[Someone1234]

> 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]

> how good medical knowledge was 1,000 years ago.

Survivor bias.