According to health professionals within the Center for Disease Control, the majority of clinic-acquired infections can be avoided if health professionals followed existing hygiene standards. Even the introduction of antibacterial hand gels in the hospital can cut the rate of disease transmission dramatically.

Outside of the hospital, however, scientists aren’t as quick to promote obsessive cleanliness. According to new research pioneered by the Medical College of Wisconsin, increased public hygiene may in fact be making us sicker.

Studies indicate that increasing rates of asthma, multiple sclerosis, and intestinal disorders are linked to decreases in our exposure to pathogens. Children who do not experience much exposure to transmittable disease are found to have a higher rate of allergies and asthma as they grow older.

Like a muscle, researchers say that the immune system needs to be stimulated in order to function well. And with the proliferation of antibacterial soaps, strict food control policies, and overprotective parents, the American immune system is atrophying.

Without exposure to infectious diseases, the immune system can become weak and unprepared to deal with more serious health issues. Even worse, it may malfunction and cause autoimmune diseases.

Some of the microorganisms we avoid would actually have a positive effect on our health. In Africa and South America, where hygiene standards are essentially nonexistent, the presence of intestinal bacteria and parasitic worms protect against diseases that are common in Western countries. The immune system function of these individuals make disorders like Crohn’s disease and asthma unheard of within their population.   

Of course, basic sanitation practices are still important in our country. Sewage systems and water treatment plants may decrease the stimulus our immune system receives, but the benefits surely outweigh the risks. So what is the solution? What balance of avoidance and exposure promotes the healthiest lifestyle?

There is no universal answer. The best policy may be to ditch your arsenal of antibacterial soaps and just trust the efficacy of your own immune system. But whatever you do, you shouldn’t force a low standard of hygiene on other people. So if you have the flu and chose to come to class and sit behind me, I still want you to cover your mouth when you cough. Thanks.

References

Medical College of Wisconsin Hygiene Research:

http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002421.html

Asthma and hygiene:

http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144528

Allergies and hygiene:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10777250&dopt=Abstract

But to believe that this case provides evidence for a link between immunizations and autism is pure fantasy. Proponents of the vaccine-autism hypothesis have ignored the real reasoning behind this decision, just as they ignore the scientific evidence disputing their claims.

Terry and Jon Poling, the parents of the child involved in this case, explain that their daughter started to display a host of health problems a few days after receiving eight immunizations more than eight years ago. They claim that a mercury additive in the vaccines caused these problems and ultimately led to autism-like symptoms in their child. 

The Polings and their supporters argue that the vaccine-autism connection is proven by two main pieces of evidence: the similarities between symptoms of autism and those of mercury poisoning, and the increased rate of autism after the introduction of mercury containing vaccines in the 1970s. However, this support is scavenged from distorted historic trends and mischaracterized chemical effects. While it does not seem to sway the believers, a large body of scientific evidence and expert examination has firmly refuted these claims.

Mercury poisoning and autism do indeed have some similar symptoms, but the connection seems to stop there. Multiple controlled studies demonstrate that there is no difference in mercury levels between autistic children and those without the disorder. Researchers have also shown that mercury levels in vaccines were well below the federal safety limits.

In fact, a new study by the University of Rochester demonstrates that what little mercury is present in the vaccines is excreted from the body much faster than previously thought. The vaccine additive leaves the system more than ten times as fast as the mercury ingested from eating fish.

The historic correlation between autism and vaccines is a similarly faulty argument. Just because autism rates started to increase throughout the time when mercury additives were used doesn’t mean that these two events are related. You could just as easily draw this connection with the increase of greenhouse gas emission during this time or the proliferation of microwave ovens in US households.

Studies of children who received vaccines without the mercury additive further discredit this historic correlation. The rate of autism in Denmark has been increasing since they eliminated mercury from their vaccines fifteen years ago. California has also seen an increasing rate of autism since mercury was removed from their vaccines in 2001, and a nationwide study demonstrated that different levels of mercury additives had no effect on autism rates.

In 2005 the Chochrane Library did the most comprehensive review ever conducted of scientific literature on the autism-vaccine link. They found absolutely no credible evidence that supported this connection.

With so much evidence that refutes the link between vaccines and autism, why did the scientific community decide to compensate Terry and Jon Poling for their daughter’s struggle with autism? The answer is simple: they didn’t.

The Polings’ daughter suffers from a rare genetic disorder that affects mitochondrial function in the cell. The decision made by government officials is that the vaccines may have exasperated this underlying medical condition. The officials did not say that the vaccines caused autism, that they caused the mitochondrial disorder, or that the mercury additives were the culprit. 

Furthermore, this concession was made without the support of scientific evidence. There has been no research that demonstrates a link between vaccines and this mitochondrial disorder, and many researchers and public officials have condemned this decision as being baseless. The Center for Disease Control was quick to respond to this ruling by emphasizing that no scientific link between autism and immunizations exist.

It is important to examine our public health policies for risky practices, but insisting that this connection exists in the face of so much contrary evidence is absurd. It distracts the scientific community from exploring other causes, and deceives the public into believing that immunizations – which save countless lives every year – are dangerous.

References:

Mercury and autism

http://jcn.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/6/431

http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/pr/news/story.cfm?id=1848

Population studies of vaccines and autism

http://www.slate.com/id/2123647/

Review of scientific literature on autism-vaccine link

http://www.cochrane.org/press/MMR_final.pdf

 Responses from scientific community on compensation ruling http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2008/03/07/doctors_defend_safety_of_vaccinations/8485/

A study published by the American College of Sports Medicine reports that just 30 minutes of moderate treadmill exercise can elevate mood and wellbeing for more than 24 hours. Other studies have returned similar results by examining clinically depressed individuals’ exercise habits. However, relying on an external force to consistently adjust the brain’s natural chemical levels, even something as physically healthy as exercise, can be dangerous.

The human body employs delicate feedback systems that make sure neurotransmitter and hormone levels remain balanced. Outside influences that increase these levels often prompt the body to reduce their own production of the chemical, which can result in a chemical dependence on that influence. Many prescription and illicit drugs can lead to this type of physical addiction, and it is possible that regular exercise may have a similar effect on some people.

In 2003 the University of Wisconsin performed a study to measure the neural activity in mice that were denied access to the running wheel they usually used. Researchers discovered that preventing these mice from exercising triggered cravings just like those exhibited by a junkie or an alcoholic.

The brain regions activated in these mice were the same as experimental mice who were not given their daily fix of morphine, alcohol, or cocaine. But what specific mechanism is regulating this addiction? Studies of overtrained athletes may provide unexpected insight into this question.

Doctors at the Kuopio Hospital studied an athlete who developed insomnia, depression, and a variety of other problems shortly after he had increased his training intensity by 200 percent. Brain imaging techniques revealed that the patient exhibited remarkably imbalanced serotonin activity in regions that are associated with emotion, higher thought processes, and sleep.

Other studies of overtrained athletes have yielded similar results. Exercise constantly activates a brain region that controls the regulation of neurotransmitters like serotonin. Chronic activation of this region is known to lead to the body’s response to down-regulate serotonin, which ultimately causes the chemical imbalance identified in overtrained athletes.

This same mechanism of action is likely involved with exercise dependence in less extreme athletes. When the activation of this brain region is more moderate, the body’s down-regulation response would be more subtle. Instead of resulting in the severe symptoms of overtraining syndrome, it may present as merely transient depression or sleeplessness.

Humans, however, are typically clever creatures. Even if the effects of an addiction are subtle, an individual would probably still modify their behavior according to the demands of their dependence. This response may not even be consciously registered.  

Human addiction to exercise has previously been considered a rare psychological symptom of an obsessive personality or an eating disorder. Society’s fixation on physical beauty or the individual’s damaged self esteem are often the reasons cited for this behavior, but there is no clear consensus in the medical community.

Psychological factors may certainly have some influence, but our current understanding of neurochemistry provides a convincing hypothesis to explain this condition. However, without further research and analysis many individuals may continue to unknowingly sacrifice their mental health for physical fitness.

References

American College of Sports Medicine study of exercise and depression:

http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/re/msse/abstract.00005768-200512000-00003.htm;jsessionid=HJpN4Q5QJRH4dJ28hft5tpT501nXq2YRFTGr4Xtk0l7rhYhHHHc1!-667243907!181195629!8091!-1

University of Wisconsin exercise addiction study:

http://www.news.wisc.edu/9208

Kupio University Hospital study on serotonin reuptake and athlete overtraining

http://www.thieme-connect.com/ejournals/abstract/sportsmed/doi/10.1055/s-2004-819952;jsessionid=6798DA25A8B42899050959A38590B33D.jvm3

The neurobiology of exercise and overtraining in athletes

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-104259137.html

Our current situation looks bleak. In many cases the damage we’ve inflicted upon each other and our environment seems to have finally produced obstacles that can’t be overcome. Is it really as bad as it seems to be? Are we slowly faltering along the path of human progress?

The answer is tentatively optimistic. Life is indeed pretty crappy for a great number of people, but the end of days is probably not yet at hand. There are some exceptions, but a large body of evidence suggests that life is actually getting better for the majority of humans. 

In the early 1980’s the World Bank reported that more than 40 percent of people were living on less than one US dollar per day. Individuals living in such extreme poverty had little access to medical care, education, or safe drinking water. Thus, child mortality rates were high and life expectancy was relatively low.

Today, only around 20 percent of the world population lives on less than one dollar per day. Except for Africa, poverty rates have declined significantly throughout the world since the early 80’s. Life expectancy is increasing in many of the poorest nations and, according to UNICEF, child mortality rates have decreased by nearly 50 percent. In fact, for the first time in modern society the child mortality rate is under 10 million per year.  

Most of the world is also becoming more educated. International literacy has gone from about 75 percent to nearly 90 percent in the last thirty years, and high school and college education rates are increasing in nearly every world region.

These social advances in turn contribute to an increasingly robust world market. According to the World Bank the global economy grew by 4 percent last year, and many other countries prospered above this international average. The gross domestic product increased by 7 percent in India, 10 percent in China, and more than 6 percent in Africa last year.

Advances in global health issues provides another solid platform of optimism. Government and philanthropic funding for the research and treatment of disease and poverty has never been higher, and new treatments are being developed every day.

Except for Africa, death rates from two of the world’s deadliest diseases – HIV and malaria – are declining. Vaccination programs have defeated smallpox, reduced measles by 60 percent over the last ten years, and nearly eradicated polio. Genetically engineered food is reducing malnutrition, and simple vitamin drops are preventing blindness and death in children across the world.

Of course, disease and poverty are still deadly realities for many people, and positive trends are not good reasons to shrug off responsibility or justify apathy. Instead they should serve as a map marker to help guide the progress of our species.

Nearly half of Americans believe that we should not get involved with the welfare of other countries. Their impulse to focus on our own problems is certainly understandable, but this would be a disastrously counterproductive approach. Human progress is an internationally connected effort, and without continued commitment to the prosperity of our fellow man the future really will become as awful as it sometimes seems. 

References: 

International Poverty Statistics: http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/tables/dollaraday.htm

International Education Statistics:

http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/document.aspx?ReportId=143&IF_Language=eng

International Child Mortality Rates:

http://www.undispatch.com/archives/2007/09/global_child_mo.php

World Health Statistics:

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/en/

The practice is so ubiquitous that it may seem like a scientifically sound form of medical care, but this is far from the truth. The premise upon which chiropractic theory is built has no basis in modern medical science, and various clinical studies have demonstrated it to be ineffective and dangerous.

History provides the first reason to be skeptical of the scientific legitimacy of chiropractics. The theory was initially developed in 1895 by Daniel Palmer, who was a beekeeper and grocery store owner. He had no previous medical education, but explained that the practice of spinal manipulation emerged from his beliefs in magnet therapy and spiritual energy channels.

Palmer believed that spinal joint dysfunction is the cause of all health problems, even traumatic injuries. And while the thought of a chiropractic clinic in an emergency room seems obviously ludicrous, most modern practitioners still subscribe to this philosophy.

Chiropractors are taught to provide spinal adjustments for a wide range of ailments including asthma, cancer, autism and even infectious diseases like HIV and tuberculosis. It is not uncommon for emergency rooms to get patients with acute appendicitis or cardiovascular disease that delayed seeking medical attention at the recommendation of their chiropractor.

In most cases, however, there is no physical harm incurred by the practice of spinal manipulation. The real danger exists in confusing the quackery of chiropractic theory with genuine medical science.

Chiropractics is a philosophical hypothesis that is based on an outdated understanding of human anatomy. Modern x-ray and magnetic resonance imaging technology has been used alongside clinical research to debunk the fantasy of the chiropractic disease theory.

There is no evidence that vertebral misalignments can cause disease, and no medical basis for the concept of “nerve flow” blockage that is taught in chiropractic theory. Furthermore, spinal manipulation has not been shown to produce any change in skeletal position or nerve function.

A few studies exist that demonstrate that spinal manipulation can alleviate some forms of back pain, and chiropractors often use them to insist that their philosophical and spiritual hypotheses have some legitimate scientific basis. However, a large amount of research indicates that this correlation could be due to poorly conducted studies and a simple placebo effect.

In 1998 the New England Journal of Medicine published a study that showed that a control group given a pamphlet on back pain did just as well as patients treated by a chiropractor. A more recent study shows that the same success rate could be found when patients were randomly massaged and prodded by a graduate student with no training in chiropractics.

Most chiropractors do not have enough training in human physiology and medical science to realize how obsolete and deluded their profession is. In fact, a recent survey done Yale Medical School found that nearly 70% of chiropractors believe that the popping sound they hear during joint manipulation is made by the bone sliding into its proper place. This is very foolish, since what they are really hearing the noise of gas escaping from synovial joint capsules.

The vast majority of chiropractors also take large x-ray images of each patient to identify parts of the spinal cord that are pinched. This is a flimsy grasp on to real medical technology, since nerve tissue is invisible on x-ray film. It is only the fantasy of medical authority that makes this approach a worthwhile business practice.

Whatever chiropractors do, it isn’t science. No article has ever been published in a peer reviewed science journal that supports the medical claims made by the chiropractic theory of disease, and no empirical argument has been provided against the studies that criticize their practice. The threat of injury when seeing a chiropractor may be small, but it is still too much to risk for just the delusion of real medical science.

To make sure medication for rare diseases are continually produced, the US government created the orphan drug classification. This status is granted to drugs that are important for the treatment of serious diseases, but wouldn’t otherwise be profitable to produce. Companies that decide to sell an orphan drug get financial support and exclusive rights to manufacture the product, and patients usually get easy access to their medication.

However, many pharmaceutical companies use this system as a government sanctioned monopoly. Since the patient’s health depends on their medication, and all other companies are prohibited from producing it, the company that initially picked up the orphan drug can set any price and still remain sure that it will sell.

In 1995, Savient Pharmaceuticals reintroduced a promising anabolic steroid, called Oxandrolone, to treat cases of extreme weight loss caused by Hepatitis and HIV wasting syndrome. Oxandrolone was available for around $800 per year when it came out thirty years ago, but since it was classified as an orphan drug the cost of an annual prescription increased to almost $11,000. International companies have offered to produce it for less than the original 1970’s cost (around $600 per year), but federal law forbids patients from purchasing the medication from anywhere but Savient Pharmaceuticals.

Of course, no one should be surprised that US pharmaceutical companies don’t hesitate to force dying AIDS patients to pay arbitrarily huge sums of money for treatments that cost nearly nothing to produce. Corporations are legally obligated to maximize profits for their shareholders. But there is no excuse for the federal government’s continued facilitation of this kind of price gouging.

With the help of this program, dying patients have become the best type of customer for many different pharmaceutical companies. In 2006, Genzyme Corporation made more than $900 million on an orphan drug for Gaucher disease, while spending less than $30 million to produce it. In Brazil, a drug to treat leprosy and certain types of cancer sells for seven cents per pill, but its orphan drug status allows Calgene Corporation to charge more than $55 per pill in the US.

Price gouging on these medications has become so extreme that insurance companies are even starting to reduce the coverage of diseases that are treated with orphan drugs. Many insurance providers now require that the patient pay for half of the costs of medications under the orphan drug status, and some will no longer cover any part of the prescription cost.

The orphan drug act was created to protect patient health, but its efficacy relies on pharmaceutical companies having some amount of morality. This very obvious flaw has attracted no changes to the legislation, even though it has been ruthlessly exploited for years.

If the federal government is going to create programs that interfere with the free market, it should be prepared to provide the oversight necessary to ensure their success. As is the case with the orphan drug program, a half-assed attempt at regulating capitalism can often do more damage to the citizenry than what would have happened without government intervention.