FG researchers sit on superbug cure info

[den4]

http://askwaltstollmd.com/wwwboard/messages/317197.shtml

Original article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4116053.stm

Basically, we found these great natural essential oils that kills the superbugs, but we won't tell you what they are because of commercial sensitivities...

meanwhile, thousands of people will die in the hospitals each year when they could have just used these oils to save them....if they just revealed what the hospital staff should use to clean the area for sanitation....

and probably thousands more will die in the hospitals in SE Asia, while the researchers sit on their hands on this knowledge....

not to mention the thousands that probably die each year around the world due to deficient sanitation in their nations' hospitals...

this should be a crime against humanity....
no wonder the world is so full of FGs....

[Charles]

Aromatherapy, what a load of crap. Infections like MRSA spread due to inadequate sanitation, and can be killed by regular disinfecting agents like soap, if you get it at the source.
Just yesterday, our local hospital was in the news because it had located the source of an outbreak of non-flesheating strep. They were baffled because the hospital implemented extreme measures to prevent spread of infection, they make all hospital personnel disinfect their hands before and after touching any patient, and use computerized tracking of the DNA of even the most minor infections to find any common factors in similar infections. The source was finally isolated: a dirty shower head. They replaced the shower head and disinfected the room, end of outbreak.

[ramchop]

My research project in Tokyo was pretty much testing these oils against some of these superbugs. Sure some are active but at unrealistically high concentrations... unless you want to use them as disinfectants, which as Charles has pointed out there are already plenty of effective ones (try bleach).

As for the sitting on hands bollocks. Why should scientists do their work for the good of humanity whereas other professions give very little away for free?

[Samurai_Jerk]

That article reminds me of those BS infomercials that are thinly disguised as talk shows or news casts. Yes, scientists and doctors should work for free.

[dimwit]

It amazes me the number of seemingly well-educated people who fall for the aromatherapy propaganda. The only form of aromatherapy that DOES work is scratch and sniff cards.

http://www.erc.msstate.edu/~lush/scratch_n_sniff/

[DJEB]

Not a comment on this topic per se.

Why should scientists do their work for the good of humanity whereas other professions give very little away for free?

Since when do scientists do their daily research for free hoping to make a discovery that they can cash in on? Profit seeking in science, as any scientist dedicated to uncovering a greater understanding of the universe will say, has done more harm to discovery in modern science than anything else. Science was traditionally and works better as a cooperative system than as a competitive one. Locking away knowlegde to sell to the highest bidder does not help the world.

[ramchop]

Science was traditionally and works better as a cooperative system than as a competitive one. Locking away knowlegde to sell to the highest bidder does not help the world.

Your "traditional" science was well funded by the government. Well paid scientists with secure jobs not having to worry about whether they'll be funded next year or out on their arse. Commercial contracts are more a reality of today's science, and the fact is commercial entities won't pay for research unless there's a potential pay-off at the end of it.

Science may work better on a cooperative basis. But the competitve system funds a shit load more research. So is more not-so-good science better than less pure science?

I'm in science because it's fun, I never got into it to "help the world". It's nice to think that maybe I've saved a few lives, but with a mortgage and kids, money is a reality that is always going to a bigger part of the equation than it was when I drifted into the field.

[DJEB]

Science may work better on a cooperative basis. But the competitve system funds a shit load more research. So is more not-so-good science better than less pure science?

This has led us to the much discussed 90-10 split in pharmaceutical research. It has not come about by any iron laws of economics but rather through human decision. The result has been to provide the world with Rogain and Viagra but not with effective treatments or cures for the real killer diseases of the world (not that we disagree on this point).

I'm in science because it's fun, I never got into it to "help the world".

But it was fun to uncover "a greater understanding of the universe," wasn't it. I studied physics because it was a whole hell of a lot more fun than bus admin (there's an easy field: "You're fired! Gimme a raise!")could ever hope to be.

It's nice to think that maybe I've saved a few lives, but with a mortgage and kids, money is a reality that is always going to a bigger part of the equation than it was when I drifted into the field.

Sure. But your need for money to support your family doesn't change the fact that the conscious decision to shift towards private enterprise has meant that science has suffered.

[ramchop]

I don't think we have extremely different views on this DJEB. As is often the case, you're arguing for what's best in theory, whereas I'm talking what the reality is. Many retiring senior scientists are often talking about how bad things are getting in the field and how lucky they had it. Meanwhile I'm currently being introduced to the joys of matrix management.


I'm just pissed off at den4's ignorant "this should be a crime against humanity..." comment. Yes, all scientists are evil.

[den4]

I'm just pissed off at den4's ignorant "this should be a crime against humanity..." comment. Yes, all scientists are evil.

Yeah, it does look like that when put in that context, doesn't it? Not that there is any other context it could be taken as...oh well...

guess I was just annoyed that the reality of science these days is not for the wonder of discovery, but the bottom line of some pharmaceutical company...

But ramchop is right...that was a rather ignorant comment to make, now that I look back on it....


Happy New Year!

[DJEB]

As is often the case, you're arguing for what's best in theory, whereas I'm talking what the reality is.

I do that a lot, I know. But if you knew me, you'd know that I back it up in practice to whatever extent I can. I get sick of my own talk and just go out and practice what I preach.

In this case, I can't change the way science is done, but I can raise a big stink about it, if nothing else.