New wave of 'superbugs' poses dire threat, says chief medical officer

Can you share with us a link to "1997 TREATY AGREEMENT to "depopulate the globe of 3 BILLION HUMANS"?

Sounds like a hysterical conspiracy.

As such, do not expect anything in the way of coherent argument or sources.

Do expect wild hyperbole and references to the Nazi regime, Hitler, or something having to do with fascists.

I'll agree that using Facebook and even Wikipedia as sources can be sometimes expaseratingly nonsensical. But if one looks around, on this subject are a wealth of sources based upon research and peer reviewed papers that are not funded through bought channels and by scientists who aren't being paid to be shills, like it seems sometimes the WHO, the CDC, and a lot of universities can be. And, come on, the subject of antibiotic resistence and the rise of resistant bacterial strains has been discussed and researched for a damned long time. It's a sure thing, and not because of porn star's anal abuses. (There have always been those abusers around; ask any former or current altar boy). Some of the authors and their articles are just meant to be little more than something that you'd see in a grocery store rag with alien babies and crist coming tomorrow to save us all.

Once here I stated frankly that I didn't think that the general public in a lot of cases has the ability to judge studies that create their own context as news. I honestly don't think that many can recognize when part of an experiment is not standard practice or controlled practice, and that many studies are so vague even about those in these news blurbs, it almost isn't worth the bother. I was crucified in comments, but I don't think that waving your education around invalidates what I thought. It's news that contains science, not science that contains news. And, frankly again, we're just too damned busy to become educated enough to delve into some esoteric discipline to know where in hell they're coming from or be able to judge the reseach parameters even if they're stated. I include myself in this same judgement in most disciplines. Hell, just about all....

It revolves around trust. Trust can be manipulated.

But here's my two cents. I have a site I go to for things like this. I trust them because I have looked into some of the references in the papers and articles published there.

Related to this particular subject:
 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_antibiotic_resistance_in_Chinas_rivers.php

And the site itself:
 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php

But across the spectrum as discussed here? How about the fact that almost any animal that you eat has been full of those same antibiotics? They surely outnumber porn stars. Hell, one large chicen gulag might outnumber porn stars.

I've a a funny thought, though, and maybe quite practical from the point of veiw of mischief and making money... Maybe you should suggest some of those grocery store rags look into it. Or create some scientific pseudonym with a gaggle of initials at the end, claim you've a 'Masters in Proctological Reseach', and a PHD, of course, and produce a study of like 'The Methods and Manners of Porn Stars (As They Relate To Bacterial Resistivity)'. You don't need references that you can't build yourself. Wikipedia is self-edited, right? Everyone believes them. And there's well enough porn on the net for the choice of pictures to sprinkle through the 'paper'. You might even allude to a catholic angle in the paper. You'd make fucking millions, backing them up in the aisles at Walmart, Safeway, and Freddie's.