Slashdot Mirror


Spoonful of Sugar Helps the Persistent Bacteria Go Down

Doctors have discovered that adding sugar to antibiotics increases their ability to knock out persistent staph infections (abstract). Certain types of bacteria called persisters shut down their metabolic processes when exposed to antibiotics. Adding sugar keeps the bacteria feeding, making them more susceptible to drugs. From the article: "Adding such a simple and widely available compound to existing antibiotics enhances their effectiveness against persisters, and fast. One test showed that a sugared up antibiotic could eliminate 99.9 percent of persisters in two hours, while a regular antibiotic did nothing. Doctors believe that this discovery will help treat urinary tract infections, staph infections, and strep throat, but its most life-saving application may be against the age-old disease tuberculosis. This infection of the lungs kills many people, and is hard to fight off. A little sugar could help save a lot of lives."

166 comments

  1. Let me be the first to say it... by Rie+Beam · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm taking this with a grain of salt.

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by TheLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just wondering how long it would take for the bacteria to become resistant to this technique.

      Is there a reason why it would remain hard for the bacteria to stay dormant in the presence of antibiotics as long as there is sugar around?

      Might be trivial enough for the bacteria to evolve around this by next month ;).

      --
    2. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes. The joke was made in the TITLE!

    3. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by DataDiddler · · Score: 1, Funny

      They still need to do a double blind study to verify this technique's efficacy versus sugar pill.

      --
      Working...
    4. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering how sugar compares to spice. Or to everything nice.

    5. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by cripkd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, wouldn't that mean the bacteria would have to learn NOT to feed on sugars? How would it know when is it safe to consume it ? Or it would have to learn to not feed on sugars as long as antibiotics are present.

      --
      Curiously yours, crip.
    6. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Oops I meant to say this instead:
      "Is there a reason why it would remain hard for the bacteria to stay dormant in the presence of sugar as long as there are antibiotics around?"

      --
    7. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by jittles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All I have to say is this: It looks like Mary Poppins was right.

    8. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      Was there a line missing in the article?
      "This study was brought to you by the corn-syrup industry."

    9. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is there a reason why it would remain hard for the bacteria to stay dormant in the presence of antibiotics as long as there is sugar around?

      Yes. Bacteria are simple. Feed in presence of food, dormant in absence of food is simple behaviour that can be trivially implemented using some chemical signals. Feed in presence of food and absence of antibiotic, dormant in presence of antibiotic is harder. You have to process two signals, do some weighting, and then select the correct behaviour.

      You also need to think about the intermediate steps. A bacterium on the way to evolving this behaviour would almost certainly not get it right first time. If it doesn't feed in the presence of sugar and the presence of non-fatal doses of antibiotics (or the absence of antibiotics), then it will be selected against in favour of ones that do. If it does feed in the presence of antibiotics, then it will die.

      Remember, evolution is only good at selecting local maxima, not global maxima, and the path to this involves jumping from one local maximum to another. If someone were intelligently designing bacteria, then it would be a lot easier...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If someone were intelligently designing bacteria, then it would be a lot easier...

      Many a fundies head would explode, as this would simultaneously prove that there is a creator and that she's malevolent.

    11. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by jplopez · · Score: 1

      I she what you did there.

    12. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Personally I'm wondering just exactly how much sugar they were planning on adding to the typical American diet.

      It's not like antibiotic prescriptions always used to come with strict instructions to not eat any sugar...

    13. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Sique · · Score: 1

      Any sugar would do, so the fructose, the lactose, the maltose, the saccharose and the glycose producing industry would sponsor this study too.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    14. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I think this is sweet! ;p

    15. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by wamatt · · Score: 1

      Thanks that pretty interesting. I didn't make the connection before between global and local maximisation.

    16. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even better ... if you RTFAbstract ... is that is does not depend on the bacteri resuming growth. It kills them in their sleep

      This potentiation is aminoglycoside-specific, it does not rely on growth resumption and it is effective in both aerobic and anaerobic conditions.

    17. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Incidentally, I haven't designed any bacteria myself, but I've worked with people who have. All things considered, creating such a bacterium should just be putting a few pieces together. And then waiting overnight. Twice.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    18. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      It's a jolly 'oliday wiv you Dr. Poppins!

      Oh, don't be such a chav'vy pratt, Bert, and hand me the scalpel.

      All right! It was a 'oliday! Now I'm callin' me barrister and
      it'll be the high jump for you when 'e's done with the discrimination and
      harrasment suit!

    19. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by JoeMerchant · · Score: 3, Informative

      A bacterium on the way to evolving this behaviour would almost certainly not get it right first time.

      You need to get a grasp of Carl Sagan's "Billions and Billions" when thinking about bacterial evolution.

    20. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by kevinNCSU · · Score: 2

      Was there a line missing in the article? "This study was brought to you by the corn-syrup industry."

      I just can't wait until the giant "fluids and rest" industry finally lets go their stranglehold and releases the common cold cure.

    21. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by DontBlameCanada · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The wild card here is the immune system. If the presence of antibiotics switches bacteria to dormant mode - that may give the immune system time to create sufficient antibodies to wipe them out.

    22. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be underestimating the complexity of the changes to the bacterial DNA that will overcome this problem. Platitudes don't make science.

    23. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is only the American diabetic bacteria that are susceptible to this method anyway. Bacteria elsewhere aren't as round and don't consume large amounts of sugar.

    24. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wondering how long it would take for the bacteria to become resistant to this technique.

      Probably about as long as every other antibiotic modification - *maybe* doctors will grow up and tell their patients to grow up and fight it if it's not something that's going to cause loss of life/limb/sight since the next round of antibiotics might not be so simple to engineer.

    25. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by TheLink · · Score: 2

      That's only assuming the Creator is solely on our side ;).

      --
    26. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweet !!!

    27. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might be trivial enough for the bacteria to evolve around this by next month ;).

      Don't you mean "trivial enough for the bacteria to be intelligently redesigned by next month"? At least that's what would happen (and thus taught) according to some political factions that are unfortunately involved in education policy.

    28. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wow. Grow up and fight it. Why didn't I think of that. Next clinical rotation I plan on telling my patients exactly that. This place is better than Medscape.

    29. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2

      If someone were intelligently designing bacteria, then it would be a lot easier...

      Many a fundies head would explode, as this would simultaneously prove that there is a creator and that she's malevolent.

      You are assuming that creation exists as it was intended. Many Christians believe that man's fall from grace also caused the corruption of creation around him. For example, with the right genes turned on, humanity could live forever because the signal to induce Telomere shortening would never trigger and you would see virtually unlimited cell repair and regeneration. The reason why we grow old and die is because the telomeres eventually wears out and your cells stop dividing. Google for "immortal cells" and you will find stories of cultures of cancer cells that can live indefinitely.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    30. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but once you get to the point where (s)he's intelligently 'designing' (more like modifying) bacteria to be more resistant to our attempts to keep ourselves alive, you've definitely crossed the line into malevolence.

    31. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      That's only assuming the Creator is solely on our side ;).

      If the creator isn't fully on our side, our creation would be proof of malevolence or incompetence.

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    32. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      We need ways of measuring the willpower of these bacteria.

    33. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1

      For those of you who've never seen Mary Poppins, and, thus, don't completely understand the reference..

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    34. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by TheLink · · Score: 1

      That's a stupid remark. By your logic the creator of the game of chess/football would be malevolent or incompetent.

      It's just hubris to assume that if there is a creator he/she should be on our side otherwise that creator has to be malevolent or incompetent. Also shows narrowmindedness and a lack of imagination.

      Humans should grow up, just like babies and toddlers should grow up- the world isn't about catering to their every whim and fancy.

      --
    35. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but once you get to the point where (s)he's intelligently 'designing' (more like modifying) bacteria to be more resistant to our attempts to keep ourselves alive, you've definitely crossed the line into malevolence.

      I think you are missing the point. The Christians believe that creation was perfect and that original sin created the corruption of creation. That corruption would include bacteria that mutates into harmful bacteria. Our digestive system contains a lot of bacteria which is beneficial to our bodies but even that bacteria can become harmful if it gets into the water supply. Disease along with death is seen as a side effect on the fall of man.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    36. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Yeah I get that point. We were discussing the possibility of that bacteria evolving to become resistant to the treatments we have developed for it. It would be quite unlikely for there to be a viable evolutionary pathway for bacteria to become resistant to this new tactic of including sugar in the treatment, so to 'evolve' resistance it would require the help of a greater being to guide it along the right path.

      I'm cool with a divine being that let's us face the consequences of our own actions, but if it starts changing the rules halfway through the game you'd have a hard time convincing me that it isn't completely malevolent, and is just looking for excuses to punish us.

    37. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by aug24 · · Score: 1

      This is sugar *in the right place*. It'll likely be useful for topical applications only.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    38. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      And that's the real point. Most of these infections can't use topical application. Are they going to rub it on the insides of your urinary tract, your lungs, your throat?

      So what's the point? Yes, superficial infections might be better treated, but this really won't impact most serious infections.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    39. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Snorbert+Xangox · · Score: 1

      Keeping a cancer cell culture alive indefinitely is not quite the same challenge as keeping a organised colony of differentiated cells performing very different roles alive. For cells to turn cancerous, they must suppress the programmed cell death mechanisms that exist to kill off cells with damaged DNA. Cancer cells don't care about DNA damage at all - they are little defectors in the long-running prisoner's dilemma game that all cells play in a multicellular organism, and the cancer cells with too much damage just get crowded out by the cells that are still able to divide and run their metabolism. The individual cells sure aren't immortal - just like individual bacteria aren't immortal.

      It would be interesting to know how often HeLa cultures end up genetically distinct from their parent cultures - how fitting, if a cancer were itself to get cancer...

      --
      -Snorbert, somewhere in the antipodes
    40. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by Snorbert+Xangox · · Score: 1

      Yes... the doctor I saw for my amazingly painful and enormous bursitis, that happened to be next to a skin graze that wasn't healing quickly, implied that I was a panicky wimp when I asked him for an antibiotic prescription in case it happened to turn out to be infected. So I didn't get the prescription filled, and instead drove back out of town to the farm where I live.

      Two hours later I was running a fever and driving back into town to get the antibiotics, and a month later I was still taking antibiotics trying to fight off the cellulitis that left my elbow and upper forearm looking like Popeye's from the swelling. I'm glad I got the antibiotics when I did, as a year or so later, a neighbour ended up in hospital for months after getting pretty damn close to multiple organ failure when he tried to to tough out a persistent infection by himself. He needed skin grafts to replace all the skin that died. Got to love this clean country living...

      --
      -Snorbert, somewhere in the antipodes
    41. Re:Let me be the first to say it... by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Not if the creation was for the sake of the bacteria. Just sayin'.

  2. Hunting by blinkwing · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Don't hunters already use this method, somehow? Bait an animal with food to lure it out in the open and then kill it?

    1. Re:Hunting by Rie+Beam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, but we've yet to develop nano-sized shotguns, so that'll have to wait.

  3. time to stop the black coffee. by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 1

    Maybe some sugar in my coffee will help get rid of the bone infection in my jaw after the dentist screwed up my root canal. They got me on 2 types of antibiotics the infections hurts my face up to my eye. Funny thing is I try and avoid sugar even though I really like sweet coffee. Doubt it is that simple though.

    1. Re:time to stop the black coffee. by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If it was that simple then it would fail to account for the fact that diabetics (who go around with high blood sugar levels almost all the time) are more prone to all types of infection than non diabetics.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:time to stop the black coffee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Takes both sugar and antibiotics, probably linked somehow, more than just mixed together.

    3. Re:time to stop the black coffee. by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      High blood sugar does not necessarily mean you ate a lot of sugar, in fact, the summary sounds like they are talking about white sugar. White sugar is far from the only sugar out there. The basic rule of thumb is: if the ingredient ends with "ose", it's a sugar (sucrose, dextrose, lactose, fructose, etc). Btw, I come from a family with a long history of Diabetes (both type 1 and 2).

    4. Re:time to stop the black coffee. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      The sugar and the antibiotic have to be present at the same time. Hitting the bacterium with sugar and then antibiotic will have the opposite effect - it will feed, divide, and then go dormant, so you'll end up with more bacteria, not less.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:time to stop the black coffee. by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      If it was that simple then it would fail to account for the fact that diabetics (who go around with high blood sugar levels almost all the time) are more prone to all types of infection than non diabetics.

      With diabetes one could have a triple blind study.

    6. Re:time to stop the black coffee. by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 2

      It doesn't even need to be sugar really, just a simple carbohydrate. You could use vodka for the same effect, it's a somewhat popular, but controversial method of fighting algae in reef aquariums. Feed the bacteria so they outcompete the algae.

    7. Re:time to stop the black coffee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do an oil pull daily as described http://en/ there.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_pulling
      it was peer reviewed so it is not as crazy as it sounds and it worked for me....
      and avoid corn oil as it seems to worsen the problems

    8. Re:time to stop the black coffee. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I think your issue is less the resiliency of the bastards, and more the difficulty in getting to them.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:time to stop the black coffee. by sean.peters · · Score: 2

      If you read the abstract, one of the ingredients they used was mannitol, which isn't strictly speaking a sugar at all - it's a sugar alcohol.

    10. Re:time to stop the black coffee. by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      mannitol - a sugar alchohol

      Is there anything better???

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  4. Sing it together! by Rainwulf · · Score: 0

    a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down

    1. Re:Sing it together! by Nikker · · Score: 0

      Just die already, slow and painfully.

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    2. Re:Sing it together! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mary Poppins really was ahead of her time.

    3. Re:Sing it together! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the joke was made in the TITLE!

    4. Re:Sing it together! by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apparently, it also helps the poison go down...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    5. Re:Sing it together! by bytesex · · Score: 2

      And in Soviet Russia, the TITLE is made in the joke!

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  5. Mary Poppins was right n/t by Stumbles · · Score: 0

    A spoon ful of sugar helps the medicine go down or in this case more effective.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
    1. Re:Mary Poppins was right n/t by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 2

      I always thought n/t meant "no text", indicating the post itself was empty (which isn't possible with /.)
      Could you please enlighten me?

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    2. Re:Mary Poppins was right n/t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhhhh! Or Disney will be suing doctors for a license fee every time a treatment is performed.

    3. Re:Mary Poppins was right n/t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he's protesting the slashdot "feature" of not being able to leave the comment text blank.

  6. Discovered? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Discovered? No, we've known this and used this for years. It's a typical procedure to treat difficult wounds that are failing to close by 2nd or 3rd intention with sugar or honey. We also grind up fenitoin pills (used to treat epileptics) and add them to the wound, since fenitoin stimulates fibroblasts and helps with would healing. Of course this is not an FDA approved use of the drug, but it works.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      We use honey because it's antibiotic(kills bacteria) and it's contains sugar that just kill everything by osmotic pressure.

      The part about bacteria keeping their metabolism going untill they die if you add sugar to the antibiotic is new.

    2. Re:Discovered? by Dunbal · · Score: 1, Redundant

      It also fails to explain why diabetics have higher infection rates than non diabetics... there's something missing.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Discovered? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that since diabetics have high sugar levels constantly, the periods during which the antibiotics are not present will feed the bacteria without killing it, reversing the effect.

      Seems common sense to me that for this to be really effective, you need to keep sugar levels low when the antibiotics are not present.

    4. Re:Discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We use honey because it works. We used them long before discovery of antibiotics.

    5. Re:Discovered? by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Blood sugar levels != physical sugar present, doesn't quite work that way.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    6. Re:Discovered? by woolpert · · Score: 4, Informative

      Diabetics have higher infection rates because they have worse circulation and lower-functioning immune systems. Neither of which have anything whatsoever to do with this discovery.

    7. Re:Discovered? by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Discovered? No, we've known this and used this for years.

      True, but the pahrmaceutical industry can't make money with mere table sugar. What will be new here is the discovery that only a patentable sugar analogue or derivative is truly effective, at a cost of around $1,000 per dose.

    8. Re:Discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My family has been using spider web wrapped around wounds since my granny's granny's time in the old world.
      Also a good old mix of vinagre, egg white and sugar.

    9. Re:Discovered? by Majik+Sheff · · Score: 1

      You see, this is a new and novel use for an existing compound so it is patentable.

      In other news, the price of table sugar spiked to nearly $1K/ounce today. Corn syrup producers were seen dancing in the streets.

      --
      Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
    10. Re:Discovered? by Mr+Z · · Score: 2

      They also don't normally have antibiotics in their bloodstream. It's not the sugar that's killing the bacteria, it's the fact that the sugar tricks bacteria into letting the antibiotics in. Even if elevated blood sugar could help this process, you still need an antibiotic.

    11. Re:Discovered? by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      You're right, there is something missing. The missing part is, the gp poster is completely wrong. You are correct, contrary to moderation ignorance. Honey is an effective antibiotic specifically because it contains an antibiotic produced by the honey bee's own immune system. The fact its coupled with a source of sugar, apparently makes it all the more effective.

      I have no idea why so many people keep pushing the factually incorrect crap surrounding honey, as the AC did, as this has been well known for a fairly long time now.

      So in short, the reason why sugar, in of itself and contrary to the anonymous coward's post to which you responded, by itself is not helpful is because sugar is not an antibiotic. Sugar is helpful when used in combination with an antibiotic, which is present in honey, having been supplied by the honey bee's own immune system.

      So hardly surprising, nature one upped us once again.

    12. Re:Discovered? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Then it's a poor name. Can you really fault someone in thinking that "blood sugar level" is not "level of sugar in the blood"?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    13. Re:Discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      durrrrr, blood sugar level measures how many times 6.022x10^20 molecules of physical sugar present in a liter of blood.

    14. Re:Discovered? by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1

      Well, it may now turn out that, beyond the direct antibiotic effect of sugar an honey, the sugars in both have the added effect of intensifying the effectiveness of the hospital antibiotics in the patient's system. It could make for an interesting research project for a graduate student somewhere.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    15. Re:Discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha!!!! you are right!!

    16. Re:Discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Farriers (people that trim and shoe horse hooves) have used sugar on open wounds since I was a kid (in the 50's). The open wounds are from when a horse moves or kicks with a very sharp shoe nail before it is driven completely. So, 60 years at least.

  7. Except with honey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...the reason why we currently think honey works is not because of sugar, but because of enzymes in it which produce hydrogen peroxide.

    1. Re:Except with honey... by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      ...the reason why we currently think honey works is not because of sugar, but because of enzymes in it which produce hydrogen peroxide.

      Wrong. Honey is a natural antibiotic because it contains an antibiotic which is produced by the honey bee's own immune system. In fact, its one of the primary factors of a honey bee's immune system. The fact sugar empowers antibiotic effectiveness is likely why honey is such a decent antibiotic for external wounds; having commonly been used on livestock for ages.

  8. xylitol might be even better by swell · · Score: 2

    Xylitol is another form of sugar that in addition to low calories and insulin response, kills bacteria and the evil Helicobacter pylori that causes cavities and ulcers. Stay tuned for the 2027 study that will prove it effective!

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:xylitol might be even better by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Not sure you are understanding what this is about.

      Bacteria will essentially "turtle" in the presence of antibiotics. It lays dormant with its shell closed. But in the presence of food, it wants to open up to consume the food and perform cellular divisions. It is during this time that the bacteria are vulnerable. I get the feeling Xylitol won't be as effective.

    2. Re:xylitol might be even better by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was actually reading about this this morning. Sugars have 6 carbon atoms, while Xylitol has 5. Bacteria and yeasts only consume sugars that have 6 carbon atoms, so effectively Xylitol would not have the same effect.

      --
      Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
    3. Re:xylitol might be even better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sucrose (archetypal sugar) has 12 carbon atoms.

    4. Re:xylitol might be even better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are incorrect and should not have been modded up as informative - sugars do not necessarily have 6 carbons.

      Xylitol is not a sugar either though. That is not because it only has 5 carbons; rather, it is a 'sugar alcohol'.

    5. Re:xylitol might be even better by ChrisMaple · · Score: 2

      Sucrose is, in non-technical terms, a dual sugar. It is a combination of two simple sugars, fructose and glucose.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    6. Re:xylitol might be even better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erythritol is even better. Not only does it help stunt bacterial growth due to bacteria feeding on the sugar alcohol but being unable to digest it, erythritol is not harmful to dogs and doesn't cause gas buildup.

  9. I'm a little confused... by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 2

    How exactly can this technique be used to fight tuberculosis, which lives in the lungs? The sugar in the antibiotic would be absorbed into the blood stream before the antibiotic could get to the infection. Unless they're talking about inhaling the antibiotic with the sugar.. which I suppose is a possibility.

    Maybe it's some kind of bonding process that bonds the sugar to the antibiotic? I suppose I could read the article if I was that curious.

    1. Re:I'm a little confused... by bytesex · · Score: 1

      Probably safer to just inhale the sugar at the right time.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    2. Re:I'm a little confused... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      How exactly can this technique be used to fight tuberculosis, which lives in the lungs?

      The summary says they've been working on staph (Staphyllococcus) bacteria, which are very different to the Mycobacterium tuberculosis causative organism of tuberculosis. Staphyllococcus is a Gram-positive bacterium ; M.tuberculosis is Gram-negative ; the Gram stain adheres to some components of the wall of a bacterium and so the reaction of a bacterium to the Gram stain divides the bacterial world into a small number of classes on the basis of their cell wall chemistry. Staphyllococcus and M.tuberculosis have very different wall chemistries, and so are likely to have substantially different internal chemistries.

      What's not said in TFS is that many antibiotics act by screwing with the bacterium's wall chemistry, particularly the bits that allow it to grow and divide. Which is probably why this "give it food AND poison" technique appears to have promise.

      But as such, it holds out no direct hope for addressing your concern. Sorry.

      (Having said that, using different antibiotics that target Gram-negative bacteria with this technique would probably be an attractive research prospect now. But TFS says nothing about that.)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:I'm a little confused... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Bollocks.

      I read TFA instead of TFS. TFA(bstract) specifically contradicts what TFS says :

      Here we show that specific metabolic stimuli enable the killing of both Gram-negative (Escherichia coli) and Gram-positive (Staphylococcus aureus) persisters with aminoglycosides.

      They then go on to discuss the aparrent mode of action as not being relevant to growth issues (and therefore not necessarily limited to antibiotics which interfere with bacterial cell wall growth). Which kind-of blows my argument out of the water.

      Bloody misleading summary though. Sure, TB is a rapidly worsening problem (I've had to be tested a half-dozen times because of suspected exposures), but TFA says nothing about TB.

      Mea culpa for trusting TFS instead of RTFA-ing.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  10. Ludens Cough Drops by benjamindees · · Score: 0

    It's not candy, it's medicine dammit.

    --
    "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  11. Placebo Effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps there is more to the placebo effect than we realize! lol

    1. Re:Placebo Effect? by Liam+Pomfret · · Score: 2

      Considering that the standard placebo is a sugar pill, it's certainly something that should be investigated.

  12. Sugar is going to cost $1000 per pound by trout007 · · Score: 0

    when they get the patent.

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:Sugar is going to cost $1000 per pound by icebraining · · Score: 4, Informative

      I wouldn't mind that, then maybe they wouldn't put sugar in every freaking thing. In many places one can't even find yoghourt without added sugar.

    2. Re:Sugar is going to cost $1000 per pound by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Well, they can't patent sugar itself - only this use at most (would Mary Poppins count as prior art?). However, it will need to be manufactured to GMP standards and the particular brand of sugar being administered would need to be shown to be bioequivalent to the sugar used in the trials. So, expect to pay a few bucks for your one-spoon measured dose.

      Of course, that is only required if the company making the sugar wants to sell it with advertising that indicates that it is medically useful. I doubt anybody will go to this level of trouble. However, with litigation being what it is, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody comes out with such a brand and doctors all flock to it (nobody ever got sued for prescribing Niaspan(TM)).

      What might be more likely is that somebody comes up with some kind of novel sugar analog that CAN be patented, and that would be expensive, but would likely have stronger clinical support (since with financial backing you can do more trials/etc).

      We really need more publicly-funded clinical trials. Right now most trials have huge conflicts of interest, and they are only run on expensive products, since those are the only ones where somebody has the financial interest to pay the cost of an expensive trial.

    3. Re:Sugar is going to cost $1000 per pound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't. They put HFCS in everything
      USA!USA!

    4. Re:Sugar is going to cost $1000 per pound by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I actually live in the EU, so our added sugar is still mainly sucrose, as far as I know.

    5. Re:Sugar is going to cost $1000 per pound by Nimey · · Score: 1

      People eat unsweetened yogurt? Yuck.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Sugar is going to cost $1000 per pound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't find sweetened or unsweetened yoghourt anywhere.

    7. Re:Sugar is going to cost $1000 per pound by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for getting my point. For this crowd I should have been more specific. When you get the bill for this treatment the sugar will be billed to you at the equivalent $1000/lbm kind of like the $10 aspirin.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  13. Food by elsJake · · Score: 1

    Most antibiotics are to be taken just after a meal , when your blood sugar levels are peaking.
    However , maybe a little more sugar wouldn't be a bad idea.

    1. Re:Food by Kompressor · · Score: 1

      I always thought that the reason certain antibiotics are to be taken with food is that the food has a moderating effect on the body's absorption of the drug - the concentration of the drug in the bloodstream takes longer to peak, and longer to drop, leading to a more even concentration in the bloodstream wrt. time.

      A quick bit of googling turned up this, which suggests that perhaps the issue is more complicated. It seems that the presence of food increases absorption rates for some antibiotics, and decreases for others. It also indicates that the presence of food helps to reduce stomach upset that some drugs cause.

      --
      kmem russian roulette: Aquillar> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/kmem bs=1 count=1 seek=$RANDOM
  14. Let's patent it! by gte275e · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can see it now. Drug companies will take their existing antibiotics, add a bit of sugar, and then upcharge $5 per fill for Sugarfukitol over normal Fukitol.

    1. Re:Let's patent it! by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Yes, pretty please with sugar on top?

    2. Re:Let's patent it! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Only $5? They're much greedier than that!

    3. Re:Let's patent it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes,it is all about making profits :(

  15. Cutting the sugar? by caspy7 · · Score: 1

    If these bacteria feed on sugar, then wouldn't significantly cutting down on sugar when treating them make good sense?
    I know I've never had a doctor make such a recommendation before though.

    1. Re:Cutting the sugar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it would also cut you, since your body also feeds on sugar (burns it up with oxygen).
      Of course that will be very hard, since your body has emergency reserves for about two weeks in your organs (liver, heart, etc). And you can transform body fat too.
      So it's not only dangerous to void the body of sugar, but utterly impossible.

      Obviously, the opposite (pure sugar in large quantities [think "breakfast cereals" or glucose tablets) will quickly kill you too, as all the helper agents and building material would be missing. Like a non-greased engine with no repairman or maintenance, flooded with fuel. Just that you 'd need more than two dozen kinds of "greasing", and repairs are constantly needed. But you'd also have to put back most of the fuel for "later" (fat depots) or the thing would drown.

      You would have to use a transport molecule, to move the sugar killer straight to the bacteria. Or kill their sugar processing mechanism. But that is already tried all the time.

    2. Re:Cutting the sugar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back when the Atkins diet was really popular and Dr. Atkins was alive he made statements on TV as to cutting out sugar when dealing with an infection. That's the only instance I can think of though.

    3. Re:Cutting the sugar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If these bacteria feed on sugar, then wouldn't significantly cutting down on sugar when treating them make good sense?
      I know I've never had a doctor make such a recommendation before though.

      Bacteria tend to be incredibly flexible with their metabolism, so while the *can* feed on this sugar you can almost guarantee that if you somehow cut it off they'd just find something else to digest.

      The other problem with pathogenic bacteria is that they often work their way into places where they can feed off your bodies natural resources, like the blood glucose. You can't get rid of that without starving your own cells so it's not really an option. Some bacteria including the one responsible for tuberculosis have actually found ways of entering one or other type of human cells, so they can sit inside them and multiply off the nutrients your cells take up.
         

    4. Re:Cutting the sugar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If these bacteria feed on sugar, then wouldn't significantly cutting down on sugar when treating them make good sense?
      I know I've never had a doctor make such a recommendation before though.

      Not eating sugar will not limit the amount of sugar present in the body, even if you never eat any actual sugars your body always converts carbs into sugars.
      Also, sugar is the fuel that drives your mitochondria to make ATP, which in turn drives almost every other process in your body. Not a good thing to limit is it? (if you somehow tried to 'catch' all the sugar in your body)
      And another besides, bacteria don't feed exclusively on sugar, it's just the preferred food. If sugar is not available most bacteria can feed on a variety of other compounds, including but not limited to, amino acids, oligopeptides, proteins etc, all readily available in your body. The reason adding sugar to antibiotic works is because of this sugar preference and that most bacteria are hardwired to start metabolizing and dividing as fast as they can in the presence of a preferred sugar, and thus will be vulnerable to the antibiotic.

    5. Re:Cutting the sugar? by Requiem+Aristos · · Score: 1

      Just to nitpick, your body can produce ATP from fatty acids instead of glucose. (Yes, glucose is still needed in small amounts, but it's not the One True Energy Source.)

  16. no it won't , demand for sugar won't increase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    until we run out of gasoline, then the price of sugar might go to $1000/pound, but by then we'd all have probably switched to biogas and biodiesel

  17. Re:test commenting by bytesex · · Score: 2

    No I won't!

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  18. Medical-grade....sugar. by geekmux · · Score: 0

    I'm expecting a "new formula" for damn near every drug that could benefit from this...of course big pharma is going to claim they added "medical-grade" sugar, to justify the 200% price increase.

    1. Re:Medical-grade....sugar. by unkiereamus · · Score: 1

      I doubt very much that there will be a 200% price increase.

      Big pharma will, however, gladly take a brand new patent out on each antibiotic+sugar as the old patent is running out.

      Much more lucrative, that.

      --
      I needed a sig so people would know who I am, but I was too drunk to make something witty, so you get this instead.
    2. Re:Medical-grade....sugar. by Boombox2003 · · Score: 1

      I'm expecting a "new formula" for damn near every drug that could benefit from this...of course big pharma is going to claim they added "medical-grade" sugar, to justify the 200% price increase.

      Its not normal sugars, its amino-modified sugars. They are not absorbed in the gut these are a different molecule altogether.

  19. Hidden efficacy of placebo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What does this mean for previous studies that use a sugar pill for placebo?

    If the placebo itself was causing a positive reaction instead of being neutral, how much material needs to be reviewed again?

  20. Let's patent sugar! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Patent sugar, sue the sugar manufacturers for infringement, destroy the sugar industry. When sugar is only available in our pills, charge $200 for a box of them. Shut down production after 5 years, and lock up the patents for the next 200 years. Implement worldwide. Profit! Sugar is gone.

    1. Re:Let's patent sugar! by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Patent sugar, sue the sugar manufacturers for infringement, destroy the sugar industry. When sugar is only available in our pills, charge $200 for a box of them. Shut down production after 5 years, and lock up the patents for the next 200 years. Implement worldwide. Profit! Sugar is gone.

      Eric Holder is that you?

  21. Read the article itself not just the summary! by Boombox2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can people please read the article before making inane comments, we are talking about aminoglycosides here not glucose, fructose or sucrose. This is a amino-modified sugar that are not absorbed in the gut. They have been around for a long time but until now they had not been used in conjunction with specific metabolites. So this has nothing to do with diabetics or blood sugar.

    1. Re:Read the article itself not just the summary! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can people please read the article before making inane comments, we are talking about aminoglycosides here not glucose, fructose or sucrose. ...
      So this has nothing to do with diabetics or blood sugar.

      Err, the antibiotic they tested with was gentamicin, which is an aminoglycoside. The metabolites they tested with it were sugars like glucose and fructose, as well as stuff like glycerol and pyruvate.

      So yes, they actually *are* talking about adding sugar.

  22. I've heard of this before... by jcr · · Score: 1

    I've heard of putting sugar on a cut with some antibiotic ointment, supposedly to promote faster healing. I hadn't heard that it was supposed to improve the effectiveness of the antibiotic, though. I thought it was to promote cell growth.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:I've heard of this before... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      I've tried that before (on a split lip, after consulting with a doctor, who said, "might as well try"). It seemed to work, the doctor was surprised how fast it was healing. My understanding is it creates an environment which largely prevents bacterial growth.

      Unfortunately I haven't gotten horribly injured lately, so I haven't been able to test it again. I am really looking forward to the next time I get a serious flesh wound so I can test that out.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  23. a tea spoon of sugar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    helps the medicine go down :-)

  24. Spoonful of Sugar Helps the Persistent Bacteria Go by jackie8612 · · Score: 1

    This was an interesting article. I especially like the the fact that sugar can aid in the improvement of the antibacterial meds and rid the pesky little bacteria

    --
    make fast money online
  25. combo by uncanny · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So apparently a placebo (sugar pill) actually CAN have real effect!

    1. Re:combo by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      No, the placebo pill has no antibiotic within, so simply feeding the bacteria sugar would do more harm than good.

      What is interesting, however, is that this proves that homoeopathy works. When the sugar pill, combined with the _memory_ of an antibiotic is administered, the combination of extremely low dosage, magic water AND the sugar provides unparalleled healing potential.

    2. Re:combo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *If* you take it with a real one, yeah.

    3. Re:combo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no, it's not the sugar that kills the bacteria, it's the sugar that coaxes the bacteria to come out of its defenses so that the antibiotic can do its job.

      It's sort of like a Trojan Horse - the sugar is the horse, but if you don't put the Trojans (antibiotics) in with it, it's just a large, not even pretty, hollow statue.

    4. Re:combo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aha, the old non placebo placebo trick

  26. Mary Poppins was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down.

  27. Really? Big Pharma strikes again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Love it... guess the old home remedy of "spoonful of sugar and lemon juice" to get rid of colds or other maladies faster wasn't ever factored into...? Big Pharma is nothing but a bunch of money-grubbing meat heads. They don't give a crap about mankind. They'd rather pump everyone full of drugs so you continue to stay sick and buy their medicines/remedies. Eat whole and natural foods and you'd be amazed at how healthy you become.

    1. Re:Really? Big Pharma strikes again... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Yes because antibiotics do wonders on colds.

      Or maybe it's a competely unrelated thing to making lemon (with it's high vitamin C content) palatable?

      Please refuse antibiotics from the evil Big Pharma next time you have an infection.

  28. What took them so long to cypher this? by Stumbles · · Score: 1

    It is hardly surprising this method works. It is one man has used for several millennium or more when making beer. Once yeast is pitched it will consume all or a good portion of the existing sugars. Once the alcohol content reaches a certain level or there is no more sugars left, they will go dormant. You can reactivate them by adding more sugar; there is of course a limit to the amount of additional sugar that can be added and the yeasts alcohol tolerances; some yeast strains are more tolerant of high alcohol levels than others.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
  29. May Poppins was right! by DontBlameCanada · · Score: 1

    Just a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down!

    In this case that old adage happens to apply to both the host and the invader.

  30. But wait...isn't sugar TOXIC?!? by tomservo84 · · Score: 1

    Gee...I don't know WHAT to believe any more!!!

    http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/04/18/2317205/Is-Sugar-Toxic

    --
    Agile Spaceport - You will never find a more wretched hive of scrum and villainy. We must be cautious.
    1. Re:But wait...isn't sugar TOXIC?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to bacteria...

  31. The aminoglycoside is the *antibiotic* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The glucose is the metabolite and is used alongside an aminoglycoside antibiotic. It is aminoglycoside dependent because adding the sugar only works with aminoglycoside antibiotics: mannitol (the sugar) was tested with gentamicin (an aminoglycoside antibiotic), ofloxacin (a quinolone antibiotic) and ampicillin (a beta-lactam, specifically a penicillin antibiotic) and the only one which showed an improved response was the mannitol + gentamicin combination.

    Glucose, mannitol and fructose then showed the greatest response with gentamicin (ribose, glycerol etc were much lower).

    Have you read the article?

    1. Re:The aminoglycoside is the *antibiotic* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Have you read the article?
      tldr

  32. Mary Poppins was right? by BubbaJonBoy · · Score: 1

    So - lemme get this... Mary Poppins was right? A spoonful of sugar really does help the medicine go down?

  33. Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Studies have pointed to the fact that many bacteria still "eat" the Xylitol -- they just can't digest it, and starve, or are otherwise impaired. Not a bad thing in these cases.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21037297 for one of many cromulent studies out there involving bacterial uptake of Xylitol.

  34. Intelligent design doesn't imply malevolence by tepples · · Score: 1

    Bacteria both having been intelligently designed and causing disease doesn't necessarily imply a malevolent Creator. It only means that they've microevolved from the bacteria that the Creator put in mammals' intestines.

  35. We've been doing this for millennium... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...with animals. It's called "bait".

  36. yep, nerds prefer by dwightk · · Score: 1

    io9 to nature

    lightweights

    --
    Like anyone can even know that
  37. Will this work.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. on my wife?

  38. Wrong kingdom by raddan · · Score: 0

    Yeast is a fungus, not a bacterium. You can't assume that a technique that works for one kingdom will work for another. Furthermore, what the study essentially says is that sugar enhances the susceptibility of bacterium to antibiotic drugs. Now, it might be the case that the same thing holds for fungi and anti-fungal medication as well, but as far as I am aware, that would also be big news.

  39. Doctors could have asked Grandma. by formfeed · · Score: 1

    When preserving food by heating it, it makes a difference whether the bacteria are active or dormant. You kill them much more effectively, if you catch them feeding. If you do other preserving steps (like unfavorable pH or osmotic conditions) too early, bacteria go dormant and survive the heat much better.

  40. New Drug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, now the FDA can label sugar a drug, make it available only with a prescription, and drive the cost up to $150/oz?

  41. Tuberculosis: a tragedy by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    "but its most life-saving application may be against the age-old disease tuberculosis." What a tragedy. Tuberculosis was practically unheard of in the U.S. by the 1970s and 80s, but experienced a resurgence due to failure to care for cases occurring among AIDS patients, the homeless, the poor, and illegal immigrants. Tuberculosis was once treatable--not at great expense, but not with one cheap vaccine shot, either; careful treatment and followup was needed to make sure that the infection was completely cured. This wasn't done, and the result is that now we have resistant strains.

    Infectious disease does not know how to respect social status, and the upper- and middle classes cannot be healthy if the poor are sick. As the debate over health care continues, it is something to keep in mind.

    I hope this new advance works. Otherwise, boomers may be the only generation in the history of the human race to live our entire lives free of the terror of bacterial infection.

  42. You should. by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Yes, I get the joke, but the usual disclaimer for these kind of results applies: did this work in vivo or just in the test tube? The abstract shows one experiment done in vivo: they introduced infected catheters into mice, then treated the mice with 1) nothing, 2) antibiotic, and 3) antibiotic plus mannitol (a sugar alcohol). Option 3) killed substantial amounts of bad bacteria, while the others did not. So that's good. But... they used kind of a lot of mannitol - 1.5 g/kg - which would be the equivalent of a couple of ounces (twice daily) for a typical human. That might be tough to swallow (so to speak).

    More buts: all of these results seemed to apply to biofilms, and although controlling the growth of biofilms is important, infecting bacteria are most likely not in the form of biofilms after they've invaded the body. And it's unclear to me whether any of the other experiments were done in vivo. Also, if the presence of sugar at the infection site is key to getting this to work, that might be problematic - mammal bodies keep blood sugar concentration on fairly tight control, no matter how many spoonfuls of sugar you eat, so it might be tough to produce the sugar concentration you need at the infection site.

    Bottom line: sounds like interesting, promising research. But bear in mind that it's not ready for prime time now, and might not ever be.

    1. Re:You should. by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure a couple ounces of sugar per day isn't much for a 'typical' human.

      http://www.sugarstacks.com/beverages.htm

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  43. Wikipedia is your friend by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Actually, several sorts of bacteria (notably including those responsible for tooth decay), are attracted to xylitol, will attempt to eat it, and and then starve.

    1. Re:Wikipedia is your friend by secondhand_Buddah · · Score: 1

      Interesting. From http://www.xylitol.org/questions-about-xylitol : "Sugar feeds bacteria in your mouth, causing them to multiply rapidly. This metabolic process produces acids that cause cavities to begin to form. When you use xylitol gum or mints, the acid attack that would otherwise last for over half an hour is stopped. Because the bacteria in the mouth causing caries are unable to ferment xylitol in their metabolism, their growth is reduced. The number of acid-producing bacteria may fall as much as 90%. Since no acid is formed, the pH of saliva does not fall." (facts also in the Wikipedia article)

      --
      Participatory Governance : The only feasible option for a real democracy, where everyone really does have a say.
  44. I doubt it by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Even if this turns out to work in real life, the amount of sugar used to accompany antibiotics would be dwarfed by, say, world-wide production of Coca-Cola alone. And of course that's only one current use of sugar. This use wouldn't amount to a drop in the bucket by comparison.

  45. not just a spoonful of honey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A noob reading this might think, just eat a spoonful of honey with my pills and my infection will be cured better or faster. Somehow I don't think its that simple. Reading the full article in nature costs $32 so I can't know but most probably, the experiment was done in vitro (in a petri dish, test tube or something). Eat honey with your antibiotic pills and unless you have diabetes, most probably your body will regulate your blood sugar levels so it remains constant