Lee DunaSuperbugs are on the rise. How can we prevent antibiotics from becoming obsolete?
DjennikOn driving factor is the (over)use of antibiotics in animal agriculture:
“Over 70 percent of antibiotics sold in the United States are given to livestock, including cattle, which translates to significant human health impacts.”
“Antibiotic resistance in cattle does not only affect the health of the cattle, it impacts people as well because many of the antibiotics given to cattle are also used in human medicine. Eating meat or consuming milk from an animal with antibiotic-resistant bacteria may infect a human with that same resistant bacteria”
Citations: National Geographic
The Wikipedia article is also very comprehensive and nuanced: en.wikipedia.org/…/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock
Just like how in climate change is that we use plastic straws, don't look at how 80% of the pollution is industrial and Chinese in origin.
Or in Canada where rents are so high in Vancouver and Toronto that they're redefining budgeting for renters, from 1/3 to half and even 2/3rds instead of dealing with real estate speculation.
LibertyLizardAre you saying China is responsible for 80% of emissions? That’s definitely false.
Swedneckand even if it was true, guess why they have so much emissions! It’s to make products for us consumers in the west!
Yes although I think China is a wealthy and capable enough country at this point that we can expect them to start reducing emissions like most other countries. But they aren’t really attempting to do this, and deserve criticism for that. As do Westerners who uncritically buy products from them despite their deeply problematic production model.
Badly written. 80% are industrial. They are, based on their public numbers, responsible for a third of the world's CO2.
Their official numbers put them at number 1 CO2 emitter, and pollute more then next 5.
ಚಿರಾಗ್ 🌹✊🏾Ⓥ🌱🇵🇸 (he/him)@Kbin_space_program @throws_lemy @LibertyLizard As pointed out elsewhere, it's quite hypocritical to point to China to reduce emissions generated by manufacturing stuff for the West.
That was partially true more than a decade ago, since they could have had laws in place to prevent those emissions.
Now though they're more making things for themselves, and any attempt on their part to declare themselves a "developing country" is a sham.
@Kbin_space_program @throws_lemy @LibertyLizard Or, you know, we could trace those emissions back to the source, which would land the blame squarely on the tons of US companies responsible.
Also, as an aside, why don't you compare per capita emissions, since China has > 3 times the population of the US?
Because the ecosystem doesn't care about pollution per capita.
Also, the reason the US is so high is because it refines most of the world's oil.
Same reason Canada is so high. Alberta, by itself, is more than half of Canada CO2 emissions.
@Kbin_space_program @throws_lemy @LibertyLizard Sure, the ecosystem doesn't care about per capita, but the largest reductions in emissions would understandably come from the largest per-capita emitters.
Nothing I'm saying here is specific to China. We should be tracing back and allocating *all* emissions based on the 'instigator' of those emissions. It's sort of like blaming Togo or Benin for poor child slavery records while ignoring that most of the demand for that labor comes from *us*.
Well it just seems odd to fold together industrial and Chinese emissions. Nationally and by sector are two totally different ways of dividing up emissions.
Anyway China is a major source of emissions and deserves criticism for that but it doesn’t seem very relevant overall.
With and UV light, you know?
Maybe there’s some way to get those inside the body.
Or bleach apparently. lol.
Wasn’t there a whole thing about bacteriophage treatment and supplement to antibiotics?
Like, “if bacteria develop resistance to one it reduces resistance to the other!” kinda deal?
Long story short: bacteriophage are extremely difficult to fit in the current legal/regulatory framework of the medical/pharma world/system.
Bacteriophage are not stable compounds such as chemical molecules (antibiotics, etc…). They evolve and change, adapting to bacterial evolution (or just spontaneously because we’re talking about dynamical organisms). It may be an advantage from a efficacity point of view, buts it’s a big no-no from a regulation point of view.
This makes is harder to have real trials (even if things progress slowly).
Then you have all the biological questions about injecting virus in na host and the risk of immune response.
Source: bacteriophage were the subject of my master thesis, even if it was a while ago.