One news item and one documentary inspired comment: a few weeks ago it was reported that a disease research facility had successfully mapped out the genetics of the strain responsible for the 1918? flu pandemic. Some people got scared and cried out “Why would you ever do such a thing?! Do you want millions more to die?” The researcher’s defense was that it was very unlikely the specimens would have the opportunity to leave the laboratory and that only by recreating the strain could they really amass quality knowledge about it that could be used in future flu prevention. I’m liable to agree with the researchers. Even in the event that the strain escapes the lab and harpoons itself into someone’s nose, the infected would likely not die, since by virtue of their being alive today, they already have the necessary antibodies in them.

What is puzzling is that the researchers posted their findings on the web for all the world to see, in effect showing how to make the strain to anyone who was interested and had the means. At first, it seems like a bioterrorist’s lucky day, but then, when considering the strain is these days obsolete [consult earlier sentence which starts with ‘Even in…’], combined with the probability that bioterrorists these days are concocting brews far scarier than the 1918 flu, the posting of the genetics is nothing to worry over.

And now the documentary inspired comment. Well the doc was about how the world is nowhere near adequately prepared for a bacterial pandemic. One reason is that very few pharmaceutical companies are in the antibiotics business since it isn’t a money maker. You see, medicines that people take regularly and often (to aid these problem areas: joint pain, congestion, sexual mal-performance, etc.) yield higher revenue than an antibiotic taken once a year. Additionally, the rate of success in antibiotic research is very low and the process is costly. Since the advent of penicillin, our little bacteria friends have engaged in the war we started and have proved themselves undefeatable. The best we can do is remain in an equilibrium situation. The worst we can do is die, or maybe that would be best…but that’s another discussion. Moving on, the doc spent some minutes with a young adult who was hospitalized with a bacterial infection. He had been treated with multiple antibiotics and none of them did anything to hinder the bacteria, all the while he gets weaker. Finally, as a last resort, he is made to be a guinea pig for an experimental antibiotic. It’s so experimental that the doctors can’t be sure the antibiotic itself won’t kill him. And my comment is this: the more experimental the antibiotic, the less concerned scientists are with regard to side effects. “I don’t care that your vomiting was so violent that your stomach tore apart from it’s lining or that you suffered irreversible neurological damage, the fact is you’re alive and it’s our antibiotic that saved your life.” Or even “Well, the patient died but it was the antibiotic that killed him, not the bacteria. We were successful.”