ith all these cups lying around, it’s difficult to tell whose is whose. The adults at the volleyball picnic tried, with varying degrees of success, to keep track of which was their cup, but many of the youngest children just grabbed for whichever one was closest. That, of course, worried their parents who were just sure that everybody else had some kind of horrible disease that their child would get, merely by drinking out of the wrong cup. Then too, in the in-between-games rush to get a quick drink of water, probably quite a few of the volleyball players accidentally grabbed the wrong cup, not to mention a few flies, ants, and spiders checking out the cups while the humans weren’t looking.
Advertizing agencies have convinced many people in our present-day society
that all bacteria are terribly dangerous and something to be avoided at all
cost. Antibacterial agents are needlessly added to all kinds of products and
promoted as “selling points” for those products. Not only are we bombarded
with a glut of antibacterial dish detergents and body “soaps,” but they’re
also trying to sell us a variety of other products such as mattress pads and
children’s nightwear embedded with antimicrobial agents, pet bowls and bath
mats made from plastic which has antimicrobial agents embedded in it, and the
ubiquitous hand sanitizers.
In addition, restaurants and grocery stores are required to
use huge amounts
of various antibacterial agents as disinfectants. Our hospitals and other
health care facilities are over-using antibiotics and antiseptics, while
quite a number of doctors, unhesitatingly, write prescriptions for antibiotics
for people suffering from viral infections such as the common cold. Even
places like movie theaters and schools feel that they must disinfect every
reachable surface.
What’s the result of all this? Many people have been led to
believe that all this over-use of antibacterial agents is due to the
presence of larger numbers
of more deadly bacteria, when in fact, quite the opposite is true: the
over-use of antibacterial agents is the cause of the “problem,” and
many of
those “deadly” bacteria are so labeled because they are now resistant to all
of the commonly over-used antibacterial agents. Multiple drug-resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is a huge problem in many
hospitals.
Here’s an explanation of what’s really going on. First,
look at the people
around you, and notice how different they all are from each other. Think
not just about looks, but about how their bodies function: someone might have
lactose intolerance, another might have childhood diabetes, and yet another
might have hemophilia, all of which are genetic conditions. Similarly, in
any population of the same species of bacteria, there is just as much genetic
variation, with the result that some of the bacteria will just naturally be
more susceptible to the effects of some of our antibacterial agents while
others, because of their genetic code and resulting metabolism, will be
resistant or immune to the effects of a particular chemical (From what I’ve
heard, some bacteria can even use tetracycline as food!).
Ecologists talk about something they call “natural selection,” by which they
mean that when a population of the same species of organism is subjected to
some “environmental pressure” – often things like availability of food,
homes/protection, or other resources, those individual organisms which are
best suited, genetically, to cope with those conditions will survive and live
to reproduce, while those which, genetically, cannot cope with the existing
environmental conditions will die and their genes will not be passed on. That
is exactly what’s going on here. The bacteria which are susceptible to a
particular antibiotic will die when exposed to it, while the bacteria which
have slightly different metabolic processes, and thus are resistant, will
live. Not only will they live, but within just a few hours, they will have
grown enough to divide and make more just like themselves. Soon, the population
will be “rebuilt,” but now, all the individuals that make up that population
will be resistant to that chemical, and the next time it is applied to those
bacteria, it will have no effect on them.
Now, if we’re talking about something like an occasional course of an
antibiotic for some short-term, critical need, such as fighting a strep
throat infection, the idea is that the drug knocks the population down to a
low-enough level that the person’s immune system can attack the remaining
bacteria, and few, if any, live to reproduce. Then, if that person would
happen to get strep throat, again, several years later, chances are that the
new infection is caused by new bacteria from “outside” and probably not the
descendants of those which survived the first time. Thus, the same antibiotic
can be used again, with equal success. However, when all the bacteria in a
person’s body and/or local environment are exposed to lower levels of one or
several chemicals on an ongoing basis, those bacteria will become resistant
or immune to that/those chemical(s). . . and then newer, “stronger” (= more
dangerous to humans) chemicals are developed/used, and the bacteria evolve
to become resistant to them, too. Soon, the surviving bacteria that have
been “selected for” (remember natural selection?) have such complicated and
varied metabolic processes that they can deal with, detoxify, eat, or
otherwise live-in-spite-of just about any new chemical that’s thrown at
them.
All of this “bacteria-phobia” shows a complete lack of understanding of how
our immune systems work, and as we’re increasingly seeing, actually interferes
with the proper “development” and functioning of people’s immune systems.
The immune system needs exposure to “invaders” so it can “learn” to fight
them — no prior exposure = no ability to fight off a disease organism.
Many people these days are keeping their local environment too
“clean.”
All those natural, protective chemicals in our skin and
scalp and on our hair
are part of our body’s way of fighting invaders. Those non-specific
defense mechanisms (not specific to a particular invader), along with
others such as fever, are out body’s first response to foreign invaders, and
these work side-by-side with the specific defense mechanisms (things
that target and fight certain, specific invaders) such as the antibodies
produced by our immune systems. We have these kinds of non-specific, protective
chemicals in other places in our bodies, too, including, for example, within
our stomaches. To stimulate development of both the non-specific and the
specific defense mechanisms – for a healthy immune system – to a reasonable
extent, children are supposed to play in the dirt and put bugs and stuff in
their mouths! When my niece was a baby, my brother told me she frequently
crawled over to the sliding glass door, where she would pick dead insects out
of the door track and, before they could stop her, put them into her mouth.
With few major childhood diseases in between, she is now a young adult.
However, there does, obviously, need to be a reasonable “balance” — babies
and toddlers need to be exposed to enough potential-invaders to develop
healthy immune systems, but not exposed to so much at once, beyond what their
immature immune systems can handle, so that they get really sick,
instead.
Over-use of antibiotics can also cause other problems. For
example, if
a person’s body is repeatedly exposed to a particular antibiotic (like
penicillin), that person’s immune system may come to recognize that chemical
as a “foreign invader” and begin producing antibodies, histamines, and other
protective chemicals to fight that perceived invader. This kind of inappropriate
over-reaction, whether to antibiotics, food items, or other substances in a
person’s environment, is called an allergy. Once a person develops an
allergy to a particular antibiotic, if in the future that antibiotic is needed
to treat a certain condition, it cannot be used in/on that person due to the
possibility that the person’s immune system might overreact to the antibiotic,
possibly even causing the person to go into anaphylactic shock.
Prescribing/taking antibiotics for a viral infection such as the common cold
is a waste of time and money as well as selecting for resistant bacteria and
increasing the chances of an allergic reaction to that drug. Antibiotics
target/inhibit certain body processes within certain types of bacterial cells.
For example, penicillin specifically/only inhibits formation of a chemical
called peptidoglycan which some bacteria (called “Gram+”) need to form their
cell walls, while tetracycline, streptomycin, and Zithromax® (azithromycin)
specifically/only interfere with bacterial ribosomes’ ability to synthesize
the proteins needed by the bacteria. Viruses are not alive, do not have
cells, much less cell walls or ribosomes, and do not carry on any kinds of
chemical processes, thus are not affected by antibiotics. If a person has a
sore throat, appropriate testing should always be done, first, to diagnose
whether the person has strep throat (which is treatable by antibiotics) or a
viral infection (which is not). If a person has bronchitis, coughing, etc.,
diagnosis should first be done to determine whether the person has something
like bacterial pneumonia (treatable by antibiotics) or a viral infection
(cold or flu, not treatable by
antibiotics).
As just mentioned, small children’s immature immune systems
need to gradually
be exposed to “every-day” things so that those immune systems will mature and
develop properly. On the other hand, we’re increasingly seeing/recognizing
problems associated with our all-too-common practice of overwhelming
those little immune systems by “throwing too much at them” too early, before
they’re mature- and developed-enough to handle it.
Once upon a time, back in the days when cows were milked by hand and smallpox
was still a common disease, a man by the name of Edward Jenner noticed that
milkmaids frequently caught a similar but much, much more mild disease,
called cowpox, from the cows that they milked. Jenner also noticed that
milkmaids didn’t get smallpox. From this, he developed the hypothesis that
having and recovering from cowpox gave a person immunity to the much more
serious disease, smallpox. To test his hypothesis (this kind of testing would
certainly NOT be allowed now!!!), first, he purposely inoculated a boy with
body secretions containing the cowpox virus, and of course the boy got cowpox.
When the boy had recovered from that, Jenner purposely inoculated the boy with
body secretions from someone who had smallpox – he was so convinced that his
idea was right that he purposely tried to make the boy sick with a deadly
disease! Luckily for both of them (and for the rest of us) Jenner was right.
Since the cowpox virus came from a cow, the Latin term vaccin, which
means “of a cow” was used to describe Jenner’s process of giving people cowpox
to prevent smallpox, hence the origin of the words “vaccine” and “vaccination.”
A vaccine is/contains a weakened or inactivated form of some particular virus.
This is given to a person (vaccination) to stimulate his/her immune system to
fight off that “wimpy” form of the virus so when the real thing comes along,
the person’s immune system will already know how to fight it. Because a
person’s immune system isn’t able to fight an invader without prior exposure,
vaccination will often/usually cause mild symptoms of that disease. For example,
smallpox vaccinations always cause one “pock” at the site of inoculation,
and just about everyone who has been vaccinated for smallpox has a “smallpox
scar”. Pregnant women who have never had German measles (or the vaccine for
it) are told to stay away from children who have recently been vaccinated
for that, because some of the virus in the child’s body (from the vaccination)
could be transferred to the pregnant woman and cause birth defects. Many
vaccinations cause fever and/or mild flu-like symptoms. Thus, vaccinations
are not totally “safe” – they do contain potentially “bad” viruses.
When I was a child, young children (not practically-newborn babies) were given
a smallpox vaccination, and school-age children were given polio vaccine.
Beyond that, there were not vaccines available for the “common” childhood
diseases such as measles, mumps, and chickenpox. Children just “got” those
diseases when exposed to them, were sick for a short while, then recovered
and were immune to the diseases. Now, vaccines have been developed for all
of those childhood diseases, and school systems try to tell parents they
“have to” have their children vaccinated. Several of the other Biology faculty
here at Clermont – people who teach our Microbiology course – have shared with
me that they have chosen to not have their children vaccinated. One
faculty member mentioned to me that she has prepared a written statement
explaining her position, which she presents to each of her children’s schools
that wants to see vaccination records, and that so far, the schools have been
good about putting that piece of paper on file and not hassling her about it.
Why would anyone want to not vaccinate a child? Many people are
increasingly skeptical about the way in which it is done. Mostly for the
convenience of the doctor, increasingly, vaccines for several viruses are
mixed together in one shot. Thus a young, immature immune system is purposely
exposed to several “bad” viruses simultaneously, so that rather than having
the time to work on developing an immunity to each one, individually, the
child’s immune system is over-stressed by trying to cope with all those viruses
at one time. To make matters worse, the age at which that big dose of mixed
viruses is presented has been pushed back earlier and earlier. Many vaccines
which used to be given at 1 year or maybe 6 mo. are now given within a week
or two of birth. A newborn baby’s immune system is too immature to handle
that load! Either the baby might get very sick from not being able to fight
off all those viruses and/or because the baby’s immune system is so immature
at that point, it may not be developed enough to really, properly respond to
those viruses and correctly develop an immunity to them (in otherwords, it’s
a waste of time and money to do it then).
Many people feel that there is evidence of another possible problem associated
with modern vaccines. In the past, “live” vaccines were perishable and were
kept cold or frozen to “preserve” them until used. Modern vaccines, however,
have various preservatives added to them to prolong their shelf-life so that
they can be stored at room temperature practically indefinitely (again, that
makes things more convenient for the doctors and drug companies). However,
there is much current debate/controversy over whether the preservative
thimerosal, used especially in the “MMR” (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine,
is a factor in autism. The feds, of course, deny any link between the two,
but other people feel that there’s some pretty strong evidence linking them.
NON-THIMEROSAL VACCINES ARE AVAILABLE. Many pediatricians’ offices routinely
stock the standard, thimerosal-containing versions, but if parents are
insistent and persistent, the doctor’s office can obtain the non-thimerosal
versions. If they refuse and that’s something that’s important to you, then
it’s time to go find a different doctor. On the other hand, I have heard
from some students that their pediatricians will only use the non-thimerosal
versions.
Links to Related Information on Our Web Server
The following Web pages contain information related to
immunity and the immune system, as well as bacterial and viral
diseases.
There will be only one, combined assignment for this week’s topics (skeletal, immune, and excretory systems). Thus even though this will appear on each of those three pages to remind you, you only need to do it once. Pick a disease or disorder that affects humans, and do library and/or Web research to find out more about that disease (see below). Suggestion: get in touch with your classmates via e-mail (addresses available from the Check Grades (and Class E-Mail List) Web page) to find out what each other are doing so everybody doesn't do the same thing. As a suggestion, it seems like AIDS is almost “overdone,” these days – it might be more interesting to pick something a bit more “unusual.” If you’re looking for ideas for “different” sorts of things, a few things that come to mind include Hansen’s disease, androgen insensitivity syndrome, scurvy, kuru, beriberi, hemophilia, malaria, sickle-cell anemia, syphilus, bubonic plague, mononucleosis, human papilloma virus, etc., etc. Malaria has recently become a “hot topic.” A couple of Web sites which may be of use include The Merck Manual Online and OMIM Home Page (OMIM deals specifically with genetic conditions). The grading criteria for this assignment are given below, and you should also refer to those as you work on the assignment. A total of 30 points is possible.
1. Cause of Disease/Disorder: | ||
---|---|---|
2 | — | The cause of the disease/disorder was thoroughly researched and accurately and clearly presented |
1 | — | The cause of the disease/disorder was adequately researched and presented |
0 | — | Information on the cause of the disease/disorder was sketchy and/or mostly incorrect |
2 | — | Thorough discussion of pre-existing conditions that increase chances of getting or exacerbate the condition was also included |
1 | — | At least some mention was made of pre-existing conditions that increase chances of getting or aggravate the condition |
0 | — | Either no or incorrect information on effects of pre-existing conditions was included |
2. Discovery of Disease/Disorder: | ||
2 | — | The history of the discovery/description of this condition was thoroughly researched and accurately and clearly presented |
1 | — | The history of the discovery/description of this condition was adequately researched and presented |
0 | — | Information on the discovery of this condition was sketchy and/or mostly incorrect |
2 | — | This information was presented in a manner that was entertaining and fun to read |
1 | — | This information was adequately presented |
0 | — | Presentation of this information was monotonous and lacked interest |
3. Signs, Symptoms, etc.: | ||
2 | — | The signs, symptoms, and effects on the body systems were thoroughly researched and accurately and clearly presented |
1 | — | The signs, symptoms, and effects on the body systems were adequately researched and presented |
0 | — | Information on the effects of this disease/disorder was sketchy and/or mostly incorrect |
2 | — | The student clearly demonstrated that (s)he knows the difference between “signs” and “symptoms” |
1 | — | The delineation between “signs” and “symptoms” was included and was at least partially correct |
0 | — | “Signs” and “symptoms” were not delineated or were incorrectly distinguished from each other or most manifestations of the condition were assigned to the wrong category |
4. Diagnosis & Treatment: | ||
2 | — | The diagnosis and treatment of this condition were thoroughly researched and accurately and clearly presented |
1 | — | The diagnosis and treatment of this condition were adequately researched and presented |
0 | — | Information on the diagnosis and treatment of this condition was sketchy and/or mostly incorrect |
2 | — | Thorough discussion of role and usefulness of diet and/or “alternative” therapies was also included |
1 | — | Effectiveness of diet and/or “alternative” therapies was at least mentioned and partially discussed |
0 | — | No mention made of effects/influence of diet and/or “alternative” therapies |
5. Spread & Distribution: | ||
2 | — | The prevalence, distribution, and means of acquisition were thoroughly researched and accurately and clearly presented |
1 | — | The prevalence, distribution, and means of acquisition were adequately researched and presented |
0 | — | Information on the prevalence, distribution, and means of acquisition was sketchy and/or mostly incorrect |
2 | — | Discussion of likelihood of contracting and means of prevention was thoroughly presented |
1 | — | Likelihood of getting and means of prevention were at least mentioned |
0 | — | No mention made of how to keep from getting this disease/disorder or information presented was incorrect |
6. Misconceptions & Role in History: | ||
2 | — | Information on misconceptions associated with this condition and its role in history was thoroughly researched and accurately and clearly presented |
1 | — | Information on misconceptions associated with this condition and its role in history was adequately researched and presented |
0 | — | Information on misconceptions and/or the role in history was sketchy and/or mostly incorrect |
2 | — | This information was presented in a manner that was entertaining and fun to read |
1 | — | This information was adequately presented |
0 | — | Presentation of this information was monotonous and lacked interest |
7. Overall: | ||
2 | — | The grammar, English usage, punctuation, and spelling were very good |
1 | — | The grammar, etc. were OK |
0 | — | The grammar, etc. were poor |
2 | — | The student, obviously, went beyond the minimum requirements of the assignment |
1 | — | The student adequately completed the assignment |
0 | — | The student completed considerably less of the assignment than what was required |
2 | — | It is evident that the student used much insight, thoughtfulness, and critical thinking when completing this assignment |
1 | — | The student adequately thought about the assignment – there was, perhaps, a bit of “fuzzy thinking” in a couple places |
0 | — | The assignment gives the appearance of being “slapped together” just to get it done, with little evidence of thoughtfulness |
Total Possible: | ||
30 | — | total points |