Thursday, July 14, 2016





But then immediately this is countered by some more careful thoughts
And then he is further quoted with other possible explanations

And then there is this:


And then there is this:

And then there is this






  1. Excellent analysis, Jonathan! This is how pseudoscience begins: we have a so-so study that is overhyped, by a physician writing in the NY Times no less. Next thing you know, we'll see books and articles advising parents to encourage thumb-sucking because it "boosts the immune system." Wait for it.

    1. Yeah - the Times really seems to like this kind of BS medical interpretation

    2. As an infection preventionist it is continuing use of the term “hygiene hypothesis” that worries me. The hypothesis, proposed in 1989, posits a link between rising allergies and reduced exposure to infectious disease in childhood, which Prof Strachan suggested was “due to improved household amenities and personal cleanliness”. Although Hancox et al consistently refer to “reduced exposure to microbes”, as far as I can tell this has caused the journalists to “clarify” by adding references to the outmoded view of the hygiene hypothesis - now seen as a dangerous misnomer. Time says “The findings support the hygiene hypothesis which says that early exposure to things like bacteria, viruses and allergens can prime the immune system to be stronger and better able to respond to any microbial attacks. It’s possible that the germs that children ingest from sucking their thumbs or biting their nails sets up certain populations in the gut that can educate the immune system and get it ready to mount attacks against other, more unfriendly and disease-causing germs. Scientific American says ““The new findings also lend support the so-called hygiene hypothesis, which holds that environments that have too little dirt and germs may make children more susceptible to certain conditions, including allergies”.

      The term “hygiene hypotheses” must be abandoned. The problem is that several alternatives have been proposed which include the terms microbiome, microbial and/or, depletion or diversity in various combinations which further confuse. My preference is for “Old Friend mechanism” because it is distinctive and evokes the currently supported idea that microbes from our evolutionary past are vital for enabling the human body to develop immune tolerance to harmless agents – the term also does not prejudge the cause of the loss of exposure to OFs - which we still do not know. The idea of exposure to “germs” must also be avoided – since the term is most usually means pathogens.

      In our efforts to communicate with the public/media and health workers on hygiene/infection prevention issues, there is endless confusion between immune defense and immune tolerance and its relationship to microbe exposure. The public (and journalists) are fixated on the idea that we need to "boost" our immune system by challenging it with infectious agents - which enables the body to defend itself against both pathogens and against the nasty reactions to things like pollen - and that hygiene is responsible for cutting us off from these challenges. As long as we continue to use the term "hygiene" hypothesis and talk about data "new data supporting the hygiene hypothesis", we will keep reinforcing this misconception. We/They cannot get our heads round the fact that reducing allergy is about developing immune tolerance to allergens NOT attacking them.

      If we are to restore public confidence in hygiene - at a time when antibiotic resistance threatens our ability to treat disease and we live in a crowded world where infectious agents can spread very rapidly - we must dispel these misconceptions. Developing behaviors which encourage reconnect with our “Old friends” (if these are proven to be the cause of the rise in allergies) will also not occur until the hygiene hypothesis misconception have been dissipated. Sally Bloomfield