Scientists outsmarted by bacteria

[(((Fergus)))]

How is that possible? :confused:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12975693

[Jack]

How is that possible? :confused:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12975693

IIRC there are 7 levels of bugs that antibiotics beat.

Most folk when they are born are level 1 and that’s fairly simple. You get a level 1 bug a level 1 antibiotic kills it.

However if you take a lot of level 1 antibiotic bug 1 becomes resistant to it and becomes bug 2 and you need antibiotic 2 and so on.

This has only really been known about for a relatively short time and is the reason your GP is reluctant to dish out antibiotics in the way they used to.

Hope this helps.

[Twa Cairpets]

How is that possible? :confused:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12975693

Well I'll bite.

Extrapolation of an article about health risk into a dig at "scientists being beaten by bacteria" to make some slightly obtuse point, presumably, about "how science doesnt have an answer for everything, you know", is right up there with the classic Fergus threads. Are you accusing those darn scientists of being to blame for evolution (for this is what it is)?

Maybe we should just all just concentrate on getting our energies balanced, re-adjust our chi, and getting some naturopathic practitioner to find a tiny bit of bacteria and dilute out of existence so that its magical memory can heal us through the power of really really wishing. Because that will work.

But you shouldnt worry anyway mate, given your previous posted belief in the Hahnemannian position that that no material substance causes disease.

[Bookkeeper]

Well I'll bite.

Extrapolation of an article about health risk into a dig at "scientists being beaten by bacteria" to make some slightly obtuse point, presumably, about "how science doesnt have an answer for everything, you know", is right up there with the classic Fergus threads. Are you accusing those darn scientists of being to blame for evolution (for this is what it is)?

Maybe we should just all just concentrate on getting our energies balanced, re-adjust our chi, and getting some naturopathic practitioner to find a tiny bit of bacteria and dilute out of existence so that its magical memory can heal us through the power of really really wishing. Because that will work.

But you shouldnt worry anyway mate, given your previous posted belief in the Hahnemannian position that that no material substance causes disease.


:greengrin Bit like the classic TwoCarpet post about the westboro baptists?

[Twa Cairpets]

:greengrin Bit like the classic TwoCarpet post about the westboro baptists?

Well, not really, but fair effort :wink:

[RyeSloan]

How is that possible? :confused:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12975693

How is not possible? :confused:

Why are you so surprised by this news :confused:

I'd would like to see any credible correspondence where any scientist has claimed they can develop a drug to deal with any and all bacteria.

[Twa Cairpets]

How is not possible? :confused:

Why are you so surprised by this news :confused:

I'd would like to see any credible correspondence where any scientist has claimed they can develop a drug to deal with any and all bacteria.

SiMar, you're missing Fergus's irony here. It's intended to be read dripping with sarcasm "you mean science doesnt have an answer for everything?"

[easty]

SiMar, you're missing Fergus's irony here. It's intended to be read dripping with sarcasm "you mean science doesnt have an answer for everything?"

In his defence, scientists do seem to think they have an answer for everything....and I've yet to meet any scientist who can give me any proof that god didn't create everyone and everything.:fishin:

[Jack]

The Health Protection Agency (HPA) welcomes actions to raise the profile of emerging drug resistance and fully supports the focus of World Health Day this year, which looks at the increasing need for the development of new antibiotics to combat this ever-growing trend in drug resistance.

Dr David Livermore, director of the HPA's antibiotic resistance monitoring and reference laboratory, said: "I am delighted that resistance is the focus of the WHO's 2011 World Health Day. So much of modern medicine - from gut surgery to cancer treatment, to transplants - depends on our ability to treat infection. If resistance destroys that ability then the whole edifice of modern medicine crumbles."

"It's vital to grasp that fighting the emergence of resistance is fighting evolution itself. To keep ahead it is vital that we conserve what antibiotics we have - using them carefully and prudently - and that pharmaceutical companies and regulators support the development and licensing of new antibiotics."

The HPA conducts monitoring and surveillance of antibiotic resistance in the UK and has done so since the late 1980s. The Agency also evaluates new antibiotics under development.

The HPA, alongside scientists at Cardiff University, recently co-authored a paper published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases looking specifically at the emergence of NDM-1 and its import to the UK. This is an enzyme that destroys carbapenems; an important group of antibiotics used for difficult infections in hospitals. The HPA has so far recorded 88 cases of bacteria with NDM-1 in the UK, most of them from patients linked to the Indian subcontinent (as well as 283 isolates with 'KPC' (Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase) another type of carbapenem resistance).

Further work from this collaboration, published in the Lancet Infectious Diseases today shows that NDM-1 is widespread outside the hospital environment in Delhi, circulating in bacteria than inhabit drains and tap water. The results of the study concur with findings of the Health Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi showing sewage contamination of tap water in the city.

Improvements in infrastructure to stop the circulation of resistant bacteria in sewage - are needed to assist in infection control and prevent further spread of antibiotic resistance.

Christine McCartney, executive director of the HPA's microbiology services said: "The emergence of antibiotic resistance especially against carbapenems, is a major public health concern. Antibiotic resistance makes infections much harder to treat and its spread underscores the need for good infection control in hospitals both in the UK and overseas, and highlights the need for new antibiotics to be developed."

[Jack]

Notes to editors

Latest figures for the UK on numbers of isolates of Enterobacteriaceae (not patient numbers) from UK labs, confirmed to have carbapenemases by the HPA's antibiotic resistance monitoring and reference laboratory

Numbers of isolates of Enterobacteriaceae from UK labs confirmed to have carbapenemases

IMP VIM KPC OXA-48 NDM IMI KPC+VIM
2003 1 1 1
2004 3
2005
2006 3 1
2007 1 1
2008 1 2 5 9 5
2009 9 4 13 15 32
2010 9 26 229 29 44 2
2011 19 31 5 7 1



The Health Protection Agency recently developed new guidance in association with the Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance and Healthcare Associated Infections (ARHAI), to help microbiologists and infection control specialists across this UK to recognise, treat and prevent infections caused by bacteria with resistance to carbapenem antibiotics.
The new HPA guidance is available on the HPA website (http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListName/Page/1294740725255) and issued to clinical microbiologists and infection control specialists across the UK by the HPA's Antibiotic Resistance Monitoring and Reference Laboratory.
The HPA has a number of resources on the use of antibiotics (http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListName/Page/1287144120892), including new guidance on management of infections in primary care units (http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListName/Page/1197637041219)
Hospitals and healthcare professionals need to pay careful attention to the correct and appropriate use of antibiotics, ensure there is appropriate monitoring and surveillance of antibiotic resistance, and ensure appropriate infection control measures are in place. See the guidance on the correct use of antibiotics for healthcare professionals (http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListName/Page/1197637041219).
More information about carbapenem resistance (http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&Page&HPAwebAutoListName/Page/1281953868706) can be found on the HPA website.
Members of the public should adhere to the correct use of antibiotics, not store any unused antibiotics, and ensure that they use them for the recommended duration as prescribed by their doctor.
For media enquiries please contact the national HPA press office at Colindale on
020 8327 7097/6647/6690, out of hours 020 8200 4400 or email [email protected]

[lapsedhibee]

"It's vital to grasp that fighting the emergence of resistance is fighting evolution itself."

Eh, naw it isn't. The scientists who are doing the fighting are just as much part of the evolutionary process as the bugs they are trying to stamp on/out. The whole dance is entirely within so-called evolution. The above quote is typical of scientists trying to make themselves out as heroes, struggling against not just the elements of nature but evolution itself. Sloppy sloppy sloppy.

[Twa Cairpets]

In his defence, scientists do seem to think they have an answer for everything....and I've yet to meet any scientist who can give me any proof that god didn't create everyone and everything.:fishin:

Must. Resist. Temptation. To. Bite...:greengrin

[RyeSloan]

SiMar, you're missing Fergus's irony here. It's intended to be read dripping with sarcasm "you mean science doesnt have an answer for everything?"

I didn't miss it (not even I could miss that!) I just wanted him to justify his surprise...I kind of sarcastic answer to an ironic post...

Ach clearly my written sarcasm is no where near as good as my spoken version :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Eh, naw it isn't. The scientists who are doing the fighting are just as much part of the evolutionary process as the bugs they are trying to stamp on/out. The whole dance is entirely within so-called evolution. The above quote is typical of scientists trying to make themselves out as heroes, struggling against not just the elements of nature but evolution itself. Sloppy sloppy sloppy.

I'm not seeing how you can infer this from the quotation:

"It's vital to grasp that fighting the emergence of resistance is fighting evolution itself. To keep ahead it is vital that we conserve what antibiotics we have - using them carefully and prudently - and that pharmaceutical companies and regulators support the development and licensing of new antibiotics."

The adaption of bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics is absolutely evolution in process. It is a clear and vivid illustration of how it works. For example, if 99.99% of a type of bacteria are destroyed, the 0.01% of that has some genetic aberration/mutuation that allows it to survive will reproduce in its only little bacterial way with a resistance to that antiobiotic.

It isnt doing it conciously, it isn't doing with a purpose, it is just doing it.

To try to overcome this very natural progression is trying to stem the tide of evolution - I dont understand how it could be viewed in any other way.

If you mean that humans (yes, even scientists) are part of evolution, then you wont get an argument from me there, but to suggest that the specific activity of trying to repeatedly challenge the adaption of infectious organisms is all "part of the same dance" I just don't get.

I also don't get how you can come to the conclusion that in the quote, somehow "scientists are trying to make themselves out as heroes"? How do you come by that? If he'd said "with my trusty test tube at my side, and my cloak containing the power of x-ray refractive indices and the power of quantum physics to support me - a power no mere mortal can have - we will fight for the puny humans and bask in there idolisation when the last germ is killed Bwah-hahaha" I'd agree. But its not really that is it?

[lapsedhibee]

If you mean that humans (yes, even scientists) are part of evolution

:agree:

If he'd said "with my trusty test tube at my side, and my cloak containing the power of x-ray refractive indices and the power of quantum physics to support me - a power no mere mortal can have - we will fight for the puny humans and bask in there idolisation when the last germ is killed Bwah-hahaha" I'd agree. But its not really that is it?
:agree: That's almost word for word what the quote means. It's just that scientists like to talk in code, symbols, formulae etc, wear white coats, etc etc, so that ornery folks remain in awe. "Fighting evolution" is macho drivel, whether it's got bwahahaha at the end of it or not. I don't think even Dawkins, ubermachodriveller that he is, would come out with that.

[Twa Cairpets]

:agree:

:agree: That's almost word for word what the quote means. It's just that scientists like to talk in code, symbols, formulae etc, wear white coats, etc etc, so that ornery folks remain in awe. "Fighting evolution" is macho drivel, whether it's got bwahahaha at the end of it or not. I don't think even Dawkins, ubermachodriveller that he is, would come out with that.

Really? Given that is what they are doing, how else should he have phrased it?

"Combatting the natural inclination of species to evolve through natural selection"?
"Seeking to put the brakes on the development of a species through evolution"
"Attempting to come up with a process and solution that will reduce or remove the tendency for bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics"?

I'm not picking an argument here, I just dont see how he could describe the action of fighting evolution with saying he was fighting evolution.

I thought it was fairly neutral, myself.

Also, do you really believe that first line about codes, formulae white coats and the like, or are you fishing for a reaction? It seems that you are basing your opinion of scentists on a cross between beardy '70's Open University lecturers on BBC2 and Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory. Where have you felt in awe of someone with a scientific background? Most popular science and scientists - Brian Cox for example, or Mythbusters on TV, or Richard Wiseman or Ben Goldacre is/are very accessible. People like Hugh Pennington, who is wheeled out every time there is an e-coli outbreak, is very clear when he speaks as he realises he is addressing a lay audience on a vital matter.

I'm genuinely struggling to think of a case where someone from a genuinely scientific position has come on with the full white coat mumbo-jumbo stuff you suggest. I only seem to see it when people are trying to sell something - cosmetics is an obvious example. Some good looking person is chucked in a white coat and told to talk about the anti-aging effects of penta-peptides. Its deliberately trying to sound and look authoratative and "sciency" but its not. It's advertising.

Happy to be proven wrong though if you can suggest some examples

[lapsedhibee]

I'm not picking an argument here, I just dont see how he could describe the action of fighting evolution with saying he was fighting evolution.

He's making a category mistake. Evolution includes scientists fighting bugs, as well as the developing bugs theirselfs. For someone inside the concept to say that he is "fighting [the concept] itself" doesn't make sense, even if he were to be simultaneously punching himself in the gob (which incidentally I wish this particular one had).


Also, do you really believe that first line about codes, formulae white coats and the like

No.


beardy '70's Open University lecturers on BBC2

Some wonderful, wonderful programmes



Brian Cox
Not so wonderful. Prefer Ian Stewart and Jim Al-Khalili

[Twa Cairpets]

He's making a category mistake. Evolution includes scientists fighting bugs, as well as the developing bugs theirselfs. For someone inside the concept to say that he is "fighting [the concept] itself" doesn't make sense, even if he were to be simultaneously punching himself in the gob (which incidentally I wish this particular one had).


I'm going to get picky here. Theres lots of different definitions of evolution, but this one fits this discussion:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

If you're defining evolution philosphically, then youre right, we're all part of the process of change. But the scientific definition, as defined above is the one which (I fairly assume) the guy is referring to when he's talking about fighting evolution. If he had said "we're seeking to discover ways to avoid the allele frequency changes from generation to generation within bacterial organisms providing a defense mechanism against the action of antibiotics", it would have meant precisely the same thing, but been understood by not too many people and sounded arsey to boot.

[hibsbollah]

Well I'll bite.

Extrapolation of an article about health risk into a dig at "scientists being beaten by bacteria" to make some slightly obtuse point, presumably, about "how science doesnt have an answer for everything, you know", is right up there with the classic Fergus threads. Are you accusing those darn scientists of being to blame for evolution (for this is what it is)?

Maybe we should just all just concentrate on getting our energies balanced, re-adjust our chi, and getting some naturopathic practitioner to find a tiny bit of bacteria and dilute out of existence so that its magical memory can heal us through the power of really really wishing. Because that will work.

But you shouldnt worry anyway mate, given your previous posted belief in the Hahnemannian position that that no material substance causes disease.

To be fair to Fergus, you're just using an ad hominem argument here, or playing the man and not the ball.

[lapsedhibee]

I'm going to get picky here. Theres lots of different definitions of evolution, but this one fits this discussion:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

If you're defining evolution philosphically, then youre right, we're all part of the process of change. But the scientific definition, as defined above is the one which (I fairly assume) the guy is referring to when he's talking about fighting evolution. If he had said "we're seeking to discover ways to avoid the allele frequency changes from generation to generation within bacterial organisms providing a defense mechanism against the action of antibiotics", it would have meant precisely the same thing, but been understood by not too many people and sounded arsey to boot.

How do you get that bugs fighting antibiotics fighting bugs fighting antibiotics, etc, with both sides developing all the time, is strictly speaking biological evolution; yet scientists fighting bugs fighting scientists fighting bugs, etc, with both sides developing all the time, is not? Are scientists not biological players?

You're possibly thinking that scientific knowledge is not passed down through genes, as you've been brought up in the false Darwinian tradition. Lamarck will have his day though.

[Twa Cairpets]

How do you get that bugs fighting antibiotics fighting bugs fighting antibiotics, etc, with both sides developing all the time, is strictly speaking biological evolution; yet scientists fighting bugs fighting scientists fighting bugs, etc, with both sides developing all the time, is not? Are scientists not biological players?

Because one is a process without direction, and occurs naturally. The other is a direct intervention driven by a goal. A scientists alleles dont change over his life.

[Twa Cairpets]

To be fair to Fergus, you're just using an ad hominem argument here, or playing the man and not the ball.

Yeh, I know, but when the ball is invisible its hard not too.

[hibsbollah]

Yeh, I know, but when the ball is invisible its hard not too.

So you believe in the power of invisibility? Now thats what I call faith:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

So you believe in the power of invisibility? Now thats what I call faith:greengrin

Hey, if its good enough for Brian Kerr...