7 ms·
1,000-year-old onion and garlic eye remedy kills MRSA
- crimsonalucard 11y agoI'm telling you, 10-20 years from now we're going to get garlic and onion resistant MRSA.
- mathattack 11y agoThis is the unfortunate reality.
- nkozyra 11y agoMaybe, maybe not. Keep in mind that as a biological actor, garlic and other allicin-containing substances have the ability to adapt generationally to meet changes in bacteria. That's an advantage that is not innate to our own antibiotics. Also, that allicin kills MRSA is not news by any measure. Here's an article from 2008: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/article1279834.ece http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/health/article127...
- ars 11y agoThey don't just magically adapt because they are being used. To adapt they would have to be attacked by bacteria, and only the stronger ones survive, but MRSA doesn't attack onions.
- sthreet 11y agoThey could adapt because humans only grow the ones that are the better of the batch at doing what we want them to do. I can't see it working as fast as bacteria, but it could be another option.
- azakai 11y agoIt seems like it should be at pretty much the same speed, if an equal size amount of garlic plants were being attacked by MRSA. Doesn't matter if natural selection of human-guided selection does the culling. I suppose it might be expensive to grow lots and lots of garlic plants and test them all for efficacy, though.
- mathattack 11y agoI don't think it's correct to assume the speeds are equal. Genetic mutations propagate across viruses and plants at very different speeds.
- sthreet 11y agoA generation of bacteria is way shorter lived than a generation of garlic. It would depend on how much the garlic was used though I'm pretty sure, though you might need to talk to an actual biologist for details. Also, unless garlic defended itself from MRSA by killing it human guided selection would be better, what if the garlic is sneaky and figures out another way to survive that doesn't help humans.
- matznerd 11y agoThe story was more about the combination of the ingredients called "eye salve." Which includes more than just garlic, but also wine and cow bile.
- joosters 11y ago10-20 year win!
- iamcurious 11y agoHopefully it will be less efficient in other aspects. Adaptions like that tend to have costs. Even if not, even if it turns out to make it more efficient, we are buying 10-20 years. Lots of things can happen in that time.
- click170 11y agoLike companies outlawing growing your own garlic and onions because someone somewhere found that you can make a moderately effective mace with those ingredients, or because they can be abused (war on drugs), or because terrorists. You might raise issue with the idea of a corporation outlawing something. I say look at the way the justice system currently works and tell me they couldnt buy the result they wanted.
- shillster 11y agoJust in time for FDA "approval"!
- killface 11y agoright, but they'll lose their resistance to our current antibiotics, so we can just go back and forth between those :)
- Alex3917 11y agoWhy? People have known about the antibacterial and antiviral properties of allium for hundreds of years, so it's not like anything is going to magically change.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 11y agoPenicillin mold has existed for millions of years, but it was widespread therapeutic use in humans that caused extensive resistance. Humans are the ecological version of "magic".
- seren 11y agoIt does not tell us if it has some side-effects, like making you blind. Chlorine probably also kills MSRA in a petri dish.
- mynameismonkey 11y agoAnecdotal evidence of course, but I am happy to confirm I have ingested all four ingredients on numerous occasions and am still alive (as of the time of this posting).
- jimrandomh 11y ago"They found the remedy killed up to 90% of MRSA bacteria" I don't think that's strong enough to be useful. This might be interesting if they can figure out the mechanism and use it to create a stronger antibiotic, but for the stage this is actually at, they're really overselling it.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- refurb 11y agoYour comment is particularly entertaining since Gilead just released a cure for HCV!
- Someone1234 11y ago> but for the stage this is actually at, they're really overselling it. What exactly is it you think they're "selling?" I thought the article was focusing more on the historical significance of this, in particular how good medical knowledge was 1,000 years ago. You seem to be under the impression that they're suggesting this as a possible cure for MRSA. But the article never stated that. They might be able to look at the mechanism and develop something which could help us fight MRSA, but I highly doubt they would use this exact 1K year old recipe 1:1 in a modern hospital (and, again, the article never stated otherwise). Seems like your criticism is largely based on things they never said nor claimed. Essentially you're critical of a strawman.
- nodata 11y ago> how good medical knowledge was 1,000 years ago. Survivor bias.
- venomsnake 11y agoIf it could be employed - it is much better than nothing. So if the immune system is somewhat functioning it may be enough. And with the amount of garlic eaten - the LD50 of the stuff will be insanely high. And the antibiotic properties of garlic are wildly known.
- wppick 11y agoWe are insignificantly smarter today than we were 1000 years ago. Take a baby from 1000 years ago and bring him to the year 2015, and he will probably be able to fit into modern society perfectly fine.
- daeken 11y agoThe discoveries we make today aren't because we're smarter, but rather that we have significantly more knowledge to work from.
- teamonkey 11y agoInfant mortality rates are significantly lower in 2015 than they were 1000 years ago, so you'd definitely be doing him a favor.
- tedunangst 11y agoWhat? You think humans are born fully socialized? Why wouldn't a baby be able to fit in?
- aneth 11y agoOn average, we are definitely significantly smarter. The advent of ubiquitous literacy itself would be enough.
- gus_massa 11y ago> A 1,000-year-old treatment for eye infections could hold the key to killing antibiotic-resistant superbugs, experts have said. The problem is that when this is used frequently, the superbugs will evolve to survive to this treatment. If this result is confirmed, it will be good to have another alternative, but the new alternative will not last forever. (Perhaps 1000 years ago, there was a garlic-and-onion-resistant-superbug, and with the years they lost the mutation to survive this treatment.) > They found the remedy killed up to 90% of MRSA bacteria and believe it is the effect of the recipe rather than one single ingredient. Perhaps it a combination of a few drugs present in the ingredients, that can be produced artificially
- Shivetya 11y agoIf we better contain our treatments so that they do not pollute the environment I would think the longevity of any new drug should increase. The wholesale use of some antibiotics in farming is one area where the leakage occurs from
- nkozyra 11y agoA couple of points: 1. "Superbug" is just a modern construct of something that's been happening (albeit at a slower pace) since bacteria - and human pathogens in general - have existed. Garlic (and relatives) have faced this for just as long. 2. Similar to the adaption of bacterium in #1, the biological victims have adapted. That is, after all, while garlic has large amounts of allicin - a wide-spectrum antibiotic - in the first place.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- timdiggerm 11y agoVery curious how important it is to get the wine from that particular vineyard
- Symmetry 11y agoWell then, hopefully some pharma company will create their own patented blend called ONGARTA (TM) that they'll shepard through FDA trials so doctors can prescribe it. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/15/fish-now-by-prescription/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/06/15/fish-now-by-prescriptio...
- mikeyouse 11y agoThat article's not very convincing.. Fish oil you get at Walgreens isn't regulated by the FDA and can be dramatically different than what the label claims (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25604397 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25604397). Moreover, the $30/bottle fish oil is very low concentration, often 20% - 30% PUFAs, and typically very highly oxidized. Lovaza is 90% ethyl ester PUFAs and has been thoroughly tested to demonstrate safety and efficacy (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021654s023lbl.pdf http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/021...). Will the $30/bottle Walgreen's Omega-3s be pretty close in effect to Lovaza? Probably.. If you take 3x as many to match dosage and if you don't mind the fishy smell and biproducts due to the AV/PV levels being off the charts.. but there's still no guarantee.
- wstrange 11y agoONGARTA(TM) may cause bad breath and socially awkward situations. Ask your doctor if ONGARTA(TM) is right for you.
- mikecsh 11y agoThis is tripe. Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1217/ https://xkcd.com/1217/
- _red 11y agoAnecdotal. But when I was young I suffered from intense ear-aches. Eventually my Mom capitulated to my Grandmothers suggestion and put garlic cloves in olive oil and poured into my ear. Within a few hours of treatment those ear-aches would disappear completely. Years later I researched and found out about allicin and its presence in freshly crushed garlic. In fact there are now theories that many of the cooking practices of "marinating in crushed garlic" was just as much to do about anti-bacterial effects as culinary.
- Xeoncross 11y agoYes, even if previous generations did not have the wealth of knowledge we now possess - It's not that they were all stupid. Hundreds of years ago there wasn't much other choice than to use your surroundings to survive. No pharmacy around there.
- a_c_s 11y agoThe key difference is that they didn't have a good mechanism for sifting the wheat from the chaff: in addition to doing some things that are actually helpful, some things that seemed to work are actually harmful/dangerous (eg. bloodletting).
- Xeoncross 11y agoIt's funny that we are still doing the same thing. Chemotherapy is hoping that we kill the cancer before we kill the body. It's like high-tech bloodletting with more research and a better track record.
- a_c_s 11y agoChemotherapy is a research-backed approach that has been constantly refined since it was first used roughly 100 years ago. Bloodletting is a theory-based approach and was, as far as we know, in continuous use for thousands of years despite being ineffective for almost every single condition. The key difference is precisely the research and constant refinement, not any particular mechanism of action.
- snowwrestler 11y agoIs it hard to kill MRSA in culture? Bleach will do it, for example, and I bet 100% alcohol would too. It's only resistant to known antibiotics, after all--not immortal. I think the news here is historical (hey this crazy recipe works), not medical (hey this stuff might be better than anything we already know how to do).
- drcube 11y agoAs a kid I made "ant poison" by mixing various household chemicals and water in a gallon jug. Then I'd pour it on ants. Sure enough, they died. Mostly by drowning, but still. It worked. I wouldn't be comfortable buying a pesticide based on that research, however.
- romanovcode 11y agoReminds me of saying that best way to kill HIV is with AK-47, now how do you kill while leaving carrier alive - that's another question.
- shimfish 11y ago"They found the remedy killed up to 90% of MRSA bacteria and believe it is the effect of the recipe rather than one single ingredient." Believe? Don't you want to like, um, test that? You know, science. This whole thing stinks of research grant bait.
- belthasar 11y agoOne line up? "In each case, they tested the individual ingredients against the bacteria, as well as the remedy and a control solution."
- jdmichal 11y agoThe article states that they did test individual ingredients vs the combination. So I'm going to assume they use the term "believe" as a layman replacement for "confident up to x sigmas".
- enlightenedfool 11y agoI thought...wth? these are first ingredients in every curry we make ... every day. EDIT: I meant onion & garlic
- equoid 11y agoAlso turmeric which many uses in folk medicine for stomach and liver ailments.
- jacquesm 11y agoEarlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9287514 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9287514
- rsuelzer 11y agoI'm unclear as to why or how this is entirely useful. This article is probably missing some of the key findings that would make it interesting. In reality, killing a MRSA bacteria culture is trivial and could be done by a child. The real usefulness of this discovery would be if this liquid could be safely ingested and produce antibiotic activity while in the body. Pouring something like bleach, gasoline, hydrochloric acid, liquid nitrogen on MRSA cultures will also kill them. But, but these things won't help treat a MRSA infection in the body.
- colah3 11y agoThe article seems to suggest it is mostly of historical interest. The researchers seem impressed by its effectiveness for a medicine of that time. It's of further interest because it seems to have come out of a tradition of medicine that was based on something similar to the scientific method.
- Natsu 11y agoGiven the ingredients, one would assume that it's at least safe to ingest. Whether it's actually effective or not is an open question given the lack of data in the article.
- Xorlev 11y agoI don't know about you, but if I was in the hospital with a resistant strain of staph, I wouldn't go for the gasoline or liquid nitrogen treatment. Fact is that MRSA and others just adapt too quickly to our antibiotics to the point where there are strains in the wild without any antibiotic agents that affect them. That's usually a death sentence. If there's something else out there that can be turned into a drug that's safe for humans, that's another tool doctors have to save lives.
- Xorlev 11y agoI don't know about you, but if I was in the hospital with a resistant strain of staph, I wouldn't go for the gasoline or liquid nitrogen treatment. Fact is that MRSA and others just adapt too quickly to our antibiotics to the point where there are strains in the wild without any antibiotic agents that affect them. That's usually a death sentence. If there's something else out there that can be turned into a drug that's safe for humans, that's another tool doctors have to save lives.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- kazinator 11y agoThe article has no information about how this is supposed to be used. Can you inject this into the bloodstream to clear an MRSA infection? If not, then it's only useful as a topical antiseptic, which isn't newsworthy, since bleach, Lysol and various alcohols also kill MRSA.
- benmarks 11y ago"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 11y agoMy 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 11y agoUse 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 11y agoThe 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.
- mattbgates 11y agoThat's like using natural lemon juice to kill the bacteria that cause pink eye.. great remedy: squeeze lemon juice in your eye (yes it will sting and burn for a hot minute until you... ) run your eye under luke-warm to semi-hot water, and within 2-3 days, no more pink eye. Antibiotics can take up to 10 days to rid pink eye.
- morley 11y agoAre there any clinical studies that support that claim? A quick Google search only turns up a bunch of specious "home remedy" sites, and an equally suspicious doctor denouncing the practice.
- siquick 11y agoThousands of years of usage isn't enough of a clinical study? Very difficult to take a lot of western medicine seriously when a huge amount of the research is funded by organisations with vested interested.
- nasmorn 11y agoThe problem is that I don't think there is currently a possibility that a clinical study for this could be funded. Government has all but withdrawn from late stage studies and no company has anything to gain.
- romanovcode 11y agoYou can just use warm tea bags on your eyes while resting in bed for 10-20 minutes 2x day. No more pink eye in less than 3 days. (at least it worked like charm for me)
- DigitalSea 11y ago... At least until doctors start prescribing onion and garlic for everything, then we'll have to find something else that works.
- matznerd 11y agoJust want to make a note for you guys on allicin and garlic. Allicin doesn't exist in garlic, but is created when alliin and a heat-sensitive enzyme called alliinase come in contact with each other. They do not mix until you slice, chew, cut or press the garlic and rupture the barriers between them. They key is to wait 10 minutes after this process has occurred until you cook it, or you will remove most of the benefit of allicin. For example, putting freshly chopped garlic in the microwave for 30 seconds will take away 90% of the potential allicin content due to the heat destroying alliinase.
- kbart 11y agoReminded me of http://goo.gl/SOecWG http://goo.gl/SOecWG
- lkiernan 11y agoAnyone know where I can buy 1,000-year-old onions?
- russellallen 11y agoOh for goodness sake. This isn't a medical trial of a new anti-MRSA drug. This is an interesting piece of living history research into Anglo-Saxon medical practices. Bald's Leechbook is fascinating for many reasons. One in particular they refer to in the article - the local Anglo-Saxon remedies are in general lacking in theory and so more or less evidence based. Later medieval medicine was possibly in many ways worse - Roman and Greek ideas of the four humours were imported and applied as received truth. Later medicine was much more likely to take the approach of "Who are ya going to believe? Aristotle or your lyin' eyes?" Anglo-Saxon medicine had no overarching theory to apply. So their salves and potions and magic incantations tended to be adhoc, complicated, and, occasionally, actually worked.