Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: New class of antibiotics discovered?

  1. #1
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,216

    Default New class of antibiotics discovered?

    After weeks of negative reports in the media, it is good to get a positive one and just in time potentially. Scientists have discovered a new class of antibiotics, the first since the 1980s, just months after a colistin-resistant infection was discovered which worst-case scenerio had been potentially heralding the end of the road for antibiotic treatments.

    If this pans out, and its still early days so far, then this could be one of the most crucial breakthroughs in a long time.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-36910766
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  2. #2
    Administrator Dreadnaught's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    9,252
    This is good to read, but honestly I think our society needs much much more of these kinds of breakthroughs.

  3. #3
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,359
    Perhaps we wouldn't need a "new" class of antibiotics.....if we weren't so busy spewing raw sewage into waterways (see Rio), or feeding our animal meat sources antibiotics like candy, or setting up people to think that every sore throat or ear infection needs an antibiotic.....that ended up in antibiotic resistance?

    Don't get me wrong, I applaud scientific discoveries. I just think it's a shame that we've created a new set of expectations, because we've over-used and mis-used Penicillin.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,456
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    This is good to read, but honestly I think our society needs much much more of these kinds of breakthroughs.
    Well I certainly wouldn't mind them but why particularly does our society need it 'much much more?' What makes now different than say 10 years ago?

  5. #5
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,216
    Antibiotic resistance is on the rise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  6. #6
    Senior Member BalticSailor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Latvia
    Posts
    308
    @Lewk: What Rand said. The most significant targets for medicinal agents for the last few decades include cancer (I'd call that one a great success, from the viewpoint of available treatment options; sufficiently early diagnosis is where we still kinda suck at, as there's a point beyond which the chemo just doesn't stand a chance), neurogenerative diseases (I'd call that field a great failure; it has cost "Big Pharma" huge sums of money, thousands of man-hours spent in vain, several companies have officially declared that they're throwing in the towel, and we're still not significantly closer to anything helpful) and diabetes and obesity (apparently, cost-effective enough to be considered a success). Compared to those, relatively little has been done in the field of antibiotics, though that has changed lately, as it becomes more and more evident that we're fucked, as far as our ability to reliably kill those microscopic beasts is concerned. Antibiotics have helped hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, but they have been equally helpful to natural selection.

    As far as the drug mentioned in the article is concerned, I don't know if it deserves to be considered as defining a new class. It's pretty damn close to being a cyclic peptide (if it weren't for the single thiazolidine fragment, which does structurally disqualify the molecule from being called a peptide) class, bunch of which are already used. Good news, though, of course. We do live in the age where stories of pre-penicillin times seem extremely remote from our everyday life - and we do not want to go back there. However, without new antibiotics, we might.
    It would be nice if we could get to a place where our community didnít need a constant stream of fresh corpses to remind it how to behave.

    "Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they may have a dialogue, it's not a constructive one. Science helps religion only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science." - J.A.Coyne

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    6,456
    Quote Originally Posted by BalticSailor View Post
    @Lewk: What Rand said. The most significant targets for medicinal agents for the last few decades include cancer (I'd call that one a great success, from the viewpoint of available treatment options; sufficiently early diagnosis is where we still kinda suck at, as there's a point beyond which the chemo just doesn't stand a chance), neurogenerative diseases (I'd call that field a great failure; it has cost "Big Pharma" huge sums of money, thousands of man-hours spent in vain, several companies have officially declared that they're throwing in the towel, and we're still not significantly closer to anything helpful) and diabetes and obesity (apparently, cost-effective enough to be considered a success). Compared to those, relatively little has been done in the field of antibiotics, though that has changed lately, as it becomes more and more evident that we're fucked, as far as our ability to reliably kill those microscopic beasts is concerned. Antibiotics have helped hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, but they have been equally helpful to natural selection.

    As far as the drug mentioned in the article is concerned, I don't know if it deserves to be considered as defining a new class. It's pretty damn close to being a cyclic peptide (if it weren't for the single thiazolidine fragment, which does structurally disqualify the molecule from being called a peptide) class, bunch of which are already used. Good news, though, of course. We do live in the age where stories of pre-penicillin times seem extremely remote from our everyday life - and we do not want to go back there. However, without new antibiotics, we might.
    Good information.

  8. #8
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,359
    This "new class of discovery" wouldn't have happened without government funding for medical research at the university level.

  9. #9
    Volleyball is a cult ImAnOgre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    454
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    This "new class of discovery" wouldn't have happened without government funding for medical research at the university level.
    Seriously, is this a joke? It made me laugh so I assume it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    It's not okay to shoot an innocent bank clerk but shooting a felon to death is commendable and do you should receive a reward rather than a punishment

  10. #10
    Resiste et Mords! Steely Glint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,361
    Why? It's kinda captain obvious material, but I don't think that makes it humorous
    I can hear your yearnings, your anguished cries. Let the nourishment pass your by.
    As it leaves you without a trace, it leaves your without the scars.
    Bitter is the end, the end of your cries. Let your nourishment pass you by.
    It'll leave you without your faith. It'll leave you without your grace.
    It's a day of the ruins, the time of your relief. It's the day of the judgements. It's the day of your beliefs.

  11. #11
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,359
    In other news....a new class of disease-resistant plant (crop) material has been discovered. The Koch Brothers are running commercials where their "agronomists" are espousing good things for everyone, since it will boost global food production. More corn? But that doesn't address the existing 30-40% consumer food waste.....which would be a better target, go figure.

  12. #12
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,216
    Production would be a better target.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  13. #13
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,757
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Production would be a better target.
    Not sure I agree, considering usually more production includes more pollution and resource usage, and decreased waste would also reduce pollution/garbage/logistics.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  14. #14
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,359
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Production would be a better target.
    Koch Industries thinks so, too. But I disagree -- we wouldn't need to increase production by 30% if we could reduce waste by 40%.

  15. #15
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,216
    How much can producers and research reduce consumer waste by?

    Consumer waste is a better target for consumers. Production is a better target for producers. We all have our bit to do. Like GGT blaming Niantic for people walking into the road while playing a game, consumers have to take responsibility for their actions and producers responsibility for theirs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #16
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,216
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Koch Industries thinks so, too. But I disagree -- we wouldn't need to increase production by 30% if we could reduce waste by 40%.
    How do you assume the Koch brothers should get consumers to eliminate their waste?

    Eliminating all waste isn't even effective for most consumers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  17. #17
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,359
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    How do you assume the Koch brothers should get consumers to eliminate their waste?

    Eliminating all waste isn't even effective for most consumers.
    That's not what I said. I'm only suggesting that agriculture wouldn't have to try increase production, for a growing population, if the current population wasn't so wasteful.

  18. #18
    Senior Member RandBlade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    14,216
    Which is moot. The Koch brothers are responsible for their actions, they are not responsible for consumers actions. You asked which is a better target, they can effectively increase production, they can not effectively transform the actions of the entire populace.

    How do you propose they effectively target ensuring the population isn't wasteful? We have to live in the world we live in, not the world you wish it was.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •