Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert K. who wrote (7531)	10/31/1998 8:01:00 AM
From: jackie	Respond to of 17367

RobertK, Sorry about the delay in getting back to you on the Discover article. I agree with your statements. Here are some of the points I enjoyed. On the one hand it was heartening to see a public beginning to recognize the seriousness of resistant bacteria. It was discouraging to see how much the public contributes to the problem. Only half of the antibiotics prescribed are done so properly. Forty percent of all antibiotics produced in this country are given as feedlot additives to encourage weight gain in cattle and chickens. The emergence of resistant bacteria is more of a social problem than scientific. Can you imagine trying to stop the waste of antibiotics? I can think of two special interests rising in arms if you tried. Pharmaceutical firms and the farmers and ranchers. And feedlot operators. And consumer groups. And Tyson chicken. There wouldn't even be a public debate. Money would change hands and the legislation would die in some committee. I found it frightening to read how resistance, once acquired by a population of bacteria, persists even after the antibiotic is no longer in the environment. I had always assumed resistance came at a genetic price. The chemical energies expended on building the proteins expressing resistance would leave the bacterium at a disadvantage to its peers when the antibiotic is no longer present. Not true. There are cases where the resistant bacteria can hold their own against their vulnerable cousins. Also, what can you say about the tenacity of creatures learning to resist household cleansers? You would die from these chemicals before the bacteria. The only negative I saw in the article was the emphasis on the household side of things. After all, it would be a lot simpler to come up with a new antiseptic intended for the kitchen sink than a new antibiotic for some poor kid with a staph infection. I think though, the article reflects where the public has chosen to classify the whole issue of emerging bacterial disease. It is not, in the view of the public, something serious enough to warrant modifying behavior or paying more for hamburger or being careful with prescribed drugs. It's a household cleaner issue. A whiter whites and more brilliant colors sort of thing. The marketing guys understand this. That's why we're seeing more of these TV ads aimed at the home keepers for new cleansers. By the way, the November Scientific American has an excellent piece on this same topic. On page 29 is an article entitled "The E. Coli Are Coming", Do toys and toothpaste breed resistant bacteria? The author concludes peaceful coexistence is the way to go. We can't have a truly sterile environment at home. Bacteria are here to stay. Regards, Jack