World without antibiotics(publicbooks.org)
publicbooks.org
World without antibiotics
http://www.publicbooks.org/world-without-antibiotics/
90 comments
I don't know how someone can say "this promising therapy exists only in Tblisi" and not be immediately suspicious...
There are serious limitations to the current application of phage therapy, not the least of which is the need to positively identify a given strain you want to attack.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy#Obstacles
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy#Obstacles
Isn't this potentially a feature? In that you won't be promoting resistance in non target bacteria? Seems that this would force much less over-prescription.
That does seem like an advantage, but the downside is that people who don't have access to fancy diagnostic equipment potentially just die of things that could be cured with some antibiotics....
On a tangential note, that "Phage therapy" Wikipedia page makes reference to the Sinclair Lewis book "Arrowsmith":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowsmith_(novel)
I found it to be one more the more inspirational books I had read as a young student.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowsmith_(novel)
I found it to be one more the more inspirational books I had read as a young student.
For open wounds there is also maggot therapy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maggot_therapy
I was thinking this as well. It seems rather promising as a partial replacement at first. Hope that this will offer solutions to the antibiotics problem long term.
An order of magnitudes less important consequence of the end of antibiotics would be the end of professional sports and possibly also amateur sports.
Probably not a big impact on baseball or cricket (but I don't know much about them), but any contact sport, bicycle races, motor sport, climbing, etc has a good chance of generating large scratches and injuries (broken bones, torn tendons, etc) that result in surgical treatment. How many football players (both the American and the rest of the world varieties) would survive a full career, from childhood to mid 30s? And there is some crash at almost every single pro bicycle race, with broken collarbones and/or patches of skin peeled off by sliding on the tarmac. Again, how may of them would make it into the 40s without antibiotics? Amateurs go cycling for fun on Sunday morning. They also crash. A broken collarbone is bad, but risking the life for a scratch is much worse.
Probably not a big impact on baseball or cricket (but I don't know much about them), but any contact sport, bicycle races, motor sport, climbing, etc has a good chance of generating large scratches and injuries (broken bones, torn tendons, etc) that result in surgical treatment. How many football players (both the American and the rest of the world varieties) would survive a full career, from childhood to mid 30s? And there is some crash at almost every single pro bicycle race, with broken collarbones and/or patches of skin peeled off by sliding on the tarmac. Again, how may of them would make it into the 40s without antibiotics? Amateurs go cycling for fun on Sunday morning. They also crash. A broken collarbone is bad, but risking the life for a scratch is much worse.
>An order of magnitudes less important consequence of the end of antibiotics would be the end of professional sports and possibly also amateur sports.
Nope. Penicillin was first produced in quantity in 1942. The first Tour de France was held in 1903. Six-day track racing dates back to 1878. The Bordeaux-Paris race started in 1891 and was motor-paced for most of its history - the riders would slipstream behind cars or motorcycles, achieving tremendous speeds. The inadequate brakes and tires and the poor road surfaces of that era made road racing far more hazardous than it is today.
Pre-war riders sometimes died from racing-related trauma and exhaustion, but most of them lived to a ripe old age. Antibiotic resistance is clearly a bad thing, but it has been hyped to the point of hysteria by people who don't take the long view. People didn't swaddle themselves in cotton wool before 1942, they just got on with life. Some of them died of sepsis, but poor hygiene was a far more significant cause than the lack of antibiotics.
Nope. Penicillin was first produced in quantity in 1942. The first Tour de France was held in 1903. Six-day track racing dates back to 1878. The Bordeaux-Paris race started in 1891 and was motor-paced for most of its history - the riders would slipstream behind cars or motorcycles, achieving tremendous speeds. The inadequate brakes and tires and the poor road surfaces of that era made road racing far more hazardous than it is today.
Pre-war riders sometimes died from racing-related trauma and exhaustion, but most of them lived to a ripe old age. Antibiotic resistance is clearly a bad thing, but it has been hyped to the point of hysteria by people who don't take the long view. People didn't swaddle themselves in cotton wool before 1942, they just got on with life. Some of them died of sepsis, but poor hygiene was a far more significant cause than the lack of antibiotics.
Anecdotally, I've crashed my rally car a couple of times, fallen off my road bike many more times, and wrecked myself pretty hard surfing a couple of times - though I can't recall being fed antibiotics for any of those situations.
Anecdote aside, I have the feeling that you'd find more people succumbing to lifestyle ailments than not if you were to (hypothetically) ban all kinds of physical activity.
Anecdote aside, I have the feeling that you'd find more people succumbing to lifestyle ailments than not if you were to (hypothetically) ban all kinds of physical activity.
Ironically, only a few days after making this comment, I'm on a course of extremely potent AB's following being attacked by a large dog. Go me!
There was an interesting piece on BBC radio 4 a few months ago looking at the problems with the market when it comes to developing new antibiotics and I suspect government intervention will be needed to help the market along.
The usual model of drug development is
Spot opportunity > spend lots on R&D > Go into production > maximise sales > recoup money as soon as possible > Profit!
However, with new antibiotics we, as society absolutely do not want them to maximise sales. Ideally we don't want any production at all. At worst, we'd like it to be used in a handful of cases for 5, 10 or 20 years, keeping it as a treatment of last resource.
In such circumstances you can see the problem for the pharmaceuticals. Personally, I think there needs to be some kind of prize fund that can let the companies recoup (and make a decent profit) from antibiotic discoveries. Either that or public-sector research.
The usual model of drug development is
Spot opportunity > spend lots on R&D > Go into production > maximise sales > recoup money as soon as possible > Profit!
However, with new antibiotics we, as society absolutely do not want them to maximise sales. Ideally we don't want any production at all. At worst, we'd like it to be used in a handful of cases for 5, 10 or 20 years, keeping it as a treatment of last resource.
In such circumstances you can see the problem for the pharmaceuticals. Personally, I think there needs to be some kind of prize fund that can let the companies recoup (and make a decent profit) from antibiotic discoveries. Either that or public-sector research.
I've long wondered why there isn't a significant levy (say $15) on existing antibiotics that goes into a fund for the development and release of new drugs.
All antibiotic users benefit from new antibiotics, it would discourage overuse of existing antibiotics and provide significant funding for development.
A few large western countries working together and such a fund would quickly reach hundreds of millions of dollars.
All antibiotic users benefit from new antibiotics, it would discourage overuse of existing antibiotics and provide significant funding for development.
A few large western countries working together and such a fund would quickly reach hundreds of millions of dollars.
I feel like a lot more drug research should be state funded. Increasingly often we hear about some miraculous new drug that costs an arm and a leg and literally bankrupts people who need it. I understand that pharma corporations need to recoup the massive R&D costs, but it seems morally reprehensible to restrict treatment to the rich.
The alternative to a $50k drug can be a $100k stay in the ICU.
well, its not just that, tip-top cancer drugs can be > $70,000 a course of treatment (at NHS prices, so in the USA it'll be >$215,000)
"expensive" antibiotics are $10-$1000 per course.
"expensive" antibiotics are $10-$1000 per course.
There are surely alternatives/augmentations to antibiotics. One that comes to mind is that exposure to certain blue light wavelengths kills germs (as recently discovered by the anti-acne industry). They could irradiate the operated tissue with intense blue light (plus maybe red light to lessen inflammation) before sewing up. And near infrared therapy (LLLT or even LED) would deal with a lot of inflammation post-op. A quite cheap option actually.. it would of course not prevent all infections, but sure a lot of them.
ADDED
Since people seem to have trouble with the antibacterial claim, here is an article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23009190/
Just google “pubmed blue light antimicrobial”.
ADDED
Since people seem to have trouble with the antibacterial claim, here is an article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23009190/
Just google “pubmed blue light antimicrobial”.
I'm pretty sure that if it were as simple as shining some light on tissue we wouldn't use antibiotics, since they come with pretty strong side-effects.
Even supposing that the light really kills germs, the light won't reach all spots in the wound and it wouldn't reach the bacteria that already entered the bloodstream.
Even supposing that the light really kills germs, the light won't reach all spots in the wound and it wouldn't reach the bacteria that already entered the bloodstream.
Some light wavelengths do kill germs, this is well established (EDIT: And I don't even mean UV light, but other, visible wavelengths). Just google it up, there's lots of papers. And big cos like Neutrogena offer inexpensive devices that effectively kill bacteria responsible for acne - that's no proof, but for me an indicator that this has arrived in the mainstream.
You are right that light might only kill bacteria on tissue surface. But this is exactly where surgeons need it! My grandfather died of complications caused by a resistant strain infection after hip surgery. What happened is that bacteria from the environment entered the wound before it was sealed. Sure, you won't remotely kill all germs, but you might make an otherwise deadly infection manageable.
Just because it's not yet done, does not mean it's BS.
You are right that light might only kill bacteria on tissue surface. But this is exactly where surgeons need it! My grandfather died of complications caused by a resistant strain infection after hip surgery. What happened is that bacteria from the environment entered the wound before it was sealed. Sure, you won't remotely kill all germs, but you might make an otherwise deadly infection manageable.
Just because it's not yet done, does not mean it's BS.
You are confusing anti-septic with antibiotic.
Cleaning things _before_ you operate is relativly easy. Iodine/bleach/listerene/arsenic/ozone will all kill bacteria on surfaces.
Why antibiotics are great is that they can be taken orally and they kill bacteria _inside_, but not your body.
UV/blue light is indescriminate, you can swallow a blue light pill and expect it to descriminate between your body and non-local bacteria
Cleaning things _before_ you operate is relativly easy. Iodine/bleach/listerene/arsenic/ozone will all kill bacteria on surfaces.
Why antibiotics are great is that they can be taken orally and they kill bacteria _inside_, but not your body.
UV/blue light is indescriminate, you can swallow a blue light pill and expect it to descriminate between your body and non-local bacteria
Why antibiotics are great is that they can be taken orally and they kill bacteria _inside_, but not your body.
FCVO "your body". Antibiotics definitely do kill gut bacteria, which many consider to be part of our bodies.
FCVO "your body". Antibiotics definitely do kill gut bacteria, which many consider to be part of our bodies.
yes, it does, which is a side effect, however unlike anti septic it doesn't total the intestine wall, and anything else behind it.
For example Arsenic is a brilliant antibiotic, its just it kills you _and_ the infection. what we call antibiotics are far more diserning.
For example Arsenic is a brilliant antibiotic, its just it kills you _and_ the infection. what we call antibiotics are far more diserning.
Which really is a shame. I think the terminology ought to be the other way around.
I'm not talking about UV light, see my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16113533
Which isn't the point I'm making. Topical treatments for a few genus of bacteria are _not_ a viable alternative
If you can kill many (not only some - don't know where you get that info?) bacteria, fungi etc. during an operation, while they are on their way to infect a wound, how is this not viable? I think we are misunderstanding each other. Here is another article where infected burn wounds were "disinfected" with blue light: https://newatlas.com/blue-light-kills-bacteria/26026/
"In a proof-of-concept study, led by Dr. Michael R. Hamblin of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, an array of blue LEDs was used to treat infected burns on lab mice. More specifically, the blue light was used to selectively eradicate potentially-lethal Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria in the animals’ skin and soft tissues.
The results of the study were promising. All of the light-treated mice survived, while 82 percent of the untreated control group died. Additionally, unlike bacteria-killing ultraviolet light, the blue light wasn’t harmful to the animals’ own cells."
"In a proof-of-concept study, led by Dr. Michael R. Hamblin of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, an array of blue LEDs was used to treat infected burns on lab mice. More specifically, the blue light was used to selectively eradicate potentially-lethal Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria in the animals’ skin and soft tissues.
The results of the study were promising. All of the light-treated mice survived, while 82 percent of the untreated control group died. Additionally, unlike bacteria-killing ultraviolet light, the blue light wasn’t harmful to the animals’ own cells."
So you're saying just have blue lights on in the OR for added protection?
Because surgeons are still going to use sterile technique, chlorhexdine, and Ancef prophylaxis. If blue light helps in a couple trials, they'll add the blue light. Maybe it'll kill those few extra aerosolized bacteria or something
Because surgeons are still going to use sterile technique, chlorhexdine, and Ancef prophylaxis. If blue light helps in a couple trials, they'll add the blue light. Maybe it'll kill those few extra aerosolized bacteria or something
Exactly, that's what my original comment said. Use it on the wound area before sewing the wound up. Or why not during the whole process.
You are missing the point, this is a _topical_ treatment. Also, it appears to require a long, large exposure. Similally it can be equally as effective to use listerene to wash the wound.
Yes it is promising, but its not a golden bullet and will not replace antibiotics.
> not only some - don't know where you get that info? I got it from the paper you linked: Leuconostoc mesenteroides (LM), Bacillus atrophaeus (BA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA)
Yes it is promising, but its not a golden bullet and will not replace antibiotics.
> not only some - don't know where you get that info? I got it from the paper you linked: Leuconostoc mesenteroides (LM), Bacillus atrophaeus (BA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA)
This is to be used to prevent cases so antibiotics don't have to be used for a secondary infection.
Inflammation is an important response to fight infections actually, the problem is when it gets out of control (or is too annoying to deal with). But it's not good either to shut it down completely. (Your comment seemed quite confused in that regard).
Please read up on LLLT - inflammation is not just shut down, but rather mediated. Eg blood flow is increased, energy production in cells is improved by various means (cytochrome-c-oxidase, and also pushing out of nitric oxide). I haven’t seen a good explanation of why exactly inflammation is reduced, but a very consistent finding is that wound healing is sped up and pain is reduced, often by factor 2.
What you propose is rather similar to suggesting that we drink bleach. Yes UV kills bacteria, it also kills mammalian cells.
Blue light is not UV. Yes, shining strong UV-B light on tissue causes DNA damage. I’m talking about the visible blue part of light spectrum. Eg 470nm: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23009190/
A world without antibiotics is also a world with very limited surgeries.
Maybe we should stop randomly giving antibiotics to chickens in order to make them bigger
When is this going to stop?
This was on TED where it demonstrated using Ultraviolet wavelengths at a particular frequency that didn't cause skin cancer but only killed surface bacteria. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_brenner_a_new_weapon_in_the_... we good
Bacteriophages!
This always scares me and I think it isn't covered in mainstream media enough. When you say this to people, often they don't believe you.
Makes you wonder why we allow the animal agriculture industry to jack up their profits with wildly excessive overuse of antibiotics and externalize the cost onto the rest of us, not only in terms of dollars but in terms of loss of access to fundamental and essential medical procedures.
Yeah, we won't need rationing for humans if we just stop overuse in agriculture.
Credits to the EU for regulation this aggressively.. I even think the US is doing something: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock
As with climate change, this is probably going to hit emerging economies the hardest.. due to lack of regulation and less ability to deal with cost of workarounds.
Credits to the EU for regulation this aggressively.. I even think the US is doing something: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock
As with climate change, this is probably going to hit emerging economies the hardest.. due to lack of regulation and less ability to deal with cost of workarounds.
Interestingly, in 2010 Brazil introduced legislation severely limiting access to antibiotics for humans. Since then you need to hand in a prescription with each purchase -- and it is kept by the pharmacy. Doctors still prescribe antibiotics more or less liberally, so it's not perfect, but most self medicated abuse has been drastically reduced.
After the first sentence, I expected something much harsher. Handing out antibiotics only to patients with a prescription seems like common sense to me.
In Brazil you can buy almost any medical drug in a drugstore without a prescription. For some drugs you need different kind of prescriptions: antibiotics just need a regular prescription, some others will need special prescriptions that are only available for doctors who have applied, and so on.
So, yes, things were hardned few years ago.
So, yes, things were hardned few years ago.
You don't need to go that far from the US. Mexico had the same situation until a couple of years ago. You could buy antibiotics without a prescription, and many US citizens living on border cities made quick trips to Mexico just to do so when sick.
I have been sick over 10 days. I can't get anybody to give me antibiotics. I am going to a new doctor today to see what can be done. But this is not the story I wanted to share.
When I was in middle school I had fallen very ill. I was sick for over 30 days. I was also low income and the process of going to the doctor made things worse. I could hardly move or swallow. I was not eating and loads of green stuff. Chills and fever over and over. I had taken everything the local doctors had prescribed. Nothing was working. I was not getting better.
My band teacher at the time was very concerned. I had missed over a month of school. So he made trip to visit family in Mexico. He smuggled back a big bottle of amoxicillin. Mother crushed them into honey and after only two doses and one night I was already improving. I was able sit up and eat and things progressed on until I was healthy again. If it were not for my band teacher I am sure I would have died.
Thank you Mr. Garcia.
It is a real shame that people abuse these powerful tools. That we allow cooperate interest trump that of humanity's.
When I was in middle school I had fallen very ill. I was sick for over 30 days. I was also low income and the process of going to the doctor made things worse. I could hardly move or swallow. I was not eating and loads of green stuff. Chills and fever over and over. I had taken everything the local doctors had prescribed. Nothing was working. I was not getting better.
My band teacher at the time was very concerned. I had missed over a month of school. So he made trip to visit family in Mexico. He smuggled back a big bottle of amoxicillin. Mother crushed them into honey and after only two doses and one night I was already improving. I was able sit up and eat and things progressed on until I was healthy again. If it were not for my band teacher I am sure I would have died.
Thank you Mr. Garcia.
It is a real shame that people abuse these powerful tools. That we allow cooperate interest trump that of humanity's.
My understanding: Brazil was pretty freewheeling for a long time. At one time, I was internet acquainted with someone into alternative remedies who moved there so they could do whatever the heck they wanted without answering to anyone, basically.
[deleted]
That's absolutely not true. Brazil has legislations and regulations for things many countries just use common sense.
If by alternative medicine you mean homeopathy, that's highly regulated and you need to be a registered medical doctor to use it.
If you mean something else, then that would depend on what remedies (s)he was using.
Sadly a lot of countries don’t enforce this properly: https://unisensor.be/sites/default/files/pictures/2016-08-01...
Wow wow wow, are you kidding ? You must be one of those regulators that constantly press breeders and veterinarians over lowering antibiotics usage in livestock, yet risible efforts in comparison are made in human medicine. Let's use latest generation antibiotics for the smallest procedures ! Who cares ?!
Literally everyone is doing something about it in animal care (in the EU we lost availability of many specialties, or some are now usable only after antibiograms), yet it doesn't get better because MDs don't do shit. And what can they do after all, people can just go and find another practitioner. I just hope that with such reasoning you're ready to have your animal protein have its price tripled then or see your dog die of pneumonia, because that's what we're coming to.
Or maybe everyone needs to brace themselves and endure having a cold for 2 more days and not resort to antibiotics for every little thing, or we will soon leave our YOPI (young, old, pregnant, immunosuppressed) to dying with no available care. By our current state of overpopulation, it's not a big deal after all.
Literally everyone is doing something about it in animal care (in the EU we lost availability of many specialties, or some are now usable only after antibiograms), yet it doesn't get better because MDs don't do shit. And what can they do after all, people can just go and find another practitioner. I just hope that with such reasoning you're ready to have your animal protein have its price tripled then or see your dog die of pneumonia, because that's what we're coming to.
Or maybe everyone needs to brace themselves and endure having a cold for 2 more days and not resort to antibiotics for every little thing, or we will soon leave our YOPI (young, old, pregnant, immunosuppressed) to dying with no available care. By our current state of overpopulation, it's not a big deal after all.
What's your point? That the EU banning antibiotics in healthy livestock is a bad thing, because it drives up meat prices? I'm completely happy with meat prices where I live and our ban on antibiotics for growth (i.e. in health animals) predates the EU regulation.
> Or maybe everyone needs to brace themselves and endure having a cold for 2 more days and not resort to antibiotics for every little thing
The reduction in antibiotic use here by doctors is also pretty noticable. I certainly don't get antibiotics prescribed for every little thing. Also, it's important to remember that while doctors might seem like they throw antibiotics at every patient, they typically prescribe the same very narrow antibiotics for everyone and use broad spectrum ones more restrictively (which is a good thing). It would be terrible if people could buy broad spectrum antibiotics over the counter.
> Or maybe everyone needs to brace themselves and endure having a cold for 2 more days and not resort to antibiotics for every little thing
The reduction in antibiotic use here by doctors is also pretty noticable. I certainly don't get antibiotics prescribed for every little thing. Also, it's important to remember that while doctors might seem like they throw antibiotics at every patient, they typically prescribe the same very narrow antibiotics for everyone and use broad spectrum ones more restrictively (which is a good thing). It would be terrible if people could buy broad spectrum antibiotics over the counter.
Not everyone is prepared for higher animal protein prices (I don't think it's a bad thing, and I don't consume them anyways). But the people most prone to ask for radical measures are often the least aware of situations and their consequences.
>our ban on antibiotics for growth
Which were the only approved use of antibiotics in animals in your country without a doubt.
>I certainly don't get antibiotics prescribed for every little thing
Yeah me neither yet the spectacular decrease we should see is not there yet. Maybe there are other, more exigent patients then ?!
>they typically prescribe the same very narrow antibiotics for everyone and use broad spectrum ones more restrictively (which is a good thing). It would be terrible if people could buy broad spectrum antibiotics over the counter.
Well luckily some are only available in hospitals or such. But when I hear war stories from a veterinarian friend who switched to human medicine and sees lastest quinolones used systematically no matter the health status of the person for benign procedures, we just facepalm. They don't want to take the 5% risk that someone will need aftercare I guess. But MRSA and nosocomial infections are the real, growing threat...
>our ban on antibiotics for growth
Which were the only approved use of antibiotics in animals in your country without a doubt.
>I certainly don't get antibiotics prescribed for every little thing
Yeah me neither yet the spectacular decrease we should see is not there yet. Maybe there are other, more exigent patients then ?!
>they typically prescribe the same very narrow antibiotics for everyone and use broad spectrum ones more restrictively (which is a good thing). It would be terrible if people could buy broad spectrum antibiotics over the counter.
Well luckily some are only available in hospitals or such. But when I hear war stories from a veterinarian friend who switched to human medicine and sees lastest quinolones used systematically no matter the health status of the person for benign procedures, we just facepalm. They don't want to take the 5% risk that someone will need aftercare I guess. But MRSA and nosocomial infections are the real, growing threat...
By far the cheapest protein comes from plants so I do not see how more expensive meat can affect protein availability. If one wants to insist that poor have right to cheap protein from meat, then the present time animal agriculture is just unsustainable and the poor people in future will surfer from it disproportionally.
> Which were the only approved use of antibiotics in animals in your country without a doubt.
You mean countries had (or has) laws that prohibited antibiotics for its proper use (to treat infection) but allowed antibiotics in livestock for growth stimulation? Which countries were that? And what would be the reasoning behind that?
As I understood it, the "bad" countries allow antibiotics for both purposes, whereas the "good" countries started restricting antibiotics for growth, and eventually banned it completely. Have I completely misunderstood you mean?
You mean countries had (or has) laws that prohibited antibiotics for its proper use (to treat infection) but allowed antibiotics in livestock for growth stimulation? Which countries were that? And what would be the reasoning behind that?
As I understood it, the "bad" countries allow antibiotics for both purposes, whereas the "good" countries started restricting antibiotics for growth, and eventually banned it completely. Have I completely misunderstood you mean?
Antibiotics are still used in massive quantities in the US solely to promote growth and also to allow animals to be confined in increasingly smaller and less hygienic environments and to compensate for increasingly dirtier and more dangerous slaughterhouse conditions. None of this is necessary. From what I understand this is less the case in the EU.
80% of the antibiotics used in the US are given to animals, not people:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/are-antibiotics-turni...
80% of the antibiotics used in the US are given to animals, not people:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/are-antibiotics-turni...
While I'm sure the situation isn't improving as fast as the ambitions are, the last regulation in the US which bans the use of subtherapeutic antibiotics in feed, was effective as late as jan 1st 2017. So the regulation at least seems to be catching up, whether realtity is following is another question.
Any progress in this direction welcome, of course. We have a long way to go.
Prophylaxis (=treatment of healthy patients) antibiotics used to be a routine thing especially in younger animals more prone to infections etc. It was not stimulating growth per se, but as a coincidental effect. It is not very common anymore, and has not been for over a decade now (in the EU, I'm not sure about overseas). But it's still possible for some specific sicknesses (one is sick, you can treat others that are not sick preventively) or productions (ie poultry and pigs iirc).
(Growth is still systematically stimulated through hormones injections in cattle at least in the Canada/US, and this is completely banned in the EU, maybe there's some mix up there ?)
> eventually banned it completely
No, luckily it's not completely banned anywhere I know of, and I hardly see this happening tbh. Even in organic productions and such its a number of treatments (or quantity per animal) limit per year. It is not banned and breeding animals would be hardly sustainable if it were.
(Growth is still systematically stimulated through hormones injections in cattle at least in the Canada/US, and this is completely banned in the EU, maybe there's some mix up there ?)
> eventually banned it completely
No, luckily it's not completely banned anywhere I know of, and I hardly see this happening tbh. Even in organic productions and such its a number of treatments (or quantity per animal) limit per year. It is not banned and breeding animals would be hardly sustainable if it were.
Right. Yes I was considering the subtherapeutic use in otherwise completely healthy populations of livestock. Good to see that is also being addressed (as late as 2017 for the US). That only addresses dispensing it through, feed though so I'm unsure how common it is to simply admnister the same thing through some other means?
Of course, the elephant in the room is the use in China/India/Brazil. I wonder how close we are to those countries adopting EU/US style regulation. Basically, how do we tell China/India/Brazil that they will simply have to accept protein prices that are much higher?
Of course, the elephant in the room is the use in China/India/Brazil. I wonder how close we are to those countries adopting EU/US style regulation. Basically, how do we tell China/India/Brazil that they will simply have to accept protein prices that are much higher?
would they be much higher? what is “much” here? (not trolling)
> I just hope that with such reasoning you're ready to have your animal protein have its price tripled then or see your dog die of pneumonia
Yes, absolutely. In fact higher meat prices probably wouldn't be a bad thing :)
On topic: maybe I was a bit extreme, what I meant was that if we limit agriculture usage of antibiotics, then we can hopefully avoid the kind of dystopian rationing for humans that the article talks about.
I'm certainly willing to see higher meat prices before we ration antibiotics away from humans who critically need it. (not talking about a cold that would go away on it's own)
Yes, absolutely. In fact higher meat prices probably wouldn't be a bad thing :)
On topic: maybe I was a bit extreme, what I meant was that if we limit agriculture usage of antibiotics, then we can hopefully avoid the kind of dystopian rationing for humans that the article talks about.
I'm certainly willing to see higher meat prices before we ration antibiotics away from humans who critically need it. (not talking about a cold that would go away on it's own)
Because that gives us cheap burgers.
Do not underestimate the competitive advantage (read necessity considering that nations wage war against each other) for nations to have cheap access to food and energy.
Reminds me of water rights. During droughts, huge campaigns against residential water use in California- meanwhile industrial agriculture consumes 80%+ of the water used in the state, and has no incentive to cut back.
antibiotics (natamycin, in particular) are now routinely used in packaged shredded cheese, to inhibit mold growth.
A sustained low-level dose of antibiotic is proven to foster antibiotic resistance.
A sustained low-level dose of antibiotic is proven to foster antibiotic resistance.
As the name (*mycin) (and purpose!) suggests, that's not an antibiotic, but rather antimycotic (anti-fungal) substance: antibiotics target microorganisms (i.e. bacteria), while antimycotics target fungi, a completely different _kingdom_.
Sorry, but your comment is completely wrong.
Sorry, but your comment is completely wrong.
Greatly appreciate the clarification.
It was never that bad. Yes they were overused, but the ones overused were not useful for humans so resistance isn't actually a factor.
> "the ones overused were not useful for humans so resistance isn't actually a factor"
First of all, that's not true; there's substantial overlap between agricultural and human use, for example the Bacitracin we use in the U.S. to promote growth in livestock, and the colistin now flooding Chinese agriculture.
Second, it wouldn't matter even if you were right; bacteria acquire resistance to classes of related antibiotics. So, for example, when bacteria become resistant to the fluoroquinolones that we regularly put in poultry feed in the U.S., those bacteria will likely be immune to Cipro when they infect you.
First of all, that's not true; there's substantial overlap between agricultural and human use, for example the Bacitracin we use in the U.S. to promote growth in livestock, and the colistin now flooding Chinese agriculture.
Second, it wouldn't matter even if you were right; bacteria acquire resistance to classes of related antibiotics. So, for example, when bacteria become resistant to the fluoroquinolones that we regularly put in poultry feed in the U.S., those bacteria will likely be immune to Cipro when they infect you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy
It is practiced since the 20ies in Tiblisi Georgia. TED talk about it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjH6m5VuR6I
So it is not all doomsday.