JorgeLobo

To your central point, I think you're seeing the that the "antiinflammatory" hype matches poorly with the science.

Think the authors hoped it would be exciting - suggesting "immunoprotective or immunostimulative" efficacy in cancer and AIDs therapy for a commercial product. Flu was not part of this publication. They cited a 20-year old paper in a journal of alternative medicine that reported palliative effects - resolution of some symptoms sooner with the stuff and another in vitro study without demonstrated relevance. Also cited was a subjective study of similar vintage reported in a zoo newsletter.

I'd not get too excited about the marerial base on this overly optimistic pubication. Commerical preparations reportedly provoking a change using isolated cells may or may not translate to a clinically signficant effect on the body. Worse (and this should have been addressed by the editor), excessive focus on alleged antivial efficacy not addressed and largely irrelevant to the study is inappropriate.

Agree - one makes observations, proposes an hypothesis and tests this hypothesis. This is the nature of science. This is obvious and should be the next step for this hypothesis. This is science.- simply that - not philosophy conflated or otherwise. I said simply that this needs to be tested and asked for folks to consider an experimental design to do just that as the tangential reports do not. You apparently can't think of appropriate experimental protocol. Let's see if others can. To facilitate, I'll offer the hypothesis as proposed in 1988 and currently pursued in the literature. The hygiene hypothesis, as originally proposed in the 80's, postulated an inverse relation between the incidence of infectious diseases in early life and the subsequent development of allergies and asthma. It was expanded to include exposure to microbial antigens. With the freedom of an earyl-life propsective study protcol, what parameters would be followed in the popualtion to test this hypothesis?

These are merely associations - not "direct" evidence. That much is clear. Overly demanding only if one wants to in fact test the hypothesis and advance it beyond that context to a theory. Biology has few if any proofs - it does have hypotheses such as this one and established theories such as evolution. The objective of science is to know and understand and is therefore not satsfied with casual hypotheses supported only by tangential observatins. Science asks itself how to directly test the hypothesis.

None of thse reports provides "direct evidence" of the hygiene hypothesis. They report coincidences and allude to relationships of specific conditions. The hypothesis is much more than that. What's missing in this matter is a careful expeirment to address the hypothesis rather than citation of isolated tangential reports. If we were to test the hypothesis, what would be the experimental design? Much of the "probiotic" story is overblown commercial hype.

Here's a recent report again claiming some expression of the hygiene hypothesis. As with many of such studies, it reports an association - here, kids with dogs had fewer infections and related conditions. It interprets this as indicative of greater immunity (not demonstrated) and presumes this might be due to dogs bring in more bacteria (also not demonstrated). The work is typical MD rresearch - observe a phenomena and fit it into current concepts and it is limited in just that. The interpretation was obvious before the study and they could have included some measure of actual immunity and even bacterial type and numbers but they did not. Still, iIt goes the asthma studies one better in looking at conditions that are more directly and rationally associated with the concept. http://children.webmd.com/news/20120709/many-babies-healthier-in-homes-with-dogs

Well said, Jebus. I think Armada's post reflects the flawed conventional wisdom of immunity/disease and science in general. For this, we can thank ignorant news media pimping shallow and unspported concepts like the "hygiene hypothesis" as facts and failed educational system that breeds gullible unquestioning acceptance of such silliness. Armada, can you tell us why you think the hygiene hypothesis has substance?

The hygiene hypothesis is just that - an hypothesis and one with very little direct data in support. Classic supporting data consist of asthma rates of city dwellers vs. those of folks from farm bckground. For your report, I think you need to examine more closely assumptions in your investigation. First, just how do you propose consumption of food left out and beyond its expiration date offers a significantly greater immune challenge? I think you anticipate substantially greater bacterial numbers and you apparenty claimthis as factual. What information that convinced you this is fact? Even if it is true - what are the data that convince you that incresed numbers consumed would substantially provoke immune response over the immune stimuli we encounter every day? Also, on what basis are you sure increased consumption of bacteria provokes immune response enough that general health or immunity is improved? Lastly, this is not science. A single set of subjetive observations by someone probably looking more to prove their hypothesis than test it.

Thrush not thrust

None of those tests was esp helpful for your suggested bacteria. If these were the options, simple culture and microscopic examination would have been sufficient. In fact, it's neither of these. You really need to read Bergey's descriptions but even wikipedia would have provided enough info to rule out both. Redo your Gram stain with pos and neg controls., then read Bergey's descriptions of the possiblities and select tests based on a rationale.

To your orginal question - no, one does not contract a bacterial infection via exposure to a viral infection. Suggest you ask one of these practioners to get culture data to confirm or eliminate bacterial infection.

Are these "products" soluble?

Suggest MRBA medium is going to be a bit complex and probably not readily available. Also Rose Bengal can be problematic if folks don't incubate in the dark. Suggest you use what you can get - Sabouraud's if available.

So P. aeruginosa is very unlikely.

Bet you're right sbout the pseudomonad - were colony morphology, smelll and pigmentation consistent with P. aeruginosa?

Dosage - as in mean infective dose? One of the articles cited above offered that < pfu was sufficient in a model. I dont think comments above are so relevant to herpes infection. Humoral imunity requires sufficient exposure to provoke antibody response - with that the indivudal is likely infected. As for effectiveness of macrophage and neutrophil role - suggest you look up herpes and molecular mimcry. http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1384256/ Agree chances for such a fomite-based infection seem very remote but less than immunity would be factors such as survival on toilet surfaces (see: http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/250/22/3081.abstract ) and contact of viruses with mucous membrane

Let me help you - Mythbusters practice is to contrive a construct to "test" a reported phenomenon. They make no to validate and probably fail to even understand that, in science, one must validate such constructs. Therefore the term sophomoric. It's BS - but glad you enjoy it.

http://jvi.asm.org/content/77/13/7696.full says < 1 pfu on mucous membrane as infective dose http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/14/1441.full Says women shed viruses in genital tract So one can imagine a scenario that says yes to your question

Mythbuster is sophomoric contrivance. I'd hardly accept their conclusion as valid. See the following review for persistence on surfaces - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564025/?tool=pubmed Infection doesnt necessarily mean exposure but fomites have been implicated in herpes transmission: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564025/?tool=pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6315980

Observations of an actual culture - colony morphology, conidia and conidiogenesis.

Insufficient information to identify.

I'm not sure what you mean but you'll need to provide data that aspirin and vitamins are effective vs. common cold and influenza or kill "blood microbes."

I'm aware of one large hospital that screens presurgically for MRSA. The hospital infection control determined this is the primary risk in their facility - they screen no other hospital population including personnel.

I understand the conventonal wisdom - and let's not forget the report itself is usess to the point.