Ship of Fools: Now the drugs don't work

Thread: Now the drugs don't work Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029582

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

With apologies to The Verve, I'm referring specifically to the issue of antibiotic resistance. This issue, in which bacteria we have been able to kill off can no longer be managed, as they have become resistant to all available drugs, has long been talked about.

In the news today are reports that the era of a "post antibiotic world" has moved a lot closer with the discovery of a particularly important genetic mutation.

BBC report

So, is there still time to do anything, and if so what? It seems that over prescribing of antibiotics is still common, and in some parts of the world they are available prescription free. Many people don't seem to understand the basic issue of them being useful against bacteria, and not against a virus such as the common cold.

A year or two ago the UK government decided something ought to be done, which I seem to recall involved some commercial motivation to develop new antibiotics, with lots of complaints that really it was a matter of science, not money. It seems to me that if all the existing ones don't work, there would be quite enough money to be made from making some new ones anyway, without added incentives.

Or are we all just going to start dying from stuff our ancestors did?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Well, I first recall the question of antibiotic resistant infection back in the early 1990s and even then it struck me that in a country like the UK, where drugs like antibiotics can't be bought over-the-counter, the solution was simple: (1) Rigorous auditing of GPs prescribing habits with advice being given if it was felt they were being handed out like smarties; (2) A public education campaign to stress that courses of antibiotics must be finished.

The first wasn't done - I'm told because it wasn't technically possible then and nothing has been done to bring it forward since.

The second was attempted to a limited extent by some local health authorities but the BMA felt that the information in leaflets included with drugs was sufficient - clearly they had then (and probably still have) a touching belief in patients reading said leaflets that is almost entirely misplaced.

Sensible precautions available to all are to make sure children have healthy immune systems, and to ensure that household hygiene is up to the mark. Beyond that, pray you don't get sick!

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

I still occasionally overhear people offering others "left over" antibiotics for a cough. It takes a lot of willpower for me to not throttle them.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Current thinking would say that the situation is serious, but nothing for the public to panic about. The graphic towards the end of this article suggests that the total deaths per year worldwide from antibiotic resistance by 2050 will be about 10 million. Compare that to 17.5 million from cardiovascular disease, and about 5-6 million from smoking related conditions (WHO statistics for 2012).

Having said that, without some key technological advances the situation is only going to get worse, not better. It's evolution in action.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

It was bound to happen. Putting antibiotics in animals drinking water/feed as a 'preventative' is foolish.

Worldwide, the demand for colistin in agriculture was expected to reach almost 12,000 tonnes per year by the end of this year, rising to 16,500 tonnes by 2021.

Loopy.

Posted by Touchstone (# 3560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It seems to me that if all the existing ones don't work, there would be quite enough money to be made from making some new ones anyway, without added incentives.

A large part of the problem is that there isn't much of a commercial incentive to invent new antibiotics. If you gave the doctors a completely new one tomorrow, they would say "thanks very much" and put it in a cupboard until they came across a case of infection that was resistant to all the current antibiotics. They certainly wouldn't start using it in large quantities becasue that would be self-defeating, so the potential market for a new drug is not large enough to justify the development costs. There's much more money to be made from new treatments for arthritis, erectile dysfunction etc.

Clear proof that the market can't solve all our problems.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It was bound to happen. Putting antibiotics in animals drinking water/feed as a 'preventative' is foolish.

Worldwide, the demand for colistin in agriculture was expected to reach almost 12,000 tonnes per year by the end of this year, rising to 16,500 tonnes by 2021.

Loopy.

I don't think it is entirely loopy because nobody wants farm animal infections to be spread in the foodchain to humans, and the easiest way to stop this is via preventative antibiotics.

Of course, we are also seeing the downside.

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Well, I first recall the question of antibiotic resistant infection back in the early 1990s and even then it struck me that in a country like the UK, where drugs like antibiotics can't be bought over-the-counter, the solution was simple: (1) Rigorous auditing of GPs prescribing habits with advice being given if it was felt they were being handed out like smarties; (2) A public education campaign to stress that courses of antibiotics must be finished.

The first wasn't done - I'm told because it wasn't technically possible then and nothing has been done to bring it forward since.

The second was attempted to a limited extent by some local health authorities but the BMA felt that the information in leaflets included with drugs was sufficient - clearly they had then (and probably still have) a touching belief in patients reading said leaflets that is almost entirely misplaced.

Sensible precautions available to all are to make sure children have healthy immune systems, and to ensure that household hygiene is up to the mark. Beyond that, pray you don't get sick!

Some sort of info seems to be available...

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think it is entirely loopy because nobody wants farm animal infections to be spread in the foodchain to humans, and the easiest way to stop this is via preventative antibiotics.

Except that in many cases antibiotics aren't administered to prevent infection but to improve feed conversion ratio. In other words, it's done not to prevent animal infections in humans but to make meat, milk, and eggs slightly cheaper.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

We knew it was coming, and ignored it in the hope that it would go away. Surprise, surprise, it hasn't.

Money is not the answer. The answer is in science, in the hope that science can produce something that can help - that does need money, but it needs more than money. We have thrown money at Cancer for many years, and we have still not cured it completely. The same with Aids. Yes progress has been made, but we cannot claim a "cure".

The problem is that before something arrives, many people will die. Welcome to the post-antibiotic world.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Many people don't seem to understand the basic issue of them being useful against bacteria, and not against a virus such as the common cold.

Last year when I was down with the flu I was talking (by telephone) with a friend who is a Registered Nurse. She asked me if my doctor had given me antibiotics. [Roll Eyes]

If a nurse doesn't know better, I really can't expect the general population to be more knowledgeable. I agree that doctors have to be a lot more careful in prescribing all sorts of medications.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that in many cases antibiotics aren't administered to prevent infection but to improve feed conversion ratio. In other words, it's done not to prevent animal infections in humans but to make meat, milk, and eggs slightly cheaper.

Oh yes, I'm sure that's also true. Even if there is no proven direct relationship, I'm sure that routine antibiotic use makes animals grow more (eg by reducing the kinds of flu-y illnesses which you don't really notice).

And yes, that's going to be due to market forces and farmers trying to make money.

That's not entirely loopy either. It is the flip-side of ever-decreasing food prices.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I mean-to-say that these things are done for rational reasons, even though on a meta-level they make no sense and may be making other problems worse.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It seems to me that if all the existing ones don't work, there would be quite enough money to be made from making some new ones anyway, without added incentives.

A large part of the problem is that there isn't much of a commercial incentive to invent new antibiotics. If you gave the doctors a completely new one tomorrow, they would say "thanks very much" and put it in a cupboard until they came across a case of infection that was resistant to all the current antibiotics. They certainly wouldn't start using it in large quantities becasue that would be self-defeating, so the potential market for a new drug is not large enough to justify the development costs. There's much more money to be made from new treatments for arthritis, erectile dysfunction etc.

Clear proof that the market can't solve all our problems.

I'd say that was clear proof that the current antibiotics are still pretty darn effective. Ok, not 100%, but still good enough that any new ones wouldn't have to be used very much.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

Not in the short term perhaps, but the problem will grow. Even an antibiotic of first choice will only be administered for a short course, so there's much less incentive for the pharma industry to invest in development, than for drugs treating chronic or at least long-term conditions that will be prescribed for years. Which is perhaps why, as I understand it, that no new class of antibiotics has been developed since the 1960's.

And so, the market fails and in this case, maybe not this decade or next, but eventually, there will be mass deaths from infections we now treat as mere irritations and possibly a chance for a couple of days off work. Unless, as always when the market fails, government does the necessary - giving incentives for the industry to do what otherwise wouldn't be profitable.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It was bound to happen. Putting antibiotics in animals drinking water/feed as a 'preventative' is foolish.

Worldwide, the demand for colistin in agriculture was expected to reach almost 12,000 tonnes per year by the end of this year, rising to 16,500 tonnes by 2021.

Loopy.
I don't think it is entirely loopy because nobody wants farm animal infections to be spread in the foodchain to humans, and the easiest way to stop this is via preventative antibiotics.

Of course, we are also seeing the downside.

It might be the "easiest" way, but in a lot of cases we create the environment for infections in the first place by cramming animals into small spaces.

I still have vivid memories of the outrage projected by my lecturer in parasitology as she taught us about Eimeria, a bug that can completely devastate battery hen farms, but which has almost no impact among free range birds. The need to prevent Eimeria outbreaks is why your cage eggs are laced with antibiotics.

Human beings are extraordinarily good at the kind of denial that says, of all the options for fixing a problem, not causing the problem in the first place is not an acceptable solution. Wherever possible we will try to reap the benefits while ignoring the costs.

[ 20. November 2015, 01:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

There are recent developments that give hope for a new class of antibiotics that do not allow bacteria to develop resistance. Two highlights from the interview:

quote:
"The most intriguing thing about this compound is the apparent absence of resistance development," Lewis says.

quote:
Scientists still need to test teixobactin in people. That's likely to take several years, and there's no guarantee it will work as well in humans as it does in mice.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Of course, under current economics, that research group wouldn't exist.

"Dear funding body, we want to develop means of growing bacteria in the laboratory, because it's almost impossible to grow many bacteria in the lab., yours Bunch of Curious Geeks"

"Dear Bunch of Curious Geeks, thank you for your proposal. There are no immediate practical benefits for this work. Therefore, we will not fund it. Yours, Short sighted funding body."

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Many people don't seem to understand the basic issue of them being useful against bacteria, and not against a virus such as the common cold.
Last year when I was down with the flu I was talking (by telephone) with a friend who is a Registered Nurse. She asked me if my doctor had given me antibiotics.

If a nurse doesn't know better, I really can't expect the general population to be more knowledgeable. I agree that doctors have to be a lot more careful in prescribing all sorts of medications.

Could it possibly be that she thought you might have developed a secondary bacterial infection, such as bronchitis ?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I still have vivid memories of the outrage projected by my lecturer in parasitology as she taught us about Eimeria, a bug that can completely devastate battery hen farms, but which has almost no impact among free range birds. The need to prevent Eimeria outbreaks is why your cage eggs are laced with antibiotics.

The problem is things are rarely as cut-and-dried as this. Some studies have shown that free-range chicken are more susceptible to disease - this is just a paper which has been widely discussed, it is an ongoing debate.

The thing is that we today tend to believe that "free-range" and "outdoor reared" are inherently safer, cleaner and healthier than indoor or caged rearing. And of course it makes sense that a lot of animals stuffed indoors in limited space will spread diseases.

But then outdoors animals have access to a massive reservoir of disease - in the soil. And when more animals were reared outdoors, there was a major hazard to humans from animal diseases. For example, before the days of proper pasteurisation, many diseases were spread in milk. Even today given most cows spend a lot of time outside, it is thought that TB is picked up by them from the environment, which would probably be controlled if they were inside.

There is no simple solution.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
There are recent developments that give hope for a new class of antibiotics that do not allow bacteria to develop resistance.

I'd also make the point that there are undoubtedly many things which can be learned from the massive microbial diversity in the soil, as it is said each teaspoon contains species which have never been classified.

But there are also significant problems: a DNA analysis suggests that a large proportion of soil biodiversity is currently unculturable (the conditions in a lab are not the same as conditions in the soil, so you can only grow things in the lab that.. you can grow in the lab, to state the obvious). Also with that much diversity and with the ease of mutations and spreading resistance through microbial generations, where do you start looking?

Soil Science is already a cinderella science, given the current funding cuts, it seems pretty unlikely that there will be additional research to look through this particular haystack to find the right kind of hay (even more difficult than trying to find a needle).

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

I still have vivid memories of the outrage projected by my lecturer in parasitology as she taught us about Eimeria, a bug that can completely devastate battery hen farms, but which has almost no impact among free range birds. The need to prevent Eimeria outbreaks is why your cage eggs are laced with antibiotics.
The problem is things are rarely as cut-and-dried as this. Some studies have shown that free-range chicken are more susceptible to disease - this is just a paper which has been widely discussed, it is an ongoing debate.

The thing is that we today tend to believe that "free-range" and "outdoor reared" are inherently safer, cleaner and healthier than indoor or caged rearing. And of course it makes sense that a lot of animals stuffed indoors in limited space will spread diseases.

But then outdoors animals have access to a massive reservoir of disease - in the soil. And when more animals were reared outdoors, there was a major hazard to humans from animal diseases. For example, before the days of proper pasteurisation, many diseases were spread in milk. Even today given most cows spend a lot of time outside, it is thought that TB is picked up by them from the environment, which would probably be controlled if they were inside.

There is no simple solution.

I'm surprised that allotment gardeners and farmers are not constantly dosed up with antibiotics - after all - they are touching this dangerous soil all the time. I guess you have also provided a great reason to keep kids indoors - it's clearly not safe for them out in this bug infested world. I'm just off to buy my isolation chamber - it'll fit nicely in the lounge (though getting the airlock to fit on the porch is proving to be something of a conundrum).

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There's a big difference between microbes (bacteria, yeasts, fungal spores etc) and disease causing microbes. Free range animals probably are exposed to a wider range of microbes, but probably not a large range of disease causing microbes - there will be some, of course, and probably a different range of microbes from intensively reared animals.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's a big difference between microbes (bacteria, yeasts, fungal spores etc) and disease causing microbes. Free range animals probably are exposed to a wider range of microbes, but probably not a large range of disease causing microbes - there will be some, of course, and probably a different range of microbes from intensively reared animals.

Not sure where you get this from - there is considerable discussion amongst the animal welfare science community about the high risks to free range chicken from helminths (intestinal worms), chronic pneumonia lesions in pigs, various bacterial infections in free range birds, also viruses and other pathogens.

This is just in Europe, in places where there are fewer food controls and higher rates of endemic pathogens, there is an even higher risk.

And the point about gardeners is ridiculous. Most people who work in soil understand they need to take account of hygiene, hence few get sick. That is clearly not the same as a farm animal.

In places where there is less hygiene awareness, people frequently pick up illnesses from infectious microbes in the soil.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Scientists have been studying the Yanomami tribe from the Amazon since they were discovered in 2009. They had never had other human contact before.

"Much to their surprise, these Yanomami’s gut bacteria have already evolved a diverse array of antibiotic-resistance genes, according to a new study, even though these mountain people had never ingested antibiotics or animals raised with drugs. The find suggests that microbes have long evolved the capability to fight toxins, including antibiotics, and that preventing drug resistance may be harder than scientists thought."

Article.

They also found that people in industrialized nations host far fewer types of friendly microbes than hunter-gatherers in Africa, Peru, and Papua New Guinea, for example. This lack has been linked to obesity, diabetes, and many autoimmune disorders, such as allergies, Crohn’s disease, celiac disease, and colitis

Very interesting.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Yanomami, and in fact many jungle tribes, often die in the 30s and 40s, often of faecal infections.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yanomami, and in fact many jungle tribes, often die in the 30s and 40s, often of faecal infections.

Yes, of course. But it's good that scientists are trying to discover the best possible gut bacteria balance.

If we could replace the ones we are missing then we'd, hopefully, all be healthier.

I think sensible use of drugs is the key, not using them to grow animals or every time we have a mild sniffle.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
es, of course. But it's good that scientists are trying to discover the best possible gut bacteria balance.

I think it is entirely location dependent. There is no "ideal" bacterial balance.

quote:
If we could replace the ones we are missing then we'd, hopefully, all be healthier.

I don't believe that's ever going to happen, and even if jungle tribes somehow have something useful in their guts, it'd be pretty immoral for Science to take it without first meeting their most basic of needs.

quote:
I think sensible use of drugs is the key, not using them to grow animals or every time we have a mild sniffle.

Well, there is obviously a lot of truth in that, however as I've illustrated above, the thing is a lot more complicated that the over-simplistic explanations we often get. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that there is a very widespread microbiological illiteracy around and about - to the extent that people pick up the most recent press release that supports their previous beliefs without any real knowledge or apparent willingness to learn about the thing that good scientists are struggling to understand on a daily basis.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that there is a very widespread microbiological illiteracy around and about - to the extent that people pick up the most recent press release that supports their previous beliefs without any real knowledge or apparent willingness to learn about the thing that good scientists are struggling to understand on a daily basis.

I thought that's what I had just said and linked to, and applauded - the scientists' attempt to understand our interdependence with microbes much better.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's a big difference between microbes (bacteria, yeasts, fungal spores etc) and disease causing microbes. Free range animals probably are exposed to a wider range of microbes, but probably not a large range of disease causing microbes - there will be some, of course, and probably a different range of microbes from intensively reared animals.
Not sure where you get this from

Oh, must be something I've picked up in discussion with a colleague here who is a soil microbiologist.

Yes, I said there are some pathogenic microbes in the natural environment. But, it's not as though soil is teeming with the things. And, generally, the microbes that cause problems in intensive animal rearing do not cause problems when you significantly reduce the density of livestock (because they're transmitted from animal to animal rather than have a residence in the soil as well).

Of your links, I don't have access to the articles here but from the abstracts none of them state that the pathogens are soil borne. It's implied that the nematode eggs rest on the soil of the farm yard. The pig lesions are not attributed to any cause in the abstract of the second paper, likewise the final abstract does not specify whether the salmonella and campylobacter strains are soil borne. In most cases, free range is still a relatively intensive system with animal densities considerably higher than would have been experienced by the pre-domestication ancestors of those chickens and pigs, which still provides plenty of opportunity for animal to animal pathogen transfer (or, in the case of nematode eggs for example, insufficient time for the eggs to hatch and the nematodes die off before the next group of hens gets to peck around that bit of yard).

You could eat quite a lot of soil from your garden or allotment and not fall ill of anything from the microbes that are present (unless you fertilise the soil with animal manure). It's really only the soil from animal farms which might be a problem.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I disagree, but of course if you have spoken to a soil microbiologist then you'll obviously know better.

Helminth ova survive for months or years in the soil, where they regularly reinfect humans and animals.

Salmonella in soil regularly causes infection.

Etc and so on. Soil is a major route of infection. Believe it or believe it not.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

No, soil is a major source of infection where livestock are kept in intensive conditions. If there wasn't a high density of animals grazing on a piece of land, soil would not be a major source of infection.

And, yes free-range pig or chicken farms are still intensive, as is the majority of cattle and sheep farming in the UK and most of the developed world (it's possible some of those big ranches in Texas manages to avoid the classification of intensive farming). The breeding of livestock for traits we want - lot of eggs for chickens, lots of milk from cows, lots of meat off everything - almost certainly has resulted in animals less resistant to pathogens as well, and probably more prone to lesions and other complications too, irrespective of the conditions they live in.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

That's a different question. The topic under discussion was whether free-range animals were always healthier and/or less infected with microbial pathogens than indoor reared animals. I have illustrated something of the ongoing debate on this topic.

I'm not going to continue to talk with you about this Alan, because you seem unable to appreciate that you do not have extensive knowledge on the subject.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Scientists have been studying the Yanomami tribe from the Amazon since they were discovered in 2009. They had never had other human contact before.

Quick correction--it is only this particular village that is said to have had no contact, and the contact is with Western medicine or diets, not with humanity. The Yanomami as a people are quite well known and have been in contact with others for centuries if not longer, and known to the Western world since the 1700s or so. Certainly this village will have had ongoing contact with other Yanomami, and most likely other local people groups, all along. The village is of value mainly because they have apparently been beyond the reach of doctors etc. with modern drugs, which can alter intestinal flora.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's a different question. The topic under discussion was whether free-range animals were always healthier and/or less infected with microbial pathogens than indoor reared animals.

No, you raised the point about soil

quote:
outdoors animals have access to a massive reservoir of disease - in the soil

(my emphasis)

Are free-range animals always healthier than indoor reared animals? No, not always. I've not in anyway denied that (I'd be pretty daft to do so, since it's patently obvious that intensively reared animals - whether indoors or outside - suffer from a wide range of diseases).

But, they are not suffering from diseases arising from soil microbes, in the vast majority of cases. They suffer from diseases caused by microbes that are present within that population - microbes that may find temporary refuge in soils allowing them to infect other animals. They also suffer because we have bred them for characteristics that often preclude good health. If we really thought a lot about our farm animals there would be a lot more vegetarians.

In the absence of intensive livestock, we're not going to get sick from soils. It's not a big issue if you don't wash all the soil off the carrot in your salad, you won't get a salmonella or campylobacter infection from garden soil. Gardeners don't get sick because their soil doesn't contain enough pathogens, not because of their hygiene precautions (no matter what you think), unless there are other factors - using manure liberally, for example.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I don't think you understand the term "reservoir".

Salmonella is spread by cats, birds and other mammals. So you have absolutely no way of telling that you would not get sick from your garden soil unless you somehow can prevent all of these animals from getting into your garden. Once in the soil, it persists for a very long time.

I would very much advise against eating large amounts of soil to test out your theory.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

And if you think I'm making it up, try reading some of the science which discuss the role of various environmental reservoirs as a source of Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think you understand the term "reservoir".

Salmonella is spread by cats, birds and other mammals.

Yes, cats, birds and other mammals provide a reservoir for many pathogens. They are the reservoir, not the soil. Soil may be a vector for transmission, but it's not a spectacularly efficient one.

TB in cattle (just because you raised that one earlier) is not caused by TB causing bacteria reproducing in the soil, it's caused by those bacteria reproducing in a reservoir - IMO most likely other cattle, though badgers have been implicated.

I'm still not concerned about a bit of soil on my root veggies. Pesticide residue, now that's a different question.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Yes, cats, birds and other mammals provide a reservoir for many pathogens. They are the reservoir, not the soil. Soil may be a vector for transmission, but it's not a spectacularly efficient one.

Funny, I'm not going to take the word of a nuclear physicist who has clearly almost zero knowledge on the topic.

quote:
TB in cattle (just because you raised that one earlier) is not caused by TB causing bacteria reproducing in the soil, it's caused by those bacteria reproducing in a reservoir - IMO most likely other cattle, though badgers have been implicated.

Yeah, like all your other statements on the subject, there are scientists who disagree.

quote:
I'm still not concerned about a bit of soil on my root veggies. Pesticide residue, now that's a different question.

That's nice.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Yes, cats, birds and other mammals provide a reservoir for many pathogens. They are the reservoir, not the soil. Soil may be a vector for transmission, but it's not a spectacularly efficient one.
Funny, I'm not going to take the word of a nuclear physicist who has clearly almost zero knowledge on the topic.

Well, I admit, I'm a radiation physicist. My main speciality is environmental physics - that doesn't mean I'm ignorant of other aspects of environmental science.

quote:

quote:
TB in cattle (just because you raised that one earlier) is not caused by TB causing bacteria reproducing in the soil, it's caused by those bacteria reproducing in a reservoir - IMO most likely other cattle, though badgers have been implicated.
Yeah, like all your other statements on the subject, there are scientists who disagree.

OK, so what of that abstract contradicts my statements?

quote:
Mycobacterium bovis has ... many wildlife reservoirs such as cervids, badgers, feral pigs, brushtail possums, and buffaloes
...
The main route of M. bovis transmission is by aerosol through the respiratory tract; direct contact between cattle and wildlife

I think I more or less said that.

quote:
suggesting persistence of M. bovis in contaminated plants, soil, and water ... if some key environmental conditions are present

In other words, in some circumstances soil (plants and water) can be a vector. I think I said that as well, didn't I?

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I would very much advise against eating large amounts of soil to test out your theory.

Having been a bacteriologist, and worked with Salmonella, you would need to eat a vast quantity of soil as the dose of most strains needed to cause an infection is very high, unless you are immunocompromised in some way. There are a lot of things in soil far more likely to be injurious, including things like sharp stones!

The depressing thing is that this has always been coming - one of the seminal penicillin papers (I can't remember whether it was the first)appeared in the same issue of the Lancet as an article by Edward Abraham on creating penicillin-resistant bacteria in the (same) laboratory. And yet we've skipped over that and gone heedlessly on...

AG

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I would very much advise against eating large amounts of soil to test out your theory.
Having been a bacteriologist, and worked with Salmonella, you would need to eat a vast quantity of soil as the dose of most strains needed to cause an infection is very high, unless you are immunocompromised in some way.

Wouldn't fancy a mouthful of campylobacter though.

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

Especially as Campylobacter is similarly nasty to Salmonella - not just a stomach upset, real don't care whether you die stuff.

It's worth pointing out, though, that the reason these are being published is that they are unusual. Removing all contact with soil is a bad thing as soil bacteria eg Mycobacter prime the juvenile immune system.

AG

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

And, one of the things (I assume) that article would discuss would be why that particular race resulted in such a high rate of campylobacter infection. Because it is unusual. Did a large part of the course pass through farmland where large numbers of cattle would normally graze, for example?

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Define "free range." In USA chickens can be called "free range" if a building holding 1000 birds in crowded conditions has a tiny door through which an occasional chicken might find it's way to the out of doors. "Free range" defined

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In other words, in some circumstances soil (plants and water) can be a vector. I think I said that as well, didn't I?

You continue to resist the idea that the soil is a significant source and reservoir of pathogens - and that they both persist as well as mutate and gain AR from the soil environment. Some have described this feedback loop as the resistome.

I understand that you don't think the soil is a very important source or part of the picture, but as the scientific record shows, some of those who actually study this stuff think it is really important.

[ 20. November 2015, 14:06: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

Errr... You've just quoted Alan as agreeing, and have then steamed into him for saying the opposite.

Bacteria in soil may well be a reservoir of resistance (in fact, I can't believe they are not), but for most pathogens infected animals/humans are far more important. It's hardly a surprise that scientists working with soil bacteria think soil is important, it's like asking a football manager if he thinks football is important.

Just out of interest, you have also pointed out that Alan, as a physicist, cannot possibly understand this. Perhaps you would share your qualification to understand this, so we can give your views an appropriate weight?

AG

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In other words, in some circumstances soil (plants and water) can be a vector. I think I said that as well, didn't I?
You continue to resist the idea that the soil is a significant source and reservoir of pathogens - and that they both persist as well as mutate and gain AR from the soil environment. Some have described this feedback loop as the resistome.

I've only skimmed the linked article, but that also doesn't appear to say soil is a significant reservoir of pathogens. It says it's a significant reservoir of antibiotic resistance. That microorganisms within soil have engaged in a very long "arms race", in which many of those organisms have developed anti-biotic properties (a very small minority of which have been replicated by scientists to produce antibiotics) and the bacteria have responded with resistance to these antibiotics.

Soil and a human (chicken, cow, pig ...) gut or other organ are very different environments. It is very unlikely that pathogenic organisms will thrive in soil, or soil organisms within the gut, for any significant period of time - though bacterial spores, nematode eggs and the like may survive very well. However, in the short term that these organisms may live there is potential for gene transfer that can include anti-biotic resistance.

That was the message I got from skimming that article anyway. But, perhaps because I've read stuff about soil organism antibiotic properties before I'm just reading my prior knowledge into the skimmed article.

In response to the main question of this thread. Yes, there are mechanisms for pathogenic organisms to gain antibiotic resistance without exposure to antibiotic drugs, whether administered to animals or people. But, those mechanisms mainly relate to transfer of appropriate genes. It still needs exposure to large quantities of antibiotics for those genes to provide a survival advantage.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
TB in cattle (just because you raised that one earlier) is not caused by TB causing bacteria reproducing in the soil, it's caused by those bacteria reproducing in a reservoir - IMO most likely other cattle, though badgers have been implicated.

Tuberculosis has killed more people, historically, than any other pathogen. And it's a bovine disease which humans most likely acquired from cultivation of cattle for milk and food. But there's a doomsday scenario unfolding here. When I was young, I knew a doctor who'd been practising during WW2 and who'd seen the "miracle" of antibiotics. People with pneumonia or gangerine, who would previously have died, being restored to health quickly. But as ever, we misused it. As a child and teenager, I had chronically infected tonsils. My parents asked the doctor to refer me to have them removed. He said, "We don't do that anymore, we treat it with antibiotics." Eventually, at age 20, the infection was antibiotic resistant and they were removed.

Multiply this over 50 years of doctors giving out antibiotics like candy and there's a new generation of drug resistant bacteria. After all, like rabbits with mixamatosis, the survivors breed resistance. So we can chase after better antibiotics. That's ongoing. Or we can use them only when really needed. Or we can return to the old times of chronic sickness and early death. All nightmare and doomsday.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

The human microbiome project suggests an interesting alternative action for antibiotics...

since we rely on about 10,000 species of bacteria (plus a substantial number of viruses); and we have evolved with these inside us, and we rely on many of them for vital immune, digestive and metabolic functions; and "pathogens" are common inhabitants of a healthy human ecology - antibiotics are something of an oddity. They don't only kill the microbes that we don't want - they make life more difficult for all of the internal microbes - even the useful ones that we could not live without. So when someone has antibiotics..

a) it forces a new ecological balance of microbes, and

b) it floods the body with toxins from all kinds of dead microbes and detrius from damaged cells, thus stimulating the immune system

Not unlike an innoculation - except that the dead cellular matter is far more diverse

I would have thought that these effects could be achieved in more ways than just using antibiotics.

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :

Actually that should be phrased slightly differently...

If the mechanisms (of general ecology shift and cell breakdown/toxin release) that cause an "antibiotic effect" are identified, there may be other ways to create the same (or better) beneficial effect other than by using antibiotic-type compounds.

It's also worth noting that wrt wounds, honey is making a comeback, and a mediaeval formula of garlic+(a,n.other allium)+wine+cows gall bladder was found to be effective against MRSA in a systematic trial. The point is that yes - there may be an increasing resistance to standard modern antibiotics, but there are other ways to do it other than by using antibiotics as they are currently defined. In which case, antibiotic resistance is not necessarily a bad thing - it will bring about the end to use of antibiotics as a feed additive in the livestock industry.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0