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.
Sorta like Topsey, “it just growed”?
Which is it?
In the case of the citric acid metabolizing e.coli - it was obviously NOT there from the beginning. How could it have evolved when it could only de-evolve? When evolution isn't scientific.
It seems obvious you don't understand variation within a population (species) when you presuppose (despite the evidence) that all variation had to be created from the beginning by God.
Supposing that a god of the gaps had to mutate the bacteria for it to develop antibiotic resistance is a useless postulate, one that leads nowhere and to nothing, to no further discovery or useful application. And really, there is no need to invoke divine intervention when genetic variation created through error prone DNA polymerase and natural selection of that variation is both necessary and sufficient to explain this type of change.
Supposing that natural selection of (newly created) genetic variation is at work leads to the inescapable conclusion that one should finish their regimine of antibiotics rather than stop taking them once they feel better - and that one should not leave unused antibiotics on the shelf to age and self-prescribe. Once again showing how creationism is useless while science is of use.
Why do bacteria have a stress induced gene for error prone DNA polymerase? Because they need to “de-evolve” in response to stress?
And no, dead bacteria do not evolve - that is why subjecting bacteria to a stressful but not lethal dose of antibiotics - usually through improper use - is how resistant strains can arise.
So, you’re saying that original sin was the devil’s, not Adam’s?
Look how many hoops you have to jump through to make Genesis 1 and 2 say what you need them to say rather than taking them as a macro view of the creation of the entire universe followed by a focus on Adam, Eve and the garden?
Not sure why this question. Adam blamed God and that woman for deliberately breaking the direct command from God. I consider the Garden Party illustrative of the condition we in flesh bodies have when it comes to our willingness to go along to get along.
Look how many hoops you have to jump through to make Genesis 1 and 2 say what you need them to say rather than taking them as a macro view of the creation of the entire universe followed by a focus on Adam, Eve and the garden?
I did not write these hoops. Usually students are instructed to read with comprehension, not inject their own ways of thinking. I did not write in Genesis 2:5 there was NO man to till the ground. Wonder why God would have the need after everything else He had Moses pen suddenly decide to inject that bit of information after everything else He had Moses write about what He had already done. Maybe there will be a pop quiz on judgment day, with the question 'have you never read'?
Oh my.
Boy, did you miss my point.
Try reading for comprehension and thinking about why I would bring that up in a disussion of antibiotic resistance instead of looking for a hook to hang and insult on, and maybe it will occur to you what my meaning was.
Consider other biological organisms which afflict mammals. For example
Have you ever treated patients for any infection? And if not, would you please tell the readers of your post a little more regarding the, as you say, "idiot crationists", about this propounded infection which was the harmful results of their "idiocy". You seem to forcefully put forth the claim that evolution of microbes (better said to be mutations) is the reason and only reason which results in harm from the development of resistance to antiobiotic chemotherpy (antibiotic chemotherapy being an older term for antibiotic therapy). It seems that one would logically conclude from your remarks that antibiotics and antibiotics alone are the ultimate arbitor of whether or not HARM is the result of this mutation in an organism (bacterial). I was taught that there are many factors in HARM done by infectuous agents. For example people with AIDS can be infused with dangerously toxic doses of antibiotics to the patient but will not abate the symptoms and signs associated with one and a number of species of microbes which could cause everything from pneumonia, multiple abcesses, sepsis, or any of dozens of other types of diseases. The dosage of the antibiotic was not in question as to efficacy, so there must have been other factors than simply the concentration of the antibiotc in solution involved in some of the organisms remaining viable. I was taught that, depending on the antibiotic, it efficacy might depend upon the possible delay in administration of therapy, administration of suboptimal doses of the antimicrobial compound, alteration in the metabolic state of the patient, synergism with other antibiotics, secondary infections, medical or physiological processes of certain bacteria may act to interfer with the cidal or static effects of other concurently administered antibiotics. Then, of course, there are independent patients which have slightly different physiologies which may result in ineffectual antibiotic therapy. For example a patient who is in acidosis (for a number of reasons, renal failure, congestive heart failure, sepsis, many kinds of idiopathic dysrrhythmias, etc.) will result in certain antibiotics which whill not change to a bioavailable form which results in death of the said bacterial organism. Other host determinents would be age, genetic factors (i.e. Glucose 6-Phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency may result in indeterminate rate of inactivation of isoniazide, pregnancy and the placental/blood barrier, or the effect of the blood/brain barrier which prevents certain drugs to be available in cases of various types of bacterial encephalitis, or any of a plethora of concurrent diseases the patient has, atopic allergy, insufficiency of blood flow to affected areas, or the inability of many, many drugs to penetrate the relative alkaline fluids of the prostate gland making prostatis more difficult to treat, and with fewer available choices, or heptatic function or renal function which often inactivate the drugs within a pharmakodynamic bioavailable serum concentration curve. Virtually all, (not necessarily injection abcess sites) abcesses are specifically not treated singularly, or even preferentially, by antibiotic therapy. The treatment of choice is drainage of the abcess. The reason for this is that there is a sequestration of the microbe within a pocket of pus. I have seen abcesses as large as NFL footballs. Antibiotics will never treat, singularly, such infections. Even small 1 cm. abcesses will not be eradicated with antibiotcs alone. The acidity of the pus pocket and lack of blood suppy into the abcess pocket will not allow antibiotic penetration and thus cure.
Now I think what you referenced was the MISUSE of antibiotics which cause failure of treatment. These would include treatment of untreatalble infections, treatment of FUO, improper dosages and duration of treatment, treatment with antibiotics with omission of necessary surgical drainage, lack of bacteriological information (from sensitivity studies, serotype of microbe, and other causes. Having been on the front lines for 30+ years, reality, not theoretical, I will grant, have observed, and have treated MRSA and others. When I first started in surgery Serratia marcessensdid not cause disease in human (except in very rare opportunistic occasions), however, now, we see it not uncommonly in UTIs. Certain strains of Enterococcus, the likewise occurrances. We see more and more of it. I know you must laugh when you read of the the flesh-eating bacteria. Fascitis has been around for millenia. But, the fact is that it does occur from time to time. Nosocomial infections are becomming more and more a problem and will become worse with cutbacks in payment Part B medicare payments. Research in study of mutations research as regards to microbes will likewise be receiving much less mony. I look for pharmaceuticals to cut way back in R & R over the next few years. You know, Maggie Thatchers remarks that the problem with socialism is that very soon the socialist run out of other peoples money. Mutation, transduction, transformation, bacterial conjugation are all valid areas of research and study.
Consider other biologicals which cause disease in man and mammals. The helminths are considerable in their devastation in certain areas of the world. Loa loa, Cestoda species, Lumbricoides species, Clonorchis species, Fasciola species, even amoebic infestations are cases in point. Thirty years ago, there were no more than 2 or 3 drugs use in ranching to kill various intestinal tapeworms and some external parasites such as lice and horn flies. Many of those parasites developed a tolerence to those drugs and are now completely ineffective. We have gone from piperazine which was effective in the '50s and are not completely ineffective. We now use Ivermectine or Novamectine or Cydectine. These are completely different drugs, in completely different classes of drusgs than the piperazine or thiobendazole. Yet, the organism, Taenia sagginatum remains the same species. Same species of worm, resistant to above drugs, now remain the exact same species of organims Taenia sagginatum. The same could be said of the 'evolution' of the beef (and human) liver fluke worm, Fasciola hepaticushaving evolved to Fasciola hepaticus. I could continue to speak on these mutations of other species, Clonorchis, Ascaris, Diphillobothum, Necator (hookworm) Enterobius (pinworms), or even ectoparasits of the order Siphoptera, or the malarial organisms, Plasmodium or even Leishmonia organism or amoebic species. The point is they all adapt to their challanges, but they stay the same species. I know you already know this, but you do not factor it into your colloquy, but rather move to the pejorative. You might even look at a book entitled, The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease look up the myriad diseases caused genetic or acquired deficiencies in enzyme systems in certain people. Lesch-Nyhan Disease is a particularly heinous condition, but incredibly interesting and due to a single genetic deficiency of an enzyme, hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyl transferase. I will not describe the manifest pathology. But I could point to carbohydrate metabolism deficiencies, Proteing metabolism deficiencies, Lipid metabolism deficiencies, Steroid metabolic deficiencies, Purine and Pyramidine metabolic deficiencies, and that of poyphyrines, connective tissue, those of blood born metabolic disease such as siclkle-cell, hereditary spherocytosis, thallacemias, and others all which have one singular thing in common. They all are due to mutations and they all 'evoloved' from Homo sapien to Homo sapien. They, all such afflicted, are human beings. Not Homo noeticus or another homo species. Maybe things are not always as crystialline in the nouminal world as they are in our minds. Just food for thought.
But don't you think it is a little harsh to reference the creationists as idiots. It tells me more about your mindset than theirs noetic ability. It does seem unkind and unnecessary. Your 'coda' seems unnecessary also. May I ask why you do that? I think Mormons are in theological error, but I would not be ugly to them simply because I felt they were in error. I would press my case, make my argument, but not be pejorative. What is the good in that? I look forward to read your reply.
I still wish for you and yours a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
I will tell you a story. I reread my post and in the next-to-last paragraph, referencing you declaration of creationists being idiots, I mistyped the word as, idyiotes, which I am sure would have resulted in your declaring proof of your claim regarding creationsists, even though you do not know whether or not I am a creationists. No doubt you would have declared it an "Act of God" and proclaimed victory.
Well, anyway, I thought it was humorous. Have a great day.
Um...so, you don't see that humans choosing to sin in the beginning is crucial to Christian theology?
And you're saying it's impossible that Genesis 1 is a macro and Genesis 2 is a retelling of Day 6?
Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?
Occam's razor is not friendly to the hypothesis you're advancing.
“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.”
Considering that Northern European populations have pale skin due to inactivation (de-evolution) of genes for dark skin, and lactose tolerance due to inactivation (de-evolution) of the control element that would lead to inactivation of the lactase gene after infancy - wouldn't the logical conclusion be that Norther European populations are de-evolved Africans? That the more perfect state of humanity designed by God was dark skin and lactose intolerance?
Not that there is anything wrong with that - but what do you think of that consequence of your paradigm whereby every evolutionary change is a change AWAY FROM what was originally designed by God - and thus de-evolutionary?
Do you consider Northern Europeans to be a de-evolved example of the more perfect African state of humanity designed by God?
Why not?
“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.”
Considering that Northern European populations have pale skin due to inactivation (de-evolution) of genes for dark skin, and lactose tolerance due to inactivation (de-evolution) of the control element that would lead to inactivation of the lactase gene after infancy - wouldn't the logical conclusion be that Norther European populations are de-evolved Africans? That the more perfect state of humanity designed by God was dark skin and lactose intolerance?
Not that there is anything wrong with that - but what do you think of that consequence of your paradigm whereby every evolutionary change is a change AWAY FROM what was originally designed by God - and thus de-evolutionary?
Do you consider Northern Europeans to be a de-evolved example of the more perfect African state of humanity designed by God?
Why not?
We are not told how old Cain was when he killed his twin. Had to be at least at the age of accountability. The reading is that Cain was forced away from home, the ground was cursed to him. There is no mention of taking his sister with him, yet, Cain did find a mate in the land of Nod.
Given what we are told in Genesis 1:26 and the amount of time that passed until the formation of the Adam there would have been quite a population of hunter gathers. That is exactly what the history books describe, time before agriculture. Although once word gets out that the Bible also describes a time of hunter/gathers before agriculture they will most likely have to rewrite history.
No, you misunderstand.
I am not saying it evolved antibiotic resistance. I'm saying it was already there and was expressed under the right conditions.
Do try to keep up and don't let your rabid disdain of non-evolutionary thought blind you so much. It's impeding your reading comprehension.
Are you presuming the de-evolution is equivalent to the deterioration of a species, as opposed to merely a loss of some information instead of a gain in it?
Do you presume that loss of information makes for an inferior species as opposed to simply a different one?
The way to illustrate it is that you can eventually breed a poodle from two original wolves,
but you can’t breed “back” to a wolf from two poodles.
I don’t think he’ll get it.
It is contrary to his pre-suppositional framework.
Who you try'n to impress "Mr. Speller"? You read the article and ya know damn well ya did......so stop trying to impress us with your superior intellect.
If you can't hang with us drop-outs then move over to the mensa site.......sheesh!
To some Christianity is a reality, others a theology. The Adam gets much grief for his sin. Yes, he is the first recorded sinner of this flesh age. However, the greater sin committed by the devil took place in what Peter calls the world that was. Adam's flesh is what died, there is no record that he was damned to hell to be destroyed from within forever for his sin. Whereas, the devil has already been judged to death before this flesh age was set into motion. (Genesis 1:3)
And you're saying it's impossible that Genesis 1 is a macro and Genesis 2 is a retelling of Day 6? Do Genesis 1 and 2 Contradict Each Other?
Again I did not write Genesis. The Heavenly Father elected Moses who was born long after the events of the creation story. So what Moses put down until he was educated enough to write his own biography would have come directly from the Heavenly Father.
The first time I heard about DNA and what it could tell about a person, I knew there was no way that all peoples could come from only two people. I see the need to macro Genesis 1 and 2 child's play, as if God did not know what He had Moses pen. Even worldly history describes the time of hunter/gathers before agriculture became a recognized method of livelihood. What is the big deal with God saying to His children He created on the 6th day they were hunter/gathers with dominion over the earth's creatures designated and then He rested the 7th day stating after that 'day', there was no man to till the ground? Was God confused about what He had created or maybe just maybe He knew exactly what He was saying, knowing full well there would be plenty of Adam's coming down through the generations who choose to ignore His time line.
Occam's razor is not friendly to the hypothesis you're advancing.
Occam nor his razor is mentioned in the whole of the Bible by name or instrument.
It was most certainly NOT “already there” and I am keeping up just fine, I didn't misunderstand you at all.
You say “evolution” but what you mean is that the variation was there from the beginning.
That is wrong. Demonstrably wrong. Hideously wrong. Such a supposition is not only ignorant; it is dangerous.
If the antibiotic resistance was “already there” then an infected person either has the resistant strain or they do not; and there is no danger that their sloppy compliance with taking their antibiotics will lead to antibiotic resistant arising in the population.
So can you read and understand the e.coli evidence you asked for? It is obvious you did not. But then again if you let evidence change your opinion; you wouldn't be a creationist.
Why not?
And deterioration was the word used by the poster I was responding to - I don't buy into it for a second - just engaging using the language and explaining the consequences of the paradigm presented. Not that there is anything wrong with that! ;)
If all change is “de-evolutionary” and a “deterioration” caused by sin in the world - well the evidence is that Norther Europeans, with non working copies of dark skin genes - are more visibly “deteriorated” than Africans - and if there is a perfect condition of humanity as designed by God - that condition is black skin.
That is really funny!
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.