news Canadian News
Good Afternoon Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

New superbug gene could spread widely

Canadian Content
20697news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

New superbug gene could spread widely


World | 206968 hits | Aug 11 10:43 am | Posted by: andyt
20 Comment

Comments

  1. by avatar andyt
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:06 pm
    Isn't globalization grand?

  2. by avatar bootlegga
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:20 pm
    Unless there's a 100% mortality rate (which doesn't appear so based on the article), it should be possible to come up with a defence against it.

  3. by avatar andyt
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:23 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    Unless there's a 100% mortality rate (which doesn't appear so based on the article), it should be possible to come up with a defence against it.


    Can you explain that in more detail?

  4. by DerbyX
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:23 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    Unless there's a 100% mortality rate (which doesn't appear so based on the article), it should be possible to come up with a defence against it.


    Not necessarily. Plenty of bugs that have built up defences against antibiotics that just a few decades ago wiped them out.

  5. by avatar bootlegga
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:37 pm
    "andyt" said
    Unless there's a 100% mortality rate (which doesn't appear so based on the article), it should be possible to come up with a defence against it.


    Can you explain that in more detail?

    If this superbug doesn't cause 100% mortality (AKA kill everyone it infects), then theoretically there should be someone who got infected and survived and now has immunity to it.

    I'm not an immunologist, but I assume that Pfizer or someone could do take the anti-bodies from survivors and develop some sort of new antibiotics by studying those anti-bodies.

    Then again, maybe not, I honestly don't know.

  6. by avatar andyt
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:40 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    Unless there's a 100% mortality rate (which doesn't appear so based on the article), it should be possible to come up with a defence against it.


    Can you explain that in more detail?

    If this superbug doesn't cause 100% mortality (AKA kill everyone it infects), then theoretically there should be someone who got infected and survived and now has immunity to it.

    I'm not an immunologist, but I assume that Pfizer or someone could do take the anti-bodies from survivors and develop some sort of new antibiotics by studying those anti-bodies.

    Then again, maybe not, I honestly don't know.

    So if 99% of us die, you're OK with that, nothing to worry about, because the human race will go on?

  7. by DerbyX
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:48 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    Unless there's a 100% mortality rate (which doesn't appear so based on the article), it should be possible to come up with a defence against it.


    Can you explain that in more detail?

    If this superbug doesn't cause 100% mortality (AKA kill everyone it infects), then theoretically there should be someone who got infected and survived and now has immunity to it.

    I'm not an immunologist, but I assume that Pfizer or someone could do take the anti-bodies from survivors and develop some sort of new antibiotics by studying those anti-bodies.

    Then again, maybe not, I honestly don't know.

    Believe me but its not that simple. For one the fact they survived may not have been due antibodies or any type of immune response. Second, with antibiotics you need to be able to get any treatment into the proper body location in an effective does. That is why infections in areas like the spinal cord are so dangerous. Its very difficult to get antibiotics across the blood-brain barrier.

    In addition it may be killing the bug that causes a greater patient mortality especially if it causes the bug to release toxins into the body, like C. difficile. In fact C. difficile brings up another point, namely that any treatment risks also affecting normal body bug flora which can lead to even more serious infections.

    Us and Bacteria are involved in the worlds oldest arms race.

  8. by avatar bootlegga
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:52 pm
    "andyt" said
    If this superbug doesn't cause 100% mortality (AKA kill everyone it infects), then theoretically there should be someone who got infected and survived and now has immunity to it.

    I'm not an immunologist, but I assume that Pfizer or someone could do take the anti-bodies from survivors and develop some sort of new antibiotics by studying those anti-bodies.

    Then again, maybe not, I honestly don't know.


    So if 99% of us die, you're OK with that, nothing to worry about, because the human race will go on?

    :roll:

    Sometimes talking to you is like talking to a wall...sigh.

    The point is that if people have survived this 'superbug', then they are immune and science should theoretically be able to figure out why they are now immune and develop a new batch of antibiotics to wipe this fella out too. That's how they develop the flu vaccine every year (and yes I know viruses and bacteria are different beasts), but I assume that immunologists could reverse engineer something (penicillin, amoxicillin, whatever) to be able wipe out this bastard too.

    Then again, maybe not, I don't honestly know.

  9. by avatar bootlegga
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:53 pm
    "DerbyX" said


    If this superbug doesn't cause 100% mortality (AKA kill everyone it infects), then theoretically there should be someone who got infected and survived and now has immunity to it.

    I'm not an immunologist, but I assume that Pfizer or someone could do take the anti-bodies from survivors and develop some sort of new antibiotics by studying those anti-bodies.

    Then again, maybe not, I honestly don't know.


    Believe me but its not that simple. For one the fact they survived may not have been due antibodies or any type of immune response. Second, with antibiotics you need to be able to get any treatment into the proper body location in an effective does. That is why infections in areas like the spinal cord are so dangerous. Its very difficult to get antibiotics across the blood-brain barrier.

    In addition it may be killing the bug that causes a greater patient mortality especially if it causes the bug to release toxins into the body, like C. difficile. In fact C. difficile brings up another point, namely that any treatment risks also affecting normal body bug flora which can lead to even more serious infections.

    Us and Bacteria are involved in the worlds oldest arms race.

    Like I said, I don't honestly know if it's possible, I just hope/assume that our science is up to the task.

  10. by avatar andyt
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:55 pm
    "bootlegga" said


    The point is that if people have survived this 'superbug', then they are immune and science should theoretically be able to figure out why they are now immune and develop a new batch of antibiotics to wipe this fella out too. That's how they develop the flu vaccine every year (and yes I know viruses and bacteria are different beasts), but I assume that immunologists could reverse engineer something (penicillin, amoxicillin, whatever) to be able wipe out this bastard too.

    Then again, maybe not, I don't honestly know.


    They don't seem to have done that with other superbugs, so I'm not sure why you're so hopeful in this case. In fact we seem to be running out of anti-biotics, I guess there are only so many variations possible.

  11. by DerbyX
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:57 pm
    "bootlegga" said


    The point is that if people have survived this 'superbug', then they are immune and science should theoretically be able to figure out why they are now immune and develop a new batch of antibiotics to wipe this fella out too. That's how they develop the flu vaccine every year (and yes I know viruses and bacteria are different beasts), but I assume that immunologists could reverse engineer something (penicillin, amoxicillin, whatever) to be able wipe out this bastard too.

    Then again, maybe not, I don't honestly know.


    Actually Boots, a vaccine isn't an antibiotic. Its an attenuated (non-virulent or inactivated) version of the target bug. It lets our immune system develop its own defences.

    Theoretically speaking it doesn't matter if the bug was 0% fatal or 100% fatal. It won't affect the ability to develop a treatment. The more pressing factor would be the ability to culture the bug.

  12. by avatar raydan
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:51 pm
    What!!! no bird/pig/cat/hippo flu this year? :?

  13. by avatar BartSimpson  Gold Member
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:20 pm
    It's the end of the world.

  14. by avatar Zipperfish  Gold Member
    Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:29 pm
    "andyt" said

    So if 99% of us die, you're OK with that, nothing to worry about, because the human race will go on?


    As long as it's the 99% of the human population that I don't know, I'm fine with it. :lol:



view comments in forum
Page 1 2

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net