Imagining the Post-Antibiotics Future

http://thefern.org/2013/11/imagining-the-post-antibiotics-future/ ^ | November 20, 2013 | Maryn McKenna

[Rodamala]

ping.

[MacMattico]

Not to make fun of your serious post, but we all do still have a Negative Wasserman (Schultz)!

[MacMattico]

Anybody ever heard of this?

In 1941, I had a great Uncle die of a ruptured appendix, or so his death certificate states. My Great Aunt told me that a week after his appendix was removed, he was in the hospital doing fine. She went back to visit him the next day and he was talking about things like “you’re young, I want you to remarry”, “make sure the kids know I love them”. My Great Aunt said “You’ll be fine.” They had a 3 and 5 year old at the time, my Aunt being the 3 year old. He died the next day.

Fast forward to 1953, and my Aunt was 16. She went to the hospital and the doctor saw her name and asked her if my Great Uncle was her father. She said yes. He almost started crying and said they had given my Great Uncle a drug recommended for a ruptured appendix and he thinks they killed him, because when the hospital finally went through their mail in 1941, there was a Government advisory not to use this drug as it could
cause death. This was a small rural hospital. My Aunt was shocked and told her mother, but they did nothing. “Nothing can bring your father back”, my Great Aunt had said.

Does anyone know what this drug could have been?

[itsahoot]

It won’t stop them in the future.

It certainly stopped the ones that died.

[imardmd1]

Thanks. Now I even kno how to spel it. (smile)

[98ZJ USMC]

A weak, perpetually pharmaceutical dependent population

This.

[Farnsworth]

Everything is a double edged sword.

[Chickensoup]

Not to make fun of your serious post, but we all do still have a Negative Wasserman (Schultz)!

___________________

She is a sort of an embarrassing communicable infection, isn't she.

[logi_cal869]

My .02:
The article is an emotional story and not a serious analysis of the problem without including 'government' in the equation.

From here

A. ANTIBIOTICS
Under prior law, antibiotic drugs were regulated differently than non-antibiotic drugs. <p>

Beginning in 1945, antibiotic drugs were regulated under Section 507 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act). From the outset, under Section 507, it was possible to obtain FDA approval for generic antibiotic products based on an abbreviated application without having to duplicate all safety and effectiveness testing supporting approval of the brand name antibiotic. (As noted above, before enactment of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments in 1984, there was no abbreviated approval mechanism for generic versions of non-antibiotic drug products first approved after 1962.)

As noted above, some -- but not all -- provisions of the Hatch- Waxman Amendments as enacted in 1984 applied to antibiotic drugs. In particular, the ANDA patent certification, automatic stay of ANDA approval pending resolution of patent litigation, and non-patent exclusive marketing period provisions did not apply to antibiotics

Section 507 of the FDC Act was repealed by the 1997 FDA reform legislation, effective immediately (November 21, 1997). Except for antibiotic drugs that were then the subject of an approved or pending application, applications for generic antibiotic drugs are now subject to delays in approval as a result of the non-patent exclusive marketing period, patent certification, and automatic stay of FDA approval pending resolution of patent infringement litigation provisions previously applicable only to non-antibiotic drug products.

If the act was repealed in 1997, my question: Why isn't the pharmaceutical industry reinvested in developing antibiotics?

Gee...I wonder.../s

[Verginius Rufus]

Did your great-aunt remarry?

I had a great-uncle who died in his 30s, on the day after President Harding died. His widow died in 1990, aged 101 (she had married again and been widowed a second time). I don't know what my great-uncle died of. One of his brothers lived to 94.

[Smokin' Joe]

...Women in prostitution have a death rate that is 40 times higher than women who are not involved in prostitution.**

I believe the death rate for either group, ultimately, is approximately 100%.

Does the study cite a specific age group in order to arrive at this conclusion?

I have to ask, because statements like "reduce your chances of dying!" irritate the crap out of me. Your chances are still 100%. The only question is when.

[HangnJudge]

—Does the study cite a specific age group in order to arrive at this conclusion?

The average age of death of the prostitutes in the study was 34.

[golf lover]

Good read about the first antibiotic.

http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Under-Microscope-Battlefield-Hospitals-ebook/dp/B000JMKR2A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1386022951&sr=8-1&keywords=demons+under+the+microscope

[Smokin' Joe]

So, excuse me for being difficult, but if the prostitutes died at 34, and the rest of the study group died, at say 75, how did fewer of anyone die? The risk of dying remains at 100%. Only the timing changes.

[MacMattico]

No, she never remarried and died at 92! Was buried next to her husband 64 years later! She always said she had to much to do, working hard and raising her children.

I noticed I probably confused everybody by saying my Great Aunt’s daughter was my Aunt. It’s just that there was such an age difference we called her Aunt. (we were born 40 years apart!) My family has an interesting dynamic and age range!