I take a teaspoon of high quality active probiotics every day, and despite being exposed to a particularly nasty stomach bug, which is “going around”, I have remained very healthy, unlike the rest of the people I know. Incase you are unsure what I mean by probiotics; they are the good, friendly bacteria we need to keep us well.

Both my elderly parents have been suffering from the sickness and diarrhoea, and as I write this, my dad is in an isolation ward in hospital. He has a dodgy heart and is on medication for various other ailments. Because he has been unable to retain any fluids, his blood pressure kept dropping and he passed out on us twice. The second time I thought he had died.

Apparently, when you get low blood pressure you don’t get sufficient oxygen to the heart and this can trigger a heart attack. In view of his medical history, the paramedics took my dad to hospital in an ambulance, and thankfully, he’s now recovering.

My mum, on the other hand is still suffering and one of my sisters’, who has been helping me look after our parents, has also gone down with it. The last time I rang she was still too weak to get out of bed.

I, on the other hand, am fine, but as I already mentioned, I take a very good probiotic every day. My personal army of friendly bacteria appear to be doing a great job of looking after me, so I have been doing the hospital run.

MRSA is a real concern in hospitals these days and I noticed a considerable amount of dry hand wash bottles around. They were in corridors, at the bottom of the beds, etc., and I thought how convenient they are, and how much time they must save.

However, time is probably one of the main reasons there are so many health problems around, particularly stomach upsets. Hand washing is not what it used to be. Everyone is in a rush.

We are always being advised about the importance of washing our hands, and antibacterial products are usually being promoted as the answer to all our problems.

So, what are Antibacterial Products anyway? Well, here’s what I’ve discovered.

Antibacterial soap is any cleaning product to which active antibacterial ingredients have been added, and most liquid hand and body soaps contain these antibacterial chemicals. Two of the most common are alcohol and triclosan. This is a preservative and can cause allergic reactions, contact dermatitis, causes liver damage in animals, and is toxic by ingestion.

With so many anti bacterial products on the market, some people suggest it is the overuse of antibacterial chemicals, which has resulted in certain bacteria evolving and become more resistant. There is a great variety of bacterium, and the effectiveness of a product against one particular type doesn’t ensure the same result on an unrelated type of bacteria.

Actually you can get rid of bacteria with ordinary soap, and according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), antibacterial soaps are not necessary. They say washing your hands thoroughly with ordinary soap and warm water is one of the most effective ways to ward off infection.

However, if you are not convinced and still feel the need to use antibacterial soaps and cleaners, you need to consider the following:

* The antibacterial components of soaps, usually triclosan or, less commonly, triclocarban, (which apparently can cause photoallergic reactions, convulsions, and possibly cancer over prolonged use), need to be left on a surface for about two minutes in order to work. I don’t know many people who are that patient, so the soap is washed off before the antibacterial ingredients can do their job.

* Some scientists think bacteria may develop a resistance to bactericidal agents over time.

* Some bacteria actually benefit us. The normal population of bacteria on our bodies not only eats our sweat, but also helps defend us against truly harmful, invasive bacteria. When you see products which claim to kill ALL bacteria (that means good and bad), you need to ask yourself if that’s what you really want, especially when they are killing them with potentially toxic chemicals.

A Food and Drug Administration(FDA) advisory panel has met to examine the safety and effectiveness of antibacterial soaps.
Could Cause Problems
The American Medical Association (AMA), and a number of scientists, have cast doubts on the use of antibacterial soap. They point out that there is no evidence that these products stop infection any better than regular soap, and they worry that increased use of antibacterial products might lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Alcohol-Based Sanitizers are Safer
Some at the FDA’s meeting recommended the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers for this reason, rather than the antibacterial additives triclosan (for liquid soaps) and triclocarban (for hard soaps).
Industry Denies There is a Problem

The AMA’s Council on Scientific Affairs suggested in 2002 that consumers stop using antibacterial soaps. Promoters of the soaps say that studies have shown antibacterial soaps cause no increase in bacterial resistance to antibiotics, although the studies quoted did say that long-term use of the products could be problematic and should be studied.

Yahoo News October 18, 2005USA Today October 20, 2005

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:A growing number of critics, including me, believe antibacterial soaps are no better than regular soaps in reducing infections.

You see, yourstandard non-bacterialhousehold soap separates bacteria fromyour skin so germs go down the drain or get attached to towels when drying your hands. On the other hand, antibacterial soaps kill germs on the spot. At least, most of them …

The few that survive, with the help of antibacterial compounds — synthetic chemicals like triclosan — create germs resistant to soaps and antibiotics over the long haul.

It used to be that antibacterial soaps were used mainly in clinical health care environments, like scrubbing up prior to surgery. Now, antibacterial soaps are used in households across the country where they amount to a $16 billion-a-year industry. Some 72 percent of all liquid soap sold in the United States now contains antibacterial ingredients.

But studies have shown that people who use antibacterial soaps and cleansers develop cough, runny nose, sore throat, fever, vomiting, diarrhea and other symptoms just as often as people who use products that do not contain antibacterial ingredients.

Further,increasing numbers oftraditional medicalexperts now accept the hygiene hypothesis, which centers on the idea that children exposedto bacteria in early childhoodactually havestrongerimmune systems. Children who are not exposed to common bacteria, which areeliminated by excessive use ofsoap, may actually be more prone to allergies and asthma.

Even the American Medical Association (AMA) does not recommend antibacterial soaps.

So why do they persist?

Simple –the manufacturers have relied on using fear to convince people that they need to use them to stay healthy. So, avoid being duped by these companies. All you need to use is a plain, chemical-free soap that you can pick up in your local health food store, as washing with plain soap and water will get rid of most all bacteria.

Many of you also understand that it is not lack of washing your hands that actually gets you sick but rather a weakened immune system, which results from poor lifestyle choicesregarding foods, sleep, exercise and sun exposure.

Although Batista introduced Levy simply as the director of the Tufts University School of Medicine’s Center for Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance and as the author of a book entitled, “The Antibiotic Paradox: How Miracle Drugs Are Destroying the Miracle,” no mention was made of Levy’s affiliation (vice-chairman, chief scientific officer and co-founder) with Paratek Pharmaceuticals.

Paratek was, and, according to its web site, still is working to develop its own antibacterial products for home use — disinfectants that supposedly would “overcome the problems of antibacterial resistance.” The company’s web site states, “Paratek is well positioned to develop [antibacterial] products to serve this non-hospital consumer product market.”

The frenzy over antibacterial products soon died down considerably and the scare has been on the wane ever since. Now Levy’s name is even attached to a long-term study that reports no “supergerm” development in households using triclosan-based antibacterials.

But Levy may not have given up triclosan-bashing altogether. His study concludes with the statement, “However, more extensive and longer term use of triclosan might provide a suitable environment for emergence of resistant species. Further research is needed.”

While the researchers also reported that they found no evidence indicating triclosan-containing antibacterial products work better than soap and water, the key point here is that there’s no evidence that triclosan is contributing to the development of “supergerms” that would be resistant to antibiotics.

The health scare over triclosan-based antibacterial products was kicked off in the 1990s by Tuft University researcher Stuart Levy who, ironically, is one of the researchers on the new study. Levy authored an August 1998 study in the journal Nature reporting that widely used antibacterial consumer products caused genetic changes in bacteria.

Going beyond the scope of his study, however, Levy then speculated that these genetic changes could create dreaded “supergerms.”

By July of 2000, the scare had caught fire to the point that the American Medical Association urged the Food and Drug Administration to expedite the regulation of antibacterial products — even though, as I pointed out in my FOXNews.com column at the time, there was no scientific evidence that antibacterial products had caused any increase in antibiotic drug resistance, much less produced any “supergerms” despite more than 30 years of use in hospitals and homes.

Later that month, I appeared with Levy on CNN’s Talk Back Live, where Bobbie Batista hosted a segment entitled, “Could Too Much Cleanliness Make People Sick?” Levy railed against triclosan-based antibacterial consumer products as unnecessary, improperly used and risky.

After pointing out that no scientific evidence or real-world experience indicated antibacterials were causing the harm alleged by Levy, I offered the audience a potential explanation for Levy’s campaign against triclosan-based antibacterials.

We live in a world where sensationalized headlines promoting health scares are far more “newsy” than headlines about studies that debunk junk science or reassure us of consumer product safety. In short, good news is often not news.

And while the best part of this story is that a new study does indeed vindicate the safety of antibacterial soap products, I can’t help but take some pleasure in knowing that regular readers of this column won’t be at all surprised by the study result.

Researchers from the University of Michigan, Tufts University and Columbia University studied 224 households to determine whether household use of antibacterial cleaning and hygiene products is an emerging risk factor for the carriage of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (search) on the hands.

The researchers randomly assigned the households to use either antibacterial or non-antibacterial soap and cleaning products for one year. The active ingredient in the antibacterial products was triclosan (search), which has been found to be effective in reducing and controlling bacterial contamination when used properly.
The researchers reported in the October issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases that, “The results from our study do not implicate use of antibacterial cleaning and hygiene products as an influential factor in the carriage of anti-microbial drug-resistant bacteria on the hands of household members.”

Also, the authors said their discovery that triclocarban increased hormone effects was new. All previous studies of endocrine disruptors had found that they generally act by blocking or decreasing hormone effects.

“This finding may eventually lead to an explanation for some rises in some previously described reproductive problems that have been difficult to understand,” said one author, Bill Lasley, a UC Davis expert on reproductive toxicology and professor emeritus of veterinary medicine. More analyses of antibacterials and endocrine effects are planned, he said.

Consumers should not take this study as guidance on whether to use triclocarban-containing products, Lasley said. “Our mothers taught us to wash our hands well before the advent of antimicrobial soaps, and that practice alone prevents the spread of disease.”

The new study was published online during the first week in December by the journal Endocrinology (”Triclocarban enhances testosterone action: A new type of endocrine disruptor?”). The nine authors are Lasley; Jiangang Chen; Ki Chang Ahn; Nancy Gee, Mohamed I. Mohamed, Antoni Duleba, Ling Zhao, Shirley Gee and Bruce Hammock. They are associated with these UC Davis programs: Center for Health and the Environment; Department of Entomology; California National Primate Research Center; Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the School of Medicine; Department of Nutrition; and the Cancer Center.

A new UC Davis study shows that a common antibacterial chemical added to bath soaps can alter hormonal activity in rats and in human cells in the laboratory–and does so by a previously unreported mechanism.
The findings come as an increasing number of studies — of both lab animals and humans — are revealing that some synthetic chemicals in household products can cause health problems by interfering with normal hormone action.

Called endocrine disruptors, or endocrine disrupting substances (EDS), such chemicals have been linked in animal studies to a variety of problems, including cancer, reproductive failure and developmental anomalies.

This is the first endocrine study to investigate the hormone effects of the antibacterial compound triclocarban (also known as TCC or 3,4,4′-trichlorocarbanilide), which is widely used in household and personal care products including bar soaps, body washes, cleansing lotions, wipes and detergents. Triclocarban-containing products have been marketed broadly in the United States and Europe for more than 45 years; an estimated 1 million pounds of triclocarban are imported annually for the U.S. market.

The researchers found two key effects: In human cells in the laboratory, triclocarban increased gene expression that is normally regulated by testosterone. And when male rats were fed triclocarban, testosterone-dependent organs such as the prostate gland grew abnormally large.

The authors concluded that “hygiene and a westernized, semi-sterile diet may facilitate atopy by influencing the overall pattern of commensals and pathogens that stimulate the gut-associated lymphoid tissue …”. Of note, children vaccinated with bacillus Calmette-Guérin appeared to be protected as well against atopy, and this finding was also related to stimulation of the TH-1 response. The combined data led one group to conclude that an “antigenically rich (dirty) environment may be essential for normal immune maturation preventing atopic disease”.

Antibiotics may also be implicated in the hygiene hypothesis. Because they eliminate common bacteria, antibiotics may cause the same consequence as too much hygiene. Some infants begin to get antibiotics as soon as a few days after birth. They mature in an antibiotic-laden environment. What antigens do they confront daily? What kind of immune response are they developing?

We must think not just in terms of resistance but also in terms of the changes in the microbial ecology of our infants and our homes. We exist in the bacterial world, not bacteria in ours. Unfortunately, we believe that we can rid ourselves of bacteria when, in fact, we cannot. Instead, we should “make peace” with them. Although we need to control pathogens when they cause disease, we do not have to engage in a full-fledged “war” against the microbial world. Improved antibiotic use, including shorter treatments and removal of improper usage, will encourage the return of antibiotic-susceptible, commensal flora and return the environment to what it was before the antibiotic/antibacterial onslaught.

Besides resistance, the antibacterial craze has another potential consequence. Reports are mounting about a possible association between infections in early childhood and decreased incidence of allergies . In expanding this “hygiene hypothesis,” some researchers have found a correlation between too much hygiene and increased allergy. This hypothesis stems from studies that revealed an increased frequency of allergies, cases of asthma, and eczema in persons who have been raised in an environment overly protective against microorganisms. In one rural community, children who grew up on farms had fewer allergies than did their counterparts who did not live on farms. Graham Rook, University College, London, has likened the immune system to the brain. You have to exercise it, that is, expose it to the right antigenic information so that it matures correctly. Excessive hygiene, therefore, may interfere with the normal maturation of the immune system by eliminating the stimulation by commensal microflora.

For normal maturation, the immune system must be stimulated to achieve the right balance between the T-helper 1 (TH-1) cells providing cellular immunity and the TH-2 cells promoting antibody production. When investigators examined people with allergies and eczema, they noted an imbalance between TH-2 and TH-1 activities as compared with the mechanisms in control groups. In those with allergies, antibody production predominated over cell-mediated responses. Other studies showed a correlation between the presence of an immune response to organisms contracted by the oral-fecal route and decreased likelihood of atopy. In those persons who demonstrated a prior exposure to one, two, or all three of the organisms tested (Toxoplasma gondii, Helicobacter pylori, hepatitis A virus), the odds ratio for allergy became substantially lower than that seen in the control group. This correlation was not found for prior contact with organisms causing infections by other routes (e.g., mumps, measles, varicella).

Seven years ago, only a few dozen products containing antibacterial agents were being marketed for the home. Now more than 700 are available. The public is being bombarded with ads for cleansers, soaps, toothbrushes, dishwashing detergents, and hand lotions, all containing antibacterial agents. Likewise, we hear about “superbugs” and deadly viruses. Germs have become the buzzword for a danger people want to eliminate from their surroundings. In response to these messages, people are buying antibacterial products because they think these products offer health protection for them and their families. Among the newer products in the antibacterial craze are antibacterial window cleaner and antibacterial chopsticks. Antibacterial agents are now in plastic food storage containers in England. In Italy, antibacterial products are touted in public laundries. In the Boston area, you can purchase a mattress completely impregnated with an antibacterial agent. Whole bathrooms and bedrooms can be outfitted with products containing triclosan (a common antibacterial agent), including pillows, sheets, towels, and slippers.
Development of Resistance
Bacteria are not about to succumb to this deluge, however. Through mutation, some of their progeny emerge with resistance to the antibacterial agent aimed at it, and possibly to other antimicrobial agents as well . Laboratory-derived mutants of Pseudomonas stutzeri with resistance to the cationic biocide chlorhexidine were also cross-resistant to antibiotics (nalidixic acid, erythromycin, and ampicillin) . In a recent study, 7% of Listeria monocytogenes strains isolated from the environment and food products showed resistance to quaternary ammonium compounds.

Laura McMurry in my laboratory group conducted experiments to determine whether triclosan had a particular cellular site for its antibacterial activity. She used a classic genetic technique, the isolation of resistant mutants of Escherichia coli, to identify its possible target. Surprisingly, finding the cellular site proved easy. In fact, mutants appeared with low, medium, and high-level resistance . They all had a mutation in one gene, the fabI gene. This finding indicated that triclosan had a target for the enoyl reductase essential in fatty acid biosynthesis. In the presence of triclosan or a know fabI inhibitor (diazoborine) fatty acid biosynthesis was inhibited, whereas the antibiotics chloramphenicol or ciprofloxacin with other targets had little effect on fatty acid biosynthesis. In comparison with the wild-type E. coli, the mutant required up to 100 times more triclosan to show even minimal inhibition of fatty acid biosynthesis.