Nasal Bacteria Pump Out a Potential New Antibiotic That Kills MRSA

Post by djrogers » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 3:45 PM UTC

ss248 wrote: post #18

iofj wrote: post #13

This does nothing to solve the real problem. The issue isn't (or wasn't) that we couldn't cure MRSA at all, it was a gradual evolution. In the 1960's we had 5 working drugs that would kill essentially any bacteria. And then we had 4. We discovered new ones, at one point I believe up to 7. But resistance made it go down pretty much by one per decade, but each next one ended faster. And then it hit zero, in 2012 I beli…

"The problem is that we need to let millions of people die of curable diseases constantly" Not the case at all. Biggest use of antibiotics today is in food production(agriculture etc.), not in hospitals. And it's also completely unregulated. "The problem is that evolution is out-researching us" Evolution also has a simple rule: "Use it or lose it". So don't be afraid. There are ways around acquired immunity.

Post by samch » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 4:33 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #7

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #4

Awesome research. But... > The researchers then checked snot from hospitalized patients. Of 187 samples, all but one were colonized by either S. aureus or S. lugdunensis > S. lugdunensis, was killing S. aureus. Its weapon of choice? A small compound dubbed lugdunin > The German researchers who performed the study have filed a patent for lugdunin Are we really allowing people to patent naturally occurring biological c…

You have to choose a system. If we don't want naturally-occurring compounds patented, but we want them researched for potential drug use, we need more public funding. Otherwise, we have to offer researchers and drug manufacturers an incentive to take risks with exploring these compounds. Barring lugdunin from being patented while providing no public funding would incentivise this group to withhold publication until t…

Post by pc2g4d » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 5:49 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #82

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #4

Awesome research. But... > The researchers then checked snot from hospitalized patients. Of 187 samples, all but one were colonized by either S. aureus or S. lugdunensis > S. lugdunensis, was killing S. aureus. Its weapon of choice? A small compound dubbed lugdunin > The German researchers who performed the study have filed a patent for lugdunin Are we really allowing people to patent naturally occurring biological c…

Under the Supreme Court's decision in Myriad (which held you can't patent naturally-occurring gene sequences by themselves), you probably can't patent a naturally-occurring biological compound.

Post by nitrogen » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 6:40 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #65

DrScump wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that even private-sector-developed drugs rely on publicly-funded research. Worst is when American companies charge U.S. customers higher prices than overseas consumers for drugs that were developed using USA-taxpayer-funded research.

You really think it's bad to charge a lower price to lower income countries? A drug company should just charge people in Egypt the same as the US?

Post by rayiner » Thu, Jul 28, 2016, 8:37 PM UTC

pc2g4d wrote: post #85

rayiner wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under the Supreme Court's decision in Myriad (which held you can't patent naturally-occurring gene sequences by themselves), you probably can't patent a naturally-occurring biological compound.

... in the United States. They filed for a patent under the European patent regime, right?