I know for example my brother takes a low dose of antibiotics everyday to treat acne. Lots of people do. That can't possibly be good for preventing resistance.

Also the germs animals have are different than those in humans. Do cattle spread gohnerrea? And the antibiotics they use are different than those used in human medicine as well. The biggest problem is it is becoming resistant even to the last line antibiotics we have, and that can't be from agriculture.

See the 'common myths' section.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Acne/Pages/Causes.aspx

https://www.aad.org/media/news-releases/growing-evidence-sug...

Yes, the cause of acne can be different from person to person, but if you really think that the building blocks (ie. food) of our body doesn't have an effect on our largest organ then you are being willfully ignorant. From my experience, many Dermatologists still deny the connection for whatever reason, but I have come across many instances (including my own) where cutting back on processed sugars and dairy has drastically impacted the levels of acne someone has.

My sister-in-law is sitting across from me and is currently dealing with the acne directly related to the amount of sugary drinks she has started consuming since moving (Thai Iced Teas are addicting)

If you look at the article you linked the most substantial source is a study of 23 Australian men, which showed interesting, but not conclusive results. So at best the jury is out.

Note that these were low GI diets, so we are not just talking about sugar, but simple starches found in potatoes, white bread, rice etc.

> but if you really think that the building blocks (ie. food) of our body doesn't have an effect on our largest organ then you are being willfully ignorant.

Intuitively, of course this feels right. In practice, I'll wait to see the actual studies, rather than the anecdotage.

And I'm not comfortable calling the majority of dermatologists, the NHS etc "willfully ignorant "

The fact that your sister in law has moved has undoubtedly introduced a variety of life-style and dietary changes. That you've picked sugary drinks as the most important factor isn't really compelling evidence.

Right now the only way to find out is to try yourself, it is free after all, and you can't deny that in any case (whether it works for acne our not) reduction of sugar intake is good for your body.

It took 50 years before it we noticed that there might be a relation with smoking causing a lung cancer and 80 years (1980) before we were sure about it[1][2].

Acne though is far less serious issue, and not many people would be interested finding cause for it, especially since it would kill business for companies selling solutions that treat the symptoms (which do help, but you need to use them regularly)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#/media/File...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tobacco#Health_conc...

I don't think anyone was suggesting that it would be harmful to reduce sugar intake (although, I'm sure there may be cases where it is, or perhaps it's just easier said than done). I think it's more that there's apparently no proven link between sugar intake and acne and, given all the possible things that someone try in order do to reduce their acne, it might not make sense to choose one that has no evidence supporting it. Or at least, exhaust the other possibilities first.

Also, in the parent to my comment you say "scientists can't lock us in the cages to make sure we won't do anything else that will impact the results". But, they can, and do. It's called a controlled clinical trial. I've participated in one that went on for a week (was well paid for it) where we were kept in a room, fed a designed diet, and restricted in our activities. There were test subjects in the building who were in for much longer than my trial. So I don't think the idea that it's impossible to (dis)prove these things is accurate.

People who say they don't eat sugar make no sense, it's meaningless. My mother in law "doesn't eat sugar" but I see her eat stuff with sugar in it all the time. Fruit, most vegetables, and milk all have sugar in them.

"A low-glycemic-load diet improves symptoms in acne vulgaris patients: a randomized controlled trial"

Cohort size 43 persons.

My summary: At 12 wk, mean total lesion counts had decreased more in the low-glycemic-load group ( 23.5 +/- 3.9) than in the control group ( 12.0 +/- 3.5).

Then there's the severe type that always recur every month. Less than 1% of the population has this and the standard advice never works for these people. For some, changing diet works. For some it doesn't but thats the type of acne that's possibly linked to diet.

So saying there's no link is really misleading. There's no universal law that says red meat causes acne for everyone but that doesn't mean it doesn't cause acne for you

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/exd.12180/full

That paper discusses a link between dairy, insulin levels, and acne.

From http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjd.13462/full

Also it's generally not useful to provide links like this. I can create hundreds of "sources" for you which say its myth. I can also do the opposite. If you want to link something please link a full blown study with hundreds or thousands of participants over at least half a year. Then we can talk.

[0] http://www.healio.com/infectious-disease/antimicrobials/news...

For example if someone were infected with both antibiotic-resistant gut bacteria (acquired from eating contaminated meat) and gonorrhea, it's possible the latter could acquire antibiotic resistance genes from the former.

Eating the livestock (or drinking the milk) transfers antibiotics to our bodies, and then we become the environment in which bacteria are selected for resistance to antibiotics.

Antibiotic resistance is generally spread via plasmid-mediated resistance. Overuse of antibiotics in any capacity, regardless of ingestion into humans, causes some bacteria to evolve resistance. Bacteria are promiscuous with their DNA, and resistance by one organism on one context (e.g. livestock) can easily get transmitted to a completely different organism in a completely context (e.g. humans).

Having said all of that, there are many potential antibiotics out there that haven't been fully researched (almost all currently prescribed antibiotics are beta lactam variants, which is only one small class), and this "cannot be treated" stuff is mostly just bad journalism.

Some of the biggest challenges in antibiotics are economics not technical e.g., http://emerald.tufts.edu/med/apua/news/news-newsletter-vol-3... The only recent company built on antibiotics (Cubist) was purchased for a revenue stream and its R&D was disassembled by Pharma in the last year or so. You can bet that a good amount of organization knowledge has been lost. There are some start ups out there, but as far as I understand, there is little will to provide of equity or strategic funding for early development programs/companies. With the timelines in this industry, that doesn't bode well for 'breakthroughs' in the near future. With the recent idiocy and avarice of some of the "actors" in the industry (e.g., pharma bro, epi-pen). I am bracing for a backlash on pricing, even on needed products) which would further decrease the economic will for companies/funds to invest in early stage programs. Some comments here tout that the the wonders of science will solve this given time. Maybe so, but it's also possible that the burden of economics (and lowest-common denominator politics) could quench the wonders of science for the near term.

Are small agribusiness(es?) exempt? Why should they?

This of course depends on local regulation and legislation. But at least over here (northern EU), the bureaucracy is heavy and requirements quite strong.

Large-scale farming units have internal processes and they have more resources; there are many people doing the work with more thorough official oversight. Small-scale animal care, i.e. family or single-person farms, may be dependent on one person only. When illness - particularly mental illness - or old age kicks in, the animals may be neglected or mistreated in abhorrent ways.

On the other hand, small-scale agribusiness is also where the best animal care can be seen, there is actually an emotional bond between the carer and the animals.

Bad care is eventually caught because when you can't treat your animals well, you won't do your paperwork either. However, it is a strain on small farms as there is a fixed overhead in paperwork that is not much dependent on farm size, so there's a lot more to do per animal on small farms and thus there is more work/cost.

But I would caution against taking rumor and gossip as strong supporting evidence.

Small agribusinesses are hardly getting by.

    antibiotic resistance livestock

http://www.cdc.gov/narms/animals.html, http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-..., and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17600481 on the first page.

Edit: In the off-chance this is about the media conspiracy theory thing...

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/feeding-antibiotic...

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46016296/ns/technology_and_science...

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/11/16/kids-drug-resistant...

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/07/11/infection-experts-w...

Yeah, it may be a lie but not much else.

Facts [1] - http://noticias.r7.com/bahia/remedios-vendidos-sem-autorizac...

[2] - https://www.google.com.br/#q=antibioticos+vendidos+irregular...

and "For some other kinds of medication, it's probably true that people get them from the black market (think benzos)."

Please, the market does not care what kind of medicine is dealt with, the black market is there to provide anything. You just need to go to the country side to see it.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brazilian_federative_u...