Author Topic: Is the new superbug a result of the Iraq War? (Read 4675 times)

GigaBuist · « **on:** October 23, 2007, 12:41:25 PM »

The local news just aired a story about the new staph super bug being found in local (West Michigan) schools. My girlfriend and I were watching and she mentioned that she and her sister were talking about it this morning.

Her sister, and her husband, are both West Point grads that served in the Iraq War. The sister seems to think that this might be a result of the military's health care over there. When you're admitted for care they load you up with antibiotics, apparently more-so than we would here in the states. If that doesn't clear up an infection they ship you back to the US pronto.

Has anybody else heard of this being a possible explanation? It seems plausible to me. I'm not saying it's correct, but it might warrant some investigation.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #1 on:** October 23, 2007, 12:42:45 PM »

If not, it is Bush's fault in some other way. cheesy

nico · « **Reply #2 on:** October 23, 2007, 01:37:13 PM »

Quote from: GigaBuist on October 23, 2007, 11:41:25 AM

Has anybody else heard of this being a possible explanation? It seems plausible to me. I'm not saying it's correct, but it might warrant some investigation.

I don't mean to be a jerk, but I really doubt it's a major contributor to antibiotic resistance. If anything, it's just another example of antibiotics being misused. Antibiotics have been over-used and inappropriately prescribed (ie: given to someone with a cold) since they were discovered. It's just that it was within the last 20-30 years that scientists began to understand resistance and realize it was a problem (which was long before the first gulf war).

FWIW, MRSA isn't a new strain. It was discovered almost 50 years ago. It just happens to be the trendy "news" story of the moment.

MillCreek · « **Reply #3 on:** October 23, 2007, 03:49:03 PM »

I work in healthcare and Nico is correct. MRSA has been around for quite a few years now. It is getting more media attention now because of an increased number of outbreaks and a diminishing number of antibiotics that will eradicate the organism. Over the years, the organism has become resistant to more and more antibiotics. Doctors and hospitals live in fear of the strain that will not respond to any known antibiotic. That day is probably coming, the only question is how long it will take to get here.

It is interesting to think of how various infectious diseases have had their moment in the sun of media attention in the past couple of decades, and were going to kill us all: swine flu, SARS, bird flu and now MRSA.

grampster · « **Reply #4 on:** October 23, 2007, 03:50:38 PM »

Giga,

Are you an electrician?

Sylvilagus Aquaticus · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2007, 04:08:36 PM »

I think it's becoming more 'recognised' as of late. MRSA is likely an evolution of 'normal' staphylococcus bacteria which has gained a resistance to front line antibiotics due to rampant overprescription for decades. Got a cold? Get pennicilin or V-cillin. No matter that antibiotics don't work against the common cold, take it 'in case it gets worse'. Consumers are every bit as guilty as physicians in this fight.

I had a systemic non-MRSA infection 2 years ago. It laid me up in the hospital for a week and a half, the first 5 days of which I was on IV antibiotics; specifically clindamycin and gentamycin. It wasn't having a lot of effect on my bug; blood cultures and a sample of the infected tissue showed it to be a Staph species, and they changed it to vancomycin, which began producing results. On discharge, I had to take 3 weeks' worth of Augmentin. I was back to feeling normal a month later.

Prophylactic treatment of bacterial infections, real or imagined, has changed our ability to fight off infectious disease.

Regards,
Rabbit.

K Frame · « **Reply #6 on:** October 23, 2007, 04:24:02 PM »

Sir Almroth Wright, a British bacteriologist, predicted that bacteria could mutate to resist medical treatments prior to the discovery of antibiotics.

Sir Alexander Fleming, discoverer of penicillin, was one of the first in the medical profession to both research and broadly publicize the dangers of antibiotic resistance bugs.

Unfortunately, not enough people listened to him.

Antibiotics are, more than anything else, responsible for the incredible leap in the average lifespan in the 20th century. Some are now quietly predicting that the average lifespan is going to start falling as highly drug resistant bacterial infections become more common.

CAnnoneer · « **Reply #7 on:** October 23, 2007, 04:37:27 PM »

One of the reasons why you should not listerinate every day.

K Frame · « **Reply #8 on:** October 23, 2007, 06:03:43 PM »

Listerine is an antiseptic, it's not an antibiotic.

I'm not 100% sure, as I fluked bacteriology

, but I'm pretty sure that the mechanisms are very different.

Antiseptics are exclusively topical. Alcohol and thymol are both potent antiseptics, and both are present in Listerine.

I can't find a single reference to thymol-resistant bacteria, but I have found a LOT of information on how thymol preparations are being used as a first-line of defense against, and treatment of, antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #9 on:** October 23, 2007, 06:15:03 PM »

"...as I fluked bacteriology..."

But you didn't flunk spelling? Wink

K Frame · « **Reply #10 on:** October 23, 2007, 06:17:45 PM »

I'm actually a pretty poor speller.

Compliments of being mildly dyslexic.

CNYCacher · « **Reply #11 on:** October 23, 2007, 06:52:38 PM »

Don't you mean lysdexic?

K Frame · « **Reply #12 on:** October 23, 2007, 07:19:43 PM »

Don't push me or I'll sic my god on you...

Thor · « **Reply #13 on:** October 23, 2007, 07:21:09 PM »

During Gulf War 1, I contracted a staph infection that had me hospitalized on the USS New Orleans for 10 days. I was on some heavy duty IV antibiotics. Even afterwards, I think I was on oral antibiotics for a couple of weeks. The Doctors never specified what type of staph infection it was and it was never entered into my medical record. (Go figure)

K Frame · « **Reply #14 on:** October 23, 2007, 07:25:10 PM »

Am I the only one who thinks that it's kind of weird that the Navy sank the New Orleans as a target ship not long after Mother Nature sank the city of New Orleans?

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #15 on:** October 23, 2007, 07:30:02 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on October 23, 2007, 06:19:43 PM

Don't push me or I'll sic my god on you...

[sic]

Thor · « **Reply #16 on:** October 23, 2007, 07:38:26 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on October 23, 2007, 06:25:10 PM

Am I the only one who thinks that it's kind of weird that the Navy sank the New Orleans as a target ship not long after Mother Nature sank the city of New Orleans?

Yeah. The New Orleans was the absolute worst ship I was ever on. She needed sinking. The CO was more worried about how clean the passageways were instead of doing daily GQ drills. I had my doubts about that ship when we had to transfer off of the Tripoli in Al Jubayl because the tripoli had hit a mine. During our offload/onload sequence, there was a scud alert in Al Jubayl. Everyone of the Tripoli went right to GQ, while folks on the New Orleans ran around in a confused panic. I sauntered over and at least closed the hangar deck doors since none of the ship's crew seemed to be able to figure out that it needed doing. What a clusterF$ck

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #17 on:** October 23, 2007, 07:52:43 PM »

Wow, Thor, the similarities are eerie. sad

Thor · « **Reply #18 on:** October 23, 2007, 07:55:05 PM »

Similarities??

K Frame · « **Reply #19 on:** October 23, 2007, 07:57:02 PM »

You know, I never knew that the Tripoli had hit a mine.

As for similarities I think he means how the people of the City of New Orleans and the USS New Orleans responded to the crisies...

In other words... not well.

CAnnoneer · « **Reply #20 on:** October 23, 2007, 08:22:12 PM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin on October 23, 2007, 05:03:43 PM

Listerine is an antiseptic, it's not an antibiotic.

I'm not 100% sure, as I fluked bacteriology

, but I'm pretty sure that the mechanisms are very different.

Antiseptics are exclusively topical. Alcohol and thymol are both potent antiseptics, and both are present in Listerine.

I can't find a single reference to thymol-resistant bacteria, but I have found a LOT of information on how thymol preparations are being used as a first-line of defense against, and treatment of, antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.

Both my dentists were very specific about it.

The selection principle is the same even if the exact mechanics is different. There is no reason I know of why there would not exist a thymol-resistant bacterium. By applying one cleaner always and often, you select for superbugs, whose population is not suppressed by the chemical nor by rival bacteria, since the rivals are all wiped out. So, in principle, the best status is an equilibrium of low diverse population, to keep the immune system chugging along while no significant evolutionary pressure is applied that would produce superbugs.

Perd Hapley · « **Reply #21 on:** October 24, 2007, 01:49:08 AM »

And that's a scientist saying that, folks. Betta reconize. police

Leatherneck · « **Reply #22 on:** October 24, 2007, 01:50:57 AM »

Dual threads are fun.

Quote

You know, I never knew that the Tripoli had hit a mine.

Mike, that was the reason the diversionary amphibious assault was called off: fear of mines in the AOA. Minesweeping continues to enjoy a very low priority in the Navy budget.

TC

K Frame · « **Reply #23 on:** October 24, 2007, 03:46:17 AM »

Cannoneer,

Next time you talk to your dentists, ask them for some source information. I literally can't locate a single reference dealing with thymol-resistant bacteria and I'd really like to read what they're reading.

As for the mechanism of resistance, once again I'm out of my league, but it's my layman's understanding that the mechanisms of action are completely different. There aren't that many antibiotics that actively poison bacteria --it's normally a case of interrupting some function of the bacteria's reproductive or metabolic process.

Thymol, alcohol, and other antibacterials, on the other hand, actively physically attack the bacteria, such as oxidizing it, rupture the cell wall, or introducing compounds that the bacteria otherwise finds toxic.

As I understand it, while bacteria can certainly become immune to an antibacterial, it's more difficult, and more uncommon, for that to happen.

I know that antibacterial soap has been under attack because it allegedly doesn't do much in the way of killing bacteria, and some are claiming that it's doing nothing but promoting the rise of triclosan-resistant bacteria, but as of yet I don't think that's been 100% proven.

Ah, interesting...

Something from researcher Dr. Stuard Levy, which I snagged from Wikipedia...

"However, Dr. Levy's most recent research (Aeillo, et al. (2005) Antibacterial cleaning products and bacterial resistance; Emerging Infectious Diseases) concludes that "The results from our study do not implicate the use of antibacterial cleaning and hygiene products as an influential factor in carriage of antimicrobial drug-resistant bacteria on the hands of household members." The paper's authors call for continued research in this area."

That was talking about antibacterial soaps, though...

Iain · « **Reply #24 on:** October 24, 2007, 04:09:09 AM »

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/journal/issues/v40n11/35299/35299.web.pdf

I was reading that earlier Mike. There seem to be a few web links investigating bacteria resistance to antiseptic type agents, not in any position to judge the research. I'm curious about how bacteria could survive the effects of say an alcohol wipe.

News:

Author Topic: Is the new superbug a result of the Iraq War? (Read 4675 times)