibiotics indefinitely. There’s always some cost to resistance. Once a drug is no longer present in an environment, non-resistant strains tend to outcompete resistant ones. That is if you just stop using an antibiotic, bacteria will tend to lose resistance to it. Theoretically once you have enough antibiotics that we can retire drugs with heavy resistance and keep cycling them, you won’t need to keep creating new antibiotics.

kubb 1y ago

Found the „it can’t be done” guy.

worthless-trash 1y ago
At least its now out in the open.
bravetraveler 1y ago
Found the German, can vs. should matters. Save this criticism for the people who aren't nuanced, they left avenues. Mitigation, not eradication. Before you take this personally, I'm talking about the quotes. Not history. edit: downvoters and I would also disagree RE: Sisyphus. The punishment is worth it, bro. /s
- kubb 1y ago
  I upvoted you in lieu of an olive branch.
  - bravetraveler 1y ago
    Points all around, this is more in jest than text generally allows

jakobnissen 1y ago

I don't think that's right. * There is limited evidence that farming use of antibiotics is what drives resistance in clinical cases. That is - we use enormous amounts of antibiotics in farming, but the resistance it creates doesn't really seem to move into the hospitals. * There is no reason to believe we've hit a wall and can't invent more antibiotics in the future. Historically we haven't focused much on antibiotics because we already have a bunch, and because there is less money in developing those drugs compared to e.g. lifestyle drugs or chemotherapy. * We can still adopt better policies in the future to fight against resistance. For example, some countries crazily overprescribe antibiotics, or prescribe broad spectrum ones. We can also still amp up hygiene in hospitals - literally paying more people to scrub and boil and sterilize stuff will work. * There are still some antimicrobial treatment techniques we haven't put a lot of resources in. Like, bacteriophage treatments, or cycling antibiotics.

_heimdall 1y ago
> There is no reason to believe we've hit a wall and can't invent more antibiotics in the future That just kicks the can down the road though. Assuming that the use of any antibiotic will eventually lead to a predominance of resistance, we would have to continue to invent new, effective antibiotics indefinitely. > For example, some countries crazily overprescribe antibiotics, or prescribe broad spectrum ones I don't think its as simple as over prescription being the problem. My grandmother is pretty I'll these days, she suffers from dementia, is sick frequently, and generally just very warn down. She had a respiratory infection this week and while at the doctor they also found that she has a UTI. The prescribed her two different, non-broad spectrum antibiotics. I don't think anyone would consider that over prescribing, and she likely would have a very bad outcome without it, but it also seems totally reasonable that her scenario could still lead to antibiotic resistance. Her immune system just doesn't work well anymore, the antibiotics will take out most of the infection and her symptoms will likely go away but I wouldn't expect her body to do the job of cleaning up the rest of the infection, leaving the more resistant strains around in her system.
- sarchertech 1y ago
  We don’t have to keep creating new antibiotics indefinitely. There’s always some cost to resistance. Once a drug is no longer present in an environment, non-resistant strains tend to outcompete resistant ones. That is if you just stop using an antibiotic, bacteria will tend to lose resistance to it. Theoretically once you have enough antibiotics that we can retire drugs with heavy resistance and keep cycling them, you won’t need to keep creating new antibiotics.