Posted on 12/03/2012 1:31:48 AM PST by neverdem
A deadly bacteria known as Carbapenem-Resistant Enterobacteriaceae, or CRE, is raising concerns in the medical community.
Jennifer Hsu in an Infectious Disease Physician at Sanford Health and has been closely studying this 'super bug' which is best known for it's ability to defy even the strongest of drugs.
“What has happened over time with increasing exposure to antibiotics the bacteria have developed ways to evade those antibiotics and they become resist to a certain class of antibiotics,” said Hsu.
In the United States, the bacteria have been found primarily in healthcare facilities and hospitals and are known to prey on the weak.
“Patients who are immune-compromised whether it be from medical treatments, chemotherapy for instance or patients that have had other severe illnesses that place them in the ICU-those would be risk factors,” said Hsu.
CRE infections are already an epidemic in several major cities including New York and Chicago, but Hsu said not to be surprised if we start to see them more frequently in less-populated areas.
“There's no reason to think that we won't see them in South Dakota and they won’t become increasingly common here but really our goal is to head that off before it happens,” said Hsu.
Experts said that there isn't likely to be a vaccine for this type of infection, but they are continually researching ways to prevent it from spreading. While doctors are fighting hard to keep it contained, it may be a battle they are not equipped to win.
"There is absolutely no reason to think that if we don't do a good job with infection control that this is going to stay in a hospital,” said Hsu.
Which may mean this 'super bug' is here to stay,always close-by and always a threat.
Lot of reason why the FDA bad drug hot line has no human to answer it, a lot of seniors are still not computer literate, a lot of them I know do not own one or want one.
I spent 3.5 days in the bathroom, then tripped into Vertigo then into Meniere’s and ER run for pain and dehydration even though I drank lots of water flavored with cranberry juice or lemonade. Then on to the ENT who changed my meds, and that set off another round or reactions. 9 lb weight loss in 1 month. And I can’t afford to lose any more for my height or health.
I reamed out Sen Corker’s office quite well on this, his girl went through the procedure and never found a human. Flustered her as it did me. I don’t down load gov’t forms biggest place to pick up virus, bugs etc for your computer. If they can hack the Pentagon, they can hack any thing.
According to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JF7TcPsmvI medical field is responsible for one third of all deaths in the US.
metmom: "Variation within species, [is] not *evolutionary change.*"
It seems to me that AMD's comment is an exercise in circular reasoning from an unexamined premise, while metmom's comment gives us something to think about. For it seems that, to a Darwinist, all change is "evolutionary" (and thus is to be regarded as a progressive development in terms of species [group] survival). But this is an untested — and untestable — presupposition.
BTW, how did an article on the age of the earth get turned into a defense of Darwin's theory — by, e.g., allmendream and tacticalogic?
I am not "anti-science." I strongly doubt metmom is "anti-science." I think it may be fair to say, however, that both of us are "anti-scientism." That is to say, we deplore abuses of science.
Let that go for now, and return to the subject of the article at the top, the age of the earth.
I for one have no difficulty with the scientific finding — inferred from data extrapolated from observations of the Cosmic Background Radiation — that the universe is ~15 billion years old. The Earth system was seemingly a late development, with an estimated age of 4.5 billion years. Within the Earth system, it took another several billion years before the first life forms emerged.
At the same time, I find nothing in the above understanding that conflicts with the Genesis account of Creation.
For while Genesis tells us that the Lord made the whole Creation in six days, we have absolutely no idea of how "long" a "day" is for God; for He is entirely outside of space and time as we humans know/experience it.
Note the interesting juxtaposition of "long" (which refers to spatial extension), and "day" (which refers to a temporal unit). Einstein "unified" space and time, giving us a new concept, spacetime. Provided it is true that the "universal speed limit" is C — the speed of light — then it seems this unification holds up.
The quantum world tells us something likewise:
The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning. And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10–20 times the size of a proton.These statements implicitly recognize a beginning of the Universe. At the same time, they show the Limit that the human mind runs up against when it seeks to understand cosmological origins. To put it bluntly, we do not "see" as God sees: We are utterly captured within the order of spacetime; God is not. The eternal, timeless God sees the "all that there is" from outside the category of spacetime.
The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length. This is the ‘quantum of time’, the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10-43 seconds. No smaller division of time has any meaning. Within the framework of the laws of physics as we understand them today, we can say only that the universe came into existence when it already had an age of 10-43 seconds. [see here]
So if He tells us He made the Universe in six days, I'm sure from His vantage point, that is entirely true. From our (materialist, reductionist, time-bound) vantage point, such a declaration seems, if not utterly false, then simply unintelligible.
I don''t know what it is with Darwinists, but it seems that they regard the simplest bacterium as the "Rosetta Stone" that yields insight and understanding of all biological organisms. What is "true" about this single-cell crittur applies equally to the most complex biological system in Nature, Man: So once you understand the bacterium and its processes, then you know all you need to know about any biological organism, including Man.
What idiocy!
For in addition to creating the world, God made it intelligible; and created human minds capable of appreciating its intelligibility.
Indeed, this is the fundamental premise of science, without which there would be no science.
Also, it has been pointed out that reason and logic themselves have an irreducibly non-natural element. As Alfred North Whitehead famously pointed out, mental functionings are not completely explained or determined by natural processes alone. If they were, we'd have no warrant for believing they are true. If natural processes are the result of "random flux," then how can logic and reason — which are universals — derive from them?
Thus here is a "lethal self-contradiction" in applying evolutionary theory to the understanding of human cognitive capabilities that can only, in the words of Thomas Nagel, undermine our confidence in them.
But the silly reporter who baited Marco Rubio with a stupid question, the significance of which he does not himself understand, pretty much tells you how idiotic the public discourse has become where scientific issues are involved, and GOP "targets" are at hand.
Marco needs to learn to handle himself better when targeted by such stupid attacks.
JMHO FWIW.
Thanks for the ping, metmom, my dear sister in Christ — and thank you for your outstanding analysis of AMD's "challenge" to you.
Cool! Thank you!
Seems that creationists have a better grasp on physics than evos do.
This thread actually IS about biological evolution, not the age of the Earth.
The Rubio age of the Earth thread is a different one.
Yes, all change in living systems from one generation to the next is evolution - evolution is defined as descent with modification.
Creationism is anti-science, and useless. Presupposing supernatural causation to explain physical phenomena leads nowhere and to nothing - it is of no use in further discovery or application.
As to the actual science - the supposition that all variation is there from the beginning can be (and has been) tested - and it FAILS that test.
Please familiarize yourself with the e.coli experiment. They started with twelve identical populations, DNA sequenced them, and expanded them. They have derived variations that DID NOT EXIST in the original population.
Thus, if one is open to evidence, the idea that all variation had to be created from the beginning must be definitively REJECTED.
But if one was open to evidence they wouldn't be a creationist.
So can shoddy use of antibiotics give rise, through evolutionary change, to antibiotic resistant populations?
YES!
And the denial of that by creationists is not just useless, it is dangerous - because their ignorant behavior can put us all at risk.
As to how the thread on Rubio and the age of the Earth got on the subject of biological evolution.
Post #6 spoke of the “evolutionist lie”.
Post #24 pointed out that geology isn't evolution.
My first post pointed out that ALL science is “evolution” when it disagrees with a creationist, as defined by creationists. Thus geology is “evolution”, astronomy is “evolution”, physics is “evolution” - just as soon as the results rub the creationist the wrong way - by rubbing their nose in just how wrong they are!
So that is how THAT thread went from being about the age of the Earth to being about “evolution” - because creationists apparently have a very hard time keeping the subjects separate.
I haven't been following this thread, so I'm not sure what that's about. There were some comments on another thread to the effect that the physicists are in cahoots with the biologists but mostly it stayed on topic. I don't recall getting involved in any discussion about Darwin or ToE there.
"Creationism" is the very ground on which science stands.
An intelligible universe that contains intelligent minds capable of understanding the universe simply does not happen by "natural" accident.
Physical, material phenomena would do exactly nothing if left to their own devices. They would just be "random" phenomena, unless a natural law "tells" them what to do.
Otherwise we wouldn't even "see" them.
If you have a "natural law," (or a moral law for that matter) you have what philosophy calls a "universal." It is totally illogical to suppose that a universal — which by definition is timeless — can be the product or outcome of "random" material developments over time.
Which is essentially what Darwin's theory says. But then it is in the awkward position of explaining how its new "natural law," called "natural selection," got into the picture. Is "natural selection" itself but an evolutionary development?
A universal law is NOT the same sort of thing as a material phenomenon. They are two entirely and radically different types of being. The first never changes; the second is always changing. And the fact is that the "measure" of change logically can only be provided by comparison to that which does not change.
So, where is your ground of Truth, the criterion by which you make judgments about the phenomena of natural Reality — if not in the realm of the super-natural, the super-material? To which realm both reason and logic themselves belong — for they are universals, too.
If universals are not "natural" phenomena, then they must be — as you put it — supernatural. There's no other possible logical explanation.
And yes, dear AMD, I did get confused about the two threads. Sorry for my mistake!
Yep, Mr. B: That's about the size of it!
Very well said.
I haven’t been involved in this thread, and really don’t have time to take it up right now.
So are you ready to accept the evidence that variation in a population can arise where it did not exist before?
Or are you going to deny the obvious evidence that such a supposition is ‘all wet’?
Sorry, no science stands on the ground that supernatural causation is the explanation for physical phenomena.
Why do you suppose that if something is random it is out of the control of God? Do you think HIS power stops at the casino door? Read the Bible.
The lots are cast into the lap - but every result is from the Lord.
Your observation, or "metaphor" would be spot-on, dear AMD, were it not for the fact that, as Einstein noted, "God does not play dice."
You claim to be a Christian. And yet you deny God has an active, ongoing role in this universe. That is to say, He is not only not Creator, but also not active Sustainer of all He created as well — from Alpha to Omega.
But since He does not show up in your "experiments," therefore, on your crackpot logic, He does not exist.
You effectively make yourself the very measure of God here.
Why on earth do you think that is a good idea?
Are you sure dice are random?
Can you provide any data that say dice are not "random"?
So you're ready to accept that God works by invading the material and manipulating the natural, material when it comes to craps, but not when it comes to weather or life?
Make up your mind, will you?
Are mules "a new species" - or an evolutionary failure?
I can’t help but wonder if anyone has tested these “superbugs” for resistance to “obsolete” drugs — such as the sulfa drugs that saved many GIs’ lives in WWII...
Did you have some larger point you'd like to make, JoeProBono?
No. Can you provide the data necessary to prove that they are?
Great catch, dear sister in Christ!
I have noticed that folks enamored of Darwin's theory tend not to be systematic, logical thinkers. Lots of passion there, though.
Thank you ever so much, dear metmom, for your astute observation!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.