• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

Studies Find Eating Dirt, Worms Make Us Healthier

AlaskaDenise

In Memoriam
Can eating dirt make you healthier?

Several studies called the hygiene hypothesis show that when organisms from bacteria, viruses and worms enter the body from dirt, the immune system becomes stronger, The New York Times reported.

The ongoing studies imply ingesting worms redirects a skewed immune system, curing people with autoimmune disorders, allergies and asthma.

?What a child is doing when he puts things in his mouth is allowing his immune response to explore his environment,? Mary Ruebush, a microbiology and immunology instructor, wrote in her new book, ?Why Dirt Is Good? (Kaplan). ?Not only does this allow for ?practice? of immune responses, which will be necessary for protection, but it also plays a critical role in teaching the immature immune response what is best ignored.?

Dr. Joel V. Weinstock, director of gastroenterology and hepatology at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, and Dr. David Elliott, a gastroenterologist and immunologist at the University of Iowa,said children who grow up on farms and are exposed to worms and other organisms have been found less likely to develop allergies or autoimmune diseases.

?Children should be allowed to go barefoot in the dirt, play in the dirt and not have to wash their hands when they come in to eat,? Weinstock said.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485626,00.html
 
Re: Studies Find Eating Dirt, Worms Make Us Healthier

I'm not comfortable that they have the correct cause and effect identified.

But I do remember reading that exposure to livestock manure can increase natural immunity. :D

Who participated in the clinical studies for this conclusion?

.
 
Re: Studies Find Eating Dirt, Worms Make Us Healthier

eat some saliva from infected people early in the wave so to
to become immune ? (takes 2-3 weeks ?)

grow the virus in animals and then sell it to others for eating
no de-activation needed.

Much faster than producing vaccine
 
Re: Studies Find Eating Dirt, Worms Make Us Healthier

The actual proliferation of "studies" became worying.
This money grant thing seems to me a real magnet.

Probably this study debated on first year children behaviour only.
But an doubtful interpretation of it could harm.

The number of studies proliferation rate is minor only to the microbe proliferation .... :rolleyes:


How can an such natural thing as an early first human immune system contact with around environmental microbes became such an franken study outcome which want's to bring us to an "dark age" revival:
don't wash your hands after the pupu, folks, isn't necessary - that would strenght your immune system / eat dirt - it's cheaper and healthier ... :rolleyes:

(I remember some kind of illness which force people to eat dirt, maybe it spreaded to the study handlers :))

Think, how many childrens/humans dying because they came in contact with pathologic microbes / parasites.

By those study suggestion some esigue minority maybe would became more resistent to some illnesses (probably the already genetic powerful once), but how many others would dye because of other illness induced by such practice?

Going to pre-Koch/... time maybe?
Cure some diseases with inserting deadly scourges?
Another cholera/... environment stimulus?

Do we conducted a surge without anti-microbial countermeasures? :rolleyes:

#1:
Dr. Joel V. Weinstock, director of gastroenterology and hepatology at Tufts Medical Center in Boston, and Dr. David Elliott, a gastroenterologist and immunologist at the University of Iowa,said children who grow up on farms and are exposed to worms and other organisms have been found less likely to develop allergies or autoimmune diseases.
“Children should be allowed to go barefoot in the dirt, play in the dirt and not have to wash their hands when they come in to eat,” Weinstock said.


It is known that such behaviour in underdeveloped countries create in it's populations an more strenghten organism to local illnesses versus the non local population, but from this point to the point of suggesting eating dirt, and not washing hands at the same time when it's an African spilling cholera epidemic, and the main antipandemic measure is washing hands, is frankly as minimum of "a bad taste".

This thread name reference to a whole population instead to point this study outcome to yang childrens only, where it probably only wants to point.
 
Re: Studies Find Eating Dirt, Worms Make Us Healthier

I remember a lot of articles, relating (extreme) hygiene to illnesses.

Just an example
:

Are asthma and allergic disease related to infectious disease control?

Over the past decades, the prevalence of allergic diseases in childhood has increased considerably, especially in many western industrialized countries.

The rising prevalence might be due to changes in allergen exposure, early infec-tions and/or lifestyle factors.

The PARSIFAL (Prevention of Allergy - Risk factors for Sensitization In children related to Farming and Anthroposophic Lifestyle) project focussed on two groups of children who have shown a relatively low prevalence of atopic diseases and sensitization: farm children and children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle.

Main objectives of the PARSIFAL study were 1) to investigate whether differences in atopic disease prevalences between farm children or children from anthroposophic families and respective references, as observed previously, could be confirmed in 15,000 children from 5 European countries and 2) to explore factors which might explain the lower prevalence of atopic diseases in these children.


The prevalence of atopic disease was up to 50% lower among farm children and up to 25% lower among anthroposophic children compared to reference children. The study showed that microbial agent levels in house dust may partly account for the protective effect of living on a farm to atopy and/or wheeze. Other protective factors were consumption of unpasteurized farm milk and working of the mother on the farm during pregnancy.

The protective effect of an anthroposophic lifestyle, as observed in some countries but not in others, could not be explained by microbial agent levels. The lower prevalence of atopic disease appeared to be associated with restricted use of antibiotics and antipyretics.

http://www.rivm.nl/infectieziektenbulletin/bul1710/art_keerzijde.html
 
Re: Studies Find Eating Dirt, Worms Make Us Healthier

Cancer and the bacterial connection

Germs may actually help our bodies fight tumors -- which means an infection-free lifestyle comes at a price
By Brendan Borrell
Special to The Times

February 18, 2008

IN the 1890s, a New York surgeon named William Coley tested a radical cancer treatment. He took a hypodermic needle teeming with bacteria and plunged it into the flesh of patients.

After suffering through weeks of chills and fevers, many showed significant regression of their tumors, but even Coley himself could not explain the phenomenon.

His experiments were sparked by the observation that certain cancer patients improved after contracting infections. One patient experienced regression in a tumor in her arm after developing Saint Anthony's fire, a streptococcus skin infection.

Doctors at the time considered Coley's bacterial mixtures to be more black magic than medicine, and with the advent of radiation therapy, the well-meaning doctor was soon consigned to the annals of quackery.

But today, some scientists think Coley had it right: Germs can teach our bodies how to fight back against tumors. Dr. John Timmerman, a cancer immunotherapy expert at UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center, says this revolution has produced "the most exciting sets of compounds in cancer immunology."

These scientists have not yet proved their case. But new studies are revealing that certain cancers may be reduced by exposure to disease-causing bacteria and viruses, and pharmaceutical companies are testing anticancer treatments that capitalize on the concept by using bacterial elements to boost the body's natural immunity.

The studies also imply that our cleaner, infection-free lifestyles may be contributing to the rise in certain cancers over the last 50 years, scientists say, because they make the immune system weaker or less mature. Germs cause disease but may also fortify the body, a notion summed up in a 2006 report by a team of Canadian researchers as "whatever does not kill me makes me stronger."

Almost a century after Coley, in the 1980s, dermatologists began noticing that patients with severe acne, which is caused by another type of bacterium, have reduced rates of skin cancer, lymphoma and leukemia. According to a paper by Dr. Mohammad Namazi at the Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in Iran, studies showed that these bacteria, when injected into animals, appear to stimulate the immune system and shrink tumors.

More recent evidence for this phenomenon comes from studies on cotton and livestock workers, who are constantly breathing endotoxins, a component of bacterial cell walls that causes swelling of lung tissue.

In reports published in the last two years, Harvey Checkoway, a University of Washington epidemiologist, has found that female cotton workers in Shanghai have a 40% to 60% lower risk of lung, breast, and pancreas cancer than other factory workers.

Other recent studies by Giuseppe Mastrangelo at the University of Padua in Italy found that dairy farmers exposed to high levels of manure dust are up to five times less likely to develop lung cancer than their colleagues who work in open fields.

For the dairy farmers and cotton workers, "it's good news and bad news," Checkoway says. They have lower rates of cancer but tend to have higher rates of other respiratory problems. Sniffing cotton dust or inducing pimples is never going to be a therapy, he says, but studying the body's reactions to bacteria could explain why cancer rates go down upon endotoxin exposure. And that might help in developing anticancer drugs.

Dr. Arthur Krieg, chief scientific officer of the Boston-based Coley Pharmaceutical Group, thinks the success of Coley's toxins comes largely from a difference between DNA of humans and bacteria and viruses.

In 1995, Krieg was at the University of Iowa working with strands of DNA created in the lab, hoping to find a way to turn off genes involved in the autoimmune disease lupus. To his surprise, this DNA stimulated the immune cells he was studying in lab dishes. "I got interested, and I got puzzled," he says.

His synthetic DNA contained several regions called CpGs. In humans, that region has a kind of chemical "cap" on it, but bacteria -- and Krieg's synthetic DNA -- lack that cap. Thus, in effect, exposure to that CpG makes the body "think" it's being assaulted by pathogens, and triggers the immune system to shift into attack mode -- and, in doing so, more effectively battle cancer cells.

Krieg saw medical potential: Maybe one could design small drugs with CpGs in them and use them as immunity boosters. After patenting the method, he left his university job and founded Coley Pharmaceutical Group, which was acquired by the New York-based drug company Pfizer in January.

Five years after his discovery, Krieg's first compound has proved safe in early trials but has not yet been proved effective. Last year, the injected compound failed to increase survival time in a trial of 1,600 lung cancer patients also undergoing chemotherapy. But Krieg thinks it will prove effective in other patients: "It's just a matter of finding the right way to use it," he says.

Timmerman is a strong believer in CpGs, and has been using them with the antibody drug Rituximab in his lab research on mice. Finding the right drug combination is key, he says: "It's very naive to think that a single off-the-shelf immune stimulant is going to magically treat cancer."

Krieg's CpG-based chemicals have proved useful in another arena. Because CpGs boost the immune system, they also can enhance certain vaccines. In a trial sponsored by the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, one of Krieg's chemicals, VaxImmune, accelerated the body's response to anthrax vaccine by a factor of two -- from 40 days to 20. Other collaborations are exploring using CpG-containing DNA to develop hepatitis B vaccines and anti-asthmatic drugs. (The company has many CpG compounds, four in clinical trials.)

But Don MacAdam, chief executive of MBVax Bioscience in Ancaster, Canada, is not sure that the healing properties of Coley's fluids are due to a short strand of DNA. "The immune system is very complicated," he says, "Any of these therapies that are doing one little thing are very likely to fail."

And so MacAdam wants to revive the formulation that Coley himself found most effective -- a mixture of two kinds of bacteria, Streptococcus and Serratia. Such an extract would contain naturally occurring CpGs, endotoxins and other bacterial components that may have therapeutic potential.

MacAdam has solved Coley's major difficulty: maintaining consistency of the brew from batch to batch. His preparation has been tested on terminal cancer patients outside the U.S. and Canada, and he contends that 24 in 38 patients have shown signs of tumor regression, although nothing is published yet. Dr. Vikas Sukhatme, a professor at Harvard Medical School, says he hopes to run clinical trials once the product has been manufactured according to Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

Other groups have been experimenting with injections of other types of heat-killed bacteria, including Myobacterium vaccae, a tuberculosis relative. In two studies in January's European Journal of Cancer, researchers report that these bacteria may help fight certain lung and renal cancers.

The first study is a reanalysis of a trial with 162 patients who received heat-killed bacteria (and chemotherapy). In the original study, the treatment didn't seem to improve survival and in 2004, the company developing the therapy, London-based Silence Therapeutics, gave up on Mycobacterium.

But John Stanford, a shareholder in the company and a researcher at University College London, says these studies were poorly designed and analyzed. When he and collaborators re-analyzed the results, they found that Mycobacterium injections could increase survival of adenocarcinoma patients by four months. Stanford believes that part of the bacterial cell wall switches the body from producing ineffective antibodies to sending out cancer-killing blood cells.

In the second study, researchers reported that 60 renal cancer patients injected with Myobacterium survived just as long as those treated with standard chemotherapy.

Stanford has formed a company, Immodulon Therapeutics, and wants to run trials with a stricter and more intense injection regime, to repeat the results and, hopefully, extend patients' lives longer.

Although both Krieg and Timmerman are inspired by Coley's work, they question the philosophy behind reviving Coley's preparation and using other bacterial extracts. But, Krieg says, "as a physician you have to maintain a sense of humility and avoid being overly skeptical."

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-lab18feb18,1,162154.story?track=rss&ctrack=1&cset=true
 
Re: Studies Find Eating Dirt, Worms Make Us Healthier

#5:
"Are asthma and allergic disease related to infectious disease control?
Over the past decades, the prevalence of allergic diseases in childhood has increased considerably, especially in many western industrialized countries.
The rising prevalence might be due to changes in allergen exposure, early infec-tions and/or lifestyle factors.
...
children who have shown a relatively low prevalence of atopic diseases and sensitization: farm children and children of families with an anthroposophic lifestyle
...
Other protective factors were consumption of unpasteurized farm milk and working of the mother on the farm during pregnancy
...
The lower prevalence of atopic disease appeared to be associated with restricted use of antibiotics and antipyretics.


I presume that the consumed milk was unpasteurized but previously cooked ...

Cartainly there exists many reasons, but as it was for the cigaretes, where an severely ban was instaurated in the industrialized countries, the same cannot be seen for the air pollutions coming from the energy-industry zones.

The air breathed inside such industrial zones region were heavily polluted (and unfortunately even in genuine natural places - see the North/... polluted air streams question).

The folks living at the country have minor quantities of pollutants than the other ones living in industrial regions.

There were many studies which linked the above problem as the main source for asthma/bronch./etc. in childrens and citizens living into such polluted zones.

Than we can added the cited antibiotics/food aditives/etc.

Only than remains the "play in the dirt" reason ...
 
Re: Studies Find Eating Dirt, Worms Make Us Healthier

Last night PBS aired The Polio Crusade (transcript here).

It covered the origins, spread, vaccine development, etc.

They stated that polio was never a problem until about 1812 - when the industrial revolution (with pollution) started.

The also explained that some think it's spread was due to improved public sanitation, because it eliminated the acquisition of antibodies thru frequent exposure after maternal antibodies in newborns.

Another paper (proposing more research) also explains the concept:

(snipped)

There is also still some mystery surrounding the exact means by which the polio virus is transmitted. As Smith (1990) noted in her history of the development of the Salk vaccine, "Nobody has ever completely settled the question of how polio is spread, though the best evidence suggests the virus is excreted in the stool and passed through hand-to-hand contact . . ." (p. 36).


[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] The belief that the polio virus is spread by contact with the feces of an already infected person has been offered as an explanation for the increased incidence of polio in developed countries such as the United States during the 20th Century. According to this theory, before the advent of modern sewage treatment plants and other improvements in public sanitation, virtually all individuals were exposed to the polio virus early in their lives when they were at least partially protected by maternal antibodies. Thus, they developed mild, non-paralytic infections, probably during infancy, which provided them with lifelong immunity. However, with better sanitation, both these early infections as well as the likelihood of receiving antibody protection decreased, resulting in greater susceptibility to paralytic polio. Thus, in the words of Smith:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times][SIZE=-1]Put simply, paralytic polio was an inadvertent by-product of modern sanitary conditions. When people were no longer in contact with the open sewers and privies that had once exposed them to the polio virus in very early infancy when paralysis rarely occurs, the disease changed from an endemic condition so mild that no one knew of its existence to a seemingly new epidemic threat of mysterious origins and terrifyingly unknown scope (p. 23).[/SIZE][/FONT]​
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times] This central theory regarding the spread of polio is supported, at least to some extent, by experiences in third world countries. During World War II, for instance, U.S. and British troops stationed in undeveloped countries were much more likely to contract polio than native peoples, who apparently had already developed immunity (Paul, 1971). Even in the 1970's, when individuals from developed countries came into contact with those from a country without a modern sanitation system, the incidence of paralytic polio was about twenty times greater for those from the developed country (Nathanson and Martin, 1979).[/FONT]

.
 
Re: Studies Find Eating Dirt, Worms Make Us Healthier

#6:
""The studies also imply that our cleaner, infection-free lifestyles may be contributing to the rise in certain cancers over the last 50 years, scientists say, because they make the immune system weaker or less mature. Germs cause disease but may also fortify the body, a notion summed up in a 2006 report by a team of Canadian researchers as "whatever does not kill me makes me stronger.""

That's mixing and doing loopings.

The science "quality" (failure) to think it is infalible and after decades, to product "new studies" which reverse many of it's previous dogmatic results, is historicaly known.

A history is full of human errors outcomes from doing incomplete and not enaugh clear research, than otcomed in doubtful results.

To be an real "near to true" sci. result, the statement that "infectious-free lifestyles MAY ... to the rise in CERTAIN cancers over the LAST 50 years", and to fulfill one of the basic postulate of scientific research that it must include ALL of the main input factors, the above, apart that it shield itself with "may" and "certain", did not insert the whole bunch of study inputs neccessary entering variables consisting in insertion of chemical pollutants and radionuclides which in the last 50 years penetrate in all of the natural organisms and human food/water/air chain.

There are thousends of studies which concluded that this massive intoxication leaded to various illnesses, cancers, gen. problems, deformations, etc., and disruption of the immune system which than can't fight enaugh good the illnesses.

Why theirs contribution through an failured immune system wasn't valuated ...

So, not including such massive contribute of other reasons to a rise in cancers for the last 50 years is not an realy rigorous scientific approach to the problem.

Second, the statement:
"whatever does not kill me makes me stronger"
is not correct at all,
because unfortunately there are many inabilitating illnesses which make it weaker, not stronger.
After such germs, or chems., the body is corrupted, debilitated, or weakened.


#8:
"...
Put simply, paralytic polio was an inadvertent by-product of modern sanitary conditions. When people were no longer in contact with the open sewers and privies that had once exposed them to the polio virus in very early infancy when paralysis rarely occurs, the disease changed from an endemic condition so mild that no one knew of its existence to a seemingly new epidemic threat of mysterious origins and terrifyingly unknown scope (p. 23).
..."

The above conclusions can be shared, but:
the above explanation consist in factors which at the same time invalidate the way of thinking extracted from that study.

How?
Yes, ONCE, maybe the polio shield can be achieved by that natural mother way.

But AFTER and NOW, the disease CHANGED, and NOW it is NOT mild, it is terrifying.
At the same time, today we have BILIONS of people NOT any more living in such rural unsanitary conditions, and MILIONS of airplains flight every DAY, by which mean we got an dangerous real-time mixing of people which immune systems had "adomesticated" an local serious illness, and the others which immune systems are totaly or semi-naive to the same illness.

Thinking that we can go back to the old time period and be immunizated by mothers milk and rural particles without ongoing many serious otbreaks and put the world into the previous state of deadly scourges, (for now) is booky fictions.

Additionaly, suggesting to instaurate in the world an passe' old state of the matter by exposing the population to live again with old scourges, now even more potent (and to be additionaly exposed to lab workouts), instead of got totaly new inovative ideas of germ/chem shielding in today society, is an dangerous idea.

#8:
"Even in the 1970's, when individuals from developed countries came into contact with those from a country without a modern sanitation system, the incidence of paralytic polio was about twenty times greater for those from the developed country (Nathanson and Martin, 1979). "
 
Re: Studies Find Eating Dirt, Worms Make Us Healthier

From today's FT thread:

Vietnam: Southern region faces chicken pox outbreak

http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93419


can be extracted that:

"threatens to reach pandemic proportions"
(high treat to spill throughout)

"most of the varicella patients suffer from complications"
(and could suffer another time from it in old age from "shingles")

"Most of the patients are from the southeastern and Mekong Delta regions."
(obviously an mostly "rural" region, in development)

"It is highly contagious one to two days prior to the onset of skin lesions ..." ... "virus is spread primarily through respiratory droplets"
(high spreading possibility)

"parents can prevent their children from getting chicken pox by keeping them clean ..."
(by keeping them clean - NOT dirty)

"More importantly, parents should get their children vaccinated at an early age to prevent the disease."


"Early vaccinated to prevent it", NOT early illnessed by it as this... eating dirt ..." thread suggest.

Proclaming that we live in a world like it was 100 years ago and thus we need not to vaccinate our generations because one part would survive without it also, is not enaugh good (the other part?).

At the contrary, the many (developed country) actual spreading illnesses are linked with an non enaugh immunizated degree in some communities partly because non mandatory vaccinations, which can be traced into the many FT already posted threads with news/sci. texts about a rise of mumps/rubella/... USA/EU/... outbreaks in the last few years.

____
The whole post text:

" chicken pox outbreak in Ho Chi Minh City threatens to reach pandemic proportions, according to reports from some hospitals.

The number of children getting the disease has been on the increase in the last two weeks, deputy head of the Infectious Division at the city-based Pediatrics Hospital II, Dr. Tran Thi Thuy, said.

The hospital is admitting six to seven inpatients and dozens of outpatients every day since late January.

Medical workers are worried that most of the varicella – the disease’s technical name -- patients suffer from complications.

Most of the patients are from the southeastern and Mekong Delta regions.

Dr. Le Thi Thanh Thuy, Dr. Thuy’s colleague, said it is the peak season for chicken pox.

Varicella is a viral infection caused by the herpes varicella-zoster virus. It is highly contagious one to two days prior to the onset of skin lesions and five to six days afterwards.

Experts said parents can prevent their children from getting chicken pox by keeping them clean. The incubation period for the disease is usually around two weeks. Symptoms include fever.

Since the virus is spread primarily through respiratory droplets and, to a lesser degree, through vesicular fluids, it is necessary to isolate the patient.

More importantly, parents should get their children vaccinated at an early age to prevent the disease.

Elsewhere in the country, Ha Noi and neighboring provinces have reported a measles outbreak.

By T. Lam - Translated by Uyen Phuong "
 
Back
Top