

U.S. Aims to Curb Peril of Antibiotic Resistance - stang
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/health/us-lays-out-strategy-to-combat-crisis-of-antibiotic-resistance.html

======
tomwalker
This sounds like a very positive step.

As concerned as I am about the new or novel infectious agents, such as ebola,
the largest problem will come from common pathogens that are only treatable
with the strongest of antibiotics (that often have more serious side effects).

~~~
greeneggs
It is better than nothing. The comments on agricultural use of antibiotics are
disappointing.

"The section on agricultural use in the council’s report 'sounds like it was
written by someone from the meat industry,' said Dr. James Johnson, a
professor of medicine and an infectious disease expert at the University of
Minnesota. 'Really disappointing. Actually, depressing.'

"...The National Pork Producers Council, for its part, seemed pleased, saying
in a statement that 'the White House acknowledged something that the National
Pork Producers Council has been saying for years: More epidemiological
research is needed to understand the key drivers of increased antibiotic
resistance.'"

It seems like a mistake to continue introducing new antibiotics without
addressing the factors that quickly lead to antibiotic resistance. This is
especially the case because the number of different antibiotics might well be
finite. (Or at least, it could be that the cost of developing new antibiotics
will start to increase geometrically.) Throwing away a brand-new antibiotic is
almost criminal.

I like this graphic from Nature very much; it summarizes the history of
antibiotic resistance and current consumption and status:

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7498_supp/full/50...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7498_supp/full/509S2a.html)

