"Germs"

[blutoski]

The second priority they note is psychic counseling.

IMO an underappreciated problem. There are many risks, but part of it is that it includes bad medical advice, bad investment advice (I have an acquaintance who lost $60k in a real-estate scam that was facilitated by a psychic) and the sheer scale of the industry. The dollar-values are probably larger in the US than all other religions combined. That surprises some people. (eg: Madam Cleo was fined $500M, which is estimated to be less than 10% of her $5B scam - and that's just one operator). They are tied to organized crime, and sitters and mediums have been murdered. Read: The Psychic Mafia, by Keene, who has barely escaped several assassination attempts after speaking out against the industry. (and went missing, and is now assumed dead)

Criticism comes more from the old-style skeptics / magician side, who see it as a gateway mechanism for more advanced confidence games. The sitter is giving away a lot of personal information during these sessions.

Deserves another thread.

I can see lots of harm there but I think the article overlooks the harm in anti-science movements like objections to evolution theory and the article also misses one other key priority.

I provided the link as an example of 'prioritization,' but please don't interpret that as my personal agreement with the author's specific choices. Individuals are free to pursue any skeptical topic that their heart desires, but the skeptical movement might benefit from some focus.

One of the things I'm trying to figure out personally is whether skepticism should be doing anything anyway. There is already a lot of government bodies dedicated to fighting healthfraud. There is a NCSE working with the ACLU to fight religion/creation in the classroom. The Humanists, CFI, and American Atheists are promoting the merits of a non-religious life. Maybe all that's left over is ghosts/mediums, psi, and ufology.

I've had some conversations with Daniel Loxton, and I think skepticism is at a bit of a middle-aged crisis.

Again, though: this merits a new thread.

That is teaching critical thinking itself. The "teach a man to fish" philosophy is a high priority in my book.

I've always felt this was wishful thinking. There is evidence that the relationship between critical thinking and skeptical thinking is zero. That the relationship between critical thinking and scientific thinking is zero. That the relationship between critical thinking and scam avoidance is zero. This doesn't mean that I think it's a waste of time: just that I would prefer to allocate resources to teaching specific applications of critical thinking - scientific thinking, scam avoidance - instead.

Again: deserves another thread (I have started several but nobody seems interested).

But I am confused as to why antiseptics in OTC hand washing products would be a priority? They are not causing the worst antibiotic resistance, they are cheap, they are not very harmful, and they are not being substituted for something more effective. Perhaps you know of a hazard they are creating that I am unaware of?

Mostly, I think that any low-dose antibiotic in otc products is a long-term resistance threat, but the triclosan products have additional problems with e. coli and s. aureus adaptations that also make soap less effective - in particular I'm concerned about cMRSA. I won't go into the details in this thread.

 

[The Atheist]

I used to work in a coal mine, there were no toilets or hand washing facilities down there, if you needed to "take a dump", you'd find some out of the way place & do your business, wiping with whatever was at hand & no way of washing your hands afterwards. There was also no canteen or special eating place, you ate your sandwiches where you could get room to sit down, your hands would be black with coaldust & whatever was mixed with it. I have no allergies & rarely catch a cold/flu.

Yep, I've heard this kind of thing anecdotally from several people who work in lousy conditions. Dustmen, for instance, hardly ever get sick after being sick more or less constantly for the first six months.

I guess it also might have something to do with extreme physical fitness, which is usually a good inhibitor of disease.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

I've always felt this was wishful thinking. There is evidence that the relationship between critical thinking and skeptical thinking is zero. That the relationship between critical thinking and scientific thinking is zero. That the relationship between critical thinking and scam avoidance is zero. This doesn't mean that I think it's a waste of time: just that I would prefer to allocate resources to teaching specific applications of critical thinking - scientific thinking, scam avoidance - instead.

Again: deserves another thread (I have started several but nobody seems interested).

Maybe because no one agrees? Resurrect one and post a link and I'll elaborate.

...Mostly, I think that any low-dose antibiotic in otc products is a long-term resistance threat, but the triclosan products have additional problems with e. coli and s. aureus adaptations that also make soap less effective - in particular I'm concerned about cMRSA. I won't go into the details in this thread.

You are confusing an antibiotic, which kills organisms in an active infection (IE lots of cell division going on) and a disinfectant which decreases organisms on a surface that are not dividing as rapidly. Disinfectants are much slower at producing drug resistance. In the case of triclosan, while no overuse should be encouraged, it is not a big enough priority to be concerned about its use in OTC products, IMO.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I used to work in a coal mine, there were no toilets or hand washing facilities down there, if you needed to "take a dump", you'd find some out of the way place & do your business, wiping with whatever was at hand & no way of washing your hands afterwards. There was also no canteen or special eating place, you ate your sandwiches where you could get room to sit down, your hands would be black with coaldust & whatever was mixed with it. I have no allergies & rarely catch a cold/flu.

You've drawn some poor conclusions from this evidence.

A well person is not going to get sick from eating their own e-coli. That e-coli is already in your intestine!

A person with an infection spread via the fecal oral route transmits it to others, not to themselves.

I think the exposure to dirt decreasing allergies hypothesis has been prematurely adopted as valid. But I don't want to waste time on that side track right now. There is a role that early exposure to organisms has in allergies, but the picture is more complex than just concluding 'dirt' is the protective mechanism.

The anecdote, "I don't catch cold/flu often", is useless and needs to be cautioned against using to draw conclusions as to why that is. It leads to many more false conclusions about cause than it leads to true causal conclusions. I can assure you that eating your own fecal bacteria and breathing coal dust does not increase one's resistance to infection.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yep, I've heard this kind of thing anecdotally from several people who work in lousy conditions. Dustmen, for instance, hardly ever get sick after being sick more or less constantly for the first six months.

I guess it also might have something to do with extreme physical fitness, which is usually a good inhibitor of disease.

Again, exposure to garbage is unlikely to strengthen one's immune system but I would want to actually check the research on that before swearing by it. I'm surprised you would be drawing conclusions from this kind of uncontrolled anecdotal evidence, TA, after all your posts on the evidence in the case of effectiveness of disinfectants.

Re the coal dust in particular, Black Lung disease is a well known health hazard of coal miners.

Garbage Collectors

According to a University of Miami report, garbage collectors suffer the most injuries to their lower backs and are plagued with fractured feet, bruised knees, and torn hands from picking up so many cans as well. Another study conducted in Denmark indicates that garbage collectors are twice as likely to suffer from stomach problems than the general workforce, and they are also many more times likely to suffer allergies, infections, and respiratory problems. Because of such hazards, the number of workers compensation cases filed by garbage collectors in some areas is 7.4 times that of the general workforce, according to a Florida study.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The study in your first quote does not allow for the possibility that folks who use more HS would also wash hands more. A very likely possibility. And even the title states that they included more education towards increased hand washing.

Your second link is one that proves MY point, with the last sentence that is included :

"Furthermore, the availability of bedside alcohol-based solutions increases compliance with hand hygiene among health care workers."

So you still have not come up with anything to refute my idea that the main activity of HS stations is to remind people to wash hands more often, that HS accomplishes very little by directly killing anything.

But I'm still open. That second study hinted thart somebody kept track of 'hand hygiene' with the "increases compliance with hand hygiene among health care workers." But it was a meta study. Which of it's studies actually counted hand washings? That one in particular could prove that HS is ineffective.

The first study specifically correlated volume of hand sanitizer used with decrease in respiratory infection but not with GI infection. They speculated volume of GI illness was too low to detect a difference, but an alternative explanation is that the hand gels were less effective than handwashing for noroviruses which are the most common viral pathogen for GI illness. That suggests both intervention groups increased handwashing with soap and water since the control group did have more GI illness than the intervention group. If it were just hand washing, you would expect a smaller difference between control and intervention group since only some of the intervention group were aggressively responding to the material.

There are lots of possibilities here which is why you need to repeat research and have large sample sizes. I just think you are dismissing the evidence completely claiming handwashing was not taken into account. I think the researchers focused on the hand gels and perhaps that detail is just not explicit enough for you in the summary.

As for the statement, "increases compliance with hand hygiene among health care workers", you don't seem to understand what that means. It means instead of not washing hands between patients, health care workers used the gels. It does not mean that seeing a bottle of hand sanitizer in a patient room influenced the HCW to go find a sink.

 

[Lensman]

Yep, I've heard this kind of thing anecdotally from several people who work in lousy conditions. Dustmen, for instance, hardly ever get sick after being sick more or less constantly for the first six months.

I guess it also might have something to do with extreme physical fitness, which is usually a good inhibitor of disease.

ME! Physically fit? No-one who knows me would ever accuse me of that!

I was a colliery electrician, do you know why lightbulbs are so-called?
Because if they weren't, the sparkies (electricians) wouldn't carry them.

 

[The Atheist]

Again, exposure to garbage is unlikely to strengthen one's immune system but I would want to actually check the research on that before swearing by it. I'm surprised you would be drawing conclusions from this kind of uncontrolled anecdotal evidence, TA, after all your posts on the evidence in the case of effectiveness of disinfectants.

Jesus, woman, you have it bad! Some of the time, you come across as quite Larsen-like.

Where did I draw any conclusions? I was talking anecdotes and drew no conclusions apart from suggesting that high physical fitness might be involved.

There are lots of other reasons why it might be true (if it is), such as those who get sick a lot leave the job early on.

Sheesh. I don't mind defending my conclusions, but asking to defend ones I have made is a little bit off.

Lighten up.

 

[The Atheist]

... the sparkies ...

Oh, I know what sparkies are - I spend half my life recruiting the buggers.

That does explain everything, however - a Welsh sparky:

As we've been discussing, alcohol is pretty good at killing germs, especially given long exposure to it. What self-respecting germ is going to be able to live in a sparky's blood?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Jesus, woman, you have it bad! Some of the time, you come across as quite Larsen-like.

No way.

Where did I draw any conclusions? I was talking anecdotes and drew no conclusions apart from suggesting that high physical fitness might be involved.....

Lighten up.

Hey, your post sounded like an agreement with him, and it sounded like reinforcement of the common belief I fight a continual battle against:

"I got a flu shot, I got sick, the shot did it."
"I never get sick, I don't need a flu shot."

You may not realize I've spent from Sept to Dec every year for the last 17 years addressing this specific fallacious belief system. Yes, I am sensitive. But I think if you review your post, you may see that it sounds like you are agreeing, not that you are noting other non-causal coincidences.

If I misinterpreted your post, I apologize. But I can only see that in hindsight and after you point out you were not reinforcing Lens' claim.

Dustmen, for instance, hardly ever get sick ...I guess it also might have something to do with

That is hardly calling attention to a false attribution of causality to a coincidental occurrence.

 

[blutoski]

Maybe because no one agrees? Resurrect one and post a link and I'll elaborate..

The original thread was: [RFC: Endpoints and Metrics to compre Skeptical Approaches]. Nobody had to agree with me - I started with no recommendation of my own and was asking for people to make their best case.

It was largely in response to a rather frustrating observation that skeptics did not have a singular approach because nobody could prove that their approach worked at all, much less worked better than others. Lots of anecdotal evidence. However, I've decided upon re-reading it that it was too open a question, and only addresses critical thinking implicitly. The complete lack of interest among JREF fora members to identify best practices with actual data was disappointing, and part of the reason that I no longer consider online communities a place to undertake real skeptical projects.

Rather than bump that thread, I've chosen to continue this in a new one that is more focused: [critical thinking and skepticism].

 

[The Atheist]

Hey, your post sounded like an agreement with him, and it sounded like reinforcement of the common belief I fight a continual battle against:

"I got a flu shot, I got sick, the shot did it."
"I never get sick, I don't need a flu shot."

Hey, I had my flu shot two weeks ago!

Ok, I'll take part of the blame for maybe being not accurate enough, and I hear what you're saying about medical fallacies and their persistance.

Let's call it even.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No worries, it's easy to misread posts. You have to admit I at least recognized it was out of character for you.

Take back saying I'm anything like Claus, and all will be well.

But a flu shot 2 weeks ago? Are you in the southern hemisphere?

 

[soylent]

Is it preferable to also wash your hands before entering a public space where you are likely to come in contact with surfaces someone else will soon touch?

The rationale for doing this would be that it reduces the amount of potentially pathogenic organisms deposited on surfaces that others will come in contact with; if this is recognized as common courtesy and most people were to reciprocate, the amount of non-airborne germs deposited could reasonably be expected to decrease.

If harmless bacteria that normally inhabit your skin provide some protective effect against harmful bacteria this might not be a benefit at all.

Is the extra hassle not worth anything as long as you avoid contact with eyes, mouth, nose, genitals... before properly washing your hands?

/hijack

 

[The Atheist]

Take back saying I'm anything like Claus, and all will be well.

For sure - that was unfair.

But a flu shot 2 weeks ago? Are you in the southern hemisphere?

Yep. I was late going in - usually the start of April, but the weather's been warm and no influenza here yet.

Is it preferable to also wash your hands before entering a public space where you are likely to come in contact with surfaces someone else will soon touch?

The rationale for doing this would be that it reduces the amount of potentially pathogenic organisms deposited on surfaces that others will come in contact with; if this is recognized as common courtesy and most people were to reciprocate, the amount of non-airborne germs deposited could reasonably be expected to decrease.

I'd have to say that it's not something of great use - and none at all unless everyone did it, which is an extremely unlikely prospect. Aside from the obvious difficulties in washing hands every time you enter a public space, I think you'd have no skin left after a week. Also, lots of germs are spread by means other than hand contact, so it's not likely to work very well as far as I can see.

Is the extra hassle not worth anything as long as you avoid contact with eyes, mouth, nose, genitals... before properly washing your hands?

/hijack

Bingo!

That's how those bugs love to travel. However, I don't think you're likely to get many diseases by touching your genitals, so you're safe on that one! Mouth & nose are the main gateways.

 

[Naughtyhippo]

Grandparent's generation! You young whippersnapper that was the toilet paper used in my schools until the 80s!

And into the 90s..... Once, we ran out of tracing paper and the teacher made us use the loo roll!

 

[jimbob]

Grandparent's generation! You young whippersnapper that was the toilet paper used in my schools until the 80s!

And into the 90s..... Once, we ran out of tracing paper and the teacher made us use the loo roll!

And I bet you never saw it anywhere outside school... That was what I meant by grandparent's generation; I knew several people opf that era, who had it in their homes (gulp)

 

[casebro]

The first study specifically correlated volume of hand sanitizer used with decrease in respiratory infection but not with GI infection. They speculated volume of GI illness was too low to detect a difference, but an alternative explanation is that the hand gels were less effective than handwashing for noroviruses which are the most common viral pathogen for GI illness. That suggests both intervention groups increased handwashing with soap and water since the control group did have more GI illness than the intervention group. If it were just hand washing, you would expect a smaller difference between control and intervention group since only some of the intervention group were aggressively responding to the material.

There are lots of possibilities here which is why you need to repeat research and have large sample sizes. I just think you are dismissing the evidence completely claiming handwashing was not taken into account. I think the researchers focused on the hand gels and perhaps that detail is just not explicit enough for you in the summary.

As for the statement, "increases compliance with hand hygiene among health care workers", you don't seem to understand what that means. It means instead of not washing hands between patients, health care workers used the gels. It does not mean that seeing a bottle of hand sanitizer in a patient room influenced the HCW to go find a sink.

So inhaling more alcohol fumes cuts down on respiratory infections?

No, I believe that dividing the HS users into two groups is a selection bias. Those who chose to use more HS probably also chose to increase other good hygiene practices, thus also cutting down on respiratory illnesses. The higher usage may indicate more quantity per use, rather than more incidents of usage.

Aren't you making the assumption that using HS was counted as an 'increase in compliance' ? I assumed that "increases compliance with hand hygiene" referred to an older standard of hygiene which would NOT have included HS, therefor, there was a concomitant increase in hand washings. The increase in hand washing negates the whole study.

But don't we both seem to agree that more in depth studies are required before any benefit is proven?

 

[luchog]

Regardless of their efficacy, or lack thereof, for common human infections; I've found the alcohol gels to be quite useful when working with reptiles. The majority of diseases easily passed between herps, or from herps to humans, are caused bacterial and fungal pathogens, and microparasites. Salmonella being the most common. The alcohol gels do quite a good job at curtailing transmission of those.

Of course, it doesn't do anything for the really nasty viral diseases with airborne vectors, like IBD; so quarantining is still a crucially important practice.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So inhaling more alcohol fumes cuts down on respiratory infections?

No, I believe that dividing the HS users into two groups is a selection bias. Those who chose to use more HS probably also chose to increase other good hygiene practices, thus also cutting down on respiratory illnesses. The higher usage may indicate more quantity per use, rather than more incidents of usage.

Aren't you making the assumption that using HS was counted as an 'increase in compliance' ? I assumed that "increases compliance with hand hygiene" referred to an older standard of hygiene which would NOT have included HS, therefor, there was a concomitant increase in hand washings. The increase in hand washing negates the whole study.

But don't we both seem to agree that more in depth studies are required before any benefit is proven?

I try not to draw conclusions from any single study, that isn't scientific. And there have been some studies recently showing no change in infection rates in ICUs using the hand sanitizers. So we need a lot more research.

But I do think however, these studies were seeing the effect of hand sanitizers and not merely confounding variables.