7 ms·

Hygiene hypothesis: difference in autoimmune diseases in Russia, Finland (2012)

42 points by georgecmu 12y ago

lg 12y ago
Article was behind a paywall, but they've been pointing these correlations for a long time, yet when they actually try to test the effect of benign pathogens (e.g. in Coronado's TRUST clinical trials) the results are disappointing. Also why don't routine vaccinations in rich countries have a similar beneficial effect?
- ghkbrew 12y ago
  > Also why don't routine vaccinations in rich countries have a similar beneficial effect? Presumably, it's an issue with quantity. The ~20 mandatory vaccinations in West are simply a drop in the bucket compared to the number of different organism/antigens you'd be exposed to without modern sanitation.
trhway 12y ago
George Carlin "...immune system is to kill germs. It needs germs to practice on ... When i was a little boy in 1949 we swam in Hudson river. The Hudson River was loaded with raw sewage. That's right, we swam in raw sewage. You know, to cool off. ...": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s&list=PL4DDBE51446AC5A45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s&list=PL4DDBE51446... Edit: imagine, theoretically, if there is no germs and no need for immune system, would it mean additional biological resources available inside the human body for something else, like for bigger/better brain, etc...?
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Yes, the immune system would probably be culled from our genome eventually if there were no pathogens left. It would be tremendously risky as a species, and also very unfeasible considering how important microbes are to life, but you are correct in expecting an unused "feature" would likely be removed, as every "feature" has a cost. Much like cave fish that live in total darkness all their lives- their eyes disappear...
- msds 12y ago
  Tragically, it would - and in the non-hypothetical world, probably does. There is a fair amount of research showing significant cognitive development improvements when replacing dirt floors with concrete ones. http://web.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/pdf/SCID367.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/...
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Shivetya 12y ago
going to assume its along the lines of the old tale of, having pets is good for kids growing up. Responsibility and exposure to various organisms only have a pet will bring Growing up on a farm probably gave us a bit more exposure, the only sicknesses I could recall really weren't, it was more like the breaking things as farms tend to be unforgiving
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
rpedela 12y ago
BBC Horizon just did a piece which talks about this topic [1]. The gist of it was that the hygiene hypothesis probably isn't correct, but it is close. Rather it is the diversity and makeup of the microbiome in our body that plays an important role in our immune system and hygiene, among other things, plays a role in shaping our microbiome. Pretty interesting I think. If it really is the microbiome, then maybe we can do something about it. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y4ofojAe-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y4ofojAe-k
Mz 12y ago
I think this is a pretty silly argument. We cannot even digest our food without gut flora. So I don't think we are as protected from microbes as ideas like this suggest. What has changed in recent decades and can be proven and measured: We are exposed to all kinds of chemicals that are known to have harmful effects, many of which did not exist until they were recently invented. It seems to me this is a much more likely explanation of the outbreak in chronic health conditions and so-called "autoimmune diseases" in the developed world.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  Most of the nastiest chemicals were phased out or heavily regulated decades ago. Lead everywhere, asbestos, mercury, propellants, flame retardants, pesticides, etc... We have nasty stuff around still today, of course, but if there was a "dark age" of nasty chemicals it was fifty years ago. The point being that you would expect our immune systems to be on the upswing if it was a chemicals problem.
  - Mz 12y ago
    It is my understanding that some of those phased out chemicals persist in the environment to this day and that you can take a blood sample from pretty much anyone and find unacceptable levels of toxic chemicals. Also, we don't really know what happens when parents who are contaminated with such chemicals have babies. I have heard from people who believe that is a major connection there: That what is relatively small amounts for an adult nevertheless have toxic effects in utero. Plus, we use chemical fertilizers and pesticides in recent decades on an unprecedented scale. I just really don't see where your argument holds water. It simply fails to fit with my understanding of what is going on in the world today. Also, fails to fit with my firsthand personal experience. But thank you for replying.
    - sliverstorm 12y ago
      some of those phased out chemicals persist in the environment to this day In ever decreasing levels. There aren't any that remain at the same levels as decades ago. we don't really know what happens when parents who are contaminated with such chemicals have babies Right. So we can hardly draw conclusions, now can we? "We don't know what happens" isn't an argument that proves something happens. I have heard from people who believe that is a major connection there There are people out there who will tell you anything. "People" is not an authoritative source. we use chemical fertilizers and pesticides in recent decades on an unprecedented scale. Nope: http://www.panna.org/blog/long-last-epa-releases-pesticide-use-statistics http://www.panna.org/blog/long-last-epa-releases-pesticide-u... Oh, and looping way back to your comment about how gut flora is required to digest food- the presence of bacteria in the belly does not confer resistance to viruses. Your exposure to viruses is all from the environment.
tokenadult 12y ago
I read the previously submitted comments here in this thread before reviewing the link kindly submitted here. (I remember this report from the year it was first published.) The paper compares the country Finland to the region Karelia conquered from Finland by Russia and now part of Russia. Life expectancy in Finland[1] is much better than that in Russia,[2] so if the trade-off of growing up in a clean environment is that I don't die of something else but life into healthy old age with some annoying allergies (I do have allergies, so I am well aware of how annoying they can be), I'll take that trade-off. The last time we had an active thread about the hygiene hypothesis here on HN, there were all kinds of n=1 anecdotes from various participants here about refraining from using soap and other socially silly practices. There is a big attitude here on HN that modern life is bad for us somehow. That attitude is mistaken. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel,[3] originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject of how much life expectancy has improved at ALL ages in the developed world. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. His striking finding is "Humans are living longer than ever before. In fact, newborn children in high-income countries can expect to live to more than 100 years. Starting in the mid-1800s, human longevity has increased dramatically and life expectancy is increasing by an average of six hours a day."[4] An article in a series on Slate, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet? Life expectancy doubled in past 150 years. Here’s why"[5] Provides some of the background. Yep, perhaps in the clean modern world, our immune systems aren't challenged as much as they used to be, but we also get sick less often and live to much older ages with good health. Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising throughout the developed countries of the world.[6] That's a trade-off I will happily accept. My mom (who also has allergies) is eighty-one years old and still living independently and enjoying her favorite activities, and she has sisters and brothers older than she is who are still in good health. Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. If that's what I have to put up with after living in a clean environment in my youth, I can deal with that. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=Finland+life+expectancy https://www.google.com/search?q=Finland+life+expectancy [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=Russia+life+expectancy https://www.google.com/search?q=Russia+life+expectancy [3] http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2860ef54d218ce5ce19abe6a59/dc_biodemography_of_human_ageing_nature_2010_vaupel.pdf http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2... [4] http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.aspx http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.... [5] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/life_expectancy_history_public_health_and_medical_advances_that_lead_to.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_... [6] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box/scientificamerican0912-54_BX1.html http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box...

42 points by georgecmu 12y ago

lg 12y ago

Article was behind a paywall, but they've been pointing these correlations for a long time, yet when they actually try to test the effect of benign pathogens (e.g. in Coronado's TRUST clinical trials) the results are disappointing. Also why don't routine vaccinations in rich countries have a similar beneficial effect?

ghkbrew 12y ago
> Also why don't routine vaccinations in rich countries have a similar beneficial effect? Presumably, it's an issue with quantity. The ~20 mandatory vaccinations in West are simply a drop in the bucket compared to the number of different organism/antigens you'd be exposed to without modern sanitation.

trhway 12y ago

George Carlin "...immune system is to kill germs. It needs germs to practice on ... When i was a little boy in 1949 we swam in Hudson river. The Hudson River was loaded with raw sewage. That's right, we swam in raw sewage. You know, to cool off. ...": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s&list=PL4DDBE51446AC5A45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s&list=PL4DDBE51446... Edit: imagine, theoretically, if there is no germs and no need for immune system, would it mean additional biological resources available inside the human body for something else, like for bigger/better brain, etc...?

sliverstorm 12y ago
Yes, the immune system would probably be culled from our genome eventually if there were no pathogens left. It would be tremendously risky as a species, and also very unfeasible considering how important microbes are to life, but you are correct in expecting an unused "feature" would likely be removed, as every "feature" has a cost. Much like cave fish that live in total darkness all their lives- their eyes disappear...
msds 12y ago
Tragically, it would - and in the non-hypothetical world, probably does. There is a fair amount of research showing significant cognitive development improvements when replacing dirt floors with concrete ones. http://web.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/pdf/SCID367.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Shivetya 12y ago

going to assume its along the lines of the old tale of, having pets is good for kids growing up. Responsibility and exposure to various organisms only have a pet will bring Growing up on a farm probably gave us a bit more exposure, the only sicknesses I could recall really weren't, it was more like the breaking things as farms tend to be unforgiving

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

rpedela 12y ago

BBC Horizon just did a piece which talks about this topic [1]. The gist of it was that the hygiene hypothesis probably isn't correct, but it is close. Rather it is the diversity and makeup of the microbiome in our body that plays an important role in our immune system and hygiene, among other things, plays a role in shaping our microbiome. Pretty interesting I think. If it really is the microbiome, then maybe we can do something about it. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y4ofojAe-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Y4ofojAe-k

Mz 12y ago

I think this is a pretty silly argument. We cannot even digest our food without gut flora. So I don't think we are as protected from microbes as ideas like this suggest. What has changed in recent decades and can be proven and measured: We are exposed to all kinds of chemicals that are known to have harmful effects, many of which did not exist until they were recently invented. It seems to me this is a much more likely explanation of the outbreak in chronic health conditions and so-called "autoimmune diseases" in the developed world.

sliverstorm 12y ago
Most of the nastiest chemicals were phased out or heavily regulated decades ago. Lead everywhere, asbestos, mercury, propellants, flame retardants, pesticides, etc... We have nasty stuff around still today, of course, but if there was a "dark age" of nasty chemicals it was fifty years ago. The point being that you would expect our immune systems to be on the upswing if it was a chemicals problem.
- Mz 12y ago
  It is my understanding that some of those phased out chemicals persist in the environment to this day and that you can take a blood sample from pretty much anyone and find unacceptable levels of toxic chemicals. Also, we don't really know what happens when parents who are contaminated with such chemicals have babies. I have heard from people who believe that is a major connection there: That what is relatively small amounts for an adult nevertheless have toxic effects in utero. Plus, we use chemical fertilizers and pesticides in recent decades on an unprecedented scale. I just really don't see where your argument holds water. It simply fails to fit with my understanding of what is going on in the world today. Also, fails to fit with my firsthand personal experience. But thank you for replying.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    some of those phased out chemicals persist in the environment to this day In ever decreasing levels. There aren't any that remain at the same levels as decades ago. we don't really know what happens when parents who are contaminated with such chemicals have babies Right. So we can hardly draw conclusions, now can we? "We don't know what happens" isn't an argument that proves something happens. I have heard from people who believe that is a major connection there There are people out there who will tell you anything. "People" is not an authoritative source. we use chemical fertilizers and pesticides in recent decades on an unprecedented scale. Nope: http://www.panna.org/blog/long-last-epa-releases-pesticide-use-statistics http://www.panna.org/blog/long-last-epa-releases-pesticide-u... Oh, and looping way back to your comment about how gut flora is required to digest food- the presence of bacteria in the belly does not confer resistance to viruses. Your exposure to viruses is all from the environment.

tokenadult 12y ago

I read the previously submitted comments here in this thread before reviewing the link kindly submitted here. (I remember this report from the year it was first published.) The paper compares the country Finland to the region Karelia conquered from Finland by Russia and now part of Russia. Life expectancy in Finland[1] is much better than that in Russia,[2] so if the trade-off of growing up in a clean environment is that I don't die of something else but life into healthy old age with some annoying allergies (I do have allergies, so I am well aware of how annoying they can be), I'll take that trade-off. The last time we had an active thread about the hygiene hypothesis here on HN, there were all kinds of n=1 anecdotes from various participants here about refraining from using soap and other socially silly practices. There is a big attitude here on HN that modern life is bad for us somehow. That attitude is mistaken. The article "The Biodemography of Human Ageing" by James Vaupel,[3] originally published in the journal Nature in 2010, is a good current reference on the subject of how much life expectancy has improved at ALL ages in the developed world. Vaupel is one of the leading scholars on the demography of aging and how to adjust for time trends in life expectancy. His striking finding is "Humans are living longer than ever before. In fact, newborn children in high-income countries can expect to live to more than 100 years. Starting in the mid-1800s, human longevity has increased dramatically and life expectancy is increasing by an average of six hours a day."[4] An article in a series on Slate, "Why Are You Not Dead Yet? Life expectancy doubled in past 150 years. Here’s why"[5] Provides some of the background. Yep, perhaps in the clean modern world, our immune systems aren't challenged as much as they used to be, but we also get sick less often and live to much older ages with good health. Life expectancy at age 40, at age 60, and at even higher ages is still rising throughout the developed countries of the world.[6] That's a trade-off I will happily accept. My mom (who also has allergies) is eighty-one years old and still living independently and enjoying her favorite activities, and she has sisters and brothers older than she is who are still in good health. Girls born since 2000 in the developed world are more likely than not to reach the age of 100, with boys likely to enjoy lifespans almost as long. If that's what I have to put up with after living in a clean environment in my youth, I can deal with that. [1] https://www.google.com/search?q=Finland+life+expectancy https://www.google.com/search?q=Finland+life+expectancy [2] https://www.google.com/search?q=Russia+life+expectancy https://www.google.com/search?q=Russia+life+expectancy [3] http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2860ef54d218ce5ce19abe6a59/dc_biodemography_of_human_ageing_nature_2010_vaupel.pdf http://www.demographic-challenge.com/files/downloads/2eb51e2... [4] http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.aspx http://www.prb.org/Journalists/Webcasts/2010/humanlongevity.... [5] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_longevity/2013/09/life_expectancy_history_public_health_and_medical_advances_that_lead_to.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science_of_... [6] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box/scientificamerican0912-54_BX1.html http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v307/n3/box...