Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh goodness, now that is terrible. Some people just don't have common sense. I hope she has stopped that practice. Thats good hygiene gone bad. lol
Glad you uncovered the mystery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia
I wish the emoticon list had one closer to my real expression, which is more like this:
I guess I got a little altruistic on that one as even though I knew it wasn't a good district, I thought how bad could it really be, especially since we were only going to be there for a few months (we were transitioning from renting back to owning after I had been relocated for work). We thought any exposure to school would be good for him at that age, boy was I wrong.
At our first conference the teacher gave us a report that my son was "below-average" in academic performance. She also told us he was definitely a "follower", but that wasn't a bad thing, since he was following one of the good kids. We pulled him out a couple weeks after that when he got sick for the last time.
Fast forward a few months and we are having a conference at the new school where we currently live (and my son had not missed one day do to illness, lol) and the teacher is praising my sons creativeness and leadership abilities and rated his academic performance as "average" to "above average". We showed her the report from the old district and she nicely said, "I don't know what that teacher saw, but that is not the kid that I see in my class."
I still think that a parent has the biggest influence on their kids learning, but that brief exposure to a "poor" school district and teacher forever cemented for me, the need to seek out good districts and the importance of good teachers (not that we didn't already know that, but now it's carved in stone somewhere, lol). I shudder to think what would have happened if we needed to stay there any longer.
"Fine but do not OVERSTATE the case that sanitiziers eliminate all germs (viral and bacterial), that it is impossible for them to convey resistance, etc as the first link stated."
The link you posted is what I was referring to.
Reported TO DATE....meaning that it is not IMPOSSIBLE. And to be clear, an antibiotic is any chemical that kills bacteria. While most antibiotics work chemically, we know bacteria can evolve quickly, and some are already resistant to alcohol.
Given how easily bacteria swap dna it is silly to assume that dangerous bacteria cannot over time become alcohol resistant.
Alcohol kills bacteria. It destroys them. It does not leave them alive to reproduce and swap DNA. I do believe that bacteria are "alive" and I can safely use the word "kill", may I not?
That is why there is no reported resistance to alcohol.
An antibiotic is not the same as an antimicrobial disinfectant. They are different. Bacteria can, and do, become resistant to antibiotics. Alcohol has been used as a disinfectant for a very long time. I do believe that if bacteria were able to become resistant to it, we would know by now.
I have already stated that some organisms are resistant to alcohol. They are naturally resistant and did not develop that resistance by being exposed to alcohol.
Thanks for the link. It was interesting and reassuring. The bacterium in the article has been around for thousands of years, and it has not passed on its ability to resist alcohol to other bacteria.
"n the 3 years following implementation of an ABHR [antibacterial hand rub], this hospital experienced the value of reductions in the incidence of nosocomially [hospital] acquired drug-resistant bacteria. These reductions provide clinical validation of the recent CDC recommendation that ABHRs be the primary choice for hand decontamination.
"Must we concern ourselves about microbial resistance to alcohol? No, Pittet says. 'Nowadays there is no resistance to alcohol; resistance in bacteria has not been demonstrated at all, in contrast to resistance to medicated soaps that have been used for handwashing. There is no mechanism for resistance to alcohol that has been described in bacteria.' "
Bacterial resistance to alcohol hand rubs is not a problem.
A theory as to the rise in autoimmune disorders and allergies is that we're too clean. All the hand sanitizers and antibiotics are just weakening us, not to mention breeding strains of resistant bugs. Heard an interesting story of a man who suffered debilitating seasonal allergies and tried everything he could to find relief. He finally improved greatly by purposely giving himself pinworms. The body stops fighting itself and harmless allergens and goes after the parasites instead (which are harmless in an otherwise healthy adult).
I'm with the pro-germs crowd. If your child has a fever and/or is throwing up (or other serious symptoms) then they need to stay home. If they are sneezy, coughing, and snotty then it's really in the best interest of every child to keep on with the normal routine.
Alcohol kills bacteria. It destroys them. It does not leave them alive to reproduce and swap DNA. I do believe that bacteria are "alive" and I can safely use the word "kill", may I not?
They are alive. And yes, most bacteria die due to the destruction of the lipid bilayer from alcohol. But I suspect you did not read the article I posted. Alcohol resistance, particularly ethanol resistance, has been shown to exist.
How about Clostridium difficile? A common, infectious, illness-causing bacteria, that is ALCOHOL RESISTANT. This is true for almost all spore forming bacteria.
Quote:
That is why there is no reported resistance to alcohol.
Yes, TO DATE, there has been no resistance to isopropanol developed specifically due to hand sanitizer use. Obviously alcohol resistiance does exist.
Quote:
An antibiotic is not the same as an antimicrobial disinfectant. They are different. Bacteria can, and do, become resistant to antibiotics. Alcohol has been used as a disinfectant for a very long time. I do believe that if bacteria were able to become resistant to it, we would know by now.
Lets see, penicillin was what 1928? Less than 100 years before there was resistance. Widespread hand sanitizer use has been what, 10-15 years?
Quote:
I have already stated that some organisms are resistant to alcohol. They are naturally resistant and did not develop that resistance by being exposed to alcohol.
Oh jeez, the bacteria that are resistant to alcohol somehow evolved without being exposed to alcohol? So much for evolution then!
Quote:
Thanks for the link. It was interesting and reassuring. The bacterium in the article has been around for thousands of years, and it has not passed on its ability to resist alcohol to other bacteria.
Did I say anywhere that it had? Bacteria evolve quickly and frequently in surprising ways. Nylon and oil eating bacteria being particularly startling examples. What I said and continue to say, is it is foolish to think that bacteria will not continue to evolve. And particularly foolish to think we will not begin to see bacteria that are alcohol resistant in our lifetimes.
"n the 3 years following implementation of an ABHR [antibacterial hand rub], this hospital experienced the value of reductions in the incidence of nosocomially [hospital] acquired drug-resistant bacteria. These reductions provide clinical validation of the recent CDC recommendation that ABHRs be the primary choice for hand decontamination.
"Must we concern ourselves about microbial resistance to alcohol? No, Pittet says. 'Nowadays there is no resistance to alcohol; resistance in bacteria has not been demonstrated at all, in contrast to resistance to medicated soaps that have been used for handwashing. There is no mechanism for resistance to alcohol that has been described in bacteria.' "
Bacterial resistance to alcohol hand rubs is not a problem.
Something is clearly wrong with Pittet as alcohol resistance is known to exist in many types of bacteria OR he was misquoted (more likely the latter).
You seem to want to persist into making this about me saying hand sanitizers are ineffective. They are good at killing a large number (of mostly harmless) bacteria. I agree. 100%.
But so was penicillin less than 100 years ago. The mechanism for alcohol resistance not only exists but is well known, despite your "sources" claims otherwise. It is only a matter of time, before that selection pressure becomes so strong that it near guarantees alcohol resistance.
Personally, I wish antibiotics and antiseptics were used more sparingly. I am complete unhappy about the inevitable MRSA strain that is also alcohol resistant.
And a little fyi, MRSA and several other bacteria are KNOWN to have already developed resistance to other disinfectants and antiseptics. Some bacterial strains even to alcohol.
Aw, that little prehistoric thing called "Natural Selection." Always was, always will be. As it selects we must change what we use. Not much can be done about that as Mrs. Frizzle says. Everything, everything falls prey to "Natural Selection." (Evolution, as some like to call it) Slow but steady....
Aw, that little prehistoric thing called "Natural Selection." Always was, always will be. As it selects we must change what we use. Not much can be done about that as Mrs. Frizzle says. Everything, everything falls prey to "Natural Selection." (Evolution, as some like to call it) Slow but steady....
Sometimes, not that slow. And for bacteria, frequently due to genetic drift instead of natural selection.
A theory as to the rise in autoimmune disorders and allergies is that we're too clean. All the hand sanitizers and antibiotics are just weakening us, not to mention breeding strains of resistant bugs. Heard an interesting story of a man who suffered debilitating seasonal allergies and tried everything he could to find relief. He finally improved greatly by purposely giving himself pinworms. The body stops fighting itself and harmless allergens and goes after the parasites instead (which are harmless in an otherwise healthy adult).
I'm with the pro-germs crowd. If your child has a fever and/or is throwing up (or other serious symptoms) then they need to stay home. If they are sneezy, coughing, and snotty then it's really in the best interest of every child to keep on with the normal routine.
*******************AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AACK! That does not mean you should eschew washing your hands before eating, after using the restroom (do I need to get more graphic?), after changing diapers, digging in the garden, etc.
Pinworms as a cure for allergies? I. . . don't. . . think. . . so!
http://healthfinder.gov/news/newssto...x?docID=653374 Doctors are concerned that some might use the hygiene hypothesis as an excuse to abandon good hygiene, causing a surge in diseases such as dysentery and cholera.
"Public health and sanitation has been the single greatest improvement in our life expectancy," Grayson said. "I would not recommend living less cleanly."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5116.pdf In 1846, Ignaz Semmelweis observed that women whose
babies were delivered by students and physicians in the First
Clinic at the General Hospital of Vienna consistently had a
higher mortality rate than those whose babies were delivered
by midwives in the Second Clinic (3). He noted that physicians
who went directly from the autopsy suite to the obstetrics
ward had a disagreeable odor on their hands despite
washing their hands with soap and water upon entering the
obstetrics clinic. He postulated that the puerperal fever that
affected so many parturient women was caused by “cadaverous
particles” transmitted from the autopsy suite to the
obstetrics ward via the hands of students and physicians. Perhaps
because of the known deodorizing effect of chlorine compounds,
as of May 1847, he insisted that students and
physicians clean their hands with a chlorine solution between
each patient in the clinic. The maternal mortality rate in the
First Clinic subsequently dropped dramatically and remained
low for years.
And following.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 02-20-2012 at 04:40 PM..
Reason: Add some links
I wish the emoticon list had one closer to my real expression, which is more like this:
I just had a similar look. The doc will specifically tell you to change toothbrushes after you start antibiotics for strep too. Not knowing one was in use makes that kind of difficult.
*******************AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AACK! That does not mean you should eschew washing your hands before eating, after using the restroom (do I need to get more graphic?), after changing diapers, digging in the garden, etc.
Pinworms as a cure for allergies? I. . . don't. . . think. . . so!
A Little Dirt May Be a Good Thing - healthfinder.gov Doctors are concerned that some might use the hygiene hypothesis as an excuse to abandon good hygiene, causing a surge in diseases such as dysentery and cholera.
"Public health and sanitation has been the single greatest improvement in our life expectancy," Grayson said. "I would not recommend living less cleanly."
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr5116.pdf In 1846, Ignaz Semmelweis observed that women whose
babies were delivered by students and physicians in the First
Clinic at the General Hospital of Vienna consistently had a
higher mortality rate than those whose babies were delivered
by midwives in the Second Clinic (3). He noted that physicians
who went directly from the autopsy suite to the obstetrics
ward had a disagreeable odor on their hands despite
washing their hands with soap and water upon entering the
obstetrics clinic. He postulated that the puerperal fever that
affected so many parturient women was caused by “cadaverous
particles” transmitted from the autopsy suite to the
obstetrics ward via the hands of students and physicians. Perhaps
because of the known deodorizing effect of chlorine compounds,
as of May 1847, he insisted that students and
physicians clean their hands with a chlorine solution between
each patient in the clinic. The maternal mortality rate in the
First Clinic subsequently dropped dramatically and remained
low for years.
And following.
Did I suggest abandoning all hygiene? No, I did not. I don't think anyone is pretending that germs are actually cute little pets that have been made out to be monsters. Many diseases are very dangerous at any age, many are much more dangerous in infancy and childhood (and many others are much safer in childhood).
And yes, pinworms greatly improved that gentleman's allergies. Obviously it's not standard practice but it's something to look into for the desperate or for those interested in further research regarding the subject. The hypothesis is not that hygiene practices are harmful, but that they've gone too far in much of first world society.
Catching a cold during a playdate, though, is probably best for the otherwise healthy child. You can't run away from viruses forever, unless you plan on raising your child in a plastic bubble .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everything, everything falls prey to "Natural Selection." (Evolution, as some like to call it) Slow but steady....
.
