In discussing the healing properties of honey, Robert Mann said:
"Why then has this knowledge not been smoothly incorporated into
routine medicine?
        My inference is
                (1)  Modern medicine is largely oriented to synthetic
pharmaceuticals.  'Folk remedies' are greatly handicapped in achievement of
'cred' in this context.
                (2)  The search for 'active ingredients' in honey, which
could then be synthesized, patented, etc, has found very little success."

I know a physician/scientist doing studies on the healing properties of
honey at a medical university, and he offers a different view:
1. "Honey", like all or most natural matters, does not offer static, fixed
properties that easily lend themselves to definition and study.  Even a
given "variety" such as manuka honey will vary greatly on a component level.
Scientists have demonstrated that fructose, sucrose, glucose, etc. when
applied to wounds does not have the same beneficial effect as "honey".
Therefore, it is not the "pure" sugars, but other ingredients, perhaps
acting together with the sugars, or with each other, or both, that produce
the effects.  Physician/scientists are wary of "prescribing" treatment when
they do not know "why" it may or may not work.  Thus, the search for "how"
and "why" the effects.
2. The advantage of synthetics is that, by definition, they are always
exactly identical so therefore how they react to their environment can
always be exactly predicted.  By example, in most circumstances synthetic
fibers have replaced natural fibers because synthetics can be made exactly
the same as one another so they will react exactly the same to yarn making,
weaving, finishing, dyeing, etc.  Natural fibers, even when extensively
blended to avoid unique characteristics arising from the source of seed or
breed of sheep, forage available, drought, irrigation, storage facility,
etc. will often react in different manners to yarn making, weaving, etc.
(Thus the old adage concerning buying from the same "dye lot" when one
wishes exactly the same fabric.)
The only reason for preference for synthetics is that their behavior (in
fibers, medicine, "rubber", etc) can be exactly predicated and controlled.
3. In today's environment, scientists investigate "where the money is".
This is not for nefarious reasons, but only because investigation requires
money.  If "I" ran a pharmeticual house, I would want my money spent on
investigating synthetics to produce a given result.  If a
physician/scientist wants to investigate the healing properties of honey, he
or she has to come up with the money, either out of one's own pocket or
someone else's.  Thankfully, in the US (at least) there are third parties,
such as governments and private foundations that can be turned to.  However,
even they have some limitations on funding so want to be assured they are
financing in areas where they are likely "to get the most bang for the
buck".  They want to see humankind receive the maximum benefit from any
given treatment for any given circumstance.  Guess what can best predict and
control such benefits...synthetics.

Thus, I think there is good reason why folk medicine does not receive the
attention (and money) it deserves.

Lloyd
Mailto:[log in to unmask]
Lloyd Spear Owner, Ross Rounds, Inc.  The finest in comb honey production.
Visit our web site at http://www.rossrounds.com.