to think how your armpits smell isn't as important as whether your children will survive operations in the future?

[IceBeing]

Just seen a sidebar advert for antibacterial deodorant. Seriously, is antibiotic resistance happening in a parallel universe to the cosmetics industry?

I am sure it will all be wonderful fun to use their new product instead of just washing etc. but killing 90% of the bacteria is just focussing the minds of the 10% on how to evade destruction. When our children and grandchildren are in fear of their lives from superbugs every time they require routine surgery, we are not going to look back kindly on this kind of 'innovation'.

What counts as clinical need? Vomiting at the stench of someone's uncontrolled BO? I don't want or need silver in my deodorant, but then most deodorants don't contain it, anyway. So - are you or are you not arguing against anything whatsoever that may have antibacterial qualities being put on your armpits?! Is the only acceptable thing to do to wash the bacteria off your skin whilst making sure none of the little buggers die on the way down the drain? Because I'm quite sure that not every active ingredient in deodorant is essential to clinical medicine... And you therefore sound hysterical, because if the only thing upsetting you is the use of silver, you should say so. If it's the use of the words antibacterial, as if it is a new thing for deodorants to have antibacterial properties, then you should specify that. But what you actually argued at the beginning and never really pedalled back from, is that people shouldn't use deodorant at all, because smelly armpits are better than dead children...

What I still want to know is if they were inherently antibacterial before marketed as.

I've been reading about the "super bug" since 1991. I was 8 years old. My daughter is now 8 years old. No superbug yet. Our civilisation is due a purge. If this is the way it happens, then so be it. This is why I never sterilised my kid's bottles, never bathe them everyday and let them occasionally pick stuff off the floor and eat it. We need to toughen up our immune systems for when the purging begins so we can fight through it. 😁👍🏽😏

The biggest risk with alcohol is that people think it's the very presence of alcohol that rids bacteria from a surface, when in fact it's the mechanism of the alcohol drying which dessicates the cell membrane of bacteria and kills it. So any practitioner who wipes a patient's skin with alcohol then inserts a needle will still be inserting a needle in a contaminated field unless they wait at least 30 seconds for the alcohol to dry.

I'm not arguing people shouldn't use deodorant (and have actually said as much upthread)

I am arguing that it is unecssary to add important antimicrobials (such as silver) to deodorant (and linked to one such deodorant upthread) for normal healthy people and that this may contribute to antibiotic resistance and therefore said the op was not being unreasonable. I never once mentioned dead children

I'm not sure how I am coming across as hysterical or how I could have made myself any clearer tbh

I think I am going to bow out now as I'm derailing the thread

? You aren't the OP, Whyisshe, so what makes you think I was addressing my comments to you?!

To be fair, antibiotic resistance is a real problem. We now have VRE (Vancomycin Resistant Enterococcus) which we screen for routinely alongside MRSA. Vancomycin is one of the antibiotics that tend to be reserved for 'last resort' so it's worrying that we have resistance developing.

Oh I am sorry roundabouttown you quoted a bit of my previous post so I assumed the rest was addressed to me.

I'll be quiet now 😂

Fwiw, I agree with you, Whyisshe. I just disagree with the way the OP made her case - deodorants are not a good one to pick on, as they contained antimicrobial products already, before they started advertising themselves specifically as such and before any of them started sneaking silver or triclosan into their ingredient list. Soap just doesn't cut it for armpits, though - it doesn't reduce sweat and it's really hard to access your armpits for rewashing several times a day in the way you can with hands. And Chanel No. 5 doesn't quite cut it on its own, either. So the OP either needs to be more clear precisely which ingredients upset her, or confirm that she hates all deodorants and antiperspirants and thinks that use of aluminium salts, for example, are a cause of increased speed of development of resistance of bacteria to antibiotics in the medical world... And maybe baking soda is also evil incarnate too, as I believe it has antibacterial properties?...

I wash cuts and grazes in (the brown bottle) Dettol anticeptic. It stops them getting infected, I know because if they have started to get sore a good soak in Dettoly water sorts them out. Yes, it kills bacteria. Is this a problem?

If they get infected I'd have to visit the doctor who would prescribe an antibiotic...(or ultimately amputate!)

Abstract from Am. J. Infection Control.
Current scientific evidence has not shown that a link exists between the use of topical antimicrobial formulations and antiseptic or antibiotic resistance. As a result of the extensive history and varied use of antiseptic products and ingredients, any selective pressure for antibiotic resistance that may be occurring or may be uncovered in the future because of antiseptic use would be expected to be insignificant compared with the selective pressure because of antibiotic use. This review illustrates the effectiveness of topical antimicrobial wash products against antibiotic-resistant and antiseptic-resistant bacteria in use settings as well as the studies performed (antiseptic, deodorant, and oral care) demonstrating the lack of development of resistance in long-term clinical studies. Although these studies illustrate that the use of topical antimicrobial products have not been shown to play a role in the fluctuations of the specific composition or resistance of the skin flora, changes in skin flora have been shown to occur. Based on current knowledge, the benefit from use of topical antimicrobial wash products in combination with standard infection control and personal hygiene practices far outweighs the risk of increased antibiotic resistance.

That paper is from 1999, though, emin. So 'current' has to be interpreted as meaning 'nearly 20 years ago'. Several of the papers cited on this thread talking about a link are more recent.

I've got one from 2011 saying the same thing, but it's not open access.

So what we have, then, as a PP said is a degree of scientific uncertainty, no?

gray
Given people said the following to me For someone who works in drug development, you're making some whopping fundamental mistakes than an A level Biology student could ride a yak through. I think I was entitled to point out that A level biology isn't a sensible benchmark for scientific accuracy in response.

I got called all sort of names...some of which have been deleted now.

But yeah lets focus on whether I was being rude and totally ignore the provocation eh?

In my opinion, the use of anti-PERSPIRANTS is more worrying. Blocking up one's pores so the sweat can't get out can't be good. Of course, the industry have always assured us that the sweat will just escape out of other parts of our skin so no problem, despite the fact that anti-perspirant ingredients have been found in breast cancer tissue. Surely a bit of tea tree oil in the armpits (as long as one's not too sensitive to it) is one solution. There are lots of other natural alternatives, maybe not quite as effective as chemical deodorants but perfectly adequate for most people. That, and washing often!

badoll - that is an entirely unrelated issue, for which there is no scientific backup. "Natural ingredients" like tea tree oil are also, in any event, chemicals. Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral. That definitely isn't good for us, however natural.

Unrelated?? We've been discussing deodorants, haven't we? I merely mentioned the aspect about deodorants which I worry more about than the anti-bac angle. As for there being no evidence, there most certainly is more than enough empirical evidence to make one very worried. For example, apparently women who use antiperspirants develop breast cancer earlier than others. Best to do a quick check online before stating there's no evidence. The establishment may tell us there's none, but there is - if you look. Evidence is never a cut and dried affair - it's viewed differently by different people. Do you think it might be good to be exposed to parabens?

Most people would not think of tea tree oil in the same breath as asbestosis either. Do you think they are of equal danger then??!

I meant "asbestos", not asbestosis (damn the spell checker).

Checking the Internet, they have not found a connection between breast cancer and antiperspirant use...

That's not to say I don't have a huge personal suspicion of antiperspirants, hair dyes, hairsprays, shower gels, face creams, make up, perfume, cleaning products, etc, just that science doesn't always choose to back up my suspicion that all of these things could potentially be bad for me.

As for asbestos and tea tree oil... My point was, just because something is a "natural product", that doesn't automatically mean it is safer or better than something that is not described as "natural." As for tea tree oil specifically, it is toxic if taken internally and scientifically speaking, there is a lack of knowledge of its safety or effectiveness. As with anything, it can definitely cause adverse reactions in some people, even if only put on the skin in diluted form, but most people seem to be OK with it. A bit like antiperspirants.

I haven't rtft so forgive me but, I'm totally confused. Haven't deodorants been antibacterial since... well since I started using them. My understanding is that the anti perspirant bit works on blocking the sweat glands, that when you sweat it is odorless until bacteria grows in it, so another function of deodorant is to prevent the growth of these bacteria, and finally the deodorant is usually fragranced to cover the smell of any bacteria that have managed to grow in any sweat that's been able to be formed.

If this is how things have always been with deodorants, why the fear now?

I agree that natural products are often as toxic/carcinogenic as their synthetic counterparts.

Of course there is a natural antibac way to deal with armpit bacteria that has zero consequences for resistance and zero cancer impact also.

It's called hair. The job of the hair in your armpits is to wick the sweat (food) away from your skin (home of the bacteria) so that bacteria don't proliferate, eat the sweat and produce the bad smell.

It is incredible to me that we allow the cosmetics industry to strip us of this perfectly natural harmless method of controlling both the bacteria and the smell and replaced it with a method that may well be linked to health impacts both on the individual and also on the population as a whole, and which certainly IS linked to serious environmental impacts.