I'm sure most UK residents will have seen the adverts for tissues that "kill 99 per cent of cold and flu viruses", what the hell are they basing this claim on?

Well here's a link (I presume you're talking about these ones) the advert where the monk feels guilty for killing all those bacteria...groan

 

http://www.kleenex.com/au/range_antiviral.asp

I heard that they test the product against the pansy weakling strains, you know, the ones that die if you so much as look at them? Of course, everyone knows how unreliable such rumors typically are.

I want to know how the tissues allow the other 1% of the viruses to 'live' outside of the human body.

Probably the same way as certain shampoos give 70% more body, 80% more shine, and 90% more confidence.

How long can those viruses survive outside of the body anyway (without these tissues)? And as this is not a medical product it does not nessesarily have the burden of proof that medical producs have (AFAIK).

 

Also how many people will catch a cold off of a tissue? Don't they usually spread by touch or through droplets in sneazes and coughs?

Probably the same way as certain shampoos give 70% more body, 80% more shine, and 90% more confidence.

I'm not sure why but this made me crack up. I could use more laughs nowadays.

This is a fairly interesting claim. Would anyone happen to know how many viruses 'die' within 15 minutes outside their host anyway?

 

For that matter, I am pretty sure that whether a virus is alive in the first place is still an open question / being debated. If it is not alive in the first place, I'm not so sure it can ever be dead, either.

For that matter' date=' I am pretty sure that whether a virus is alive in the first place is still an open question / being debated. If it is not alive in the first place, I'm not so sure it can ever be dead, either.[/quote']

That's a pretty interesting argument considering we were all taught they were not living in Biology and then again in AP.

For that matter' date=' I am pretty sure that whether a virus is alive in the first place is still an open question / being debated. If it is not alive in the first place, I'm not so sure it can ever be dead, either.[/quote']

True, but this is peripheral to the claims made here. The tissue companies could just as well have said "destroy" or "render unviable" instead of "kill."

True, but this is peripheral to the claims made here. The tissue companies could just as well have said "destroy" or "render unviable" instead of "kill."

That'd be more acurate, I think "denature" is the "proper" term.