Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Friday January 31 2020, @09:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the kills-99.99%-of-zombie-viruses dept.

The maker of Purell hand sanitizers is washing away some unproven marketing claims that its products reduce school absenteeism and prevent infections from germs such as Ebola, norovirus, flu, and certain drug-resistant infections.

The marketing disinfection comes after the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning letter to Purell's parent company, GOJO Industries.

[...]Among the questionable claims are that Purell sanitizer:

  • "kills more than 99.99% of most common germs that may cause illness in a healthcare setting, including MRSA [methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus] & VRE [vancomycin-resistant enterococci]."
  • "can reduce student absenteeism by up to 51%... Additionally, teachers who follow this program also experience a 10% reduction of absenteeism."
  • "may be effective against viruses such as the Ebola virus, norovirus, and influenza."

[...]On an FAQ page, GOJO also says that "the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are recommending the use of alcohol-based hand sanitizer as a preventive measure for flu prevention."

But it should be noted that the WHO and the CDC emphasize hand washing as a primary method to prevent the spread of influenza (aside from vaccination). The CDC only recommends using hand sanitizer "if soap and water are not available."

[...]went on to say that GOJO has "begun updating relevant website and other digital content as directed by the FDA and are taking steps to prevent a recurrence."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/purells-unproven-disease-fighting-claims-get-sanitized-after-fda-warning/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Friday January 31 2020, @03:07PM

    by Immerman (3985) on Friday January 31 2020, @03:07PM (#951785)

    Indeed. Even worse, the rapidly replenished population of germs will all be descended from the 0,.01% of the original population that survived the first disinfection. And there's a pretty good chance that at least some of those survived because they were resistant to the disinfectant.

    So your newly replaced population will likely have inherited that resistance, and the next disinfection may only kill 99.9% of the population. Repeat the cycle a few times, and the disinfectant won't do much good at all.

    Hospitals the world over are being increasingly faced with that problem, except for the few that have banned disinfectants in favor of soap and water - which is at least as effective, and doesn't breed resistance against our most potent anti-microbial weapons for situations where soap and water aren't an option.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5