There’s always iodine tincture- its just iodine and alcohol at about 3x the concentration used for water purification.
A lot of hard-core survival kits actually explain how to mix this stuff up using the water purifier drops or tablets in the kit, and its basically the bootleg form of the most common surgical antiseptic, betadine. That stuff adds a stabilizer to reduce toxicity, but the old school form of it works just fine for first aid on anything not requiring reattachment of limbs or open chest surgery.
Also, on the peroxide thing: The problem isn’t that it isn’t a great antiseptic. The problem is that it is TOO good at being an antiseptic. HO-OH kills EVERYTHING it touches at concentrations above a few percent. The stuff you get at a store doesn’t kill bacteria reliably because its only 3% solution- that concentration can actually speed healing, so long as you don’t keep reapplying it, and is a great cleaning agent to use before applying a long-term antiseptic. ~6% solutions still get used medically as a “nuclear option” for wound care, especially in field medicine for gangrene where you want to chemically cauterize the wound at the same time that you flush it out, and concerns about shock are a moot point. 10-30% solutions are one of the standard ways of cleaning surgical tools, because it dismantles most organic molecules at those concentrations. They use concentrated peroxide vapor to decontaminate quarantine zones. Its a phenomenal antiseptic. The problem is that people are made of the same stuff as bacteria. X3
Yeah we use it as a stain remover - my whole damn family is prone to nosebleeds during winter months. Too dry here. I also keep a spare bottle as part of an emergency oxygen producer for my aquariums should filters give out during a power outage. I don’t think we ever use it as a disinfectant.
Is there a way to make makeshift disinfectant have a low chance of failure? That would simulate it’s makeshiftyness pretty well, I think. You could just apply more of the stuff and hope it cleans the wound better, but taking such an action would consume resources and crafting/applying time, rather than be as painful and unrealistic as multiple cautery attempts.
Shouldn’t cauterising realistically increase the chance of infection, not lessen it? You’re basically creating a burn wound instead of a cut wound, and burns are notorious for getting infected.
Going back to the original question, I’d be happy to include improvised disinfectants as long as they come with a credible source outlining how well they work. “some guy (or a movie) said this is better than nothing” isn’t evidence that it is in fact better than nothing, in many cases that kind of remedy is actively harmful, but not bad enough to overcome people’s various observation biases. “this one time I used it and it healed immediately” “that other guy died after trying it, but he had it coming to him so it doesn’t matter”
If this has been added then disregard but how about the use of honey and salt as topical antiseptics in the game. Salt would hurt like hell but lower chance of infection while honey would not hurt but have less of a Chance to be successful.
Ever seen gladiator? Maggots are great for treating septic wounds, they eat only dead flesh, leaving the healthy flesh better able to heal. The medical community uses specially bred maggots to treat long-term wounds, such as the holes diabetics can get in their feet and bedsores that have become infected.
The maggot treatment while effective can get out of hand in untrained hands so it should required high first-aid skill. It would not halt a already spread infection, only appropriate oral or inject medicine could.
Not to mention how long the maggot treatment takes. Our survivors are very much in the “Get well SOON, or die” category. If you don’t recover from an infection pretty quickly, you aren’t going to recover.
That’s true. More of an aid to recovery by taking stress off your system than a cure for the infection. It can keep you from losing a limb too, which is nice.
The infection we’re talking about is a specific infectious agent in the wound (zombie saliva), not necrotic flesh, which is what the maggot treatment deals with.
In the future I’d also like better wound care in general, at which point the maggot thing would make sense.
[quote=“Kevin Granade, post:39, topic:10215”]The infection we’re talking about is a specific infectious agent in the wound (zombie saliva), not necrotic flesh, which is what the maggot treatment deals with.
In the future I’d also like better wound care in general, at which point the maggot thing would make sense.[/quote]
I would totally love to start by reworking the wound system, like making bloody loss behave sanely. But the last time I made an attempt, the source code had an allergic reaction to my incompetent editing. ;w;