Slashdot Mirror


Thousand-Year-Old Eye Salve Kills MRSA

An anonymous reader writes: Scientists at the University of Nottingham used a recipe from an ancient medical text to successfully kill golden staph bacteria, also known as MRSA, the superbug commonly found in hospitals. Bald's Leechbook calls for leeks, garlic, brass, wine and other ingredients to create an eye salve for curing an infected eyelash. The salve has been found to be effective in killing the MRSA at least as well any modern remedy.

124 comments

  1. You won't believe by captnjohnny1618 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "You won't believe what this weird thousand year old trick can do!..."

    1. Re:You won't believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      "Click here to find out more, and win a free iPod!"

    2. Re:You won't believe by TeknoHog · · Score: 0

      I'll show you a thousand year old trick. First, let me put on my robe and wizard hat...

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:You won't believe by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      "You won't believe what this weird thousand year old trick can do!..."

      Good, you have "weird". Now you need to work in "shocked" or "shocking". Extra points for "kills (some condition)".

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:You won't believe by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      And speechless with the jaw dropping. Cant forget those!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:You won't believe by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      How could I forget "speechless"!

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:You won't believe by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "You won't believe what this weird thousand year old trick can do!..."

      Good, you have "weird". Now you need to work in "shocked" or "shocking". Extra points for "kills (some condition)".

      Don't forget that "A housewife in Pennsylvania" in that mix.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:You won't believe by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      I'll show you a thousand year old trick. First, let me put on my robe and wizard hat...

      If the next step involves me stroking your magic wand, I'm outta here...

    8. Re:You won't believe by twosat · · Score: 1

      Mike Jittlov, is that you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    9. Re:You won't believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will kill you. (Not really, but fuck I hate that crap.)

    10. Re:You won't believe by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Mike Jittlov, is that you? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Nice, I'd almost forgotten the movie :)

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    11. Re:You won't believe by tsa · · Score: 1

      And of course: "Doctors are baffled," which is even true in this case.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    12. Re:You won't believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, i see what you did there. I'll wait and see when these hit the malware ad wave.

  2. So, should I just read reddit? by bigattichouse · · Score: 0

    Really - should I quit even coming here for news? I haven't seen one item this week that wasn't on reddit for a day or more.

    --
    meh
    1. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because all of us visit reddits.

    2. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, including the comments on reddit that say this is only a lab test, and that bleach also kills MRSA in lab tests.

    3. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does Reddit also get the ever-useful Dice postings from Nerval's Lobster too?

    4. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Only a lab test, yes.

      And at one point, "chewing willow bark" was just a crazy home remedy, until a lab test discovered that willow bark contains salicin, which your body converts to salicylic acid... which is just un-acetylated aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid).

      They test these things in labs, and discover that, "Hey, there's something to this that seems to work."

      Then they do MORE lab tests, to discover the mechanism of action.

      Then, they do even MORE lab tests to determine if the mechanism of action can be delivered in a way that is deadly to the microbe but NOT deadly to the infected person.

      The interesting thing about this new concoction is that it is made from leeks, garlic, wine, and bile salts, none of which are necessarily toxic to a human (people who have had their gall bladder removed actually take bile salt supplements), and three of which are actually considered very tasty additions to many dishes we usually eat. That suggests that the active ingredient or mechanism might actually be helpful in humans. Contrast that with ingesting household bleach, which usually ends with you dead on the floor in a puddle of your own shit and piss, or applying chlorine bleach to an open wound infected with MRSA, which may not kill you, but certainly will leave chemical burns on top of your infection.

      Why is it that people who fancy themselves SO goddamned smart have to sneer at every science article as if the results were obvious, clearly wrong, or deliberately misleading? For fuck's sake, stop trying to show off how smart you are - you're not that smart, and you're definitely not that amusing.

    5. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One person gets it. Wow.

      The interesting part of this article is that this is a concoction that wouldn't ordinarily be thought of as an effective antibiotic. No one will be compounding leeks and garlic and prescribing it. Something interesting is occurring here. Once we discover what it is it could lead to some interesting new classes of drugs.

    6. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really - should I quit even coming here for news? I haven't seen one item this week that wasn't on reddit for a day or more.

      We took a poll, and everyone wanted you to stop coming here, and stay on reddit. Thanks for the fish.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Informative

      The interesting thing about this new concoction is that it is made from leeks, garlic, wine, and bile salts, none of which are necessarily toxic to a human

      Don't forget brass is in that mix. A weird mix of both good and bad.

      The copper in brass is germicidal, the reference to the MRSA application is in this article, very impressive stuff.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...

      Now there might even be some reaction to this aspect of brass (probably the zinc in it?) Note this is conjecture on my part at this point

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

      Regardless, this is very good news. All of the botanicals and other ingredients are probably serving as a vehicle to keep the brass from doing harm to the person - an example is getting a cut from a brass object which can be difficult to heal. I suspect they are hard at work on a injectable solution. 100 percent kill within 4 hours is amazing, although it might be hard to do inside the body, perhaps will take a day or two. Plus, it will be much harder to develop resistance to this.

      Why is it that people who fancy themselves SO goddamned smart have to sneer at every science article as if the results were obvious, clearly wrong, or deliberately misleading?

      It's unfortunate, but confidence is inversely proportional to intelligence. We have a lot of folks in here that should actually be on Yahoo comment boards, because as soon as an article comes out, they are spewing their bullshit, buzzing around it like blowflies on a fresh wildebeest carcass.

      And they hate absolutely everything.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    8. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One person gets it. Wow.

      The interesting part of this article is that this is a concoction that wouldn't ordinarily be thought of as an effective antibiotic. No one will be compounding leeks and garlic and prescribing it. Something interesting is occurring here. Once we discover what it is it could lead to some interesting new classes of drugs.

      Its the copper and brass in the mixture. Copper is a germicide of some worth.The other stuff probably soothes the wound.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    9. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      The thing is, that salve was intended for external use only. You *don't* put garlic, e.g., into your body, except for your digestive tract. And brass is a pretty good germicide all on its own, so perhaps some of the other parts of the mixture were to make the brass biologically available. The wine is probably to thin the mixture so that its penetrating (and alcohol is a pretty good germicide). Etc.

      As an external salve this probably has some pretty reasonable uses...thick enough to be sticky, thin enough to be penetrating, and quite germicidal in multiple ways. It's also likely to give you heavy metal poisoning if you use too much of it too frequently, so dosage will be important. I don't know what the leeks do for the mixture, but they probably add texture while also being a yet different form of germicide.

      It clearly isn't a mixture I would have thought of, but when pointed out it seems quite reasonable...as an external ointment for very occasional use. You could probably improve it by adding a bit of iodine or bromine...but that might cause the dissolved metallic salts I'm presuming to be present to percipitate, so maybe not.

      As for this being the basis for a new class of drugs...I doubt that. It sounds rather like a mixuter of drugs already known to be effective, and one that's just a bit dangerous to use (though not as dangerous as MRSA).

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing is, that salve was intended for external use only

      Luckily for doctors, MRSA is often a skin infection. So, even if this turns out to be "topical use only," maybe you put something like this on the wound site where the infection started, and you dose the patient with Vancomycin or other high-potency antibiotics to knock down anything internal - this might be a faster, more complete, and less detrimental regimen to use for a lot of people who end up with MRSA infections.

      Heavy doses of vancomycin can fuck you up big time too, probably more so than a short, high dose of copper would; And it's possible that exposure to BOTH harmful compounds could be minimized by using them in a 'cocktail' form.

      As far as being a new class of drugs - stranger things have happened. Allicin in garlic has also been found to have some antimicrobial properties, so it's entirely possible that there's some sort of interaction between the the many, many compounds undoubtedly in this brew, that intensify each other's effects, as well. And, to the original point - you don't have to chew willow bark to get the medicine from it anymore, we've learned how to synthesize a very pure and readily bio-available form of the active ingredient -- more research may find a way to combine the best parts of these treatments without needing you to coat your body in copper, leeks, garlic, bile, and wine anymore. Just because this is a primitive form, there's no reason to think we can't isolate and improve on the active ingredient(s) just as we have with literally every other medicine known to man.

    11. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by swell · · Score: 2

      "Then, they do even MORE lab tests to determine if the mechanism of action can be delivered..."

      You left out the primary reason for all this effort. Willow bark can't be patented. Without a patent it is useless to investors, who are the only people that matter.

      Many drugs began as ordinary substances. They would remain so but for the power of the patent. The patent is a jealously guarded piece of property. Obviously no infringement can be tolerated, but it goes way beyond that.

      Anyone trying to sell the original substance (which may have been used for centuries) will have to deal with the Food and Drug Administration (the enforcement arm of the food and drug manufacturers). There will be questions about the safety and/or efficacy of the formula. There will be questions about any health claims made for the substance. Labeling and packaging will be scrutinized. And though there is little money to be made with herbal or generic products, there can be huge costs when you go up against Big Pharma.

      It isn't about helping patients in the USA, it's about money and lots of it.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
    12. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Willow bark can't be patented.

      Oh good, you're one of those.

      Without a patent it is useless to investors, who are the only people that matter.

      And without investors, you don't have billions of dollars to spend on discovery and research into novel compounds that treat diseases. You don't have billions of dollars to pump into discovering new types of drugs, new compounds that cause less serious side effects, or prove more efficacious than their original "herbal" variant.

      Of course, you're too blinded by idiotic Ron Paul-itis to see that "big money" isn't an irredeemable brand of evil in an endeavor. But you should stop and think about how expensive and time consuming growing your own willow trees would be, rather than spending $15 on a bottle of aspirin at the drug store some time. Claiming that all that money being spent isn't directly benefitting you is foolish.

    13. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Garlic is known to have antiseptic properties. Leeks are related to garlic but may have different compounds with antiseptic properties. No idea what the bile does.

    14. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by sjames · · Score: 1

      We don't need any amazingly complex and fantastically expensive research here. We have a substance known to work. It would be helpful to isolate the active ingredients, but that's not the crazy expensive part.

      Of course these days, aspirin is cheap enough in generic form that it makes sense to just use it, but even otherwise, why would I need to grow my own willow tree? (unless I just want one)

      Then there's marinol. They extracted the THC from pot in some mis-guided effort to get the medicinal effects without admitting they screwed up with the war on drugs. And of course, it was to be far more expensive than even the black market herb it replaced. It failed since they lost at least half of the beneficial effects and potentiated the tendency to cause psychosis. Turns out the CBD is as important as the THC.

      Recently, it was discovered that nicotine can be very effective against the negative symptoms of schizophrenia and started a mad dash to come up with something based on it that isn't nicotine. Nobody seems to have considered passing out gum and patches.

    15. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bile is a surfactant and emulsifying agent. Essentially, soap.

    16. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We have a combination of hundreds of substances known to work topically with unknown side effects. There's a huge number of unanswered questions.

      Which parts of the garlic are actually relevant? Yes, garlic is antiseptic, but do any of its components interact with other parts of the concoction? How does the wine play into this? Does this concoction have any long-term side effects? (After all, one of the active ingredients is a heavy metal.) What if it's used repeatedly? Does its behavior differ when used internally? Which parts need to be isolated in order to achieve maximum effectiveness with the minimum number of chemical compounds? (A more complex medication means more chances for people to be intolerant to some ingredient so a chemically simpler formulation actually has benefits.) Under which circumstances should this stuff not be used despite being otherwise indicated? Are there, for instance, any adverse interactions with other medications?

      Can you answer any of those questions with certainty right now? I don't think so. You may think that this stuff isn't important but a doctor would want to know whether it's known-unsafe to use this stuff on a patient who is on medications A, B and C and suffers from known medical conditions D and E.

      No, big pharma is not nice. But that doesn't mean that they are completely useless and just dick around with flawless medicines in order to make them more expensive. They do a lot of rather expensive testing to make reasonably sure that this stuff is actually safe to use and its failure modes are well-understood.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    17. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 1

      The other stuff probably soothes the wound.

      I think you should test that theory. Cut yourself and rub juice from a leek into the wound and tell us how it feels.

    18. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by f3rret · · Score: 1

      It's also likely to give you heavy metal poisoning if you use too much of it too frequently.

      Copper isn't a heavy metal, it's absolutely poisonous, but not a heavy metal.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    19. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Then there's marinol. They extracted the THC from pot in some mis-guided effort to get the medicinal effects without admitting they screwed up with the war on drugs. And of course, it was to be far more expensive than even the black market herb it replaced. It failed since they lost at least half of the beneficial effects and potentiated the tendency to cause psychosis. Turns out the CBD is as important as the THC.

      Not completely true, yes Marinol was developed because growing weed was illegal, but it was not just pure extracted THC, it was "synthetic THC". As I understood it, the Marinol drug was developed because a lot of people did not want to smoke weed, they wanted a simple and easy to swallow pill.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    20. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Leek has similar healing properties like gallic and onions, the plants are closely related anyway.

      Perhaps you should read up how much alcohol wine has, and how much is left over after using it for 'cooking' something.

      I would really wonder if there is any alcohol left after finishing the product. Certainly the bacteria are unaffected by the rest alcohol.

      I suspect the wine is used as an acid to get copper and zinc ions dissolving into the salve from the pot it js made in ... also there are plenty of healthy stuff in red wine ... if they don't get destroyed during the cooking they might strengthen a immune response.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    21. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The definition if a metal is a 'heavy' metal is a chemical one, not a physical one, so yes, copper and for that part, if you did not know it, aluminium are heavy metals and in the wrong dosage as poisoning as lead or mercury (which are physically more dense/heavy).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    22. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You forgot to tell him to use a wound/cut/scratch not on his hand or fingers :) otherwise he wont be typing us the result of the experiment soon ... what an idiot.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's what brownies and oil are for.

      But the point stands even moreso since it was synthetic and still cost more than the black market herb.

    24. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Actually, since this is a salve to be used externally, internal use isn't a consideration for this formulation. People regularly get that amount of copper on their skin from jewelry (including copper bracelets) Some get a minor rash from it or a green skin discoloration, both much better than MRSA.

      What people need is medications they can actually afford. The cost of drugs in the U.S. is shameful.

      It should be marketed as a cologne of lotion. That way the rules flip-flop and pretty much if the user's skin doesn't actually come off while applying it, it's A-OK with regulators.

      I'm not saying the research shouldn't be done, an internal use form would be good. A concentrated form would be good. But none of that should stand in the way of the known effective salve.

    25. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      I don't think anyone is trying to keep people from mixing up their own version or from marketing this stuff as a cosmetics product. They are trying to keep people from marketing it as a medical product, for obvious reasons (and no, not "because the cartel says so" but because if we allow this stuff without stringent testing we must also allow other stuff without stringent testing, which is a bad idea).

      And while this may be a lotion, MRSA is enough of a problem that a large number of people are very much interested in an internal use version of this, ASAP. If it does work, of course, which will require reproduction of TFA's experiment's findings.

      And while copper on the skin is not much of a problem, copper inside the body can be.


      Of course drugs are way too expensive in the USA, just like everything else health-related. But still, the rules are there for a reason (and other countries have cheaper, yet similarly effective healthcare, which indicates that solutions besides deregulation of drug development and marketing are possible).

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    26. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Ever notice that an aspirin bottle contains white or pink pills, not chopped-up willow bark? Willow bark was important to put people on the road to aspirin, but there are better ways to deliver the active ingredient. There were quite a few compounds tried before the one now known as aspirin, which delivered the pain relief with fewer side effects. A lot of money went into testing all of those. In order to help patients, every entity in the process has to make money in some form.

      For a pharmaceutical company to do that sort of research, it's going to have to have a potential return, which is where the patent comes in. It gives the company a temporary monopoly position on the drug so they can make their research money back. This makes drugs too expensive for some people in the US, which in my opinion is a problem with the US health care system and not drug patents.

      Anybody selling the original substance had better not be making medical claims about it, without providing good evidence to the FDA. The FDA doesn't stop people from marketing herbal remedies, as long as they don't make unverified claims. So far, there's lab work suggesting that it might well work, not good evidence that it's safe and effective on humans.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    27. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The thing is, that salve was intended for external use only

      Luckily for doctors, MRSA is often a skin infection. So, even if this turns out to be "topical use only," maybe you put something like this on the wound site where the infection started, and you dose the patient with Vancomycin or other high-potency antibiotics to knock down anything internal - this might be a faster, more complete, and less detrimental regimen to use for a lot of people who end up with MRSA infections.

      Heavy doses of vancomycin can fuck you up big time too, probably more so than a short, high dose of copper would; And it's possible that exposure to BOTH harmful compounds could be minimized by using them in a 'cocktail' form.

      As far as being a new class of drugs - stranger things have happened. Allicin in garlic has also been found to have some antimicrobial properties, so it's entirely possible that there's some sort of interaction between the the many, many compounds undoubtedly in this brew, that intensify each other's effects, as well. And, to the original point - you don't have to chew willow bark to get the medicine from it anymore, we've learned how to synthesize a very pure and readily bio-available form of the active ingredient -- more research may find a way to combine the best parts of these treatments without needing you to coat your body in copper, leeks, garlic, bile, and wine anymore. Just because this is a primitive form, there's no reason to think we can't isolate and improve on the active ingredient(s) just as we have with literally every other medicine known to man.

      The article says that none of the ingredients work in isolation. Since, as you say, they are individually somewhat antibacterial, it's likely that part of the potency of the mix comes from combining antibiotics with different modes of action; if the target tries to avoid the action of antibacterial component X, it runs smack into compound Y. And vice versa.(bile salts are a detergent, and would attack cell membranes, btw, in addition to the alcohol, copper, allicin effects) Sounds like the ancient who came up with this mix was reasonably sophisticated.
      One problem with such natural remedies is standardization. As the article says, a prior try at the same mixture ended with a malodorous slime. That's one reason for standardized pharmaceuticals built up from isolating the active ingredients in these kinds of things and putting them together in a controlled manner. Along with, of course, the fact that such compounds can indeed be patented.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    28. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      The definition if a metal is a 'heavy' metal is a chemical one, not a physical one, so yes, copper and for that part, if you did not know it, aluminium are heavy metals and in the wrong dosage as poisoning as lead or mercury (which are physically more dense/heavy).

      It's a pretty loose definition. Essentially, a heavy metal is whatever causes heavy metal poisoning in any given situation. Which can include as light as alumin(i)um; probably anything heavier than sodium could qualify. Sodium in excess has its own problems with biological processes, but we don't count it as heavy metal poisoning, it's more ionic and less just binding to stuff.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    29. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by sjames · · Score: 1

      At the same time, good luck getting a doctor to suggest a $5 jar of salve over a $200 tube of prescription salve, even if it's the very same stuff.

      That's a real problem. Many doctors default to the new name brand X rather than the tried and true generic Y even when just the co-pay for X will cost more than Y. Often, X will be no better than Y for the majority of patients. As a result, some people pay WAY too much and some end up not getting X or Y. A tiny handful avoid mild itching that could have been fixed by switching them to X if they cared to.

    30. Re: So, should I just read reddit? by BundyGil · · Score: 1

      Makes them feel superior in their ignorance in some fucked up way. As we all know, stupid can't be fixed

    31. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the United States aren't doing that bad with respect to generics. Almost 67% of all medications prescribed in 2007 were generics, up from 45% in 2000. (Those numbers are from Wikipedia but sourced.)

      But yeah, healthcare in America is still way expensive and IIRC doctors are extensively marketed to by pharma companies, which doesn't help them make informed decisions about generics. Perhaps that could be better regulated. (Or perhaps some other approach might help to improve things. Perhaps that approach has even been taken already; I'm not that well informed about the American pharma market.)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    32. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Which Wikipedia article is that? I'd like to follow the cite since other figures suggest much less generics.

    33. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The German Wikipedia article on generic drugs. I assumed that the English article would contain similar data. That's an assumption I really need to drop; it virtually never holds.

      The cites are as follows:

      2006 data: The Generic Pharmaceutical Association: ANNUAL REPORT 2008. Generics: The Right Choice for Better Health. February 7th, 2008; downloaded on December 28th, 2012.

      2000 data: World Health Organisation: The World Medicines Situation. September 8th, 2004; downloaded on December 31st, 2012.
      (Note: I screwed up here by overlooking a footnote in the Wikipedia article. The 45% figure is not from 2000 but from 1998.)

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    34. Re:So, should I just read reddit? by sjames · · Score: 1

      The English language page is far less informative. I can understand the assumption, but I agree it doesn't seem to hold as often as I would expect.

      Alas, the first cite is a 404 page now.

      I believe there is some confusion in the figures. That too is understandable since we have a number of strange (to me) corner cases here. For example, a prescription drugs that are nothing more than large doses of fish oil and niacin. (The niacin costs $600). Both of those are sold over the counter as supplements (not categorized as drugs at all) for a tiny fraction of the cost (perhaps 2%), yet the prescription drugs sell.

      I'm not sure how they account for drugs where the patent has expired but the name brand is still sold at the inflated price in spite of the fully generic form being much cheaper. That situation is improving somewhat only because the patient is allowed to ask the pharmacist to provide the generic version of a prescribed name brand in many cases.

  3. leeks, garlic, brass, wine and other ingredients by turkeydance · · Score: 0

    what a weekend!

  4. garlic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ahhh, now it makes sense, that MRSA have no reflection in the mirror...

    1. Re:garlic? by WillKemp · · Score: 1

      Garlic is a very effective antibiotic - but only when it's raw, cooked garlic doesn't work. Garlic juice was used in the trenches in the first world war for fighting infection. I don't know about the other stuff, but the garlic on its own would kill MRSA in some circumstances.

  5. It works at least as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It works "at least as well as any modern remedy."

    And since modern remedies can't kill superbugs, we must assume this one can't either.

    1. Re:It works at least as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "You won't believe what happens when an ignorant guy reads this useful information!"

      Both CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA are resistant to traditional anti-staphylococcal beta-lactam antibiotics, such as cephalexin. CA-MRSA has a greater spectrum of antimicrobial susceptibility, including to sulfa drugs (like co-trimoxazole/trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole), tetracyclines (like doxycycline and minocycline) and clindamycin (for osteomyelitis), but the drug of choice for treating CA-MRSA is now believed to be vancomycin, according to a Henry Ford Hospital Study. HA-MRSA is resistant even to these antibiotics and often is susceptible only to vancomycin. Newer drugs, such as linezolid (belonging to the newer oxazolidinones class) and daptomycin, are effective against both CA-MRSA and HA-MRSA. The Infectious Disease Society of America recommends vancomycin, linezolid, or clindamycin (if susceptible) for treating patients with MRSA pneumonia. Ceftaroline, a fifth generation cephalosporin, is the first beta-lactam antibiotic approved in the US to treat MRSA infections (skin and soft tissue or community acquired pneumonia only).

      Vancomycin and teicoplanin are glycopeptide antibiotics used to treat MRSA infections. Teicoplanin is a structural congener of vancomycin that has a similar activity spectrum but a longer half-life. Because the oral absorption of vancomycin and teicoplanin is very low, these agents must be administered intravenously to control systemic infections. Treatment of MRSA infection with vancomycin can be complicated, due to its inconvenient route of administration. Moreover, many clinicians believe that the efficacy of vancomycin against MRSA is inferior to that of anti-staphylococcal beta-lactam antibiotics against methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA).

      Several newly discovered strains of MRSA show antibiotic resistance even to vancomycin and teicoplanin. These new evolutions of the MRSA bacterium have been dubbed Vancomycin intermediate-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (VISA). Linezolid, quinupristin/dalfopristin, daptomycin, ceftaroline, and tigecycline are used to treat more severe infections that do not respond to glycopeptides such as vancomycin. Current guidelines recommend daptomycin for VISA bloodstream infections and endocarditis.

      Studies suggest that allicin, a compound found in garlic, may prove to be effective in the treatment of MRSA.

      Try again, fucktard.

    2. Re:It works at least as well... by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Killing MRSA is easy. Trivial, even. You can do it with steam, alcohol, or dozens of other disinfecting agents. The key is to be able to kill it inside an infected individual, without also killing the host (or damaging a significant amount of the host's tissues). That's why we use antibiotics in the first place. While it wasn't entirely clear from skimming TFA, it very much sounds like this is (currently, at least) only a topical treatment (i.e. it's applied to the skin). It might be superior to other modern topical treatments in some cases, but I personally doubt it.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:It works at least as well... by rtb61 · · Score: 2

      The trick is in DNA itself. Whilst it might seem huge and whole lot can be done, it can not do everything and every time it changes to succeed in one area it must expose a weakness in another area (only so much DNA available to carry the genetic program of on and offs and more importantly the follow up 'how turned up the DNA switch is' buried in the so called junk DNA). So that salve being a very complex arrangement of many simultaneous anti-biotic attacks, is affective because whilst many elements of it fail, other elements succeed. So you follow the same example in modern anti-biotics, rather than a single molecule, you target the infection with many smaller doses of mutually supporting molecules and while some fail, others working together succeed.

      So you change the nature of anti-biotics to composite forms. The additional benefit, is not only will you increase efficacy but you should substantially reduce side affects, unless you are really incompetent in creating suitable composite affect formulations. Likely the formulation will also work more rapidly, able to tackle various strains within an infection more readily.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    4. Re:It works at least as well... by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      So modern medicine should go back to the more complex approaches that alternative healthcare has developed over dozens of hundreds of years?

      That makes sense.

      But none of it is patentable, so fat chance that anyone is going to be funded for the oh-so-necessary clinical trials.

      --
      Will
    5. Re:It works at least as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Composites are actually -more- patentable, because each element gets its own patent and then the whole recipe gets a separate patent. In reality though, that just opens it up more to patent trolls who will never actually produce it.

    6. Re:It works at least as well... by t_ban · · Score: 1

      Killing MRSA is easy. Trivial, even. You can do it with steam, alcohol, or dozens of other disinfecting agents.

      Any info about the prophylactic dosage there?

      --
      First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
    7. Re:It works at least as well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might be superior to other modern topical treatments in some cases, but I personally doubt it.
      Ummm, ok it wasn't in the blurb (I read this in other places), but yeah, it CAN SO work within a wound. An American team was recruited, and multiple 'fresh from scratch batches' repeated the results. The researchers were also amazed that it works better than most other antibiotics in general, and slams the door on superbugs. One said that the test cultures had billions of MRSA cells, and very small amounts of the salve would very rapidly kill all of it (she was surprised by the killing power of this salve). They suspect that it is working on multiple levels. The difference between what is going on now at the University of Nottingham and "Balds Leach Book" (besides 1,100 years and everything written in Olde English), is the clinical study to describe in painful detail the exact method of action (monographs, tunnelling electron microscopes and all).

    8. Re:It works at least as well... by f3rret · · Score: 1

      Killing MRSA is easy. Trivial, even. You can do it with steam, alcohol, or dozens of other disinfecting agents.

      Any info about the prophylactic dosage there?

      Three or four liters of rubbing alcohol delivered through epidural injection should do the trick, although you might want to hook up a continuous drip through a central line to make absolutely sure.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    9. Re:It works at least as well... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually modern medicine can kill superbugs.
      However the 4 to 6 standard antibiotics don't work against them anymore.
      Your idea that an ancient rediscovered 'medical' "cam not work" either only shows you have no clue, but thanx for the opinion :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:It works at least as well... by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      I would recommend against using alcohol in your prophylactic.

    11. Re:It works at least as well... by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      "The Infectious Disease Society of America"
      Like the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants?

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  6. Re:This is great news by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

    well when you think about it, having something that can be 'tested' by trial and error, over many years (only a thousand in this one, but i'm sure there are even lengthier examples) -- something that sticks around, probably has some use, even if it's opaque to us.

  7. Copper and alcohol by tomhath · · Score: 0

    A couple of pretty toxic ingredients there. I suppose as a topical remedy you could use it. But saying it's as effective as any modern remedy sounds like a bit of a stretch.

    1. Re:Copper and alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Go read up on the likely and common side effects of:

      1) Vancomycin - fucks up your kidneys at levels above 10 micrograms/mL (.1 grams / liter)
      2) Untreated MRSA - fucks you up, as in dead.
      3) Copper - 2 mg/Liter is considered the "safe" level in your drinking water.

      So yeah, copper CAN fuck you up... but so can vancomycin, and vancomycin does so at much lower concentrations.

      As far as the other ingredients - leeks, garlic and wine may make your breath a little potent for a while, but people eat that shit daily, and love it.

      Given that MRSA is also *frequently* a skin infection, the route of topical treatment is also a great motherfucking idea, Einstein. And the fact that skin treated with Vancomycin and this remedy had comparable levels of reduction in MRSA load, no, it's NOT a stretch to say that it might be as effective as any modern remedy. In fact, it's kind of *exactly* as effective as modern remedies, based on this study.

      Jesus fuck, just because you know Python doesn't mean you know the first fucking thing about biochemistry or medicine.

    2. Re:Copper and alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copper is toxic? hmmmm that must be why they keep using it for potable water pipes....

    3. Re:Copper and alcohol by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      A couple of pretty toxic ingredients there. I suppose as a topical remedy you could use it. But saying it's as effective as any modern remedy sounds like a bit of a stretch.

      Considering the MRSA is resistant to modern antibiotics I would assume pretty much anything is as effective as any modern medicine on it. Hell homeopathics might work as well.

    4. Re: Copper and alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copper in pipes is fine. It tends to stay there. Dissolved copper is another story.

    5. Re:Copper and alcohol by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      Idiot, "resistant to antibiotics" does not mean "immune to all antibiotics."

      It is immune to some classes of antibiotics, yes. Other classes of antibiotics continue to be effective. Vancomycin, for example, is effective on most MRSA infections. So no, homeopathic remedies are NOT going to be "as effective as any modern medicine."

      Go try to sound smart somewhere else.

      It was a joke, which is why I used mentioned something as funny as homepathics medicine. I agree with some of the other posters that they probably didn't test against the best modern medicine, which is why the description is vague, and if they tested against something not effective. Well, then something equally effective is not very effective.

    6. Re:Copper and alcohol by JSG · · Score: 1

      It's fine for water pipes. Copper *is* toxic when when you ingest it in sufficient quantities and in he right form but you will not ingest Cu (in suff ...) when drinking water from copper fed pipes. That's one of the reasons why it's used.

      Why not ask your plumber to replace all that nasty copper pipe work with lead (Pb) in your house? After all the moniker "plumber" is derived from plumbum which as you know means lead in Latin. Why not make use of the "wisdom of the ancients"?

      Cheers
      Jon

    7. Re:Copper and alcohol by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Indeed it is. Good thing it doesn't dissolve in water very well. And what does has a hard time getting into your blood.

      (what degrades copper pipe is corrosion.)

    8. Re:Copper and alcohol by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Doctors know how to prescribe Vancomycin and other broad spectrum antibiotics without killing their patients Einstein.

      Untreated MRSA infections on the skin are common and easily treated; probably 10% of the people in this country have MRSA colonized in their sinuses. Bloodstream infections cause problems, septic shock does kill, Einstein.

      See other comments pointing out how wrong you are about copper, Einstein.

    9. Re:Copper and alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was a joke [...]

      Well, I found it funny anyway :)

    10. Re:Copper and alcohol by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Thanx Jon, thanx for your opinion, Jon, however it is wrong though.
      In every nation I know about (not nations I know, but nations I know about the plumping system) using copper for pipes for drinking water: is forbidden because it is similar poisoness as lead is.
      Copper is used for the heating system, not for drinking water, actually those circuits need to be 100% separated from each other.
      However you likely live in a country where legislation only makes regulations after some majour hazard or majour suing :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    11. Re:Copper and alcohol by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      So you prefer PVC for your water pipes? That tends to grow nasty stuff in it, and not be great at dealing with temperature shifts. Or cast iron, which rusts? Steel?

      Copper is used in MANY systems, and almost universally in plumbing, the world over. US, UK, Mexico and Canada all use it as their primary potable water piping solution, and even the EU uses it commonly: https://books.google.com/books... water pipe european union&f=false

    12. Re:Copper and alcohol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doctors know how to prescribe Vancomycin and other broad spectrum antibiotics without killing their patients Einstein.

      And do you know what? I bet they can also figure out a way to prescribe a compound containing "incredibly toxic!!!!!" copper without killing their patients, too. The toxic load of copper is 20x the concentration of vancomycin that will kill you, yet we routinely prescribe vancomycin, and do so safely. Nobody's talking about main-lining molten copper into someone's bloodstream.

      Untreated MRSA infections on the skin are common and easily treated;

      "Untreated MRSA is easily treated"? Wut?

      probably 10% of the people in this country have MRSA colonized in their sinuses. Bloodstream infections cause problems, septic shock does kill, Einstein.

      Great - so you continue studying the compounds in this topical agent and try to find a safe and effective way of delivering the compound inside the body. Again: vancomycin can kill patients, at concentrations far lower than the "generally considered safe" amount of copper people can ingest. Suggesting that this treatment is full of toxins both ignores the simple fact that it's far less toxic than a lot of current state of the art treatments, and that there are plenty of topical uses for which this preparation seems to be just as effective as those state of the art treatments.

      Your original point was "sure this may be fine for topical use, but it's not as effective as modern treatments," which is, in a word, retarded. This study demonstrated that it was as effective as vancomycin, and no matter how hard you try to twist it, the ingredients are far less toxic than far lower concentrations of modern treatments. I know it stings to have it pointed out when you say something stupid, but you should just say "thanks for educating me, I didn't know any of this and was just trying to be a smarmy cunt whining about science I don't understand."

    13. Re:Copper and alcohol by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The common pipe style in fact is iron. It does not rust at all as the water does not contain oxygen and thus can not oxidize the iron. There are trace amounts of air in the water, so you see a bit of rust after maintenance, when the water was standing for a few days and/or work on the pipes lead to vibrations.
      Of course the closer you come to the houses the more often the iron is coated with zinc or similar materials, the long distance distribution network is steel or concrete.
      Copper is no where used in potable water distribution.
      Perhaps there are old pipes which don't need to be removed for what ever reason (did not read your link), however new installations in the EU are absolutely forbidden.
      Actually I never have seen a copper drinking water pipe in all my life, and I'm close to 50.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    14. Re:Copper and alcohol by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      As a side note, or follow up to my previous post: PVC does not lead to 'growing nasty stuff' inside of it.
      Potable water is so pure that you have less than a handful of microbes/monocellular life per cubic meter in it.
      Actually finding such trace amounts is extremely difficult, you basically have to evapour 99% of the water and still don't have a chance of finding the remaining microbes.
      However your country might be different ....

      Your link btw, does not load, so no idea about the talk about copper in it .... however the google notice 'two of two hits' clearly shows that usage of copper can't be relevant :) perhaps you should read what you find via google before linking it?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Copper and alcohol by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      As another side note, follow up ...

      Actually you should really read the links you post. In your link EU regulations are 'quoted' as a guide line for the US to remove copper or lower copper concentrations in potable water.

      Enough said ....

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. Re:leeks, garlic, brass, wine and other ingredient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The bacteria didn't see it coming.

  9. Re:leeks, garlic, brass, wine and other ingredient by TeknoHog · · Score: 2

    Did you mean: wikileeks

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  10. Obligatory xkcd by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful
    --
    "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    1. Re:Obligatory xkcd by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      Related to that link, a quote from the article:

      Some of the ingredients, such as copper from the brass vessel, kill bacteria grown in a dish – but it was unknown if they would work on a real infection or how they would combine.

      So they were trying to take it a step beyond 'killing bacteria grown in a dish.' They used it on mice skin (still not a human trial, of course).

      Funny quote from the article:

      Sourcing authentic ingredients was a major challenge, says Harrison. They had to hope for the best with the leeks and garlic because modern crop varieties are likely to be quite different to ancient ones – even those branded as heritage. For the wine they used an organic vintage from a historic English vineyard......Bullocks gall was easy, though, as cow's bile salts are sold as a supplement for people who have had their gall bladders removed.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Obligatory xkcd by steveha · · Score: 2

      Link

      The point of that xkcd comic is that cancer drugs need to be safe as well as effective. A patient whose cancer cells are all dead is not better off if he is dead also.

      I read the recipe for the salve and it does not appear to be something that would kill a patient. In fact, you could eat the medicine and it wouldn't hurt you; it's onions or leeks, garlic, wine, bile salts, and some small amount of copper. According to TFA the lab where they tested this smelled like garlic and people thought they were cooking food in the lab.

      I'd be willing to have this stuff put on my skin.

      P.S. I'm excited by the new technology being called "nanobots". (I think "nanobots" might be overselling what it is, but they didn't ask me.) A nanoscale cylinder is made that can hinge open; some drug is placed inside; and two latches hold it shut. The latches are designed to open only in the presence of a specific protein, such as a specific cancer cell type. Thus we have a nanoscale "robot" that can do exactly two things: it can open when it bumps into a specific cell type, and it can close again when it's away from the specific cell type.

      This is exciting because it decouples the two problems of treating cancer: you need to kill the cancer cells and not hurt the patient. With this, you could use a very effective anti-cancer medicine that is as dangerous as a handgun bullet, but make sure that only a nanodose is delivered, and only to the cancer cells (I guess with high but not perfect accuracy).

      http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/03/ido-bachelet-dna-nanobots-summary-with.html

      I tried to find out more about the human trial, but couldn't find anything beyond the video linked in the above article. If these nanobots really do get tested on a human and he really has his life saved by them, I expect significant news coverage. The claim is that the guy would be dead by summer with conventional treatment, so if it's real we won't have to wait more than a few months to read more about it.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    3. Re:Obligatory xkcd by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      NRA just added that "benefits" bullet point* to their brochure.

      * No pun intended

    4. Re:Obligatory xkcd by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Is it just me.... or has Xkcd gotten a cartoon for everything [on Slashdot] now, much like the Simpsons have done everything?

  11. Flamethrowers FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Killing bugs is easy. It's not killing everything else in the vicinity that makes it hard.

    That's why antibiotics were invented in the first place.

  12. Re:This is great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know why you get the idea that "ancient remedies" have to be a load of crap.
    The idea of "let's try something, and if it works, keep doing it, otherwise try something else" wasn't invented last century.
    There's no reason at all why an ancient remedy shouldn't work simply due to the fact of being an "ancient remedy".

    Having said that, there's no reason why it _should_ work due to just being an "ancient remedy" either. If it works, It works because it works.

  13. Yeah but have they tried going to the Ocean Floor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of the plot to this book: http://www.goodreads.com/book/...

    A strange plague called the ’Gets is decimating humanity on a global scale. It causes people to forget—small things at first, like where they left their keysthen the not-so-small things like how to drive, or the letters of the alphabet. Then their bodies forget how to function involuntarily and there is no cure. But now, far below the surface of the Pacific Ocean, deep in the Marianas Trench, an heretofore unknown substance hailed as “ambrosia” has been discovered—a universal healer, from initial reports. It may just be the key to a universal cure. In order to study this phenomenon, a special research lab, the Trieste, has been built eight miles under the sea’s surface. But now the station is incommunicado, and it’s up to a brave few to descend through the lightless fathoms in hopes of unraveling the mysteries lurking at those crushing depthsand perhaps to encounter an evil blacker than anything one could possibly imagine.

  14. Would we lose this too? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    In the ancient times not many people knew it and it was not over used like today's antibiotics are being over used. So if you over use it, may be new resistant strains might emerge.

    It is interesting one of the ingredients is cow bile. Definitely not something you would think of as an disinfectant. But, being from India, I know so many people who believe cow urine and cow dung has disinfecting properties. May be there is something to it. Cows digest tough vegetation. Their stomachs are full of bacteria that could break down vegetable matter. May be there are so many beneficial would-not-harm-a-mammal bacteria in there, some of them might fight of any bacteria that would infect its host, the cow.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  15. Re:Wow, wow, wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But are you willing to pour bleach on your eye? No? Well then...

  16. MRSA != Golden Staph by GrahamCox · · Score: 4, Informative

    Staphylococcus Aureus, aka "Golden staph" is not exactly synonymous with MRSA. The MR part means 'Methicillin Resistant', which is a mutated form of SA that can't be killed with Methicillin, a common antibiotic. SA is extremely common - it's everywhere, all over your skin, right now. It's only dangerous if it starts to infect a wound and gets into the bloodstream. Most SA will still respond to antibiotics, only the MRSA strain won't. But this strain is still thankfully fairly rare, though it's a growing problem. One solution would be for everyone to stop taking antibiotics for minor ailments such as the common cold which it does nothing for, but adds a lot of unnecessary antibiotics to the environment, thus prompting common bacteria such as SA to evolve into the MRSA form. If we lose the benefit of antibiotics, it will be a disaster, and we can thank all the stupid people for that.

    1. Re:MRSA != Golden Staph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antibiotics are also fed in vast quantities to cattle that are going to be fed to humans. They are not just given to infected animals, but used as a prophylactic (against disease - stop sniggering up the back!). That also worsens this issue.

    2. Re:MRSA != Golden Staph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've already lost the antibiotic war. Tada! The future is now. In fact, bacteria are genetically promiscuous in that they shed genetic code for others to pick up. Meaning, the resistance is spreading to other bacteria.

    3. Re:MRSA != Golden Staph by whistlepig · · Score: 1

      Additional information, from http://www.cdc.gov/mrsa/tracki... : Studies show that about one in three (33%) people carry staph in their nose, usually without any illness. Two in 100 people carry MRSA. There are not data showing the total number of people who get MRSA skin infections in the community. Additionally, it is particularly a problem in hospitals because of sick people that go through there and the number immunocompromised. As you pointed out, MRSA is actually very similar to Staph aureus. The main place it differs is treatment with antibiotics. Mutations to antibiotics do not make bacteria less susceptible to disinfectants (in fact the mutations may take additional energy, making the bacteria slightly more susceptible). For skin infections, one can potentially get higher local concentrations of topical medications without exposing the whole body to the same concentration (e.g., the use of disinfectants like betadine and chlorhexidine to help treat skin infections). For blood borne infections, I'm sure someone will look at the toxicity in mice; that's part of research. As the article states, they still don't know the mechanism or compounds involved. As medieval people demonstrated, one does not always need to. However, it can be useful for reducing toxicity if needed. Overall, it's an neat article due to the methodology and a fun read. It may go somewhere, but many of these things don't.

    4. Re:MRSA != Golden Staph by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, in the rest of the world the M in MRSA does not stand for 'Methicillin' but for 'Multiple' as those bacteria are resistant against _multiple_ antibiotics.
      If they only would be resistant against Methicillin, the treatment would be easy, a joke actually.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  17. other uses by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    leeks, garlic, brass, wine and other ingredients

    and it keeps vampires away

    1. Re:other uses by reboot246 · · Score: 2

      Consuming garlic on a regular basis will also keep mosquitoes away. I haven't been bit by one in years.

    2. Re:other uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also keeps girlfriends away, haven't had one in years.

    3. Re:other uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's be honest here, do you really think garlic is primarily responsible for that?

  18. Quick, lobby for an FDA ban! by iamacat · · Score: 1

    We can not have people getting treated with inexpensive ingredients from their kitchens. That would be so uncivilized! Lucky thing we stopped red rice yeast for lowering cholesterol. Phew!

    1. Re:Quick, lobby for an FDA ban! by judoguy · · Score: 1

      Frighteningly close to the truth. An example of Big Pharma and a corrupt lawmaker shows that the medical industry will try to regulate - charge for- anything that might work. For the sake of the children, of course.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
  19. Re: This is great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your doctor doesn't want you to know aboyt this 500-year-old remedy for venereal disease.

    Hint: it's mercury.

    Not every old remedy is good for you. If you get into the history of medicine, you'll find lots of old remedies that are harmful.

  20. Re:This is great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Easy answer to that: Like most people, he's been programmed to think that only large companies can come up with something that works. If it didn't involve people with lots of fancy letters after their names, and billions of dollars, it must be shit, right? After all, big brand names and money are the only factors that give credibility these days.

  21. Re:leeks, garlic, brass, wine and other ingredient by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Did you mean: wikileeks

    Damn, ran out of mod points, but this is funny. Get to work vigilant moderators!

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  22. The potion killed 90 per cent of the bacteria. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Antibiotics used to kill 90% of the bacteria too... until the remaining resistant 10% multiplied and suddenly the antibiotics weren't working so well anymore.

    If it doesn't kill 100%, it's just another stop-gap measure until the next "ancient remedy resistant" version comes out... AMRSA?

  23. mrsa doesn't have mercy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A nurse that I had the honor to know contracted mrsa from a patient. Modern antibiotics would knock it down, mrsa constantly reappeared. It spread to her brain and my wife and I held her hand, prayed, and even though she appeared "out of it" a tear ran down her cheek just before she passed. She heard us praying for her, thus the tear. If a 1000 year old homeopathic medicine helps fight mrsa, why would anyone be against it? For Susan Schakel Jenks, my Chritian Sister.

    1. Re:mrsa doesn't have mercy by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      NOT homeopathic!! This is apothicary!

      Homeopathic-- Made of two root words. Homeo == Same, Pathos == causes illness.

      Homeopathy is a very strongly disproven notion from ancient days that if you consumed small quantities of a pathogen, your body would be strengthened against it.

      Apothicary is radically different. Apothicaries (western ones anyway) ammased remedies that were ancient even in the dark ages, because they had proven to be effective at treating illnesses, and some theories as to the mechanisms of their action were created, and new remedies compounded based on those theories. They lacked modern science, and lacked the modern understanding of germs, but apothicary medicine was a pretty rigorous discipline, as opposed to the philosophical wishy-washiness of homeopathy.

      [Eastern apothicaries however, developed a kind of magical hoodoo nonsense, which still lingers to this day. There is no medicinal value in tiger penis. No. There. isnt. It's just meat.]

    2. Re:mrsa doesn't have mercy by dave420 · · Score: 0

      I'd cry if people were holding my hand and praying. So fucking embarrassing, and achieves absolutely nothing but offering false hope. And has been pointed out, this is nothing to do with homeopathy. You're not really portraying the religious in the best light.

    3. Re:mrsa doesn't have mercy by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Actually the part of homeopathy that is using the traditional homeo and phatos approach is working quite well, so is the part that is using healing plants ...

      Also you are very misinformed assuming that eastern apothecaries only use tiger penises, I really wonder if you could get one. In fact they use gallic, about which the article is, and ginseng, and other plants.

      Further you are misinformed about the tiger penises, a minour lapsus, though. They are not made of 100% meat. Like most mammals (humans one of the exception) they contain a bone. When dried a tiger penis basically is a piece of bone with some dried skin around it.

      Yes, I know: I'm just nitpicking :)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  24. Natural Remedy + Slashdot = Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny how when a natural remedy cures a disease with proof to back things up, slashdot just brushes it aside and makes comedic remarks... pretty pathetic if you ask me.

    What ever happened to science and accepting the facts at hand?

  25. leeks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone has been watching the walking dead and heard Daryl Dixin claim leeks help keep mosquitos off of you.

    My god the things you can learn on AMC!

  26. Every time I see "leeks" by sabbede · · Score: 1
    My brain first registers it as "leeches". I don't know why, but it goes back to Ultima Underworld 2, which was the first time I actually saw the word.

    Anyhow, it worked out very humorously this morning considering that the article is about ancient medicine.

  27. infected eyelash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How does a hair get infected?

  28. Re: This is great news by f3rret · · Score: 1

    Your doctor doesn't want you to know aboyt this 500-year-old remedy for venereal disease.

    Hint: it's mercury.

    Not every old remedy is good for you. If you get into the history of medicine, you'll find lots of old remedies that are harmful.

    I don't know man, I haven't had any disease trepanning or a good blood letting couldn't deal with, well there was this one time where I had to drink a gallon or mercury to get over a...ahem..personal disease.

    --
    Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
  29. I've seen a lot of this personally. by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    Personally, I've seen a lot of this. "Retro" in medicine not only is hip, but it actually works. And often better than synthesized medicine.
    You have to know what you are doing though, which includes knowing what modern remedies acutally do and what they were originally built for.

    Example: I treaded my reflux with healing earth and baking soda (Natriumhydrogencarbonat (German term)). The regular doctor would've given me super expensive PPI and the effect probably wouldn't have been half as good. It took me basically 3 days to get my acid levels back to normal.

    Example 2: Healing Earth/Healing Clay. No more anti-biotics or synthesized remedies when I have stomach problems due to an infection or stress, thank you. This stuff has upped my health measurably ever since the local RPG dealer recommended it to me back in college. I've used it to externally treat neuro-dermitis, stomach problems and acidic cold sores. This stuff does wonders. For some people it's tough to swallow though. I usually take a heaped table-spoon of dry healing clay (grain size 1 or ultra-fine) and wash it down with a glass of water. You have to brush your teeth afterwards, otherwise you'll be scrunching on what feels like fine grained sand. ... Which it basically is, in a way. :-)

    Example 3: Fresh onions and fresh pressed onion juice for treating ear or throat infections. It smells, but it works. The soothing effect is almost instant, no thinking what a synthesized remedy with that effect would have to do. I use onions marinated in honey as cough syrup - it's the best there is. It's a bit of a hassle to make, so I do use stuff from the store aswell when I need it and am low on time, but the self made stuff beats the stuff from the store in both effect and taste, hands down.

    These are a few examples of old-school remedies that are measurably better that the stuff pharmaceuticals try to push on you. However, there is modern medicine that I do use, albeit as an 'educated patient'. Modern anti-hystaminica for instance has gotten pretty good and effective with negilible side-effects.

    Bottom line: There are remedies that have been around for thousands of years and still are the best there is for treating certain conditions, perhaps also for the very simple fact that we've evolved around those things available to us. That, of cource, doesn't mean you should shun modern medicine entirely or go all-out homepathic or some other weird stuff.

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  30. Re: This is great news by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    That's why you subject the ancient remedies to modern testing.

    And even in cases where they're harmful, at the time it was probably better to suffer with the side-effects than have the original disease. It's no different today; every medication can have negative side effects; we're just better at designing and manufacturing drugs to minimize or eliminate these side effects than before.