Same with the viking coprolites found in Jorvik/York?
It would seem reasonable to say on a statistical sample of 1 we have no reason to believe this was common or uncommon, or do we say on the basis we found one, the assumption is that it was universal?
We know some things like floor rushes were picked to deter fleas, were there oral or rectal treatments which worked for worms?
Parasites used to be ubiquitous before we had medication to kill them. There's even a (not very well supported) theory that these parasites helped with allergies by moderating immune system. They releasing chemicals to lower immune activity in order to protect themselves, so the idea that we had these for thousands of years and basically are made to have them is intriguing. It's called "helminthic therapy" and it's considered alternative medicine but there is some academic interest. Results in clinical trials have been mixed. Perhaps the future is just synthetic hookworm proteins that regulate your immune system as our ancestors once had.
My partner researches one parasite named in this study (a type of whipworm) and they actually get their eggs for in vitro work from another researcher abroad who infected himself with the parasite because he finds it helps with his autoimmune disease. He harvests the eggs and distributes them to other teams.
Intuitively it wouldn’t be surprising that there’s some symbiosis going on somewhere and that there would be beneficial parasites. In reality I have no idea.
There is a significantly more mainstream but similar-in-the-broad-strokes theory, the Hygiene Hypothesis, which says that the immune system relies on encountering things like this for calibration, but doesn't require them as a continual presence for optimal functioning.
I find that observation unsurprising. What would be more interesting is the relative incidence between outlying forts and interior urban centres. The article mentions a couple of papers on urban fecal matter, so maybe that answer is available. I can create hypothetical cases for either location to be higher or lower than the other.
> I can create hypothetical cases for either location to be higher or lower than the other.
- Transmission is easier in the city due to closer contact and more shared resources.
- Urban parasites are likely to be more debilitating to the victim because they may come from an unfamiliar environment. (Compare how hookworm in the American south was a nuisance to blacks, but debilitating to whites.)
We know that diseases were a much heavier burden in cities than they were in rural regions. Parasites are mostly just bigger diseases; you'd need to come up with a really interesting idea to explain why they were a smaller issue in cities than outside of them.
Hookworm is an interesting example to consider here; you catch them by stepping on soil with your bare feet. Stereotypically they are a problem of the rural south. But I found this paper on "neglected tropical diseases" in the United States, which had this to say:
> Toxocariasis is a soil-transmitted helminth infection [it isn't hookworm, but hookworm is also a soil-transmitted helminth infection] that can result in visceral larva migrans, visual impairment from ocular larval migrans, or a condition that resembles asthma, known as covert toxocariasis. Urban playgrounds in the US have recently been shown to be a particularly rich source of Toxocara eggs, and inner-city children are at high risk of acquiring the infection.
Another example to consider might be covid, where my read of the consensus is that (1) initial nature -> human infection is more likely in rural areas (where there's more nature), but (2) once it can live in humans, it's a bigger problem in urban areas (where there are more humans).
I live with amazing technology all around me, and I often take it for granted. But whenever I take mebendazol (against e.g. pinworm) I think about my ancestors, and how they just had to live with it!
b/c he lives someplace where people get parasites regularly? Also b/c it is cheaper and easier to treat for parasites (take a pill) than to test and then treat (visit a doctor, get a prescription, take a pill).
Many parasites are endemic to the southern USA. As a child I was checked for parasites every year. Most modern doctors I've met are negligent in this regard. Under questioning several have stated that it is unimportant. Some doctors assert incorrectly that blood tests would reveal any significant parasitic infestation. I always correct them but I also change doctors b/c medical school seems to "harden" the brain - nothing new can be learned once they have graduated.
Ever walk barefoot across the lawn?
Ever eat uncooked fish/flesh/sushi?
Ever own/pet a cat?
If so, you might want to get tested!8-))
Neglected Parasitic Infections: What Family Physicians Need to Know—A CDC Update:
At least in the US parasite risk from sushi is very low because nearly all seafood sold/served is put through a deep freeze cycle.
But if you're slicing up something you just caught that could be an issue. It's a concern with hunting/game as well. Most people who get trichinosis in the US get it from eating bear apparently.
Are there areas in the developed world where this is common? I’ve never heard of anyone regularly taking anti parasitic medication because their kids kept bringing home parasites from daycare. I had a friend whose son was prescribed medicine for pinworms once when he was fairly young (mostly as a precaution).
Pinworms are particularly common in children, with prevalence rates in this age group having been reported as high as 61% in India, 50% in England, 39% in Thailand, 37% in Sweden, and 29% in Denmark. [1]
Remember that
prevalence is the proportion of a particular population found to be affected by a medical condition (typically a disease or a risk factor such as smoking or seatbelt use) at a specific time.
So it is not just that percentage has had it at any point in their life, it is that percentage that has it at any time.
And yes, kids. Pinworm is literally called 'children worm' here.
That’s interesting, thanks. Looks like it’s 11%-ish in the US which is lower than the other cited countries but still more common than I would have guessed.
If you’re a suburban kid, GenX or later you may have missed the peaks. In the 60s, it was more like 35-45% of kids.
Things like rules for handwashing and standards for things like residential plumbing improved hygiene and reduced ringworms. Many urban and rural households didn’t have things we take for granted like hot water!
It is actually extremely common in Europe (as I linked to in a sibling chat), with 30-40% of kids having it at any time.
With those rates, my guess is that you probably had it several times, but just thought your bum was itching for no reason (or you were one of the asymptomatic cases). I think the awareness of it has gone up, now it's common to let the kindergarten know if you suspect it in your child, and they send a message to the other parents.
Yes, it’s fairly common infection in children. I mean they don’t wash carefully their hands, they put everything in their mouth - it would be a real surprise if they would not catch it.
I believe I know an immune-compromised adult who was taking anti-parasitics for more than two years due to workplace (care context) reinfections. I say “believe” because these are two things people talk about in coded, careful ways. It might be a little more common than polite conversation ever really reveals.
For example if you know anyone who raised early concerns about antivaxxers causing short supply of ivermectin formulations for human use during the pandemic. More or less anyone who knew what ivermectin was at that point in time was either a farmer, a vetinarian, a doctor… or a patient with a condition.
Same with the viking coprolites found in Jorvik/York?
It would seem reasonable to say on a statistical sample of 1 we have no reason to believe this was common or uncommon, or do we say on the basis we found one, the assumption is that it was universal?
We know some things like floor rushes were picked to deter fleas, were there oral or rectal treatments which worked for worms?
Parasites used to be ubiquitous before we had medication to kill them. There's even a (not very well supported) theory that these parasites helped with allergies by moderating immune system. They releasing chemicals to lower immune activity in order to protect themselves, so the idea that we had these for thousands of years and basically are made to have them is intriguing. It's called "helminthic therapy" and it's considered alternative medicine but there is some academic interest. Results in clinical trials have been mixed. Perhaps the future is just synthetic hookworm proteins that regulate your immune system as our ancestors once had.
My partner researches one parasite named in this study (a type of whipworm) and they actually get their eggs for in vitro work from another researcher abroad who infected himself with the parasite because he finds it helps with his autoimmune disease. He harvests the eggs and distributes them to other teams.
Intuitively it wouldn’t be surprising that there’s some symbiosis going on somewhere and that there would be beneficial parasites. In reality I have no idea.
There is a significantly more mainstream but similar-in-the-broad-strokes theory, the Hygiene Hypothesis, which says that the immune system relies on encountering things like this for calibration, but doesn't require them as a continual presence for optimal functioning.
Doesn't seem too off from gut micro biome theories.
I find that observation unsurprising. What would be more interesting is the relative incidence between outlying forts and interior urban centres. The article mentions a couple of papers on urban fecal matter, so maybe that answer is available. I can create hypothetical cases for either location to be higher or lower than the other.
> I can create hypothetical cases for either location to be higher or lower than the other.
- Transmission is easier in the city due to closer contact and more shared resources.
- Urban parasites are likely to be more debilitating to the victim because they may come from an unfamiliar environment. (Compare how hookworm in the American south was a nuisance to blacks, but debilitating to whites.)
We know that diseases were a much heavier burden in cities than they were in rural regions. Parasites are mostly just bigger diseases; you'd need to come up with a really interesting idea to explain why they were a smaller issue in cities than outside of them.
Hookworm is an interesting example to consider here; you catch them by stepping on soil with your bare feet. Stereotypically they are a problem of the rural south. But I found this paper on "neglected tropical diseases" in the United States, which had this to say:
> Toxocariasis is a soil-transmitted helminth infection [it isn't hookworm, but hookworm is also a soil-transmitted helminth infection] that can result in visceral larva migrans, visual impairment from ocular larval migrans, or a condition that resembles asthma, known as covert toxocariasis. Urban playgrounds in the US have recently been shown to be a particularly rich source of Toxocara eggs, and inner-city children are at high risk of acquiring the infection.
https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journa...
Another example to consider might be covid, where my read of the consensus is that (1) initial nature -> human infection is more likely in rural areas (where there's more nature), but (2) once it can live in humans, it's a bigger problem in urban areas (where there are more humans).
I live with amazing technology all around me, and I often take it for granted. But whenever I take mebendazol (against e.g. pinworm) I think about my ancestors, and how they just had to live with it!
Why are you taking anti-parasitics regularly?
b/c he lives someplace where people get parasites regularly? Also b/c it is cheaper and easier to treat for parasites (take a pill) than to test and then treat (visit a doctor, get a prescription, take a pill).
Many parasites are endemic to the southern USA. As a child I was checked for parasites every year. Most modern doctors I've met are negligent in this regard. Under questioning several have stated that it is unimportant. Some doctors assert incorrectly that blood tests would reveal any significant parasitic infestation. I always correct them but I also change doctors b/c medical school seems to "harden" the brain - nothing new can be learned once they have graduated.
Ever walk barefoot across the lawn?
Ever eat uncooked fish/flesh/sushi?
Ever own/pet a cat?
If so, you might want to get tested!8-))
Neglected Parasitic Infections: What Family Physicians Need to Know—A CDC Update:
https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2021/0900/p277.html
At least in the US parasite risk from sushi is very low because nearly all seafood sold/served is put through a deep freeze cycle.
But if you're slicing up something you just caught that could be an issue. It's a concern with hunting/game as well. Most people who get trichinosis in the US get it from eating bear apparently.
I crossed bear off my menu a long time ago! To my chagrin, the bears did not reciprocate.
Not OP but one reason is having young kids that can’t help bringing home everything that is spreading in daycare/kindergarten
Are there areas in the developed world where this is common? I’ve never heard of anyone regularly taking anti parasitic medication because their kids kept bringing home parasites from daycare. I had a friend whose son was prescribed medicine for pinworms once when he was fairly young (mostly as a precaution).
And yes, kids. Pinworm is literally called 'children worm' here.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinworm_(parasite)#burkhart200...
That’s interesting, thanks. Looks like it’s 11%-ish in the US which is lower than the other cited countries but still more common than I would have guessed.
If you’re a suburban kid, GenX or later you may have missed the peaks. In the 60s, it was more like 35-45% of kids.
Things like rules for handwashing and standards for things like residential plumbing improved hygiene and reduced ringworms. Many urban and rural households didn’t have things we take for granted like hot water!
https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/threadworm/background-informa...
NICE estimate 20-30% of kids 4-11 have an infestation. I have three kids in this bracket and yeh this tracks
Huh. Have the numbers gone up since the 80s? Worms are not something I ever heard about as a child, teen, or twenty-something.
That said, I also had a kid in the 00s and my friends have kids now, and nobody has mentioned getting worms.
I had worms as a kid once in the nineties, I ate some cookies I found buried in the sand on the playground.
It’s not super common (if you live in Europe) but it happens.
Meanwhile my friends who grew up in a tropical country they had to take anti-worm meds regularly.
It depends a lot on your circumstances
It is actually extremely common in Europe (as I linked to in a sibling chat), with 30-40% of kids having it at any time.
With those rates, my guess is that you probably had it several times, but just thought your bum was itching for no reason (or you were one of the asymptomatic cases). I think the awareness of it has gone up, now it's common to let the kindergarten know if you suspect it in your child, and they send a message to the other parents.
Yes, it’s fairly common infection in children. I mean they don’t wash carefully their hands, they put everything in their mouth - it would be a real surprise if they would not catch it.
I believe I know an immune-compromised adult who was taking anti-parasitics for more than two years due to workplace (care context) reinfections. I say “believe” because these are two things people talk about in coded, careful ways. It might be a little more common than polite conversation ever really reveals.
For example if you know anyone who raised early concerns about antivaxxers causing short supply of ivermectin formulations for human use during the pandemic. More or less anyone who knew what ivermectin was at that point in time was either a farmer, a vetinarian, a doctor… or a patient with a condition.