Karen D. Oland wrote:

>>do I think the standard medical community would open itself up to
>
> liability
>
>>by accessing these materials simply by slathering patients in honey?
>
>
> that is where the main problem in using this will lie.  Even if honey were a
> better solution, no hospital would allow it, unless their insurance company
> first OK'd it and guaranteed coverage for the lawsuits that followed (and
> who would pay for the extra ant treatments or keeping flies away from the
> wound dressings?).

The problem with honey as a wound treatment has been said here
indirectly but seems to have slipped beneath the radar. It is the
reproducibility of the product. Can you, as a provider, guarantee the
day to day consistency of your product? Neosporin can. So can sugar.

Just look at the literature on the variability of different honeys in
wound treatment and even the varibility within the same honey sources.
If the sucrose in the nectar is concentrated you will get a different
product than if it is less so. Can you guarantee that it has not been
heated which can kill the enzymes (and you are no better than sugar)? If
the honey granulates is it still usable or will someone heat it and
change it to flavored syrup?

When I had my operation I recognized that I could not provide honey to
anyone but myself or friends for wound treatment because I could not
guarantee the consistency of the product, especially when you are using
it medicinally for serious problems.

There is no conspiracy to keep honey off the medicine cabinet shelves.
Honey is not honey just as "sugar" is not just sucrose. But neosporin is
neosporin and sucrose is sucrose the world over.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::