Talk:Hygiene hypothesis

This article is biased

The citations within this article are cherrypicked, and in cases contradictory. The potential dangers of intentional helminth injestion are not addressed, and the studies that are cited have n<20 and are of poor quality. It's ignorant dissemination of misinformation at best. It is Wikipedia though, so I suppose this is all to be expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/75.71.70.12 75.71.70./12 (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This entry reads more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia doesn't seem like the place for rhetorical flourishes such as this: "Over the last 2 decades researchers have recognised that the concept of a link between microbial exposure and allergy is probably correct, but the idea that children who have more infections or are less hygienic are less likely to develop allergies is wide of the mark." "wide of the mark"? Eperotao (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is "biased" whatever that means in this context, it is a HYPOTHESIS and it is supposed to reflect what the proposer believes. This hypothesis is however culturally relevant even when it still remains to be proved or disproved. Wikipedia is not the place to debunk theories nor to confirm them. YtzikMM (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Overview

The last sentence in the overview-

"Despite this, the infectious microorganisms or infectious microorganism-components believed to be responsible for these effects have yet to be identified and incorporated into medical practice and the contribution of hygiene levels to the rise of allergic disease has yet to be established"

makes it seem like it is still thought that the only thing that good 'hygiene' does is get rid of these infectious microorganisms that are necessary to stimulate proper development of our immune system. This was the original hypothesis, but now the hygiene hypothesis has expanded to include beneficial bacteria (particularly in the gut), dirt, and parasites, among other things. I suggest some reformatting. Either a) make the overview more of a history, and include some of the stuff about the evolution of the hygiene hypothesis from the current mechanism of action section or b) at least delete this sentence since it is misleading. Aklauncher (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Along those lines is this recent article.

Weinstock, 59, specializes in studying why immunological diseases - everything from hay fever and asthma to diabetes and multiple sclerosis - are on the rise in developed countries but remain relatively uncommon in undeveloped countries. He believes these diseases, many of which were almost unheard of 100 years ago, are because of changes in our environment, a lack of exposure to something. And he thinks that something may be the worms. The parasites that we have been told to avoid - such as hookworm and pinworm - may be the good guys, while excessive hygiene may be the bad guy.

Weinstock is notable enough that much of this article could be included in this page. Wayne (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I re-organized the page as I proposed above. The parasite addition to the hygiene hypothesis is already discussed, but I added the above article as an external link. Aklauncher (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Aklauncher, I feel sad because Wikipedia doesn't have an article about The Beta Adrenergic Theory thats been cited much more than the Hygiene Hypothasis. I would be most gratful if you would write about The Beta Adrenergic Theory based partly on the sub-article under Asthma. My dad Andor Szentivanyi discovered it and it's been cited by such famous people as Craig Venter {The Human Genome Project} and Charles Reed {Chief of Allergy, The Mayo Clinic}.

The autism link should be in its own section. Also, "cause" and "association" are 2 completely different things. Finally, reviews are not studies. To cite the link between hygiene hypothesis and autism, find an actual study, not a review. Bigpaulii (talk) 18:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

hypothesis vs theory

The English language Wikipedia is in the unfortunate sociological situation where a large number of wikipedians have forced the usage of the word theory to mean hypothesis in certain articles, in line with popular usage in at least one major English-speaking country with a large number of people with a poor science background. However, the title of this article uses "hypothesis", so let's at least try to stick to consistent internal usage here. It also seems absurd to me in other articles (like global warming a couple of years ago...) to ignore the fact that wikipedia itself has articles hypothesis and theory saying what these are according to scientists. In any case, let's at least try to be scientific in this article... Boud (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Current hypotheses" is not really a good title of the section either. i'll propose something. Edit/improve it if you can think of something better, more NPOV etc. Wiki, wiki, wiki. Boud (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

With respect: the usage of theory to mean hypothesis is not in line with anything but a very common error. Why does this peculiar issue persist? If I approach a group of bricklayers, meaning to talk bricks, it won't do me any good to lecture them that the mis-use of certain bricklaying terminology should be welcomed because of the ignorance of large numbers of nonspecialists. If I want to talk bricks with bricklayers, I'll need to acquire some competence about what sort of terminology is not accepted by such practitioners. The distinction between hypothesis and theory is not obscure and not difficult. They are related but different ideas, and no excuse should be advanced for ignoring the important difference between them. Aboctok (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Delinking

I removed the link to David Strachan, as given in the | history section as it linked back to this page only. Debangshu Mukherjee (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Tropical and cold countries

It should be noted that most developing countries are either tropical or subtropical, while most industrialised countries are either subtropical or cold countries. There are more parasites and germs in tropical conuntries due to warmer weather, hence that may be also one reason why infections are more in developing world while auto immue diseses are less..@Photnart. (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That would seem valid, but the rates of auto-immune disease and allergies seem to vary within developed countries as well. Broadly speaking, a few studies have found that middle class children seem to have a higher incidence of asthma, other allergies and auto immune diseases. Whether it is down to the hygeine hypothesis is uncertain, it could just be a higher diagnosis rate, but it is of relevance to the article. GimpyFauxHippy (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

TV show mention

In "House" Season 6 Episode 7 the patient's diagnosis is based on the hygiene theory. I don't know if pop culture references should be added to the Wiki page but I see no harm in putting it on here and asking about it. Maybe it could be added in some sort of media section or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatorgirl7563 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not really a fan of in popular culture sections myself, as when I am reading an article I pretty much never care about the information they add. On the other hand, there is plenty of room in this article and that is certainly a highly notable television show, so feel free to start such a section. Does anyone know of any other references that should be included there? - 2/0 (cont.) 16:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Autism

While ASD have been linked with the hygiene hypothesis they seem significantly over represented in this article, especially since the link between the hygiene hypothesis and ASD is weaker than the link between the HH and several other disorders. This is likely due to activism on the part of Autism awareness groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.166.203.112 (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Lyn Venable's "Homesick"

In December of 1952, Lyn Venable wrote a story about astronauts who spend 30 years breathing purified air, drinking purified water, etc, and return to Earth allergic to everything. Not sure if that fits here, but it might:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29599/29599-h/29599-h.htm

Barry.carter (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Added specify tag to cancer blurb.

I added the specify tag to the part about cancer because the lack of a comma before the and makes it unclear as to whether it should be read: some types of depression, and some types of cancer; or, some types of depression, and cancer in general. I unfortunately don't have access to the cited material so I don't know how it should be read. If anyone has access to the material, it would benefit the article if this statement were clarified. Thanks. Lighthead ^þ 01:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Implied Superiority of the "Old Friends Hypothesis"

Both in the overview and in the history section, the article says that the "old friends hypothesis" is "more rational" and "better" without fully explaining what evidence there is that the previous view is outdated or less rational, though it implies obliquely through the un-cited statement "However, exposure to common childhood infections such as chickenpox or measles is not thought to be protective". It is unclear therefore whether or not these statements are the general consensus of the scientific community, or merely the opinion of the article writer. 2601:240:8200:3495:1526:8B88:5C45:58DD (talk) 02:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Underutilised 2010 review

The Okada2010 review The ‘hygiene hypothesis’ for autoimmune and allergic diseases: an update <ref name=Okada2010/> could be more widely used and cited in this article. (or has it been superceded? - the 2012 IFH report may (IMO) have COI being part funded by hygiene product suppliers) - Rod57 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Cleanliness section seems one sided

Cleanliness section seems one sided - defending the use of hygiene products in the home. The three authors ref'd seem to be from a body (part?) funded by the chemical industry. Should we amend this or mark it as possibly biased ? Could rename section "Cleanliness - the view of the home hygiene industry" unless we get some independent sources ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur Stub Mandrel (talk) 13:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)