| > Can you cite an example or source for this? “We previously reconstructed a 1,000-year-old remedy containing onion, garlic, wine, and bile salts, known as ‘Bald’s eyesalve’, and showed it had promising antibacterial activity. In this current paper, we have found this bactericidal activity extends to a range of Gram-negative and Gram-positive wound pathogens in planktonic culture and, crucially, that this activity is maintained against Acinetobacter baumannii, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Streptococcus pyogenes in a soft-tissue wound biofilm model” [1]. > How could we be losing if medicine can afford to "wait out" a strain? In general, “mutations that confer larger” resistance “are more costly” in terms of fitness [2]. Absent the selection pressure of a particular antibiotic, the bugs without that resistance generally outcompete the ones weaving chainmail against Tomahawks. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69273-8 [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4380921/ |
And the more important part is losing resistance in a meaningful timeframe, much smaller than 1000 years. Also the relevant genes can't be easy to reactivate.