30 replies to this topic

[pito]

gebirgsziege, on 06 March 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

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.

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

[Phil Geis]

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..

[pito]

Phil Geis, on 06 March 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

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..

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..)

[gebirgsziege]

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

Edited by gebirgsziege, 06 March 2012 - 11:43 PM.

[Phil Geis]

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.

[pito]

Phil Geis, on 07 March 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

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.

I can agree with most of what you said.
But I still keep wondering/believing that there is something "different" between "farm" vs "city" people.
(maybe the fact that there are more people with allergies/lung problems in cities is not because of the hygiene hypothesis, maybe its just because there is more pollution in cities? Or different kind of pollutions? Its hard to tell, and I doubt we will ever know the real reasons, most likely its a combination of several things)

Maybe you are right that on the scale of micro-organisms there is (perhaps) no problem and that you will always get the microbes back. However, I do believe that using it too much can cause medical problems (dry skin, skin irritation, skin problems). + A small pilot test, too bad, to papers about this, also showed that people who used a lot of disinfectants (example, washing hands) had more risk in getting a "bad" infecection. Because they always killed the "good" ones, they risked being infected with the bad ones.
You can not say that we dont need those microbes (for ex) on our skin.
Another thing that comes in my mind is the problem with resistence.. We have only done research on resistance against antibiotics, but the last years some scientists are also wondering if we are making the bugs more and more resistent against for example certain other disinfectans.


ANother , more bold idea is the following: research has shown now that the bacteria in our guts depend on our dieet... ==> why not state that the flora on our body/skin also depends on our "hygiene" ? You say that people using disinfectants a lot, still have the same flora , but I could have doubts about this.
I can imagine that after a while different types of bacteria will survive better/more... I wonder how they did that study, on the long term? or?

Anyway, its a complicated topic.

[pito]

gebirgsziege, on 06 March 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

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

I think you are right, its not about being exposed less, but its more about what kind of bacteria you are exposed too..
It always makes me thing about the famous cowpox story... I always start thinking that in a city you will have other types of bacteria and to me it is a reason to think that maybe it is possible there is a difference in the types of bacteria you will encouter either in the city or farm.. and that there might be a difference between the two , immunologicaly speaking.

And in general: I absolutely do not like this over hygiene idea that is being favored by the media etc.. I think its time it has to stop. Look at the entire antibiotic story and the commercial ideas behing all these so called disinfectants etc..

Edited by pito, 07 March 2012 - 07:31 AM.

[Phil Geis]

The "which bacteria" might be signficant if one gains specifc immunity to a pathogen but, short of AIDS, I'm not aware of many that affect general immune function.  The example of cowpox also addressed fairly specific immunity as did variolization - not an overall effect on immune function.   TB would have been more of a city disease.

For the other subject - data (and there from in-use applications) that use of household dsiinfectants do not provoke antibiotic are pretty clear.

[pito]

Phil Geis, on 07 March 2012 - 07:41 AM, said:

The "which bacteria" might be signficant if one gains specifc immunity to a pathogen but, short of AIDS, I'm not aware of many that affect general immune function.  The example of cowpox also addressed fairly specific immunity as did variolization - not an overall effect on immune function.   TB would have been more of a city disease.

For the other subject - data (and there from in-use applications) that use of household dsiinfectants do not provoke antibiotic are pretty clear.

Its true, its maybe a very specific immune reaction/protection.

Not sure what you mean with the last sentence, you mean that the use of household desinfectants do not give antibiotic resistance ? Is so,of course not.
But what I ment was: its not been studied in depth what (for example) the reaction of bacteria is on (for example) bleachproducts , its more and more a worry that bacteria are also becoming more and more resistant to those kind of disinfectans.

[Phil Geis]

A worry - maybe - but not one based on relevant data.  In real life - vs contrived lab experments, bugs do not becme resistant to bleach - tho biofilm may effectively prevent sufficnet contact if the bleach levle is low..

[pito]

Phil Geis, on 07 March 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

A worry - maybe - but not one based on relevant data.  In real life - vs contrived lab experments, bugs do not becme resistant to bleach - tho biofilm may effectively prevent sufficnet contact if the bleach levle is low..

The biofilm is another story.
(and it doesnt need to be a low level, even high levels are sometimes not a problem in the case of biofilms)

But I find it a bit too easy to just say that bugs wont become resistant in real life.
I think its time we start to rethink our "ideas" about what "clean" is.
I still disagree with the entire "clean-fashion" we are seeing now, its really not needed to wash your hands with disinfectants, its not needed to clean your house with bleach every few days, its not needed to keep your kids inside (not let them get dirty), its not needed to take antibiotics for every bacterial infection we have (not speaking about young people or weak or..), its not needed to ....  We are changing the idea or meaning of clean into sterile and this is completely wrong.

Edited by pito, 07 March 2012 - 08:09 AM.

[hobglobin]

Just three thoughts on this topic:
- Shouldn't a sufficiently low pH in the creams at least stop bacterial growth? (similar to low pH of our skin being bacteriostatic)
- After usage of a cream with "normal dirty" fingers, there should be enough bacteria contamination even in a previously uncontaminated cream...
- The bacterial diversity and number on our skin should also prevent growth of immigrant MOs from creams, as they outnumber the immigrants and are better adapted
(Exception of course are ill people with not-working immune-systems).
Therefore isn't it much fuss about nothing (serious)?

[pito]

hobglobin, on 07 March 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

Just three thoughts on this topic:
- Shouldn't a sufficiently low pH in the creams at least stop bacterial growth? (similar to low pH of our skin being bacteriostatic)
- After usage of a cream with "normal dirty" fingers, there should be enough bacteria contamination even in a previously uncontaminated cream...
- The bacterial diversity and number on our skin should also prevent growth of immigrant MOs from creams, as they outnumber the immigrants and are better adapted
(Exception of course are ill people with not-working immune-systems).
Therefore isn't it much fuss about nothing (serious)?

Those are the things I also concider.
Not sure about this cream (it looks like something special "natural", but normally you wouldnt see a lot of growth in cream, or maybe just on top because there you put your "contamined fingers", but as you said: those bacteria just come from your hands. But again: its as I said before, its not about how many but about what kind of bacteria)

[Phil Geis]

To hogoblin;s points:
Rule of thumb is that pH is only an assurance against contamination if 2 or less and 12 or greater. Preservatives are designed primarily to address in-use contamination.  Don;t forget, some cosmetics are applied close to or the eye and a pseudomonas on a mascara bursh that scartches the cornea would establidh a nasty infection.  True - some kind of compromise to host defenses would be needed to make the contamination a real risk and, to that, 25-30% of the US population is immunocompromised. This information provoked FDA to hold a recent public meeting on micro contamination of cosmetics

. Cosmetic Microbiological Safety Issues – Public Meeting. Docket FDA-2011-N-0770. Fed. Reg. 76: 67461.  Bethesda MD. November, 2011.


Pito - look at the following recall.  Not only the contamination but the contet of product applicatin.

1) TestaEdge Cream For Men, Homeopathic, packaged in 4-oz. jars, Paraben Free, NDC # 57520-0688-1, UPC Code 898849001001. Recall # D-1199-2012;
2) TestaEdge Cream For Women, Homeopathic, packaged in 4-oz. jars, Paraben Free, NDC # 57520-0907-1, UPC Code 898849001018. Recall # D-1200-2012;
3) Pain Relief Cream, Homeopathic, packaged in 4-oz jars, Paraben Free, NDC # 57520-0689-1, UPC Code 898849001025. Recall # D-1201-2012;
4) Libido Edge Labs Total GH Cream, Homeopathic, packaged in 4-oz. jars, Paraben free, NDC # 57520-0690-1, UPC Code 898849001278. Recall # D-1202-2012

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Apotheca Inc, Woodbine, IA, by telephone on January 17, 2011 and e-mail and certified mail letters on January 20, 2011. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.

REASON

Microbial Contamination of Non-Sterile Products:  presence of Enterobacter gergoviae and Pseudomonas monteilii/plecoglossicida.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

3,490 Jars

DISTRIBUTION

OH

Edited by Phil Geis, 07 March 2012 - 06:30 PM.

[pito]

Phil Geis, on 07 March 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

REASON

Microbial Contamination of Non-Sterile Products:  presence of Enterobacter gergoviae and Pseudomonas monteilii/plecoglossicida.

Thanks.

I do wonder what the above sentence means: microbial contamination of non sterile products..

Seems a bit weird.
Or do they mention it like this to clarify its a product that is not sterilised according to certain standards?
I am not that familiar with cosmetics anyway.