Why the Silence on the Right About Cefquinome?

There’s something very interesting about the unfolding story of the possible FDA cefquinome approval (I’ve covered it here). After doing a Technorati search, virtually all of the blogs that discuss this issue are either non-partisan or progressive/liberal (I say ‘virtually’ because I might have missed one, but I actually didn’t see any). The rightwing bloggysphere is nowhere to be found. Any thoughts on why that might be? Maybe they are just slow off the mark on this one? Infections don’t check political affiliation….

This entry was posted in Antibiotics, Conservatives, E. coli, Microbiology, Progressives, Public Health. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Why the Silence on the Right About Cefquinome?

  1. sari says:

    Mike – did you see the NY Times editorial on this today?

  2. Michael Schmidt says:

    It’s science, Mike–part of that thing called “reality” that the empire-based community doesn’t want to give any legitimacy to. If they start accepting microbiology, won’t evolution and climate change be close behind? A slippery slope they dare not put a toe on…

  3. Sari,
    I saw the editorial. A little tepid and mealy-mouthed (and pretty science-free), but definitely in the right spirit.

  4. bigTom says:

    They are also closer to big pharma. I assume big pharma is pushing this as a market opportunity… and if well infections do result, well thats also good for business.

  5. llewelly says:

    To understand the problem with the FDA decision, one must accept Evilution.

  6. Meredith says:

    Not only is the Right closer to big business and therefore pharmaceutical companies, but it’s also historically closer to the farmer and rancher… and let’s not forget that at current, most of our food animals are raised by big business.
    As a vet student myself, we are constantly inundated with the importance of regulations and judicious use of antibiotics from the ivory tower of academia only to have many of us stop heeding that call once we enter the working world and encounter Joe Q. Rancher, who wants to find a cheaper way to raise feed efficiency and productivity in his herd. This drug, which treats “shipping fever,” may lower the price to him, but at what cost?
    The FDA’s actions again show that their first (and only) loyalty is not to human or even animal safety, but to business and politics.

  7. Edward says:

    One more reason:
    A common belief of some religious right-wingers is that if they do as God wants, they won’t get sick. So, why should they worry about antibiotic resistance when they won’t get sick because they are following the letter of God’s word as set out in the Bible?

Comments are closed.