• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" become a bigger killer than cancer?

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Could antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" become a bigger killer than cancer? — "60 Minutes" - CBS News

Antibiotics have saved hundreds of millions of lives. But their continued, widespread use has led to mutated bacteria that are resistant to these drugs

When antibiotics were first used in the 1940s they were a revolution in medicine. Before that, diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis were often a death sentence, and even an infected scratch could be fatal. Since then, antibiotics have saved hundreds of millions of lives. But now many of these drugs are becoming ineffective.

Scientists say it's a problem of our own making. We've used antibiotics so freely, some bacteria have mutated into so-called "superbugs." They've become resistant to the very drugs designed to kill them. A study commissioned by the British government estimates that by 2050, 10 million people worldwide could die each year from antibiotic resistant bacteria. That's more than currently die from cancer.
====================================================
Overuse of antibiotics, not only by people but by farmers who use them in animal feeds, has created races of 'superbugs' that are resistant to all known antibiotics. How? Unless you are a biochemist it is difficult to explain. But the cellular mechanisms that copy DNA from one generation to the next during replication are not perfect machines - they make occasional mistakes. And those mistakes can render a bacteria or virus capable of living & reproducing despite our antibiotics. It is very much like the mechanism that drives evolution. The strong & capable survive.

While the overuse of antibiotics is the main problem, there is a jarring fact that was not mentioned during last night's 60 Minutes program: big pharma companies are no longer researching new antibiotics because they are not included in their marketing strategies. They want expensive drugs that people have to take every day for the rest of their lives: for high cholesterol, for arthritis, for psoriasis, etc. Antibiotics, like all new drugs, are expensive to develop & push to market. But their use would only be in isolated incidences for short periods of time until the patients overcame their infections. Ironically, new antibiotics would also develop resistance. So it's a race that big pharma would lose money on & never win.

One promising area of antibiotic research & development is in the area of natural products from marine sources. Many thousands of such chemicals have been isolated & identified & many have proven to be promising antibiotics & anticancer agents. But without the incentive of Big Government, we seem doomed to watch as multi-drug resistant pathogens surpass cancer as our biggest killer.
 
Last edited:
sure. novel antibiotics are difficult to discover, and aren't as profitable as other medicines. i think that there's a great public sector role for antibiotic discovery.
 
Abstract of recent paper (translated from Dutch):

Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2019 Feb 13;163. pii: D3107.
[New antibiotics: an overview].
[Article in Dutch]
Lemkes BA1,2, Richel O1, Bonten MJ3, van der Linden PD4, Wiersinga WJ1.

Abstract
The worldwide rapid increase in antibiotic resistance means that new therapeutic measures are urgently needed. Older antibiotics, such as colistin, fosfomycin, minocycline, mecillinam and temocillin, which had fallen from grace due to the development of more effective and less toxic drugs are now of renewed interest in the treatment of infections caused by multiresistant bacteria. Two new glycopeptides (oritavancin and dalbavancin) and a new oxazolidinone (tedizolid) are now registered for the treatment of acute skin and soft-tissue infections. In the treatment of infections caused by Gram-negative bacteria, cephalosporins are combined with beta-lactamase inhibitors which protect them from various beta-lactamases and also make them effective against extended spectrum beta-lactamase-producing bacteria. Examples of these are ceftolozane-tazobactam, ceftazidime-avibactam and meropenem-vaborbactam. Results of preclinical research on the effectiveness of new antibiotics are hopeful. There has been a great increase in investment in the development of new antimicrobials. Also, regulatory agencies have accelerated their assessment of these new - and urgently needed - drugs.
========================================
Colistin, one of the current antibiotics discussed on TV last night, was our last line of defense but superbugs have become resistant to it due to overuse. Once scene showed it being sold OTC in India.
 
sure. novel antibiotics are difficult to discover, and aren't as profitable as other medicines. i think that there's a great public sector role for antibiotic discovery.

It has to be in the public sector because private industry has no financial incentive.
 
It has to be in the public sector because private industry has no financial incentive.

i agree. i would totally consider returning to the public sector to do antibiotic discovery for a living. i miss micro. i do like biochem, though.
 
Raise your hand if you know what necrotizing fasciitis and necrotizing cellulitis are. If you don't, think "flesh-eating bacteria." The mortality rates are ghastly, but I am one of the very, very fortunate ones who lived (2005). Vancomycin saved my life, and after I was finally discharged from the hospital, I left with a PIC line and had to run my own IVs for over two months.

The thing is with these infections, they never really leave the body, so when I had oral surgery spring of 2018, I had to begin taking the drug a week in advance. I'm linking to a 2017 article that expresses hope for a replacement for Vancomycin. I was not given this replacement drug, so I'm pretty dubious: Could Oritavancin Be a Safe Alternative to Vancomycin for ABSSSIs?
 
Could antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" become a bigger killer than cancer? — "60 Minutes" - CBS News

Antibiotics have saved hundreds of millions of lives. But their continued, widespread use has led to mutated bacteria that are resistant to these drugs

When antibiotics were first used in the 1940s they were a revolution in medicine. Before that, diseases like pneumonia and tuberculosis were often a death sentence, and even an infected scratch could be fatal. Since then, antibiotics have saved hundreds of millions of lives. But now many of these drugs are becoming ineffective.

Scientists say it's a problem of our own making. We've used antibiotics so freely, some bacteria have mutated into so-called "superbugs." They've become resistant to the very drugs designed to kill them. A study commissioned by the British government estimates that by 2050, 10 million people worldwide could die each year from antibiotic resistant bacteria. That's more than currently die from cancer.
====================================================
Overuse of antibiotics, not only by people but by farmers who use them in animal feeds, has created races of 'superbugs' that are resistant to all known antibiotics. How? Unless you are a biochemist it is difficult to explain. But the cellular mechanisms that copy DNA from one generation to the next during replication are not perfect machines - they make occasional mistakes. And those mistakes can render a bacteria or virus capable of living & reproducing despite our antibiotics. It is very much like the mechanism that drives evolution. The strong & capable survive.

While the overuse of antibiotics is the main problem, there is a jarring fact that was not mentioned during last night's 60 Minutes program: big pharma companies are no longer researching new antibiotics because they are not included in their marketing strategies. They want expensive drugs that people have to take every day for the rest of their lives: for high cholesterol, for arthritis, for psoriasis, etc. Antibiotics, like all new drugs, are expensive to develop & push to market. But their use would only be in isolated incidences for short periods of time until the patients overcame their infections. Ironically, new antibiotics would also develop resistance. So it's a race that big pharma would lose money on & never win.

One promising area of antibiotic research & development is in the area of natural products from marine sources. Many thousands of such chemicals have been isolated & identified & many have proven to be promising antibiotics & anticancer agents. But without the incentive of Big Government, we seem doomed to watch as multi-drug resistant pathogens surpass cancer as our biggest killer.

A bigger threat is proposals to control pharma prices, which will only cut R&D that much more. The high cost of developing drugs is due to the way the industry is regulated by government.

If development is taken over by the government then we're all well and truly screwed.
 
A bigger threat is proposals to control pharma prices, which will only cut R&D that much more. The high cost of developing drugs is due to the way the industry is regulated by government.

If development is taken over by the government then we're all well and truly screwed.

Odd, how right wingers never complained about the government developing the atomic bomb. But if the government develops something that saves lives instead of killing people, then they find that highly objectionable.
 
Odd, how right wingers never complained about the government developing the atomic bomb. But if the government develops something that saves lives instead of killing people, then they find that highly objectionable.

I wouldn't complain about government involvement in that sort of thing if they were any good at it.

If you read the history of the Manhattan (atomic bomb) project you'll be impressed about how the scientists and engineers got the project done in spite of all the stupid rules and regulations their government supervisors put on them, how they pushed back against restrictions imposed on them, and how the government chief supervisor eventually saw the wisdom of pulling back and letting the scientists and engineers do their work.
 
The core of the problem (although other causes) is that livestock (cattle, chickens, pigs) have been massively injected with steroids and antibiotics for decades, which we then consume. People consume massive amounts of antibiotics and have for over half a century. This has fostered the resistant bacteria.

I got one of those superbugs from the hospital 10 years ago from heart surgery. It laid me up for months and slowly worsened. No antibiotic worked until by deception and not knowing what else to try, I falsely told a doctor I was not allergic to any antibiotics, when for one I was extremely allergic (meaning I never used it) and it was costly (meaning would never be used on livestock.) I broke the pills into tiny pieces and took just a little bit every quarter hour to minimize the adverse reaction. Within 3 days the infection was gone. But for that I may have died.

Since then reportedly the superbugs have gotten much worse. It is very concerning to think that in terms of diseases hospitals may be becoming the most dangerous places of all.
 
Odd, how right wingers never complained about the government developing the atomic bomb. But if the government develops something that saves lives instead of killing people, then they find that highly objectionable.

There is no basis for that claim whatsoever and it is exactly opposite from the truth. The Democratic Party demands that the CDC NOT research cures but instead demand the CDC use its staff and resources to investigation gun violence.

Or did you forget that? If the government takes over healthcare, the healthcare system will no longer be about healthcare. It will be about outlawing firearms, gay and transgender rights, poverty, promoting being vegan, climate change, and other SJW PC leftwing fascist-socialist political agendas.

The Republican Party wants the CDC researching for cures and how to avoid the spread of disease. The Democratic Party wants to change the CDC to a political activist agency paid for by taxpayers to pursue and promote political and social issues on behalf of the Democratic Party.
 
Last edited:
It has to be in the public sector because private industry has no financial incentive.

The financial incentive is massive. 100 million deaths? Hundreds of millions of people may be infected? That's the sale of 10+ billion pills and probably a $200 to $300 billion dollar profit for the company that finds and patents the antibiotic that works. Cheap antibiotics are cheap. But the newest antibiotics are very expensive - and people WILL pay it as the alternative is death. That company could charge $50, $100 or more per pill - and it still would be vastly cheaper than trying to save the person's life in a hospital bed.

Discovering a new super antibiotic that kills these new superbugs is worth tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to the company that discovers or creates it.
 
Some history

Odd, how right wingers never complained about the government developing the atomic bomb. But if the government develops something that saves lives instead of killing people, then they find that highly objectionable.

In the late 1930s & 1940s, up to Pearl Harbor, the far Right in the US cozied up to Hitler & Mussolini - to the extent that when Germany & the USSR invaded Poland, & later when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the Right was thoroughly discredited. The Manhattan Project was supposed to be top secret, there wasn't much chance for any domestic opposition to get any traction.
 
Re: Some history

In the late 1930s & 1940s, up to Pearl Harbor, the far Right in the US cozied up to Hitler & Mussolini - to the extent that when Germany & the USSR invaded Poland, & later when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the Right was thoroughly discredited. The Manhattan Project was supposed to be top secret, there wasn't much chance for any domestic opposition to get any traction.

That is exactly 100% false. It was the leftwing in love with Hitler and even made him Time Magazine Man Of The Year. His National Socialist Workers Party (what NAZI stands for) was massively praised by the American left. Germany would not have even made the attempt at a world war had not FDR allowed Germany to stockpile massive levels of high octane fuel additives - and if you research even when we were at war FDR banned bombing American owned factories in Germany even if they were making German war materials.

The American leftwing has been trying to hide from this ever since.
 
Huge topic

That is exactly 100% false. It was the leftwing in love with Hitler and even made him Time Magazine Man Of The Year. His National Socialist Workers Party (what NAZI stands for) was massively praised by the American left. Germany would not have even made the attempt at a world war had not FDR allowed Germany to stockpile massive levels of high octane fuel additives - and if you research even when we were at war FDR banned bombing American owned factories in Germany even if they were making German war materials.

The American leftwing has been trying to hide from this ever since.

Yah. See America First Committee - Wikipedia, for instance. We should probably start another thread, so as not to disrupt this one.
 
Re: Some history

In the late 1930s & 1940s, up to Pearl Harbor, the far Right in the US cozied up to Hitler & Mussolini - to the extent that when Germany & the USSR invaded Poland, & later when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the Right was thoroughly discredited. The Manhattan Project was supposed to be top secret, there wasn't much chance for any domestic opposition to get any traction.

The Manhattan Project was initiated by a Democrat, FDR. The Repubs had no clue until Hiroshima.
 
Odd, how right wingers never complained about the government developing the atomic bomb. But if the government develops something that saves lives instead of killing people, then they find that highly objectionable.

What an overgeneralization. Most people posting here weren't even born when the atomic bomb was being developed.
 
What an overgeneralization. Most people posting here weren't even born when the atomic bomb was being developed.

I was 8 months old when Hiroshima got bombed, and Nagasaki days after when the Japs didn't catch on that their game was over. They caught on then & the war was over PDQ. Saved millions of lives on both sides. Plus a major technological achievement. I have nearly every book written in the public press of the development of the A- & H-bombs. Fascinating to see what was behind those S Pacific H-bomb tests in the early 50s. It was all so super-secret & the Soviets were just months behind us.

What still amazes me is that a nuke hasn't been used in anger since 1945. But hold on to that thought...Trump has the nuclear codes & reportedly a fascination with his ability to use nukes. It's like giving an infant in a playpen a loaded revolver. You can almost predict what will happen.
 
Last edited:
Re: Some history

In the late 1930s & 1940s, up to Pearl Harbor, the far Right in the US cozied up to Hitler & Mussolini - to the extent that when Germany & the USSR invaded Poland, & later when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the Right was thoroughly discredited. The Manhattan Project was supposed to be top secret, there wasn't much chance for any domestic opposition to get any traction.

No, it was FDR who was a big fan of Mussolini. Right wingers were no fans of the fascists. They just didn't want war. It was their isolationism that lost favor with Pearl Harbor, and they fell in line behind FDR after that.
 
Back
Top Bottom