3 ms·
"...were grown on black, polycarbonate membranes placed on tryptic soy agar plates..." So ya, definitely not a walk in the park to eliminate the bacteria in the
by pokemongoaway 8y ago
"...were grown on black, polycarbonate membranes placed on tryptic soy agar plates..." So ya, definitely not a walk in the park to eliminate the bacteria in the biofilms of grandma's old infection! I never really got the incentive for smart people like you to post sorts of "see, it's solved, we're so advanced" replies online. It makes sense with technology because that is easy to reference and prove one way or another. But implying something is solved in biology is very often problematic, isn't it?
- Fomite 8y agoYour objection doesn't really make much sense. The description of how the biofilms were grown is precise because it's a peer-reviewed paper. That it uses big words doesn't mean it's complex. "We grew the biofilms on black plastic with food" is all that sentence says. That's also growing the biofilm, not penetrating it, which is what you seem to be under the impression it's referring to. I also didn't claim that "It's solved." Biofilms are a bitch. But claiming that antibiotics don't work against bacteria in biofilms is actively wrong. "Hey, your information is wrong, some broad spectrum antibiotics penetrate biofilms" isn't claiming the problem is solved, just that someone has made a factually incorrect statement. Which is, you'll note, also why I noted that Cipro has other drawbacks. Do you think I would have done that if I considered the problem "solved"? To use a programmer example, if someone said "Python's 1-based indexing is a bad idea", would you chew someone out for replying "Python is 0-indexed" and linking to the language description?