I've mostly recovered from my evening out in the rowdy company of science writers. What I'm recovering from is not the socializing but the bad sangria at the tapas bar we went to. I'm sure they make it from what's left in the wine bottles from the week before.
Red wine has much higher histamine levels than white wine. Histamines cause itch. Therefore, if I'm going to drink wine, it should be white. But I don't like white wine-- I like red wine. (Plus, the idea of white sangria is vile.) I pay for my stubbornness.
So I woke up this morning with the skin on my right ankle all torn up. Must have scratched it in my sleep. I've also been scratching the back of my right wrist this week. Have you ever noticed a weird symmetry with eczema? Usually, if you have a patch on the right side, you have one on the left side in the corresponding place. And if you have a patch on your arm, you have a patch in the corresponding part of your leg on that side. Or at least I do. If there's something on the inside of my elbow, there's something on the inside of my knee. If the forearms are acting up, then the lower legs are in the game. Not always, but enough to make me think there's some weird connection in the motor part of my brain.
Oh, another thing-- if one hand is scratching, I find the other hand is also compelled to scratch in mirror symmetry. Sometimes I have fun with this, kind of like tickling the belly of a dog and watching its leg kick. I'll use one hand to scratch, and put the other hand on a towel or tablecloth and watch it do its thing by itself.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Thinking big about eczema philanthropy
Posting a bit early tonight. I'm off to a holiday party in a bit: the Northern California Science Writers' annual shindig. These events are always great for networking. Science writers love networking, because we're all freelancers and entrepreneurs at heart, and each new person you meet might give you a great story idea, or be a potential editor, or have a job lead, etc...
The new person can also be further ahead in his or her career than you are, or have just published a book, or signed a film contract-- but since, at these socials, I usually have a drink in hand, I tend to look at the bright side of someone else's success. It sets a new standard, something to aim for. It gets me excited about possibilities. That's how jealousy works for me, at least: it lights a fire under my ass.
I haven't met anyone yet who has started a blog like mine, though!
Something I keep asking myself is how exactly I plan to get to $1 million in my fundraising efforts. Is it reasonable to expect that I will inspire people I have never met to make donations to the NEA and write "research" on their checks? And for that to add up to $1 million?
I'd be surprised if that worked.
When I started this blog I had a grander vision, and I still do. My vision is not pie-in-the sky. Here it is: I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, as do a lot of successful, wealthy people. (I am not one.) Some of these people are at the stage in their lives when they are considering philanthropy. They want to donate to a worthy cause, and we are not talking about peanuts. Marc Benioff just gave $100 million to UCSF.
What if I could convince one or more of these people that a donation to eczema research would be better than charity? A donation could be an investment. Applied with precision to the right project at the right stage, an amount of $100k or more could enable a scientist to conduct proof-of-concept research that could lead to venture capital funding for a spinoff company. Or it could be used as convincing evidence of public support on an NIH grant application. The original donation would be multiplied many times over.
The way that these donations get made is through personal connections. A donor must be convinced in person; must LIKE the one who's doing the convincing, and believe in their sincerity. Often, one wealthy individual will host a dinner to which they invite their friends, and introduce the topic: say, a disease that affects a lot of people in the Third World; then get out his or her checkbook, write a check for a million dollars, and say "That's what I'm doing. What are you doing?" It's a social, human phenomenon.
So I need to connect with donors myself. I don't have to host a dinner (nobody would want to eat at my house, with the food splatters from the kids) but I need to meet someone who can. This blog is my way of making that initial connection. I'm casting my net across the world, but really just hoping to catch fish in the Bay Area.
The new person can also be further ahead in his or her career than you are, or have just published a book, or signed a film contract-- but since, at these socials, I usually have a drink in hand, I tend to look at the bright side of someone else's success. It sets a new standard, something to aim for. It gets me excited about possibilities. That's how jealousy works for me, at least: it lights a fire under my ass.
I haven't met anyone yet who has started a blog like mine, though!
Something I keep asking myself is how exactly I plan to get to $1 million in my fundraising efforts. Is it reasonable to expect that I will inspire people I have never met to make donations to the NEA and write "research" on their checks? And for that to add up to $1 million?
I'd be surprised if that worked.
When I started this blog I had a grander vision, and I still do. My vision is not pie-in-the sky. Here it is: I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, as do a lot of successful, wealthy people. (I am not one.) Some of these people are at the stage in their lives when they are considering philanthropy. They want to donate to a worthy cause, and we are not talking about peanuts. Marc Benioff just gave $100 million to UCSF.
What if I could convince one or more of these people that a donation to eczema research would be better than charity? A donation could be an investment. Applied with precision to the right project at the right stage, an amount of $100k or more could enable a scientist to conduct proof-of-concept research that could lead to venture capital funding for a spinoff company. Or it could be used as convincing evidence of public support on an NIH grant application. The original donation would be multiplied many times over.
The way that these donations get made is through personal connections. A donor must be convinced in person; must LIKE the one who's doing the convincing, and believe in their sincerity. Often, one wealthy individual will host a dinner to which they invite their friends, and introduce the topic: say, a disease that affects a lot of people in the Third World; then get out his or her checkbook, write a check for a million dollars, and say "That's what I'm doing. What are you doing?" It's a social, human phenomenon.
So I need to connect with donors myself. I don't have to host a dinner (nobody would want to eat at my house, with the food splatters from the kids) but I need to meet someone who can. This blog is my way of making that initial connection. I'm casting my net across the world, but really just hoping to catch fish in the Bay Area.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Eczema and the hygiene hypothesis
There's a story making the media rounds right now, based on an article in press at the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. In a nutshell: if women work on farms, or live with cats, while they are pregnant, the children they then give birth to are about 20% less likely to develop eczema. The results came out of a population study conducted by an international, mostly European group. Readable Reuters version of the story here.
One result is particularly interesting-- the finding that the children's risk of developing eczema dropped further with each additional species of animal to which the mothers were exposed. For three or more animals, the risk of eczema dropped to 50% compared to the average population. This "dose-response" is convincing evidence that the effect is real.
This supports the "hygiene hypothesis," that increasing numbers of people in the developed world are getting allergic disorders because they're not exposed enough to microbes when they're young. The hygiene hypothesis says that if you're exposed to bacteria etc. from pigs, cows, and sheep, the type 1 helper T cell arm of your immune system gets a good workout, and this suppresses the overactive type 2 helper T cell arm found in allergic disorders.
But: so what? This kind of research is neat, but you wonder what we are supposed to do with it. Not everyone has, or wants, the opportunity to muck out horse stalls so that their offspring have their chances of getting eczema reduced by 20%.
And cats--what's up with that? There's a lot of research out there showing that cat dander is a major allergen for eczema. Perhaps you should keep a cat until the moment of birth, and then give it away and vacuum the house thoroughly.
The study's authors (as one would expect of academics) make the caveat that "we did not study infectious diseases." So these kids who didn't develop eczema may have developed all kinds of other problems caused by microbes from animals.
This suggests that we need not abandon the hypothesis of good hygiene. I'm the dad of two kids under 4, and I know all too well where they put their hands. They need to be washed.
One result is particularly interesting-- the finding that the children's risk of developing eczema dropped further with each additional species of animal to which the mothers were exposed. For three or more animals, the risk of eczema dropped to 50% compared to the average population. This "dose-response" is convincing evidence that the effect is real.
This supports the "hygiene hypothesis," that increasing numbers of people in the developed world are getting allergic disorders because they're not exposed enough to microbes when they're young. The hygiene hypothesis says that if you're exposed to bacteria etc. from pigs, cows, and sheep, the type 1 helper T cell arm of your immune system gets a good workout, and this suppresses the overactive type 2 helper T cell arm found in allergic disorders.
But: so what? This kind of research is neat, but you wonder what we are supposed to do with it. Not everyone has, or wants, the opportunity to muck out horse stalls so that their offspring have their chances of getting eczema reduced by 20%.
And cats--what's up with that? There's a lot of research out there showing that cat dander is a major allergen for eczema. Perhaps you should keep a cat until the moment of birth, and then give it away and vacuum the house thoroughly.
The study's authors (as one would expect of academics) make the caveat that "we did not study infectious diseases." So these kids who didn't develop eczema may have developed all kinds of other problems caused by microbes from animals.
This suggests that we need not abandon the hypothesis of good hygiene. I'm the dad of two kids under 4, and I know all too well where they put their hands. They need to be washed.
Friday, December 10, 2010
You are not alone
A fellow eczema blogger, Cindy, posts that she's having a bit of an existential crisis, at least as far as blogging goes. She's got seven kids, three with eczema, which puts her in a different league from me. It's a wonder she has time to write anything. But it doesn't seem to be the demands of childcare that pose the problem. The problem, she says, is that
There are practical benefits to getting the big picture of eczema, though. Since I began this blog, I've realized that using the right moisturizer is more important than I'd thought, and also that we ought to be using bleach, or some acidic cleanser (e.g. Sebamed, pH 5.5) to control Staph aureus on Voov. I'm learning and sharing useful information.
That eczema will someday be a thing of the past is not too much to hope for. But realistically, a "cure" won't be around for another generation, although a patchwork of discoveries will improve our quality of life incrementally. (The day there's an effective drug that shuts down itch fibers, I'm busting out the Dom Perignon.)
This occurred to me: what if we find that there is a magical barrier cream that, if you apply it religiously to your infant for three years, will prevent eczema for life? As a new parent, you're going to have to learn (probably, via genetic test) that your child is at risk of developing eczema. Then, if you don't have eczema already, you won't know that it's a serious condition to avoid at all costs. You may not think it's worth applying the cream, especially if it's expensive. So you won't use it. And then your kid will develop eczema, and you'll feel guilty because you could have done something about it. Compliance will be a significant issue, once a cure is discovered.
But back to the present day. As for blogging your frustration with eczema: that IS the point. We want you to share, because we have the same frustrations. Most of are isolated in our family lives, with our only connection to anyone who cares about eczema being through our doctors. We don't connect to each other much at all. The doctors can't show true empathy-- they have to maintain a professional distance. We who live with eczema need to hear from each other so we can share stories, lend support, and know we are not alone.
...I haven't learned anything new about eczema and I don't know what I can post that would be any help to others. And is it much help if what I have learned doesn't provide any significant improvement to our kiddos? Is that even too much to reach for, that eczema may be a thing of the past? I feel I have more questions than answers and have followed many leads that haven't led anywhere. Yet if I am just sharing my frustrations with eczema in our children, what is the point?I can relate to a lot of what Cindy says. I feel like I am learning a lot about what science currently knows about eczema; but scientists are years from nailing down all the details. And cures lag behind knowledge by the time required for clinical trials. What I am learning about cutting-edge research isn't going to cure anyone.
There are practical benefits to getting the big picture of eczema, though. Since I began this blog, I've realized that using the right moisturizer is more important than I'd thought, and also that we ought to be using bleach, or some acidic cleanser (e.g. Sebamed, pH 5.5) to control Staph aureus on Voov. I'm learning and sharing useful information.
That eczema will someday be a thing of the past is not too much to hope for. But realistically, a "cure" won't be around for another generation, although a patchwork of discoveries will improve our quality of life incrementally. (The day there's an effective drug that shuts down itch fibers, I'm busting out the Dom Perignon.)
This occurred to me: what if we find that there is a magical barrier cream that, if you apply it religiously to your infant for three years, will prevent eczema for life? As a new parent, you're going to have to learn (probably, via genetic test) that your child is at risk of developing eczema. Then, if you don't have eczema already, you won't know that it's a serious condition to avoid at all costs. You may not think it's worth applying the cream, especially if it's expensive. So you won't use it. And then your kid will develop eczema, and you'll feel guilty because you could have done something about it. Compliance will be a significant issue, once a cure is discovered.
But back to the present day. As for blogging your frustration with eczema: that IS the point. We want you to share, because we have the same frustrations. Most of are isolated in our family lives, with our only connection to anyone who cares about eczema being through our doctors. We don't connect to each other much at all. The doctors can't show true empathy-- they have to maintain a professional distance. We who live with eczema need to hear from each other so we can share stories, lend support, and know we are not alone.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Moisturizer alcohol burn bad; acid moisturizer good
Voov had another dermatology appointment today. Nothing urgent; just a checkup to see how she's doing on her restricted diet. The new development is that we are not to apply steroids unless she's having a significant flare. Hidden B has, it turns out, been putting Derma-Smoothe on Voov every second night (Hidden B and I trade kid duties on alternate nights) and every morning. "I can't tell what's a significant flare," she says. "They all look significant to me."
I, on the other hand, don't think Voov's skin has been bad for quite some time. So, on my shifts, I haven't been putting any Derma-Smoothe on. This is what happens even in a two-doctorate family: we don't know exactly what we're supposed to be doing with our kid.
I mentioned that recently I got suckered into buying some generic moisturizing "creme" at CVS. It sits right next to the Eucerin, comes in the same kind of jar, and costs half as much. Why do I have to learn this lesson over and over again? The CVS creme sucks. It's slippery and actually burns my skin, although the ingredient list is virtually identical to Eucerin's. (Not perfectly identical, though, and I'd guess that the CVS version has more alcohol.)
Anyway, Hidden B found Eucerin on sale at Target and got me two jars. So I chucked out the CVS stuff. Burn begone.
This month's Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has an article you'd find interesting. (Editor's summary here.) Let me recap it for you.
Two amino acids that naturally occur on normal human skin can slow the growth and reduce the infectious potential of the bacterial pathogen Staphylococcus aureus, a group of Irish scientists have shown in laboratory experiments.
S. aureus colonizes the skin of 5% of people without eczema, and 90% of people with eczema; it infects broken skin and secretes molecules that cause and prolong inflammation.
Normal skin controls S. aureus with antimicrobial agents and an acidic pH (about pH 5.5, compared to normal cellular pH of about 7.4). I am not sure what acids are responsible for this low pH; however, two products of the breakdown of the molecule filaggrin (see here and here), "UCA" and "PCA," are amino acid components of "natural moisturizing factor" known to hydrate the skin and possibly contribute to its acidity.
The scientists explored whether UCA and PCA could, in a test tube, inhibit the growth of S. aureus. The answer was yes. UCA and PCA also reduced bacterial production of proteins necessary for S. aureus to colonize skin and evade the immune system. The interesting thing is that the scientists found the same inhibitory effects when they used hydrochloric acid instead of UCA and PCA. So the acidity of amino acids, rather than some other chemical property, is responsible for much of the bacteria-controlling effect.
However, there is one area in which UCA and PCA appear to have special properties: they greatly reduce bacterial production of one iron-sensing protein that helps S. aureus stick to skin cells. Hydrochloric acid does not do this.
If anything from this research might prove useful in the future to eczema patients, it would be that chemists might consider adding UCA and PCA to moisturizers to provide antibacterial control. There is evidence (referenced in the paper) that acidic moisturizers help suppress S. aureus.
I, on the other hand, don't think Voov's skin has been bad for quite some time. So, on my shifts, I haven't been putting any Derma-Smoothe on. This is what happens even in a two-doctorate family: we don't know exactly what we're supposed to be doing with our kid.
I mentioned that recently I got suckered into buying some generic moisturizing "creme" at CVS. It sits right next to the Eucerin, comes in the same kind of jar, and costs half as much. Why do I have to learn this lesson over and over again? The CVS creme sucks. It's slippery and actually burns my skin, although the ingredient list is virtually identical to Eucerin's. (Not perfectly identical, though, and I'd guess that the CVS version has more alcohol.)
Anyway, Hidden B found Eucerin on sale at Target and got me two jars. So I chucked out the CVS stuff. Burn begone.
This month's Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology has an article you'd find interesting. (Editor's summary here.) Let me recap it for you.
Two amino acids that naturally occur on normal human skin can slow the growth and reduce the infectious potential of the bacterial pathogen Staphylococcus aureus, a group of Irish scientists have shown in laboratory experiments.
S. aureus colonizes the skin of 5% of people without eczema, and 90% of people with eczema; it infects broken skin and secretes molecules that cause and prolong inflammation.
Normal skin controls S. aureus with antimicrobial agents and an acidic pH (about pH 5.5, compared to normal cellular pH of about 7.4). I am not sure what acids are responsible for this low pH; however, two products of the breakdown of the molecule filaggrin (see here and here), "UCA" and "PCA," are amino acid components of "natural moisturizing factor" known to hydrate the skin and possibly contribute to its acidity.
The scientists explored whether UCA and PCA could, in a test tube, inhibit the growth of S. aureus. The answer was yes. UCA and PCA also reduced bacterial production of proteins necessary for S. aureus to colonize skin and evade the immune system. The interesting thing is that the scientists found the same inhibitory effects when they used hydrochloric acid instead of UCA and PCA. So the acidity of amino acids, rather than some other chemical property, is responsible for much of the bacteria-controlling effect.
However, there is one area in which UCA and PCA appear to have special properties: they greatly reduce bacterial production of one iron-sensing protein that helps S. aureus stick to skin cells. Hydrochloric acid does not do this.
If anything from this research might prove useful in the future to eczema patients, it would be that chemists might consider adding UCA and PCA to moisturizers to provide antibacterial control. There is evidence (referenced in the paper) that acidic moisturizers help suppress S. aureus.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)