Kept pace with a standard antiseptic on contaminated wounds
As well as
povidone-iodine, the standard antiseptic it was tested against
Honey and the antiseptic tracked each other closely over 28 days, with no measurable difference between them.
What they did
Veterinary researchers in Jordan treated contaminated wounds on dogs with either Sidr honey or povidone-iodine, the standard antiseptic, and tracked healing with photographs and image analysis over 28 days.
What they found
Honey and the antiseptic tracked each other closely over 28 days, with no measurable difference between them.
We are including this one precisely because it did not find honey to be better. It found it to be equivalent, and a library that only carries wins is not a library.
Equivalence to a standard antiseptic is still a real result. Povidone-iodine is what a clinic reaches for, and matching it is a higher bar than beating an untreated control.
Measurement was done by photographing wounds weekly and analysing the images with software, rather than by eye — which removes a good deal of subjectivity.
What this study does not show
- Honey was not better than the antiseptic — it kept pace with it. That is the claim, and no more than that.
- With only eight animals, a real difference could have been missed. Comparable is not the same as proven equivalent.
- Dogs, not people, and eight animals is a small study.
- Applied to skin, not eaten.
- Do not treat a real wound with food honey. Medical wound care uses sterile, medical-grade product.