Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Possible alternative to antibiotics:

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,128
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:08:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Nanoparticles made of lipids

"Since the bacteria are not targeted directly, the liposomes do not promote the development of bacterial resistance," adds Annette Draeger. Mice which were treated with the liposomes after experimental, fatal septicemia survived without additional antibiotic therapy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Patients demanding/expecting antibiotics for all infections (even viral), doctors acquiescing to requests for unneeded antibiotics (prevention of secondary infections), and users not finishing antibiotic treatments (because they feel better) are ways in which we increase the resistance to our best method of treating bacterial infections. This appears to be a much better solution.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 6:01:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 11:08:01 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Nanoparticles made of lipids

"Since the bacteria are not targeted directly, the liposomes do not promote the development of bacterial resistance," adds Annette Draeger. Mice which were treated with the liposomes after experimental, fatal septicemia survived without additional antibiotic therapy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Patients demanding/expecting antibiotics for all infections (even viral), doctors acquiescing to requests for unneeded antibiotics (prevention of secondary infections), and users not finishing antibiotic treatments (because they feel better) are ways in which we increase the resistance to our best method of treating bacterial infections. This appears to be a much better solution.

I also think more education is needed on the issue, so patients don't ignorantly demand antibiotics when antibiotics won't help in the first place. Conversely, doctors should know not to give antibiotics unless necessary.

Back to these "liposomes," I'd be interested in finding out how they managed to make it so that bacterial toxins in general are attracted to their similar cell membranes, whilst beneficial or harmless bacteria are not attracted. At least, I gathered from the article that it doesn't merely act as an "empty" cell but also somehow attracts the bacteria in question.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 8:50:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 6:01:11 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:08:01 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Nanoparticles made of lipids

"Since the bacteria are not targeted directly, the liposomes do not promote the development of bacterial resistance," adds Annette Draeger. Mice which were treated with the liposomes after experimental, fatal septicemia survived without additional antibiotic therapy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Patients demanding/expecting antibiotics for all infections (even viral), doctors acquiescing to requests for unneeded antibiotics (prevention of secondary infections), and users not finishing antibiotic treatments (because they feel better) are ways in which we increase the resistance to our best method of treating bacterial infections. This appears to be a much better solution.

I also think more education is needed on the issue, so patients don't ignorantly demand antibiotics when antibiotics won't help in the first place. Conversely, doctors should know not to give antibiotics unless necessary.

When antibiotics are prescribed during a viral infection it"s usually precautionary, they are trying to keep a bacterial infection from occurring while our resistance is down due to the viral illness.

Back to these "liposomes," I'd be interested in finding out how they managed to make it so that bacterial toxins in general are attracted to their similar cell membranes, whilst beneficial or harmless bacteria are not attracted. At least, I gathered from the article that it doesn't merely act as an "empty" cell but also somehow attracts the bacteria in question.

That's the beauty of it, the bacteria itself isn't affected, it's only eliminating the bacterial toxin, so it has no effect on either the good or bad bacteria. The toxin is the defense mechanism released by the invading bacteria, it cripples the immune system so the invading bacteria can thrive, when you remove the toxin the bacteria is left defenseless against the host's natural defensive mechanisms. That's why it doesn"t create resistant bacteria; the drug isn't touching the bacteria, it's just clearing the way for the host immune system to do its job naturally.

Regarding "how they managed to make it so that bacterial toxins in general are attracted", the toxins chemically bind to specific unstable regions within the cell membrane that have a distinct structure and function, called biodomains. What they did was engineer lipid microdomains that are more stable but have similar structural features that the toxins chemically bind to even better. It was a brilliant move, they've been engineering designer liposomes to deliver very specific drugs to very specific regions within the cell for a long time. They knew how to engineer very specific "designer" liposomes that bind to the specific drug and to the targeted biodomains for precisely targeted delivery and they were getting really good at it.

I figure one day the biggest knucklehead in the lab took a step back and asked "What if we just reverse engineered it so it binds to the toxin instead, wouldn"t that allow the immune system to eliminate the bacteria?"...and everybody went, "Holy crap Knucklehead, you're right".
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:01:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 8:50:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

When antibiotics are prescribed during a viral infection it"s usually precautionary, they are trying to keep a bacterial infection from occurring while our resistance is down due to the viral illness.

That's true, but don't the possible detriments of allowing resistant bacteria to form outweigh the benefits of such precautions?


That's the beauty of it, the bacteria itself isn't affected, it's only eliminating the bacterial toxin, so it has no effect on either the good or bad bacteria.

Ah I misread that for some reason, thank you for clearing it up.


Regarding "how they managed to make it so that bacterial toxins in general are attracted", the toxins chemically bind to specific unstable regions within the cell membrane that have a distinct structure and function, called biodomains. What they did was engineer lipid microdomains that are more stable but have similar structural features that the toxins chemically bind to even better. It was a brilliant move, they've been engineering designer liposomes to deliver very specific drugs to very specific regions within the cell for a long time. They knew how to engineer very specific "designer" liposomes that bind to the specific drug and to the targeted biodomains for precisely targeted delivery and they were getting really good at it.

That's interesting, but what does it mean when it says that these liposomes neutralize the toxins? Does the article mean that these liposomes simply carry the toxin within it, or are there enzymes of some kind within the liposome that will break down the toxins? I would assume the latter, but I'm not entirely sure.

I figure one day the biggest knucklehead in the lab took a step back and asked "What if we just reverse engineered it so it binds to the toxin instead, wouldn"t that allow the immune system to eliminate the bacteria?"...and everybody went, "Holy crap Knucklehead, you're right".

Hah, now we just need more and more crazy ideas from some knuckleheads :)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 9:28:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:01:43 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/8/2014 8:50:59 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

When antibiotics are prescribed during a viral infection it"s usually precautionary, they are trying to keep a bacterial infection from occurring while our resistance is down due to the viral illness.

That's true, but don't the possible detriments of allowing resistant bacteria to form outweigh the benefits of such precautions?

Yeah, I think so, but antibiotics have been the wonder drug for 90 years, they are just part of the system now and there are roughly a million doctors in thee US alone. When you're real sick you almost feel cheated if the doctor doesn't give you a pill to make you feel better, the system isn't going to change over night.

That's the beauty of it, the bacteria itself isn't affected, it's only eliminating the bacterial toxin, so it has no effect on either the good or bad bacteria.

Ah I misread that for some reason, thank you for clearing it up.

Regarding "how they managed to make it so that bacterial toxins in general are attracted", the toxins chemically bind to specific unstable regions within the cell membrane that have a distinct structure and function, called biodomains. What they did was engineer lipid microdomains that are more stable but have similar structural features that the toxins chemically bind to even better. It was a brilliant move, they've been engineering designer liposomes to deliver very specific drugs to very specific regions within the cell for a long time. They knew how to engineer very specific "designer" liposomes that bind to the specific drug and to the targeted biodomains for precisely targeted delivery and they were getting really good at it.

That's interesting, but what does it mean when it says that these liposomes neutralize the toxins? Does the article mean that these liposomes simply carry the toxin within it, or are there enzymes of some kind within the liposome that will break down the toxins? I would assume the latter, but I'm not entirely sure.

Good question, I'm not sure either, I read that once the toxins are attached they can be eliminated without danger to the host cell, not sure what "eliminated" means.

I figure one day the biggest knucklehead in the lab took a step back and asked "What if we just reverse engineered it so it binds to the toxin instead, wouldn"t that allow the immune system to eliminate the bacteria?"...and everybody went, "Holy crap Knucklehead, you're right".

Hah, now we just need more and more crazy ideas from some knuckleheads :)

My son is a biochemist in charge of one of those labs, cancer research, he told me the most important guy in every lab is the knucklehead because most of the real breakthroughs start with a knucklehead asking a stupid question LOL...I'm pretty sure that's why he goes to the trouble of trying to explain his work to me, because I'm a knucklehead.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 10:12:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 9:28:41 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

Yeah, I think so, but antibiotics have been the wonder drug for 90 years, they are just part of the system now and there are roughly a million doctors in thee US alone. When you're real sick you almost feel cheated if the doctor doesn't give you a pill to make you feel better, the system isn't going to change over night.

Oh, of course. I was just hoping for a change in the system. Not necessarily an immediate one, as that would be rather difficult to implement, but a change nonetheless. I was hoping this change could be brought through greater education to patients about antibiotics and when to use them, as well as more education to students aspiring to become responsible doctors. At least, that might be one possible way to do it. I'm sure it's not as easy as that, or else they would've already done it.

Good question, I'm not sure either, I read that once the toxins are attached they can be eliminated without danger to the host cell, not sure what "eliminated" means.

Hm, then it's probably enzymes of some sort. If they stayed in the host cell, they'd eventually have to leave the body by some means ... so they're probably eliminated by enzymes.

My son is a biochemist in charge of one of those labs, cancer research, he told me the most important guy in every lab is the knucklehead because most of the real breakthroughs start with a knucklehead asking a stupid question LOL...I'm pretty sure that's why he goes to the trouble of trying to explain his work to me, because I'm a knucklehead.

lol, who knows? Maybe you've already allowed him to make great progress in cancer research through your questions.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 8:47:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/8/2014 10:12:48 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 12/8/2014 9:28:41 PM, Sidewalker wrote:

Yeah, I think so, but antibiotics have been the wonder drug for 90 years, they are just part of the system now and there are roughly a million doctors in thee US alone. When you're real sick you almost feel cheated if the doctor doesn't give you a pill to make you feel better, the system isn't going to change over night.

Oh, of course. I was just hoping for a change in the system. Not necessarily an immediate one, as that would be rather difficult to implement, but a change nonetheless. I was hoping this change could be brought through greater education to patients about antibiotics and when to use them, as well as more education to students aspiring to become responsible doctors. At least, that might be one possible way to do it. I'm sure it's not as easy as that, or else they would've already done it.

The real problem is money of course, and most of our best efforts to date have only exacerbated the problem. The drug companies are abandoning antibiotic research in favor of drugs that treat chronic diseases because there's a lot more money in a drug you take forever than one that cures the problem in ten days, so we are getting worse at fighting resistant infections as they are exploding.

By far the biggest part of the problem isn't even coming from the medical system, the greatest risk to human health from bacterial resistance is happening on our livestock farms. Over 70% of all the antibiotics produced in the US are routinely fed to healthy livestock in their food and water to overcome unsanitary conditions and "promote growth", so we are raising antibiotic resistant bacteria along with our meat. Most people use an antimicrobial soap like dial, so we manufacture resistance in the shower, if you consider all the antibacterial products in the home, in soap, mouthwash, and cleaning products, the problem is vast. The most common antibacterial in household products like dial soap is Triclosan, it doesn"t break down in water waste treatment facilities so it becomes part of the sludge byproduct that is typically spread on fields as fertilizer, so we get it in our vegetables. Triclosan is not for ingestion but a CDC study found 75% of the population has Triclosan in their urine, another study found high levels of Triclosan in the breast milk of 60% of women tested.

Here's the real cruz of the problem, I think I"ve shown that I'm pretty well educated and completely aware of the problem, but I'll also admit that I still want my doctor to give me an antibiotic when I'm really sick and if he doesn't. I'll go find a doctor that will. I'm around one seven billionth of about ten percent of the whole problem, and I'm just not willing to be sicker longer and possibly increase my risk of death to do my share to fight the problem. Outside of medicine I'm even worse; I don"t even know how to read the label on meat to determine if it was raised without antibiotics. I'm pretty sure the meat raised responsibly is over there in that organic section and I don't even look at that because it costs three times as much. In my bathroom there is antibacterial soap, mouthwash, first aid cream, Lysol spray, and I'm sure several other products that contribute to the problem, and there's probably just as many contributors in the cleaning products under our kitchen sink.

The system is broken by what breaks most systems, money. A doctor or farmer that acts responsibly will most likely just price himself out of the market and go out of business and that won't help, a consumer that acts responsibly has to trade a lower standard of living and poorer health for a symbolic gesture that isn't really going to have any effect on the problem. I hate to be so cynical but the educated fact of the matter is that we are screwed by evolution, the microbes are adapting for the win.

Of course, this doesn't mean you aren't right that better education and more awareness is needed, in the end the solution will come from that, but it's certainly not going to come from human beings acting responsibly; because that never happens. It will most likely come from where we least expect it, someplace weird like Bern Switzerland.

Good question, I'm not sure either, I read that once the toxins are attached they can be eliminated without danger to the host cell, not sure what "eliminated" means.

Hm, then it's probably enzymes of some sort. If they stayed in the host cell, they'd eventually have to leave the body by some means ... so they're probably eliminated by enzymes.

Probably so, next time I talk to my son I'll make that one of my stupid questions and report back.

My son is a biochemist in charge of one of those labs, cancer research, he told me the most important guy in every lab is the knucklehead because most of the real breakthroughs start with a knucklehead asking a stupid question LOL...I'm pretty sure that's why he goes to the trouble of trying to explain his work to me, because I'm a knucklehead.

lol, who knows? Maybe you've already allowed him to make great progress in cancer research through your questions.

Maybe, I really do try to get him to think outside the box, but he says my ideas are more like outside the planet lol. I do the "completely off the wall" thing on purpose, for grins, we tend to banter a lot because my science is physics, and he's almost as clueless about mine as I am about his, so it's balanced bantering and it's all in good fun.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
v3nesl
Posts: 4,499
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2014 9:46:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's probably a mistake to think that "bacterial resistance" will ever be eliminated. There's a bit of anthropomorphizing that goes on here, where people talk as if the bacteria are finding a way around antibiotics. But it's really just a matter of a moving target, and the targets are going to keep moving regardless of what you shoot at them with.
This space for rent.