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
