New Bacteria Raises Concern

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.

Some people look at an apparently automatic process and see a self-directed system; others marvel at the formula and the principle that undergirds it, and the marvelous intelligence behind it all. The more they discover about the nuts and bolts of creation, the more I marvel.

I marvel too, dear brother in Christ!

I marvel "at the formula and the principle that undergirds it, and the marvelous intelligence behind it all" — which alone accounts for why Nature "constantly 'reconfigures' herself" in lawful ways.

Which answers one of Leibniz's two great questions, "Why are things the way they are, not some other way?"

His other great question was: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?" The answer to this question is arguably entirely beyond the competence of science. That is, a methodology based on direct observation has no means to address this question in principle. For no one has ever seen "nothing," better put "no-thing." This concept indicates more than simple "absence" or "empty space"....

So, I'm glad for the work of the "nuts and bolts" guys of science. It seems they mainly engage in "the instrumentalization of Nature," and their work has produced amazing benefits for mankind — but also some amazing risks.

If Nature were "lawless," or random in her deportment, she would be immune from such "instrumentalization" by scientists. This seems to be the point that orthodox evolutionists are always trying to forget.

In conclusion, I entirely agree with your statement:

The "who" of creation is a settled issue for me. Once you know God that issue rather evaporates. The "why" of it I look forward to seeing unfold as eternity itself unfolds.

Amen!!!

Thank you so very much for your penetrating insights — May God ever bless you, dear brother in Christ!

Who's making the law that draws a "red line" in taxonomy that says "nothing can reconfigure itself beyond this line."

Why, GOD IS the lawgiver here, dear tacticalogic. Where else did you think universal law could possibly come from?

Or do you believe that "finite man" creates universal law? Methinks he only discovers it. Universal law exists quite independently of human desire and will. And man is inescapably subject to it.

One can only "opt out of it", in the unreality of "one's dreams."

FWIW.

Another example: geometric form, e.g. circles, exist and the geometer merely comes along and discovers it.

This would be the view of the mathematical Platonist (e.g., Einstein, Tegmark), in contradistinction to the view of the mathematical Formalist (e.g., Hilbert, Russell).

If I had to describe the principal difference between these two foundational mathematical "philosophies": Mathematical Platonism assumes the nature of universal reality is "given," and explores it on such terms. Mathematical Formalism assumes there is nothing "given"; that man creates the reality he explores as he goes along, via abstract methods.

Which usually don't work. See: Hilbert's attempt to reduce mathematical language to its syntactical elements only, in the attempt to remove all semantical elements by reducing them to syntactical structures.

To put it another way, both Hilbert and the great Bertrand Russell found axiomatic expressions perfect examples of "circular reasoning" — detestable impredicativities that could not be expressed at all in "yes/no," "true/false," "0/1" mathematical language. In Hilbert's formalism, they needed to find a way of expression in purely syntactical terms.

But then Kurt Gödel showed up, and demonstrated the sheer logical impossibility of trying to remove semantics by re-expressing them in terms of syntax only.

[Syntax refers to the rules of the road (so to speak) of any given language, preeminently including the universal language of mathematics; semantics carries meaning in any given language, the successful communication of which is highly dependent on there being agreed-upon "rules-of-the-road."]

On the other hand, for the Formalists, it seems the universe didn't begin until the day they were born, and will be extinguished on the day that they die. They don't consider themselves as "parts and participants" of it, but as the very lawgivers that determine and run it, via their sui-generis "creative" acts....

Looks to me like the birthplace of a Second Reality.... FWIW.

Thank you so very much for writing, dearest sister in Christ!

It seems to me Platonists take the "long view" of the universe: They see it as something they are born into and depart from, in due course. It is what it is before they got here; and will be the same after they depart. In short, they recognize themselves as parts and participants in a vast cosmic enterprise.
On the other hand, for the Formalists, it seems the universe didn't begin until the day they were born, and will be extinguished on the day that they die. They don't consider themselves as "parts and participants" of it, but as the very lawgivers that determine and run it, via their sui-generis "creative" acts....

I couldn't agree with you more, dearest sister in Christ!

Looks to me like the birthplace of a Second Reality.... FWIW.

And I believe you just hit the nail on the head. The popularity of second realities may likely have sprung from man's desire to be his own "god."

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.