Superbugs & Capitalism & Phage

[Coggeh]

Odd topic, but a deadly sign of just how incompetent capitalism and pharmaceutical companies are .

Ten to fifteen years ago , pharmaceutical companies thought it unprofitable to develop newer antibiotics to combat the ever stronger strains of bacteria developing drug resistant qualities and now even the most minor surgeries prove to be a death sentence for patients across the world .


After seeing a BBC Horizion documentary called the Virus that cures , (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=bbc+horizion+anitbiotic&emb=0&aq=f#) which talks about using he virus phage which actively attacks bacteria to which no bacteria has become resistant even after 60years of use in Eastern European countries, it is now thought that this will be the only way to combat super bugs such as many strains of Staphylococcus(e.g the well known MRSA bug) Western companies have turned their back and have not developed this as a cure .

It occurs to me since this virus comes from sewage alone and can be extremely easily developed that this won't ever see daylight in western hospitals .


Just another way capitalism has f**ked us over .


What are peoples thoughts ?

P.S: I may be missing something about the effects and make up of phage (I know the basics from biology) but feel free anyone to correct me.Mistakes are the best way to learn :)

[LOLseph Stalin]

That's the problem with many drug companies now. They could discover a very helpful, inexpensive drug to treat serious dieseases, but refuse to produce it because they can't profit. I honestly think these people should not be in this field if they value money more than human lives. I doubt it's true, but I've once read about a drug that could treat cancer, but it wasn't being produced because there was no opportunity for profit. I think of it this way: if those Capitalists care so much about their profit they could be producing this inexpensive drug and still be making money as the statistics for the amount of people getting any form of cancer are quite high. The costs would certainly add up I think. This way everybody would be happy,the Capitalists with their money and the patients having their cancer treated in a better way than we have now.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is over-use of anti-biotics, enabling germs to develop resistances to them. The proper use of anti-biotics is fundamentally at odds with the capitalist practice of selling as much goods as possible. Not to mention cost-cutting exercises which impact on good hygiene practices.

[LOLseph Stalin]

The problem is over-use of anti-biotics, enabling germs to develop resistances to them. The proper use of anti-biotics is fundamentally at odds with the capitalist practice of selling as much goods as possible. Not to mention cost-cutting exercises which impact on good hygiene practices.

Yea, my biology teacher mentioned something about that. He was saying how germs are more powerful and resistant now than they were previously before the discovery of antibiotics. It kinda wouldn't make a difference if you think about it because without the technology we have now those bugs would have been just as difficult to get rid of.

[Coggeh]

The problem is over-use of anti-biotics, enabling germs to develop resistances to them. The proper use of anti-biotics is fundamentally at odds with the capitalist practice of selling as much goods as possible. Not to mention cost-cutting exercises which impact on good hygiene practices.
Aye , indeed . Found my girlfriend using some anti biotics 2weeks ago against a viral infection .

Theirs a lack of information and also some doctors are at fault , they prescribe anti-biotic's far too much.Needless to say we have have a host of superbugs on our hands and an idiotic capitalist system too .

Is Phage a useful alternative ? what do people think ?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Is Phage a useful alternative ? what do people think ?

If bacteria truly cannot develop a resistance to it, rather than the long period of phage being in use in Eastern Europe being down to careful use, then it would represent as big a revolution in medicine as the invention of antibiotics in the first place, if not more so.

[Coggeh]

If bacteria truly cannot develop a resistance to it, rather than the long period of phage being in use in Eastern Europe being down to careful use, then it would represent as big a revolution in medicine as the invention of antibiotics in the first place, if not more so.

Looks like we have our breakthrough

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227054.500-viruses-could-kill-superbugs-that-antibiotics-cant.html


The therapy's key ingredients are viruses called bacteriophages. These "eaters of bacteria" break down the biofilm and destroy target cells, without harming other useful bacteria in the body.

Good stuff :)

It finally is getting good attention , it shouldn't be too long before western medical services start using it now :)

[MarxSchmarx]

I think phage therapy has gotten an undeservedly positive rep. Its detractors exaggerate the problems, it's supporters exaggerate its promises.


Looks like we have our breakthrough

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227054.500-viruses-could-kill-superbugs-that-antibiotics-cant.html



Good stuff :)

It finally is getting good attention , it shouldn't be too long before western medical services start using it now :)

Suffice it to say that the evidence so far has been, unfortunately, ambivalent.

There have been numerous clinical trials on people and animals for these, and for some bacteria-borne diseases like dysentary it has done wonders but has been disappointing for others, including such common conditions as strap throat.

This is really strange. There's a paradox here, the logic is the same across treatments. So why should you get such disparate results?

Suffice it to say that we have no idea how phage therapy really works, and it is far from being a practical alternative.

It has a lot of promise, to be sure. And the days of conventional anti-biotics are indeed limited.

My guess is that the real breakthrough will involve genetically engineered phages for specific conditions. Work like this is already underway for cancer, but we are nowhere near what we really need, which are viruses that we can entirely control like computers.

But for now, we have to understand that phage therapy is not a panacea.

Having said all this, I don't think it is historical accident that phage therapy was developed in the USSR. Someday, historians of science will recognize that capitalist research made serious inquiries into phage therapy secondary to futile attempts to develop "ever better" antibiotics.

Scientists reflect the existing social biases. This is especially true of medicine. A uniquely ecological understanding of disease was only made possible by the dynamical and materialist understanding of societies ushered in by Karl Marx.

Moreover, the problems that affect the poor, like strains of strap throat resistant to antibiotics, are ignored by capitalist medicine. Indeed, it is no accident that modern diabetes treatments were largely developed in maoist China, that took this largely peasant disease seriously.

A parallel process had developed in agriculture, esp. viz. the theory of biological control, which was ignored by the capitalist west until petroleum based pesticides became economically untenable, but was a major research project in the Soviet Union from the revolution onward.

But these are all historical questions, suffice it to say going forward, I am deeply skeptical of the commitment of capitalist firms to developing effective phage therapies to bacteria-borne infections.

[Coggeh]

I think phage therapy has gotten an undeservedly positive rep. Its detractors exaggerate the problems, it's supporters exaggerate its promises.



Suffice it to say that the evidence so far has been, unfortunately, ambivalent.

There have been numerous clinical trials on people and animals for these, and for some bacteria-borne diseases like dysentary it has done wonders but has been disappointing for others, including such common conditions as strap throat.

This is really strange. There's a paradox here, the logic is the same across treatments. So why should you get such disparate results?

Suffice it to say that we have no idea how phage therapy really works, and it is far from being a practical alternative.

It has a lot of promise, to be sure. And the days of conventional anti-biotics are indeed limited.

My guess is that the real breakthrough will involve genetically engineered phages for specific conditions. Work like this is already underway for cancer, but we are nowhere near what we really need, which are viruses that we can entirely control like computers.

But for now, we have to understand that phage therapy is not a panacea.

Having said all this, I don't think it is historical accident that phage therapy was developed in the USSR. Someday, historians of science will recognize that capitalist research made serious inquiries into phage therapy secondary to futile attempts to develop "ever better" antibiotics.

Scientists reflect the existing social biases. This is especially true of medicine. A uniquely ecological understanding of disease was only made possible by the dynamical and materialist understanding of societies ushered in by Karl Marx.

Moreover, the problems that affect the poor, like strains of strap throat resistant to antibiotics, are ignored by capitalist medicine. Indeed, it is no accident that modern diabetes treatments were largely developed in maoist China, that took this largely peasant disease seriously.

A parallel process had developed in agriculture, esp. viz. the theory of biological control, which was ignored by the capitalist west until petroleum based pesticides became economically untenable, but was a major research project in the Soviet Union from the revolution onward.

But these are all historical questions, suffice it to say going forward, I am deeply skeptical of the commitment of capitalist firms to developing effective phage therapies to bacteria-borne infections.
Excellent post , I totally agree .

You hit the nail on the head when referring to the bias in medicine especially when it comes to developing anti-biotics or using phage therapy for resistant bacterial infections .

The page used in curing ear infections has been specifically altered to that if I'm not mistaken . It is indeed extremely promising IMO.

[MarxSchmarx]

Thanks for the kind words, Coggeh. I agree with ear infections this seems like a promising start, but phage therapy has had too many promising starts. I think the novelty in the west has a lot to do with the fact that it is a line of medical research that strongly contradicts the values held by the capitalist medical establishment.


the bias in medicine especially when it comes to developing anti-biotics or using phage therapy for resistant bacterial infections .

The page used in curing ear infections has been specifically altered to that if I'm not mistaken . It is indeed extremely promising IMO.

Another point came to me yesterday while I was thinking about this.

It is (relatively) easy to patent an anti-bacterial remedy under the current system. It is far from clear how a phage lineage that derives from a genetically engineered or even selected breed of phages, can ever be patented, because are "natural mutations" patentable under capitalism?

The example from agriculture may be instructive, but suffice it to say that I suspect the patent system and its unclear implications for evolutionary phage lineages probably plays no small role in keeping research funding on phage therapy under wraps.

[pastradamus]

Some people here are ignoring/unaware that in the west we have been using phages for over 30 years on farm animals. They have fantastic success rates surpassing that of anti-biotics and exclude the issue of immunity.

The reason we are now looking at phages is because capitalist greed and marketing has taken away much-needed funding for reserch into new anti-biotics.