Almost all infectious diseases physicians have had the dreaded call about patients with infections that were essentially untreatable because of antimicrobial resistance, says a Monash University professor.
“Running out” is a bit of a weird title here, it doesn’t mean that some deposit is running dry. There are more and more bacteria getting resistant for more and more types of antibiotics, making them no longer effective. Even a bottomless supply of antibiotics is useless if it doesn’t actually kill the things it’s supposed to kill.
I suppose the “running out” part would mean that there are only so many types of antibiotics, if none of them are effective anymore (or not enough of them are effective enough) we would be in some deep shit.
(being in deep shit may cause a severe risk of bacterial infection, I highly recommend not being in such a situation)
So this has been reported for years now. We aren’t running out of antibiotics. We are running out of options like you said. The real reason is that doctors would prescribe stronger antibiotics than were needed. Also, people would stop taking the full course because they felt better before then, and lastly, farms give antibiotics to their animals just in case, so any bacteria that would survive any of these is allowed to reproduce and become resistant to antibiotics.
This has been known and warned for probably decades now.
But still we continue to “preemptively” use it in vast quantities in the meat, milk and egg industry instead of using sustainable or even humane conditions for the animals in question.
Guess who gets to eat antibiotics evey day, increasing likelihood of multi resistant germs?
what crops that are fed to beef chicken and pork are parts of plants that people won’t eat for the most part. The same fields that grow the soybeans we use for oil are growing soybeans that are used as feed. The same soybeans that are used for oil are used for feed.
This is sometimes true. However, e.g., about 4% of the farmland in California is used for alfafa, which is just for livestock. Alfafa is also a very water intensive crop.
Additionally, there are other uses that livestock corn feed could be put to if there weren’t so many damn cows, so it’s not like we’d be throwing away megatons of silage if it weren’t for cattle.
but beef, chicken, and pork continue to be made in increasing amounts. things are getting worse despite the fact that vegans exist. being vegan doesn’t help the planet at all.
You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in “cheese mountain” type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.
That being said, ‘commie’ is a terrible communicator if that’s what they’re trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you’re on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the ‘invisible hand of the free market’ does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.
That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying the act of “not buying it” (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.
With the point being that it’s a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.
Are u saying if over night the entire customer base of meat as a whole stopped buying it would have zero effect? Certainly thats not whay youre saying right?
Surely the societal pressure to change the systems that support factory farming of animals will grow pretty much in proportion with the vegan/vegetarian population? I don’t like the defeatist attitude that our choises as consumers don’t matter, at all.
I was also shocked to learn the US have over the counter antiobiotics that people pop for random illness and minor cuts/scrapes. Pretty much unthinkable here (EUN)
Wait, I’m assuming you’re from somewhere in Europe, you don’t have topical antibiotics available without prescription?!
I wouldn’t argue against antibiotics being overprescribed in America, they definitely are. The tendency is for medicine to be prescribed if a patient sees a doctor. Another crappy consequence of an expensive medical system, people won’t be satisfied if they spent hundreds of dollars only to be told to rest and drink lots of fluids.
US friends of mine “keep” their remaining prescription ABs for when they are sick again
This is definitely a thing that morons do over here 😂
Yes, some topical AB are available according to a quick online search
Some topical antibiotics can be purchased as over-the-counter (OTC) medicines.
However, it is always recommended that you consult a medical expert before purchasing and using any medication.
Topical antibiotics are used to treat skin wounds, scrapes, scratches, and minor burns.
They are available in ointment, cream, spray, or powder forms and are used to prevent infection in topical skin ailments.
Some over-the-counter topical antibiotics include:
Bacitracin (Neosporin)
Polymyxin (Polysporin)
Neomycin (Neosporin Plus Pain Relief)
Pramoxine
Benzoyl peroxide (Proactiv)
There’s a huge difference between saying ‘antibiotics are available OTC’ and ‘topical antibiotics are available OTC’. One is misleading clickbait nonsense, the other is true.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
deleted by creator
“Running out” is a bit of a weird title here, it doesn’t mean that some deposit is running dry. There are more and more bacteria getting resistant for more and more types of antibiotics, making them no longer effective. Even a bottomless supply of antibiotics is useless if it doesn’t actually kill the things it’s supposed to kill.
I suppose the “running out” part would mean that there are only so many types of antibiotics, if none of them are effective anymore (or not enough of them are effective enough) we would be in some deep shit.
(being in deep shit may cause a severe risk of bacterial infection, I highly recommend not being in such a situation)
So this has been reported for years now. We aren’t running out of antibiotics. We are running out of options like you said. The real reason is that doctors would prescribe stronger antibiotics than were needed. Also, people would stop taking the full course because they felt better before then, and lastly, farms give antibiotics to their animals just in case, so any bacteria that would survive any of these is allowed to reproduce and become resistant to antibiotics.
deleted by creator
Bleeding with leeches are also back in the menu
deleted by creator
lychee > leech
This has been known and warned for probably decades now.
But still we continue to “preemptively” use it in vast quantities in the meat, milk and egg industry instead of using sustainable or even humane conditions for the animals in question.
Guess who gets to eat antibiotics evey day, increasing likelihood of multi resistant germs?
Meat eaters. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8565197/
Nothing will be done about it until its too late. As is tradition. Profits are more important than world wide disaster. Again.
Go vegan. It’s better for the planet too.
I know, i am vegan for those reasons and more :)
being vegan doesn’t help the planet at all.
It takes less land and water to feed someone wheat, soy or corn than to feed them beef, chicken or pork.
what crops that are fed to beef chicken and pork are parts of plants that people won’t eat for the most part. The same fields that grow the soybeans we use for oil are growing soybeans that are used as feed. The same soybeans that are used for oil are used for feed.
This is sometimes true. However, e.g., about 4% of the farmland in California is used for alfafa, which is just for livestock. Alfafa is also a very water intensive crop.
Additionally, there are other uses that livestock corn feed could be put to if there weren’t so many damn cows, so it’s not like we’d be throwing away megatons of silage if it weren’t for cattle.
I don’t think there is a better use than making food. I’m fine with that.
deleted by creator
but beef, chicken, and pork continue to be made in increasing amounts. things are getting worse despite the fact that vegans exist. being vegan doesn’t help the planet at all.
World population increase + westernization of diets in China outweigh the tiny number of vegans in the western world. Your math doesn’t check out.
make any excuse you like for why being vegan doesn’t help.
How does reducing land and water use through your food choice not help the planet?
it doesn’t actually reduce the use.
Please don’t tell me you’re gonna bring up the stupid soy fields in the rain forest argument :'D
being vegan doesn’t stop soy from being grown in rainforests
exactly, because almost 100% of that soy is for meat production
environmental destruction continues whether you are vegan or not.
yep due to the meat industry keeping going regardless of a fairly small demographic quitting their products
also what part of my comment prompted you to post that random response?
You are making the false assumption that your consumption is causative to the production of animal products which is, unfortunately and non-intuituvely, untrue. The only difference between vegan and non-vegan diets is whether animal products end up on your plate vs. in “cheese mountain” type stockpiles, exports, landfills, etc.
That being said, ‘commie’ is a terrible communicator if that’s what they’re trying to say. Going vegan does help to highlight some of the contradictions of capitalism and you’re on the right track as it should be advocated for. However, the ‘invisible hand of the free market’ does not translate veganism to any reduction in farmed animals, land or water use.
“If you don’t buy it a company will throw it away instead” is not a very good argument to buy something if you even believe it to be true at all.
That’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying the act of “not buying it” (even if it was a complete and total boycott) has no impact on the production due to the system of subsidies, futures, derivatives, etc. that is set up explicitly to make sure production continues. And therefore has no impact on land/water usage, suffering etc.
With the point being that it’s a good first step, but if your expectation is it will change anything without first changing the underlying system you will be very disappointed.
Are u saying if over night the entire customer base of meat as a whole stopped buying it would have zero effect? Certainly thats not whay youre saying right?
Surely the societal pressure to change the systems that support factory farming of animals will grow pretty much in proportion with the vegan/vegetarian population? I don’t like the defeatist attitude that our choises as consumers don’t matter, at all.
Your argument is called the nirvana fallacy;
“World peace would be ideal; this peace treaty fails to completely achieve world peace; therefore this peace treaty is not worth doing.”
And I do not accept that.
Multiple countries need to fix their inadequate regulations to stop aggravating antibiotics resistance, including:
I was also shocked to learn the US have over the counter antiobiotics that people pop for random illness and minor cuts/scrapes. Pretty much unthinkable here (EUN)
We absolutely do not have over-the-counter antibiotics, they need a prescription every time
Besides the topicals OTC that i outlined in here, US friends of mine “keep” their remaining prescription ABs for when they are sick again.
Like he got prescribed some for a COLD and then kept them to pop when he gets the next COLD :'D
Its nuts. Some OTC, others simply overprescribed.
Here you get a prescription if you have a severe infection, OR a substantial injury with high risk.
Wait, I’m assuming you’re from somewhere in Europe, you don’t have topical antibiotics available without prescription?!
I wouldn’t argue against antibiotics being overprescribed in America, they definitely are. The tendency is for medicine to be prescribed if a patient sees a doctor. Another crappy consequence of an expensive medical system, people won’t be satisfied if they spent hundreds of dollars only to be told to rest and drink lots of fluids.
This is definitely a thing that morons do over here 😂
We definitely don’t have that at all.
Yes, some topical AB are available according to a quick online search
There’s a huge difference between saying ‘antibiotics are available OTC’ and ‘topical antibiotics are available OTC’. One is misleading clickbait nonsense, the other is true.
Thats why i didnt write what you claim i did.
“they have over the counter antiobiotics”
As in antibiotics exist there that are OTC.
Is that so absurd?