Antibacterials of little use: study http://tinyurl.com/26w7j Or, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x397190 Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti
On 2004-03-03 20:46:50 -0500, [email protected] (Dr. Jai Maharaj) said: If you really put any stock in shitty articles like that, may God have mercy on your soul. > Antibacterials of little use: study > > http://tinyurl.com/26w7j > > Or, > > http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x397190 Jai > > > Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti
anon wrote: > On 2004-03-03 20:46:50 -0500, [email protected] (Dr. Jai Maharaj) said: > > If you really put any stock in shitty articles like that, may God have mercy on your soul. > >> Antibacterials of little use: study >> >> http://tinyurl.com/26w7j >> >> Or, >> >> http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x397190 >> > > > Jai > >> >> >> Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti > > > Do your own sudy Jai. Next time you get any infection delcine all antibacterials.
anon <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<2004030321035250073%[email protected]>... > On 2004-03-03 20:46:50 -0500, [email protected] (Dr. Jai Maharaj) said: > > If you really put any stock in shitty 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 protected] (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote in message news:<health- [email protected]>... > Antibacterials of little use: study > > http://tinyurl.com/26w7j > > Or, > > http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x397190 > > Jai Maharaj http://www.mantra.com/jai Om Shanti
