Welcome to the International Emetophobia Society | The Web's Largest Meeting Place for People With Emetophobia.
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    314

    Default

    is the validity of this that I read on MSN today?


    When researchers from Children's Hospital in Boston studied 292
    families for five months, they found that those who carried hand
    sanitizers with them had 59 percent fewer cases of stomach bugs than
    nonusers. That's because, when used correctly—squirt out enough gel so
    your hands still feel damp after rubbing together for 10 to 15
    seconds—these products nearly eliminate germs.


    Sounds good to me, but how true can it be? We have all read that Purell, etc. doesn't kill the norovirus, so, what do you think?

    Julie
    _____________________________________
    That which does not kill us makes us stronger.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,866

    Default



    I think in studies such as this, variables are usually confounded. As in, the people given the hand sanitizers are also given information related to how important clean hands are in the spread of illness. This also makes them more aware of their surroundings, and more likely to practice better hygiene in general. That, and purely seeing the sanitizer makes your mind automatically think "gee, dirty hands = illness", so you are more likely to be aware of your surroundings and actions.


    It's important to realize that A+B does not automatically = C, especially since we know that scientifically, sanitizer doesn't kill noro. Since we know this to be the case, I think we need to be very suspicious of results such as this. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is


    That, and in relation to the people in the group that were not given the sanitizer, I would like to know if they used self-report in recording illness, or of they actually tested their stool. We all know that feeling 'sick' doesn't necessarily mean that you are sick, or have something contagious.


    Maybe I am just naturally suspicious of MSN news ingeneral, lol.


    *amber*

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    What I will never understand is, how on earth, can several "studies" performed one ONE product, produce so many different results??!!? It really is very frustrating.[img]smileys/smilies_05.gif[/img]
    ~*~Charlene~*~

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    343

    Default

    I read about this study a year ago. I believe it. My childrens doctor said it works and if you think about it the people who use it and their children that use it really tend to get sick less.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,023

    Default

    I think I've heard that it's the vigorous rubbing of hands together that kills the germs--not so much antibacterial soap. I hear normal bar soap works just as well for this reason. And because antibacterial doesn't kill viruses, just like antibiotics don't. But the heat from rubbing your hands together does. And because more health conscious people tend not to get sick as often because they actually wash their hands after using the restroom, and probably eat healthier, immune boosting diets.

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •