[vixen99]

Use 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]

The 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.