Battling bugs - Permanent solution?

[ronthepon]

Disease causing microbes, their vectors, their breeders etc, all are the target of any mission that aims to remove a particular disease. Usually, there are different steps taken to adverely affect the growth of, or kill the agents.

 

Numerous processes exist for these. Doxycicillin, phenol, DDT, Micronazole nitrate, Thiocyanate ions, M4 ARs, etc. Different methods for different ocassions.

 

I've noticed just how the use of each weapon carries on, carefully at the start, and gradually with more and more freeness and on larger scales until we realise that they no longer have the 'old edge' over the bugs. We eventually realise that it's us who's affected more significantly than the ones we direct the weapons against.

 

What can be done? How can this be changed? And is there a 'permanent' solution?

 

This is a little thing I've been thinking about. I have some opinions, and intend to discuss a little before I voice my thoughts. What do you guys think?

[CraigD]

I've noticed just how the use of each weapon carries on, carefully at the start, and gradually with more and more freeness and on larger scales until we realise that they no longer have the 'old edge' over the bugs. We eventually realise that it's us who's affected more significantly than the ones we direct the weapons against.

This is an astute observation of what disease control experts sometimes term “the antibiotic arms race”.

 

Pathogens, especially bacteria, excel at quickly adapting to the medicines invented and used to control them, and communicating the “genetic knowledge” of their adaptation to other pathogens, to the extent that clinicians must question if treating more minor diseases does not expose future patients to severe ones from pathogens that have gained immunity to all available antibiotics. Because it’s very difficult to tell a patient that they should suffer so that future patients may not die, this question is difficult to answer with rational detachment.

 

Fortunately, pathogens are less adapt at adapting to physical prevention measures such as improved sanitation, so these approaches, which often involve civil engineering and public education, rarely lose effectiveness.

What can be done? How can this be changed? And is there a 'permanent' solution?

I believe such a solution is possible.

 

By acquiring a detailed molecular understanding of biology, and with the use of modern computing resources, I believe it will be possible not only to effectively treat nearly all pathogen-carried disease, but even the fundamentally genetic and metabolic causes of aging. As Ray Kurzweil is famous for claiming, I believe that technology may make it possible for people alive now to effectively never age.

[ronthepon]

In a way, actively finding new mechanisms against disease sources, and constantly adapting them so that they continue to remain effective for long.

 

The process intends not to depend on fungi for the production of their chemical - or other - weapons, instead focusses on their building first hand.

 

Am I getting it right?

[CraigD]

In a way, actively finding new mechanisms against disease sources, and constantly adapting them so that they continue to remain effective for long.

 

The process intends not to depend on fungi for the production of their chemical - or other - weapons, instead focusses on their building first hand.

 

Am I getting it right?

What I suggested in post #2 amounts to the aphorism “knowledge is power”.

 

If I can offer a very rought analogy: Everyday, we survive a very dangerous environment, filled with precipices and rushing machines that could quickly kill us, not because we attack and destroy these things, but because we understand them, and avoid them at the correct times and places. Much of the current state of medicine takes the attack and destroy approach to handling pathogens, which, having evolved for as long as anything on Earth, they’re adept at resisting. There’s a good chance that if medicine long continues with this approach, we’ll run out of tricks before the pathogens do, and the age of antibiotics will come to an unpleasant end.

 

To my thinking – and this is very speculative, essentially SF thinking, not orthodox medicine – the “ultimate solution” to winning our ancient battle with pathogens over who gets to use our bodies is not to overpower them, but to outsmart them. After all, pathogens are “thinking” with very old-fashioned, DNA-based machinery, while we have our amazing, abstract-logic capable nervous-system machinery on top of that. We should, ultimately, be smarter then them in nearly every way.

 

Imagine “human immune system 2.0”, a scheme where, rather than our immune cells merely attempting to identify pathogens and chose from a limited selection of responses such as: 1) kill it (rupture its cell wall); 2) swarm and remove it; 3) have the cells it’s using commit suicide, some mechanism is used to sequence their DNA, model their cellular dynamics, and adapt either symbiotic organisms or our own cells to thwart this mechanism. In many cases, a few novel proteins expressed on our cell membranes would be enough to totally bewilder and defeat the most deadly pathogens, such as HIV.

 

Rather than our “immune system 1.millions-of-years-of-evolution” combating equally evolved pathogens, with some artificial assistance thrown in like wild animals in an ancient Roman arena (with the hope they’ll eat the pathogens, not our immune system!), I’m proposing that we apply our higher-order intellects to the problem.

 

To do this, we must be able to see what we’re studying, then understand it. The science of molecular biology has been at this for over a century. It’s no easy task. But I’m optimistic that it’s the way to ultimately cure all medical ills.

[ronthepon]

I like that. It is an excellent concept.

 

To shift the heavy dependence from the anti-microbial compounds synthesised by sources that have come to do so by sheer selection to a versatile and focussed intellegence is an excellent idea.

 

It is obvious that there can be no permanent solution, only a rapidly changing group of defence mechanisms.

a few novel proteins expressed on our cell membranes would be enough to totally bewilder and defeat the most deadly pathogens, such as HIV.

Considering that HIV is not exactly deadly, only the fact that it hits the chink in the armour of cell mediated immunity, we can expect a requirement of countless deaths before there is a mechanism which enables the body to fight.

 

But the microbes are at an advantage in this regard. I mean, they can die in the scale of trillions, while we cannot. Thus, when it comes to versatile defence and immunity, we cannot resort to nature's ways.

 

Really convincing, it does sound very valid.

[hallenrm]

An alternative approach could be to live in harmony with the nature and understand/feel our body so that it can combat the pathogens naturally. Nature abounds in biological organisms, say plants, bacteria and fungi that are antagonistic to one another naturally. If we spend even a fraction of the resources we spend in manufacturing/marketing drugs to explore the nature better, the chances are that we shall be much better equipped to fight the diseases. As an example, I can quote the success of [[Ayurveda]] and [[unani]] medicines in this context. Many ancient civiilizations had learnt this technique, which we are slowly forgetting (or reviviving gradually?)

 

:hyper:

[CraigD]

An alternative approach could be to live in harmony with the nature and understand/feel our body so that it can combat the pathogens naturally.

One of the beauties of CALM (complementary and alternative living medicine) is that it is not only alternative (eg: rather than treating chronic headache with an analgesic, such as acetaminophen, teach the patient effective relaxation techniques), but complimentary (eg: treat a septic perforated ulcer with an antibiotic, and teach the patient diet and stress management techniques to assure that the condition doesn’t reoccur). It’s a false dichotomy, I think, to believe that one must either use conventional medicine, or alternative, not a best-of combination of the two.

Nature abounds in biological organisms, say plants, bacteria and fungi that are antagonistic to one another naturally. If we spend even a fraction of the resources we spend in manufacturing/marketing drugs to explore the nature better, the chances are that we shall be much better equipped to fight the diseases.

A substantial part of the R & D spending of the pharmaceutical industry is dedicated to the discovery and investigation of naturally occurring pharmacologically active plants and animal substances. In a peculiar “battle of two devils”, powerful pharm companies are frequently the most effective champions of environment/habitat protection efforts against powerful agricultural companies.

 

The need for pharmacology to be so imitative of nature is, I believe, a reflection of the state of basic molecular biology, which is only beginning to acquire the understanding necessary for “originality”. Until it does (if it ever does), nature will continue to be the source of nearly all chemical novelty.

… I can quote the success of [[Ayurveda]] and [[unani]] medicines in this context. Many ancient civiilizations had learnt this technique, which we are slowly forgetting (or reviviving gradually?)

I think it’s necessary to look at what a medical tradition is, and how societies that once followed ancient traditions now follow modern ones. Only rarely were the old traditions forcibly suppressed in favor of new ones. What usually happened is that new techniques and medicines showed efficacy in areas in which the old tradition lacked effective ones, becoming part of the tradition. Over time, the character of a tradition changed so much due to the introduction of new techniques that it little resembled the old tradition.

 

My point is that it’s no more appropriate to look at old medical traditions, such as Vedic medicine, as superior to current ones than it was for the people who wrote the Vedas to look at older traditions as superior to those. In their time, the Vedas were as much “state of the art” as modern medical texts are now.

 

I don’t mean to give the impression that modern medicine is without error, or, worse, without intentional corruption and fraudulent influences. Pharm and biomedical companies are strongly influenced by business pressures that favor the making of money over the most effective treatment of patients, and require strong watchdogs, particularly in countries that lack government agencies to effectively look after the best interests of the People. The means used by these business to profit at the expense of our health are too numerous to mention in this thread.

 

The same is also true, and in many cases more true, of businesses that champion alternative medicine and sell alternative medicines. In many cases, even in countries such as the US, such businesses are almost completely unregulated, and make tremendous profits. Worse, these companies often do so by spreading misinformation about basic science.

[hallenrm]

While, I do agree with most of the observations made by CraigD, I would still

say the following in response to:

 

I think it’s necessary to look at what a medical tradition is, and how societies that once followed ancient traditions now follow modern ones. Only rarely were the old traditions forcibly suppressed in favor of new ones. What usually happened is that new techniques and medicines showed efficacy in areas in which the old tradition lacked effective ones, becoming part of the tradition. Over time, the character of a tradition changed so much due to the introduction of new techniques that it little resembled the old tradition.

 

The advent of western colonial rule and imperialism of the east very much coincided with the development of the medical science in the west. So while it may be difficult to establish how the colonial influence overrode the traditional system, it cannot be beyond reasonable doubt. The western education was the fashion amongst the wealthy and influential during the period, it is therefore no big wonder that many effective cures were overlooked in the east under the influence of the innovative and enterprising westerners.

 

The recent trend in the medical circles to look at the traditional cultures is just like the remorseness of Allies after in invaded Iraq. It takes time and lives to learn lessons!

 

The following paragraph

 

The same is also true, and in many cases more true, of businesses that champion alternative medicine and sell alternative medicines. In many cases, even in countries such as the US, such businesses are almost completely unregulated, and make tremendous profits. Worse, these companies often do so by spreading misinformation about basic science.

 

appears to support my contention. :eek_big: