1000 year old cure for MRSA

30-03-2015 10:04PM #1

Just think a possible solution for one of the biggest killers in hospitals these days and big pharma won't make a penny out of it!

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-32117815
A 1,000-year-old treatment for eye infections could hold the key to killing antibiotic-resistant superbugs, experts have said.
Scientists recreated a 9th Century Anglo-Saxon remedy using onion, garlic and part of a cow's stomach.
They were "astonished" to find it almost completely wiped out staphylococcus aureus, otherwise known as MRSA.
Their findings will be presented at a national microbiology conference.
The remedy was found in Bald's Leechbook - an old English manuscript containing instructions on various treatments held in the British Library.
Anglo-Saxon expert Dr Christina Lee, from the University of Nottingham, translated the recipe for an "eye salve", which includes garlic, onion or leeks, wine and cow bile.
Experts from the university's microbiology team recreated the remedy and then tested it on large cultures of MRSA.

The Moldy Gowl · 30-03-2015 10:06PM

...well until that gowl mrsa adapts to it?

30-03-2015 10:08PM

Gowlasauras Rex wrote: »

...well until that gowl mrsa adapts to it?

then we'll just find a 2000 year old cure. :pac:

Kovu · 30-03-2015 10:10PM

That would stink to the high heavens. Cattle bile smells like a fermented egg that's been left to ripen for a week in a greenhouse.

30-03-2015 10:10PM

I wonder if the "cure" actually worked on eyes, onions normally make your eyes water!

Bald's eye salve

Equal amounts of garlic and another allium (onion or leek), finely chopped and crushed in a mortar for two minutes.

Add 25ml (0.87 fl oz) of English wine - taken from a historic vineyard near Glastonbury.

Dissolve bovine salts in distilled water, add and then keep chilled for nine days at 4C.

123balltv · 30-03-2015 10:12PM

Nothing new have always used Garlic and onions when ill
cant afford 60 euro for hello, here's antibiotics bye

Rothko · 30-03-2015 10:13PM

"big pharma"

Ugh

Turtwig · 30-03-2015 10:13PM

The remedy is made from ingredients i.e. chemicals. To gather the resources to assemble and mass produce the product would take a quite large scale operation. Big Pharma will make money out of it. (If it actually works - or if they market it successfully.) Unless there's no money to be made from it, then nobody is going to bother producing it because it's not a cost effect solution, never mind the most cost effective solution.

Kevin McCloud · 30-03-2015 10:14PM

We will be shitting gold next.

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 30-03-2015 10:17PM

Concentrated acid will kill mrsa too. Doesn't mean I'd be giving it to people. Cures in lab cultures are a million miles away from viable, clinically relevant treatments.

30-03-2015 10:19PM

Kevin McCloud wrote: »

We will be shitting gold next.

We do

just need to do a lot of panning to find it.

donegaLroad · 31-03-2015 12:10AM

We are catching up with ancient knowledge. The spider's web for example, was commonly used to dress wounds in ancient times, as there was a percentage of penicillin contained in the silk which would protect the wound from fungal and bacterial attack.

diddley · 31-03-2015 01:22AM

Sounds very interesting but as you said, if big pharma won't make a penny from it, won't they find some way to hush it up/rubbish it/make cows stomach linings sacred??? Why is St. Johns Wort banned in Ireland??

steddyeddy · 31-03-2015 01:47AM

Garlic is a member of the onion genus and the onion genus often produces antibiotic compounds. This might work but I think we need more ingenuity when it comes to antibacterial compounds. Over prescribing is the real cause of antibiotic resistance and clinicians need to tackle that to prevent more strains like MRSA developing.

househero · 31-03-2015 03:52AM

diddley wrote: »

Sounds very interesting but as you said, if big pharma won't make a penny from it, won't they find some way to hush it up/rubbish it/make cows stomach linings sacred??? Why is St. Johns Wort banned in Ireland??

St Js causes anxiety and has been linked to suicide. Although if Irish authorities were really concerned about suicide, alcahol would be banned.

Pharma drugs are compounds of beneficial ingredients isolated to increase effectiveness and reduce unwanted side effects... for example tree bark and aspirin (look it up)

Your not going to eat an onion garlic and cow guts to get better, unless you are a retarded hippy.

31-03-2015 06:27AM

househero wrote: »

Your not going to eat an onion garlic and cow guts to get better, unless you are a retarded hippy.

I think that it is intended for external use, as in on the infected area.

31-03-2015 06:36AM

MRSA is reasonably easily treated these days to be honest.

hardCopy · 31-03-2015 07:43AM

I can't imagine the hospital kitchen boiling barrels of cow bile.

Some pharma company will identify and isolate the active ingredients, make a sterile ointment from it and package it in convenient tubes.

31-03-2015 09:06AM

The point that I was making about "big pharma" is the fact that they will not be able to patent the end product and charge the health services millions for it!

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 31-03-2015 09:34AM

diddley wrote: »

Sounds very interesting but as you said, if big pharma won't make a penny from it, won't they find some way to hush it up/rubbish it/make cows stomach linings sacred??? Why is St. Johns Wort banned in Ireland??

Because it has several adverse side effects when taken in conjunction with many commonly prescribed drugs. Joe soap can't be trusted to listen to this advice though so its banned for his own protection.

31-03-2015 09:44AM

Lots of old cures have some sort of scientific basis behind them.

I have heard of wild garlic having been used on castrated animals, tied around the wound. My Granny's generation used to put honey on wounds ... turns out it has anti-biotic properties.

There's a certain egotism in our commonly-held belief that this stuff has never occurred to the billions of humans who were here before us.

anncoates · 31-03-2015 09:47AM

Suas11 wrote: »

"big pharma"

Ugh

It's the internet age version of those newspaper cartoons of WC Fields-lookalike fat cats lighting cigars with 100 dollar bills over silver dinner plate covers.

ohnonotgmail · 31-03-2015 09:49AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The point that I was making about "big pharma" is the fact that they will not be able to patent the end product and charge the health services millions for it!

well if they cant make money from it they wont produce it.

zl1whqvjs75cdy · 31-03-2015 09:53AM

Half the problem (or maybe more than half) is the strict regulation of the FDA and other regulatory bodies. Whether they are too strict or not is a matter for another thread, but the level of data and detail a pharma company has to provide to these bodies is astronomical and costs an awful lot of money to generate. Take the example from the OP. This slave kills MRSA in a lab setting, great. The FDA now want to know, among many, many other things;

1. The exact active ingredient,
2. The exact mode of action of that ingredient,
3. How that ingredient travels through the body
4. Metabolites of that ingredient and their potential effects
5. How the active ingredient and all its metabolites are excreted
6. Side effects of the active ingredient
7. What happens if the ingredient is taken with other drugs

etc, etc

All of this needs to happen before it goes near any people. The pharma companies then have to pay for clinical trials and hope to god nobody has any adverse reaction to their new drug or else it all goes down the drain. So its all well and good saying honey is an antibiotic or this old slave will kill MRSA, but its all pretty much useless in modern drug development.

pablohoney87 · 31-03-2015 09:54AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The point that I was making about "big pharma" is the fact that they will not be able to patent the end product and charge the health services millions for it!

The can however patent a process for mass production if it is seen as a unique and new method.

ohnonotgmail · 31-03-2015 09:58AM

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Half the problem (or maybe more than half) is the strict regulation of the FDA and other regulatory bodies. Whether they are too strict or not is a matter for another thread, but the level of data and detail a pharma company has to provide to these bodies is astronomical and costs an awful lot of money to generate. Take the example from the OP. This slave kills MRSA in a lab setting, great. The FDA now want to know, among many, many other things;

1. The exact active ingredient,
2. The exact mode of action of that ingredient,
3. How that ingredient travels through the body
4. Metabolites of that ingredient and their potential effects
5. How the active ingredient and all its metabolites are excreted
6. Side effects of the active ingredient
7. What happens if the ingredient is taken with other drugs

etc, etc

All of this needs to happen before it goes near any people. The pharma companies then have to pay for clinical trials and hope to god nobody has any adverse reaction to their new drug or else it all goes down the drain. So its all well and good saying honey is an antibiotic or this old slave will kill MRSA, but its all pretty much useless in modern drug development.

you're trying to let facts and reality get in the way of a "big pharma" rant. for shame.

seamus · 31-03-2015 09:58AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The point that I was making about "big pharma" is the fact that they will not be able to patent the end product and charge the health services millions for it!

Sure they will. They'll just change the ingredients a little. Doesn't have to be wine from a specific vineyard. Doesn't have to be bovine salts.

Bingo, same cure, different compounds == patent.

Akrasia · 31-03-2015 10:11AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The point that I was making about "big pharma" is the fact that they will not be able to patent the end product and charge the health services millions for it!

I dunno about that. The first pharmaceutical company (or university) to isolate the active ingredients and conduct successfull clinical trials will still be able to patent their product and process for producing it.

evolving_doors · 31-03-2015 10:16AM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Lots of old cures have some sort of scientific basis behind them.

I have heard of wild garlic having been used on castrated animals, tied around the wound. My Granny's generation used to put honey on wounds ... turns out it has anti-biotic properties.

There's a certain egotism in our commonly-held belief that this stuff has never occurred to the billions of humans who were here before us.

Hmm yes your granny putting honey around a castrated bullock's wound... thanks for the image.

sbsquarepants · 31-03-2015 10:23AM

Kovu wrote: »

That would stink to the high heavens. Cattle bile smells like a fermented egg that's been left to ripen for a week in a greenhouse.

I don't imagine MRSA smells too great either. Bile me up - fúck the stink:)

Adamcp898 · 31-03-2015 10:43AM

Akrasia wrote: »

I dunno about that. The first pharmaceutical company (or university) to isolate the active ingredients and conduct successfull clinical trials will still be able to patent their product and process for producing it.

But the problem lies in that they won't be able to stop others from doing the same, which they will, and long before the patent runs out meaning they're risking not making the money back which they spent creating their own method going after it in the first place.

Plus its much harder to prove and then more importantly protect the "novelty" and "unexpectedness" of a production method as opposed to a product.

Whereas if the product itself was patentable then they'd be able to block other processes developed by others for its production.

1000 year old cure for MRSA

Comments