Stop bugging me
Continuing the current theme of expanding on the misconceptions of the ignorant I thought I would share this wonderful comment which was made on another site related to the MMR debate:
Why are we made to give this artificial drug to our kids? Drugs like this are known to create superbugs that kill more people.
I totally love that shit. Mutant superbugs are at your door waiting to rape your daughters and kill your sons! Clearly it’s all because of the drugs that these superbugs exist and kill our grannies when they go into hospital for some completely unrelated reason.
Hysteria aside there does appear to be a common misconception that antibiotics cause germs to mutate into strains that are either more virulent or are resistant to those antibiotics. This is a variation of the classic correlation/causality fallacy where it is assumed (by idiots) that if two things are related then it follows that one thing causes the other (which is *sometimes* the case but not *always* the case and even when it is the case it’s hard to prove which one causes the other). Viruses mutate, that’s a given, but it’s not assumed by rational thinking people that the mutation is caused directly by the antibiotics because mutations have been observed in controlled environments where no antibiotics are present. What *has* been observed is that when antibiotics are used to remove the population of a particular bug, what remains is likely to be resistant to the antibiotics; otherwise it too would have been wiped out.
This is a crass analogy but if I were to engineer a method of killing everyone who has brown, black or blonde hair (but not ginger) and leave it on earth for a great many years while observing from a secret space station I would return to earth to find a lot of ginger folk. I would not have *turned them all ginger*, I would have merely selectively removed the dark haired and blonde haired people and allowed the gingers to thrive and pass on their ginger genes. It follows that if I wipe out the population of a virus that is not resistant to my antibiotics, whatever is left (if there is anything left) will be resistant to the antibiotics.
So how did they get resistant in the first place? Pretty much the same way we have ginger people, albino people, white people, black people, hairy people, bald people or any of the other myriad of variations in our own population; pure chance. When the genetic information is passed from one generation to another there is often a little bit of scrambling along the way, this is what introduces variations in organisms that reproduce asexually. It’s actually a little more complex in organisms like us that reproduce sexually, our genetic information is a milkshake of our parents’ genetic information along with the odd random mutation, but essentially there is randomness in all living things.
For those with a few cells of grey matter, you might be thinking:
“Oh, shit, that sounds an awful lot like that theory of evolution thingumy!”
Yes. Yes it does, doesn’t it. It’s another observable example of the theory in action. If you can find a better explanation using the scientifically observed information (and can prove it to a point where peers in the scientific community can’t fault your theory) then you should let everyone know by sending your answers to:
I.want.one.of.those@nobelprize.org
“Viruses mutate, that’s a given, but it’s not assumed by rational thinking people that the mutation is caused directly by the antibiotics because mutations have been observed in controlled environments where no antibiotics are present.”
Minor quibble: antibiotics don’t kill viruses. They kill bacteria. Vaccines/anti-virals attack viruses. Part of what lead to superbugs, I think, is that confusion. Doctors would give antibiotics to patients with untreatable viral infections (which the body would eventually fight off on its own) partly to make them feel better (placebo effect), and partly to get them to leave. The placebo did nothing to fight the virus, but it did expose bacteria to their killer. The survivors, of course, bred.
Also, since the “cure” and the infection had nothing to do with each other, patients would feel better after a while and would save the remainder of the pills for “next time”. This also happens when antibiotics are prescribed to actually fight a bacterial infection…and this means that the bacteria aren’t exposed to the full dose for the full period…and those survivors also bred. It also means that, in the case of a bacterial infection, when the patient stops taking the pills after feeling better, that the infection comes back, worse and stronger.
Note, too, that I’m not a doctor. I don’t even play one on TV. I appear on COPS, mostly. I’m the guy running away. True story.
Yes, spot on with my lax use of language.
Cheers for your input both here and elsewhere on the site.
And cheers to you for this whole thing you’ve got going on here. I brought you a ficus to brighten up the place.
I don’t know how relevant this is to the use of antibiotics, but some bacteria can supposedly accelerate their mutation rate when they find themselves in a tight spot (without nutrients) to try to get out of it. If this does somehow apply to antibiotics, then it could be said that their use sort of causes resistance to be evolved.
Thanks, Reinis, that’s very relevant and not something I was aware of. Do you have any supporting sources?