mistermack

Thanks Sangui. But just to make it clear, the idea is not to stop the normal cleaning regime. You keep cleaning thoroughly and regularly as before, but each time afterwards you re-apply the antibiotic-sensitive strain afresh, by dusting or spraying, or whatever method has been developed as best. So the bugs you apply never get the time to mutate, or become resistant. They are constantly cleared away and renewed with new copies of the original strain. It wouldn't be hard to test for whether this works without using real live patients as guinea pigs. You could rig up a test room, spread around samples of the resistant bug, and re-test after a week of applying the process. Compare the results for frequency of the resistant strain after using the method, and not using it. If there was a real difference, it might be something worth pursuing. If they were the only people I'd mentioned it to, you might have a point. But people elsewhere have had no problem getting the principle, even if they don't think it would work. I'm dubious myself, I'm acting as advocate here, but the idea for me is to debate specific points that might make the process work or not work. No, for the same reason that I mentioned above. They only have to survive from one clean to the next. They then get cleaned away, and it's all re-applied afresh.

Why don't you either address the OP and stop trying to derail the thread, or open a thread on your suggested topic. As a moderator, you shouldn't be trying derails. As far as this thread goes, your attempts to appear an authority are not at all convincing, I've never fallen for your bluster. Your posts give you away because you get the wrong end of every stick. The condescending attitude just doesn't come off.

It's benign in the sense of being easy to clear, using the cheapest and most widely used antibiotics. That's been made clear numerous times, in this thread, including the very first post. You could try a bit of reading before you dash off a post. I've called it many things, including sensitive, etc. In the OP I said " A strain of the same bug that keels over at the slightest hint of the cheapest antibiotic. " How hard can it be to get that concept? I said benign because I got bored repeating myself to people who don't read what they are posting about. You could try to breed a non-infective strain. That would be aiming too high, in my opinion. It's you that can't even follow a simple post. You do it over and over again. It feels like being trolled, to be honest. I'm fed up with answering posts that are clearly not based on the OP or my replies. You're as bad as string junky. Nobody said anything about a non-pathogenic strain. Did you even read the OP? You've posted enough times, but you still don't get it. I can't see how anyone can read the OP and fail to get what's being proposed. Whether it would work or not, is worth a discussion, but repeating the very simple concept over and over again to people who can't seem to even grasp the basic idea is tiresome.

A friend of Daffy's.

Charon, I think you are beyond help. The above does NOT imply that you are trying to infect a patient. The OP was perfectly clear. The tactic is to out-compete the resistant strains in the environment, with specially bred benign strains. If the patient DOES pick up an infection, then it's far more likely to be from one of the sensitive strain, which would be extremely easy to clear. But that's not the intention of the process. It's just something that could happen. The intention is to produce an environment that has ever lower numbers of the resistant strain, through competition for space in the environment. Edit : Just to add to that, people are often put on antibiotic after an operation anyway, so the chances of getting infected by the sensitive strain, in those circumstances, would be close to nil.

The mechanism that they are describing would be an extremely slow process, not worthy of the terms "sucking" or "sink". Firstly aerobic soil respiration needs air by definition. The oxygen supply deep below is going to be very restricted so the production of CO2 would be very slow. Then it needs significant water movement, otherwise the existing water will become saturated and not take any more CO2. High C02 levels also inhibit bacterial growth. But this region is desert, and groundwater movement is not going to be very substantial. Then of course, you are only moving carbon from A to B. From soil to water. If the basin is old, then it's probably at capacity, so what water is going in at one end is probably leaving at the other. Which means that the natural outflow of this "sink" will be giving off CO2 as soon as it escapes. Basically, instead of soil-generated CO2 very slowly working it's way to the surface, some of it is taking an alternative route.

You haven't got a grasp of this at all. Either you're not reading what's posted, or you can't take it in. For hopefully for last time, the aim is NOT to infect people. How many times does it need to be repeated ?

No, it's freedom for me. They said I hadn't done anything, and that I could go free. Only kidding !

No mention of rabbits though. Although Bugs looks more Hare than Rabbit to me. He's doing well, if he's been to the edge of the Galaxy. Even if it was the near edge, it's still thousands of light years away. And he doesn't look a day older. It must be the carrots.

What am I supposed to think? This is just more hand waving. If you can't be specific, and just keep coming out with this kind of vague rubbish, you inevitably invite that kind of suspicion. When people know what they're talking about, they generally get straight to the point. And that's how selective breeding works.

To be honest, I'm not aware of such an answer in this thread. The closest I've seen is this : But all it is is claims. Claims don't make an answer for me. You need to provide evidence of where the extra CO2 is coming from in the first place, and why. And what concentrations, and how they are different to the original concentration that soaked in as melt water. There's nothing in the linked article to any of that. It's just full of "could be"s. The first sentence starts with "there could be". The next has "could be equivalent". If any thread belongs in speculations, this is it. But some facts and figures "could" change all that.

You certainly have left me pondering !

So you haven never heard of selective breeding then? Did god make the Pekingese, or maybe natural selection produced all of the lapdogs. Darwin would put you right, if he was here. He was fascinated by pigeon breeding, and knew all about the power of selection, whether it be natural or human. In reality, bacteria wouldn't care who or what was doing the selection. Humans selecting the most sensitive, or nature selecting the most resistant, it's the same process. Using the same argument, you would say that 10% would be hyper-sensitive to the agent. If you select that 10% and breed from them, what do you get?

It's you that needs to provide a citation. I only said it's a possibility. If you disagree, explain why it's not a possibility, or perhaps you could cite your evidence. That's just more hand waving from you. No specific argument, just tush tush ! Or maybe you can provide citations for the above claims. I get the feeling that some people are thinking I'm suggesting deliberately infecting people with a sensitive strain. That's not it at all. I'm suggesting that the sensitive strain should be sprayed or dusted around the risky environment, like a hospital ward that has a particular resistant bug problem. You would breed a strain of the same species, that is hyper sensitive to the usual antibiotics. It wouldn't be hard to do. If you can breed a chihuahua from a wolf, you can use selection in bacteria with a deliberate aim in mind. They reproduce so fast, it wouldn't take forever. It wouldn't have to be an expensive process, and results should get better and better over time. You could at the same time try to select for the most competitive ones, that tended to compete better for space. The treatment aim would still be to prevent any infection in all patients, but the intended outcome would be that if an infection did arise, it would be far more likely to be the easily treatable kind. If you could break the cycle of resistant bugs having the place to themselves, It might be possible to remove the problem from the ward or hospital in question.

That's interesting, but I always thought that the main difference between a cold and flu was that with flu you run a high fever, and with a cold you don't. So if this Yale study is right, feed a cold/starve a fever would be bad advice for flu, as it's viral, but that's probably where the saying comes from.