A number of antibiotics penetrate biofilms just fine: https://academic.oup.com/jac/article/65/9/1955/722668
Ciprofloxacin would be an awesome drug if it didn't promote the development of active C. difficile infection.
Ciprofloxacin would be an awesome drug if it didn't promote the development of active C. difficile infection.
The description of how the biofilms were grown is precise because it's a peer-reviewed paper. That it uses big words doesn't mean it's complex. "We grew the biofilms on black plastic with food" is all that sentence says.
That's also growing the biofilm, not penetrating it, which is what you seem to be under the impression it's referring to.
I also didn't claim that "It's solved." Biofilms are a bitch. But claiming that antibiotics don't work against bacteria in biofilms is actively wrong. "Hey, your information is wrong, some broad spectrum antibiotics penetrate biofilms" isn't claiming the problem is solved, just that someone has made a factually incorrect statement.
Which is, you'll note, also why I noted that Cipro has other drawbacks. Do you think I would have done that if I considered the problem "solved"?
To use a programmer example, if someone said "Python's 1-based indexing is a bad idea", would you chew someone out for replying "Python is 0-indexed" and linking to the language description?