http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-28098838 "Antibiotics are beginning not to work, Mr Cameron" "Don't worry, Professor Draper, the economists will soon sort this mess out!" "That's great Mr Cameron, unfortunately us biochemists are still struggling to figure out how to bring back prosperity to the north." :dismay:
There's no point bringing prosperity back to the north. They will waste it all on Woodbines, flat caps and whippet food.
Are you a farmer Hornmeister? Mr Cameron still hasn't received his detailed review from them to see whether it would be worthwhile to do so!
I dunno, I can see the logic. The big pharmaceuticals just aren't putting the money into R&R for antibiotics because the big bucks are elsewhere. The medical need is clear so it needs someone to formulate a government policy which gets it through to the companies that they won't make any profits if everyone is dead.
This is all fine and well for the government to latch onto now, but the scientific community has been screaming about this issue for 15+ years.
Well yeah but we all know politicians run at a different speed to everyone else when an issue isn't particularly sexy or vote-worthy. And just like global warming it's not something 'lil old Britain can solve on its own so proposing to take it to the G7 is a good start. The scientific community may have been screaming about it for years but the medical and veterinary communities have just carried on caving in to hypochondriacs and moany patients and been handing out antibiotics for things they won't even touch.
The first part of your comment speaks volumes. The 20 year exclusive patent rights usually give drug companies a licence to print money from anything they develop for around 7-8 years (a very rough estimate of 12-13 years from bench to pill). The main reason there aren't (m)any new antibiotics is that it is really hard to design effective new ones.
Again, yet another pathetic, cheap political point is being made here over a very serious issue. It is a two stage problem. An economic issue and an mis-use/overuse issue.
Pharma gets a bashing but they are business after all is said and done, and at the end if the day they've done way more good than bad. GPs give out way too many antibiotics for colds and flu ( both of which won't be treated by antibiotics ) but why is this, because of pressure to do something; so they don't get complaints; because so many people expect them to prescribe; because they are overworked and scared that if they don't and they get something wrong they'll end up in one of those articles in the paper about them " missing" a diagnosis and ignoring patients. My answer Stop GP bashing. Understand that sometimes, no, the majority of the time, they are just doing their best and not prescribing anti microbial medication for a viral infection is a good thing for you and everyone. They'll get things wrong, they won't always be able to get you treatment and diagnosis right immediately - this isn't because they are crap it's because it's very very difficult to do. Use multiple antibiotics - when they are actually indicated - that way it's much more difficult for resistance to build up
The only cheap political point is that the conservatives have decided to latch onto something for political gain, which they had laughed off as uneconomic when John Major was still in charge. If labour comment on this I will be even more ****ed off.
wowowowo rewind. i was listening to this debate today on the radio and the veterinary community as a whole comes in for a whole lot of undeserved stick here. compared to medics we are far more strict with what antibiotics we are able to use on patients. sure we use a lot of certain types of antibiotics but we are doing our best to preserve the best antibiotics such as flouroquinolones and 4th generation cephalosporins for human use. for me to give a patient antibiotics it has to be systemically ill, and the majority of my colleagues also abide by these rules. to generalise and say therefore that we are caving in to client demand is very unfair. sure there will be vets who give ABs to everything to 'cover the bases,' but they are very much in the minority nowadays. it is often vets of the old school variety who are responsible. as a student i was taught about being careful what ABs you should use and when. also by the way resistance does not develop because of overuse. resistance develops because you either are under dosing or using the wrong antibiotic, so long as practitioners do their jobs properly then resistance should not really be an issue.
I'm waiting for a statement from stuck record Milly Band about how "its not in the national interest to return to the dark ages"
:doh: Of course it is. It is not our best working example of evolution at all. It's mis-use all those pesky doctors prescribing antibiotics for...what exactly? Malnutrition, paralysis, depression? And "...over use..." because there are 1000's of things other than antibiotics that can be used to treat bacterial infections - a small number of which aren't all that toxic and an even smaller number of which show some actually show some antibiotic activity: Here's infection treatment pre-1950's "Oh Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms (delete as applicable) you appear to have an infection. Let's hope it doesn't kill you."
I think your use of the :doh: symbol is down to the fact that you don't actually read the posts properly! :doh:
