[jrabone]

I'm still alive, that's as far as it goes. 30% + chance of recurrence and it's not like I can have those organs removed a second time. However, it's an improvement on the initial diagnosis which was stage 4 adenocarcinoma with peritoneal metastasis (ie. a Kaplan-Meyer survival of about 5 years max).

It's not just immuno-suppressed people, it's everyone, and a risk/benefit comparison with peanut allergies is spurious. If everyone smeared themselves in peanut butter before they left the house each morning, you'd have a closer comparison.

Plenty of studies at http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/publications-data-stats.html - click on "Improved Health".

[rosser]

You're creating a false dilemma between not washing your hands and destroying your skin biome. TFA is about the latter, but you're citing studies about the former.

[jrabone]

TFA doesn't contain enough detail about hand-washing as opposed to body & hair, in much the same way that most people don't like talking about wiping their backsides vs washing them after defecating.

[Steer]

I must say that I feel bad discussing this with you, I do not enjoy trying to be objective when discussing with someone stricken by cancer like you. You have obviously been through a trauma and you are still living it. If I were religious I would pray for your recovery, but since I am not I will just say that I do hope that you live and prosper.

I am not convinced that an increased use of soap and shampoo would lead to a healthier society overall, much like an increased use of antibiotics does not seem to make a healthier society overall.

[DanBC]

> I am not convinced that an increased use of soap and shampoo would lead to a healthier society

Food poisoning can be fatal and can have severe consequences.

Some food poisoning is a result of poor hand washing hygiene.

People washing their hands correctly would reduce the amount of problems of food poisoning.

[dllthomas]

I don't know that this was intended to preclude hand washing.

[marvin]

The big question is whether decreased use of soap and shampoo leads to a less healthy society overall. Just as with modern vaccines and antibiotics, modern first-world people just have no idea how bad things were before the invention of soap.

The researchers in this article are definitely onto something - a better understanding of microorganisms' symbiosis with humans could have great benefits - but let's not forget that playing with this on a large scale is a massive experiment with potential negative consequences. The precautionary principle holds.

[jrabone]

Thank you (I'm not religious either). I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable, that's not my intent at all. In purely objective terms, there's obviously a benefit to culling the weak.

I wouldn't necessarily advocate for _increased_ use of soap and shampoo (and certainly not for antibiotics). I also believe there is an argument that partial disinfection is much worse than nothing, when viewed in terms of selection pressure on a microbial population, and I don't think daily use of antibiotic soap is a good idea (although Triclosan is actually pretty useless anyway).

However, I definitely don't think we should be encouraging _less_ hygiene, even though I'm obviously biased.

[sukuriant]

I think an important question to be answered now is "which is less hygiene"? There have been a few one-offs of people that forewent not showers, but soap in the showers, in preference of scrubbing themselves, but not using modern cleaners. Them doing that was probably a much slower version of what was happening in this experiment's case.

It didn't go into details; but, if the flora and fauna on our bodies actually protect us from the bacteria that is bad for us, then it is beneficial to have a layer of it. If instead, we're just carrying around animals that just happen to be there and don't do anything, then it may be a moot point. That said, if it is beneficial, then the population is actually less healthy for not having the layer; and if we had the layer, we'd get sick less often and be in less danger.

hygiene and rubbing chemicals all over yourself, while certainly related, aren't the same thing

[XorNot]

The issue is there's a lot of interesting science which looks suspiciously like it's being monetized into some handwavy - and potentially dangerous - claims.

For example the idea of bacteria protecting you is not so simple. They don't target "bad organisms" - there really aren't bad organisms. Monocultures are bad because they have no competitors. A mixed-ecology where you have several or many species which do compete usually inhibits the ability of any 1 type to take over successfully.

Of course, this is all happening on the surface of your skin, and how stable is that environment anyway? History says not very - and on top of that pretty much all of these things are really nasty if they successfully get under the skin.

One successful way to treat IBS-like symptoms for example is to take a course of antibiotics which are known to be mild - that is, they tend to have a balancing effect on the gut's fauna. I can personally attest this makes all the difference in the world.

Conversely, it's not at all clear that probiotics do anything - for reasons similar to the above. In a crowded environment, they can't easily take over, and bacteria are all about film-forming and quorum sensing and the like - isolated cells are much less active.

On top of those issues, there's a scale one. Humans basically regard about 150-500 people as being actual human beings like them (Dunbar's number). Historically we tribalized on that sort of scale but almost every culture started to use various scents or cleansing practices when they built larger and larger groupings. Sure, maybe we can get by with intact surface cultures, but can we get along? The human nose is important. Try being in a room with someone who has a bad smelling odour - the urge to simply leave is powerful. The urge to try and wash it off is powerful. Its not clear that we'd be at all tolerant of people who smelt sufficiently different - and I suspect that's why we standardized on a zero which we can all achieve.