@unknownsoldier sorry if my post overwhelmed your tiny mind. I'm saying that I doubt Recce would be made available for use in animals any time soon.
@kmuirhead@Gitmo Yes, this is one reason for such a poor contribution of new antimicrobials to the market. The following excerpt is from the AMR Action Fund website, under
"The Pipeline Problem":
"Developing antibiotics is a long, complex and risky process, and many in development fail along the way. Once new antibiotics are approved, they are used sparingly to preserve effectiveness and slow the development of further resistance. While this makes sense for public health, it doesn’t support the level of investment needed to maintain a robust antibiotic pipeline. What’s more, despite the huge societal costs of AMR, our health care systems do not recognize the value of new antibiotics." (My own emphasis added).Prescribing doctors around the world act according to various codes of conducts which cover many ethical issues. "Antimicrobial stewardship" (responsible prescribing) is one of the most current issues doctors (and vets) are faced with.
So why invest?Because Recce's compounds show such promise against most of the major WHO pathogens of concern. Because of this they are attracting special assistance and funding (extra R&D rebates, FDA fast-track, 10 years market exclusivity post-approval). Even though you won't be popping Recce for any sniffle or UTI, many millions of people will require treatment for superbugs and sepsis. They would be eligible for such a unique and powerful product,
and it would be priced as such.
@reon1
(20min delay)