4 ms·

Hmm but this was an allergen, where having more white blood cells at the site isn't beneficiary. If it was bacteria or a parasite, then the story might be very

Hmm but this was an allergen, where having more white blood cells at the site isn't beneficiary. If it was bacteria or a parasite, then the story might be very different.

nickburns 2y ago
TFA: "That being said, because mast cells are also involved in innate immunity, the researchers wondered if scratching's role in activating them conveys some kind of infection-fighting benefit. Sure enough, they found that scratching did in fact reduce the amount of Staphylococcus aureus on the skin. S. aureus is the most common bacteria involved in skin infections and is most famously responsible for staph infections. Still, in the research team's opinion, the reduction in this bacteria from scratching doesn't outweigh the way in which the behavior worsens the area around an itch."
- nitwit005 2y ago
  Which doesn't address what the parent comment is about. They didn't infect them with parasites, or any number of other issues that cause an itching sensation.
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    It addressed most of the comment. Most directly, the "bacteria or..." part. And I'm sure the immune response to a parasite isn't exactly the same, but it's not hard to extrapolate that the same principle of increased immune activity being beneficial applies in that case as well.
- SamBam 2y ago
  > in the research team's opinion This statement is carrying a lot of weight, and isn't properly justified. The authors say the reason the skin gets so inflamed is the presence of all the immune cells. They then go on to say that the immune cells seem to kill potentially harmful bacteria in the area. What is the reason they say that the body's response is problematic? It sounds a bit like saying that the fact that our upper arms become sore after an vaccination (also immune-response related) outweighs the benefits that having vaccination has.
  - CuriousCosmic 2y ago
    It's not that the body's response is problematic. It's that scratching is still problematic even if it does help some. The main issue with scratching is that it injures the surrounding skin including mostly healthy or completely healthy skin. This comes with a host of problems that are well established in plenty of other literature: - Contaminating the site - Spreading whatever is causing the initial wound - Weakening the skin barrier and allowing whatever contaminant/infection to penetrate deeper/spread below the skin. TLDR: They show a potential benefit of scratching (which may explain why it evolved in the first place) but suggest it doesn't outweigh all of the established harms.

Hmm but this was an allergen, where having more white blood cells at the site isn't beneficiary. If it was bacteria or a parasite, then the story might be very different.

nickburns 2y ago

TFA: "That being said, because mast cells are also involved in innate immunity, the researchers wondered if scratching's role in activating them conveys some kind of infection-fighting benefit. Sure enough, they found that scratching did in fact reduce the amount of Staphylococcus aureus on the skin. S. aureus is the most common bacteria involved in skin infections and is most famously responsible for staph infections. Still, in the research team's opinion, the reduction in this bacteria from scratching doesn't outweigh the way in which the behavior worsens the area around an itch."

nitwit005 2y ago
Which doesn't address what the parent comment is about. They didn't infect them with parasites, or any number of other issues that cause an itching sensation.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  It addressed most of the comment. Most directly, the "bacteria or..." part. And I'm sure the immune response to a parasite isn't exactly the same, but it's not hard to extrapolate that the same principle of increased immune activity being beneficial applies in that case as well.
SamBam 2y ago
> in the research team's opinion This statement is carrying a lot of weight, and isn't properly justified. The authors say the reason the skin gets so inflamed is the presence of all the immune cells. They then go on to say that the immune cells seem to kill potentially harmful bacteria in the area. What is the reason they say that the body's response is problematic? It sounds a bit like saying that the fact that our upper arms become sore after an vaccination (also immune-response related) outweighs the benefits that having vaccination has.
- CuriousCosmic 2y ago
  It's not that the body's response is problematic. It's that scratching is still problematic even if it does help some. The main issue with scratching is that it injures the surrounding skin including mostly healthy or completely healthy skin. This comes with a host of problems that are well established in plenty of other literature: - Contaminating the site - Spreading whatever is causing the initial wound - Weakening the skin barrier and allowing whatever contaminant/infection to penetrate deeper/spread below the skin. TLDR: They show a potential benefit of scratching (which may explain why it evolved in the first place) but suggest it doesn't outweigh all of the established harms.