salt

Can't we all agree that antibiotics "cause" the conditions that allow
naturally resistant bacteria to proliferate to a degree where mutation into
an even more resistant strain is more likely simply because the other
bacteria are no longer around to compete with the superbugs therby allowing
the superbugs to exchange genes more frequently leading to homozygocity of
the resistance genes and the possibility of faster evolution to a really
nasty bug through the natural mutation of these homozygous superbugs? So in
a sense, the natural selection process not only leads to natural superbugs
but "causes" the conditions for these natural superbugs to evolve into even
stronger strains. I think you are both saying basically the same thing but
the average person is not going to understand the nuance of your arguments
and the average person has a much easier time understanding that antibiotics
"cause" superbugs even though this is not factually accurate.



From:
Newsgroups: rec.ponds
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 23:02:06 GMT
Subject: salt

look... this is my field and I teach this ****. I am tired of people saying
that
antibiotics "cause" superbugs. they dont. the superbugs are THERE ALL THE
TIME.
to find resistant bugs all you have to do is do a water extraction of dirt and
plate
that out onto agar and drop antibiotic disks onto the plate. there are
bacteria
resistant to all the antibiotics. Most of the resistant bacteria are "free
range"
and dont normally infect humans.
every time a person gets infected the bacteria replicates and is mutating
NATURALLY
and no antibiotic or anti viral medication on earth is going to kill 100% of
all the
bugs unless the medicine is used in such high concentration that it kills the
host
too.
antibiotics and salt can only increase the population of superbugs by
selection, but
cannot "create" them. most of the time the superbugs are the result of
exchange of
DNA between different species of bacteria.

I am not aware of anyone with data on why SUB therapeutic levels of
antibiotics
results in weight gain. It is just a well known fact. sorta like aspirin and
quinine was used for thousands of years without knowing the mechanism of
action.

the use of antibiotics does not CAUSE antibiotic resistance, it can only
increase the
population of resistant bacteria in a person. So a person that doesnt take
the full
course of antibiotics may allow resistant bacteria to escape OR pass on
resistant
genes to other bacteria in the gut and from the gut shed into the environment.
However, resistance genes can pass to other bacteria whether or not people are
taking
the antibiotics properly. we now have strains of bacteria popping up that are
resistant to even the "last ditch" antibiotics and these antibiotics are NOT
passed
out like candy but use monitored extremely closely. No abuse but the
resistant
strains are there anyway.

antibiotics used in sub therapeutics doses are not the ones used for
therapeutic
doses anymore.
Ingrid

Derek Broughton wrote:
It's pure sophistry when you claim that salt doesn't create superbugs
because it isn't mutagenic. Another description is "straw-man" argument,
since I never suggested it _was_ mutagenic. Now if you want to argue that
the science behind the allegations that use of salt is creating
salt-resistant bugs is faulty, go right ahead. You could be right, but I
still haven't seen enough good science to convince me that I (or my fish)
will benefit from constant use of salt.


And just what scientific principle explains how they put on weight if it is
_not_ therapeutic? Anyway, sub-therapeutic treatment (regardless of
whether poverty is also a vital component and, remember, South African
President Mbeke nearly got crucified for saying the same of AIDS) is a
proven cause of antibiotic resistance.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

figaro wrote:

Can't we all agree that antibiotics "cause" the conditions that allow
naturally resistant bacteria to proliferate to a degree where mutation

Probably not. I understand Ingrid's points perfectly, but it's still just
trying to sidestep the issue. In fact, superbugs have *not* always been
present. They mutate. Use of antibiotics speeds up natural selection.
Whether you call that "cause" or want to pretend that we were going to have
to face these same bugs later rather than sooner is all that's being
discussed.

So, back to salt. There are now bugs resistant to salt that didn't use to
be. In the interest of not speeding up the process of natural selection to
result in more of them, I don't plan to use "sub-therapeutic" levels of
salt in my pond.
--
derek

misuse of antibiotics may cause an overgrowth or expansion of superbugs. the genes
for antibiotic resistance are already there. BTW, strep for some reason has been
very slow to get genes for ANY resistant to plain old penicillin. I think I heard
some have finally been found. but it may be that strep cannot get the genes from
other bacteria.
you see.... fungi make naturally occurring antibiotics and local bacteria have slowly
evolved anti-antibiotic genes over millions and millions of years. they been at this
evolving thing far, far longer than we have.
superbugs got more copies of the plasmids carrying the resistance genes.
average persons need to know the difference. but I will admit many physicians seem
to miss the point. most certainly journalists do.
the problem is the screw up with cause and effect, a very weak link in thinking that
makes me crazy, and is a major problem with critical thinking.
an example:
somebody asks people who had heart attacks were asked what they drink.
most drink coffee and lots of it.
ergo, coffee CAUSES heart attacks.
researcher with some idea of how to conduct research of this kind asks the families
of people who DIED from their heart attacks what their loved one drank.
most DID NOT drink coffee
ergo, there is no cause and effect relationship between coffee consumption and heart
attacks.
the same fuzzy thinking occurs with salt consumption and high blood pressure (no
correlation), high cholesterol and heart attacks (no correlation) but I bet everyone
on this list believes high salt consumption leads to high blood pressure or that
limiting salt consumption can lower blood pressure; that heart attacks are CAUSED by
high cholesterol too.
I am a teacher, therefore I teach.
Ingrid

figaro wrote:
Can't we all agree that antibiotics "cause" the conditions that allow
naturally resistant bacteria to proliferate to a degree where mutation into
an even more resistant strain is more likely simply because the other
bacteria are no longer around to compete with the superbugs therby allowing
the superbugs to exchange genes more frequently leading to homozygocity of
the resistance genes and the possibility of faster evolution to a really
nasty bug through the natural mutation of these homozygous superbugs? So in
a sense, the natural selection process not only leads to natural superbugs
but "causes" the conditions for these natural superbugs to evolve into even
stronger strains. I think you are both saying basically the same thing but
the average person is not going to understand the nuance of your arguments
and the average person has a much easier time understanding that antibiotics
"cause" superbugs even though this is not factually accurate.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

the genes for antibiotics have existed for millions and millions of years.
the genes for resistance to antibiotics have existed for millions and millions of
years.
the genes have mostly been isolated to only small areas where the organisms were
found.
these genes can be transferred to different strains and species of bacteria by
conjunction and resistance is almost always do to increase NUMBERS of copies of the
resistance genes.
many other things are also responsible for resistance:
most humans with poor immune systems died before they were 1 year old, died when
seriously injured, died when suffering malnutrition, died when they reached about 45
years or so. they werent around long enough to incubate resistant bacteria.
Most humans didnt travel more than a few miles from where they were born so they
werent spreading the resistant bacteria around
Most people used to die in hospitals from infections aquired in hospitals if not from
what brought them to the hospital and didnt spread them around.
antibiotic resistance is a multi-factor problem. The WORST OFFENDERS, incubators and
spreaders of superbugs are the people in hospitals. because they dont wash their
hands (with soap of course) before touching a patient and second because some of them
are CARRIERS which means no amount of washing is going to remove some kinds of nasty
bacteria like staph. AND.. hospitals are where the very, very sick people are, where
incubation of various types of bacteria giving them the chance to exchange genes is
going on. and the people work in the hospital pick these superbugs up and carry them
all over.
nobody gets vancamycin OTC and STILL there are bacteria resistant to this antibiotic.
they didnt mutate to get this resistance, the genes were already out there.
different antibiotics have different mechanisms of action. no bacteria starts from
"scratch" and makes a resistance gene by mutation. there are always mutations of
existing genes going on, and sooner or later there are going to be bacteria make a
gene that is mutated and resistant to every new antibiotic... unless we come up with
some NEW mechanisms of action or classes of antibiotics.
for this reason they are studying those "anti-microbial" proteins made by fish and
secreted into their slime coat.
you want to stop the spread of superbugs??? get the hospitals to start checking the
hands of their people and institute a required washing of hands before touching a
patient. my mother got a nosocomial infection and she was in a hospital where there
was carpeting on the floors for god sake. at least in wisconsin the hospital aquired
infection rate is SECRET. by law they dont have to report to ANYBODY when a person
gets an infection they didnt come in with.
the second suspected incubator is sewage systems, where raw sewage is dumped into
water where people or animals have contact.

back to salt. yes. my fish probably have salt resistant bugs on them since many of
them they came from Prices koi farm and therefore I wouldnt think of using salt as a
"treatment". I would say even one fish with salt resistant bugs will pass them to
all fish in the pond so basically nobody should be using salt for treatment.
since it is useless for treatment it is much better for it to be used as a
prophylactic since it is excellent in this capacity. Ingrid

Derek Broughton wrote:
Probably not. I understand Ingrid's points perfectly, but it's still just
trying to sidestep the issue. In fact, superbugs have *not* always been
present. They mutate. Use of antibiotics speeds up natural selection.
Whether you call that "cause" or want to pretend that we were going to have
to face these same bugs later rather than sooner is all that's being
discussed.

So, back to salt. There are now bugs resistant to salt that didn't use to
be. In the interest of not speeding up the process of natural selection to
result in more of them, I don't plan to use "sub-therapeutic" levels of
salt in my pond.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:42:27 GMT, wrote:

an example:
somebody asks people who had heart attacks were asked what they drink.
most drink coffee and lots of it.
ergo, coffee CAUSES heart attacks.
researcher with some idea of how to conduct research of this kind asks the families
of people who DIED from their heart attacks what their loved one drank.
most DID NOT drink coffee
ergo, there is no cause and effect relationship between coffee consumption and heart
attacks.
the same fuzzy thinking occurs with salt consumption and high blood pressure (no
correlation), high cholesterol and heart attacks (no correlation) but I bet everyone
on this list believes high salt consumption leads to high blood pressure or that
limiting salt consumption can lower blood pressure; that heart attacks are CAUSED by
high cholesterol too.

"Everyone on this list?" What an un-teacherly thing to say. Many,
most, a lot, whatever. As Red Green says, "I'm not a lot of people."
So how's your homocysteine level?
I'm with you on your general assesment of public health ideology and
the misunderstanding of the issue of the overuse of antibiotics.
And salt, too, apparently.
--
Crashj

Ingrid wrote but I bet everyone
on this list believes high salt consumption leads to high blood pressure or
that
limiting salt consumption can lower blood pressure; that heart attacks are
CAUSED by
high cholesterol too.

Everyone???
I disincline to acquiesce to that assertion.



kathy :-)
algae primer
http://hometown.aol.com/ka30p/myhomepage/garden.html

wrote:

the same fuzzy thinking occurs with salt consumption and high blood
pressure (no correlation), high cholesterol and heart attacks (no

I resent the fact that you insist on making a personal attack out of this.

Just point me to the scientific data proving me wrong...
--
derek

wrote:

the genes for antibiotics have existed for millions and millions of years.
the genes for resistance to antibiotics have existed for millions and
millions of years.

no argument

many other things are also responsible for resistance:

no argument.

Most people used to die in hospitals from infections aquired in hospitals
if not from what brought them to the hospital and didnt spread them
around.
antibiotic resistance is a multi-factor problem.

Absolutely no argument.

The WORST OFFENDERS, incubators and
spreaders of superbugs are the people in hospitals. because they dont

Absolutely. Talk to my cousin (a nurse), our aunt caught MRSA _twice_ in a
British hospital, and my cousin blames the nursing staff in the hospital.

nobody gets vancamycin OTC and STILL there are bacteria resistant to this
antibiotic. they didnt mutate to get this resistance, the genes were

More straw men. I've never once claimed that the bugs mutate to gain
resistance. However, you and I have both mentioned that bacteria _do_
mutate quite readily. It's not the issue.

there are always
mutations of existing genes going on, and sooner or later there are going
to be bacteria make a gene that is mutated and resistant to every new
antibiotic...

And indiscriminate use of antibiotics results in leaving the available gene
pool smaller, and more weighted with the genes that are resistant to that
antibiotic.

you want to stop the spread of superbugs??? get the hospitals to start
checking the hands of their people and institute a required washing of
hands before touching a patient.

Again, no arguments, see above. With respect to ponds, the corresponding
rule of thumb is to make sure your water quality is the best you can make
it, and your fish will rarely get sick.

back to salt. yes. my fish probably have salt resistant bugs on them
since many of them they came from Prices koi farm and therefore I wouldnt
think of using salt as a
"treatment". I would say even one fish with salt resistant bugs will pass
them to all fish in the pond so basically nobody should be using salt for
treatment. since it is useless for treatment it is much better for it to
be used as a
prophylactic since it is excellent in this capacity. Ingrid

That's not even remotely logical. If it isn't useful for treatment, it's
even less use as a prophylactic.
--
derek

I rarely meet anyone who believes otherwise. What a pleasant surprise. Ingrid


EROSPAM (Ka30P) wrote:
Everyone???
I disincline to acquiesce to that assertion.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 14:48:29 GMT, wrote:

I rarely meet anyone who believes otherwise. What a pleasant surprise. Ingrid

I hang out with a group of people who are very well informed, for
amateurs. We are looking for physicians who want to help us learn more
about the professional side of health maintenance. This would be an
opportunity to make money for your informed opinions and advice. Heart
Health is a special part of our concerns, along with proper nutrition.
Contact me by email if you want to learn more.
hardie at gonowmail.com will reach me.
--
Crashj