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.
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.
Yes, there are organisms that are resistant to alcohol. They started out that way and they stay that way. They were not originally susceptible to alcohol and then developed a resistance to it.
If you can find a report of an organism that became resistant after initially being susceptible to alcohol, please let me know. It apparently does not happen.
Being resistant to alcohol does not mean that alcohol caused the resistance. And I have never said or implied that there are not organisms that are resistant to alcohol. Please stop saying that I have.
Quote:
How about Clostridium difficile? A common, infectious, illness-causing bacteria, that is ALCOHOL RESISTANT. This is true for almost all spore forming bacteria.
Yes, C. diff is resistant. It has always been resistant. Exposure to alcohol did not cause it to become resistant.
Quote:
Yes, TO DATE, there has been no resistance to isopropanol developed specifically due to hand sanitizer use. Obviously alcohol resistiance does exist.
Lets see, penicillin was what 1928? Less than 100 years before there was resistance. Widespread hand sanitizer use has been what, 10-15 years?
Use of alcohol as a disinfectant goes way back beyond the use of antibiotics:
Galen recommended it for wound treatment in the second century AD.
Quote:
Oh jeez, the bacteria that are resistant to alcohol somehow evolved without being exposed to alcohol? So much for evolution then!
Why is it necessary for there to have been exposure to alcohol to produce resistance to it? The evolutionary event that produced the physical characteristics that make the organism resistant could have nothing to do with alcohol. The resistance to alcohol is then a serendipitous secondary effect. No exposure to alcohol is required.
Quote:
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.
Bacteria have been exposed to alcohol since the first fruit dropped to the ground and fermented.
We do not see resistance developing to alcohol, and it has been in common use in medical settings for a few centuries. I think it is reasonable to expect that use of alcohol based hand rubs is not going to result in new alcohol resistant organisms. It just is not happening.
Quote:
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).
I think you just do not understand the difference between an organism being resistant to alcohol and one changing from alcohol susceptible to alcohol resistant. The latter does not occur.
Quote:
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%.
It kills pathogenic organisms, too, including some that are antibiotic resistant.
Quote:
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.
This appears to be your personal opinion. Can you link to a site that explains the "well known" mechanism for an organism susceptible to alcohol to develop resistance to it?
Quote:
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.
"Clean your hands.
You, your family, and others in close contact should wash their hands frequently with soap and water or use an alcohol-based hand rub, especially after changing the bandage or touching the infected wound."
"The bactericidal activity of various concentrations of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) was examined against a variety of microorganisms in exposure periods ranging from 10 seconds to 1 hour. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was killed in 10 seconds by all concentrations of ethanol from 30% to 100% (v/v), and Serratia marcescens, E, coli and Salmonella typhosa were killed in 10 seconds by all concentrations of ethanol from 40% to 100%. The gram-positive organisms Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes were slightly more resistant, being killed in 10 seconds by ethyl alcohol concentrations of 60%–95%. Isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol) was slightly more bactericidal than ethyl alcohol for E. coli and S. aureus."
Which is why the hand product should contain at least 60% alcohol.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 02-20-2012 at 05:41 PM..
Reason: I did not put the grin in the last link. It happened all on its own. A mutation perhaps?
You need to read some factual articles about this "dirt theory".
Somehow I think the pinworms were a placebo for the asthma. The guy was so busy scratching his rear, his asthma didn't bother him. Or something like that.
No one is suggesting raising kids in a bubble. However, I don't think anyone looks at a cold as a good thing. Many kids are miserable for a few days, and some get ear infections as a secondary infection. Many kids with repeated ear infections end up with ear tubes, a surgical procedure. Most of these kids are otherwise quite healthy. Most kids get several colds a year, no matter what protective measures are taken.
My bad, it was hookworms. And you are probably well aware that for every medical study there is another that concludes the opposite. Not even the peer review system seems to keep out the nonsense these days. All I can say is that it worked for this man and that his life is much improved because of it.
But I only bring it up as an example of exposure to the so-called "dirty" things in life actually improving health. If you discover you are infected with any sort of parasite, I suggest seeking medical help to rid yourself of them.
And no, colds are not a good thing, I don't think any diseases are. But they are a fact of life and since they can't be avoided, best to face them head on rather than whine every time a snotty child comes to preschool and dousing kids and everything they touch in antibacterial hand sanitizer to "keep them safe".
Yes, there are organisms that are resistant to alcohol. They started out that way and they stay that way. They were not originally susceptible to alcohol and then developed a resistance to it.
If you can find a report of an organism that became resistant after initially being susceptible to alcohol, please let me know. It apparently does not happen.
Being resistant to alcohol does not mean that alcohol caused the resistance. And I have never said or implied that there are not organisms that are resistant to alcohol. Please stop saying that I have.
Yes, C. diff is resistant. It has always been resistant. Exposure to alcohol did not cause it to become resistant.
Use of alcohol as a disinfectant goes way back beyond the use of antibiotics:
Galen recommended it for wound treatment in the second century AD.
Why is it necessary for there to have been exposure to alcohol to produce resistance to it? The evolutionary event that produced the physical characteristics that make the organism resistant could have nothing to do with alcohol. The resistance to alcohol is then a serendipitous secondary effect. No exposure to alcohol is required.
Bacteria have been exposed to alcohol since the first fruit dropped to the ground and fermented.
We do not see resistance developing to alcohol, and it has been in common use in medical settings for a few centuries. I think it is reasonable to expect that use of alcohol based hand rubs is not going to result in new alcohol resistant organisms. It just is not happening.
I think you just do not understand the difference between an organism being resistant to alcohol and one changing from alcohol susceptible to alcohol resistant. The latter does not occur.
It kills pathogenic organisms, too, including some that are antibiotic resistant.
This appears to be your personal opinion. Can you link to a site that explains the "well known" mechanism for an organism susceptible to alcohol to develop resistance to it?
Your first link does not mention alcohol at all.
The second one does not describe bacteria developing resistance to alcohol at all.
Can you link to a source that describes MRSA being resistant to alcohol?
The CDC MRSA site includes alcohol based rubs to prevent spreading MRSA:
"Clean your hands.
You, your family, and others in close contact should wash their hands frequently with soap and water or use an alcohol-based hand rub, especially after changing the bandage or touching the infected wound."
"The bactericidal activity of various concentrations of ethyl alcohol (ethanol) was examined against a variety of microorganisms in exposure periods ranging from 10 seconds to 1 hour. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was killed in 10 seconds by all concentrations of ethanol from 30% to 100% (v/v), and Serratia marcescens, E, coli and Salmonella typhosa were killed in 10 seconds by all concentrations of ethanol from 40% to 100%. The gram-positive organisms Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes were slightly more resistant, being killed in 10 seconds by ethyl alcohol concentrations of 60%–95%. Isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol) was slightly more bactericidal than ethyl alcohol for E. coli and S. aureus."
Which is why the hand product should contain at least 60% alcohol.
I think this is going to be my final post on this subject because I am becoming increasingly frustrated by the "science" here.
First, "started out that way and stay that way". Please, if you are going to discuss biology, in anyway, can we acknowledge how the quoted portion is IMPOSSIBLE? Bacteria evolved before there were alcohols. Obviously, they EVOLVED to become resistant to it AFTERWARDS. Resistance to alcohol, is an allele that is obviously selected for if you look at the species it occurs in. And yes, the definition of selection means it occurred and THEN was selected for. Genetic drift alone cannot account for resistance in an ENTIRE SPECIES. As for its mechanism, one of the links I gave before clearly showed the enzyme pathway involved.
Second, we see, clearly, that bacteria are becoming resistant to disinfectants of every type. It is basic evolution, there is no reason to think that alcohols are some sort of MAGICAL chemical that bacteria cannot become resistant to.
Third, maybe you do not know how bacterial resistant arises. There are two primary mechanisms. The simplest way involves some organisms surviving and passing on their resistance. You seem to only be focusing solely on this one. The other involves bacterial conjuation. This is how bacterial evolve so quickly. It happens between species FREQUENTLY. If it happens just once from the already alcohol resistant species to a species not, it will have a huge competitive advantage. Do you have any reason to suspect that the genetic material that conveys alcohol resistance is somehow incapable of participating in conjugation? If so please post. Otherwise it is not only possible that bacteria will eventually become alcohol resistant, it is likely.
Finally, go nuts. Use all the hand sanitizer your want. People used to think bacterial resistance to antibiotics wasn't possible either. If we know anything about bacteria, its that they will survive. We should be picking our "battles" with them carefully.
"*******************AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A 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."
I thought that was you? Maybe I misquoted.
Seems to be leaping from the statement "I'm with the pro-germs crowd." to assuming the person does not wash their hands. Odd, because I thought you were also the person who stated you use hand sanitizer INSTEAD of washing you hands between patients due to a lack of sinks or something. That skeevs me out.
I agree. It can and has resulted in death. OTOH so have the antibiotic resistant "bugs". But our immune system is one of the wonders of evolution (all the way back to the sea urchin!) and there is a large amount of research supporting the hygiene hypothesis.
Me, I will be using ivory soap instead of antibacterial/hand sanitizer, I will only take antibiotics when absolutely necessary, and I will embrace every cold I get (though they are few and far between) as adding to my immunity.
The first two statements are mine (including the exaggerated ack). In no way did I mention common sense. I will continue to use sanitizer as a convenient alternative to soap and water at times. Using hand santizer between patients is accetable. Like you, I do not take unnecessary antibiotics, though I don't know exactly who gets to determine if the antibiotics are unnecessary. I do not "embrace" colds. I get exposed to enough crap at the peds office that I catch a lot of stuff, and I don't really care for it. When my daughter worked at a day care center, she was constantly sick. It's been good for her to switch jobs.
I think this is going to be my final post on this subject because I am becoming increasingly frustrated by the "science" here.
First, "started out that way and stay that way". Please, if you are going to discuss biology, in anyway, can we acknowledge how the quoted portion is IMPOSSIBLE? Bacteria evolved before there were alcohols. Obviously, they EVOLVED to become resistant to it AFTERWARDS. Resistance to alcohol, is an allele that is obviously selected for if you look at the species it occurs in. And yes, the definition of selection means it occurred and THEN was selected for. Genetic drift alone cannot account for resistance in an ENTIRE SPECIES. As for its mechanism, one of the links I gave before clearly showed the enzyme pathway involved.
Second, we see, clearly, that bacteria are becoming resistant to disinfectants of every type. It is basic evolution, there is no reason to think that alcohols are some sort of MAGICAL chemical that bacteria cannot become resistant to.
Third, maybe you do not know how bacterial resistant arises. There are two primary mechanisms. The simplest way involves some organisms surviving and passing on their resistance. You seem to only be focusing solely on this one. The other involves bacterial conjuation. This is how bacterial evolve so quickly. It happens between species FREQUENTLY. If it happens just once from the already alcohol resistant species to a species not, it will have a huge competitive advantage. Do you have any reason to suspect that the genetic material that conveys alcohol resistance is somehow incapable of participating in conjugation? If so please post. Otherwise it is not only possible that bacteria will eventually become alcohol resistant, it is likely.
Finally, go nuts. Use all the hand sanitizer your want. People used to think bacterial resistance to antibiotics wasn't possible either. If we know anything about bacteria, its that they will survive. We should be picking our "battles" with them carefully.
Resistance to antibiotics and resistance to alcohol are two different things.
"Bacteria can't develop resistance to alcohol like they develop resistance to antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance happens because small mutations make a drug unable to bind to its target, or allows the bacteria to pump the drug out of itself. In contrast, alcohol basically dissolves the bacteria's cell membrane (or the membrane of any other cell for that matter), so becoming resistant to that would require a fundamental change in structure - therefore, bacteria sensitive to alcohol can't become resistant any more than humans can become resistant to fire."
"Alcohol, and some other microbicidals like chlorine and steam heat, don't target any specific system. They attack the structure of the bacteria itself by cooking it (denaturing, in biochemical terms), causing the proteins to coagulate. Any life is mostly constructed of proteins (though many bacteria have tough non-protein cell walls). The structure of these proteins is important to their function, so if you disrupt their structure they tend to lose that function. It is difficult for bacteria to acquire a defense against this type of disruption. Enzymes are usually themselves made of proteins, and would be broken down by the alcohol. Bacteria have many important cell membrane proteins which would be disrupted by alcohol. It is this combination of non-specificity and attack on proteins that makes alcohol so effective."
We're not talking about mere single gene changes. Plasmid swaps cannot do it. Conjugation cannot do it. No can do.
Using alcohol hand cleansers will not increase the types of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and will not increase the types of bacteria that are resistant to alcohol.
This I found on a thread of similar discussion. I found it to be the most accurate and least debatable process for sterilizing hands. "The cheapest most effective hand sanitizer is boiling water. Please submerge your hands in a large pot of boiling water up to the elbow and leave them there for 10 minutes. Repeat this process every hour on the hour, and your hands will remain relatively sterile. In a pinch, open flame can be used. Place whole forearm into open flame for 5 minutes. Rotate arms/hands to get as even coverage as possible in the flames. Remember, if the flesh begins to bubble and sizzle, that is good. You are killing pathogens! If you have access to enriched plutonium, there are alternate methods of sterilizing your skin, but that is another discussion for another time.
Remember that pathogens readily populate your face as well, so be sure to regularly submerge your entire head in boiling water, or of course, an open flame, as described above." Sorry, no links to actual studies for obvious reasons.
There, a sure fire way to sanitize......now, on with the topic!
I see this has gotten far away from the topic of not bringing your sick kids to school. Bridging on such far away topics as the process of evolution. lol Why not bring up religion while were at it. It's wonderful to see how topics fall like dominos but do you guys bring your kids to school sick or not? Does your school have a truant policy and how many days do you get? I am a bit miffed as to why my state is so harsh. I didn't realize it until I came on here and see that most of you don't have this issue while also trying to be good about keeping kids home ill.
"Bacteria can't develop resistance to alcohol like they develop resistance to antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance happens because small mutations make a drug unable to bind to its target, or allows the bacteria to pump the drug out of itself. In contrast, alcohol basically dissolves the bacteria's cell membrane (or the membrane of any other cell for that matter), so becoming resistant to that would require a fundamental change in structure - therefore, bacteria sensitive to alcohol can't become resistant any more than humans can become resistant to fire."
OMG. Look you are dealing with serious science using Yahoo answers. Do you realize how beyond ridiculous that is?
That guy, as well as you, continue to ignore the FACT that bacterial resistance can come about, and frequently does through CONJUGATION.
Do you understand bacterial conjugation because if you do not, then there is no point in further discussion. There is more than one pathway to bacterial resistance.
"Alcohol, and some other microbicidals like chlorine and steam heat, don't target any specific system. They attack the structure of the bacteria itself by cooking it (denaturing, in biochemical terms), causing the proteins to coagulate. Any life is mostly constructed of proteins (though many bacteria have tough non-protein cell walls). The structure of these proteins is important to their function, so if you disrupt their structure they tend to lose that function. It is difficult for bacteria to acquire a defense against this type of disruption. Enzymes are usually themselves made of proteins, and would be broken down by the alcohol. Bacteria have many important cell membrane proteins which would be disrupted by alcohol. It is this combination of non-specificity and attack on proteins that makes alcohol so effective."
Yay, more wildly UNSCIENTIFIC sources. I get it, really, I do. If you go back and look I clearly stated in an earlier post that I understand the mechanism for the disruption of the membrane. So what?
I am not remotely suggesting that they will gain resistance that way. C. diff has the ability to develop a spore in the presence of alcohol, it can give that genetic ability to another bacteria via CONJUGATION.
Quote:
We're not talking about mere single gene changes. Plasmid swaps cannot do it. Conjugation cannot do it. No can do.
What do you think the plasmid is?? It is not a single gene. What do you think conjugation is? It is the mechanism by which resistance is transferred genetically
If you think a plasmid is a single gene you have no idea what you are talking about.
If you think plasmid transfer cannot result in resistance in bacteria you have no idea what you are talking about.
Using alcohol hand cleansers will not increase the types of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and will not increase the types of bacteria that are resistant to alcohol.
Again, you have not shown that the mechanism for antibiotic resistance, i.e. conjugation, will not work here. Why? Because you cannot. There is nothing MAGICAL about alcohol.
From a REAL source
"Acquisition of new genetic material by antimicrobial-susceptible bacteria from resistant strains of bacteria may occur through conjugation, transformation, or transduction, with transposons often facilitating the incorporation of the multiple resistance genes into the host’s genome or plasmids. "
This I found on a thread of similar discussion. I found it to be the most accurate and least debatable process for sterilizing hands. "The cheapest most effective hand sanitizer is boiling water. Please submerge your hands in a large pot of boiling water up to the elbow and leave them there for 10 minutes. Repeat this process every hour on the hour, and your hands will remain relatively sterile. In a pinch, open flame can be used. Place whole forearm into open flame for 5 minutes. Rotate arms/hands to get as even coverage as possible in the flames. Remember, if the flesh begins to bubble and sizzle, that is good. You are killing pathogens! If you have access to enriched plutonium, there are alternate methods of sterilizing your skin, but that is another discussion for another time.
Remember that pathogens readily populate your face as well, so be sure to regularly submerge your entire head in boiling water, or of course, an open flame, as described above." Sorry, no links to actual studies for obvious reasons.
There, a sure fire way to sanitize......now, on with the topic!
I see this has gotten far away from the topic of not bringing your sick kids to school. Bridging on such far away topics as the process of evolution. lol Why not bring up religion while were at it. It's wonderful to see how topics fall like dominos but do you guys bring your kids to school sick or not? Does your school have a truant policy and how many days do you get? I am a bit miffed as to why my state is so harsh. I didn't realize it until I came on here and see that most of you don't have this issue while also trying to be good about keeping kids home ill.
I did not take my kids to school sick, but occasionally they got sick at school. When my daughter had cancer surgery and missed some school, we did talk to the vice principal beforehand. My district has always had a policy that *too many* absence days would receive some attention. It is common here (Colorado) for people to take their kids out of school to go skiing. This is considered an "excused absence" if the parent OKs it. However, after too many such absences, a dr's note is required or penalties are invoked. For ex, a grade will be dropped one letter in high school.
I did not take my kids to school sick, but occasionally they got sick at school. When my daughter had cancer surgery and missed some school, we did talk to the vice principal beforehand. My district has always had a policy that *too many* absence days would receive some attention. It is common here (Colorado) for people to take their kids out of school to go skiing. This is considered an "excused absence" if the parent OKs it. However, after too many such absences, a dr's note is required or penalties are invoked. For ex, a grade will be dropped one letter in high school.
Wow, skiing? That's a lot different than AZ. A friend of one of my kids had a long hospital stay due to sever medical issues. She was required to do over her grade a year later despite doing the school work in the hospital that her mom retrieved for her. I'm getting the picture that AZ is pretty strict and I can now see why all the transplants are complaining. I thought they were just being a bit whinny but I can see that our schools policy must take some getting use to for out of staters.
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.
isinfection - HICPAC
I was just going to come back and make that notation. I KNEW you would beat me to it.
I thought they were just being a bit whinny but I can see that our schools policy must take some getting use to for out of staters.
