XF73 later, phages now.

Copy of my letter to the Eastern Daily Press, 20th May 2008

The frantic scramble by the pharma companies to be sitting pretty when
the music stops is nauseatingly obvious. Why did Big Pharma abandon
phage therapy in favour of antibiotics in the 1940s? Probably nothing at
all to do with the huge patent revenues from producing synthesized
drugs, whereas phages are not patentable.

This latest story about new wonder drug XF73 is typical of the
attitude of most chemical companies to human welfare; instead of using
what they have now, they seem prepared to let people die now while
they rush to patent the next new 'antibiotic', hoping they can get it past
bedfellows MHRA and that it doesn't end up killing too many people
before it's pulled.

XF73 trumpets that if "actually kills bacteria, not just inhibits their
development", whereas phages actually err... kill bacteria and do not
just inhibit their development. (surely shome mishtake there - Ed.)

Read on...

Today's (20th May 2007) astounding news that drug XF37 shows promise in killing MRSA,
is astounding only be the fact that bacterial killers have been around now
for 80 years, though the NHS refuses to use them. It may surprise people
to know that Georgian (that's south of Russia) hospitals regularly spray
bacteriophages around their wards to kill off bacteria, and that recent
Polish research reveals that using phages (without any side effects
either) to kill MRSA is only 10% of the cost of using antibiotics.

So, why is a company spending millions on developing XF73? Probably
nothing at all to do with the expected huge incomes from the patent. As
everyone knows, despite desperate Alice in Wonderland-style attempts
by chemical companies to do so, living organisms such as
bacteriophages cannot be patented; anyone is free to dip a bucket into a
river and select the required phages to do the job. It's really not rocket
science.

It seems again, as usual, the general public is once again the pawn, as
Big Business fights to be the first to market. If saving lives were more
important than income, why did everyone jump on the antibiotics
bandwagon and abandon phage research in the 1940s? While the NHS
wrings its hands and cuts services, trying to save money, it wastes
billions on ineffective antibiotics, follow-up complications, and one-off
''Deep Cleans', while ignoring the real benefits available with
bacteriophages. No wonder chemical companies are so eager to jump on
the gravy train! Has anyone seen the King's new clothes?

Mike Jozefiak

MRSA
Bacteriophage