Roundup ‘Weedkiller’ Feeds Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Study Finds

The nightmarish toxicological profile of Roundup herbicide (glyphosate) continues to emerge within the peer-reviewed research, this time revealing its role in supporting the growth of a pathogenic bacteria of great medical significance.

A concerning new study published in the Brazilian Journal of Microbiology titled, “Influence of glyphosate in planktonic and biofilm growth of Pseudomonas aeruginosa,” indicates that the world’s most widely used herbicide Roundup (glyphosate) may be contributing to the enhanced growth of the pathogenic bacteria P. aeruginosa in our environment.

The Brazilian team responsible for the study expressed concern over the “virtual nonexistence” of research evaluating glyphosate herbicide-pathogenic microbiota interactions, and conducted a series of microbial experiments to fill this data gap.  They noted:

“Glyphosate is probably the herbicide most discharged into the environment. Due to its extensive use in the protection of crops, it is inevitable that it will reach surface and deep waters (Pournaras et al., 2007), especially after rainfalls.”

P. aeruginosa is commonly found in watercourses and reservoirs in both oxygen (aerobic) and non-oxygen preferring forms (anaerobic), and can be a source of waterborne infection.

The results of the new study indicate that when exposed to varying concentrations of both glyphosate (a common contaminant found in GM agricultural runoff) and oxygen, both the aerobic the anaerobic and biofilm forming strains of this bacteria can thrive:

“Aerobic planktonic growth was superior to anaerobic one. This points to the possibility of P. aeruginosa, although a facultative organism (Davies et al., 1989; Yoon et al., 2002), has its growth significantly favored by the presence of molecular oxygen. Continuous bacterial exposure to low concentrations of glyphosate leads to increased rates of aerobic growth, which is somehow in agreement with previously published findings (Fitzgibbon and Braymer, 1988). By the contrary, in conditions of inaccessibility of molecular oxygen, the bacterium started to grow better in a concentration-dependent manner. It is possible that this phenomenon results from the use of the molecule as a source of phosphorus, as previously reported for the genus Pseudomonas (Peñaloza-Vazquez et al., 1995; Moore et al., 1983; Talbot et al., 1984). Glyphosate could also serve as a carbon source, which would be processed by both aerobic and anaerobic metabolisms (Rueppel et al., 1977), with increased rates in presence of oxygen. To support such theory, it has been found that different bacterial genera may promote catalysis of glyphosate using C-P lyases (van Eerd et al., 2003). Once broken up this connection, Pseudomonas spp. can produce glycine (Kishore and Jacob, 1987), which can also enhance growth.”

The researchers also focused on the ability of glyphosate to support the growth of so-called biofilms, a closely adhering colony of bacteria embedded in a self-produced matrix of a “slimy” extracellular polymeric substance (EPS), revealing:

“Our results revealed that the xenobiotic tends to favor the formation of biofilms of P. aeruginosa, especially those anaerobic and that such increase seems to be concentration-dependent.”

This finding has significant medical implications, as P. aeruginosa biofilm colonies are far more virulent and exhibit the kind of antibiotic resistance found in serious infections in humans, such as skin infections and pulmonary complications associated with fatal conditions such as cystic fibrosis.[1]

The study concluded:

“The results from this study point to the fact that the indiscriminate use of agricultural formulations containing glyphosate may result in an increase in growth rates of planktonic and biofilm phenotypes of P. aeruginosa in watercourses or reservoirs.”

As Roundup – now a ubiquitous agrochemical contaminant found in our rain, air and water — continues to accumulate in larger amounts in the environment, concern grows that it may be upsetting the natural microbial balance upon which our own microbial health depends on.

Previously, we have looked at the way that Roundup herbicide is altering the microbial biodiversity of our environment by destroying soil microbes that have indispensable importance in the production of food. Research also now exists showing this agrochemical can shift the gut bacteria of animals towards pathogenic strains of bacteria, including the deadly botulism-associated Clostridium botulinum strain.  Also, a new study raises concern that as a water pollutant glyphosate may be contributing to the decline of the coral reefs, underscoring how profoundly this environmental contaminant may be affecting the future health of our planet as a whole.

As the public continues to rally behind the non-GMO movement, expending the bulk of its political efforts on labeling GMO-containing foods, it is important to also focus on the clear and present danger of Roundup herbicide, which a growing number of groups support banning entirely. When we understand the true extent of harm represented by this agrochemical (and which research now links to over 50 adverse health effects), then the argument that GM foods and non-GM (e.g. organic) foods are ‘substantial equivalent‘ is immediately disproved.  GM foods are universally contaminated with glyphosate and AMPA (a glyphosate metabolite) residue and owing to the fact that infinitesimal (parts-per-trillion) concentrations of glyphosate may have endocrine disrupting/carcinogenic properties present regulations on glyphosate are not protecting the public or environment at large from its known risks. (Learn more by reading: ‘EPA to the Public: Let Them Eat Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Cake’).

To get more involved follow the Global GMO Free Coalition.

---

References

[1] Antibiotic Susceptibilities of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates Derived from Patients with Cystic Fibrosis under Aerobic, Anaerobic, and Biofilm Conditions J. Clin. Microbiol. October 2005 vol. 43 no. 10 5085-5090

© April 19, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post Roundup ‘Weedkiller’ Feeds Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, Study Finds appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Science Alert: Platypus Milk Could Help Us Fight Antibiotic Resistance

A new report out about Australia’s oddest animal, the platypus, claims that a newly discovered protein in the critters’ milk could help humans fight the globally growing resistance to antibiotics.

According to The World Health Organization (WHO), antibiotic resistance is one of the biggest threats to global health and food security today. Antibiotic resistance can affect anyone, of any age, in any country and it occurs naturally, but the misuse of antibiotics in humans and animals is accelerating the process.

Researchers had previously discovered that platypus milk confers antimicrobial protection to the species’ young. However, a new study led by scientists at Australia’s CSIRO has figured out what it is about platypus milk that’s so effective against bacteria. And it comes down to a protein.

“Platypus are such weird animals that it would make sense for them to have weird biochemistry,” says one of the team, molecular biologist Janet Newman. “By taking a closer look at their milk, we’ve characterized a new protein that has unique antibacterial properties with the potential to save lives.”

The findings are reported in Structural Biology Communications.

According to Science Alert, using protein crystallization techniques pioneered at the CSIRO’s Collaborative Crystallisation Centre, the researchers were able to replicate the protein in the la and decipher its molecular structure in 3D to see where its antimicrobial properties come from. What they found was a unique, never-before-seen protein fold, comprising a unique ringlets structure – which the researchers nicknamed ‘Shirley Temple’, after the distinctive golden curls of the American child star.

According to the researchers on the team, this “curly Q” feature might have evolved in the animal’s milk to help protect platypus young, who don’t feed from the teats (the platypus has none), but from milk expressed onto the mother’s belly. “That means the milk is expressed onto a milk pad where the pups lap it up and of course milk is designed to be nutritious, so anything that’s in the environment could also use that milk,” Newman explained to Radio NZ.

The agreed upon hypothesis so far is that the platypus evolved this new protein as a way to feed the pups while protecting them from environmental factors, like bacteria, that are attracted to milk. It’s not the first time this unusual animal has come to the aid of humanity either. In 2016, researchers discovered a hormone contained in platypus venom could actually help us develop new kinds of diabetes treatments.

“There’s a quote from [Louis] Pasteur which is ‘Chance favors the prepared mind’,” Newman told Radio NZ. “You can find discoveries in all sorts of places.”

Antibiotic-Resistance: Bad Bug

We know that the routine use of antibiotics on factory farms led to antibiotic-resistance and a huge public health crisis.

Now new research by scientists at Dalian University of Technology in China have uncovered another factory farm-related source of antibiotic resistance: antibiotic-resistant genes in the fishmeal, meat-and-bone meal and chicken meal fed to animals imprisoned in factory farms.

The Independent reports that researchers have determined that fishmeal, “one of the most globally traded commodities,” is serving as “a vehicle to promote antibiotic-resistant gene dissemination internationally.”

What happens when antibiotics can no longer kill harmful bacteria? Major (but all too often routine) surgery—caesarean sections, hip replacements, organ transplants and cancer chemotherapy—become “very high risk.”

What happens if we don’t fix the superbugs problem? By 2050, 10 million people could die every year.

Read ‘Antibiotic-Resistant Genes Are Being Spread All Over the World in Animal Feed, Scientists Discover’

Read the research report

Create your own review

Average rating:  

 0 reviews

Doctors: Maybe You Shouldn’t Finish that Course of Antibiotics After All

All your life, you’ve been told to finish a course of antibiotics, even if you’re feeling better. But now that antibiotic resistance has become such a serious problem, some British doctors are questioning whether that advice is doing more harm than good. [1]

Health experts from Brighton and Sussex Medical School, the University of Oxford, and other institutions write in an analysis in the BMJ that there is no evidence to support the notion that cutting short a course of antibiotics encourages drug resistance. In fact, they said, it’s taking more antibiotics than needed that leads to resistance.

According to the doctors, the belief that not finishing antibiotics leads to resistance “can be traced back to the dawn of the antibiotic era.” Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin, spoke in 1945 about a man who didn’t take enough of the antibiotic and passed a now-resistant form of strep throat on to his wife, who died from the infection.

Read: The Problem of Antibiotic Resistance is Getting Much Worse

Fleming said at the time:

“If you use penicillin, use enough!”

However, as the doctors note in their analysis, Streptococcus bacteria has never been shown to develop resistance to penicillin. Furthermore, other early observations have yet to be proven by modern research.

Tim Peto, professor of medicine at the University of Oxford and a co-author of the article, said:

“No one has questioned (this advice) for all this time. In the scientific world, it’s an accepted view that there is too much usage of antibiotics and we want to minimize that. We want to only give them to people who need antibiotics to get better.” [2]

What has been proven, according to the authors of the opinion piece, is that taking antibiotics unnecessarily contributes to drug-resistance. And that’s whether you take them when they’re not needed – such as when you have a viral illness – or if you continue taking them after you feel better. [1]

As you might imagine, after more than 70 years of patients being told to finish their antibiotics, the topic is extremely controversial. That’s OK, though – the authors don’t want the medical community to immediately implement the new advice. More research is necessary, they said, and even if the advice was implemented, it might not apply to every single person.

Study: People Save Antibiotics for Later Use, and It Isn’t Good

Peto said:

“We’re not at all saying that patients should stop when they feel like it or that patients should ignore their doctor’s advice.”

Really, Peto said, there’s “not enough knowledge” for doctors to know how long antibiotics should be prescribed for. That’s why it’s too early to tell people to stop taking their medicine.

You’d think that after more than 7 decades, we’d understand a bit more about antibiotics, though.

A professor of infectious diseases at Imperial College London, Alison Holmes said:

“It remains astonishing that apart from some specific infections and conditions, we still do not know more about the optimum duration of courses or indeed doses in many conditions, yet this dogma has been pervasive and persistent.” [3]

Sources:

[1] Time

[2] CNN

[3] The Guardian

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

WHO Ranks Antibiotics to Fight Life-Threatening Antibiotic Resistance

In June the World Health Organization (WHO) published a new classification of antibiotics aimed at fighting drug resistance, with penicillin-type drugs recommended as the first line of defense, and others only when absolutely necessary. [1]

(What’s more, although the issues outlined in the video above hold true, it is also true that creating new antibiotics isn’t so profitable for drug companies. This creates little incentive to spend money on further research, instead of just churning out what is already available in the market.)

It is the largest revision of the antibiotics section in the WHO Essential Medicines List in its 40-year history.

Scientists have warned that drug resistance is a health crisis in the making, and could kill more people than cancer. To put that in perspective, the WHO said in 2014 that it expected cancer cases to surge 57% worldwide over the next 2 decades.

Thirty-nine antibiotics for 21 common syndromes are included in the “Essential Medicines List.” They are broken down into 3 groups:

• “Access” – Bacteria are less likely to develop resistance to drugs on the “Access” list, including widely-used amoxicillin, cefalexin, azithromycin, ciprofloxacin, and doxycycline.

• “Watch” – The “Watch” group includes antibiotics with a higher potential for resistance, and so are recommended as first or second choice treatments for a few, select illnesses. The WHO says these medications – including quinolones, fluoroquinolones, and carbapenems – should be “prioritized as key targets of stewardship programs and monitoring.”

• “Reserve” – Finally, the “Reserve” group includes “last resort” antibiotics which the WHO says “should be accessible, but whose use should be tailored to highly specific patients and settings, when all alternatives have failed.” In other words, serious, life-threatening infections due to multi-drug resistant bacteria. [1] [2]

Fluoroquinolones are fluoride-based antibiotics with links to severe neurological side effects, including severe pain, neuropathy, and paralysis, as well as other complications. The FDA slapped a “black box” warning, the agency’s most serious warning, on the drug class due to its potential to cause major health issues – bigger issues than fluoroquinolones are often prescribed to treat.

Source: Business Insider

Read: A Superbug Resistant to 26 Antibiotics Takes Life of Elderly Woman

Colistin, a polymyxin, has been in the news quite a bit in recent years because its overuse in livestock has caused bacteria to grow increasingly resistant to it. It’s placement on the “Reserve” list raises questions about how producers of such antibiotics could make money, according to Suzanne Hill, WHO’s Director of Essential Medicines and Health Products. [1]

She said:

“What we need to do is stop paying for antibiotics based on how many times they are prescribed, to discourage use. We don’t want colistin used very frequently. In fact, we don’t want it used at all.

What we need to do as a global community is work out how we pay the company not to market colistin and not to promote it and to keep it in reserve.”

Hill acknowledged the economic incentive system in drug development revolves around sales and it is likely there will be “a very large economic impact” for drug companies that make antibiotics in the “Reserve” category. [3]

The list takes into account antibiotic use in farm animals, and was developed together with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Organization for Animal Health.

Source: Nature

The WHO writes that the changes are intended “to ensure that antibiotics are available when needed, and that the right antibiotics are prescribed for the right infections.” [2]

The international health body adds:

“It should enhance treatment outcomes, reduce the development of drug-resistant bacteria, and preserve the effectiveness of ‘last resort” antibiotics that are needed when all others fail. These changes support WHO’s Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance, which aims to fight the development of drug resistance by ensuring the best use of antibiotics.” [4]

Marie-Paule Kieny, assistant director-general for health systems and innovation at the WHO, said the WHO doesn’t see the list changes as “a quick-fix solution,” but scientific evidence backs the notion that it could cut the number of dangerous infections. [3]

Sources:

[1] Reuters

[2] World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines

[3] The Washington Post

[4] World Health Organization

Business Insider

Nature

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

200 Scientists Want Tougher Limits on Chemicals in Personal Care Products

In June of 2017, a group of 200 scientists and medical professionals called on the international community to ratchet up restrictions on the production and use of triclosan and triclocarban – 2 antimicrobial chemicals found in shampoos and cosmetics. They cite “extensive peer-reviewed research” which suggests the ingredients are potentially harmful. [1]

In late 2016, the FDA banned 19 chemicals in hand and body soap over concerns about their effect on human health and the environment. Despite the ban, dangerous chemicals are still commonly used in other personal care products.

A senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group (EWG), David Andrews said:

“Other ongoing uses are not addressed by the recent FDA action, and more needs to be done.” [2]

The group of scientists and medical professionals said in a statement published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives that the chemicals, which have been used for decades, should be reserved for use only in situations where there is an “evidence-based health benefit.” [1]

They added:

“Greater transparency is needed in product formulations, and before an antimicrobial is incorporated into a product, the long-term health and ecological impacts should be evaluated.”

There is evidence to suggest that triclosan and triclocarban, both endocrine-disruptors, persist in the environment, where they may harm aquatic life and other organisms. The group’s primary concern is that the chemicals’ pervasiveness may be contributing to antibiotic and antimicrobial resistance and the rise of deadly superbugs.

As endocrine-disruptors, triclosan and triclocarban can affect the hormone cycles and development of organisms. The chemicals have also been linked to increased susceptibility to allergens.

Source: Treehugger.com

The FDA regulates certain products containing triclosan, including cosmetics, toothpastes, shampoos, and soaps. But there are other products not regulated by the agency that also contain the gender-bending chemical, including clothing, credit cards, cutting boards, blankets, mattresses, bathtubs, furniture, and toys. Furthermore, there is no limit on the use of triclosan and triclocarban in household or building products. [2]

Andrews said:

“For decades, the American public has been led to believe that antimicrobial products would make us healthier and safer.” [1]

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Label These Chemicals

The group wants the chemicals to be listed on labels of all consumer products that contain them. Additionally, it wants the FDA and the EPA to restrict unnecessary use. It notes in its statement that some companies, including Procter & Gamble and Johnson & Johnson, have already begun phasing out triclosan and triclocarban. [2]

The American Cleaning Institute and the Personal Care Products Council maintain that scientific evidence is on their side, and shows their products are safe and effective, and do not contribute to antibiotic and antimicrobial resistance. Both groups warn that banning or restricting the chemicals may lead to an increase in infections and disease. [1]

Studies show, however, that triclosan-containing soaps work no better than regular hand soap at killing germs.

Sources:

[1] Chicago Tribune

[2] Health Day

Treehugger

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Scientists Call GMO Antibiotics ‘Better Science’ Solution to Superbugs

Scientists at the Scripps Research Institute have figured out a way to re-engineer vancomycin, considered an antibiotic of last resort, to fight the spread of drug-resistant superbugs.

Vancomycin has been used for 60 years, with a few bacterial strains developing a resistance to the drug in recent times. The antibiotic works by breaking apart the structure the bacterial cells, which effectively disrupts and discourages the spread of harmful bacteria in the human body.

Earlier in 2017, researchers at University College London announced they had modified antibiotics to “blow up” deadly superbugs.

There are a few bugs that have started to become resistant to vancomycin, and those bacteria have been deemed by the World Health Organization and the CDC as some of the most dangerous on the planet.

The researchers write in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that they made vancomycin 1,000 times more powerful by fiddling with the medication’s molecules, which means doctors can use less of the antibiotic to treat resistant infections. In turn, bacteria would be less able to become resistant to it.

Scientists claim that their modified version of vancomycin is also “smarter” in that it can fight off bacteria in 3 different ways. Should an invading bacterium manage to overcome one of the drug’s defenses, there are still 2 other ways for the antibiotic to kill it.

Dale Boger, of TSRI’s Department­ of Chemistry, said:

“Organisms can’t just simultaneously work to find a way around 3. Even if they find a solution to 1, the organisms would still be killed by the other 2. This increases the durability of the antibiotic.”

Boger and his colleagues tested the revamped vancomycin on Enterococci bacteria, the drug-resistant version of which the WHO considers to be one of the superbugs that poses the biggest threat to human health. The newfangled medication killed both the original and the drug-resistant forms of the bacteria. It has yet to be tested outside of the lab.

Boger’s thinking behind the experiment was that restricting the use of antibiotics doesn’t solve the burgeoning superbug crisis, but “better science” does.

I guess it depends on your idea of “better science.” Maybe, once we determine that the risks are low, it will be a viable option. On the other hand, though, researchers have demonstrated time and again that natural remedies successfully kill and fight off superbugs, including honey. These weren’t small studies published in obscure medical journals, either.

Garlic, Echinacea, turmeric, and oregano have proven beneficial in the fight against superbugs, along with spicy ginger.

Scientists have made other huge breakthroughs in the fight against antibiotic resistance as well, including the creation of a new antibiotic made from human breast milk, and the discovery that peptides from Tasmanian devil milk kills multidrug-resistant bacteria like vancomycin-resistant enterococcus and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (or MRSA).

Sources:

[1] Vocativ

[2] Mirror

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Alarming Study: Pharmaceutical Factory Pollution Accelerating Spread of Superbugs

The issue of “pharmaceutical pollution” was recently highlighted in a study that points to inadequate waste management policies leading to the presence of both pharmaceutical products as well as drug-resistant superbugs in the waters of India.

The study, published in the scientific journal Infection, focused on the environmental impact of drug production in Hyderabad, a city in India that produces 40% of Indian generic drugs and 50% of the country’s exported drugs. India produces about 20% of the world’s generic pharmaceuticals.

This study was conducted to “determine the environmental presence of active anti-infective pharmaceuticals in a major production area for the global bulk drug market” and “document the ongoing environmental pollution by the pharmaceutical industries” in Hyderabad.

Researchers collected water samples from various areas within and around Hyderabad’s industrial district where several drug manufacturing facilities are located. Sampling locations “were chosen to cover the direct vicinity of bulk drug manufacturing facilities, rivers, lakes, ground water, drinking water, water sources contaminated by sewage treatment plants, and surface water from populated urban as well as rural areas,” according to the study.

According to the study, low levels of drugs that include antibiotics have been found in the past to be present in the ground and in drinking water across the globe, and that improper disposal is a major cause of this contamination, including in India.

The study pointed out that India has “become a hot spot of drug resistance” with over 56,000 babies dying yearly “infections by bacteria that are resistant to first-line antibiotics.”

Nearly all of the 28 water samples gathered by researchers were found to contain bacteria and fungi that are resistant to several drugs. These microorganisms, referred to as MDR pathogens, are also referred to as “superbugs.” Further testing on 16 of those samples showed that 13 samples contained antibiotic and antifungal drugs.

The study also noted that thousands of tons of waste from pharmaceutical manufacturing are produced by the factories every day.

While this study examined the implications of drug manufacturing in one of India’s top producing cities, the study cautioned that “microbes’ ability to travel within human hosts and traded animals or goods means that multidrug resistance can move around the world within a flight time of only a few hours.” Also highlighted in the study’s discussion is the issue of “relaxed” regulation of pollution:

READ MORE:  25-Year-Old Student Discovers Way to Kill Superbugs WITHOUT Antibiotics -- Science Freaks Out

“Despite decades of campaigning by local NGOs and legal action taken to the highest Indian courts, the pollution of the surroundings of manufacturing plants has not been reduced. In fact, regulation targeting the pharmaceutical industry is actually becoming more relaxed as the government lifts restrictions on plant expansion and introduces changes to the national pollution index. This index, which has been in place since 2009, has repeatedly classified the Patancheru–Bollaram industrial area as ‘critically polluted’. The government recently removed certain criteria relating to health and the environment from the index in the name of simplification, despite heavy criticism by the media that these changes were made to benefit polluting industries.”

The study concluded by advising more rigid regulations in the drug manufacturing process to align with environmental laws.

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, drug companies are required to adhere to guidelines known as Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), but that anti-pollution measures are absent from those guidelines.

“Even the World Health Organisation (WHO) – a global public health body which has repeatedly called for concerted international action to tackle the dangerous threat of antibiotic resistance – buys antibiotics from companies whose drug ingredients are made in Hyderabad without carrying out environmental checks,” noted the Bureau.

Superbugs may be More Widespread than Previously Thought

The potentially deadly, drug-resistant “superbug,” carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), is more widespread in U.S. hospitals than previously thought, an earlier-released study has found. [1]

Researchers looked for cases of infections caused by CRE in a sample of 4 U.S. hospitals – 3 in the Boston area and 1 in California – and identified numerous varieties of the bacterium. [2]

Each year, CRE bacteria sicken about 9,300 people and claim the lives of 600 people in the United States, according to the CDC. Those numbers are climbing. CRE bacteria, in particular, have been called “nightmare bacteria” by CDC Director Tom Frieden because they often continue to thrive even in the face of “last-resort” antibiotics – drugs reserved for the toughest infections. [1]

Read: It’s Here – Bacteria Resistant to ALL Antibiotics Shows up in the U.S.

In the study, the researchers also found that CRE has a plethora of genetic traits that make it resistant to antibiotics, and these traits can be easily transferred between the many CRE species.

The study documented the identical gene in different species. William Hanage, associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard Chan School and senior author of the study, says that “the extent to which this has happened is really quite surprising,” He added that the team “found 2 cases of high-level resistance we could not explain.”

He compared it to dark matter: 

“We know it’s there because we can see its effects, but what’s actually making it happen at the moment is unknown. If I were to criticize my own work, I would say it is a shame that we weren’t able to get more hospitals and more samples from elsewhere within the health care systems.”

Based on the findings, the researchers believe that CRE is more common than previously thought, and that it may be transmitted from person to person without causing symptoms.

Source: CBC News

In fact, Dr. Alex Kallen, a medical officer in the CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, said “the most common source of transmission with CRE is asymptomatic.” For that reason, the team writes in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, there needs to be increased surveillance of CRE. [2]

A healthy person might be able to carry CRE (it resides in the gastrointestinal tract) without developing an infection. However, if the bacterium is transferred to someone with a compromised immune system, it can be deadly. [1] [2]

Hanage said:

“We often talk about the rising tide of antibiotic resistance in apocalyptic terms. But we should always remember that the people who are most at risk of these things would be at risk for any infection, because they are often among the frailer people in the health care system. [2]

While the typical focus has been on treating sick patients with CRE-related infections, our new findings suggest that CRE is spreading beyond the obvious cases of disease. We need to look harder for this unobserved transmission within our communities and health care facilities if we want to stamp it out. [1]

The best way to stop CRE making people sick is to prevent transmission in the first place. If it is right that we are missing a lot of transmission, then only focusing on cases of disease is like playing whack-a-mole; we can be sure the bacteria will pop up again somewhere else.”

On a related front, it has come to light that a Nevada woman in her 70’s died months ago from a CRE infection that none of the 26 antibiotics available in the United States would touch. Dr. James Johnson, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, said of the case:

“I think this is the harbinger of future badness to come.” [3]

Read: Antimicrobial Resistance Could be a “Bigger Threat Than Cancer by 2050”

Johnson added that it’s hard to believe nobody else in the country is carrying the same strain. He said that when people ask him “How close are we to the edge of the cliff?,” he tells them: “We’re already falling off the cliff.”

Last fall, a Reuters investigation revealed that thousands of U.S. deaths due to superbugs go unreported each year, because in many cases it is not indicated on death certificates.

Source:

[1] HealthDay

[2] CNN

[3] USA Today

CBC News

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

The Problem of Antibiotic Resistance is Getting Much Worse

Scientists have detected a disturbing form of antibiotic-resistance on U.S. farms in recent months, but it’s not the type they anticipated, and they don’t know how it wound up there.

Researchers say that they’ve discovered resistance to a class of antibiotics called carbapenems, a last-line of defensive drugs used to treat severe infections. These antibiotics are not intended for agricultural use because they are so vital to human health. In fact, they’re so potent and so valuable that they are usually reserved for patients exhibiting resistance to multiple antibiotics. [1] [2]

The bacteria had been identified among European and Asian livestock, but there was no sign of the problem in the U.S. until now. [3]

The Unsettling Discovery

Thomas Wittum, chair of veterinary preventive medicine at Ohio State University, and a team of colleagues went to a pig farm where they swabbed floors and walls over a 5-month period, collecting environmental and fecal samples. They discovered the presence of a specific carbapenem-resistant gene called blaIMP-27 growing in their petri dishes. [3]

Wittum explains that carbapenem antibiotics are illegal for farm use; even if they weren’t, they’d be too expensive anyway.

“How the [resistant bacteria] got onto the farm we really don’t know. But probably it was introduced from the outside from movements of wildlife, people, equipment, etc.” [1]

He says it’s possible that other legal antibiotics used on the farm could be helping the bacteria to grow and spread, but more research is necessary.

None of the bacteria was detected in any of the pigs, but Wittum says he and the study’s co-authors have detected it in both sows and piglets.

“We found no evidence that these organisms were entering the food supply, but that is the concern: that it could happen on this or other farms,” he says. “We need more research to really understand that risk.”

He goes on to say:

“For now, we think that this is a rare and unusual occurrence. We hope that we have caught it early enough to stop it from spreading.

[But] the risk to the public is that these are food animals that will someday enter the food supply as fresh pork products.

While we didn’t find any evidence that that has occurred on this particular farm, it is a potential concern. We want to be sure that multidrug-resistant bacteria like these are never present in food, and one way to do that is to be sure that they are not introduced onto our farms.” [3]

Source: CDC. Click for larger version.

In the spring, British Chancellor George Osborne warned that antibiotic resistance could kill up to 10 million people a year by 2050, making it a bigger threat than cancer. That’s 1 person every 3 seconds.

Wittum says that this particular strain of antimicrobial resistance “may be related to antibiotics used to treat sick pigs, for the same reason that resistant bacteria like these are present in human hospitals because of the way we treat sick people with antibiotics.”

In other words, they’ve been overused.

He adds:

“We can’t just stop treating the sick pigs with antibiotics because of the negative impact that would have on animal welfare. But it might be possible for the farm to use antibiotics in different ways to stop the spread of this particular strain.”

But treating them and preventing them from becoming sick are 2 different things. Dr. David Wallinga of the Natural Resources Defense Council says the discovery may mean we’ve passed the point of no return.

Read: 84-Page Report Outlines 9 Ways to Beat Antibiotic Resistance

“The last terrible shoe may have just dropped when it comes to drug-resistant infections. This is just one more warning that doctors may soon have nothing left in their toolkit to save patients when these bugs strike.

Our overuse of antibiotics in livestock is creating reservoirs for the spread of resistance – and this study strongly suggests resistance to carbapenems is no exception. To save our miracle drugs, we have got to stop wasting them on animals that aren’t sick.” [2]

Sources:

[1] Time

[2] Consumerist

[3] HealthDay

CDC

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Scientists Modify Antibiotics to “Rip Apart” Superbugs in Minutes

In the fight against antibiotic resistance, it’s all hands on deck. The clock is ticking and superbugs are spreading, but drug companies are reluctant to create new antibiotics because they’re not money-makers. Researchers may have found a way around that problem by modifying already-existing antibiotics to make them “blow up” deadly superbugs.

University College London (UCL) researchers have found that antibiotics can kill drug-resistant bacteria with sheer brute force – by “pushing” hard enough into bacterial cells. They’ve documented their findings in Nature.

Lead author Dr Joseph Ndieyira, of UCL Medicine, says:

“Antibiotics work in different ways, but they all need to bind to bacterial cells in order to kill them.

Antibiotics have ‘keys’ that fit ‘locks’ on bacterial cell surfaces, allowing them to latch on. When a bacterium becomes resistant to a drug, it effectively changes the locks so the key won’t fit any more.

Incredibly, we found that certain antibiotics can still ‘force’ the lock, allowing them to bind to and kill resistant bacteria because they are able to push hard enough. In fact, some of them were so strong they tore the door off its hinges, killing the bacteria instantly!”

Read: 84-Page Report Outlines 9 Ways to Beat Antibiotic Resistance

Researchers used sensitive equipment to measure mechanical forces that 4 different antibiotics exerted on bacterial cells, according to a news release. They tested bacteria that were particularly susceptible to antibiotics and bacteria that had become resistant to drugs. The forces the antibiotics exerted on susceptible bacteria were all similar, but the forces exerted by the drugs on resistant antibiotics varied greatly.

The team tested  vancomycin, a powerful antibiotic used as a last resort treatment for MRSA and other infections, and oritavancin, a modified version of vancomycin used against complex skin infections.

Oritavancin is fast-acting antibiotic compared to vancomycin, killing bacteria in 15 minutes and 6-24 hours, respectively. Vancomycin disrupts vital processes in bacteria, causing them to slowly stop functioning and die. Oritavancin is technically a modified version of vancomycin, but the new study suggests that it kills bacteria in an entirely different way.

Ndieyira explains in the news release:

“We found that oritavancin pressed into resistant bacteria with a force 11,000 times stronger than vancomycin. Even though it has the same ‘key’ as vancomycin, oritavancin was still highly effective at killing resistant bacteria.

Until now it wasn’t clear how oritavancin killed bacteria, but our study suggests that the forces it generates can actually tear holes in the bacteria and rip them apart.

Oritavancin molecules are good at sticking together to form clusters, which fundamentally changes how they kill bacteria. When two clusters dig into a bacterial surface they push apart from each other, tearing the surface and killing the bacteria. Remarkably, we found that conditions at the bacterial surface actually encourage clustering which makes antibiotics even more effective.”

Read: Bacteria Resistant to ALL Antibiotics Shows up in U.S.

Ndieyira and his colleagues assembled a detailed mathematical code to show how antibiotics act on the surface of bacterial cells. Researchers will be able to use this model to screen promising new antibiotics that can overpower and kill superbugs.

Says Ndieyira:

“Our findings will help us not only to design new antibiotics but also to modify existing ones to overcome resistance. Oritavancin is just a modified version of vancomycin, and now we know how these modifications work we can do similar things with other antibiotics. This will help us to create a new generation of antibiotics to tackle multi-drug resistant bacterial infections, now recognized as one of the greatest global threats in modern healthcare.”

---

---

About Mike Barrett:
	Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

Victory: KFC Pledges to Use Antibiotic-Free Chicken by 2018

In another victorious move for the public, KFC has announced that it will stop using chickens that were given antibiotics in the U.S. by the end of 2018. [1]

The fried chicken fast-food establishment, which boasts 4,200 restaurants across the country, says it will nix antibiotics from both its boneless and on-the-bone chicken. KFC joins a growing list of fast-food companies that have made food supply changes in response to consumer concerns about health.

KFC said in a statement:

“By the end of 2018, all chicken purchased by KFC in the U.S. will be raised without antibiotics important to human medicine. This includes our chicken tenders and popcorn chicken; but we’re especially proud to be the first major chicken chain to extend this commitment to our bone-in chicken.” [2]

Matt Wellington, a spokesperson for the activist agency Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), says:

“This commitment is a major step forward for public health and could drastically shift the U.S. chicken industry away from overusing our life-saving medicines.” [3]

In 2016, a report by Chain Reaction II, a group of six nonprofit and activist organizations, gave KFC an “F” grade for its antibiotics policies and practices.

Antibiotics are given to farm animals for a variety of reasons, including treating sick livestock. However, farm animals are routinely given drugs to prevent illness and promote growth in filthy, stressful, and cramped conditions. The practice has given rise to antibiotic-resistant superbugs that could potentially send modern medicine back to the Dark Ages.

Source: CNBC

Despite the threat posed by antibiotic resistance, U.S. sales of medically important antibiotics approved for use in livestock increased by 23% between 2009 and 2014.

In recent years, numerous fast-food chains have either ditched antibiotics or pledged to cease using them in the future, including Wendy’s, Subway, Taco Bell, Chick-fil-A, and McDonald’s.

Sources:

[1] USA Today

[2] Los Angeles Times

[3] CNN Money

CNBC

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

New Discovery Could Help Humans Win the War on Superbugs

Scientists are working on finding solutions to the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant superbugs. The latest weapon in their arsenal is Tasmanian devil milk.

The Tasmanian devil is a marsupial, which means it’s a mammal that is born very early in its development and spends a few months growing and suckling inside their mothers’ pouches, just like kangaroos and opossums. [1]

Researchers in Australia have suspected for some time that marsupials might carry some potent chemicals in their bodies to help their young grow. It was Tasmanian devils’ pouches that led researchers to study these chemicals.

The furry brown critters are born 3 weeks into their mothers’ pregnancy. These imps, as baby Tasmanian devils are called, must crawl up through their mother’s fur to this pouch, where they will suckle and continue to grow for about 4 months.

Research shows that these pouches contain tons of bacteria, including pathogens that could harm the underdeveloped young. Scientists thought there must be immune system-boosting qualities in the mother’s milk to help the imps develop in such an environment.

Examining Immune System-Boosting Qualities of Marsupial Milk

So, researchers tested Tasmanian devil milk and found several peptides called cathelicidins, a natural kind of antibiotic. The marsupials carry 12 cathelicidins in their systems, while humans only carry 1. Six of the peptides were found to contain superbug-killing qualities. [1] [2]

The Sydney-based team recreated the 6 Tasmanian devil superbug-killing peptides and tested them on 25 types of bacteria and 6 types of fungi. [2]

When exposed to the peptides from Tasmanian devil milk, multidrug-resistant bacteria like vancomycin-resistant enterococcus and methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (or MRSA) died. [1]

About 1 in 3 people carry MRSA in their noses, and most of the time it does them no harm. However, it can become deadly if it enters the bloodstream. [3]

Source: Devils in Danger Foundation Inc.

The Tasmanian Devil Population Could Benefit, Too

Using these peptides to fight superbugs in humans is still a long way off, and more research is needed. But the discovery might also help save the Tasmanian devil population, which is currently an endangered species. There is only an estimated 10,000 to 25,000 left in the wild. [1]

Tasmanian devils used to be found roaming all over the Australian mainland, but these days they are only found on the island state of Tasmania, as the name implies.

Back in the 1800’s, ranchers mistakenly thought Tasmanian devils were killing livestock, so a massive effort to eradicate the marsupials was launched.

These days, the major threat against them is a rare, contagious cancer, called devil facial tumor disease. The illness has killed thousands of Tasmanian devils since the 1990’s.

Other members of the marsupial family are being studied to see whether milk from animals like koalas and wallabies may also fight superbugs. Previous studies on wallabies have shown similar results.

Wallabies also have cathelicidin peptides. [2]

Grad student Emma Peel, who worked on the research which is published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports, said:

“Tammar wallabies have eight of these peptides and opossums have 12.”

It’s a race against the clock for Tasmanian devils, and also for people.

No Matter How, a Solution is Needed

If something is not done to halt the march of superbugs and the decreasing effectiveness of antibiotics soon, killer bacteria could claim 10 million lives by 2050.

Bacteria resistant to all antibiotics was discovered for the first time in the United States this past spring, and a report published earlier this fall revealed that thousands of U.S. deaths from superbugs go unreported every year.

Dr. Margaret Chan, Director-General of the U.N.’s World Health Organization, said in September:

“Antimicrobial resistance poses a fundamental threat to human health, development, and security… We are running out of time.” [3]

Sources:

[1] CNN

[2] BBC News

[3] CBS News

Devils in Danger Foundation Inc.

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Thousands of U.S. Deaths from Superbugs go Unreported

Superbugs kill tens of thousands of Americans each year, but it’s often not reflected on death certificates. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for health officials to accurately track the spread of antibiotic resistance. [1]

Take the case of Josiah Cooper-Pope, a baby born 15 weeks premature, who died from methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, in the neonatal unit at 17 days old. No one at Chippenham Hospital in Richmond, Virginia, told Josiah’s mother, Shala Bowser, that her son was the 4th newborn to die from MRSA. Records show 8 other babies were sickened by the superbug – nearly every baby in the unit – before the outbreak had run its course.

Yet, Josiah’s birth certificate listed the cause of death as “Sepsis due to (or as a consequence of): Prematurity.”

Sepsis is a complication of the infection, but MRSA was listed nowhere on the certificate.

Bowser said:

“My heart hurts. I saw what this did to him. And then they just threw a bunch of words on the death certificate.”

It’s not just baby deaths that are being covered up. An investigation by Reuters turned up others: Emma Grace Breaux died at age 3 from complications of the flu; Joshua Nahum died at age 27 from complications related to a skydiving accident; and Dan Greulich succumbed to cardiac arrhythmia at age 64 after a combined kidney and liver transplant.

In each case, death was caused by a drug-resistant bacterial infection contracted while the patients were in the hospital, yet none of the death certificates reflect that.

Read: Superbugs Could Kill 10 Million People by 2050

In fact, according to Reuters, thousands upon thousands of people die from drug-resistant superbugs each year, but they go uncounted because federal and state agencies do a terrible job of tracking them. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and state health departments lack the political, legal, and financial capacity to impose strict monitoring.

As an example, carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae, or CRE, is one of the country’s most urgent health threats. For that reason, the CDC recommends that local health officials require hospitals to report cases of the infection. [2]

It was reported last year that a CRE outbreak had affected patients treated at hospitals in 42 states, including 1 in Central Pennsylvania, and 1 in the Los Angeles area.

The outbreak was linked to insufficient sterilization procedures for a certain type of medical device, called an endoscope, which led to a massive recall of the Olympus-made devices last January.

When reporting drug-resistant bugs isn’t possible, agency guidelines suggest that health departments still survey hospitals and nursing homes for the presence of the superbug to ensure facilities are trying to halt its spread.

But these are merely recommendations.

How Can We Beat a Problem We Don’t Report On?

How do you fight such a grave, looming threat if you don’t know the full scope of the problem?

Director of the Center for Disease Dynamics, Economics & Policy, a Washington-based health policy research organization, Ramanan Laxminarayan said:

“You need to know how many people are dying of a disease. For better or worse, that’s an indicator of how serious it is.”

CDC officials warned in October that they’d discovered that some hospitals had attempted to keep their infection-control staff from reporting certain types of hospital-acquired infections to a national database as required.

A survey published in a CDC medical journal in 2010 showed that 49% of New York City medical residents said they had willfully reported an inaccurate cause of death on a certificate.

Why Cover up Superbug Deaths?

There are a number of reasons why drug-resistant infections are not acknowledged on birth certificates. [1]

• Insufficient Training. Doctors and other healthcare workers often receive insufficient training on how to fill out the proper forms.

• Impatience. Some doctors just want to fill out the forms and be done with it, and opt out of waiting the several days it can take for a laboratory to confirm an infection.

• Fear of a Damaged Reputation. Counting deaths is tantamount to documenting your own failures, Reuters points out. Acknowledging these failures puts hospitals and medical professionals at risk of potential malpractice lawsuits, loss of insurance reimbursements, and public-relations nightmares.

And in most states, there is no law requiring that drug-resistant infections be listed as a cause of death. The only exceptions are Washington and Illinois.

Most states use a model law that mandates financial penalties for anyone who deliberately makes a false statement on the document, but those penalties are often negligible and rarely enforced.

Better Surveillance and Accountability

Source: MicroBEnet

Ed Winter, assistant chief in Los Angeles County’s medical examiner-coroner’s office, said that any time a patient dies from a suspected hospital-acquired infection, the individual should be sent to the medical examiner for review to determine whether county officials, rather than hospital doctors, should determine the cause of death. [2]

Winter said:

“If there is a question, we will look into it.”

Read: World Leaders Meet to Finally Address Antibiotic Resistance Crisis

Additionally, Johns Hopkins Hospital surgeon Dr. Martin Makary urged the CDC in May to add a line to all death certificates where doctors would be asked if the death was the result of a preventable complication from medical care (such as CRE caused by improper sterilization).

He estimates that infections, errors, and other cases of “medical care going wrong” would be at least the third-leading cause of death among Americans if they were properly recorded.

“We need an open and honest conversation about the problem.”

Sources:

[1] Reuters

[2] Los Angeles Times

MicroBEnet

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.