I have long suspected that germophobic and fussy parents caused their kids to develop various allergies, due to them never being exposed to anything to build up immunities. When I was looking for studies and info on asthma and second hand smoke, I found out this is an actual field of enquiry, called the hygiene hypothesis and includes not only allergies, but asthma and autoimmune disorders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygiene_hypothesis
I found the quote below especially interesting considering the fact that smoking is DOWN, but asthma is UP
Quote:
This notion, called the hygiene hypothesis, arose from scientists' inability to explain the rising prevalence of asthma and allergies in many developed nations. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute estimates that in the United States, for example, the incidence of asthma is now 1.75 times what it was in 1980, and for children less than 4 years old, 2.60 times the earlier incidence.http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_...14_99/bob2.htm
So, any of you science types think there might be something to the hygeine hypothesis?
For the record, my mother in law is germophobic to the extreme...she carries Lysol and bleach and that antibacterial gel stuff with her everywhere and will not share a straw or fork with her own children. She constantly worries about the food she eats and water she drinks....yet she is not healthy and her kids have all had respiratory problems. Hubby almost died of pneumonia when he was 18, his sister has a rare autoimmune disorder called Berger's Disease and had asthma her whole life .
I've got to get away from this computer and into the bed now, but not without agreeing with you. Hygiene reduces illnesses in the short term, and it's undoubtedly prolonged human life enormously over the past few centuries. Even hospitals didn't bother about hygiene in the middle ages! But it carries a cost. Like having your homework done for you as a kid, or your housework done for you as an adult, you become incapable, and when the real challenge arises, you can't cope.
Yeah, there's an entire field of study related to this counterintuitive notion. The basic idea, as I understand it, is that if the immune system isn't sufficiently challenged, it doesn't become fully competent to distinguish dangerous from harmless substances, so allergies are more likely to occur, due to the immune system overreacting to harmless substances. In some cases, autoimmune responses may occur as well, because the immune system doesn't really know which substances to respond to, and to what degree, and winds up attacking body tissues.
I read an article on it a year or so ago, but don't really remember the details. I'd have to go back and re-read it to comment more intelligently, but that was the gist of it, as I recall. If anyone wants, I could go back and look it up, but this is perhaps more Roland's line of expertise.
Cheers,
Michael
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
That was a really interesting article about a great topic, Shea. I found it a bit confusing in parts; ie, the bit about specific microbes killed by our antiseptic lives are needed to stimulate Th1 immune responses, but cold and flu don't count while tuberculosis and unnamed neutral germ parties do.
The helminths vs. immune system attacking the stomach lining and causing inflammatory bowel disease - besides being deeply disturbing on a personal, girlywoman level - didn't seem to fit with the antiseptic environment issue. You don't have to be a Lysol fiend to avoid drinking water with parasites or serving it to your kids.
I'd particularly like to hear Roland comment on this study (hey, at least this time you have a little more info before having to trudge through the PubMed card catalogue ):
Quote:
Early support for this view came from Julian M. Hopkin, now at the University of Wales Swansea, and his colleagues. In 1997, they reported on a study of 867 Japanese children given a vaccine against tuberculosis. Those who showed a strong Th1 response—indicating previous exposure to the bacterium that causes the disease—had far fewer allergies and asthma than did those who didn't show a Th1 response.
Furthermore, among the children who had allergies, some showed a decrease in allergy symptoms after receiving the vaccine. The ones with a strong Th1 response to the tuberculosis vaccine were six to nine times as likely to benefit as were children who did not have such a response.
Yeah, there's an entire field of study related to this counterintuitive notion. The basic idea, as I understand it, is that if the immune system isn't sufficiently challenged, it doesn't become fully competent to distinguish dangerous from harmless substances, so allergies are more likely to occur, due to the immune system overreacting to harmless substances. In some cases, autoimmune responses may occur as well, because the immune system doesn't really know which substances to respond to, and to what degree, and winds up attacking body tissues.
It does make in sense in a vaccination kind of way. Does the lowered Th1/heightened Th2 response idea seem a reasonable potential explanation for certain immune overreactions?
Quote:
I read an article on it a year or so ago, but don't really remember the details. I'd have to go back and re-read it to comment more intelligently, but that was the gist of it, as I recall. If anyone wants, I could go back and look it up, but this is perhaps more Roland's line of expertise.
I want! I want! Can't we do both? Think of it as practice for your science writing career.
You guys are just making my month with all these micro-related threads.
Basically the Th1 and Th2 cells are subsets of T cells (which I very briefly touched on in my intro article). Th1 cells (generally) are ones which aid in killing intracellular pathogens; Th2 cells (generally) activate B cells to induce them to produce antibodies. So they work in slightly different ways to rid the body of infections. I think the jury is still out on exactly how and why they are so important early in our lives as far as exposure to infection and the "correct" development of the immune system, but no one disputes that they are critical.
That said, there is a lot of support for the "hygeine hypothesis." One of my personal pet peeves are hand sanitizers and all that other crap; not only because unless you're around someone who's severely immunocompromised, no one needs to be that "sterile;" but also because there is evidence that they are contributing to the resistance phenomenon. (And yes, someday I'll get to that article as well). The day care/sibling connection was noticed a long time ago, but mostly antecdotally until it came under closer scrutiny in the past decade or so.
I mentioned commensal organisms in my intro article as well. These are likely the ones, as they mention, that "prime" our immune system for the nastier critters that we occasionally encounter. However, they are just as susceptible to our soaps, antibiotics, and other drugs we take to rid ourselves of infections. So while we're treating the nasties, we're also purging our system of beneficial organisms. These are important not only to train our immune system, warding off allergies and the like, but also for simple things like digestion (ever wonder why diarrhea/bowel problems often accompany antibiotic treatment? It's because you fuck up your normal bowel flora, and that doesn't go over well with your system). As such, the stuff about inflammatory bowel disease is interesting. I hadn't heard the helminth stuff before (have to look them up when I get to U of I), but some other researchers had done similar studies using strains of lactococcus bacteria, and also saw ameliorated symptoms of IBD and Crohn's disease in mice (and I think they moved on to human trials as well). Not sure that they measured Th1/Th2 levels, however.
Anyway, the moral of all this is, yes, let your kids be dirty. Don't freak out if someone sneezes around them; don't rush to boil the pacifier every time it touches something besides baby's mouth. I wouldn't deliberately allow them to ingest dirt or anything, but moderation and a bit of common sense are key.
You guys are just making my month with all these micro-related threads.
Wow, you really are a cheap date.
Quote:
Basically the Th1 and Th2 cells are subsets of T cells (which I very briefly touched on in my intro article). Th1 cells (generally) are ones which aid in killing intracellular pathogens; Th2 cells (generally) activate B cells to induce them to produce antibodies. So they work in slightly different ways to rid the body of infections. I think the jury is still out on exactly how and why they are so important early in our lives as far as exposure to infection and the "correct" development of the immune system, but no one disputes that they are critical.
Are there anything like optimum levels of Th1/Th2 activity? Is there such a thing as a Th1 cell count? You mentioned in your article (I redid the BSE pic, btw, Ro; I hope that's okay) that T cells are more for fighting viruses than infections. Doesn't that restrict their relevance to the hygiene hypothesis?
Quote:
That said, there is a lot of support for the "hygeine hypothesis." One of my personal pet peeves are hand sanitizers and all that other crap; not only because unless you're around someone who's severely immunocompromised, no one needs to be that "sterile;" but also because there is evidence that they are contributing to the resistance phenomenon. (And yes, someday I'll get to that article as well). The day care/sibling connection was noticed a long time ago, but mostly antecdotally until it came under closer scrutiny in the past decade or so.
That is a fascinating topic. I shall have to poke you and prod you, I'm afraid.
Quote:
...(ever wonder why diarrhea/bowel problems often accompany antibiotic treatment? It's because you fuck up your normal bowel flora, and that doesn't go over well with your system).
I believe I have wondered. Thank you for the explanation.
* livius drusus resists the urge to post a toilet smilie
Quote:
As such, the stuff about inflammatory bowel disease is interesting. I hadn't heard the helminth stuff before (have to look them up when I get to U of I), but some other researchers had done similar studies using strains of lactococcus bacteria, and also saw ameliorated symptoms of IBD and Crohn's disease in mice (and I think they moved on to human trials as well). Not sure that they measured Th1/Th2 levels, however.
Oh cool, there are levels. Well, that answers that question. Would intestinal parasites make a difference wrt Th1/2 levels? Would T cells be involved with combatting parasites at all? Pardon my fogginess. I find that the hygiene hypothesis (as presented in the article, at least) meanders over several different areas and my organizational compulsion is having a bit of a hard time forming its usual structures.
Quote:
Anyway, the moral of all this is, yes, let your kids be dirty. Don't freak out if someone sneezes around them; don't rush to boil the pacifier every time it touches something besides baby's mouth. I wouldn't deliberately allow them to ingest dirt or anything, but moderation and a bit of common sense are key.
I use to love licking rocks as a kid. They're yummy.
I've been writing doggedly about this on the smoking thread at II but no one seems wlling to specifically respond to the possibility that low doses of smoke spread out over a long time might have the same counterintuitive effect as sustained low doses of pollen, loose fur, viral infections and radiation.
I'm stepping on a minefield here but it seems obvious to me that homeostatic systems will benefit from constant nudging of any kind unless the body has no potential immune response at all to the particular kind of threat. So unless our immune system is truly helpless against the chemicals found in cigarette smoke, minute doses (and this is where the issue of concentration and composition of ETS comes in) might have the same effect.
I know I'm opening myself up to howls of derision on this one because a lot of people get an almost psychotic reaction to any suggestion even that passive smoke isn't Eeeeeeevil but that response pisses me off so I guess theres a part of me that wants to just push buttons and kick shins until it solicits a more thoughful response somewhere
What specifically got me thinking in Brandi's post (I'd read about the allergies and asthma aspect previously but didn't connect the dots before): We hear ETS triggers attacks and worsens the severity of the attacks, but allergies and asthma are on the rise because of too much hygiene, is anyone measuring how many people might not have allergies or asthma thanks to low doses of ETS? Its quite possible it could work both ways. If this were the case, studies focussing on people with asthma would only show half the picture.
Asthma is probably a bad example because I can't see how the body can prepare itself for asthma but allergies might provide good examples. I have a friend who is hyperallergic (mild to medium allergies to about 15 things) and had a mild allergic reaction to smoke. After living in a commune of 4 with me for six months (all smokers) then sharing a house with me for another 6 his smoke allergic reaction (a mild skin rash) it more or less went away. He still talks about it from time to time like its contemporary and he hates smoke but he doesn't actually get the rash any more.
IOW if only people who suffer allergic reactions are studied and a statistically higher percent hang around smokers, it would be less significant if another group of people did not have allergies because of low dose ETS
Are there anything like optimum levels of Th1/Th2 activity? Is there such a thing as a Th1 cell count? You mentioned in your article (I redid the BSE pic, btw, Ro; I hope that's okay) that T cells are more for fighting viruses than infections. Doesn't that restrict their relevance to the hygiene hypothesis?
You answered your own question later, but as far as "optimal levels," it just depends on the infection. Probably there is no true optimum, because our body is never wholly focused on just dealing with one infection at a time.
As far as T cells and viruses, as I mentioned, that's a very general guideline. So you may have heard of CD4 versus CD8 T-cells when people discuss HIV infections. The designations refer to certain molecules present on the surface of the T cells. Those which have CD8 are known as "cytotoxic T cells;" these directly kill cells which are infected with a pathogen. Those which have CD4 are termed "helper" T cells; these are futher divided into Th1 and Th2 classes.
A bit of background: as a general rule, the most common intracellular pathogens are viruses (since they have to be inside a cell to replicate); that's why T cells are generally most important in fighting virus infections, as antibody (the main way B cells help to kill pathogens) cannot get inside our cells. There are, of course, exceptions. For example, some bacteria are intracellular (Mycobacterium leprae and Mycobacterium tuberculosis, causative agents of leprosy and TB respectively, are both intracellular bacteria). These both actually live inside macrophages, which if you recall are one type of "eater" cell of the immune system. Soooo, a subset of T cells are actually very important in clearing these. (The Th1 subset, in this case). Th1 cells mainly work to "activate" infected macrophages; that is, they cause a chemical cascade in the macrophage cell which ultimately results in destruction of the intracellular pathogen.
This is not the only thing they do, however (and it gets a bit more complicated here). Th1 cells can also stimulate B cells to produce antibody of a special type (called IgG). Further background: there are 5 main types of antibodies our B cells produce: IgM, IgG, IgA, IgE, and IgD. (Ig="immunoglobulin.") Generally, IgM is the first one produced when the body encounters a new pathogen. It is a pentamer; each little Y binds up a ton of antigen, assisting in its elimination from the body. Pic:
As the immune response continues, the body starts to make IgG instead of IgM. Similar structure, but it's not pentameric. Pic:
The Th1 cells specifically cause a certain type of B cells ("memory" B cells) to make IgG antibodies. The Th2 cells, OTOH, activate naive B cells (cells which haven't been previously exposed to antigen) to produce a shitload of IgM, as well as IgA and IgE (IgA=mainly a mucosal antibody; IgE=involved in allergic responses). So Th1 is involved in both cell-mediated immunity (activating macrophages) as well as antibody-mediated (called "humoral") immunity (getting B cells to produce IgG), while Th2 cells are only involved in humoral immunity (production of IgM, IgA, and IgE, mainly).
Quote:
That is a fascinating topic. I shall have to poke you and prod you, I'm afraid.
Be gentle. I'm still having nightmares about that riding crop...
Quote:
Oh cool, there are levels. Well, that answers that question. Would intestinal parasites make a difference wrt Th1/2 levels? Would T cells be involved with combatting parasites at all? Pardon my fogginess. I find that the hygiene hypothesis (as presented in the article, at least) meanders over several different areas and my organizational compulsion is having a bit of a hard time forming its usual structures.
Yep, they could. Depending on the parasite (whether intra- or extra-cellular, for example), you would have different subsets of Th cells responding to it. Really, in any infection, both T and B cells are involved; the general importance of each type varies, however.
Quote:
I use to love licking rocks as a kid. They're yummy.
I'll have to check it out (heading to bed right now), but one thing that immediately comes to mind as a big difference is that cigarette smoke is a mix of hundreds of different chemicals, many of them fairly cytotoxic, whereas you rarely get that with the kind of microbes we're talking about here (since by and large, most of them will be non-pathogenic). Anyway, your theory is something I hadn't thought about before and I'm sure there are chemicals in cigarette smoke which probably stimulate the immune system, but I'm not sure if it would be enough to counter-act the more obvious toxic effects (of course, as you mention, dose would play a large role). Interesting thoughts.
Alright, let me run this by you all, since it seems to be somewhat related.
A co-worker of mine claims to have cured a lactose intolerance. He says he started to become intolerant to dairy products after a particularly nasty cold which was treated with some strong antibiotics. He then said eating some non-pasteurized (? can you even get that?) yogurt would put back the beneficial bacteria into your system.
My mother became lactose intolerant while I was still in school, and went the whole route of buying Lactaid products and taking pills before eating any dairy when dining out. Then a few years ago, I noticed that there was no Lactaid in her fridge anymore, and she said, oh yeah, that her lactose intolerance had just disappeared some time ago. I'm not sure if it was something like the aforementioned yogurt or if menopause had some sort of side effect or what.
I'd be curious to hear anyone's thoughts on this.
As for the ongoing discussion, this has been getting increasing press recently. I'll sound like the cliche'd older guy here and say that I grew up using just regular old Ivory soap and water to get clean and I'm generally very healthy. My mom hated to clean, so the house was always dusty, too. We didn't have any of these anti-bacterial cleaners, etc., that you find all over the place today.
I think part of this has been engrained in our culture too. Americans in general are clean freaks and the advertisers/manufacturers know it. Look at the explosion of cleaning products over the last couple of decades and all the advertising backing up our "need" for better and stronger cleaners. "It looks clean, but is it really clean?" asks one such ad. Lysol, et al, are always thinking up new cleaning products and then marketing them in such a way that we believe we really need them. The worst part is that enough people buy into it that the companies figure everyone wants this stuff and you'll be hard pressed to find any non-antibacterial soaps before long (if not already). They're feeding off of a cultural paranoia that they've helped to create and sustain.
How many people do you (if you're not one yourself) who won't use a public restroom? I mean, I know unsanitary when I see it, but most really aren't that bad. I figure if I've gotta go, I've gotta go! People worry about restrooms, but don't think twice about using a pay phone (less common now with the popularity of cell phones, but still), which are always pointed out as being loaded with germs.
Yeah, things have gotten a little ridiculous.
__________________
Through with oligarchy? Ready to get the money out of politics? Want real progressives in office who will work for the people and not the donors? Want to help grow The Squad?
Alright, let me run this by you all, since it seems to be somewhat related.
A co-worker of mine claims to have cured a lactose intolerance. He says he started to become intolerant to dairy products after a particularly nasty cold which was treated with some strong antibiotics. He then said eating some non-pasteurized (? can you even get that?) yogurt would put back the beneficial bacteria into your system.
My mother became lactose intolerant while I was still in school, and went the whole route of buying Lactaid products and taking pills before eating any dairy when dining out. Then a few years ago, I noticed that there was no Lactaid in her fridge anymore, and she said, oh yeah, that her lactose intolerance had just disappeared some time ago. I'm not sure if it was something like the aforementioned yogurt or if menopause had some sort of side effect or what.
I'd be curious to hear anyone's thoughts on this.
catalyst would likely know more about this than I would. Generally, lactose intolerance is due to the body ceasing to produce an enzyme called lactase. This is fairly uncommon in caucasians (we usually have a mutation which stops the body from shutting off the lactase gene), but much more common in other ethnic groups. So on one level, it can be simple genetics. However, some digestive diseases or problems can also cause one to be temporarily lactose intolerant, as it will cause the cells of the intestine to produce less lactase--thus, the symptoms of lactose intolerance will be present, even though it may not be permanent. Sounds like this is probably what happened with your mom and friend.
As far as the yogurt, yes, most yogurt will contain "active cultures" (that is, live bacteria)--various species of the genus Lactobacillus. As the name implies, these bacteria secrete lactic acid, which can help break down lactose (can't remember the pathway here, however--damn biochemistry). Some species also produce lactase in small amounts, so they'd supplement the body's reduced production of this enzyme.
As for the rest of your post--
Quote:
Yeah, things have gotten a little ridiculous.
Yep, I agree wholeheartedly. And at least here, it already is hard to find non-antibacterial hand soaps.
And at least here, it already is hard to find non-antibacterial hand soaps.
Dr. Bronner's. You'll find it by the gallon jug in organic/health food stores as well as over the web. Almond and peppermint are must tries. Besides, it's the ideal solution to those toilet moments when you find yourself reading shampoo labels.
Oh yes indeedy. Here's a full-length label from the peppermint soap, just in case you feel the need to see the full range of Dr. Bronner's expressiveness.
Besides, it's the ideal solution to those toilet moments when you find yourself reading shampoo labels.
I thought I was the only one who did that! I will have to bookmark that page for the next time I run out. Web ordering=good; running to extra health food store with 2 rugrats in tow=bad.
Oh yes indeedy. Here's a full-length label from the peppermint soap, just in case you feel the need to see the full range of Dr. Bronner's expressiveness.
Heh... After reading that, I wonder whether I'd want to buy the stuff. After all, doing so would keep this whack-job in business. I suppose one could justify it by acknowledging that it kept the reality-challenged off the streets and involved in something productive, rather than screaming their lungs out at some local street-corner.
He's gone to a better All-One-God-Faith Rabbi Hillel Carpenter Jesus God's Spaceship now, godfry, and from what I've read, his kids just keep the labels going out of love for dad (and, I suspect, for branding/marketing/cash money reasons). Besides, that peppermint soap does wild and crazy things in one's delicate areas. You just can't put a price on that.
Besides, that peppermint soap does wild and crazy things in one's delicate areas. You just can't put a price on that.
Oh, yes, you can. If they can put a price on the stupidity of serving hot coffee to auto drivers, then they can put a price on the "wild and crazy things" Doc Bronner's does in one's delicate areas.
Can you say "torts"?
I knew you could.
I came to maturity with Doc Bronner's labels screaming at me from most of my girlfriends' bathroom counters. It went right along with "What's your sign?", the "natural look", and Adelle Davis. I even have the stuff in a pump dispenser on the bathroom counter. I hate it. I think it stinks....bad.
Doc Bronner's never did me any good. I have sensitive skin. I have to use a special body cleanser because I cannot wear antiperspirant or deodorant. The stuff I use is "antiseptic" and is used by surgeons to scrub up before surgery. It was recommended by a dermatologist and works like a charm...well, maybe that's not an appropriate phrase...like a scientifically tested effective cleanser.
I agree that our culture may have gone overboard on the sanitation issues, but I think we need to keep in mind that the greatest strides in the maintenance of human health were made by the public sanitation measures of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Just because some have gone overboard doesn't mean we should dispense with the sanitation measures, including antibacterial soap. (Hey, isn't _all_ soap "antibacterial", thanks to the presence of lye?) Reasonable and prudent sanitation measures have probably done more to extend human life and increase the quality of that life than any other health measures in the history of humanity....be careful of what you wish for.
I think some straight talk from the scientific community, as versus the marketing community, on the need and efficacy of cleansers, is in order. Along with critical assessment by the potential users.
While we're on it, the thing which bothers me about the overzealousness of sanitary measures is the amount of excessive packaging which has resulted and is often rationalized as being required to assure high sanitation standards.
I agree that our culture may have gone overboard on the sanitation issues, but I think we need to keep in mind that the greatest strides in the maintenance of human health were made by the public sanitation measures of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Just because some have gone overboard doesn't mean we should dispense with the sanitation measures, including antibacterial soap. (Hey, isn't _all_ soap "antibacterial", thanks to the presence of lye?)
No one is suggesting disposing of all sanitation measures. Problem is, antibacterial soaps have their place--hospitals, nursing homes, places where even simple germs can be deadly. By putting these products in everyone's homes, we're increasing the levels of resistance to antimicrobial chemicals--and thus, putting people in danger of infection with resistant organisms.
And no, lye does not make the soap "antibacterial." It will kill some organisms, but is not concentrated enough to kill them all. Bacteria can actually survive fairly easily on bars of ordinary hand soap, for instance.
Quote:
Reasonable and prudent sanitation measures have probably done more to extend human life and increase the quality of that life than any other health measures in the history of humanity....be careful of what you wish for.
Indeed. Simple soap & water do wonders. We don't need to be sterile all the time.
Quote:
I think some straight talk from the scientific community, as versus the marketing community, on the need and efficacy of cleansers, is in order. Along with critical assessment by the potential users.
This has been done. As with many things in science, people don't listen or don't care. And we get shouted down by those in marketing--they have more money and can speak a helluva lot louder than we do. Plus, they play off fear--a more powerful weapon than scientific facts.
Anecdotal: A while back, having heard this, I decided to stop freaking out every time food fell on the floor. If a couple pieces of spaghetti fall on the floor, I just eat 'em.
I get sick about 1/5th as much as I used to.
Coincidence? I dunno.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Anecdotal: A while back, having heard this, I decided to stop freaking out every time food fell on the floor. If a couple pieces of spaghetti fall on the floor, I just eat 'em.
Heh. I'm not quite that laid back, but it could have something to do with the fact that both I and the dogs tend to shed. So it's more about the hair on the floor than any potential germs.
Heh. I'm not quite that laid back, but it could have something to do with the fact that both I and the dogs tend to shed. So it's more about the hair on the floor than any potential germs.
ROFL....I have a Husky and double coated mutt in Las Vegas...anything that falls on the floor looks like a damn Tribble when you pick it up.
We're too clean!
I found it a bit confusing in parts; ie, the bit about specific microbes killed by our antiseptic lives are needed to stimulate Th1 immune responses, but cold and flu don't count while tuberculosis and unnamed neutral germ parties do.
):
Re: We're too clean!
I will have to bookmark that page for the next time I run out. Web ordering=good; running to extra health food store with 2 rugrats in tow=bad.
Linear Mode
