Dirt and Allergies
The question arises as to why we are seeing so much more allergy and asthma in both kids and adults. Ask anyone over 50 and they usually say they never went to the doctor for either of these problems. Now we seem to be seeing more and more.
In 2004 there was a study published in the April 30 online issue of the British Medical Journal that offered additional evidence for the hygiene hypothesis of atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis is a skin condition we usually associate with patients that have allergies.
Christine Stabell Benn wrote "Epidemiological studies have consistently shown an inverse relation between number of siblings and allergic diseases." She is from the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre of Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark. She went on to say "The association between infectious diseases and allergic diseases has not been consistent."
The study showed that before six months of age, 13,070 children (54%) had at least one clinical infection, and by age 18 months, 2,638 children (10.8%) had atopic dermatitis.
Contrary to the common belief that infections early in life may protect against the development of allergic diseases, this study showed the risk of atopic dermatitis (allergies) in this population increased with each infection before age six months
In contrast, the risk of atopic dermatitis (allergies) decreased with each additional exposure to three or more siblings, day care, pet ownership, and farm residence. This protective effect persisted after adjusting for number of infections, suggesting that it is established independently and very early in life, according to the authors.
Although these findings support the importance of microbial exposure for preventing atopic dermatitis (allergies), they challenge the hypothesis that infections in infancy protect against its development, the authors conclude.
In an accompanying commentary, Geoff Watts, science editor of the BMJ, in London, U.K., explains how these findings support various interpretations of the hygiene hypothesis. One effect of hygiene may be to decrease regulatory T cells and to allow the emergence of allergies.
So the question remains; are we sparing the dirt and spoiling our children's immune systems? Has our national trend of spending more time indoors with air conditioning robbed our immune systems from protecting us?
Should we let our kids go outside more, play in the woods, eat dirt and all of those things we did as kids? Time will tell and more studies will be performed. For now, encourage your kids to enjoy childhood and take advantage of the great outdoors. The evidence does not support some of the fears.
In 2004 there was a study published in the April 30 online issue of the British Medical Journal that offered additional evidence for the hygiene hypothesis of atopic dermatitis. Atopic dermatitis is a skin condition we usually associate with patients that have allergies.
Christine Stabell Benn wrote "Epidemiological studies have consistently shown an inverse relation between number of siblings and allergic diseases." She is from the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre of Statens Serum Institute in Copenhagen, Denmark. She went on to say "The association between infectious diseases and allergic diseases has not been consistent."
The study showed that before six months of age, 13,070 children (54%) had at least one clinical infection, and by age 18 months, 2,638 children (10.8%) had atopic dermatitis.
Contrary to the common belief that infections early in life may protect against the development of allergic diseases, this study showed the risk of atopic dermatitis (allergies) in this population increased with each infection before age six months
In contrast, the risk of atopic dermatitis (allergies) decreased with each additional exposure to three or more siblings, day care, pet ownership, and farm residence. This protective effect persisted after adjusting for number of infections, suggesting that it is established independently and very early in life, according to the authors.
Although these findings support the importance of microbial exposure for preventing atopic dermatitis (allergies), they challenge the hypothesis that infections in infancy protect against its development, the authors conclude.
In an accompanying commentary, Geoff Watts, science editor of the BMJ, in London, U.K., explains how these findings support various interpretations of the hygiene hypothesis. One effect of hygiene may be to decrease regulatory T cells and to allow the emergence of allergies.
So the question remains; are we sparing the dirt and spoiling our children's immune systems? Has our national trend of spending more time indoors with air conditioning robbed our immune systems from protecting us?
Should we let our kids go outside more, play in the woods, eat dirt and all of those things we did as kids? Time will tell and more studies will be performed. For now, encourage your kids to enjoy childhood and take advantage of the great outdoors. The evidence does not support some of the fears.
Forecast for FLOYDS KNOBS, IN (on a scale of 1-12):
Today's allergy levels:
Friday - 5/Medium
Today's predominant pollen:
Grass, Mulberry and Hickory/Pecan.
posted by Anonymous at 6:10 AM
24 Comments:
Speaking of "dirt," I couldn't help noticing that HB didn't respond to this comment posted a few days ago:
"I heard Dan has already spoken with Eli about being (one of the) top dogs at the new facility."
I have no idea if that is true or not, but if it happens to be true it would raise some serious ethical questions about HB's comments on this blog that undermine the public image of a hospital that might soon be a competitor. And, of course, there would be an even larger matter of ethics for a recent board member of Floyd Memorial to join a competitor.
Again, I have no way of knowing if the accusation is true or not, but it is a serious one and I am surprised that HB didn't clear this up.
I couldn't help noticing that DiogenesTrainee remains anonymous.
I am surprised that DiogenesTrainee didn't clear this up.
New Albanian:
If that is supposed to pass for clever repartee, it fails by being irrelevant to the issue of whether HB had a hidden agenda or not. Either he did or he didn't.
In regard to HB jumping ship and going to a new facility, it seems that once again, his medical group is going to try and put the fear in United Healthcare. The physicians in Floyd County tried those tactics several years ago. It did nothing but send patients across the river to physicians that had no problem with US Healthcare. So once again letters have been sent to patients of Physician Assoc. notifying them that they will no longer accept US Healthcare Ins. It appears that something changed since the last time they tried this or it would not be neccesary to try it again. When are Doctors going to realize that for every Doctor on the block, there are new graduates each and every year ready to hang their shingle on the door. People want to be able to look to their Doctors as Gods, but its unfortunate that what it all boils down to is that they are just a human being with more education then many and some (not all) have the wisdom to use it. I take issue with the ones that will ditch their patients, and have the nerve to tell them that they can go out-of-network and pay the difference. I wonder if the Doctors of today still take an oath, and if so does it mention anything about money???????
To clear up the issues.
We have not joined the new Hospital as of yet. Our group is considering the option of the investment, but as of this date, we have neither paid any money nor signed any contract. Is that clear enough.
In addition, this is a private business opportunity and we are as free as anyone else to consider investing unless we do not have the freedoms everyone else does.
We are not the only physicians dropping United Healthcare.
This also is a business decision. We will work with any patient as an out-of-network provider just as we do with patients with no insurance.
The physicians of Floyd County did make a unified stance a few years ago and ran Aetna out of the area. Their covered lives dropped to nearly zero because of their shady business practices and abuses in contracts.
We are willing to make tough decisions and make a stance for some of the abuses by insurers like UHC.
Why is it when physicians make any business decision or investment, it is automatically considered greed, but when other people make investments or changes in their business structures it is considered good management.
Let's stop the double standards.
Regarding:
"We have not joined the new Hospital as of yet. Our group is considering the option of the investment, but as of this date, we have neither paid any money nor signed any contract. Is that clear enough."
It is about as clear a statement as one would expect from Bill Clinton responding to a question about adultery. Technically correct, but intentionally misleading.
I wouldn't deny your group the right to pursue any business opportunity. But I would add that considering an alightnment/investment in the proposed new hospital while serving on the board of Floyd Memorial or during the period while you were trashing Floyd on this blog would be deceitful and unethical.
AT THE time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession,
I SOLEMNLY pledge myself to consecrate my life to the service of humanity.
I WILL give to my teachers the respect and gratitude which is their due;
I WILL practice my profession with conscience and dignity;
THE HEALTH of my patient will be my first consideration;
I WILL respect the secrets, which are confided in me;
I WILL maintain by all the means in my power, the honor and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
MY COLLEAGUES will be my sisters and brothers;
I WILL respect and value the lives of all persons;
I WILL not discriminate against any person in medical decisions;
I WILL maintain the utmost respect for human life; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.
I MAKE these promises solemnly, freely, and upon my honor.
The above Physician Oath, is what I referred to in my previous post. Maybe this is not the oath Physicians take nowdays. When a Doctor gives their patients an ultimatum in regards to providing ongoing healthcare, that is telling me that they do not have the patients best interest in mind. Many people have worked years to enjoy the benefits of provided healthcare at their retirement. These same people have no choice as to their policy provider. Their company makes that decision for them, my point is you must not think much of your patients if you pick and choose what each must pay. Granted everyones circumstance is different. This leads me to believe that because someone has coverage under 2 plans they will be charged way more for your services than someone who has little or none. You are wrong about Aetna being run out of New Albany, I beg to differ, check your records and see how many patients left your office and had no trouble in locating a Doctor across the river. I would tend to think it must have made an impact on FC Physicians, because it would not be coming up again. Aetna IS United Healthcare. If FC PHY. had not reinstated them, you wouldn't be visiting this issue again. Also, as far as a business decision, read any of the Physician's oaths, nothing says anything about a business. Maybe we should drop the title Dr. or MD.
and just call them Business Men, but most Businessmen do not make decisions daily on life threatening
issues, so that is why I will seek out a Physician that has my well-being in mind and one that is not disgruntled about what Insurance coverage I have and what they are going to make off my office visit. Maybe everyone should just say I have no coverage and see what happens with that scenario.
In regard to someone that said Anonymous holds no merit on this blog. I disagree, anytime the truth comes out, its worth reading.
What is misleading. We are looking at the investment opportunity. We are also looking into our own MRI operation as well as a new office building and outpatient center with potentially some other physicians.
It would make patient care more efficient and less costly. No decision has been formally made at this point. We are still looking at all the options.
Other physicians in our group already have priveleges at Clark, Norton and Kosairs and we will obtain priveleges at the new hospital whether or not we become investors.
As for anonymous, I'm am not even sure where to start. You are just misinformed on so many points. Aetna and UHC are two separate entities. Aetna took a huge loss of covered lives in Floyd County when the physicians dropped them.
Health care is not a right. People do have to pay for the service. They have always paid, whether it be cash, traded services, bartering, livestock etc.
The hippocratic oath that physicians take is markedly different than the original. It is dynamic and changes in wording every few years because of trends in practice.
It was not always taken. In fact, it probably didn't begin until the middle of the last century.
We are not obligated to take any insurance. We work with all of our patients and make it as easy as possible given the current environment.
You and I just philosophically are at different poles. Patients are responsible for the cost of their healthcare. How they arrange this varies greatly, but the repsonsibility lies with them.
diogenestrainee,
you obviously have personal issues with HB. I have read a lot of your comments and your opionions on the issues are nothing other than attacking HB's integrity.
If you disagree that is fine, back it up with facts and not personal attacks.
I have a ton of respect for HB because he has not returned fire on your insults.
I am also one of HB's patients and my husband and I have discussed this issue and we feel that it is our Physicians job to provide medical care and our responsibility to pay for it.
Anonymous: You must not have read much of the blogs over the last few months. My comments have always been in response to remarks made by Healthblogger that I considered to be inaccurate or misleading. I never made the slightest negative comment about anyone else. HB, on the other hand, repeatedly launced very personal attacks on hospital administration, hospital board members and members of the county commission. He specifically referred to them as incompetent, lacking integrity and as "political cronies." I would hardly call that sticking to the issues.
Diogenestrainee,
Actually I have read the blogs, but I reviewed some of them to see if I was missing something. Here are some quotes from you:
You really need to get over yourself.
I am fed up with your loan ranger approach.
You are coming across as a spoiled child who doesn't get his way and starts screaming and stamping his foot.
I think they are learning a lot about your character: Your pettiness, your meanness and your inability to see beyond your preconceived conclusions.
Here are some quotes from healthblogger:
When physicians talk about hospitals being good or bad, we are referring to the care given to our patients.
I would rate our nurses, aides, lab, x-ray, and all other ancillary services as excellent and better than other hospitals despite them having to work short-staffed.
My goal is to see that the medical care and the employees are taken care of and that the satisfaction numbers increase.
I care about patients and employees and want a long-term successful hospital.
When physicians cannot admit patients to the hospital where they have privileges, it is not good for the patients medical care.
Now, what this says to me is HB cares about patients, employees, and the success of the hospital. The only thing I see from you is a heckler.
I was taught the internet is a good source of information if you know and trust the source. I do know HB and trust him. You have not identified yourself.
Dr. E does not need me to defend him or perhaps ruffle more feathers so it is time for me to shut it. But my point remains the same it seems you are attacking more than giving facts. I wish you the best of luck!!!!!!
diogenestrainee,
You stated:
"My comments have always been in response to remarks made by Healthblogger that I considered to be inaccurate or misleading."
The problem remains that you are anonymous. When I have made statements, they are supported with circumstances, decisions made by the individuals and facts.
Just because you believe them to be inaccurate or misleading is only an opinion and one that has little credibility without knowing your identity.
Again, tell people who you are and let them judge. What is there to fear?
Sorry, Doc, but when it served your purposes to remain anonymous while touting your candidacy for reappointment to the Floyd Memorial Board you were just fine with anonymity. And then you continued to bash the hospital while, it now turns out, you have been engaged in a decision making process about whether to join a competitor. You have no problem hiding your motives when it suits you. So I feel no obligation to do more than state my opinions. At least I know they are “opinions.” Your comments are delivered in a fashion that would embarrass the Pope when speaking under papal infallibility.
Once again, you're mistaken on your facts.
While anonymous, before January 1 2006, the topics discussed were not related to the hospital or administration. They covered a variety of health and community issues, local politics, and just generally fun topics like christmas legends etc. There were just genearl comments and all positive prior to that date.
Gloves came off and truth was revealed after the reappointments were made.
You once again should have your facts straight before you comment. It makes you look bad.
Several of your readers called you out to the fact that you were pushing for your reappointment to the hospital board during the period you remained anonymous. Those postings seem to have mysteriously disappeared from the blog. You wouldn't be trying to rewrite history would you?
Again, perceptions and reality are often different and the facts will not support this.
There were only positive type of comments prior to Jan 2006 on this blog.
The new hospital is not my hospital. I will continue to work out of Floyd primarily no matter what happens.
This new hospital will have ventilators and to my understanding an ICU like setting for critical patients.
As I have said before, this new hospital will need to have a relationship with another facility for overflow and referral. This is where Floyd could have a "win" if the management could think about the future and quit harboring the ill-will. It's about relationships, something this administration places little value in.
The self-referral problem you insinuate is also not supported by facts. Most indigent patients show up in ER's without referrals because most have no physician. They get admitted and cared for because of where they came on their own. If they showed up at the new hospital, they would be cared for like anyone else.
I have patients who choose Jewish and Norton even though I do not go there. But the majority will go where I suggest. But even patients with insurance go the ER's many many times without referral from us.
HB,
I am really disappointed in you. Seriously disappointed.
Anon 9:26pm asks about missing posts and you totally ingnore the question. I decided to search your archives. There is at least one post missing. It is from 1-03-06 while you were still anonymous. It is the post where Healthblogger is urging the County Commissioners to reappoint Dr. E and Kay Garry(sp).
This is not perception. It is reality.
iamhoosier,
I did go back through the posts and you are correct in that the Jan 3rd posting was missing.
As I reviewed the posts it had been converted to draft form sometime in the past. Those who blog know that with any review of a post, if you hit save as draft, it doesn't post it. This can occur anytime, even weeks to months later.
I have checked and did not find any others that were missing or changed.
My apologies, but it was not intentional and I am unsure when it occured.
Even this posting was not overtly critical, but informative to the readers. This one posting on the day before the identity was known is the only questionable post from 4 months of posting. It was after January 1st and the decision was already decided before the meeting took place that day. The vote that night was only the formality. This in no way could have influenced or had any impact in a decision that was already made.
"While anonymous, before January 1 2006, the topics discussed were not related to the hospital or administration. They covered a variety of health and community issues, local politics, and just generally fun topics like christmas legends etc. There were just genearl comments and all positive prior to that date."
"...it was not intentional and I am unsure when it occured."
And Santa Claus and Pam Anderson are real.
HB,
On January 30th, I said that I had moved on from our differences concerning your "coming out". I have stayed out of the anon debate on your blog since then, until now.
It was hypocritical of you then. Until you can come to grips with what you did during that time, your "baiting" of anonymous posters is still hypocritical. Go back and read the posts from Jan 26.
Thanks for restoring the "missing" post. It wasn't really an important one. Just one that you did while still cloaked. Can anyone read the 1-3-06 post and not say that it appears to be a KNOWLEDGABLE, THIRD PARTY endorsing DR. E and Kay Garry for a position with a PUBLIC facility? First you say did not say "things" before coming out. When it is proved that you did, you say it was informative and not overtly critical. Please. That sounds like Bill Clinton and the meaning of "is". To be fair and balanced, your missing post sounds like Richard Nixon's secretary Rosemary Woods.
iamhoosier,
The January 26th posting you referred to was one of my big complaints.
After they met and officially voted on Jan 3, they never informed me personally. They called the CEO and others and let them know who was appointed, but I was never given any direct information from the Commissioners until this letter arrived 3 weeks later.
The CEO who rarely comes to my office, was very happy to show up the next day and inform me of the Commissioners decision. They felt obligated to give him the info but no courtesy to call me. This was inappropriate and the letter 3 weeks after the fact was also inappropriate.
HB,
I agree with your sentiments about your own post. I was not clear regarding the 1-26 post. I meant the responses concerning the timing of your coming out. You tried to tell "us" then that you had not done anything inappropriate. I still belive that there are several posts there that show that you did--to anyone with any sort of open mind.
Did your lapses cause any death, destruction or major chaos? Of course not. I prefer to look at them as mistakes. To me, it is not so much what you did as it is your absolute belief that you did nothing wrong.
Let me turn the table just a bit.
You have speculated that some posters are administrators. If they just write POSITIVE things about the hospital is it okay for them to remain anonymous? That word POSITIVE has been a key to your own defense even though you were not always positive as has been shown.
iamhoosier,
I understand your points and certainly see your side. I do make mistakes, and looking back understand the sentiments. Before the single 1/3/06 posting, I don't think there were any other questionable postings. That posting was done on the day of the official vote even though what was being said behind the scenes was already decided. I had heard from other people in the political realm that the decision was already made and established before this posting.
I do regret posting it on this particular day, not becuase it was inaccurate or unfair, but because of the perceptions it has now caused. That was a mistake and I apologize to any reader who percieves it negatively. I am trying harder to stick with the issues more and keep the emotions to a lower level.
Again, thanks for the accountability
HB,
Fair enough. I am ready to move on again. Getting about time to meet and have beer sometime, wouldn't you say?
Post a Comment
<< Home