Pages

.


.


Showing posts with label from. Show all posts
Showing posts with label from. Show all posts

Living With Pets May Protect Infants From Allergies


dog-baby-allergy
Getty Images


By Amanda Gardner

MONDAY, June 13, 2011 (Health.com) — Children who live with dogs and cats are less likely to develop allergies to those animals later in life, but only if the pet is under the same roof while the child is still an infant, a new study suggests.


Compared to babies born into cat-free homes, those who grew up with cats were roughly half as likely to be allergic to them as teenagers, the study found. Growing up around a dog reduced the risk of dog allergies by about the same amount for boys, but not for girls—a finding that mystified researchers.


Being exposed to pets anytime after the first year of life appeared to have no effect on allergy risk, however, which indicates that timing may be everything when it comes to preventing allergies.


Though they can’t say for sure, the researchers suspect that early exposure to pet allergens and pet-related bacteria strengthens the immune system, accustoms the body to allergens, and helps the child build up a natural immunity.



“Dirt is good,” says lead researcher Ganesa Wegienka, Ph.D., summing up the theory. “Your immune system, if it’s busy with exposures early on, stays away from the allergic immune profile.”


This isn’t the first study to find that having a household pet may protect kids from allergies, but it is the first to follow children until they were 18 years old.


Previous studies have had mixed results—some have even linked pet exposure during infancy to an increased risk of allergy—so it’s too early to recommend getting a dog or cat just to ward off allergies in your infant, says David Nash, M.D., clinical director of allergy and immunology at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.


“In the end, we’ll probably find out that there are periods of opportunity when exposure to allergens, for some people, is going to have a protective effect,” says Dr. Nash, who was not involved with the new study. “But we’re a long way from figuring out who it’s protective for and when that optimal period is.”


By the same token, don’t give away your beloved family pet because you’re concerned the critter will provoke allergies. “I would not get rid of my dog if I was having a child,” says Wegienka, an epidemiologist in the department of public health sciences at Henry Ford Hospital, in Detroit. “There’s no evidence that you should get rid of a dog or a cat.”


Moreover, it’s possible that factors other than having a dog or cat in the house influenced the study participants’ risk of allergy. For instance, although the researchers took into account whether the children’s parents were allergic to animals, they didn’t ask about a broader family history of allergies or other health problems. So it could be that children who are genetically predisposed to animal allergies simply are less likely to grow up in homes with pets.


In the study, which appears in the journal Clinical & Experimental Allergy, Wegienka and her colleagues collected information from 566 children and their parents about the kids’ exposure to indoor pets and their history of allergies. In addition, when the kids turned 18, the researchers took blood samples and tested them for certain immune-system proteins (known as antibodies) that fight off cat and dog allergens.


The teenagers who lived with a cat during their first year of life had a 48 percent lower risk of cat allergy than their peers, and the teen boys who lived with a dog had a 50 percent lower risk of allergy. The authors suggest that infant girls may not develop the same immunity as boys because they may interact differently with dogs than infant boys, but that’s only a guess.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Study: Living With Pets May Protect Infants From Allergies | TIME.com






Constance Bannister / Getty Images

Children who live with dogs and cats are less likely to develop allergies to those animals later in life, but only if the pet is under the same roof while the child is still an infant, a new study suggests.


Compared to babies born into cat-free homes, those who grew up with cats were roughly half as likely to be allergic to them as teenagers, the study found. Growing up around a dog reduced the risk of dog allergies by about the same amount for boys, but not for girls — a finding that mystified researchers.


Being exposed to pets anytime after the first year of life appeared to have no effect on allergy risk, however, which indicates that timing may be everything when it comes to preventing allergies.


(More on Health.com: 15 Hypoallergenic Dogs and Cats)


Though they can’t say for sure, the researchers suspect that early exposure to pet allergens and pet-related bacteria strengthens the immune system, accustoms the body to allergens, and helps the child build up a natural immunity.


“Dirt is good,” says lead researcher Ganesa Wegienka, Ph.D., summing up the theory. “Your immune system, if it’s busy with exposures early on, stays away from the allergic immune profile.”


This isn’t the first study to find that having a household pet may protect kids from allergies, but it is the first to follow children until they were 18 years old.


(More on Health.com: How to Reduce Pet Allergens at Home)


Previous studies have had mixed results — some have even linked pet exposure during infancy to an increased risk of allergy — so it’s too early to recommend getting a dog or cat just to ward off allergies in your infant, says David Nash, M.D., clinical director of allergy and immunology at the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh.


“In the end, we’ll probably find out that there are periods of opportunity when exposure to allergens, for some people, is going to have a protective effect,” says Dr. Nash, who was not involved with the new study. “But we’re a long way from figuring out who it’s protective for and when that optimal period is.”


By the same token, don’t give away your beloved family pet because you’re concerned the critter will provoke allergies. “I would not get rid of my dog if I was having a child,” says Wegienka, an epidemiologist in the department of public health sciences at Henry Ford Hospital, in Detroit. “There’s no evidence that you should get rid of a dog or a cat.”


(More on Health.com: What to do if you’re allergic to your pet)


Moreover, it’s possible that factors other than having a dog or cat in the house influenced the study participants’ risk of allergy. For instance, although the researchers took into account whether the children’s parents were allergic to animals, they didn’t ask about a broader family history of allergies or other health problems. So it could be that children who are genetically predisposed to animal allergies simply are less likely to grow up in homes with pets.


In the study, which appears in the journal Clinical & Experimental Allergy, Wegienka and her colleagues collected information from 566 children and their parents about the kids’ exposure to indoor pets and their history of allergies. In addition, when the kids turned 18, the researchers took blood samples and tested them for certain immune-system proteins (known as antibodies) that fight off cat and dog allergens.


The teenagers who lived with a cat during their first year of life had a 48 percent lower risk of cat allergy than their peers, and the teen boys who lived with a dog had a 50 percent lower risk of allergy. The authors suggest that infant girls may not develop the same immunity as boys because they may interact differently with dogs than infant boys, but that’s only a guess.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Dogs May Protect Babies From Allergies and Asthma


dog

dog (Photo credit: davidyuweb)



I think one of my favorite blog posts I’ve written was about why dogs and kids are so great together.  In this post, I mention the hygiene hypothesis, which suggests that the increasing prevalence of allergies in our society might be due to us being too clean.


There have been a few studies coming out recently that support this theory, that pet-owning households may have less-sick children than households without pets.  One study saw that infants who had contact with dogs had a lower incidence of becoming sick or were sick for a shorter period of time, compared to children who did not have contact with dogs (and this includes children who had contact with cats.  Take that, Some-Famous-Random-Cat!).


While this study in and of itself doesn’t definitively say that dogs keep babies healthy, it is supported by another recent study.  In this set of experiments, researchers fed mice some dust from homes with dogs.  These mice were infected with Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), a common childhood pathogen that causes respiratory infection.  Mice exposed to the dust did not have symptoms of RSV disease that were prevalent in the non-dust-eating mice.   In addition, the microbial flora (that is, all the little single-celled critters that live in or on us) in the guts of the dust-eating mice were different than the normal-food mice (note: all the mice ate regular food too, I’m just looking for cute/clever ways to differentiate the two groups).  This could be a mechanism to explain the protection found in the dog-dust mice: a different microbiome may result in changes to the immune system that help provide protection.


Even taken together, these studies don’t conclusively say that dogs protect babies from respiratory problems, such as allergies and asthma.  The results in the first study might be due to differences in care between the study subjects, or other variables in the study besides dog ownership.  In the second study, the researchers omitted a control group of mice eating dust from a dog-free home.  This makes it difficult to pin any improved immune responses against RSV directly on dog dander.   This is similar to how vaccines work: we prime the immune response to react a specific way, so when it sees a foreign invader for real, it knows what to do and can act before disease develops.


Moral of the story: while it’s possible that dogs (and to a lesser extent, cats) can cause changes in the immune system that may prevent allergies or certain respiratory infections, there still isn’t any conclusive data.  However, having a dog around a home with a familial history of allergies isn’t necessarily going to doom a baby to a lifetime of runny noses and itchy eyes.


And in our home, that’s reason enough to celebrate.



reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Vaccine madness: New mumps jab cultured from dog kidneys linked to canine allergies

(NaturalNews) An unlicensed vaccine being quietly shipped into the U.K. from the Czech Republic is sparking controversy as it may be linked to causing severe allergic reactions. Medi-Mumps, a single mumps vaccinecultured from dog kidney cells, is being touted by some as an alternative to the controversial combination measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, but others have major concerns about both its source and its potential for triggering severe canine allergies.


Christina England from VacTruth.com reports that Medi-Mumps will be available in private U.K. health clinics beginning in June, and that it is intended for children that are allergic to eggs — many vaccines are produced using eggs cultures — and for children whose parents are opposed to MMR. Though not officially approved for use, Medi-Mumps will be an option for parents who request it as part of a single vaccine regimen of immunization.


But children with dog allergies will still have to steer clear of the Medi-Mumps vaccine, which could trigger the same type of severe allergic reactions that a typical egg-cultured vaccine sometimes triggers in children with egg allergies. In fact, based on egg-cultured vaccines’ reputation of potentially triggering new egg allergies, it is likely that the dog-based vaccine will also trigger new canine allergies in some children.


Is Medi-Mumps just a repackaged version of the now-banned Pavivac mumps vaccine?


Back in 2002, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, an independent U.K. advisory committee that evaluates the quality, efficacy and safety of medicines, rejected a single mumps vaccine known as Pavivac because of serious safety concerns. Just like Medi-Mumps, Pavivac was made from dog kidney cells in the Czech Republic, but was considered potentially hazardous with not enough evidence to back up claims that it was safe and effective.


Now it appears as though Pavivac has simply been repackaged and rebranded as Medi-Mumps, which similarly lacks proper safety data showing that it is effective with minimal risk. And yet parents opting for single vaccines for their children will likely be presented with Medi-Mumps as a viable alternative to MMR, even though it could cause the very same harm as MMR.



Ethical and moral issues involved with making vaccines out of dogs


That creating vaccines with dog kidneys is even considered valid medical practice by anyone is heinous enough, let alone the safety issues presented by their use. Using chicken eggs to culture vaccines is one thing, as no animal has to die in order to make this happen. But dogs presumably have to be bred and killed in order to have their kidneys harvested for the creation of Medi-Mumps vaccines.


Parents’ best bet at this point is toavoid both the Medi-Mumps and MMR vaccinesfor the safety of their children. Neither vaccine has been proven safe or effective, and both are linked to potentially irreversible side effects.


Sources for this article include:


http://vactruth.com/2012/05/25/vaccine-dog-cells-allergy


http://earlyonset.com


http://www.naturalnews.com/MMR_vaccine.htm




reade more... Résuméabuiyad