The antibiotic industry is broken | Hacker News Reader

The antibiotic industry is broken

economist.com

46 pointsprostoalex52 comments

Resistant strains rarely come from antibiotics use on humans. Antibiotics abuse in agriculture is what brings rise to superbugs. No better way to develop them than billions of Petri dishes born every year and badly administered end of the line antibiotics.

Antibiotics have a side effect of drastically increasing growth in certain livestock. Unless it's heavily regulated, it will continue to be used. When consumers can do is buying the significantly more expensive meat options that are antibiotic free, or simply buy less meat.

I think in this case we do need regulations since as long as some producers continue to abuse antibiotics this way it affects all of us.

Does it also work on humans? Does taking a lot of antibiotics since birth makes a human stronger and taller?

I've never seen bodybuilders taking antibiotics for size tho tho heard of plenty of steroid and protein/testosterone stuff.

But I know some chicken farmers in my neighborhood who double the chicken size with antibiotics.

> Does it also work on humans? Does taking a lot of antibiotics since birth makes a human stronger and taller?

Quite possibly. It will also bugger up your immune system maturation spectacularly. That doesn't matter so much for animals destined for the slaughterhouse, but it does for you because viruses aren't affected by antibiotics.

But what if we consume those chickens, isn't that antibiotic somehow going to end up inside us sooner or later?

And that will indirectly influence our size?

Is there any pattern of size gain/growth in humans since we started using antibiotics on farm animals?

One thing always have been mysterious to me is that growth/size is attributed to nutrition/genes/workout but I know some villages (more like distant tribes with no connection to modern world) who practise old style farming and heading livestock without any modern methods and they've plenty to eat but still they've not gotten taller or bigger. They've sheeps, goats, chickens, plenty of fruits and grains in their diet, lots of physical work but no size gain.

And if the person from the same tribes comes to the US as a kid, you can see them get taller/bigger then their siblings back home. So it can't be their genetic limit.

This would destroy your gut microbiome so bad idea.

But yes I think it would work.

I don’t think it would work.

A human with a borked digestive system will be incredible unfit.

Cows have a fundamentally different digestive tract, and I’m going to guess antibiotics suppress or eliminate cow digestive tract biota that are normally commensal but for whatever reason slow their growth, either by consuming nutrients or excreting signally molecules, or otherwise contributing to a cascade.

Digestive system of chicken looks similar to humans and it works on them, so what gives?

I don’t think we know the mechanism by which anti biotics cause growth. I personally think the parent is correct but I don’t know why s/he implies it wouldn’t work for humans. I hypothesize that gut flora eat food in your stomach, breaking it down faster so it passes through your gut before being absorbed, and by eating the nutrients themselves. If you have no gut flora, more will be absorbed by your system.

I similarly hypothesize that you could do a poop transfusion of skinny people with excellent metabolisms to aid in weight loss for fat people with terrible metabolisms.

One thing I’ve often wondered is: given this danger, why can’t the agricultural consumers be restricted to only those antibiotics which human diseases have already evolved immunity to?

Because it would cost farmers money

Why would it cost more money to keep using a drug they’re already using after it ceases to also be used therapeutically for humans?

I'd love to see a reliable citation on that.

Also, as a bonus, on whether existing resistant strains tend to lose their resistance if they're not kept on their toes with a steady supply of antibiotics.

Here you are: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/are-antibiotics-turn...

The relevant original source seems to be this: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rstb.2014... and it's precisely what I wanted. Thanks!

We badly need an alternative to animal agriculture. It takes up huge swathes of space, contributes more to global warming than anything else, and now superbugs?

This is terrifying and has far far worse implications than climate change. Imagine if we regress back to time where medical science is useless? - Where even having a child becomes a killer because the antibiotics don't work anymore.

I know most people aren't ready to give up meat, but we need to cut production massively and soon. Maybe cloned meat is the answer.

Besides the biological safety issues in mass producing animal flesh detached from an evolved and plenty mysterious natural immune system... Meat gets flavor from animals diet and digestion and overall systematic health.

The magic cloned meat fairy should and may well never amount to more than a strange and precarious confusion, about our potential and desirable relationship to food and its environment in crisis.

I'm not saying cloned meat is the answer, just that it could be an answer. Is there any reason not to try?

> We badly need an alternative to animal agriculture.

We could start by eating way less meat, the amount that our ancestors ate more or less, and that doctors advice (once a week or so).

Which is exactly what I do and would encourage others to do so.

ahem bio/chem major here not correct..

the normal ecology of bacteria is to produce toxins to compete with other bacteria and their gene passing across species is set up so that they gain resistance via exposure to new toxins..guess what the new toxins are?

Yes,, antibiotics..the same bacteria toxins re-repurpose and learn how to make artificially

I think it's a combination of both. There are a lot of GPs who just over medicate to shut up the patients who pretty much demand them; or worse people self medicating in a lot of places. Some countries are worse at this than others. E.g. the difference between northern and southern europe is pretty big. Patients in some countries expect to be given prescriptions in exchange for the hassle of visiting a doctor and will be angry when they don't get any. So they come in with what is obviously the common cold (i.e. a virus) and leave with some prescription for antibiotics. When I was living in Finland on the other hand, I was issued anti-biotics once but only after a quick (30 minutes) blood test confirmed I needed them and that there was a bonafide bacterial infection that required it.

In the meat industry, the current practicing of just mixing in antibiotics with the animal food by default is not sustainable. Cleaning up that industry is not going to be popular and very disruptive but also very necessary. A lot could be done with clear certifications and subsidies here.

Well, people shouldn't be buying antibiotics without a doctors note.

Doctors shouldn't be prescribing antibiotics unless there is a big real need.

Problem solved.

In Germany they do this. No doctor ever prescribes antibiotics. I've used to hate this fact, as most of adults "I NEED TO WORK!!!!11". Here in Germany they are a bit more open to people being sick and staying at home, but some companies are pushing the boundaries, such as, Amazon have some bullying system for people who call in sick, etc. But overall, 500% better than the US?

For instance, at the moment now I'm sick and I've been sick for like almost a month and they don't give me Antibiotics. Back in Brazil, where I've lived, they would just give me it and I would be "healthy" again in 2 days or less.

It is a complex problem. To be honest, most of the usage is probably because people don't want to be sick for too many days, as this is terrible in this sick career ladder where if you don't take antibiotics and is sick for a few weeks, and your peers take it and also put some ritalin on top, you have no chance to compete.

Maybe governments & institutions should control MUCH MORE drugs which are clearly being abused just for the sake of making people rat racing. This creates a very unfair field for whoever do the right thing, which is staying at home and letting the body do what it should.

But this can only be changed if people find it important, for politicians that live off your taxes, they would rather help you to work to death.

> Well, people shouldn't be buying antibiotics without a doctors note.

Why? It's not rocket science, and it's not like this is a complex decision that you couldn't adequately make after 15 of Internet searching.

The fake mystique imparted on general practitioner doctors is a toxic force for bad in the world.

> Doctors shouldn't be prescribing antibiotics unless there is a big real need.

The doctor doesn't know if there is a "big real need", and in fact cannot.

The doctor is just running off a standard checklist for one of among 50 almost exactly alike cases during his workday.

> Why? It's not rocket science, and it's not like this is a complex decision that you couldn't adequately make after 15 of Internet searching.

If you've got a tonsillitis (one of the most common reasons for getting antibiotics), how to you find out whether it's the bacterial or the viral type?

Presumably, by getting a bacterial test. That's done in a lab and isn't a doctor's job.

The doctors job is to decide which lab tests are needed based on checks they can do and their expertise.

Don't need a lab test for this one, there's a swipe test to determine if it's viral or bacterial.

Source: had about 40 or more in my life, was prone to tonsilitis for ages.

> how to you find out whether it's the bacterial or the viral type?

You google more strongly.

> The doctor is just running off a standard checklist for one of among 50 almost exactly alike cases during his workday.

"What do you mean it takes two weeks to build that software? IT IS SO EASY"

It's for the same reason dynamite is not sold wholesale in the hardware store.

A lot of times it will be harmless, but every once in a while some Billy or Jane will dose themselves just right to train their infection to get over the antibiotics they bought, it will happen to be highly contagious,and then suddenly you've got an epidemy in your hands.

> Internet searching.

Replacing visiting a real doctor with internet searches is like replacing a plane pilot with internet searches.

Antibiotic abuse is a real problem, but expecting doctors to fix or even understand it is like expecting car mechanics to make traffic laws for your country.

Antibiotics should be regulated by a serious government effort, not by doctors.

I don't know where you live, but where I live doctors are exactly the ones who understand antibiotic abuse. As in, it is their job.

> Antibiotics should be regulated by a serious government effort

You didn't bring this before. I actually agree with that.

> not by doctors.

Strong disagree with that though. Such government effort can only be successful if it involves lots of doctors.

> As in, it is their job.

What makes you say that? That's like expecting software engineers to understand the implications of clock synchronization in your server CPU. Sure, it'd be nice if employees had that level of dedication, but who are we kidding? That's not what they are being paid for.

> Such government effort can only be successful if it involves lots of doctors.

Well, no. Doctors aren't the ones making epidemiology science research. At best they might read a paper or two if somebody pushes them.

>Why? It's not rocket science, and it's not like this is a complex decision that you couldn't adequately make after 15 of Internet searching.

Yeah, and people making the wrong decision can only result in a plague like condition with hundreds of millions dead, so no big deal...

>The doctor is just running off a standard checklist for one of among 50 almost exactly alike cases during his workday.

Yeah, who needs doctors when there's the internet + idiots...

Being a doctor (i.e., general practitioner) is a job that is less cognitively loaded and carries less responsibility than the job of a car mechanic.

General practitioners are simply running off standard checklists for standard ailments. It's no different from reading a car repair manual.

And unlike car mechanics, you probably won't succeed in suing your doctor if he used the wrong checklist and got you injured by mistake.

P.S. Being a doctor in a more complex specialty is not much different, but then you're expected to read literature and keep up with current science research. It's still fundamentally checklist-based, but at least there's an expectation that the checklists are being updated.

>General practitioners are simply running off standard checklists for standard ailments. It's no different from reading a car repair manual.

They also have 8+ years of training to "run those lists", know better what to suggest when something is not on the list, can see things the person haven't noticed themselves, and so on -- not to mention that they have more intelligence (to get through med school and all) than the average citizen...

Even the fact that we're seriously having this discussion proves their necessity.

That's how you end up with homeopathy and anti-vaccines, because "what do doctors know anyway"...

(And I'm all for being suspicious of the pharma corporations, medical industry for their profit-driven motives, but "a GP just runs a list so do it yourself off of the internet" is a no-go).

This is wrong is wrong in so many levels. Sure, you can fit the whole universe knowledge in a checklist.

Doctors can see much more than a normal person, by just looking at your face. A bright person would possibly take 8+ years to have a beginner ability on this. Just as I can in 5 minutes grasp the quality of a codebase better than a beginner.

I can give you the guitar tabs for Cliff of Dover. Can you follow the instructions?

Not even sure what to reply to this comment. I should probably stop visiting this site asap in case it brainwashes me into thinking like this.

>It's not rocket science

Yeah its fucking medicine

I had the same feeling, sad to see the comment there. It doesn't represent the majority though. Just ignore the dumbass in the room.

>In Germany they do this. No doctor ever prescribes antibiotics. I've used to hate this fact, as most of adults "I NEED TO WORK!!!!11".

Well, companies making you work (or guilting you to work) if while you are sick with a doctors notice, should be fined heavily too. Problem solved.

>Problem solved.

Absolutely not:

>In Germany, 1,734 tons of antimicrobial agents were used for animals in 2011 compared with 800 tons for humans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_use_in_livestock#Eu...

But what mass of humans is treated compared to the mass of livestock with these ? What type of antibiotics ? Fallacious comparison, you need more data.

https://outline.com/KKTLmL

My relatives would rush to buy the "anti-inflammatory" medicines - Cephalosporins plus some traditional Chinese medicines - whenever they have sign of a cold, which seemed to occur quite often for them. And it's a popular belief.

Would widespread use of synthetic meat solve the antibiotics issue (as well as help with global warming)? I have only researched synthetic meat a little bit and am wondering if anyone has more concrete information and opinions.

Here is another factor to consider that I think many are overlooking: our steadily increasing RF-exposure may be altering the growth rate and antibiotic susceptibility of bacteria and other microorganisms.

I don't think many are considering this possibility, and I don't like what I find. It seems RF-radiation, even at non-thermal exposure levels, is able to both alter the growth rate and antibiotic interaction of microorganisms.

"Extremely High Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation Enforces Bacterial Effects of Inhibitors and Antibiotics":

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51408122_Extremely_...

"Evaluation of the Effect of Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted From Wi-Fi Router and Mobile Phone Simulator on the Antibacterial Susceptibility of Pathogenic Bacteria Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5298474/

"Effect of radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation on physiological features of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain UCM Y-517":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15456218

"Preliminary results on the non-thermal effects of 200-350 GHz radiation on the growth rate of S. cerevisiae cells in microcolonies":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12452574

You're not supposed to mention RF exposure. You're obviously a tin-foil loony, even if you cite legitimate research papers. All the industry-sponsored studies say its totally harmless...

That study which mentions routers and wifi seems questionably controlled - increased exposure time decreasing inhibition radius? I would expect that from just time passing would do that - it only mentions the radius shrinking not shrinking at a faster rate. To be frank that sounds like a high school level procedure error.

Plus even if taken at face value they admit they only notice the effects on certain strains at certain phases.

Even if it is on certain strains, it means we need to consider what it means on a larger scale. What other strains? What other frequencies?

By not considering the possible implications of this interaction, IF TRUE, you may be overlooking something important which needs further study.

Or I hope you are not suggesting we just cross our fingers, forget about it, and hope these were all just "high school level errors"?

This space will have more research in coming days specially after the coming of Pakshi Rajan.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com