Gargaling as a way to prevent/minimize the flu

[portlandatheist]

I received a chain email about ways to prevent the H1N1 flu
Here is the urban legends page about the chain letter (http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/medical/a/dr_vinay_goyal_swine_flu.htm) with status "investigating"

It has the usual suggestions: wash your hands, keep your hands off your face but these two suggestions I found interesting/questionable:

3. *Gargle twice a day with warm salt water (use Listerine if you don't trust salt)... *H1N1 takes 2-3 days after initial infection in the throat/ nasal cavity to proliferate and show characteristic symptoms. Simple gargling prevents proliferation. In a way, gargling with salt water has the same effect on a healthy individual that Tamiflu has on an infected o ne. Don't underestimate this simple, inexpensive and powerful preventative method.

4. Similar to 3 above, *clean your nostrils at least once every day with warm salt water. *Not everybody may be good at Jala Neti or Sutra Neti (very good Yoga asanas to clean nasal cavities), but *blowing the nose hard once a day and swabbing both nostrils with cotton buds dipped in warm salt water is very effective in bringing down viral population.*

For the sake of argument, lets say you were exposed to the flu/cold and practices the above. Could this do any of the following?:
1. Completely prevent you from getting sick
2. Postpone getting sick and lessening the severity of the illness
3. Postpone getting sick without lessening the severity of the illness
4. Neither postpone or lessen the severity of the illness.

I do not know but it does sound like it could be at least plausible. Here is a webmd article which sounds very inconclusive:
http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/news/20051020/does-gargling-with-water-prevent-colds
Besides the webmd article, there are tons of woo sites promoting this idea when googling for "gargling flu".

[Lukraak_Sisser]

From personal experience, gargling with (Hot) salt water is capable of at least limiting throat ache/infection, which is usually one of the side symptoms of flu as your immune system is busy with other things.
By saturating your troat with high salt you basically give the infecting bacteria a heavy shock which slows growth and in combination with light antibiotics (say strepsils) generally can slow/stop said infection.

It's vile, and you need to not drink for at least 15 mins or so to get some effect, and repeat it a few times a day, but for me at least it lessens my throatache during a cold/flu.

It does sod all to the actual flu virus which is happily multiplying inside your body and doesn't care in the slightest what you do to your throat. It is possible to kill a virus with enough salt, but you'd either have to catch it JUST as its entering your body, or inject the salt into your blood, which would kill you a lot quicker.

No clue if the second method is in any way useful, but again I suspect its battling symptoms, not the disease

[edd]

You get antibiotics in your strepsils?

[casebro]

"Snuffling" washes dirt out of your nose. I do it in the shower, actually drinking water through my nose. Good to do after vomiting, washes the residue out. Washes thre nasal cavity, but NOT the other sinuses, which get the viruses too.

But I think gargling has been shown to be inconsequential so far as preventing infections, and is only palliative for current problems.

I suspect both procedures wash the germs downwards. Are esophogusses and stomachs immune to viruses?

[Darth Rotor]

"Snuffling" washes dirt out of your nose. I do it in the shower, actually drinking water through my nose. Good to do after vomiting, washes the residue out. Washes thre nasal cavity, but NOT the other sinuses, which get the viruses too.

But I think gargling has been shown to be inconsequential so far as preventing infections, and is only palliative for current problems.

I suspect both procedures wash the germs downwards. Are esophogusses and stomachs immune to viruses?
*Gollum voice*

Stomachs has acid, Precious.

My wife is a practicing dental hygenist. She has brought home the long cotton swabs, and insists that my son and I swab the nose and gargle with warm salt water each evening. Her office is pretty up on the whole worry about infectiouos diseases thing, being involved in dentistry and all that.

So, what I do is: swab and gargle. It may help something, but I don't think it is a substitute for a vaccine. Basic good preventative health practice? Maybe so, for lower order issues.

DR

[Capsid]

*Gollum voice*

Stomachs has acid, Precious.
The live polio virus vaccine gets through the stomach acid and emerges fully infectious at the other end. There are probably others; measles?

[portlandatheist]

From personal experience, gargling with (Hot) salt water is capable of at least limiting throat ache/infection, which is usually one of the side symptoms of flu as your immune system is busy with other things.
By saturating your troat with high salt you basically give the infecting bacteria a heavy shock which slows growth and in combination with light antibiotics (say strepsils) generally can slow/stop said infection.

It's vile, and you need to not drink for at least 15 mins or so to get some effect, and repeat it a few times a day, but for me at least it lessens my throatache during a cold/flu.

It does sod all to the actual flu virus which is happily multiplying inside your body and doesn't care in the slightest what you do to your throat. It is possible to kill a virus with enough salt, but you'd either have to catch it JUST as its entering your body, or inject the salt into your blood, which would kill you a lot quicker.

No clue if the second method is in any way useful, but again I suspect its battling symptoms, not the disease

Since influenza needs living cells to replicate, it sounds like the only thing this would be doing is preventing secondary infections from organisms that can live in the throat and sinus that are not dependent on cells for replication and that this would relieve symptoms. It also may lighten the load on an already busy immune system.
The only mechanism of action I can think of is if gargling removes some surface cells at the early stages of a infection and therefore slowing down the replication rate of the virus before it becomes established elsewhere in the body. Once the virus gets in the blood, lungs or other tissue, all bets are off.
In theoretical terms, if you could substantially change the incubation period of the virus(very questionable), would doing so have any effect on the severity of the illness once it was established?

[casebro]

The live polio virus vaccine gets through the stomach acid and emerges fully infectious at the other end. There are probably others; measles?

Viruses in general?

If stomach acid is so bad for germs, we would never catch anything via ingestion. Anybody who has ever had food poisoning knows that just ain't so.

[Dymanic]

I heard about the gargling thing. I seriously doubt if it does much good, but, I mean, what the heck. Might cut down on halitosis, anyway. I hate that. The one thing I see as having the best chance of doing some good is a vaccine against the virus. Too bad I can't find one (*gargle gargle*).

[Dymanic]

On second thought, having really bad breath might be a good way to get people to keep their distance. I know: gargle, but don't bathe. That ought to do it.

[alfaniner]

To make sure that you completely sterilize your throat, a shot or two of flavored vodka might do the trick!

[Skeptic Ginger]

From personal experience, gargling with (Hot) salt water is capable of at least limiting throat ache/infection,....Oh fer crying out loud. Get a clue, try science for a change instead of superstitious nonsense like this.

It works for you. Right, as if that was a valid conclusion. :rolleyes:

[arthwollipot]

Wait - "Use Listerine if you don't trust salt"???

They're suggesting you use a chemical instead of natural salt?

[Skeptic Ginger]

*Gollum voice*

Stomachs has acid, Precious.

My wife is a practicing dental hygenist. She has brought home the long cotton swabs, and insists that my son and I swab the nose and gargle with warm salt water each evening. Her office is pretty up on the whole worry about infectiouos diseases thing, being involved in dentistry and all that.

So, what I do is: swab and gargle. It may help something, but I don't think it is a substitute for a vaccine. Basic good preventative health practice? Maybe so, for lower order issues.

DRYou too? Does the little woman have any evidence whatsoever to support this ritual?

There was a single study a few weeks ago reported in the news with the usual fanfare, "we now know".

Puleeese!

I'm more than willing to read any research anyone wants to present on this matter. Let's hear it. If there is anything to this, at least show us the science. Anything less than that is superstition.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The live polio virus vaccine gets through the stomach acid and emerges fully infectious at the other end. There are probably others; measles?H Pylori thrives in the stomach acid.

The stomach acids are indeed one of the things preventing many GI infections, however, upper respiratory infections don't go through the GI tract. They infect people via the cells in the pharynx.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wait - "Use Listerine if you don't trust salt"???

They're suggesting you use a chemical instead of natural salt?Right. And Listerine kills so many germs it lists alcohol as an INACTIVE ingredient. Check out the label next time you're in the grocery or drug store. Notice how inactive ingredients is buried in the middle of the paragraph which starts out with the label, "active ingredients."

They've added fluoride to Listerine as that is the only way they were allowed to continue their claims Listerine had any impact whatsoever on dental carries.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Oh fer crying out loud. Get a clue, try science for a change instead of superstitious nonsense like this.

It works for you. Right, as if that was a valid conclusion. :rolleyes:

That's a rather hostile note, for something that's not that far out of the realm of possibility. I've seen plenty of evidence for salt water gargles for throat pain and swelling, tooth pain, and thrush. For thrush, the salt water gargle is commonly prescribed alongside antifungal lozenges and such, especially in immunosuppressed patients. I see this as a comfort measure. It's going to help reduce swelling, reduce pain, and wash away secretions. Will it work to prevent viral infections? Not likely. Will it help the sore swollen throat? Much more likely. Does it deserve a snarky comment? Apparently...

A

[portlandatheist]

Oh fer crying out loud. Get a clue, try science for a change instead of superstitious nonsense like this.

It works for you. Right, as if that was a valid conclusion. :rolleyes:

Why wouldn't rinsing with salt water help to reduce an infection or preventing secondary infections? Sure, it may do nothing specifically for the flu, but could prevent other germs from becoming established. I hear also that salt water reduces swelling of the gums.

[portlandatheist]

To make sure that you completely sterilize your throat, a shot or two of flavored vodka might do the trick!

I think that's worth some experimentation! Lets start immediately!

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Actually I *use* science using that to stop throat infections

Look up Osmoshock, Heatshock.
throat infections are just standard skin bacteria, they cannot handle high salt and temperature, so it slows them down, or might even kill them.
And yes strepsils do contain antibiotics (Amylmetacresol, 2,4-Dichlorobenzyl alcohol, sometimes Hexylresorcinol as well.) As does most standard toothpaste (Triclosan).
And Alcohol is also a very efficient way of killing bacteria, hence the old trick of grog.

Do bear in mind that all these things are only partially effective as keeping your throat in fully disinfective conditions for long enough is pretty impossible, but they can slow things down.

As I said in my original post, this has no effect at all on the actual flu virus. Anti viral drugs or a vaccination are the only ways to affect/prevent that. Or living in a sterile bubble I guess

[Capsid]

Actually I *use* science using that to stop throat infections

Look up Osmoshock, Heatshock.
throat infections are just standard skin bacteria, they cannot handle high salt and temperature, so it slows them down, or might even kill them.
And yes strepsils do contain antibiotics (Amylmetacresol, 2,4-Dichlorobenzyl alcohol, sometimes Hexylresorcinol as well.) As does most standard toothpaste (Triclosan).
And Alcohol is also a very efficient way of killing bacteria, hence the old trick of grog.

Do bear in mind that all these things are only partially effective as keeping your throat in fully disinfective conditions for long enough is pretty impossible, but they can slow things down.

As I said in my original post, this has no effect at all on the actual flu virus. Anti viral drugs or a vaccination are the only ways to affect/prevent that. Or living in a sterile bubble I guessYou are confusing antiseptics with antibiotics.

[Capsid]

Viruses in general?

If stomach acid is so bad for germs, we would never catch anything via ingestion. Anybody who has ever had food poisoning knows that just ain't so.No not all viruses. Viruses are specific as to which cells they infect and need to use a specific receptor to gain entry.

Bacteria are a different case altogether, most are extracellular pathogens.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

You are confusing antiseptics with antibiotics.

Fair enough, I always considered anything chemical that kills off or slows microorganisms an antibiotic, but I realize that this is not the official english definition of the word.

Doesn't change the reason of the method though. Anti-septics still stop bacterial growth, which is the cause of throatache.
In fact, in the wiki page high-salt solutions are also considered an antiseptic

[edd]

Yup, the reason it surprised me is that in the UK antibiotics are essentially prescription only. I'm aware of some related things in other countries where things aren't quite the same, so I was wondering if strepsils were actually different somewhere else.

Plus I'd largely forgotten strepsils had antiseptics in. :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Actually I *use* science using that to stop throat infections

Look up Osmoshock, Heatshock.
throat infections are just standard skin bacteria, they cannot handle high salt and temperature, so it slows them down, or might even kill them.
And yes strepsils do contain antibiotics (Amylmetacresol, 2,4-Dichlorobenzyl alcohol, sometimes Hexylresorcinol as well.) As does most standard toothpaste (Triclosan).
And Alcohol is also a very efficient way of killing bacteria, hence the old trick of grog.

Do bear in mind that all these things are only partially effective as keeping your throat in fully disinfective conditions for long enough is pretty impossible, but they can slow things down.

As I said in my original post, this has no effect at all on the actual flu virus. Anti viral drugs or a vaccination are the only ways to affect/prevent that. Or living in a sterile bubble I guessThe idea is to cite actual research, not tell people to look something up when a person makes a claim.

Yes, I was snarky. I would think by now in this forum most people would recognize personal anecdotes like these are utterly meaningless for anything except forming hypotheses which must then be tested.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Fair enough. I'll see if I can test it tomorrow. The lab I work in is pretty empty, so I might be able to sneak in a side experiment.
IF I manage that, I'll post a detailed protocol and its results on friday (assuming the bacteria grow, but its strep. aur. so it shouldnt really be a problem)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not sure what kind of study design you are planning there, Luk., but it wouldn't support the hypothesis just to show a decrease in surface bacteria after gargling. That doesn't translate into a conclusion illness would be prevented or abated with gargling.

Infections are dose related. Many only require a few organisms. And for viruses, once they enter the cells they infect, rinsing the surfaces of those cells would have little effect. For bacteria, one cannot wash away an infection. It doesn't work that way.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

As I've said several times in my previous posts. I've never in any way claimed that this method helps against the actual viral infection. Only that its a way to lessen the severity of the secondary bacterial throat infection that generally arises as a result.

Nor do I claim it washes away the infection, but rather that by subjecting the bacteria on the surface to a series of antiseptic measures (heat/high salt/fluorides/antiseptic chemical) in short order after each other you kill part of it, while severely lessening the growth rate of the rest for a while, giving your immune system a better shot at dealing with the infection.

The test is relatively simple. I'll subject the most likely infecteous organism (mouth bacteria) to either a mock or a series of the treatments with the methods used, then deterimine how much (if at all) these treatments lessen their ability to survive.

[Eos of the Eons]

I get frequent sinusitis caused by bacteria. My doctor told me to start snorting saline a couple of times a day to help clear it up. I make my own... 1/2 teaspoon salt to one cup of water. I did it constantly for months once, and it didn't really prevent any infections. I still got a rhino virus, and it did nothing against that. Viruses get INSIDE your cells, where it won't matter so much what you gargle or snort.

[Skeptic Ginger]

As I've said several times in my previous posts. I've never in any way claimed that this method helps against the actual viral infection. Only that its a way to lessen the severity of the secondary bacterial throat infection that generally arises as a result.But you've presented no evidence to support this claim and from what it sounds like you are planning to do to test the hypothesis, your test plan is flawed. You have to show a decrease in infection, not a decrease in temporary bacterial counts.

Nor do I claim it washes away the infection, but rather that by subjecting the bacteria on the surface to a series of antiseptic measures (heat/high salt/fluorides/antiseptic chemical) in short order after each other you kill part of it, while severely lessening the growth rate of the rest for a while, giving your immune system a better shot at dealing with the infection.

The test is relatively simple. I'll subject the most likely infecteous organism (mouth bacteria) to either a mock or a series of the treatments with the methods used, then deterimine how much (if at all) these treatments lessen their ability to survive.Why would something which kills a bacteria not also kill one's throat cells? You could be inviting a secondary infection rather than preventing one.

Listerine supposedly kills oral bacteria yet they have failed repeatedly to demonstrate that translates into less infections.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Good gods, patience :) It takes time to grow things.

Right, here is the protocol I used:
I harvested bacterial cells from my mouth and resuspended them in sterile water (200 ul (microliter). I then split this into two equal portions, the test and the negative control.
The test cells were subjected to the following three treatments in succession
1: 2.5% NaCl solution at 50C for 30 seconds followed by 1 minute 37C. The cells were spun down at 13000 g and supernatant removed.
THis simulates the hottest solution I can sort of gargle without hurting myself and the fact that swallowing eventually removes most of the salt
2: I resuspended 40 ul toothpaste (Colgate total protection) in 1 ml of water and treated the cells with 200 ul of this suspension for 1 minute to simulate gargling with toothpaste. Cells were spun again and supernatant was removed.
3: I dissolved 1/10 of a strepsil (cherry flavor, normal) in 1 ml of water and exposed the cells to 200 ul of this solution for 5 minutes, to simulate eating a strepsil. the cells were spun down again and resuspended in 100 ul water.
They were not washed in between as when I do this to battle a throat ache I do not drink in between to maximize cell exposure to the various antiseptics.
The negative control was spun down at the same times, but otherwise just treated with sterile water at room temperature.
The suspensions were then diluted in a serial dilution (10X to 100000X) and plated out on YES plates (5 g/L yeast extract, 30 g/L glucose and 50 mg/L each of adenine, histidine, leucine, uracil and lysine. 2.5% agar) and incubated at 37C overnight.

On the negative control plates two distinctly different colony types appeared. One forms colonies of about 1-3mm, the other colonies of 0.1mm. 100ul suspension contained 2900 viable cells of the larger type and about 500000 cells of the smaller type.
100 ul of the treated solution had 700 viable cells of the larger type and (after 1 day) no detectable colonies of the smaller type.

I do not know WHAT type cells actually causes the infection, so this treatment either kills most of them or about 3/4 of them. Its probably somewhere in between. I'll let them grow longer and update what shows up.

Some comments. Each of these antiseptics on their own is mild. I suspect its the rapid combination that has the effect (and no I don't have the time to test each separately, sorry). The bacteria tested are the standard mouth bacteria of north west europe, effectivness may vary per continent and wether or not your country has been selling antibiotics as if they are candy for the past 40 years or not. Most antibiotic resistance is quite broad, so it probably also affects these antiseptics.

On some of your remarks skeptigirl. It IS possible to treat surface bacteria with this, which is exactly what gargling does. It exposes the throat surface with the bacteria on them to these compounds.
As for this test protocol being invalid, I'm sorry, but this IS how the effectiveness of surface antiseptics is tested barring animal or human testing. If you can find 100 people willing to try being infected and half half testing this, feel free to let me know.
Also it would kill living human cells, provided they were exposed. The outer layer of your skin and throat however is made to protect the living cells beneath it.
Given that the results show that this treatment is actually effective in killing the majority of cells I guess I will keep using it. Better that the infection is mostly killed from time to time, than not treating it at all. But you were right, I had never actually tested it in the lab, so thanks for making me curious enough to try it out :)

[Skeptic Ginger]

Luk, you don't get it. Killing germs does not tell you if infection would be prevented.

To everyone else, I'm not saying this works or doesn't work. I'm saying the exchange of anecdotes in this thread is not very skeptical of you.

Here are some studies. I'm not sure I'd want to gargle 2-4 times a day as tested in these studies to decrease the chance of getting infected by nominal amounts. Each of these studies have limitations.

Cost-effectiveness of gargling for the prevention of upper respiratory tract infections (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651874/?tool=pubmed) ... Among participants in the gargling trial, 122 water-gargling and 130 control subjects were involved... Results After 60 days, QALD was increased by 0.43 and costs were $37.1 higher in the gargling group than in the control group. ICER of the gargling group was $31,800/QALY (95%CI, $1,900–$248,100). Although this resembles many acceptable forms of medical intervention, including URTI preventive measures such as influenza vaccination, the broad confidence interval indicates uncertainty surrounding our results. In addition, one-way sensitivity analysis also indicated that careful evaluation is required for the cost of gargling and the utility of moderate URTI. The major limitation of this study was that this trial was conducted in winter, at a time when URTI is prevalent. Care must be taken when applying the results to a season when URTI is not prevalent, since the ICER will increase due to decreases in incidence. ... I can't quite figure out how many actual cases of infection occurred in this study. Perhaps someone cares to read it more carefully and tell us.

Can We Prevent Influenza-like Illnesses by Gargling? (http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/internalmedicine/46/18/1623/_pdf)Our recent randomized controlled trial (1) proved that simple tap water gargling prevented common cold by 40% but gargling with povidone-iodine did not. We carried out a further analysis focusing on the influenza-like illnesses (ILIs) using the same data set.Sounds like a big difference until you see how small the sample was in terms of illness cases:A total of 387 subjects participated in the study at 18
sites across Japan and were randomized. Fourteen subjects (15.0% by the Kaplan-Meier estimation) in the control group, 11 (11.3%) in the water-gargling group and 10 (9.2%) in the povidone-iodine gargling group became infected with ILI by day 60.So 14 people got sick vs 10. Such study results need to be taken with a grain of salt. There are likely to be similar studies with negative results that never see the light of a published journal.

[Prophylactic effect of black tea extract as gargle against influenza] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9248263?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=12)We examined whether gargling with black tea prevents influenza infection. Tests were carried out during a five month period (October 1992 to March 1993). The control group that followed their normal daily routine, whereas the test group that gargled with 0.5 w/v% black tea extract twice daily (at 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.). Influenza viruses were isolated from influenza patients and an antigen analysis was carried out. As a result, two strains of influenza A viruses (H3N2) and ten strains of B virus were detected. An HI test was done using paired sera of the control group and the test group. The HI titers raised a four fold or greater in 48.8% (61/125) in the control group and 35.1% (35/134) in the test group. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) between the control and test groups. These results indicate that black tea extract is effective as a prophylactic agent against influenza infection.

Prevention of upper respiratory tract infections by gargling: a randomized trial. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16242593?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=5)PARTICIPANTS: Healthy volunteers (387) aged 18 to 65 years. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to water gargling, povidone-iodine gargling, and usual care (control). Subjects in the two gargling groups were requested to gargle with water or diluted povidone-iodine at least three times a day. Participants were followed for 60 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was first URTI incidence. Severity of URTI symptoms among incident cases was also evaluated. Both outcomes were assessed with a self-administered symptom record. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: A total of 130 participants contracted URTIs. The incidence rate of first URTI was 0.26 episodes/30 person-days among control subjects. The rate decreased to 0.17 episodes/30 person-days in the water gargling group, and 0.24 episodes/30 person-days in the povidone-iodine gargling group. Respective incidence rate ratios against controls were 0.64 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.41-0.99) and 0.89 (95% CI=0.60-1.33). A Cox regression (proportional hazard model) revealed the efficacy of water gargling (hazard ratio=0.60, 95% CI=0.39-0.95). Even when a URTI occurred, water gargling tended to attenuate bronchial symptoms (p=0.055). CONCLUSIONS: Simple water gargling was effective to prevent URTIs among healthy people.

Gargling with tea catechin extracts for the prevention of influenza infection in elderly nursing home residents: a prospective clinical study. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16970537?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=4)SUBJECTS: A total of 124 elderly residents of at least 65 years of age were enrolled in the study. Seventy-six residents (83 +/-8.2 years, mean +/-standard deviation; 24 men, 52 women) gargled with tea catechin extract (catechin group) and were compared with 48 age- and sex-matched residents who gargled without tea catechin extracts (control group). All the residents were vaccinated with an influenza vaccine until early December 2004. INTERVENTIONS: catechin group: gargling with the tea catechin extract solution (200 microg/mL catechins, 60% of catechins comprise epigallocatechin gallate); control group: gargling without the catechin extract solution. In both groups, gargling was performed three times daily for 3 months. OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence of influenza infection during the study was compared between the two groups. A safety evaluation was conducted to observe adverse events during the study. RESULTS: The incidence of influenza infection was significantly lower in the catechin group (1.3%, one resident) than in the control group (10%, five residents) calculated by multivariate logistic regression analysis (p = 0.028; odds ratio, 15.711; 95% confidence interval, 1.883-399.658). No adverse events, such as respiratory tract irritation, an obstruction, or allergic bronchial spasm, were observed during the study. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective study demonstrating the effect of catechin gargling on the prevention of influenza infection in the elderly is the first to be reported in the literature. Further randomized, controlled studies are needed to confirm the effects of catechin gargling on the prevention of influenza infection.

Published in a Dermatology Journal, not sure why it wouldn't be published there: Prevention of respiratory infections by povidone-iodine gargle. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12011518?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed _ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=10)Bacterial attachment to host cells is the initial step in the pathogenesis of infection. Our studies and those of others also showed that there is a significant correlation between the attachment of bacteria to human pharyngeal epithelial cells and the occurrence of respiratory tract infections. We identified the receptor on human pharyngeal epithelial cells which mediate binding of Moraxella catarrhalis and Haemophilus influenzae. In an attempt to prevent occurrence of infections, the effects of povidone-iodine gargling on the incidence of respiratory infections were investigated. The subjects included a total of 23 adult patients, both males and females, with chronic respiratory diseases showing repeated infections. Patients were asked to gargle more than 4 times/day with povidone-iodine gargle over extended periods of time, i.e. from several months up to over 2 years. The incidence of episodes of acute exacerbation of chronic respiratory infections decreased significantly when compared with that before use of povidone-iodine gargle. Episodes of infections with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus (including MRSA) and H. influenzae were reduced by about 50%. Results of this study suggest that povidone-iodine gargle is effective in providing a significant reduction in the incidence of acute exacerbations of chronic respiratory disease. We assume that the colonized bacteria were destroyed and thus infection could not occur. Therefore, povidone-iodine gargle may be used in these patients as a preventive therapy. Further studies are needed to find out the mechanism of action of this drug for the prevention of respiratory tract infections.This had to be a vulnerable population as these are not such common infections in healthy people.



So, here are a few results mostly overstated in terms of significance. In one study the iodine gargle worked and in one study it did not. So that gives you an idea these are just not conclusive studies.

So, is there a benefit to gargling? Could be a small benefit. But one would need to gargle 2-4 times a day consistently. If you find that appealing, there is certainly no reason to stop. But I don't see anything striking enough here to want to bother starting.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I think this is one of the problems with fora and internet communication. Sometimes its hard to fully get the point across.

I do not in any way disagree with you. I've never ment to claim in any way that gargling will prevent infection. Nor that it can be used as some form of miracle cure to remove it in one go nor that this method has any effect at all on a viral infection.

What I suspect (and have a bit more confirmation for now) is that by performing that highly unpleasant series of actions once I actually have a minor throat infection I kill off a majority of the bacteria in the back of my throat.
If the infection is bacterial (which according to wiki is about a 30% chance) this could lessen the severity. If the infection is viral, I at least make it harder for opportunistic bacteria to co-infect and compound the problem. At worst it does nothing.
I also do not consider this to be able to work on any major infection for which I would always seek medical attention.

Frankly I am surprised at how much of the bacteria the lab treatment actually killed off. Most of it is normally concentrated in the mouth and your stomach will neutralize the effects, but I wonder if the active component in strepsils actually makes it trough to the digestive tract. I'm guessing they studied that somewhere.

[Skeptic Ginger]

My take on that research is it suggests a possible benefit but in no way is sufficient to draw a conclusion. And, it likely takes consistent gargling 2-4 times/day every day (perhaps only during the fall and winter would be reasonable) in order to have one or two less upper respiratory infections in one's lifetime.

If a person was getting one or two infections or more every year, (because they were in school or they were a daycare worker or something), OR, they had a greater risk than average due to chronic pulmonary problems or some other disorder, it might be worth the effort until further definitive research was done.

For everyone else, it seems like a lot of effort for very little benefit.

[AliasN]

I received this same email and the thing I disliked the most about it is that it states this is a simple and effective method that is "not fully highlighted in official communications". This implies that the government is hiding it from us and is focussing on stocking up Tamiflu instead.

My answer to the person who sent this to me (over and above stressing that I would urge none of my friends to take medical advice from an anonymous email rather than their doctor) was that the official communications have been telling us other simple, effective and free ways to combat the spread of the illness, such as washing hands, coughing and sneezing into sleeves, not touching your face if possible. If this was yet another simple and effective treatment, why would they not promote it as the others? (I mean, other than the obvious, which is that the government is out to get us all.)

I know people love a good conspiracy, but I'm really baffled by this one. Okay, the government is evil and all, but surely they're not stupid? Why would the government want us all sick or dead (and the end of the email says "you never know who might pay attention to [this email] and STAY ALIVE because of it")? Even in countries like the US where the healthcare system isn't government-run, surely you lose money if your workforce isn't working and contributing to the gross national product? And if they all die, well there goes all your taxes. I know government is in the pocket of Big Pharma, sure, but doesn't it make sense to keep the people that you want to oppress as healthy as possible?

I don't know, maybe I just don't understand conspiracy theories.

[Eos of the Eons]

Isn't "big pharma" in the pocket of the government? The government gives them money, not the othe way around!

[CORed]

To make sure that you completely sterilize your throat, a shot or two of flavored vodka might do the trick!

Of course, to make sure your digestive tract as well as your throat is sterilized, it is best to swallow after gargling.

[AliasN]

Isn't "big pharma" in the pocket of the government? The government gives them money, not the othe way around!
See, I told you I don't understand conspiracy theories!

[Ron_Tomkins]

"Snuffling" washes dirt out of your nose. I do it in the shower, actually drinking water through my nose....

Whoa whoa, back up right there, beep beep!..... "Drinking water through your nose"?? How the hell do pull that one off without just sniffing water right into your lungs?

[Eos of the Eons]

See, I told you I don't understand conspiracy theories!
Me either. Trying to wrap my head around that much stupid gives me headaches. I don't blame you one bit!