Cosmetic recall - (Mar/04/2012 )

yes pito you are right, people are really getting crazy about bacteria and microbes in general. I hate these people running around with desinfectant wipes all the time to get themselves and their surrounding tidy. Recently somebody refused to shake my hand because I did not use a desinfectand wipe immediatly after lunch - INSANE.

I recently came across an article saying that controlled, regular opening of hospital windows reduces the number of infections with antibiotic resistant bacteria by (it think it was) 50 % - which is very likely true. However people are getting crazy about microbes recently - the worst I have seen so far is an anti-bacterial body lotion - no further comments on this.

However back to topic: these homemade creams contain bacteria which are (sometimes) no direct health risk, but the metabolites they produce often trigger allergic reactions. Talk to any allergologist and they will tell you that the savest way to develop allergies is to make your own cosmetics - and this is partly because of microbial metabolites.
I would never use skin care with added bacteria and would not recomend anybod to do so. The same is true for all kind of fancy food products like yoghurt - I like yoghurt, but I would never buy one because of a ultra healthy bacterial strain used - but commented on this in anthother topic recently

A certain amount of quality control is neccessary - as I know people who think Ecoli is needed to make proper cheese......

I

gebirgsziege on Tue Mar 6 11:31:27 2012 said:

I am not going to comment on most of what you wrote, because I agree!

But this part I have to comment on:

I do not agree with it!

Why? Very simple: there is no agreement on what you wrote about the allergies being formed because of the contact with the bacteria!
(altough, its true, if you come in contact with certain products day after day, year after year, you can develop an allergy, however, it also has a lot to do with the fact we are too clean from birth one, as I mention down below).

And to be even more bold==> many scientist are now claiming th opposite! Its because of the lack of contact with allergens (bacteria play an important role in this) that we develop more and more allergies!

I can agree with you that and that allergologist that the generation now, people being adult now, would indeed be able to develop an allergy much faster, but why is this? Well, its because they didnt grow up with the "bacteria" ! Because they were too clean! But in general, its just not true that you would develop an allergy so fast because of those bacteria.
I dont know if you saw those papers about farmkids vs city kids and allergies?

Of course, some attention have to go to the microbial status of those products and yeah, you shoudnt wipe all kinds of "dirty" stuf on your face.


One little question: would you thus never "use" a mud bath?


And about the shaking hands thing: what an idiot ! (well its not that they are idiotic per se, they are made idioitc by the commercials and society).

+ the anti bacterial lotion??? Are you serious? Is this in the shops for sale??? Or is this some special product for burn victims perhaps that some idiot made commercial?

seen the anti bacterial lotion in a fancy beaut shop - so definitly nothing with any medical relation. I regret that I have not taken a photo of it......

I am well aware of the "hygine hypthesis" but the homemade creams have nothing to do with this. Putting (uncharacterised or characterised) bacteria on you skin using skin care that lacks any hygine testing etc does definitly not make your immune system any better to defend allergies.

I would not use a mud bath on purpose - as I think it is stupid to pay an awful lot of money for such stuff, however I will not start to panic when I "accidentially" fall into one.

Pito - there clearly have been infections and even deaths associated with contaminated cosmetics. There are no data saying preservatives in those cosmetics change normal flora and I'm familiar with studies that say they don't. Granted, those at greatest risk for infection due to contaminated cosmetics are the immunocompromised - those suffering chonic illnesses such as diabetesand AIDs, pregnant women, the very old and very young, folks on immunosuppressive therapy and they represent probably 30% of the US population.
One is not "too clean" and the hygiene hypothesis is silly. We've all seen the over-interpreted reports that farm kids whom presumably have greater exposure to antigens have less asthma but there are no data and it's not reasonable that folks in any environment but a stetile one are not constantly exposed to immunologic stimulus.
Based on relevant data with commerical cosmetics, the home-made stuff clearly is a health risk and there is no regulatory control or reporting system that address or follow the consequences of that risk

Phil Geis on Tue Mar 6 12:14:21 2012 said:

I agree with what you say about the infections and all the rest, however I do not agree with the idea that the hygiene hypothesis is silly.

We all know how the immune system works and its crucial that we need to come in contact with allergens/pathogens in order to build up our immunesystem.

And about "there is no data"? There is data.. Altough its hard to prove it, but there is data/prove that there are more people (%) with asthma in the group of city kids vs farm kids.
But its true that we still need to do research on this. As for example in belgium they are doing this right now, they are working on the impact of bacterial components in small particles and how this can influence our life/immunesystem.
And have your read the studies about children being "raised" in daycenters vs kids that stayed at home during their first years?
Those studies are clear too: kids that went to daycenters (or came in contact with many others) became more ill at young age, but not so much at older age + they didnt develop allergies as fast/as much as the other kids that stayed at home.

But then again, I must admit, its hard to prove these things, its a delicate/difficult subject.

And that its not possible to be "too clean" , I dont agree with it...
Its clear that we need that contact with "dirt" for our own immune system.. this is proven before with (farm)animals many times.. (with people its hard to prove) but its clear that we need those bacteria to boost our immunesystem.

About the "sterile environment" and not constantly exposed to stimulus: there was a study a few years ago that followed labanimals and they had the "normal" ones and the "sterile" ones. (sterile being more cleaner, less contact with bacteria/allergens etc) and it turned out those animals died faster or got ill faster.
Altough, at young age they suffered less!!
At young age: less infections, less likely to die, however, at older age, it turned out that the "non sterile ones" stayed healtier and got older.

Of course 100%sterile isnt possible, but being "more sterile" does reduce the amount of bacteria/subtstances and thus doesnt boost our immunesystem as much.

But again, I am not saying we should all quit with productcontrol etc. Of course, we need this and its because of our knowledge of microbiology etc that we are able to get so old.
Being clean is indeed needed and good, but be realistic about it too!
There is a difference between being clean (washing your hands after you went to the toilet, drinking clean water) and being too clean (washing your hands with disinfecting cream each time, using bleach every time you clean, etc..)

gebirgsziege on Tue Mar 6 11:58:05 2012 said:

you are right.

But mud baths do work.
Even if its just as a moisturizer.
However, I agree, I wouldnt spend a lot of money doing it, I can collect some mud from my backyard if I really wanted to take a mud bath:p

The etiology of asthma is not that clearly assocated with antigen exposure and it is a red herring as supporting the hygiene hypothesis. Sterility is an absolute so the term is inapropriately applied - but ';d sure appreciate theday care citation.so we can discuss it. Clearly, most of the work supporting the concept is designed to supportit rather than test it - about what one would expect from MDs..
As I said, there are no data (more correctly, I' not aware of such data and I have searched for it) that living in environments such as a farm exposes one to substantially greater immunoligic stimulus - and the differecne would have to be exponential both in exposure and effect to be clinicaly significant..

Phil Geis on Wed Mar 7 01:30:36 2012 said:

I see what you mean, and I understand your points.
But its hard to prove those things, as you allready mentioned.
I'll have to look for those papers, not sure I'll be able to find them.

But to me it sounds normal that people living in farms are exposed to more immunologic stimulus then those that dont.
Or even more bold: what with animalpahtogens/bacteria that "jump over" to the humans and immunise them? There is a big difference in the type of bugs found in farms vs cities.. and I do believe this can play a role.
However, its indeed, as you say, hard to tell if the difference is big enough. Then again, I am not sure if its needed that its a much bigger exposure. Our immune system is able to react to very small amounts of allergens.

BTW: about the asthma, there is research going on , exactly trying to prove what I said, or what you mentioned here about the "The etiology of asthma is not that clearly assocated with antigen exposure"
However they just started this and I am not that familiar with the medical part of it.
It would be intersting to hear/read what they find over the following years.
(but how do you prove such thing, how do you link asthma with small particles, LPS, other allergens etc... if you even know that one of the major topics of the research I am mentioning is about trying to find out what really is in the small particles, its never really been researched how many bacterial components are in that dust..)

Just look at this.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk...sround/17268382

Some of the hygien-measures taken by individuals to avoid bugs are really crazy - wiping all surfaces with desinfectans before touching them, excessively washing hands and desinfecting them etc. are crazy in my eyes. Especially as many people use desinfectant wipes etc. for food containers although the wipes are not intendet to be used for food - the chemicals they eat worry me more than the few bug sitting around on surfaces etc. Common sense seems to be lost more and more, when looking at how people act using desinfectants. Some people even seem to think that in the lab these desinfectants are to be used to decontaminate toxic spillage....which is really worrying for me.

However I am not sure if you are exposed to less bacteria etc. in cities - just get onto a train or bus at rush hour - usually you will be exposed to more than enough bugs to keep your immune system happily working all day

Pito and gerb - thanks. Pito, I understand your preceptions on this - we all have them for some phenomena and they're speculation. I don't buy the assumption that farm personnel would be exposed to antigens so different that their immune systems would be substanitlaly different in function and efficacy. I am aware of data that frequent use of disinfectants in households does not change flora quantitively or qualitatively(including resistance to the antimicrobials) - except for the period immediately following application.