41 ms·
> 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 inflame
by 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 agoIt'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.