Excerpt from a new book by Donna Jackson Nakazawa, Touchstone/Simon & Schuster:

quote:

---

(…) Imagine the slow, creeping escalation of seemingly amorphous symptoms: a tingling in the arms and fingers, the sudden appearance of a speckled rash across the face, the strange muscle weakness in the legs when climbing stairs, the fiery joints that emerge out of nowhere -- any and all of which can signal the onset of a wide range of life-altering and often debilitating autoimmune diseases.
Imagine, if you can: the tingling foot and ankle that turns out to be the beginning of the slow paralysis of multiple sclerosis. Four hundred thousand patients. Excruciating joint pain and inflammation, skin rashes, and never-ending flu-like symptoms that lead to the diagnosis of lupus. One and a half million more. Relentless bouts of vertigo -- the hallmark of Ménière's. Seven out of every one thousand Americans. Severe abdominal pain, bleeding rectal fissures, uncontrollable diarrhea, and chronic intestinal inflammation that define Crohn's disease and inflammatory bowel disease. More than 1 million Americans.More than 2 million patients. Dry mouth so persistent eight glasses of water a day won't soothe the parched throat and tongue and the mysterious swallowing difficulties that are the first signs of Sjögren's. Four million Americans. And, with almost every autoimmune disease, intolerable, life-altering bouts of exhaustion. If fatigue were a sound made manifest by the 23.5 million people with autoimmune disease in America, the roar across this country would be more deafening than that of the return of the seventeen-year locusts.
And yet, despite the prevalence of autoimmune disease, surveys show that more than 90 percent of people cannot summon the name of a single autoimmune disease when asked to name one specifically.

---

quote:

---

the roar across this country would be more deafening than that of the return of the seventeen-year locusts.

---

Or if you prefer something not already quoted... This gem is on the second page:

quote:

---

escalating tsunami of epidemiological evidence

---

(makes me wonder if she's sitting there with a theosaurus and a dictionary turned to the alliteration page)

Hard to say if she really does have a point to make, or if it's simply trying to stir the pot for some publicity and sales.

I think you do yourself a disservice by using the alarmist technique she is here... Alteast as far as serious/critical thought on the issue goes. On the other side, the alarmist nature might produce a few more sales.

Then again, the comments at the link show how wary people are of these alarmist style publications... Might not increase sales afterall

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

It took me seven years to finally be diagnosed, and midway through that seven years I had to get myself off a drug-seeker list that my physicians had put me on. When I was finally diagnosed, I was told that there is basically nothing that can be done about RA - I had to wait for it to get bad enough (read, crippling) then there was a few things to try.

I was told that we would monitor the disease by blood tests, then I was told after the first two not to bother coming back for any more. The tests are expensive and well, we already know you have the disease.

I went looking for other people in the same boat and was absolutely astounded by the amount I found. One interesting thing I noticed, for every man I met with RA I met at least 5 women, yet it was the men I talked to who were getting the most tests done and who felt more satisfied with their treatment plans. And not one man had been patted on the head and sent home over and over again.

I have also come to the conclusion that my RA is likely caused by environmental factors. It seems to fit, and if so, that is bloody alarming. There are thousands of us, and something we are eating or bathing in or breathing or spraying on our food - that something is causing our own bodies to attack our own immune system.

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

I have also come to the conclusion that my RA is likely caused by environmental factors. It seems to fit, and if so, that is bloody alarming. There are thousands of us, and something we are eating or bathing in or breathing or spraying on our food - that something is causing our own bodies to attack our own immune system.

---

I think this is a really good point and I think about this all the time. I have serious allergies (think hives, not sniffels) and have suspected that chemical environment that rich people force on us has something to do with it.

Her efforts were very instructive and uncovered a world out of balance.

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

I think this book - with its political yelling-from-a-rooftop stance -is at least a start and shouldn't be dissed in an allegedly progressive forum

---

You mean calling it alarmist qualifies as non-progressive? Oh sorry... non-allegedly-progressive

quote:

---

by people who apparently know very little about the issue, and who presumably feel that pollution and living systems breakdown is something that merely happens "out there."

---

Good presumptions... I'm sure environmentalists that think alarmist publications harm their movement as well obviously know next to nothing about their issues either.

Y2K, Bird-flu... People are wary of over-alarmist messages, to the point where it detracts from the message. This link is a better version of the topic without the defeaning sound of '17 year locust' ^^

As an afterthought:

quote:

---

Also Polly - I'm sorry if I minimised your experiences with RA by saying what I did about the article. I think that these diseases are very serious I just thought the author was a bit over the top.

---

Same goes here Polly... I didn't mean to minimize or trivialize your experience, and I thank you for sharing it. My concern was the technique being used detracts from the issue more than anything... It's easier to dismiss as over the top alarmist when presented like this

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

As for the author being sensationalist - I think maybe that is what is needed to get people interested. Not many people are going to be drawn in by dry facts and symptoms of a disease that doesn't affect them - but locusts and tsunamis? That's cool.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
It's easier to dismiss as over the top alarmist when presented like this.

---

It takes a special effort and peculiar kind of callousness to read the excerpt in the OP and dismiss it as alarmist. It also helps to explain the observation that the media and almost everyone who doesn't suffer from autoimmune disease doesn't give a shit.

The author's intent was to alarm. She is trying to jolt people like you out of your complacency. She uses one simile about the locusts that you think is "over the top alarmist" (and I think is quite appropriate), and the rest of it is simple factual recitation of the horrible symptoms and suffering that marks these diseases. You shut your eyes and yell "alarmist", hoping to insulate yourself from the nastiness so you can forget about it.

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:
I think this is a really good point and I think about this all the time. I have serious allergies (think hives, not sniffels) and have suspected that chemical environment that rich people force on us has something to do with it.

---

I tend to favour the theory that it is caused by a reduction in our exposure to germs.

It seems easy to find anecdotes of people living in rural regions who think allergies are very rare, then move to an urban or suburban setting and are surprised to find hoe prevalent they are there, and then after a few years develop allergies themselves.

Most farmers are exposed to plenty of chemicals, though not necessarily the same ones as city-dwellers are. Nobody has yet found a specific chemical that can be linked to auto-immune disease.

There appears to be a lot of support for the idea that our immune systems are going bad because it is designed to combat constant exposure to pathogens, but we have heavily reduced this exposure because of things like anti-bacterial cleaning agents (e.g. Purelle, and also kitchen and bathroom cleaners) and vaccinations.

In the case of allergies, this may result in the immune system starting to target harmless proteins like those from pollen, nuts, grains, etc. In the case of auto-immune disorders like Lupus, Crohn's, and Rheumatoid Arthritis, it targets a protein that the body itself manufactures.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
There appears to be a lot of support for the idea that our immune systems are going bad because it is designed to combat constant exposure to pathogens, but we have heavily reduced this exposure because of things like anti-bacterial cleaning agents (e.g. Purelle, and also kitchen and bathroom cleaners) and vaccinations.

---

And who says modern people are exposed to fewer pathogens than before?

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

As for the author being sensationalist - I think maybe that is what is needed to get people interested. Not many people are going to be drawn in by dry facts and symptoms of a disease that doesn't affect them - but locusts and tsunamis? That's cool.

---

I think part of the point was getting at it does effect 'them' (24 million was the number she used... 8% of the population = good chance it effects you/someone in your life), and the chemicals that are being linked to it (found in newborns ambilical cords no less) are exceedingly common in todays society.

Benzene, one of the major chemicals she lists (I beleive it's involved with MS, but it's likely got a much wider range... It's a nuero-toxin too), is found in most pillows and mattresses as a fire-retardent. Get you 8 hours of sleep along with 8 hours of exposure.

MSpector

quote:

---

It takes a special effort and peculiar kind of callousness to read the excerpt in the OP and dismiss it as alarmist.

---

And it takes a special effort and peculiar kind of callousness to ignore the quoting of parts of the article not posted in the OP and come to the conclusion only the excerpt in the OP was read.

quote:

---

The author's intent was to alarm. She is trying to jolt people like you out of your complacency.

---

And I don't think that jolt does much. We're hit by alarms often enough that it'll roll off our collective minds in time for the next one.

We're hit by the alarm, while the details of the issue get lost in the alarm...

ProAx:

quote:

---

Most farmers are exposed to plenty of chemicals, though not necessarily the same ones as city-dwellers are. Nobody has yet found a specific chemical that can be linked to auto-immune disease.

---

If you look at the link I put up there, she says there is:

quote:

---

Because most toxins are found in only trace amounts, it has been difficult to gauge what effect they might be having on our health. Yet studies of both lab animals and people provide disturbing insights into how even low exposures can cause our immune systems to go haywire. Mice exposed to pesticides at levels four times lower than the level the Environmental Protection Agency sets as acceptable for humans are more susceptible to getting lupus than control mice. Mice that absorb low doses of trichloroethylene -- a chemical used in dry cleaning, household paint thinners, glues and adhesives -- at levels the EPA deems safe and equal to what a factory worker might encounter today, quickly develop autoimmune hepatitis. And low doses of perfluorooctanoic acid, a breakdown chemical of Teflon found in 96 percent of humans tested for it, impair rats' development of a proper immune system.

---

Though this information tends to get lost in the locusts or washed away by tsunamis ^^

[ 19 March 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Vaccinations do not weaken the immune system. They stengthen it by exposing it to harmless versions of real pathogens - kind of like your "eating dirt" theory.

And who says modern people are exposed to fewer pathogens than before?

---

Vaccinations don't weaken the immune system directly, but they do reduce spread of pathogens through a population. So even if I am not vaccinated against a disease, the fact that people around me are will mean I don't come into contact with it. Hence, reduced exposure to pathogens.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly Brandybuck:
I wish that were true. I live rural, with dirt and kids and animals and all that. I am NOT a picky housekeeper and I detest anti-bacterial anythings...if I could have avoided RA by eating my peck of dirt, I definitely would not have it today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
Vaccinations don't weaken the immune system directly, but they do reduce spread of pathogens through a population. So even if I am not vaccinated against a disease, the fact that people around me are will mean I don't come into contact with it. Hence, reduced exposure to pathogens.

---

quote:

---

If we aren't cutting our exposure to bacteria and viruses, then why do we wash our hands?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
In other words, it's only a "bad thing" if you're not vaccinated. Ergo, more vaccinations is a "good thing".

---

I'm not sure about that. If you did get the vaccination, then you will still get less exposure to the virus if other people around you are vaccinated. You'll never know, though, because your immune system is equipped with the antibodies to destroy it before an infection develops.

quote:

---

If we are cutting our exposure to bacteria and viruses, then why do so many of us get infected by them despite our efforts, like handwashing, to avoid infection?

---

Does handwashing and other efforts reduce infection rates, even if it doesn't eliminate infections? I've been led to believe it does.

quote:

---

The increased distances travelled by people, the globalized transportation and circulation of goods, and the proliferation of environmental toxins and other pathogens are all modern phenomena that allow for exposure to far more and more varied pathogens than our grandparents ever experienced.

---

More varied, certainly. But are you sure it's more on a quantitative level?

Our grandparents -- or great-great-grandparents in any case -- were generally in much closer contact with animals than we are, in addition to having far less rigorous cleaning and hygiene habits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:
You'll never know, though, because your immune system is equipped with the antibodies to destroy it before an infection develops.

---

quote:

---

Does handwashing and other efforts reduce infection rates, even if it doesn't eliminate infections? I've been led to believe it does.

---

quote:

---

More varied, certainly. But are you sure it's more on a quantitative level?

---

Similarly, we are eating more food and buying more goods that come from farther away, so the possibility of exposure to pathogens that our grandparents might never have encountered is greater. Trade expansion always helps spread disease.

quote:

---

Our grandparents -- or great-great-grandparents in any case -- were generally in much closer contact with animals than we are, in addition to having far less rigorous cleaning and hygiene habits.

---

quote:

---

I think you may not be noting the difference between getting exposed to a pathogen and getting infected by that pathogen.

---

quote:

---

That's exactly the point. Thus there's no need for further exposure to the pathogen in order to develop an immunity to it.

---

That's true.

quote:

---

I believe so as well. I also believe that if we didn't wash as much as we do, our life expectancy figures would be significantly reduced due to disease.

---

As do I.

quote:

---

Isn't it ovbious that on a quantitative level people are travelling farther, faster, and more often than they did in the steamship age? That's how we got a SARS epidemic going in Toronto.

Similarly, we are eating more food and buying more goods that come from farther away, so the possibility of exposure to pathogens that our grandparents might never have encountered is greater. Trade expansion always helps spread disease.

---

But don't those all speak to increase in variation of diseases we are encountering? The hygiene hypothesis is about the absolute number of individual viruses or bacteria, and maybe some special types of them that aren't associated with specific diseases. The small amounts of unusual pathogens we are exposed to are very small in number compared to the common germs we are exposed to every day -- even if the former are far more likely to cause an infection.

quote:

---

Exposure to a pathogen usually leads to infection, unless we have a previously-formed immunity to it.

---

Right, but we are immune to the vast majority of germs we are exposed to. For bacterial agents -- I've been calling them pathogens but that might be incorrect because many of them are actually harmless -- they enter our bodies in significant numbers every day, but these days, they enter our bodies in much smaller numbers than they used to.

I had to leave my high-paying government job in Ottawa in the 1970s because my pollen allergies were so severe in that city. I'm not certain yet if my allergies now are the same. Have to go back tomorrow morning for the same treatment, and in the meantime the nurse has ordered some medication for me, and put me on the list to see the doctor when he comes.

I was extremely healthy until the year 2000. I took a trip to Texas and came back with a severe lung infection, which led to bas asthma and allergies. Despite going to numerous doctors, not one of them was able to make any diagnosis except to say, there is nothing wrong with you. Months and months later, I finally get a doctor who knows something and he tells me I have a bad lung infection and have had it for months. But you know doctors, if your lungs aren't rattling you are clearly okay. /sarcasm.

quote:

---

In the case of allergies, this may result in the immune system starting to target harmless proteins like those from pollen, nuts, grains, etc. In the case of auto-immune disorders like Lupus, Crohn's, and Rheumatoid Arthritis, it targets a protein that the body itself manufactures.

---

quote:

---

The increased distances travelled by people, the globalized transportation and circulation of goods, and the proliferation of environmental toxins and other pathogens are all modern phenomena that allow for exposure to far more and more varied pathogens than our grandparents ever experienced.

---

I've been wondering about this as well. Interesting idea about the increasing allergies to nuts.

I also wonder if a lot of this has to do with not only the transnationalization of food production but also the loss of genetic diversity in the foods we now eat. With the global control of all commercially available seed by two or three transnational corporations, and with patented monoculture products now dominating the markets, the foods we buy and eat don't have local soil nutrients in them, they are not species from our region, and therefore are adapted to different (in fact, simulated) environmental conditions, therefore in turn, perhaps, maladapting us to our own environmental conditions in our own particular regions. Perhpas we need indigenous food products to help us combat the allergens in our regions.

Not only this, but eating monoculture foods that have only the same genetic composition over and over must have some long term effect on our health, on the proteins and nutrients we absorb, and on our immune systems.

I think of one of the remedies for hayfever, eating honey produced within a mile of where you live - which works. If we are eating only foods grown far away from our locale we are perhaps losing our own natural ability to handle allergens, among other things in our environments.

This year I've only had one small helping of Snow Crab, and that will be my limit for the year.

On the other hand, I go through a jar of peanut butter every month! Peanut butter is toxic to more and more children every year, but I've been gorging on the stuff for most of my 58 years.

Honey, on the other hand, is toxic for me - and, this is a bit of thread drift, but I almost died from a bee sting fifty years ago.

ps: thanks for the good wishes - I have no idea what has caused my allergies to flare up again. I go for treatment at the clinic again tomorrow morning. That first treatment today knocked me out - I was dizzy and couldn't even stand up.

[ 09 June 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

I have no idea what is causing my allergies to flare up again, if in fact that is what the problem is. The nurse said my eyes were red, and I was itching all over, not mention having severe breathing difficulty, so it my be a combination of allergies and something else. I have the same treatment again tomorrow, and am on the list to see the physician when he arrives, and asap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I've only used two brands of laundry detergent since I moved into this house, so how would I check to see if they are the problem? This past weekend is the first time my allergies have been present since a year ago when I was looking after the neighbour's dog (and I cleaned the house completely when I gave the dog back).

---

You'd have to call the consumer line for the product that you buy, to see if they changed their formulation.

Have an appointment to see someone at the end
of the month, don't know yet if this will an allergist or a regular physician.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Must be pollen allergies, as the nurse suggests,
because I was itchy last night and couldn't sleep,
took an antihgistamine, and was finally able to
get a few hours sleep.

Have an appointment to see someone at the end
of the month, don't know yet if this will an allergist or a regular physician.

What's the best (least harmful) antihistamine according to babbler's experiences? I haven't been on antihistamines for at least a decade. I took an old Claritin last night, must have been over a year old, but did the job. When I lived in Ottawa I took Chlor-Tripolon and Actifed, but both had the effect of making me drowsy. I'll probably stick with Claritin unless there's something better. I'd like something that won't ruin my kidneys or liver, or make my heart race.

---

quote:

---

What's the best (least harmful) antihistamine according to babbler's experiences? I haven't been on antihistamines for at least a decade. I took an old Claritin last night, must have been over a year old, but did the job. When I lived in Ottawa I took Chlor-Tripolon and Actifed, but both had the effect of making me drowsy. I'll probably stick with Claritin unless there's something better. I'd like something that won't ruin my kidneys or liver, or make my heart race.

---

Antihistamines won't make your heart race; that's the decongestants they sometimes put with them (like with Actifed).

Though if you can't sleep from your allergies, I'd go with the Chlortripilon or the Benadryl. Chlortripilon has a proven safety record; it's been around for more than four decades, and is the one recommended for pregnant women.

I take Claritin most days year round, and in allergy season I'll supplement with a Chlortripilon at bedtime.

My brother has a severe peanut allergy and carries an EpiPen. As a baby,he received soy formula and developed an allergy to that, and soy is related to peanuts. The peanut allergy was discovered when he was about two, and my mum found us under the kitchen table, my brother crying and rubbing his streaming eyes in between bites of the peanut butter ice cream I was feeding him.

In advance of my appointment, I'm forbidden to take antihistamines for a week prior. Last night I got just two hours sleep because I was up most of the night itching all over - I'm allergic to just about everything under the sun, which is why I'm indoors much of the summer.

ETA: Plane finally cancelled due to fog. Back to the antihistamines.

[ 17 July 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]