What happened to this commercial?

To be honest I don’t know what happened to it, perhaps it wasn’t getting much viewership.

Interestingly, you SHOULD NOT use antibacterial soap.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/09/health/09essa.html?_r=1&ex=1257742800&en=0e93bdabccb3e84f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt

It went the same place as all the “OMG, I smoked some weed and it ruined my health, my family, I was expelled, and Jesus killed all the kittens” commercials – False Advertising Limbo

@grumpyfish: I read the article. Why shouldn’t you use antibacterial soap?

@Seek_Kolinahr : ”... and Jesus killed all the kittens” lol lurve

@grumpyfish, no, one kitten remained alive – but he’s scared shitless! He’s gotten himself security in case there’s another attack.

I just died from cuteness

Oops. I meant you, @Seek_Kolinahr! Yeah, I turned into goo myself when I saw it.

@malevolentbutticklish The actual concern is this: triclosan (the antibacterial agent in these soaps) kills 99.9% of bacteria in lab tests. It actually takes about 10 minutes to do this, so unless you’re letting it soak for 10 minutes, you’re not getting the full effect.

However, it’s not killing 0.1% of the bacteria, which just continues to reproduce until it’s pretty much the only bacteria you have around. The good news is that apparently because triclosan is a biocide and not an antibiotic, it tends to not create much of a reistance trend (e.g., bacteria not otherwise resistant aren’t likely to become resistant)

A study was done (don’t have a link, sorry!) that showed that bacterial counts on hands has more to do with washing time than whether or not the soap is antibacterial or not. Soap is quite effective at washing bacteria off your hands.

The bigger problem is that we’re dumping triclosan into our wastewater, where it can be degraded into dioxins which are just nasty things.

”
3.2 Plain (Non-Antimicrobial) Soap

Soaps are detergent-based products that contain esterified fatty acids and sodium or potassium hydroxide. They are available in various forms including bar soap, tissue, leaflet, and liquid preparations. Their cleaning activity can be attributed to their detergent properties, which result in removal of dirt, soil, and various organic substances from the hands. Plain soaps have minimal, if any, antimicrobial activity. However, handwashing with plain soap can remove loosely adherent transient flora. For example, handwashing with plain soap and water for 15 seconds reduces bacterial counts on the skin by 0.6—1.1 log10, whereas washing for 30 seconds reduces counts by 1.8—2.8 log10. However, in several studies, handwashing with plain soap failed to remove pathogens from the hands of hospital personnel. Handwashing with plain soap can result in paradoxical increases in bacterial counts on the skin. Non-antimicrobial soaps may be associated with considerable skin irritation and dryness, although adding emollients to soap preparations may reduce their propensity to cause irritation. Occasionally, plain soaps have become contaminated, which may lead to colonization of hands of personnel with gram-negative bacilli.
”
http://www.learnwell.org/handhygiene.htm (which in turn sites the CDC)

@malevolentbutticklish I see your article (which is indeed interesting!), and I raise you the study I mentioned above:

http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20070817/plain-soap-as-good-as-antibacterial

SOURCES: Aiello, A.E. Clinical Infectious Diseases, August 2007; online edition. Allison Aiello, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology, Center for Society Epidemiology and Population Health, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor. Brian Sansoni, spokesman, Soap and Detergent Association. WebMD Medical News: “FDA Panel: No Advantage to Antibacterial Soaps.”

From the CDC article linked to by that article:
“The preferred method for hand hygiene depends on the type of procedure, the degree of contamination, and the desired persistence of antimicrobial action on the skin (Table 2). For routine dental examinations and nonsurgical procedures, handwashing and hand antisepsis is achieved by using either a plain or antimicrobial soap and water. If the hands are not visibly soiled, an alcohol-based hand rub is adequate.

The purpose of surgical hand antisepsis is to eliminate transient flora and reduce resident flora for the duration of a procedure to prevent introduction of organisms in the operative wound, if gloves become punctured or torn. Skin bacteria can rapidly multiply under surgical gloves if hands are washed with soap that is not antimicrobial (127,128). Thus, an antimicrobial soap or alcohol hand rub with persistent activity should be used before surgical procedures (129—131).

Agents used for surgical hand antisepsis should substantially reduce microorganisms on intact skin, contain a nonirritating antimicrobial preparation, have a broad spectrum of activity, be fast-acting, and have a persistent effect (121,132—135). Persistence (i.e., extended antimicrobial activity that prevents or inhibits survival of microorganisms after the product is applied) is critical because microorganisms can colonize on hands in the moist environment underneath gloves (122).”

The rest of the article says nothing about the use of antibacterial soaps over regular soap. Anyways, would love to see a cite for the “several studies” above. Not that I doubt them, but I’m curious!

Thanks for the rebuttal =)

@grumpyfish: When it says they are good enough for “generally healthy people” or “nonsurgical” this means they aren’t as good after all. Maybe grandma comes to visit and when she gets sick someone points to the study and says she isn’t a “generally healthy” person. Are you going to stock two products and break out the good soap for grandma?

@malevolentbutticklish GA =)