If You Think Flying Made You Sick

[boestar]

and no mention of hand sanitizers. Water Treatment, Yes. Workplace Safety, Yes. I would like to also see the stats on the increase of resistant strain Bacteria like Staphlococcus and the like. These strains did NOT exist in 1910 and mutated because we over prescribe antibiotics and use anti bacterial soaps and such. I am not saying life expectancy has not gotten better but to blame bacteria picked up from a surface as a cause is a little too much. Diseases like Polio, TB, Small pox etc were the major causes of shortened life expectancy. My Great Grandmother lived to 101. She was there in 1910.

[Guest longtimer]

boestar, hand sanitizers and antibiotic soap are not the same. My great great granddad lived to 93 in the 1800's but that was the exception and not the average life expectancy.

[J.O.]

Many folks are surprised to learn that some toothpastes contain Triclosan which is a form of antibiotic. The jury is still out on whether or not Triclosan will affect the good bacteria in our bodies but I will take a pass on that one, just in case.

[mrlupin]

George Carlin on Germs... A gem to watch!

[boestar]

My point is, and the science agrees, that over use of antibiotics (Triclosan included) leads to the mutation of bacterial organisms that are antibiotic resistant. By the use of these compounds to prevent minor infections that the body is capable of fighting we are creating bugs that neither the body or science can combat. Look at things like SARS.

For the women in the group remember that the surface containing the highest concentration of bacteria (including intestinal bacteria) is your PURSE. Do you set it on you kitchen counter or dinner table????

If you worry about these bacteria too much the stress will be what gets you not the bacteria.

[inchman]

Bacteria mutate regardless as to whether we use antibiotics. Just like the flu. The flu changes gradually every year and the vaccine has to be modified if we want it to attack the mutations.

One thing that antibiotics does is to allow the fringe "survivors" to do better because they are not competing against the now-dead strain. It is quite possible/probable that SARS or C-difficile would have developed whether we had been using antibiotics or not.

Bacteria are not "smart" and do not mutate in reaction to antibiotics. They do not change to survive, they survive by the fact that they have such varied mutations, some of which are not targeted by the antibiotic and some of which take a full course of antibiotic to kill completely. So, bacteria are not becoming resistant to antibiotics... it's just that they simply mutate and we haven't developed (or aren't able to develop) the antibiotics to handle the current state of the mutation.

Probably the biggest problem with antibiotics is that people stop using them when they feel better, rather than using them till they're gone. That allows the tougher, fringe mutant survivors that might have been killed by the antibiotic if it had run its course, to survive and mutate even further away from the target.

Bottom line... bacteria do not mutate in reaction to antibiotics... the antibiotics simply magnify the effect of naturally occurring mutations.

[J.O.]

Aren't we splitting hairs a little bit Dave? Whether or not the bacterial mutations are a direct reaction to antibiotics is irrelevant since as you stated, the mutations are magnified by their use. Ergo, the more they're used, the more the mutations are magnified. That can't be a good thing.

[boestar]

from the CDC http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/antibiotic-use/antibiotic-resistance-faqs.html#define-antibiotic-resistance. My daughter had to combat this at Sick Kids in Toronto

Q: What is antibiotic resistance?

A: Antibiotic resistance is the ability of bacteria or other microbes to resist the effects of an antibiotic. Antibiotic resistance occurs when bacteria change in some way that reduces or eliminates the effectiveness of drugs, chemicals, or other agents designed to cure or prevent infections. The bacteria survive and continue to multiply causing more harm.

Q: Why should I be concerned about antibiotic resistance?

A: Antibiotic resistance has been called one of the world's most pressing public health problems. Almost every type of bacteria has become stronger and less responsive to antibiotic treatment when it is really needed. These antibiotic-resistant bacteria can quickly spread to family members, schoolmates, and co-workers - threatening the community with a new strain of infectious disease that is more difficult to cure and more expensive to treat. For this reason, antibiotic resistance is among CDC's top concerns.

Antibiotic resistance can cause significant danger and suffering for children and adults who have common infections, once easily treatable with antibiotics. Microbes can develop resistance to specific medicines. A common misconception is that a person's body becomes resistant to specific drugs. However, it is microbes, not people, that become resistant to the drugs.

If a microbe is resistant to many drugs, treating the infections it causes can become difficult or even impossible. Someone with an infection that is resistant to a certain medicine can pass that resistant infection to another person. In this way, a hard-to-treat illness can be spread from person to person. In some cases, the illness can lead to serious disability or even death.

Top of Page

Q: Why are bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics?

A: Antibiotic use promotes development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Every time a person takes antibiotics, sensitive bacteria are killed, but resistant germs may be left to grow and multiply. Repeated and improper uses of antibiotics are primary causes of the increase in drug-resistant bacteria.

While antibiotics should be used to treat bacterial infections, they are not effective against viral infections like the common cold, most sore throats, and the flu. Widespread use of antibiotics promotes the spread of antibiotic resistance. Smart use of antibiotics is the key to controlling the spread of resistance.

Antibiotics kill bacteria, not viruses

Q: How do bacteria become resistant to antibiotics?

A: Antibiotic resistance occurs when bacteria change in some way that reduces or eliminates the effectiveness of drugs, chemicals, or other agents designed to cure or prevent infections. The bacteria survive and continue to multiply causing more harm. Bacteria can do this through several mechanisms. Some bacteria develop the ability to neutralize the antibiotic before it can do harm, others can rapidly pump the antibiotic out, and still others can change the antibiotic attack site so it cannot affect the function of the bacteria.

Antibiotics kill or inhibit the growth of susceptible bacteria. Sometimes one of the bacteria survives because it has the ability to neutralize or escape the effect of the antibiotic; that one bacterium can then multiply and replace all the bacteria that were killed off. Exposure to antibiotics therefore provides selective pressure, which makes the surviving bacteria more likely to be resistant. In addition, bacteria that were at one time susceptible to an antibiotic can acquire resistance through mutation of their genetic material or by acquiring pieces of DNA that code for the resistance properties from other bacteria. The DNA that codes for resistance can be grouped in a single easily transferable package. This means that bacteria can become resistant to many antimicrobial agents because of the transfer of one piece of DNA.

The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) produced anine-minute animation explaining how antimicrobial resistance both emerges and proliferates among bacteria. Over time, the use of antimicrobial drugs will result in the development of resistant strains of bacteria, complicating clinicians' efforts to select the appropriate antimicrobial for treatment.

[boestar]

This is a good animation of the phenomenon.

http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance/ucm134359.htm

Select the animation (19.2Mb)

[inchman]

Magnified was probably the wrong word. Antibiotics simply make the remaining bacteria more obvious and ultimately gives the media something specific to talk about. If you have a room full of bacteria (named A, B, A+ and A- with A+ and A- being mutations of A and you introduce an antibiotic that kills A and A-, it could be said that A+ is an "antibiotic resistant mutation of A". But the mutation would have occurred whether there was an antibiotic present or not. The question is whether it becomes more prevalent in the absence of the other A bacteria because of the lack of competition or does it being a bacteria for which we don't have an antibiotic give something for the media to latch on to.

All of the stuff that is in the video happens with or without antibiotics present. It is just normal bacteria sex. As with most things, we try to humanize things to help us understand them. We give animals personalities and try to give bacteria brains. We perceive them as having the same generational period as we do. But the fact is that they don't have brains, and they mutate much faster than humans.

They don't grow resistance because of their environment any more than humans grow resistance to ultraviolet radiation because it causes skin cancer. It is possible that some people could acquire an anti-skin cancer gene by natural genetic mutation and if skin cancer became a humanity-ender, that strain of human would survive. And their presence would be magnified (using my poor use of the word again).

So, back to bacteria and antibiotics, the question is, "Is it better to not kill A and A- simply because there will be some A+ left over (that would have been there anyway)?"

If you use a hand sanitizer, you're not making bacteria stronger. But you might be preventing your body from becoming stronger. By killing off the A bacteria before you ingest it, you could be preventing your body from building natural antibodies to the A bacteria, which might save you if the A+ mutation that you come across next year happens to be particularly nasty and the antibody created to kill the A mutation happened to work in a way that covered the A+ mutation.

On the other hand, maybe there is some A+- bacteria on your hands today that is REALLY nasty that hand sanitizer would have killed and for which your body does not have any resistance. And you just walked by the one tool that could have saved your life ... (dastardly sound)

When you use hand sanitizer, you're really just doing the same thing as soap... removing or killing bacteria from your hands before it gets into your innards. It really is a question of "What is the greater risk?" No one can really answer the question because no one really knows what's on their hands or what it could do to them. Is it better to not use sanitizer (or soap) to help prevent a potential future threat to your health or use it now to prevent a (more likely) potential immediate threat to your health?

[UpperDeck]

If you use a hand sanitizer, you're not making bacteria stronger. But you might be preventing your body from becoming stronger. By killing off the A bacteria before you ingest it, you could be preventing your body from building natural antibodies to the A bacteria, which might save you if the A+ mutation that you come across next year happens to be particularly nasty and the antibody created to kill the A mutation happened to work in a way that covered the A+ mutation.

When you use hand sanitizer, you're really just doing the same thing as soap... removing or killing bacteria from your hands before it gets into your innards. It really is a question of "What is the greater risk?" No one can really answer the question because no one really knows what's on their hands or what it could do to them. Is it better to not use sanitizer (or soap) to help prevent a potential future threat to your health or use it now to prevent a (more likely) potential immediate threat to your health?

The problem with your post is that you are expressing an opinion based upon personal belief and perception to rebut an assertion premised upon scientific study;

"Over time, the use of antimicrobial drugs will result in the development of resistant strains of bacteria, complicating clinicians' efforts to select the appropriate antimicrobial for treatment."

The above is not an opinion; it is a conclusion based upon scientific analysis. Your comment is akin to saying that climate change due to global warming isn't the real threat because you know of someone who suffered frostbite.

[inchman]

The most important statement in the CDC Q&A (IMO) is: Repeated and improper uses of antibiotics are primary causes of the increase in drug-resistant bacteria.

... which I have stated and agree with. And I even mentioned the fact that the marginal mutations will do better without the competition of the killed off cousin. It doesn't say "proper use of antibiotics is the primary cause....".

The article was referring to traditional antibiotics, so it's left open as to whether the italicized statement you posted has any relevance to hand sanitizer or whether it just means true "drugs". The "use" of antimicrobial drugs inevitably includes " repeated and improper use", which is the primary cause ....

Doctors have improperly prescribed antibiotics for non-bacterial infections for decades. Patients who pressure their doctors to give them "something" for their viral infections are also the ones who incorrectly stop taking them at the first sign that they're getting better. The combination is a major problem. But I don't think that hand sanitizers is part of the big problem and there is no reference thereto in any of the articles.

[UpperDeck]

I've been trying to cut and paste a link but without success. The University of Michigan has a website which is dedicated (in part) to the importance of hand cleansing using alcohol-based cleaners or soap and water. So also does Tufts Medical.

That I believe is the difference; some antibacterial agents are known to generate resistance but others such as alcohol or soap and water are assumed to not generate resistance.. The "confusion" is assisted (I think) by the use of the word "antimicrobial". Some assume that word imports the notion of antibiotic medication but I understand that alcohol (for example) is an antimicrobial agent that "kills" bacteria without generating resistance. Note, however that the articles suggest that it is as yet too early to assess the response of bacteria to even these more innocuous antimicrobial agents.

If that was your position, Inchman...my apologies.

[inchman]

No apology necessary. I wasn't approaching it as an adversarial discussion... just points of view.

I think a lot of this is similar to the anti-vaccination movement where people have opinions based on extrapolated notions.

It kinda goes like this:

Misuse of antibiotics "causes" bacterial resistance.

- extrapolated by some to to mean all use of antibiotics cause bacterial resistance

- Antimicrobial surfactants, including alcohol, are "antibiotics" of a sort

- Some hand sanitizers have antimicrobials

- therefore hand sanitizers cause bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

All the while, people might be getting sick from bacteria on their hands which could be safely prevented by using hand sanitizers (which, by the way, I use rarely at home, but often use when they are available in public areas or if someone has a cold at home.) If one is concerned about increasing bacterial resistance, just as with "real" antibiotics, it's important when using sanitizers to use lots so that all, or at least most, of the bacteria is killed, so it can't mutate.