ANTIBACTERIALS OF LITTLE USE: STUDY

On 2004-03-03 20:46:50 -0500, [email hidden] (Dr. Jai Maharaj) said:

If you really put any stock in [censored] articles like that, may God have mercy on your soul.

Quoted message said:

Antibacterials of little use: study

tinyurl.com26w7jOpen ↗

Or,

democraticunderground.comduboard.phpOpen ↗

Jai

Quoted message said:

Jai Maharaj mantra.comjaiOpen ↗ Om Shanti

anon said:

On 2004-03-03 20:46:50 -0500, [email hidden] (Dr. Jai Maharaj) said:

If you really put any stock in [censored] articles like that, may God have mercy on your soul.

Quoted message said:

Antibacterials of little use: study

tinyurl.com26w7jOpen ↗

Or,

democraticunderground.comduboard.phpOpen ↗

Jai

Quoted message said:

Jai Maharaj mantra.comjaiOpen ↗ Om Shanti

Do your own sudy Jai. Next time you get any infection delcine all antibacterials.

anon <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<2004030321035250073%anon@anoncom>...

Quoted message said:

On 2004-03-03 20:46:50 -0500, [email hidden] (Dr. Jai Maharaj) said:

If you really put any stock in [censored] articles like that, may God have mercy on your soul.

The published article has this as ity's conclusion:

"The very small amount of antibacterial ingredients in these soaps don't seem to be doing much."

It's not antibacterials that are of little use, it is thye amount of incremental benefit from the
little that is in there.

Handwashing with soap does make a difference in bacterial counts, according to the article.

I hate the lay press' continued bastardization of science and more so the use of the lay press to
make some kind of point about what is good or bad.

Disgusting.

js

Does this study really show anything new or unexpected? Did it really deserve /any/ press coverage?

Its primary conclusion is that antibacterial soaps and agents do not aid in preventing the
contraction of viruses (which they quantify rather rudimentarily by segregating 'cold symptoms'😉 --
isn't this a big 'duh?' They concede this finding is, of course, not surprising to physicians.

Indeed, the study's primary purpose seems to be to support the agenda that the public needs to be
more thoroughly educated concerning antibacterial products, with the assumption that the public is
poorly educated on these products to begin with.

The approach of the paper, to me, is excessive, and it makes rather broad claims (albeit, expected
ones), based upon the limited (and questionable) evidence it gathered. Clinical studies, which are
notoriously expensive, are good for addressing certain issues -- but, this issue, could have been
easily addressed in a laboratory setting with acceptable results. In addition, the paper would have
been far more interesting had it looked at, instead, whether antibacterial soaps truly help prevent
the contraction of bacterial pathogens. This information may actually have proven useful to the
general public, at large, and have been news-worthy.

In conclusion, although the paper was published from a highly reputable university, with credible
authors, its relevence can clearly be called into question. The money, no doubt, could have
certainly been spent elsewhere, with more productive results. In addition, the protocol, and
approach, contained far too many uncertainies that could easily be called. Greater control, or a
different approach all together, may have presented less questionable data.

, [email hidden] (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message news:<health-
[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Antibacterials of little use: study

tinyurl.com26w7jOpen ↗

Or,

democraticunderground.comduboard.phpOpen ↗

Jai Maharaj mantra.comjaiOpen ↗ Om Shanti