[boas]

I've worked in a US hospital for a few years, and I've never seen a bacteria that was resistant to all antibiotics, but I have seen people die from bacterial infections. So I think the media focus on drug-resistant bacteria is oversimplified. Why would someone die from a bacterial infection while receiving appropriate antibiotics? One reason is that the antibiotics can't reach the bacteria -- for example if the bacteria are organized into an abscess or biofilm. Another reason is that the body can overreact to the infection, and the patient can die from their immune response rather than the infection itself -- this is called sepsis. Other problems with antibiotics: culture results (which tell you which antibiotic to use) can take a few days, antibiotics frequently have side effects, and it's frequently unclear when the infection is fully treated and the antibiotics can be stopped. I felt a need to respond because a politician reading articles in the popular media will get a distorted view of what is actually needed in hospitals, potentially leading to inappropriate research funding priorities.

[ZoFreX]

> So I think the media focus on drug-resistant bacteria is oversimplified.

This article is from the UK. Our media's focus on drug-resistant bacteria isn't oversimplified, it's FUD. The whole nation is scared stiff of MRSA because the papers all used "the lab that gets results" - aka some dude in his shed who had no idea what he was doing. They used this lab because it repeatedly confirmed that large numbers of journalists samples (taken from various areas in hospitals) did indeed contain MRSA.

Not that there isn't a problem, and it merits attention, but the hysteria they whipped up was unwarranted.

I'd be less angry, but despite all this antibiotic fear, people still keep taking them for colds. Grr.