Some here may find this of interest.
Others will probably disparage what is written here.
Here is a link that might be useful: Resisting the truth
But we knew that widespread use of antibiotics was resulting in the evolution of antibiotic resistant pathogens back in the 1950's. We have been ignoring this knowledge ever since, and it's not just the FDA. It is the farmers who use the antibiotics, the federal government, all of the state governments, and the general public.
In about 1953 I had a summer job as a gardener in a TB sanatorium. TB sanatoriums(a?) don't exist any more because of antibiotics; but surely because of antibacterial resistance they will return. My question is: why don't we hear about phages as an anti-biotic? They remove bacteria from the bloodstream in a way that doesn't trigger resistance, or so I believe. The Russians had lots of phage hospitals; I wonder if they still do. Regards, Peter.
Here's the good news: in response to antibiotic resistance of MRSA and other flesh eating bacteria, maggot therapy is making a comeback.
My question is: why don't we hear about phages as an anti-biotic?
They work beautifully "in vitro".
We had this discussion way back in the 1960s in my bacteriology classes: The problem with phages in a live infected individual is that they lyse (rupture) the bacteria when they multiply, spilling the bacterial endotoxins out into the bloodstream and tissues. That is not good for the patient - it's often fatal.
When white blood cells dispose of intact bacteria n(dead or alive), they lyse them inside the WBC, and it has ways of dealing with the endotoxins that protects the person from the toxins.