S. aureus found in meat and poultry

Staphylococcus aureus has been found in U.S. meat and poultry at alarming rates:

Nearly half of the meat and poultry samples — 47 percent — were contaminated with S. aureus, and more than half of those bacteria — 52 percent — were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics, according to the study published today in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

This is the first national assessment of antibiotic resistant S. aureus in the U.S. food supply. And, DNA testing suggests that the food animals themselves were the major source of contamination.

I’m mostly posting this because I’ve recently been working with various bacteria, including S. aureus. One of the biggest problems with them – indeed, with any major and most minor bacteria species – is that they evolve quickly in response to the antibiotics we use against them. This research specifically looked at resistance, and the numbers are surprising. Compounding the issue, there are really only six or so major companies that work to develop antibiotics in the U.S. today. Though our government is a big corporate welfare bitch, our direct government investment in this sort of research is non-existent. That really makes no sense. It is government funding that has long been a huge driving force behind the science of the 20th century, and this is especially true where both lives and profits are at risk – private businesses will always opt to risk the former, not the latter. Given how quickly bacteria evolve to get around antibiotics – resistance has been detected in the very same year the antibiotics have been developed in some cases – it would be good science and our health if we started investing more. A lot more.

That said, there are preventative measures that need to be addressed. First – and we need government again – limit what farmers can give livestock. Of course resistance will evolve if we keep giving cows and chickens antibiotics at such high rate. Second – yep, government again – tighten food-handling protocols in meat markets, including supermarkets. Given the $8 an hour supermarkets pay their employees, I doubt people in that field will give two shits, but every little bit helps (especially before the food gets to that point). And finally – we might not need government to do all of this one – educate the general public, i.e., cook your food at recommended temperatures, wipe down counters, and other basic things civilized people ought to be doing without being told.

S. aureus found in meat and poultry

Staphylococcus aureus has been found in U.S. meat and poultry at alarming rates:

Nearly half of the meat and poultry samples — 47 percent — were contaminated with S. aureus, and more than half of those bacteria — 52 percent — were resistant to at least three classes of antibiotics, according to the study published today in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

This is the first national assessment of antibiotic resistant S. aureus in the U.S. food supply. And, DNA testing suggests that the food animals themselves were the major source of contamination.

I’m mostly posting this because I’ve recently been working with various bacteria, including S. aureus. One of the biggest problems with them – indeed, with any major and most minor bacteria species – is that they evolve quickly in response to the antibiotics we use against them. This research specifically looked at resistance, and the numbers are surprising. Compounding the issue, there are really only six or so major companies that work to develop antibiotics in the U.S. today. Though our government is a big corporate welfare bitch, our direct government investment in this sort of research is non-existent. That really makes no sense. It is government funding that has long been a huge driving force behind the science of the 20th century, and this is especially true where both lives and profits are at risk – private businesses will always opt to risk the former, not the latter. Given how quickly bacteria evolve to get around antibiotics – resistance has been detected in the very same year the antibiotics have been developed in some cases – it would be good science and our health if we started investing more. A lot more.

That said, there are preventative measures that need to be addressed. First – and we need government again – limit what farmers can give livestock. Of course resistance will evolve if we keep giving cows and chickens antibiotics at such high rate. Second – yep, government again – tighten food-handling protocols in meat markets, including supermarkets. Given the $8 an hour supermarkets pay their employees, I doubt people in that field will give two shits, but every little bit helps (especially before the food gets to that point). And finally – we might not need government to do all of this one – educate the general public, i.e., cook your food at recommended temperatures, wipe down counters, and other basic things civilized people ought to be doing without being told.

Thought of the day

The Bible says the meek shall inherit the Earth. My money is on bacteria.

Local paper advertises for Maloney

Christopher Maloney has written another letter to the editor of the local paper. Unlike his first letter, this one isn’t filled with so many lies.

Thank you for the July 10 editorial about antibiotic use in livestock.

The most troubling aspect of constant use of antibiotics in livestock is that human patients are often asked to forgo similar “preventative” antibiotic use so we won’t contribute to bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

A sick child with a likely viral infection will not get antibiotics, while millions of livestock animals in close quarters receive a daily dose. It is as if we have placed our food above our children in importance.

Small local farmers are providing world-class alternatives to the overuse of antibiotics. Purchasing locally rewards those who use antibiotics appropriately while growing our community. Those looking can check with the farmer’s markets, http://www.maloney medical.com or the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association.

Christopher Maloney, N.D.

Augusta

Okay, so he is lying when he tries to imply he’s somehow a legitimate doctor with his naturopathic title, “N.D.”, but other than that…he’s actually reasonable. UPDATE: That’ll teach me for not reading such quackery more closely (and at 1:30 in the morning). Antibiotics have nothing to do with treating viruses. They are for bacteria. I expected too much from Maloney.

Of course, there is still the issue of the paper allowing Maloney to put his bogus website in his letter. They’re putting the health of Maine residents at risk by allowing him to link back to his quackery without any sort of disclaimer – especially given the fact that he’s actually making a real point and now spewing some naturopathic, anti-science bullshit.

Promising skin cancer news

One of the oldest treatments for cancer in the modern era is to stimulate the immune system. William Coley was one of the pioneers in this technique, coming up with Coley’s Toxin in the late 19th century. This was a mixture that basically involved infecting patients with the bacteria Streptococcus pyogenes. Coley claimed fantastic results, but he kept his records poorly. I don’t know if he ever lied – there is no direct evidence which says he did – but his results were almost always questionable. Besides that, he tended to lose patients to bacterial infections from time to time.

Cancer research lost some of its focus on the immune system in the early part of the 20th century, Coley’s toxin was reclassified into oblivion by the FDA, and governments really didn’t supply the funds for research they should have. Research, however, has long come back around to looking at the immune system and how it can help fight cancerous cells. One of the most recent results has to do with a new drug, Ipilimumab, which is for patients with melanoma

The results, reported Saturday at a cancer conference, left doctors elated.

“We have not had any therapy that has prolonged survival” until now, said Dr. Lynn Schuchter of the Abramson Cancer Center at the University of Pennsylvania, a skin cancer specialist with no role in the study or ties to the drug’s maker.

The drug, ipilimumab, (ip-ee-LIM-uh-mab), works by helping the immune system fight tumors. The federal Food and Drug Administration has pledged a quick review, and doctors think the drug could be available by the end of this year.

Ipilimumab is a T-cell potentiator. T-cells basically have antigens which help to regulate immune responses. These antigens inhibit ‘overreactions’ within the immune system. What ipilimumab does is block this inhibition. It says to the immune system, ‘Run wild, you’re free!’

The increased survival rate is great when measured by percentage – 67% – but the practical numbers only mean a few more months of life. That’s how a lot of cancer research goes, unfortunately, and it makes it all so much less of an elation. But this is still hopeful. It’s good progress on the cancer front. (But do keep in mind, this is just one study for one type of cancer, interesting and promising as it may be.)