Thursday, August 16, 2007

Wanting to sound really retarded?

So reading up on how antibiotic soap is not only ineffective but also bad, by causing the strains to become immune. I was rather astounded to hear about how they made this happen.

Because of the way the main active ingredient---triclosan---in many antibacterial soaps reacts in the cells, it may cause some bacteria to become resistant to commonly used drugs such as amoxicillin,

Because of the way it reacts in the cell wall... by breaking down the cell walls? That doesn't directly make them resistant but fair enough.

Triclosan works by targeting a biochemical pathway in the bacteria that allows the bacteria to keep its cell wall intact. Because of the way triclosan kills the bacteria, mutations can happen at the targeted site. Aiello says a mutation could mean that the triclosan can no longer get to the target site to kill the bacteria because the bacteria and the pathway have changed form.

What? Sure, the stuff breaks apart the bacteria. However, the "mutations can happen at the targeted site" the target site is in the cell wall. There's NO FUCKING DNA IN THE CELL WALL! And they happen because "of the way triclosan kills the bacteria" -- DEAD BACTERIA DON'T FUCKING HAVE USEFUL MUTATIONS THEY HAVE "I'M DEAD AND NOT REPRODUCING ANY MORE MUTATIONS" MUTAITONS!

In case any of you missed it, the article is saying what we've known and predicted for years. Antibiotic soaps are not useful, and even when they kill 99.9% of bacteria, that .1% doesn't die next time you use the soap, because if anything in their genetics or in their pathways help prevent this from happening, they start to develop an immunity to the antibiotic. This in turn makes the real powerful stuff we use later on, much harder to use effectively.

My gripe? They don't say evolution. They say all kinds of crazy nonsense other than evolution. You would read the article and have to believe that the triclosan reacts in the cell wall and induces a mutation in the DNA which corresponds to that code for the cell wall. Then, in turn lives through having it's cell wall torn apart, and passes this information on. Excuse me? Am I really to understand that the actual science should be skirted just to ignore very basic evolution and not raise a fuss? Worse yet, the evidence at that level is so good most Creationists say it happens and draw an arbitrary line in the sand between macro and micro evolution to somehow imply that they have different mechanisms. "Sure you can use a "step" to go a few feet, but never a mile!"

No comments: