Slashdot Mirror


Bacteria Becoming Resistant To Hospital Disinfectants, Warn Scientists (theguardian.com)

Hospitals will need to use new strategies to tackle bacteria experts have warned, after finding a type of hospital superbug is becoming increasingly tolerant of alcohol -- the key component of current disinfectant hand rubs. From a report: Handwashes based on alcohols such as isopropanol have become commonplace as a method of infection control. But while the move has been linked to benefits, including a fall in rates of hospital infections of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), new research suggests it might also have had unexpected consequences. Scientists say they have discovered that superbugs known as vancomycin-resistant enterococci, or VRE, appear to be becoming more tolerant to alcohol.

122 comments

  1. Just use methanol instead by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    If the bugs go blind, they might have more difficulties to infect us.

    1. Re:Just use methanol instead by slickwillie · · Score: 1

      How about ethanol? Then they might me too drunk to infect us. Or a combination to make them blind and drunk.

    2. Re:Just use methanol instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Na, I have a better idea, give them some xylitol instead. Give them enough and they will be waiting in lines at the toilet for hours.
      Plus their teeth will be fabulous.

  2. Hospitals are dangerous places... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    LOTS of people die there..

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:Hospitals are dangerous places... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some wards 100% of the patients die.

  3. Fair warning by KeensMustard · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Bacteria Becoming Resistant To Hospital Disinfectants, Warn Scientists" - I don't like the fact they are becoming resistant, but at least they had the decency to warn us about it.

    1. Re:Fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they want more money for their research. Scummery 101.

    2. Re: Fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, what bastards with their knowledge and expertise and all.

      After all, what has science and research ever done for the US?

    3. Re:Fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh

    4. Re:Fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there....

    5. Re:Fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cocky buggers.

    6. Re:Fair warning by ole_timer · · Score: 1

      ...eats, shoots & leaves...

      --
      nothing to see here - move along
    7. Re:Fair warning by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Coccy buggers?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Fair warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bacteria Becoming Resistant To Hospital Disinfectants, Warn Scientists" - I don't like the fact they are becoming resistant, but at least they had the decency to warn us about it.

      Great Article

  4. not just hospitals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is bad because cleanrooms essentially rely on 98% IPA in order to kill and remove all foreign bacteria. If it's ineffective, all cleanrooms will have to change all of their procedures. We're talking 100's billions $$$ cost.

    1. Re:not just hospitals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use bleach as well maybe? Be harder to adapt to both substances, and while I am sure someone will tell me how wrong I am bleach and iso dont react.

    2. Re:not just hospitals by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      I believe the disinfectant used here are around 60%, so there's still a good bit of room before they are threatened.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:not just hospitals by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

      Bleach isn't an appropriate solution (pun intended) for "disinfectant hand rubs". However, in my opinion, the correct way to 'solve' this problem isn't to find a new disinfectant, but rather, getting all workers to wear gloves / make regular glove changes after touching patients or things patients may have touched.

    4. Re: not just hospitals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      98% ipa doesn't kill stuff as effectively as weaker ipa. The gp doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to disinfecting clean rooms. Hell he's probably never been in one and only dreamed about it.

      https://blog.gotopac.com/2017/05/15/why-is-70-isopropyl-alcohol-ipa-a-better-disinfectant-than-99-isopropanol-and-what-is-ipa-used-for/

    5. Re:not just hospitals by Puls4r · · Score: 2

      That's true about bleach not being appropriate. Unsurprisingly, you'll find there are already bugs out there that can tolerate bleach, at least in the levels you'll find in your non-commercial cleaners and clothes washing bleach. We're dealing with that right now while taking care of an ailing family member at home who is prone to infection. The hospital has confirmed the strain of infection our family member has will be unaffected by low levels of bleach.

    6. Re:not just hospitals by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Maybe mix it with a strong oxidizer. NOT hydrogen peroxide, as the body uses that as a defense, but say ammonium nitrate. Nitric acid would work, but might have undesirable effects.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re: not just hospitals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gp here. I'm not a scientist, or a doctor. But I have been in about a dozen different BSL-3/4 cleanrooms, most of them pharma cos manufacturing 'living drugs', or research centers studying very deadly diseases/pathogens. One thing they all had in common was 98% IPA.

    8. Re:not just hospitals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried that. It worked well until Homeland Security busted down my door and accused me of making bombs.

    9. Re:not just hospitals by Hall · · Score: 1

      The issue is they are not cleaning. You clean, then sanitize (or disinfect). If the surfaces are dirty, bacteria can 'hide' or be protected in the dirt. Doctors performing surgery scrub in using soap and vigorously scrub, then they use a sanitizer (or even hot water). When you wash dishes, do you just run them under hot water or do you clean them (with soap) first ?

    10. Re:not just hospitals by piojo · · Score: 1

      You may have misunderstood what they said about bleach concentration. Bleach is almost never used full strength. Rather, it is diluted to something in the neighborhood of 500-5000 ppm available chlorine. This corresponds to a 1-10% solution of household bleach. You can bump it up by adding more bleach, or acidifying the solution to reach a neutral pH.

      Straight bleach is not used in a typical disinfection scenario. It is too strong. Is causes corrosion. It has fumes. (I did read that undiluted bleach is recommended for cleaning syringes, however.)

      So if you need to deal with bugs that aren't affected by a standard strength of bleach, that's because standard strength is diluted by 99%.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    11. Re:not just hospitals by piojo · · Score: 1

      And to add a bit more, a 1% solution of bleach is still considered pretty strong. I use a 0.15% solution for to sanitize for homebrewing. So if you have trouble with "standard strength", you still have a few orders of magnitude available. (And these percents represent the percent commercial bleach in water, not percent of hypochlorite in water. So a bottle of bleach is 100%.)

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    12. Re:not just hospitals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I usually put them in the dishwasher.

  5. Bacteria Becoming Resistant To Hospital Disinfecta by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

    Handwashes based on alcohols such as isopropanol have become commonplace as a method of infection control.

    Forget isopropanol, I'm saturating everything to whisky. You bugs can have the outside, I'm going to take care of my insides.

    Is anybody surprised? We used it for everything, and now the survivors are coming back with a vengeance. (Actually just coming back immune -- anthropomorphism is for zombies.)

    If only we could take the Religious Never-Evolvers and mate them with the Flat-Earthers -- then we could push them all off the edge of the Earth to be closer to God. (Or that giant turtle. Same thing. Hope he's not a snapping turtle.)

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
  6. UV LIGHT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will kill anything.

    1. Re:UV LIGHT by dlleigh · · Score: 1

      Tardigrades do pretty well under UV.

      If they ever decide to harm humans we're in real trouble.

    2. Re:UV LIGHT by careysub · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new tardigradian overlords!

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:UV LIGHT by Agripa · · Score: 1

      If they ever decide to harm humans we're in real trouble.

      What would they do? Would they make us watch Star Trek - Discovery?

      On second thought, that would be pretty bad.

  7. Use bacteriophage by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What we need to do is find a suitable bacteriophage variant that can obliterate MRSA. It's not a permanent fix but it will buy us more time to figure out how to engineer bacteriophages.

    Bacteriophages and eventually engineered bacteriophages seem like the likely future for fighting bacterial infection. It also seems like machine learning would be a good fit for developing bacteriophage variants when resistant mutations are found.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Use bacteriophage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then they get loose and start eating the "good bacteria", the ones we need in our gut etc...

    2. Re:Use bacteriophage by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the original unwanted bacteria will evolve new defenses. This is an arms race that's been going on for nearly four billion years and one we can only hope to gain temporary advantages from. We will be fighting these contagious for our entire time in this universe.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Use bacteriophage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bacteria can become resistant to phages pretty quickly. People trend to forget that bacteria are living microbes, and as such, they evolve. Phage may get rid of those most sensitive to them, which means, phage-resistant bacteria are left alive.

      You cannot expect to control a dynamical system with one-off therapies, be it antibiotics, disinfectants or phages.

    4. Re:Use bacteriophage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Turns out that bacteria that evolve resistance to antibiotics tend to be weak against bacteriophages, and vice versa (wish I could find a citation, sorry!). But phages tend to be narrow spectrum. Also storage of phages is already a bit tricky, so you complicate it further by needing to store a huge library of phages to address targeted bacteria.

      Phage therapy is impractical on a large scale as it triggers an immune system response, and is quickly wiped from a healthy person's system. But for someone already immune compromised it could be a very useful therapy.

      For topical treatment most phages don't survive in open air and either oxidize or revert to a dormant state.

      (P.S. - almost all the phage research from the Soviet Union is crap. poorly designed studies, missing double-blind studies. conclusions determined before the outcome, political consensus building rather than honest peer review)

    5. Re:Use bacteriophage by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      But phages are viruses and evolve even faster, don't they?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Use bacteriophage by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wrong.

      [On a plague of bird-eating lizards that ate all of Springfield's pigeons]
      Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.
      Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?
      Skinner: No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.
      Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?
      Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.
      Lisa: But then we're stuck with gorillas!
      Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

    7. Re:Use bacteriophage by HiThere · · Score: 2

      But phages evolve too, so when their food starts becoming elusive, they start becoming better hunters....or, of course, change their food preferences. You could talk to the Australians about some of the downsides.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    8. Re:Use bacteriophage by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      In nature, at least, any contagion that reproduces too quickly will ultimately kill off all the hosts. That's the nature of Ebola, so deadly that it quickly kills off a population and then runs out of hosts, and goes dormant again. So even with fast reproducing viruses, there's a limiter of one sort or another; either kill-kill-kill and then run out of hosts, or only kill a certain percentage of hosts, enough to continue propagating and evolving. But not even highly lethal viruses like Ebola kill perfectly, mortality rates may be high, but if you imagine something incredibly virulent that invades bacteria, who can reproduce with astonishing rapidity, even a 90%-95% mortality rate means 5%-10% survive, and if that survival is due to some genetic difference, it means that small group of survivors will take over the niche their non-immune brethren could not.

      But there's a significant risk in my view of using phages and other similar things that infect bacteria. They evolve too, and let's imagine that every once in a while one of those populations of phages gets a taste for, say, E. coli. Well all of a sudden, your gut bacteria could become a target. While it might seem farfetched, and most phages are pretty specific to at least families of bacteria, one has to ponder that evolution is an equal opportunity offender.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Use bacteriophage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already exists, see Gladskin/Staphefekt. An European company succeeded in making a phage that targets S. Aureus/MRSA, though right now they can't make it pure enough for internal use, only making it for use on intact skin.

      Further, they couldn't make the bacteria develop resistance no matter what they tried - long periods in sub-lethal concentrations, and still nothing.

    10. Re:Use bacteriophage by mrwireless · · Score: 1

      There is great Kurtzgesagt video that explains how bacteriophages are our next best hope:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    11. Re:Use bacteriophage by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > they get loose

      Thank you. Just... thank you. I got a tear in my eye when you used 'loose' correctly.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  8. Friends don't let friends use "But while" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Starting a sentence with "But while" makes you look stupid. Try "Although" instead.

    1. Re:Friends don't let friends use "But while" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or "Butt wild" if you want to look cool. Real cool.

  9. Cause and effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't know whether the exposure to alcohol based disinfectants is driving the tolerance adaptation. It is premature and flawed to assume so.

  10. Nothing new by RandCraw · · Score: 3, Informative

    An isopropyl alcohol bath is resoundingly insufficient to sterilize surgical instruments. This has been known for decades. Likewise, nobody in their right mind assumes a quick wipe with an alcohol pad will make your skin sterile either. Thus this news story adds nothing really new, except that some MRSA bugs may have become somewhat more resistant to a halfhearted swat of alcohol. Stop the presses...

    1. Re:Nothing new by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      An isopropyl alcohol bath is resoundingly insufficient to sterilize surgical instruments. This has been known for decades. Likewise, nobody in their right mind assumes a quick wipe with an alcohol pad will make your skin sterile either.

      That's why surgeons will have to start autoclaving their hands at scrub-in.

      Meanwhile, hospital administrators already have a solution: just keep raising prices until there are no more patients.

    2. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > An isopropyl alcohol bath is resoundingly insufficient to sterilize surgical instruments
      If this has been known for decades could you please post a link to some reliable paper showing this. Because I don't believe you.

    3. Re:Nothing new by bobbied · · Score: 1

      An isopropyl alcohol bath is resoundingly insufficient to sterilize surgical instruments. This has been known for decades. Likewise, nobody in their right mind assumes a quick wipe with an alcohol pad will make your skin sterile either.

      That's why surgeons will have to start autoclaving their hands at scrub-in.

      Meanwhile, hospital administrators already have a solution: just keep raising prices until there are no more patients.

      What part of "scrub in" is that alcohol part?

      Surgeons have done more than just dip their hands in stuff for a LONG time... Plus, when they get done scrubbing and disinfecting they put on sterile gloves.

      Don't get me started on the sterilization of the incision site before draping in sterile cloth to create a sterile field to work in... And this is what I can divine from being in the operating room during my first kid's delivery and how I was instructed about what I could and couldn't touch.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Nothing new by bobbied · · Score: 2

      > An isopropyl alcohol bath is resoundingly insufficient to sterilize surgical instruments If this has been known for decades could you please post a link to some reliable paper showing this. Because I don't believe you.

      Medical sterilization of instruments has not been done in an alcohol bath for ages except as a last resort. It's marginally better than nothing, but not by much.

      Current sterilization processes involve high heat in autoclaves (Basically pressure cookers) for items that can take the heat. There are some ozone processes that don't use pressure and heat that's effective and many one-time use items are sterilized using radiation after sealed in their packaging. Using alcohol or just boiling in water even would be considered gross malpractice at this point and would only be used as a last resort.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's something that can survive boiling in water?

    6. Re:Nothing new by HiThere · · Score: 2

      There are things for which boiling water is their normal environment. Most of them don't specialize in infecting humans, but this doesn't mean they can't pass around their plasmids to those that do.

      That said, boiling water is generally a good way to throughly wash something. Exceptions are when something is really baked on. Unfortunately, a very small exception can carry a simply huge number of bacteria. When I was an assistant in a biochem lab I sometimes washed glassware. The drill was, first you wash and dry it. Then you submerge it in concentrated Nitric Acid. Then you submerge it in anhydrous alcoholic solution of Potassium Hydroxide. Then you rise it in distilled water. This isn't always a practical approach, and I wasn't even worried about bacteria. Just contamination.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    7. Re:Nothing new by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      There's no guarantee that submerging something in boiling water exposes all parts to that boiling water. Cracks, crevices and hinges can be relatively safe harbours.

      That's the reason for autoclaves. The higher heat and pressure penetrates more thoroughly.

    8. Re:Nothing new by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes AC. Thats why hospitals have to really understand the methods they use. Expensive new equipment and products that work beyond what "boiling in water" can clean. ie they need to get the "sterilise" part right.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    9. Re:Nothing new by jbengt · · Score: 1

      They also often use ultrasound to help penetrate cracks and crevices and dislodge biologicals.

    10. Re:Nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We used to use Hexane, then DCM, then ethanol for removing contaminants from lab equipment.

    11. Re:Nothing new by Agripa · · Score: 1

      there's something that can survive boiling in water?

      The prion (protein) which causes Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease survives autoclave sterilization as some very unfortunately surgical patients discovered.

    12. Re:Nothing new by Agripa · · Score: 1

      We used to use Hexane, then DCM, then ethanol for removing contaminants from lab equipment.

      I always liked rinsing glassware with concentrated nitric acid and then adding a little ethanol which was recommended in one of the chemistry handbooks. Unfortunately under just the right conditions, it goes *foomp* and launches the entire corrosive mixture onto the ceiling.

  11. Pseudomonas aeruginosa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I once observed Pseudomonas aeruginosa survive fully submerged in 95% ethanol for over a week.

    Hand sanitiser is a placebo.

    The best way to kill bacteria is good old fashioned soap and mechanical abrasion (elbow grease with a scrub brush).

    1. Re:Pseudomonas aeruginosa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The word "kill" for bacteria circulates because of marketing.

      The best way to "anything" a bacteria is to slough the supporting substances. A sponge doesn't magically purify dishes, it just ablates them. Removes the stains and layers and deposits that host growth. We're in this situation because we sold appeal on using "holy and sanctifying" products, as if the crud on your hands merely needs to be "sanitized". See how well that shit works after working on a car engine.

      Parent, your point was correct, but the population is being stupid for a more basic reason upstream.

  12. Steam vapor cleaners by steveha · · Score: 1

    This doesn't solve the hand wash problem, but I think hospitals should try cleaning with a steam vapor cleaner. An industrial-quality steam cleaner is not that expensive, and it just takes water and electricity to run. And I don't think there are many germs that can survive temperatures higher than the boiling point of water.

    Industrial steam cleaners can reach temperatures of over 340 degrees F (171 degrees C) inside their boilers, but what matters is the temperature of the steam when it exits the cleaning wand, and that can easily be 215 to 230 degrees F (101 to 110 degrees C).

    Here's an article about a test at University of Washington: https://www.asumag.com/maintenance/steaming-clean

    I personally bought a consumer-grade steam cleaner (a Vapamore MR-100) and I have been happy with it. I bought it to kill some mold without using chemicals and it worked perfectly.

    --
    lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    1. Re:Steam vapor cleaners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I don't think there are many germs that can survive temperatures higher than the boiling point of water.

      You'd think that, but you'd be wrong. 30 minutes at 375 (celcius) is required to confidently kill MRSA

    2. Re:Steam vapor cleaners by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And I don't think there are many germs that can survive temperatures higher than the boiling point of water. There are plenty, google "thermophyls" (or something spelled similar :D )

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Steam vapor cleaners by steveha · · Score: 1

      You'd think that, but you'd be wrong. 30 minutes at 375 (celcius) is required to confidently kill MRSA

      I always welcome corrections; I'd rather learn the truth than continue to believe something mistaken. However, I just did a Google search and I have not found a reference to support the above numbers.

      Could you please provide a link documenting your numbers?

      Here's an article about a test using a commercial steam vapor cleaner. I'm having trouble understanding it... the conclusion is that a steam vapor cleaner is a practical way to kill MRSA and other bacteria, but reading the text it seems to suggest that it took over 7 minutes, and I don't think anyone applies a steam cleaner to the same spot for over 7 minutes.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600216/

      This BBC article says that 150 to 180 degree C steam vapor can kill MRSA in two seconds. I think that is practical with a real steam vapor cleaning machine.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6919473.stm

      And here are some claims from companies that want to sell you steam vapor cleaners.

      Ladybug company cites a study

      Vapamore company cites a study

      An article that reads like an advertisement for Ladybug brand cleaners with "TANCS".

      Quote: "...even strong chemical disinfectants such as bleach when allowed 20 minutes of dwell time did not achieve the same degree of kill that the TANCS(R)-equipped unit accomplished in 3 seconds."

      This company claims two of their machines are "certified" to kill MRSA (no reference to support the claim).

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    4. Re:Steam vapor cleaners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      375C is hot enough to melt lead! And likely melt/destroy a few other important materials as well. Maybe surgical implements are made to hold up to these temperatures but that's got to be brutal on equipment.

      According to Princeton an autoclave is used at 121C (250F) for 30 minutes.
      https://ehs.princeton.edu/book/export/html/380

      I believe you got your C and F confused.

    5. Re:Steam vapor cleaners by Hall · · Score: 1

      Bacteria create their own shelter called biofilm. Mature biofilms can withstand temperatures in autoclaves so "cleaning" surgical tools or similar items in autoclaves is often not sufficient.

    6. Re:Steam vapor cleaners by steveha · · Score: 2

      If I'm understanding the abstract correctly, this study showed that three seconds of hot steam was 99.95% effective at killing biofilm. "Compared with chemical disinfection, steam treatment for <1 second a similar level of biofilm disinfection as provided by incubation with 10-ppm sodium hypochlorite (bleach) for 10-20 minutes of contact time."

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22418602/

      The above study tested a particular brand of commercial steam vapor cleaner ("Ladybug") with a feature called "TANCS". I'd be interested to know how well other brands of steam cleaners would work. Is "TANCS" key to this or was it simply the high-temperature steam?

      From the Ladybug web site here's an article that discusses the results of another study, also showing that the Ladybug is effective:

      https://www.ladybugsteamvapor.com/study-validates-ladybug-dry-steam-vapor/

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    7. Re:Steam vapor cleaners by piojo · · Score: 1

      It seems like they may have chosen 10-ppm simply as a dramatic comparison. Such a low concentration corresponds to 3 mL bleach in a gallon of water if I calculated correctly. Nobody uses such a low concentration except to sanitize water itself.

      --
      A cat can't teach a dog to bark.
    8. Re:Steam vapor cleaners by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Hospitals in most cases have long since moved to "one-time-use" tools for surgery and that's the end of it. The used stuff is bagged and shipped for destruction and new medical tools made. That means even if you have clean tools, someone fucking up during their wash can transfer it to a patient. Even day-to-day items are pretty much use once-throw away, simply because the transmission possibility is way too high. The problem with MRSA is that it can thrive on surfaces, hands, and so on. It can thrive through wash cycles of bedding and so on too. This is where the real problem comes from.

      This is what happened to my uncle about a decade ago when he had to get his kneed replaced. It went well, then he started to complain of pain. Then he got sick hard, and fast. His knee swelled up, and they hit him with a heavy dose of antibiotics to kill it. Problem was it was already immune to everything they had available at the time. He had to go back in for surgery, they pulled the knee joint, then found out it had spread into the bone and was eating it. They gave him two options if that was the case, remove the leg above the infection site or try cutting back the bone as far as they could and trying again. He took option 2, and he got lucky.

      Old days in the hospital it was always washing down surfaces with a mix of iodine and usually a secondary. It was the push for cheaper options that led to the wide-spread use of rubbing alcohol usually 70% instead of 99%. For instruments back in the day it was always baking at 350F for 20 minutes, then wrapping in sterile white linen. That's what nurses were also taught back in the 50's and 60's as well for tool cleanup. Again that heavily changed in the 70's and 80's.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    9. Re:Steam vapor cleaners by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% alcohol is worse at killing bacteria in short applications than 70%. Bacteria hit with high concentrations of alcohol almost instantly sporify, allowing them to survive. 60% concentration is the optimal where the bacteria don't go into spore form, giving time for the alcohol to absorb. 70% is the trade off of having a bottle that doesn't spoil too fast as the concentration drops over time in storage once opened.

      70% also does not evaporate as quickly, allowing it to stay in contact longer.

  13. Doctor House says... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

    Whatever's not done already:

    1. Find out how various disinfectants work at the cellular level.
    2. Select 3 or 4 different ones that are otherwise fairly safe, but that operate in very different ways.
    3. Mix them into a new product.
    4. Use it.

    See, simultaneous adaptation across multiple (say, four) different sterilization vectors (this would work for internal antibiotics too) is like throwing down four poles onto an adaptation space and hope they all form an octopus x on the same point.

    Invent a new, use until it doesn't work, repeat, is a failure mode. You are literally doing the best optimal way to make germ killers be useless as fast as possible.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  14. Maybe they should use real disinfectants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Handwashes based on alcohols
    Instead of using half-assed over the counter cleaning products, maybe they should use real sterilization techniques such as heating, or chemicals that actually destroy organic matter.
    This is the same BS that happened with penicillin etc.
    Yeah, if you give every single farm animal half a dose per day, everything is going to grow resistant.

    1. Re:Maybe they should use real disinfectants? by blindseer · · Score: 2

      This is the same BS that happened with penicillin etc.
      Yeah, if you give every single farm animal half a dose per day, everything is going to grow resistant.

      What a bunch of bullshit.

      Farmers aren't as stupid as you think. They know bacteria can get resistance to antibiotics if they are overused. I grew up on a farm and we used antibiotics fairly regularly, but far from daily. Pigs would get a shot of antibiotics when they were brought off the truck into the confinement building. They wouldn't get another shot unless one got sick, and only that one pig would be separate from the rest and get a shot. If the pig improved then it would be returned to the pen with the rest of the pigs. If it didn't improve then it got another shot... from a revolver. The carcass would then be fed to the dogs.

      The cattle, like the pigs, typically got one shot of antibiotics in their life. This would happen when they got big enough to dehorn. They'd be run one by one into a dehorn chute where one guy would cut of the horns and another would give a shot of antibiotics. If a cow got sick then it might get a shot of antibiotics, and if it was producing milk at the time the milk would be discarded. If the cow got better then it would be returned to producing milk. If it didn't then it would be sent to the rendering plant for leather and bone meal, the meat would be discarded.

      All meat and milk is tested for antibiotics randomly and when there is suspicion of contamination. I'm not aware of any fines imposed but a dairy farmer seeing 1000 gallons of grade A milk get dumped down the drain, and not getting paid for that shipment, is punishment enough.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    2. Re:Maybe they should use real disinfectants? by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      The issue is that people are also made of organic matter.
      No matter how effective it is, I won't wash my hands with a flamethrower.

    3. Re:Maybe they should use real disinfectants? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Maybe you grew up on some kind of granola organic farm.

      Animals in this country have routinely been given feed that is laced with antibiotics because it makes them gain weight faster. You should know that.

    4. Re:Maybe they should use real disinfectants? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      This...

      I'm a farm boy and I can attest this is pretty much true. Antibiotics are not generally routine, but special occasion things, used when the health of the animal is open to question or could possibly be compromised by some necessary procedure. Antibiotics are expensive and it takes labor to administer them, so they are not used indiscriminately. Farmers don't have money to waste.

      Testing of milk is done by the truck load too. When the truck arrives at the farm, they take samples for testing. When the truck arrives at the plant, they sample and test again. It doesn't go into the plant but down the drain if it doesn't pass any of those tests. And if it's YOUR milk that causes the truck to get dumped, it's not a good thing for you.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    5. Re:Maybe they should use real disinfectants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took me just a few minutes with Google to find this:
      https://www.agriculture.com/livestock/cattle/the-new-rules-of-feed-antibiotics

      Antibiotics are not allowed in feed without a directive from a veterinarian. This article says this was a new FDA rule in 2017 but farmers were not giving antibiotics regularly before that because meat and milk is tested for antibiotics, and testing positive meant the product was destroyed, and because antibiotics cost money that they'd rather not spend.

      Feed is routinely treated with antiseptics and biocides but those are different than antibiotics. Biocides do not survive digestion and do not make their way into the meat and milk products. I'm thinking you are equating feed treatments to prevent fungus growth and flies with antibiotics, they are different things and work by different mechanisms to preserve animal health.

    6. Re:Maybe they should use real disinfectants? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      No, I'm talking about antibiotics specifically added to increase weight gain.

      They are gradually trying to curtail this, but until recently it has been very common. In particular, the GP claim that "when I grew up, cows only got one shot of antibiotics in their life!" is simply disingenuous.

    7. Re:Maybe they should use real disinfectants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if it's YOUR milk that causes the truck to get dumped, it's not a good thing for you.

      If all the individual farms pass (they wouldn't take the load if it didn't), but then it failed at the plant, and had to be dumped, then how would they know who's milk contaminated the truck?

    8. Re:Maybe they should use real disinfectants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I'm talking about antibiotics specifically added to increase weight gain.

      Well, the FDA no longer allows this practice.

      They are gradually trying to curtail this, but until recently it has been very common. In particular, the GP claim that "when I grew up, cows only got one shot of antibiotics in their life!" is simply disingenuous.

      There was a time before cattle were routinely given feed laced with antibiotics, although that time may have been somewhere around 1930 when penicillin came to market. Giving animals feed with antibiotics has been prohibited by the FDA for at least a year without veterinary approval, given the article linked to above. Depending on when the person grew up on the farm it's quite possible that the cattle were only given antibiotics once in their life.

    9. Re:Maybe they should use real disinfectants? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      Give it up already.

    10. Re:Maybe they should use real disinfectants? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      When the truck arrives at the farm, they take samples for testing. When the truck arrives at the plant, they sample and test again. It doesn't go into the plant but down the drain if it doesn't pass any of those tests.

      When I worked at a dairy bottling plant, I once overheard an argument between the chemist, who said the milk didn't pass the test, and a manager, who said it could be re-pasteurized and made into chocolate milk. Based on what I saw them using to make chocolate milk (like milk from bottles that had been rejected because they were leaking, and that had been sitting in the hot plant for hours) I'd guess they probably made chocolate milk out of it.

  15. no resistance to this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i bet they can't resist SILVER nanoparticles.

    nothing is supposed to be resistant against silver.

    1. Re:no resistance to this.. by virtualXTC · · Score: 1

      Most people are resistant to silver nano-particles because they don't like walking around with blue hands...

    2. Re:no resistance to this.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What if they just blue themselves?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  16. I have a plan by Gabest · · Score: 1

    Create a bacteria that is resistant to everything. Go extinct. Let the bacteria evolve into a new super human race.

    1. Re:I have a plan by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Chances are that happened a few billion years ago...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:I have a plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Create a bacteria that is resistant to everything. Go extinct. Let the bacteria evolve into a new super human race.

      ???
      Profit.

  17. Chlorine Bleach, but only this brand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Clorox.  This is the only bleach you can buy without a license to properly kill MRSA bugs.

    1. Re:Chlorine Bleach, but only this brand by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The Chevron brand seems to work as well.

  18. To all Creationists: This is evolution in action! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When someone says "(some bacteria) is becoming resistant to (some specific antibiotic)" that means when that antibiotic is used, most but not all the bacteria is killed. The few bacteria that survive are likely resistant to that antibiotic through some random genetic mutation and when it reproduces/divides the resulting new bacteria will have that same resistance. When you repeat this many times (and bacteria in general reproduces very quickly) you end up with new generations that suddenly ALL have that resistance to that specific antibiotic. The new surviving bacteria has evolved over the years to be resistant to specific antibiotics.

    SCIENCE!!!

  19. for what it's worth by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    I had mrsa... and vancomycin via iv...it entered (the mrsa) and infected my blood, artificial stomach, skin, emergency trac site and lungs. four months later I managed to live after all the infection were gone. thank god for vancomycin!

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
  20. When do we admit that hospitals are the problem? by Myself · · Score: 1

    Maybe concentrating all the sick people in one place creates a perfect breeding ground for this stuff.

    Yes, yes, there are valid economic reasons for maximizing the work output of doctors, who are exceedingly expensive to mint. But at some point, the downfall of our species might just be more costly.

  21. Those scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those scientists Just want more free alcohol for uh, "testing"...

  22. This is why we need more science education by rsilvergun · · Score: 2

    in this country. I've been hearing about this for years and nobody's doing much of anything about it. Certainly not enough. Meanwhile in the United States we've got a resurgence of things like Faith Healers and the like (plus numbskulls pushing Homeopathy and "Essential Oils"). It doesn't help that we don't have universal healthcare so I know a ton of people turned away from science because they just plain can't afford medical care. Faith Healers & Homeopathy are still cheaper than a doctor visit over here. And don't get me started on the number of folks I knew who saved antibiotics for the next time they got sick because it costs $200 bucks to have a doctor write the script...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This is why we need more science education by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I got a free bottle of essential oils. Figured I could spray it in the air as kind of a nice scent to have for a while, but no, don't do that, if you spray oil around, it will just attract dirt. So essential oils are not just useless, they are worse than useless.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:This is why we need more science education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't get me started on the number of folks I knew who saved antibiotics for the next time they got sick because it costs $200 bucks to have a doctor write the script..

      That's the recipe of the super resistant tuberculosis in Africa and Eurasia. Who knows what fun deceases could be made resistant next, in the new world!

    3. Re:This is why we need more science education by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the dirt was in the air before it got stuck to the oil, so you're breathing less dirt now.

    4. Re:This is why we need more science education by jbengt · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I've found some of my wife's essential oils make pretty good ant repellents, although the smells repel me somewhat, also.

  23. Re:When do we admit that hospitals are the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even if we make hospitals smaller and let people stay at home, there will still be places which have to be routinely sterilised, e.g. surgical operating rooms. At some point we will need to find methods to which it is impossible to develop resistance. We can possibly line everything with single use wraps which will later go to an incinerator. A wrap like this will protect the patient from contamination by the room, and the room from contamination by the patient.

    Captcha: tidiness

  24. vancomycin-resistant enterococci by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    And who do we have to blame for this state off affairs?

    Why the poultry industry of course who decided it was a good idea to use a last line human defense anti-biotic to reduce the gut bacteria of chickens so they would grow faster.

    So there is a consequences of us allowing these cunts to be cunts to the humble chicken.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re: vancomycin-resistant enterococci by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll take "things that never happened" for $590, Alex.

    2. Re: vancomycin-resistant enterococci by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      I'll take "things that never happened" for $590, Alex.

      Detection of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus Spp. (VRE) from Poultry

      Persistence of Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococci in New Zealand Broilers after Discontinuation of Avoparcin Use

      BENEFITS OF DIETARY ANTIBIOTIC AND MANNANOLIGOSACCHARIDE SUPPLEMENTATION FOR POULTRY which says: The specific vanA gene cluster that encodes for vancomycin resistance has been isolated from Enterococcus faecium in farm animals destined for human consumption (Bates et al., 1994; Klare et al., 1995).

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  25. Wash your hands by enrique556 · · Score: 1

    Looks like we're going to have to start washing our hands after we've been to the toilet. The number of people who don't do this is frightening. It's not just that your hand has touched your dick or your vag or whatever, it's that you're not washing your hands at all during the day, then preparing food or eating with your hands, or touching door handles that others have touched, or coughed into your hand, or let the dog lick your hand etc. People who don't wash their hands after going to the toilet should be treated the same as anti-vaxxers.

  26. No shit by Chewbacon · · Score: 2

    Infection control in about every hospital I've set foot in in the last 14 years will tell you hand sanitizer doesn't do shit for VRE - wash your hands.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  27. Alarmist nonsense by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Alcohol kills 99.9% of bacteria. “We found that the new isolates, post-2010, were 10 times more tolerant to alcohol exposure than the earlier isolates" is the quote they're using. So...that's still not enough to infect someone. now I know that 99.9% of a blanket rate for all bacteria combined but still, 1000x would be concerning, not 10x. Although this does seem incredibly odd. Alcohol has been used to kill bacteria for what,10,000 years for billions of humans? It's such basic cellular chemistry it's like saying bacteria are becoming resistant to 200 degree heat. It just simply cannot happen. Maybe by some fluke they're 10x more resistant but I seriously doubt that it will progress a whole lot further than that. It's not chemically possible. The materials that would make up the bacteria's cells would be SO different and SO exotic at that point, it probably wouldn't even be able to interact with a human body anymore.

    1. Re: Alarmist nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99.9% effective is terrible when you are dealing with billions of cells.

      Hell, even if your miracle "no kids" sperm force field stops 99.999% of sperm headed for the egg, she is getting pregnant.

    2. Re: Alarmist nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conception is an interesting statistical phenomena, like herd immunity. Below a concentration, pregnancy is pretty much impossible. It only takes the one, but it takes a whole group to get that one there. What's interesting is how non-linear it is. Just a small percent point difference between always and never.

    3. Re:Alarmist nonsense by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Alcohol is terrible at sterilizing things, decent at taking them down a few logs. You can use it to kill viruses, because they are fragile, but for bacteria the gold standard is bleach.

  28. Unexpected consequence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like an expected consequence.

  29. Re:When do we admit that hospitals are the problem by djinn6 · · Score: 1

    Agreed. I think eventually this will evolve into remote diagnoses and treatments. There's no need to physically interact with a patient if you can have a set of remotely controlled robotic arms do it instead.

  30. Deadly Romanian scandal by socheres · · Score: 2

    This reminds me of a big scandal in Romania involving a firm called Hexi Pharma who was the major distributor of dissinfectants to all .ro hospitals.

    They were found to dillute the cleaning substances so they sell more to the hospitals in the last 10 years or so.

    This of course coincides in time with the situation described in TFA. ...

  31. Just stop with the alcohol by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

    And watch them die from delerium tremens

  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. Re:When do we admit that hospitals are the problem by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

    I was thinking maybe it is time for a whole new strategy for managing infection. Trying to prevent 100% of infections is failing, as TFA illustrates. perhaps a different approach of allowing less dangerous infections in order to crowd out the resistant strains. Or somehow deliberately cultivating non-harmful strains. In how many other fields of endeavor do we manage a risk rather than uselessly strive to 100% prevent it? Also, hospitals are extremely hidebound organizations in my experience, thanks mainly to doctors who never leave adolescence and thus think they already know everything.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  34. Information for Millennial's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This news is nothing new and has been reported since at least the 1990's. Here is a report from 1997: https://www.journalofhospitali...

    Just wanted to make sure you don't run around thinking the sky is falling, I realize it can be difficult to separate reality from proclamations of the apocalypse.

  35. Copper and raw wood kill bacteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've wondered why the touch surfaces in hospitals aren't made from raw copper or raw wood. Even if they'd have to be replaced more frequently.

    Plastics & lacquered surfaces scratch easily & give bugs a place to hide during cleaning.

  36. Re:When do we admit that hospitals are the problem by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

    You're already crawling with bacteria: you can't colonize yourself with harmless bacteria to keep safe from the harmful ones... you are already colonized. The harmful strains can share the plasmids with the genes to cause illness with other strains, as well.