[eth0up]

I admit I slipped into the octogon of HN where animals weak and strong come to test their teeth on impulse. Therefore I must be prepared to write essays on semantics even when I use subtle indicators such as quotes.

For the first portion of your reply, I think that if TB became resistant to potatoes with licorice icecream, it would be preferable to having absolutely no recourse with antibiotics. But that's silly. If you are 100% certain that latent TB is innocuous and can't be reactivated, I must admit my logic was flawed.

Edit: is not, eg mrsa, becoming resistant to various things in the environment? Biofilms make many bacteria resistant to even alcohol. Staph, ubiquitous and thus exposed to pretty much anything a person's skin is exposed to is probably resistant to many things it previously wasn't. But it remains vulnerable to a few antibiotics, for now.

[Eisenstein]

I understand now what you mean. The thing is that TB doesn't transfer its resistance to other pathogens like MRSA does. It develops resistance via a different mechanism (mutations of its genome) then MRSA does (horizontal gene transfer).

Thus, you have a misconception about the nature of TB resistance. This accounts for the pushback. People tend to forget that we all have different knowledge bases and we talk past each other.