The leaves can also be applied on wounds or be soaked for infusions. The use of tee tree oil wasn’t that popular until a researcher, Arthur Penfold, wrote an article about its antimicrobial effect According to his study, tea tree oil was eleven times more powerful than phenol, an antimicrobial substance widely used in the past.

After Penfold’s article about tea tree oil an entire industry emerged. Leaves were usually cut manually and distilled immediately afterwards. After World War II the production of tea tree oil went into decline due the appearance of effective antibiotics. After the 70s when the interest for natural products was revived, commercial plantations appeared, so that at present, there is an entire mechanized tea tree oil industry which exploits the medical benefits of this natural cure.

Tea tree oil is recognized as a powerful antiseptic but it also contributes to skin care treatments and different ailments. Doctors reported the benefits this plant has against dermatitis, moderate acne, insect bites, ivy poisoning, ear infections and minor wounds. It is important to keep in mind that tea tree oil is recommended for external use only, those who took it orally experienced symptoms like ataxia and drowsiness. Allergic reactions were also reported in some cases, particularly under the form of skin rashes.

For a 0.1% tea tree oil dilution, studies revealed that from an experimental group of 725 people only one subject reported an allergic reaction. Another case study was conducted on a group of youngsters and they were administered products containing both lavender oil and tea tree oil. The results were not encouraging for the oral administration, which remains doubtful.

Like all alternative medicines tea tree oil is used as a solution for people who try to avoid antibiotics. Traditional medicine appreciates this natural remedy and more and more people turn to it because of its efficiency. The medical action of all herbal cures is nevertheless a lot slower than that of an antibiotic, therefore, in very severe cases, turn to a health care provider for assistance instead of relying on the long-term effects of an antibacterial substance like tea tree oil.

A report on the Center for Disease (CDC) website stated no evidence suggests that there is evidence that the use of antibacterial soap containing 0.2% triclosan (active ingredient in antibacterial cleaning products) provides a benefit over plain soap in reducing bacterial counts and rate of infectious symptoms in generally healthy persons in the household setting. Plain soap and water, in other words, gets rid of the majority of germs that linger on the hands and body.

Additionally, another study concluded that there was no difference in infectious disease symptoms over a one year period in 228 inner city households using antibacterial cleaning products and those products that did not contain antibacterial agents. These findings further highlight the need to educate consumers on the limitations of antibacterial cleaning products.

The use of these so called antibacterial cleaning products claims to kill 99% of bacteria. However what becomes of the remaining 1%. This 1% remaining becomes the super germ. The overuse of antibacterial cleaning products breeds stronger and stronger organisms and thus less resistance to cleaning agents.

Furthermore, in order for antibacterial products to really remove 99% of bacteria, the cleaning agent should be left on the area which is being cleaned for at least two minutes for it to be effective. Most people do not have the patience to properly use antibacterial cleaning products.

Our bodies have an immune system to fight off bacteria, germs and virus. When we continually fight germs and bacteria with antibacterial cleaners we are hindering our immune system to naturally fight off these germs and viruses. Thus are immune system is continually weakened.

In Scientific American journal, it states “It appears that after, say, spraying a counter with an antibiotic cleaner, some chemicals linger and continue to kill bacteria but don’t get all of them. The ones that survive develop a tolerance: “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. Soon we have populations of antibiotic resistant bacteria.

What is this stuff doing in households when we have soaps? asks molecular biologist John Gustafson of New Mexico State University in Las Cruces. These substances really belong in hospitals and clinics, not in the homes of healthy people.

In June of 2000, the World Health Organization warned that antibacterial products directly contribute to the rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The American Medical Association (AMA) says (bacterial) resistance ascribed to overuse of antibiotics is a growing problem, and there is concern that some types of infections will eventually not be treatable with antibiotics.

On June 13, 2000, the AMA advised consumers to avoid extensive use of “antibacterial soaps, lotions, and other household products. The AMA has also urged the Food and Drug Administration to increase regulation of antibacterial products.

So next time you purchase that antibacterial cleaning product keep in mind that they are hindering your natural immune system, and these products are very detrimental to the environment.

The first antibacterial products introduced to the public were kitchen and bathroom cleaners. Today there are over 700 products containing antibacterial agents, such as triclosan (a common ingredient in antibacterial products). The public is being bombarded with advertisement for antibacterial products and cleaners. Among the newest products are food storage containers and plastic wrap. Unfortunately people are purchasing these products thinking they are protecting their families from germs when in reality they are creating super-germs that are resistant to antibacterial products.

Just a few days ago Good Morning America did a show on how to avoid the flu. The doctor on the show stressed washing hands with soap and water and discouraged the use of antibacterial soaps.

Furthermore, the use of antibacterial products has a detrimental impact on our environment. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has registered triclosan as a pesticide, and the chemical formulation and molecular structure of this compound are similar to some of the most toxic chemicals on earth, relating it to dioxins and PCBs. The EPA gives triclosan high scores both as a human health risk and as an environmental risk. The toxin from antibacterial cleaning products can often times remain on counter surfaces and utensils, do you want your family ingesting this toxin? Additionally, the overuse of antibacterial products is weakening the immune system by hindering the natural process of inhibiting germs. There is a strong concern that the overuse of antibacterial soaps in our homes is creating super germs. These super germs become resistant to antibacterial products thus bacteria remains on the surface.

The Santa Clara Basin Watershed Management concluded the following findings on the toxin triclosan in 2006:

• The American Medical Association has not endorsed the necessity or efficacy of triclosan and other antibacterial agents in personal care products • Antibacterial agents and their degradation products are found in many tested U.S. surface waters, including San Francisco Bay • One such agent, triclosan is acutely and chronically toxic to aquatic organisms • Triclosan bioaccumulates in fish and human tissue • Triclosan may degrade into other toxic compounds • Triclosan may encourage antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria. • Physicians indicate that the best germ fighting measure continues to be the actual act of hand washing with regular soap, or for extra assurance, alcohol or peroxide-based hand sanitizers

In conclusion, antibacterial products play an important part in providing a sterile environment. They are a necessity in Hospitals and Laboratories. However, antibacterial products should be avoided in the home, or at least used modestly. There are much safer alternatives that do not create super germs, degrade our water quality and harm the overall health of the environment.

Disinfectants can be further categorized as broad or limited spectrum agents. A broad-spectrum disinfectant destroys both gram-negative and gram-positive bacteria. A limited-spectrum disinfectant must clearly specify the specific microorganisms against which it works.

Antibacterials are definitely effective in killing bacteria, however, there is considerable controversy surrounding their health benefits. The non-residue producing agents have been used for many years and continue to be effective agents for controlling disease organisms in a wide variety of healthcare and domestic settings. When used under strict guidelines of application, the residue-producing agents have proven effective at controlling bacterial and fungal infection in clinical settings such as hospitals, nursing homes, neonatal nurseries and other health care facilities where there may be a high risk of infection.

A certain few consumer products have demonstrated effectiveness for specific conditions: antibacterial toothpaste helps control periodontal (gum) disease; antibacterial deodorants suppress odor-causing bacteria, and antidandruff shampoos help control dandruff. However, to date, there is no evidence to support claims that antibacterials provide additional health benefits when used by the general consumer.

Antibacterials may be divided into two groups according to their speed of action and residue production: The first group contains those that act rapidly to destroy bacteria, but quickly disappear (by evaporation or breakdown) and leave no active residue behind (referred to as non-residue-producing). Examples of this type are the alcohols, chlorine, peroxides, and aldehydes. The second group consists mostly of newer compounds that leave long-acting residues on the surface to be disinfected and thus have a prolonged action (referred to as residue-producing). Common examples of this group are triclosan, triclocarban, and benzalkonium chloride.

All products that claim to kill bacteria and/or viruses have some kind of antibacterial agent. Alcohols, chlorine and peroxides have been used for many decades in health-care and cleaning products. Within the past two decades, the residue-producing antibacterials, once used almost exclusively in health care institutions, have been added to increasing numbers of household products, particularly soaps and cleaning agents. A recent survey reported that 76% of liquid soaps from 10 states in the US contained triclosan and approximately 30% of bar soaps contained triclocarban. Many cleaning compounds contain quaternary ammonium compounds. Because these compounds have very long chemical names, they are often not easily recognized as antibacterial agents on packaging labels. More recently, triclosan has been bonded into the surface of many different products with which humans come into contact, such as plastic kitchen tools, cutting boards, highchairs, toys, bedding and other fabrics.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.”