It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How the world should tackle superbugs that could kill 10 million people a year

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2016 @ 02:58 AM
link   


SUPERBUGS could kill 10 million people a year by 2050.

That’s one person every three seconds and superbugs could be killing more people than cancer.

A new report into tackling our resistance to drugs has been released after a two-year investigation by former Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill and it claims superbugs are fast becoming one of the biggest health threats to mankind.

The report said superbugs would be felt throughout the world, but developing countries and large emerging nations would cop the brunt of the problem.

Superbugs are strong strands of bacteria that often cause common gut, urinary and blood infections, but become dangerous because they’re immune to the antibiotics we currently take.

How the world should tackle superbugs that could kill 10 million people a year

Is the threat of widespread superbugs in the future overstated, or is it a good idea to start channelling more research into their nature and finding ways to defeat them? Personally, I have a feeling that this is a problem worthy of more thorough examination.


edit on 20/5/2016 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 20 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   
Well we could scale back the worlds economy to preserve resources and stop slash/burning potential new anti-biotics.

Austerity measures come to mind but I doubt they would be implemented worldwide until the damage is done to the planet and our ability to form defenses. Then we will need the universal basic income and a drone network to keep people from having to congregate in supermarkets for supplies in the event of a full on pandemic.

All in all though really I mean the folks running the planet by way of the monopolies of concentrated power in all it's forms would likely prefer most of us died out and I can't say I blame them. After all moving forward without the bulk of humanity would be so much less of a headache for the people they pay to deal with us all.

The fact that most governments around the world are doing next to nothing to truly prepare for this outcome is them tacitly saying they would prefer it if we all f u cked off and died.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost


SUPERBUGS could kill 10 million people a year by 2050.

That’s one person every three seconds and superbugs could be killing more people than cancer.

A new report into tackling our resistance to drugs has been released after a two-year investigation by former Goldman Sachs economist Jim O’Neill and it claims superbugs are fast becoming one of the biggest health threats to mankind.

The report said superbugs would be felt throughout the world, but developing countries and large emerging nations would cop the brunt of the problem.

Superbugs are strong strands of bacteria that often cause common gut, urinary and blood infections, but become dangerous because they’re immune to the antibiotics we currently take.

How the world should tackle superbugs that could kill 10 million people a year

Is the threat of widespread superbugs in the future overstated, or is it a good idea to start channelling more research into their nature and finding ways to defeat them? Personally, I have a feeling that this is a problem worthy of more thorough examination.


Agreed. Our current strategy of inundating the populace with antibiotics isn't workable. It's an arms race against microbes we aren't going to win. If we start thinking more intelligently we can win, but we can't using our current strategy.
edit on 20-5-2016 by Thetan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Our "current strategy" can't win because we crowd people together in places called cities to better control and fleece them. Cities are a perfect superbug environment.

Lots of human meat to burn through.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
Our "current strategy" can't win because we crowd people together in places called cities to better control and fleece them. Cities are a perfect superbug environment.

Lots of human meat to burn through.


I've always said "cities" are death traps.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Dark Ghost The planet is over populated, we need a good brush fire to burn out the waste.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: stabstab

You understand your position is a contradiction ... right?

Universal basic income takes a lot of resources, but you also want to scale back on the very thing that would provide said resources.

So which is it? Austerity or universal basic income.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 08:18 AM
link   
The big problem that is largely not talked about is the use of antibiotics in livestock rearing. That's where most of this resistence problem is coming from.

We need to stop dousing animals in drugs to make them grow super fast, and then have to douse them in huge quantities of antibiotics to keep them alive.

It will mean meat is 3-4 times more expensive. And that can't happen right. So let's just start having millions of people die from antibiotic resistant bugs instead.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 09:00 AM
link   
People forget our bodies are organisms with the ability to overcome aswell. Using antibiotics inherently weakens the bodies immune response system to forign microbes.

I haven't taken any over the counter cold suppressants/ antibiotics / or pain management meds since 2007. Not even a tylenol. And I damn sure haven't gotten any flu shots.

Here is what happened, my immune system has gotten to the point where even if I catch a common cold it only lasts 2 days. My body leaps into action fighting off a virus. I can tell the instance when I've contracted something. Your body will become extra sensitive you can actually feel yourself get sick, thats when you boost your body with vitamins. As a result of building up my immune system, I haven't had so much as a sniffle in 10 years. I use to have allergies every season change, until I stopped taking suppressants and let nature take its course.

I've only ever had one bacterial infection back when I played contact sports around people who didn't bath. It was staph, the thing is I had it for a while because I thought I'd just got bitten by something while out playing. A month later I go to the doc and he tests my blood and says im suprised you don't have sepsis. Your body has supressed this form of stap all by itself. Apparently a pretty bad strain.

Your best bet against a bacterial or virulent infection is to be in great physical shape, and have a track record of naturally suppressing everything you contract.

I am not anti medicine, I believe in modern science, but I don't believe in the abuse of medicine, which inherently weakens the bodies immune system, and creates some pretty nasty bacterium as a byproduct.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: AlongCamePaul
Exactly.

We grow the super bugs. We breed them, name them, and create mutations, like we do dogs and cats, then we want to waste a bunch of money, after we have played Dr. Frankenstein, by trying to control the monster we created.

Stop with the indiscriminate use of antibacterials. Grow a healthy immune system, and your body and nature will protect you.

Are there times that antibacterials are needed? Yes, but they are a disaster is progress, when used multiple times a day; when just a little soap and water is all you need.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 11:36 AM
link   


s the threat of widespread superbugs in the future overstated, or is it a good idea to start channelling more research into their nature and finding ways to defeat them?


Makes me think I should invest, and go long on big pharma and biotech stocks.

After the Ebola 'scare' that was the smart play.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

Anitbiotics don't make animals grow super fast. They are meant to guard against loss of condition due to illness.



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Is the threat of widespread superbugs in the future overstated, or is it a good idea to start channelling more research into their nature and finding ways to defeat them?

Only killing 10 million people a year? That's not nearly enough. By 2050, the global population has been estimated at nearly 10 billion people. I think the superbugs should be harnessed and genetically manipulated to sterilize most of the population.
edit on 20-5-2016 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Superbugs are not to be worried about. It would be unfortunate to become infected by something that is antibiotic resistant, but ab resistance is something that disappears when ab usage is reduced. Isolate bacteria on a petri dish. Make another petri dish with 1x antibiotics. Make a lawn on ab plate using isolated bacteria. Observe daily until colony grows on plate. This shows some ab resistance. Make 10x plate with ab. Make another lawn on 10x plate with ab resistant colony. Repeat with 100x. Now take plate with no antibiotics, divide the plate in two portions and isolate 100x resistant colony on sector 1. In sector 2 make isolate using original bacteria. Place in incubator and observe speed of growth. In an environment with no antibiotics the original isolate will grow more rapidly. No ab resistant plasmid or mutation is found therefore less energy is wasted transcribing and translating these genes nor will a mutation create a dysfunctional protein.

Superbugs are media jargon for antibiotic resistant mutants. They are actually weaker bacteria due to their inefficiency in how they use energy. People underestimate the value of a good gastrointestinal microbiome. That's more than enough to keep out any so called superbugs.



posted on May, 22 2016 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Painterz

Anitbiotics don't make animals grow super fast. They are meant to guard against loss of condition due to illness.


I think (and I could be wrong) that Painterz was referring to the common use of growth hormones, etc, as one instance, and then using antibiotics in another instance. I don't think he was saying that antibiotics are being used to spur weight gain.

His remark...


We need to stop dousing animals in drugs to make them grow super fast, and then have to douse them in huge quantities of antibiotics to keep them alive.


At least that's the way it looks to me...



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Two words: colloidal silver. Why is it the best antibiotic? Because single-celled organisms cannot develop a tolerance to it. It simply kills them, by preventing them from metabolizing oxygen. Multi-celled organisms, like humans and puppies and cacti, aren't harmed by it whatsoever. And you don't even have to drink it. Caught a drug-resistant MRSA? If you go the allopathic, spend-a-million-bucks-on-specialized-drugs way, you still won't get rid of it, but just scrub silver-water on it a couple of times a day and within a week, your flesh stops getting eaten. It's a billion times more effective than hand sanitizer. It can even double as deodorant. It's a frigging miracle substance, but the Establishment(s) can't stand it because it threatens pharmaceutical profits. Even here, at the point where Big Pharma Chems become totally incapable of stopping these superbugs, they refuse to ever mention silver. They have nothing that they can offer, leaving silver as literally the only cure, but they damn sure don't want us curing ourselves without paying them for it and colloidal silver is too cheap to make; they couldn't possibly profit off of it. So to hell with us.

Why there hasn't been an all-out revolution against such corporations yet is completely beyond me.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Is this a problem or a solution? I thought the ideal was to stabilize population by mid century. It was Ted Turner who famously said (I'm sure among a million others not as influential) that nature would take care of population growth on it's own.

However callous it may appear, I think this is something that would be best to run it's course, though if people want to tech out of the issue for their selves or others more power to them. Guess I just don't view it as a concern right now. We destabilize the environment to an extent it threatens us, at a time when we are so many in numbers and so weak the majority of us, having been afforded to live past what would otherwise be a natural expiration. Let nature balance things out a bit.

Yes yes, the feelings and bleeding hearts this or that, but honestly none of that matters when something like this hits. It is what it is.
edit on 24-5-2016 by pl3bscheese because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Thought Provoker

Oh sure, let's treat flesh-eating disease with topical disinfectants, that's like slapping a bandaid on...well, flesh-eating disease. Colloidal silver is no different from iodine, it's a broad-spectrum disinfectant that physically destroys microorganisms. What it isn't is an antibiotic, topical or otherwise, and it won't do anything about tissue necrosis and all the other effects of MRSA infection.

Oh yeah, and it'll turn you blue if you use too much, so unless you feel like honing your Smurf impression or forming an experimental band that plays in Vegas, keep away.

Silver does have some interesting potential in medical settings though, for self-disinfecting hardware like doorknobs and rails, so there is that.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   
One of the things we can do NOW is put in an alert system and standard operating procedures for an outbreak. Get people used to being proactive in regards to their health.

A short notice practice might include the following:

  1. Have businesses, stores and other places frequented by the public clean out their air conditioner ducting and filters.
  2. Run more frequent, but less populated public transport.
  3. People may even take 1/3 days off during a health crisis, minimising contact between groups.
  4. Establish practice containment and safe areas.
  5. Place hand sanitizers around cities and towns.
  6. Have people wear particulate masks.
  7. Technology could be utilized, use metadata to map people passing through potential contamination sites.
  8. An app can be written that includes health monitoring in a crisis, bulletins and contamination maps.
  9. Basically, familiarise the public with what they should do in such events.
  10. Health professionals and emergency services would be required to use different procedures and probably minimise contact with other persons.


People tend to have the attitude that bad things won't happen to them, they drink drive and think that they are safe for example. The public needs to be made aware that this is a problem and is very likely to affect them in one way or another and they must be familiar with and prepared to take appropriate action or at least follow instruction.



posted on May, 25 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: LilFox

That's a bad example. Most people drink and drive and the most that happens is they get popped by the law. So in that example the fear and reaction to rare occurrences causes more disruption than the event itself.

Come to think of it, that's actually a good example...



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join