21–30 of 113 posts
http://sustainability.formas.se/en/Issues/Issue-3-November-2...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070821153926.ht...
MRSA is just one small example of what the future holds if we don't manage this carefully, we're actually exerting evolutionary pressure on the one adversary that holds a serious trump card over us, an 8 hour reproductive cycle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is the simple answer in a perfect world. I was more thinking of the political and economic effects, especially if there is a post-antibiotic problem which quickly decimates existing stocks.
Unless there is some kind of apocalypse (rinderpest making it to the USA due to global warming) then the decline in meat production might be (relatively) gradual. The main use of antibiotics in agriculture (AFAIK) is simply to aid fattening animals as they are sick for fewer days of the year and so can put on more weight. Reduce antibiotic use and the market weight of animals will decline and either prices will have…
Strikes me that one could construct a counter argument against this prediction which is as strong as the arguments, for example, climate change deniers use. Yet, no one has done so.
I'm struggling to imagine why. Is there profit for the current big players in solving this issue, where as climate change solutions are not so good for current energy supplier? Or something like that?
Why is it that some apocalyptic scientific predictions are accepted, while others gain a culture of denial? Strikes me that one could construct a counter argument against this prediction which is as strong as the arguments, for example, climate change deniers use. Yet, no one has done so. I'm struggling to imagine why. Is there profit for the current big players in solving this issue, where as climate change solution…
Why is it that some apocalyptic scientific predictions are accepted, while others gain a culture of denial? Strikes me that one could construct a counter argument against this prediction which is as strong as the arguments, for example, climate change deniers use. Yet, no one has done so. I'm struggling to imagine why. Is there profit for the current big players in solving this issue, where as climate change solution…
I don't think it's because of a difference in the profit to be made by solutions (green energy vs antibiotic alternatives), but rather because of a difference in the profit to be made by the status quo (hydrocarbon-based energy companies stand to make huge profits if they can delay the development of green alternatives until there's a major energy crunch).
Antibiotic resistance is more obviously traceable to antibiotics use. The greenhouse gasses link to global warming exists, but the skeptics have leverage against it: Western countries contribute more to global warming per capita (right?), but China and India are contributing more overall; anything we try to do is going to be very expensive and cause a modest slow-down of warming at best; the Earth has been warmer than it is now; global warming models are incomplete; the Earth is a very complex dynamic system that might buffer global warming in unknown ways before we get to a crisis.
It's more difficult to argue against antibiotic resistance in bacteria being a problem when we can see resistance develop in a lab, and when we've seen the dire consequences of plagues in documented history.
Why is it that some apocalyptic scientific predictions are accepted, while others gain a culture of denial? Strikes me that one could construct a counter argument against this prediction which is as strong as the arguments, for example, climate change deniers use. Yet, no one has done so. I'm struggling to imagine why. Is there profit for the current big players in solving this issue, where as climate change solution…
For the most part the lack of widespread public denial is because the public are not talking about this issue so there is little need to modify public opinion. There hasn't been any serious attempt to limit the use of antibiotics in industrial farming in the USA yet[1]. If governments do get serious about that then the denier dollars will start flowing and Heartland and Cato will find shills to write articles about how the economic cost of stopping antibiotic use (here is where they claim it is a total ban when it isn't) in farming outweighs the cost of global pandemics because the people that die will mostly be the economically unproductive old and poor or some similar FUD.
[1] http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/04/fda-factory-...
Why is it that some apocalyptic scientific predictions are accepted, while others gain a culture of denial? Strikes me that one could construct a counter argument against this prediction which is as strong as the arguments, for example, climate change deniers use. Yet, no one has done so. I'm struggling to imagine why. Is there profit for the current big players in solving this issue, where as climate change solution…
How much profit is there in current antibiotics? Only a few of the newer ones are still patented. Aren't the bulk of prescribed antibiotics generics? I don't think it's because of a difference in the profit to be made by solutions (green energy vs antibiotic alternatives), but rather because of a difference in the profit to be made by the status quo (hydrocarbon-based energy companies stand to make huge profits if th…
If you want to find an industry where antibiotics crate large profit then look at industrial farming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much profit is there in current antibiotics? Only a few of the newer ones are still patented. Aren't the bulk of prescribed antibiotics generics? I don't think it's because of a difference in the profit to be made by solutions (green energy vs antibiotic alternatives), but rather because of a difference in the profit to be made by the status quo (hydrocarbon-based energy companies stand to make huge profits if th…
Even the existence of direct and easy to understand causal links doesn't prevent corporate disinformation campaigns if there is money involved. Just look at the history of tobacco propaganda. Cato is still feeding the media articles and quotes denying that there are health risks from second hand smoke. If you want to find an industry where antibiotics crate large profit then look at industrial farming.
Has there been any research to indicate that antibiotics in livestock gets passed to humans (and if so, to what degree)? I know that there was testimony by Dr. Lance B. Price to the House Committee for greater transparency on "why, how and in what animals these vital drugs are used." http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/file...
After analyzing the mutations of the MRSA strains in the women and the animals, the researchers concluded that it had been circulating among the livestock before jumping to the people. The researchers' analysis is "so fine-grained," McKenna writes, that it "seems to me to be difficult to challenge."
The Danish study comes on the heels a 2012 paper by a consortium of US and European researchers, which used gene sequencing to show that another common strain of MRSA originated in humans as a common staph infection, jumped to livestock, where it evolved resistance to the common antibiotics tetracycline and methicillin, and then jumped back to humans. Of course, you can also contract antibiotic-resistant pathogens through contact with raw meat—as, for example, more than 100 people did when the agribusiness giant Cargill sent out tens of millions of pounds of ground turkey tainted with antibiotic-resistant salmonella in 2011.
Why is it that some apocalyptic scientific predictions are accepted, while others gain a culture of denial? Strikes me that one could construct a counter argument against this prediction which is as strong as the arguments, for example, climate change deniers use. Yet, no one has done so. I'm struggling to imagine why. Is there profit for the current big players in solving this issue, where as climate change solution…
If you speak to farmers or others in the meat industry you will find plenty of strong denial about antibiotics in farming being a risk. You will find all the usual arguments: it's impossible for bacteria in animals to ever affect humans, they use different kinds of antibiotics, we will find newer antibiotics to solve the problem Once And For All etc etc. For the most part the lack of widespread public denial is becau…
Those farmers should read the book 'spillover'. According to some papers 60% of all pathogens has in recent times jumped from some other species to humanity, and depending on how rigidly you define species you can add the other 40% too.