Superbugs will 'kill every three seconds'

[Bad Dog]

Source: BBC

Superbugs will kill someone every three seconds by 2050 unless the world acts now, a hugely influential report says.

The global review sets out a plan for preventing medicine "being cast back into the dark ages" that requires billions of dollars of investment.

It also calls for a revolution in the way antibiotics are used and a massive campaign to educate people.


Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36321394

[Voice for Peace]

1. Chances are good that Supetbug will get me before 2050

and just in time for my appointment.

[Bad Dog]

2. It's the subsequent generations that will suffer.

I heard someone on the radio saying that there's no money to be made r&ding new antibiotics, and it's money that drives this research. Which is also why there's no vaccine for malaria, because 99% of the sufferers are poor Africans.

[anigbrowl]

7. There are vaccines for malaria

It's very difficult to vaccinate against because of the complex life cycle of the disease but there are two vaccines that have had successful small trials so far. Development of these has been a joint effort between GSK and Walter Reed and has been ongoing for 30 years.

http://www.economist.com/news/international/21698654-another-blow-struck-long-fight-against-malaria-buzzing

[Bad Dog]

13. Even so, if malaria primarily affected Wall Street brokers

there would have been a vaccine long before now.

[anigbrowl]

55. Talk is cheap, science is difficult

I don't have time for people whose first reaction to new information is to find a way to dismiss it.

[Bad Dog]

56. I don't have time for people who feel the need to be taken Oh so seriously.

And you didn't present me with any information I didn't already know.

Get over yourself.

[anigbrowl]

57. You didn't know there were vaccines for malaria

I was hoping you'd be like 'oh good news' but apparently it was more important to keep complaining.

[Bad Dog]

58. I know you think your opinion is very important.

But I have far better things to do than waste my time with you. Think what you like, I really don't care. You're on ignore.

[snagglepuss]

3. In places like China, antibiotics are

over the counter, prescription not needed. That has to change.

[Bad Dog]

4. And there's the attitude.

My son was studying in China for a year, it's not just the over the counter nature but the fact they seem to prescribe them at the drop of a hat.

[still_one]

5. That is true, and a problem, but in this country the big problem is antibiotics given to livestock,

and though they recognize it, it will take years for that to stop.

[Bad Dog]

12. In this country we did not vaccinate against foot and mouth

And had a huge cull as a result. There's also huge controversy about killing badgers to stop bovine TB. Somerset has become a front line between the cullers and the sabs.

There's a long way to go to find some sort of sane compromise.

[happyslug]

48. The same in the US, if you go to a pet store.

Any pharmacist will tell you:
(A) Fish diseases are treated with human antibiotics.
(B) You don't need a prescription to purchase antibiotics for fish.

We visited 6 pet stores in the New York City Area - 2 national chains, a regional chain and 3 independently owned pet shops.

Both national chain pet stores we visited had antibiotics for sale. Most of the formulations were available as liquid gel drops or powders that are difficult for people to take. However we were able to obtain tablets of triple sulfa (a cocktail of 3 broad spectrum sulfa antibiotics) and tetracycline tablets on the websites of these chains.

The regional chain pet store and all three mom and pop pet stores sold tetracycline, erythromycin and ampicillin in tablet and capsule form.

On the internet, it was easy to find amoxicillin, ampicillin, tetracycline, cephalexin, metronidazole and erythromycin for sale without a prescription by searching Google for the term "fish antibiotics".

It is a bad idea for people to take veterinary medicines but chemically the drugs are the same as what you find in a human pharmacy.

According to anecdotal reports the fact that one can obtain antibiotics in this manner is common knowledge among branches of the armed forces.

http://www.coreynahman.com/antibiotics.html

[still_one]

6. It is a problem, and a lot of work with new classes of antibiotics, bacterial phages, and vaccines

are being looked at.

A lot of problems are also caused by overuse of antibiotics in livestock. That has to stop

[jtuck004]

8. So, if we change our approach and put people above profits, we will be saved.

Rest in Peace.

[Bad Dog]

14. On the radio they were talking about about trying to disconnect profits from sales.

If a new super antibiotic is produced it needs to be used sparingly, as a last resort, so sales will not be high.

[mdbl]

21. You hit the core of the problem

If the drugs would be properly regulated and not subject to the financial whims of idiot politicians, we might have a chance. I know I'm talking out of my a$$ as far as anything being done properly.

[Bad Dog]

22. Market forces only serve those who can afford to go to the market.

Some things, (like not being wiped out by a super new strain of measles,) are too important to be left to the market place.

[ronnie624]

53. Greed should never be a prime mover for economic activity.

We all know it's illogical and morally illigitimate, and that it puts our civilization at risk, yet we continue to embrace such a system anyway.

The cognitive and ethical inconsistencies of capitalism are myriad.

[Bad Dog]

54. Well yes.

It's an efficient system, but that's all it is, it shouldn't be allowed to run wild, it's not something to be worshipped.

[Surya Gayatri]

9. K & R. Thanks for posting.

[Bad Dog]

16. My pleasure.

You getting as much rain as we are this side of the channel?

[Surya Gayatri]

17. Cold and dank...yes! My building's central heat is STILL on...

[Bad Dog]

18. I put the heating on last night too.

Apparently there's more rain to come. Still, it's good for the garden.

[On the Road]

10. By 2050,

there is a good chance that antibiotics will be superseded by other ways of killing bacteria.

What Comes After Antibiotics?

[jtuck004]

19. That's what I was wondering. We need to get beyond the 4 humors, so to speak.

Thank you for that.

[cantbeserious]

15. All Humans Succumb To Death - Accept Fate And Move On

eom

[Dr Hobbitstein]

28. You ARE a robot.

I knew it!

[cantbeserious]

33. Clearly Then - A Mortal Robot

eom

[kayakjohnny]

23. That's a start. n/t

[riversedge]

24. K and R

[knightmaar]

25. Poverty already kills someone every 3 seconds

And humanity, generally speaking, does almost Jack all about that, so I predict we'll ignore this too.

[padfun]

26. Tobacco kills 5 million every year

and we don't seem to care or do much about it. I only say this for perspective. If 5 mill barely hits the radar, then 10 million will be one of those things that gradually get accepted, like frogs in a boiling pot. My guess is that this will just kill people and wont make much news since most of the deaths are in Africa and Asia.

[valerief]

31. Yes, and at least rich people get richer from tobacco, which is the most important thing

in the world. People living well--human dignity--that barely rates in this world.

[Bad Dog]

36. That's because antibiotics work.

Flesh eating bacteria hit the headlines a few years ago. It's a resistant strain of a rather innocuous bacteria that normally only gives people sore throats.

[cynzke]

27. NORTH CAROLINA BETTER GET BUSY...

And pass a bill now banning superbugs from bathrooms.

[valerief]

30. I wouldn't put it past those idiots! nt

[cantbeserious]

34. Transgender Bugs - Who Knew

eom

[valerief]

29. So how do hedge fund managers get rich from it? If that isn't possible, then we all die, cuz

making rich people richer is what drives everything in this world.

[Nitram]

32. Every 3 seconds? That sounds like bogus science to me.

I don't mean to belittle the point that antibiotics are being recklessly mishandled and will be useless if we don't take action soon. But that sounds like a headline in the National Enquirer.

[Bad Dog]

35. It's from the BBC.

Which doesn't have a history of provocative, alarming headlines.

[Nitram]

37. I respect the BBC, but I suspect a scientist did not write that headline.

[Bad Dog]

38. It was written by health editor James Gallagher.

James Gallagher is the health editor for the BBC News website. The first class biology graduate joined the organisation as a trainee in 2005. He has received awards for his journalism from the Radio Academy, the Medical Journalists Association, the Association of British Science Writers and the Endocrine Society.

http://www.hca-uk.org/events/bb12oct15.obyx?cookie_refresh

[Nitram]

39. He wrote the headline?

[Bad Dog]

40. Why don't you follow the link?

The article has his name on it. Although I'm not clued up on the internal workings of the BBC I doubt very much that he would put his name to something he didn't believe.

[Nitram]

41. I read the story at the link. The article does not say he wrote his own headline.

If he did, he's more heavily invested in getting eyeballs than in science reporting.

[Bad Dog]

42. Believe what you want.

If you find the story too frightening fair enough, but don't discredit the source.

[Nitram]

44. Sorry, I just have a problem with the way science is reported sometimes.

[Bad Dog]

45. The same words were used on the telly last night.

It references a government report which used those words originally. It wasn't even the leading story, behind the crashed plane and a Labour MP calling a voter racist.

[Nitram]

46. You can't go wrongg with news on the telly.

[Bad Dog]

47. It's different from a headline.

Part and parcel of the news itself. We trust the BBC, it's bound by law to be impartial and avoid sensationalism.

[padfun]

43. If you multiply that out, it comes to 10.5 million per year

So I think that is what they are basing it on.

[Vesper]

52. That wasn't the headline, it came from within the article.

They took the current number of deaths per year (700,000) and modeled it to 2050, reached 10 million per year and then broke it down to how many people per second.

It's not "science" at all, but not necessarily bogus either.

[FLPanhandle]

49. It won't make a dent in human overpopulation though

[happyslug]

50. What is needed is to legalized over the counter Penicillin.

Penicillin was the first Antibiotic, it had been used in cattle since the 1940s to fatten them (Antibiotics kill various "bugs" in cattle. Those "Bugs" do not affect cattle or people, except in cattle the "bugs" use up a lot of feed that the cattle would have to put on fat and meat, thus getting rid of them permit Cattle to get fat sooner using less feed and thus increases profits).

Penicillin and Tetracycline (Invented 1954, it was the first Antibiotic effective against long term Syphilis, for Tetracycline can enter the water barrier around the brain, Penicillin and Sulfa Drugs could not) are more and more marginal. Legalized them for people who want an Antibiotic over the counter, this includes use in pets and cattle and other animals.

The rest of the Antibiotics should be restricted to Human and prescription only. The less such drugs are used, the less chance that a "bug" will grow immune to it.

Countries with no national medical programs (such as China and the US) would be required to adopt such a program so that people who are sick can afford to go to a doctor to get a prescription (I recently read an article about doctors giving free medical care to various people, most had "Medical Insurance" but could NOT pay the co-pay to get the Medical Care, which is the same as having no medical care). The lack of adequate affordable medical care is one of the reason China permits over the counter antibiotic sales.

Side note: Russia is a special case when it comes to medical care. From the 1920s till the 1960s, its medical care was equal to the west, but deteriorated after about 1965, do to serious under-investment in infrastructure (Many Hospitals did not even have X-ray machines till after 2000 for example). With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the system went from bad to worse. Starting with Putin becoming President in 1999, the situation has slowly improved. At present Russia is going from the remains of the Soviet System of all medical care being state organization (All doctors were state employees), to a system where medical providers are private operations, but everyone is covered by state mandated health insurance paid by their employer through taxation (Much like the Medicare program in the US). Please note the Hospitals in Russia are all state owned, but instead of looking for direct government support, they are relying on payments through the State health insurance system.

The problems with Russia health care also goes to most members of the Former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. For Example the Russia system being adopted is very similar to the system presently being used in Poland. East Germany seems to be the only exception, for the medical system in what was East Germany was just an extension of the previous West German System (which is based on employer paid health insurance, which like Poland covers 98% of the population).

Polish Health System:

http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/163053/e96443.pdf

[lapfog_1]

51. That's only around 10.5 M people

superbugs better start doing better than that... That's not even close to slowing down population growth.