6 ms·

I am sorry that you got cancer and had to remove those parts of your body. I am also happy that you now seem better (and I am guessing and being hopeful here).

by Steer 12y ago

I am sorry that you got cancer and had to remove those parts of your body. I am also happy that you now seem better (and I am guessing and being hopeful here). That said, I do not think it is right to try to guilt people into using things they do not want to use because you think it could possibly aid your health. If you had provided links to research that proved that soap and shampoo use in the larger population made people with a defective immune system safer I would not have a problem with your comments, but I am just not sure that is the case. If I try to give an example, there are people that are hyper-allergic to peanuts and they will die if they are exposed to peanuts. Why do we, despite this, allow peanuts in our society? It is not a necessity. Edit; Just to be clear; we are not talking about vaccination; I think that is a completely different thing.

edoloughlin 12y ago
That said, I do not think it is right to try to guilt people into using things they do not want to use because you think it could possibly aid your health There is a case to be made for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity
- Terr_ 12y ago
  No, Herd Immunity is for infection risks which are SHARED across the whole herd. The point is to prevent the infection from reaching "critical mass". What we're talking about here is different, it's a risk which applies to a small minority of specific individuals.
- criley2 12y ago
  Herd Immunity has nothing to do with our personal bacteria cultures! We are bacteria through and through! So much of our bodies and lives are dependent on bacteria. You can't get herd immunity to a building block of our existence. You shouldn't want it.
- dllthomas 12y ago
  The key point for herd immunity is epidemiological - keep resistance high so that most people will never encounter the bad pathogen even if they may be unusually weak against it. That doesn't apply to bacteria that are already prevalent everywhere and known to be less bad than other bacteria they're likely to replace.
jrabone 12y ago
I'm still alive, that's as far as it goes. 30% + chance of recurrence and it's not like I can have those organs removed a second time. However, it's an improvement on the initial diagnosis which was stage 4 adenocarcinoma with peritoneal metastasis (ie. a Kaplan-Meyer survival of about 5 years max). It's not just immuno-suppressed people, it's everyone, and a risk/benefit comparison with peanut allergies is spurious. If everyone smeared themselves in peanut butter before they left the house each morning, you'd have a closer comparison. Plenty of studies at http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/publications-data-stats.html http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/publications-data-stats.html - click on "Improved Health".
- rosser 12y ago
  You're creating a false dilemma between not washing your hands and destroying your skin biome. TFA is about the latter, but you're citing studies about the former.
  - jrabone 12y ago
    TFA doesn't contain enough detail about hand-washing as opposed to body & hair, in much the same way that most people don't like talking about wiping their backsides vs washing them after defecating.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- Steer 12y ago
  I must say that I feel bad discussing this with you, I do not enjoy trying to be objective when discussing with someone stricken by cancer like you. You have obviously been through a trauma and you are still living it. If I were religious I would pray for your recovery, but since I am not I will just say that I do hope that you live and prosper. I am not convinced that an increased use of soap and shampoo would lead to a healthier society overall, much like an increased use of antibiotics does not seem to make a healthier society overall.
Fomite 12y ago
"Edit; Just to be clear; we are not talking about vaccination; I think that is a completely different thing." Why? We're talking about controlling someone's potential infectiousness in the name of public health. While I might disagree with the OP, the principle looks pretty similar.
- bmelton 12y ago
  > Why? We're talking about controlling someone's potential infectiousness in the name of public health. Because, as has been posted above, one's personal biome is never going to be aided by herd immunity. In short, if I have Polio, the chances of it spreading to a mostly vaccinated society is lessened because any immunized individual breaks the infection chain. They're slightly similar in concept, but not really. Beyond that, the argument seems to have been the result of a misunderstanding that has persisted beyond its correction. Not washing skin and hair with soap and shampoo is a dramatically different matter than not washing one's hands with soap and water.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> If I try to give an example, there are people that are hyper-allergic to peanuts and they will die if they are exposed to peanuts. Why do we, despite this, allow peanuts in our society? Because the combination of decent emergency response and site-specific limitations on peanuts in places where there is a particular likelihood of them affecting someone who is hyper-allergic is currently viewed as an effective- enough mitigation to the hazard posed, not because people have an unrestrained entitlement to act as they want even when it is harmful to other's health.
dublinben 12y ago
>we are not talking about vaccination; I think that is a completely different thing Why is it so different? They both contribute to societal health, and personal hygiene is much less painful than getting your complete battery of vaccines.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Vaccines are specifically targeted. General hygeine practices can impact benign or neutral species as much as the pathogens, whether the latter are present or not.
logfromblammo 12y ago
I also find the argument to be spurious. Indiscriminate disinfectants kill benign microbes as well as pathogenic microbes, leaving a clean surface to be colonized by the first species that land on it, whether good or bad. The fine article details a practice wherein rather than apply a scorched-earth policy to all microbes, known good species are intentionally cultivated to both deny a beachhead to invading pathogenic microbes, and for other benefits, such as removal of unpleasant body wastes. Centuries of scientific inquiry has shown that there really is no such thing as a clean and sterile surface outside of certain specially-constructed rooms with carefully managed airflows. Soaps and shampoos simply favor species able to spread and multiply quickly. when used frequently enough, they also prevent humans from becoming a disease vector. That frequency is a matter for investigation. It may be that only physicians, nurses, and hospital staff who always wash thoroughly before each and every patient contact are actually contributing to public health, and that people who wash every time they pass a sink during the day--maybe once per 3 hours--are simply breeding for triclosan resistance and favoring the tenacious and rapidly multiplying species.
- XorNot 12y ago
  That isn't how resistance works. Resistance to anything has an evolutionary cost - the most resistant species tend to breed slowest, the hardiest environmentals even slower. Organisms which can live in volcanoes usually die when given mild conditions but competitor species instead. Your statement also begs the question: given we're assuming you can reasonably disinfect yourself, why not simply re-innoculate with an optimum colony of bacterial species and short-circuit the negative effects?
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    Leaving aside my pet peeve of people using "begs the question" inappropriately, your question is answered by the article. An optimum colony of bacteria is hard to maintain and propagate outside the optimum environment--namely, on your skin. The colony also reacts negatively to being disinfected. The experiment is to establish such a microbiome and then leave it the hell alone.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by Steer 12y ago

edoloughlin 12y ago

That said, I do not think it is right to try to guilt people into using things they do not want to use because you think it could possibly aid your health There is a case to be made for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Terr_ 12y ago
No, Herd Immunity is for infection risks which are SHARED across the whole herd. The point is to prevent the infection from reaching "critical mass". What we're talking about here is different, it's a risk which applies to a small minority of specific individuals.
criley2 12y ago
Herd Immunity has nothing to do with our personal bacteria cultures! We are bacteria through and through! So much of our bodies and lives are dependent on bacteria. You can't get herd immunity to a building block of our existence. You shouldn't want it.
dllthomas 12y ago
The key point for herd immunity is epidemiological - keep resistance high so that most people will never encounter the bad pathogen even if they may be unusually weak against it. That doesn't apply to bacteria that are already prevalent everywhere and known to be less bad than other bacteria they're likely to replace.

jrabone 12y ago

I'm still alive, that's as far as it goes. 30% + chance of recurrence and it's not like I can have those organs removed a second time. However, it's an improvement on the initial diagnosis which was stage 4 adenocarcinoma with peritoneal metastasis (ie. a Kaplan-Meyer survival of about 5 years max). It's not just immuno-suppressed people, it's everyone, and a risk/benefit comparison with peanut allergies is spurious. If everyone smeared themselves in peanut butter before they left the house each morning, you'd have a closer comparison. Plenty of studies at http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/publications-data-stats.html http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/publications-data-stats.html - click on "Improved Health".

rosser 12y ago
You're creating a false dilemma between not washing your hands and destroying your skin biome. TFA is about the latter, but you're citing studies about the former.
- jrabone 12y ago
  TFA doesn't contain enough detail about hand-washing as opposed to body & hair, in much the same way that most people don't like talking about wiping their backsides vs washing them after defecating.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
Steer 12y ago
I must say that I feel bad discussing this with you, I do not enjoy trying to be objective when discussing with someone stricken by cancer like you. You have obviously been through a trauma and you are still living it. If I were religious I would pray for your recovery, but since I am not I will just say that I do hope that you live and prosper. I am not convinced that an increased use of soap and shampoo would lead to a healthier society overall, much like an increased use of antibiotics does not seem to make a healthier society overall.

Fomite 12y ago

"Edit; Just to be clear; we are not talking about vaccination; I think that is a completely different thing." Why? We're talking about controlling someone's potential infectiousness in the name of public health. While I might disagree with the OP, the principle looks pretty similar.

bmelton 12y ago
> Why? We're talking about controlling someone's potential infectiousness in the name of public health. Because, as has been posted above, one's personal biome is never going to be aided by herd immunity. In short, if I have Polio, the chances of it spreading to a mostly vaccinated society is lessened because any immunized individual breaks the infection chain. They're slightly similar in concept, but not really. Beyond that, the argument seems to have been the result of a misunderstanding that has persisted beyond its correction. Not washing skin and hair with soap and shampoo is a dramatically different matter than not washing one's hands with soap and water.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> If I try to give an example, there are people that are hyper-allergic to peanuts and they will die if they are exposed to peanuts. Why do we, despite this, allow peanuts in our society? Because the combination of decent emergency response and site-specific limitations on peanuts in places where there is a particular likelihood of them affecting someone who is hyper-allergic is currently viewed as an effective- enough mitigation to the hazard posed, not because people have an unrestrained entitlement to act as they want even when it is harmful to other's health.

dublinben 12y ago

>we are not talking about vaccination; I think that is a completely different thing Why is it so different? They both contribute to societal health, and personal hygiene is much less painful than getting your complete battery of vaccines.

logfromblammo 12y ago
Vaccines are specifically targeted. General hygeine practices can impact benign or neutral species as much as the pathogens, whether the latter are present or not.

logfromblammo 12y ago

I also find the argument to be spurious. Indiscriminate disinfectants kill benign microbes as well as pathogenic microbes, leaving a clean surface to be colonized by the first species that land on it, whether good or bad. The fine article details a practice wherein rather than apply a scorched-earth policy to all microbes, known good species are intentionally cultivated to both deny a beachhead to invading pathogenic microbes, and for other benefits, such as removal of unpleasant body wastes. Centuries of scientific inquiry has shown that there really is no such thing as a clean and sterile surface outside of certain specially-constructed rooms with carefully managed airflows. Soaps and shampoos simply favor species able to spread and multiply quickly. when used frequently enough, they also prevent humans from becoming a disease vector. That frequency is a matter for investigation. It may be that only physicians, nurses, and hospital staff who always wash thoroughly before each and every patient contact are actually contributing to public health, and that people who wash every time they pass a sink during the day--maybe once per 3 hours--are simply breeding for triclosan resistance and favoring the tenacious and rapidly multiplying species.

XorNot 12y ago
That isn't how resistance works. Resistance to anything has an evolutionary cost - the most resistant species tend to breed slowest, the hardiest environmentals even slower. Organisms which can live in volcanoes usually die when given mild conditions but competitor species instead. Your statement also begs the question: given we're assuming you can reasonably disinfect yourself, why not simply re-innoculate with an optimum colony of bacterial species and short-circuit the negative effects?
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  Leaving aside my pet peeve of people using "begs the question" inappropriately, your question is answered by the article. An optimum colony of bacteria is hard to maintain and propagate outside the optimum environment--namely, on your skin. The colony also reacts negatively to being disinfected. The experiment is to establish such a microbiome and then leave it the hell alone.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]