5 ms·

"They were 'astonished' to find it almost completely wiped out staphylococcus aureus, otherwise known as MRSA." Not all S. aureus is MRSA; wondering if this is

"They were 'astonished' to find it almost completely wiped out staphylococcus aureus, otherwise known as MRSA." Not all S. aureus is MRSA; wondering if this is just poor phrasing or if I'm misunderstanding something.

kragen 12y ago
My guess is that the article is written by idiots who have no business attempting to popularize science they don't understand even the barest outlines of.
- vixen99 12y ago
  Use of the word 'idiot' usually heralds an intemperate blanket comment. What popularization? The article merely and briefly reports what the researchers said.'Experts from the university's microbiology team recreated the remedy and then tested it on large cultures of MRSA'. Where's the lack of understanding on the part of the BBC team? The effect of the mixture may be found to be of no significant account (90% is not much) but that's another story that's down to the researchers.
  - kragen 12y ago
    The stigmata of the lack of understanding were the item you mention (thinking that 90% is a large reduction in an exponentially-growing population) and the item mentioned upthread (conflating S. aureus in general with MRSA, an error which has apparently been silently fixed in the article now). But those are the things they said. We don’t know what things the reporters didn’t say because they didn’t understand that they were important when the researchers said them. Perhaps, for example, the researchers addressed the question mentioned elsewhere in the thread of whether you can actually put this salve in your eyes without burning your corneas, or sterilize it and inject it into your body; or whether it has some activity transdermally and could thus perhaps be used to treat cellulitis. And I wouldn’t be surprised if someone decides to mix up this stuff from the article and blinds themselves with garlic. And that, in a nutshell, is why I’m intemperate about ignorant journalists blathering about medical science.
dysfunction 12y ago
Was the article edited? It now reads "They were "astonished" to find it almost completely wiped out methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, otherwise known as MRSA."
- JoblessWonder 12y ago
  I tried to check http://newsdiffs.org/ http://newsdiffs.org/ but the bbc.co.uk portion seems to be broken.

kragen 12y ago

My guess is that the article is written by idiots who have no business attempting to popularize science they don't understand even the barest outlines of.

vixen99 12y ago
Use of the word 'idiot' usually heralds an intemperate blanket comment. What popularization? The article merely and briefly reports what the researchers said.'Experts from the university's microbiology team recreated the remedy and then tested it on large cultures of MRSA'. Where's the lack of understanding on the part of the BBC team? The effect of the mixture may be found to be of no significant account (90% is not much) but that's another story that's down to the researchers.
- kragen 12y ago
  The stigmata of the lack of understanding were the item you mention (thinking that 90% is a large reduction in an exponentially-growing population) and the item mentioned upthread (conflating S. aureus in general with MRSA, an error which has apparently been silently fixed in the article now). But those are the things they said. We don’t know what things the reporters didn’t say because they didn’t understand that they were important when the researchers said them. Perhaps, for example, the researchers addressed the question mentioned elsewhere in the thread of whether you can actually put this salve in your eyes without burning your corneas, or sterilize it and inject it into your body; or whether it has some activity transdermally and could thus perhaps be used to treat cellulitis. And I wouldn’t be surprised if someone decides to mix up this stuff from the article and blinds themselves with garlic. And that, in a nutshell, is why I’m intemperate about ignorant journalists blathering about medical science.

dysfunction 12y ago

Was the article edited? It now reads "They were "astonished" to find it almost completely wiped out methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus, otherwise known as MRSA."

JoblessWonder 12y ago
I tried to check http://newsdiffs.org/ http://newsdiffs.org/ but the bbc.co.uk portion seems to be broken.