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.
It's not a new bacteria. It's an old one which is an anti-biotic resistant strain.
Don't you believe in variation within species? What kind of scientist are you?
Do you also think blond haired people are a different species than black haired people? Sheesh.......
There’s been a ton of double and triple posts lately. It does seem to happen more with ping lists, but I’ve had it happen when just posting responses as well.
LOLOL!
So your premise is that the antibiotic resistance existed before the antibiotic was invented? An interesting, if idiotic, supposition. At least you are consistent!
Creationists have a huge advantage. We understand the competing theories and assumptions because we’ve been exposed to them all our lives, and have researched further than what we were spoon fed in humanist indoctrination centers.
I don’t think you’ll ever get over the hurdle with the poster in question. He’ll never get past his belief that adaptation is evolution.
Look at Lyrica it has a FIFTY PERCENT FAILURE rate due to bad side effects and yet they want to expand it's use to a 4th disease.
If you have side affects from a drug all your doctor does is switch you to a different one, and it does not get reported, doctors don't have time or financial resources to do so, nor does your drug store.
Third leading cause of deaths in the USA, death by doctors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JF7TcPsmvI
And evolution explains it how?
An interesting, if idiotic, supposition. At least you are consistent!
By your own words you are condemned.
If antibiotic resistance were not somehow *programmed* in by evolution, then no bacteria would have survived to become antibiotic resistance.
So the creationist premise is that antibiotic resistance was programmed in by the Creator.
The evolutionary premise is that it just happened.
*It just happened*? How scientific is that?
And evolution explains it how?
An interesting, if idiotic, supposition. At least you are consistent!
By your own words you are condemned.
If antibiotic resistance were not somehow *programmed* in by evolution, then no bacteria would have survived to become antibiotic resistance.
So the creationist premise is that antibiotic resistance was programmed in by the Creator.
The evolutionary premise is that it just happened.
*It just happened*? How scientific is that?
Let me guess, *Once upon a time a mutation occurred that would make bacteria be antibiotic resistant before antibiotics were invented, and so this mutation just hung around for millions to billions of years and meanwhile spread through the gene pool waiting in breathless anticipation for the day when mankind would invent antibiotics so it could express itself.*
Wish Jim & Co. could add code to the site that checks every post against the user's previous post and stops it if it's an exact duplicate. Shouldn't be too intrusive of a check. Multi-posts seem to be a common malady.
For sure.
We know how to think outside the box.
For that matter, we know how to think.
I'd like to see the stats on all the senior citizens who get flu shots then catch pneumonia or some other opportunistic infection and die. I'll wager you they're not too keen on keeping stats like that.
One mistake we need to avoid is thinking “the other side” is irrational or “can’t think”.
The problem isn’t the rationality or the logical thinking ability in most cases. Their conclusions are logically reached through reason but they start from the wrong set of initial assumptions.
This applies to both evolutionists and to leftists as well.
Well, considering that in public schools, kids are not taught to think, but rather regurgitate, I’m not so sure that it’s that far off.
It’s something they have to be taught, and yes, they do not realize that they are starting from the wrong premise, but having been taught to think, they would come to that conclusion at some point.
One of my contentions against evolution is that it starts with a bunch of premises who are either accepted because they have always been told that it is so, or because it best supports their theory.
For all how creationists are told that they’re being unscientific for accepting the *Goddidit* paradigm, they are accepting theirs with just as much faith, not because there is hard scientific evidence for any of it. They are starting with a philosophical premise that they don’t even recognize as such and base their science on it. They’re doing the very thing they condemn when it’s done with a premise they disagree with.
Let us say some idiot Creationists supposes that “either I got infected with the resistant strain or I didn't - evolution cannot happen” and stops taking their antibiotics as soon as they feel better, but before all the bacteria are dead.
Those bacteria are now subject to stressful but not lethal levels of the antibiotic.
Under stress many bacteria start using error prone DNA polymerase to reproduce their genome instead of the usual high fidelity DNA polymerase - this increases their mutation rate. Thus any new variation (that did not previously exist in the population, but was created through mutation) that helps it survive the stressful levels of antibiotic tend to predominate in subsequent generations of the bacteria. This is known as natural selection of genetic variation. Note that the variation was created through error prone DNA polymerase in this example - it did not previously exist in the population.
Thus the bacteria comes back from an ineffective treatment of antibiotics as one that has developed antibiotic resistance. The idiot gets sick again, and now needs a different antibiotic than the one that would have been effective if they had used it correctly.
Thus we see the HARM that your anti-science denial of reality can cause. People who don't accept that bacteria are capable of evolutionary change are less likely to understand science and thus use antibiotics correctly - and so they are more likely to contribute to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.
Hate to sound like need a tin foil hat...BUT.........
"Let us say some idiot Creationists supposes that “either I got infected with the resistant strain or I didn't - evolution cannot happen” and stops taking their antibiotics as soon as they feel better, but before all the bacteria are dead.
Have you actually done much thinking about Creationism and evolution and (Big-E) Evolution?? Creationists DO NOT believe in stasis, as evidenced by the fact that all of them (or at least the Christian ones) believe that the various races of man differentiated from a single pair of individuals over recent time. In fact, you could say that Creationists believe in rapid De-volution, that is the rapid degeneration of the biosphere. Theologically, this comes from the Christian view that creation is in a state of progressive disarray, an understanding (whether they agree with it or not) that 98% of Evolutionists are utterly clueless about.
William Paley is dead and long gone and so are his ideas. So please re-formulate your objections to Creationism with an eye toward understanding what creationists are saying, not what you imagine they are saying.
So this bacteria “de-evolved” into the highly useful trait of antibiotic resistance?
Please note my first post on this thread - I mentioned the idiotic premise that all change will be maladaptive - “all change will make an organism less fit as it changes it away from the way God created it”.
Obviously that premise doesn’t withstand even a cursory examination of the evidence.
FOTFLOL!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU, I needed a good laugh today.
People who don't accept that bacteria are capable of evolutionary change are less likely to understand science and thus use antibiotics correctly - and so they are more likely to contribute to the evolution of antibiotic resistance.
Variation within species, not *evolutionary change*.
The ones who have contributed to anti-biotic resistance in bacteria are the medical professions, who supposedly have some background in biology which, according to evos, would include evolution, and so THEY should have known better and not over prescribed anti-biotics in the first place, which they should have foreseen would become resistant as an understanding of the ToE would have told them.
The patients CANNOT get antibiotics to use without a prescription from their doctors, who SHOULD HAVE known better with their education in science and biology, which SHOULD HAVE included the ToE.
The people most vocal about the overuse of antibiotics and warning of the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria were the naturalists, whom the scientific and medical communities pooh-poohed as being........ unscientific.
What smart bacteria. How clever of them to figure that out all by their little selves.
Think they ever heard of Darwin?
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.