This is a long article, but worth reading to learn of new research about skin disorders, including eczema and KP. I welcome comments about this.

From the New York Times April 29, '08:

In Brief:
The prevailing theory that chronic eczema is primarily an allergic disease has been challenged in recent years.
Genetic studies suggest that a defective, leaky skin barrier is the initial cause in up to half of eczema cases seen by doctors.
Topical drugs that reduce inflammation are still the mainstay of treating rashes, but new genetic findings highlight the importance of keeping the skin barrier intact by frequent use of moisturizers.
For millions of people who suffer from chronic eczema, life can become a hellish existence in which patches of dry skin become red and inflamed and constantly cry out: scratch me!
“It’s like having poison oak or poison ivy 24 hours a day, seven days a week, forever,” said Vicki Kalabokes, chief executive of the nonprofit National Eczema Association in San Rafael, Calif.
The best treatments, like prescription creams and ointments that tamp down inflammation, can provide some relief. Antihistamines may aid nighttime sleep, and a good skin-care routine of slathering on moisturizers and avoiding irritating soaps also helps. But for many patients who still scratch through the night and hide crusted, oozing infections under long sleeves and pants, the medical world has little more to offer.
That could change, thanks to recent research that has led to new thinking about why chronic eczema happens. In a sort of chicken-versus-egg turnabout, researchers have challenged the prevailing dogma that chronic eczema is mainly an allergic disease that leads to skin dryness and rashes. Instead, a growing number of experts believe that a structural defect of the skin is the primary culprit, instigating the immunologic problems seen in patients.
For decades, allergists embraced the idea that eczema arose from an immune overreaction inside the body, leading to inflammation and cracked, itchy skin. Skin cracking, in turn, let in more allergens, irritants and microbes that further fueled the cycle. The theory was supported by the observation that eczema sufferers show high blood levels of an immune defense protein called IgE and often develop immune-related ailments like asthma, food allergies and hay fever.
Many dermatologists, on the other hand, have argued that allergies do not cause chronic eczema. Over the last decade, some proposed that an intrinsic defect of the skin occurs first and then causes immunological weirdnesses. In other words, trouble develops from the outside in.
The major breakthrough came in 2006, when Irwin McLean, a geneticist at the University of Dundee in Scotland, and Dr. Alan Irvine, a pediatric dermatologist at Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children in Dublin, Ireland, reported that chronic eczema was rampant among families carrying a defective gene for filaggrin, a skin protein that serves as a natural moisturizer. Without it, the usually impervious barrier formed by the skin is compromised by cracking.
“Our work has really said, ‘Look, it’s not all just about the immune system,’ ” Dr. Irvine said.
The flawed gene fails to produce filaggrin, which normally pulls together protein filaments and flattens out dead cells to form the skin’s outermost layer. The molecule also holds water in, moisturizing the barrier.
About one-third to half of all children and adults with moderate to severe chronic eczema have a nonfunctioning filaggrin gene, Dr. Irvine said. Researchers have identified nearly 40 filaggrin mutations, including variations specific to Asian populations. And evidence suggests that the risk of childhood asthma is nearly doubled in those who inherit one of these mutations, but only after eczema arises first.
With a dry, filaggrin-deficient barrier, almost anything on the patient’s skin — dust mites, pollen, food proteins or bacteria — can easily get through, said Dr. Jon M. Hanifin, a dermatologist at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland who was not involved in the genetic work. The new thinking is that the foreign intrusions activate immune cells to respond and crank out IgE, causing the inflamed skin lesions. That process may also prime the immune system to overreact to specific allergens, leading eventually to asthma, hay fever and food allergies.
The genetic findings could help explain why chronic eczema has grown increasingly common in industrialized countries in the past two decades, Dr. Irvine said. Environmental factors like increases in pollutants or use of soaps, air conditioning and central heating may dry out or irritate a defective skin barrier.
But debate rages on over how much of eczema may still originate from allergic disease. It is unclear whether a leaky skin barrier is always the initial culprit. Many people who do not have a filaggrin mutation still get eczema, and eczema does not occur in everyone who carries the genetic defect, noted Dr. Donald Leung, an immunologist at the National Jewish Medical and Research Center in Denver.
While a genetic skin barrier defect is important, he said, the immune and environmental factors also play key contributing roles in this complex disease. Dr. Leung’s own research has revealed that inflammation itself can reduce filaggrin levels in the skin.
On the other hand, mutations in additional skin barrier genes may yet be discovered.
It may be possible to create eczema drugs enhancing filaggrin production. For now, the genetic studies magnify the need to protect the dry, damaged skin barrier — and keep out irritants and allergens — by hydrating it and keeping it intact. That means that along with using anti-inflammatory medications, it is crucial for eczema patients to follow the basic advice on moisturizing to prevent flare-ups, Dr. Hanifin said.
For infants, the research even raises the possibility of prevention.
“It points up to us that maybe we can reduce the impact of asthma and allergic rhinitis by treating the skin in kids with eczema early,” he said, “by moisturizing right from day one.”

From the New York Times, how to prepare vegetables to maximize their nutritional qualities.

By now, most people know they should be eating more vegetables. But are there ways to get more from the vegetables you already eat?
Stuart Bradford

• Get Health News From The New York Times »

A growing body of research shows that when it comes to vegetables, it’s not only how much we eat, but how we prepare them, that influences the amount of phytochemicals, vitamins and other nutrients that enter our body.
The benefits are significant. Numerous studies show that people who consume lots of vegetables have lower rates of heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, eye problems and even cancer. The latest dietary guidelines call for 5 to 13 servings — that is two and a half to six and a half cups a day.

To read the entire article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/he...=1&oref=slogin
It will only be available to read for free for one week.

I just love reading about scientific research. I can count on getting my mind blown at least once a week. Here is this week's "mind blower":

6 Tribes of Bacteria Found to be at Home in Inner Elbow
The crook of your elbow is not just a plain patch of skin. It is a piece of highly coveted real estate, a special ecosystem, a bountiful home to no fewer than six tribes of bacteria. Even after you have washed the skin clean, there are still one million bacteria in every square centimeter.

But panic not. These are not bad bacteria. They are what biologists call commensals, creatures that eat at the same table with people to everyone’s mutual benefit. Though they weren’t invited to enjoy board and lodging in the skin of your inner elbow, they are giving something of value in return. They are helping to moisturize the skin by processing the raw fats it produces, says Dr. Julia Segre of the National Human Genome Research Institute.

(Well, I haven't heard of anybody here saying they had KP on the inside of their elbow! By the way, I provided the bold type for the sentence above that blew my mind.)

From today's New York Times. The entire article can be read at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/science/23gene.html
for one week at no charge. After one week, there is a fee.

kebod

From last night's ABC televised news:

"What you need to know is that UV light from indoor tanning can cause premature aging … and even worse, UV light can increases your risk of skin cancer, including melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer…"

Even one session at a tanning parlor can cause some of the same skin damage doctors see in early skin cancers, more than from natural sunlight. That's because indoor tanning is so much more intense. The rays from tanning bulbs are 10 to 15 times stronger than sunlight. It results in a faster tan and a greater risk.

To read complete article online:
ABC News: Can Indoor Tanning's Rays Kill?

I watched a grim documentary last week titled "The Garbage Revolution", detailing the amount and type of garbage North Americans throw away each year. The worst part of this doc was how many chemicals leach into our water and get into the air we breath. I heard a term I had never heard before -- "body burden". This is a measurment of chemicals that are in each body at a given point in time. These chemicals may be inhaled, eaten, or absorbed through our skin.

To take an online test to determine your body burden:
http://extras.insidebayarea.com/body...odyburden.html

To read more about body burden:
What is Body Burden?

My own theory of a possible cause of KP is that our bodies are overloaded with toxins and chemicals and that skin eruptions are an effort to cleanse the body. After all, the skin is a cleansing organ, just like the kidney and liver, and is responsible for removing 10% of the body's toxins.
Skin Cleansing | Just Cleansing

kebod

Many of you know I have written before about the importance of sufficient Vitamin D. It is in the news again, and here is a recent article.

I have recommended about 10 minutes of sun exposure a day, several times a week. New studies say that we need 10-15 minutes of sun every day.

Vitamin D is an essential chemical to humans and takes part in many of the most important synthesis processes, including bone mineralization, reduction of inflammations, modulation of the immune function, as well as bone growth and bone remodeling during childhood and adolescence.

I added the underline above to call attention to the fact that it reduces inflammation, something I believe is part of the cause of redness of the skin.

I hope you read the entire article. It is very short.
Vitamin D Is More Important than Previously Thought - A few minutes of sun bathing per day meets the requirements of the human body - Softpedia

kebod

oooo! I felt like taking the bodyburden test and had a minute today.
I got "Your overall score is 245/794 (low)"
That's not to say that my burden may have been higher in past years however... but sort of interesting to see if I could figure out what they were getting at.
-bd

Hi bd,

My take on what the test is getting at (I assume that is your question) is to make us aware of how many health hazards we eat, drink, wear and breath daily. For instance, until I took the Body Burden test, I didn't know that vinyl shower curtains emitted enough chemicals to be considered a health hazard.

I have heard some express frustration that so many things in our daily lives are now health suspects (cell phones?), that they no longer care or want to know what the next hazard in the news is. These people are failing to realize that all this pollution is man-made and recent. Our grandparents didn't have these same health hazards when they were young. We are trading convenience and low prices for exposure to deadly chemicals. We make our own choices.

kebod

I think you've got the right take on the test too. I think my score may be a bit artificially low since some years past I would have scored much higher. Don't you think there would be some cumulative affect regardless of our bodies' regenerative powers? - bd

Bd,

Yes, I think there is a cumulative effect. Take mercury, as an example. It doesn't easily pass out of our system. I now have a wary eye for a can of tuna, unfortunately. Many of our bodily toxins are stored in fat tissue -- one reason why not to eat animal fat, such as butter, or fat on meat,unless it is organic.Otherwise, we are transferring the toxins stored in animal fat to our fat. But what if we are lean? I have always been thin. Where do my stored toxins go?

kebod

hello bd, hello kebod.
interesting articles. i have a new found respect for the new york times, before i didn't trust the paper because i thought it was to partisin. now looking into it, i would say that its a good paper that dilivers more fact than fiction.

o...an thanks for this link kebod Foods that Damage, Foods that Heal
that web site has a lot of useful information about how to have a healthy diet and a healthy life.
thanks

__________________
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
Benjamin Franklin
************************************************** *******

An article in today's New York Times talks about different research that has found that mega doses of vitamins may not make any difference with certain illnesses, like cancer, and may actually do more harm than good.

From the article:

Everyone needs vitamins, which are critical for the body. But for most people, the micronutrients we get from foods usually are adequate to prevent vitamin deficiency, which is rare in the United States. That said, some extra vitamins have proven benefits, such as vitamin B12 supplements for the elderly and folic acid for women of child-bearing age. And calcium and vitamin D in women over 65 appear to protect bone health.

But many people gobble down megadoses of vitamins believing that they boost the body’s ability to mop up damaging free radicals that lead to cancer and heart disease. In addition to the more recent research, several reports in recent years have challenged the notion that vitamins are good for you.

Despite a lack of evidence that vitamins actually work, consumers appear largely unwilling to give them up. Many readers of the Well blog say the problem is not the vitamin but poorly designed studies that use the wrong type of vitamin, setting the vitamin up to fail. Industry groups such as the Council for Responsible Nutrition also say the research isn’t well designed to detect benefits in healthy vitamin users.

The entire article can be read here News Keeps Getting Worse for Vitamins - Well Blog - NYTimes.com
but will only be available for free for one week.

A high quality diet, with adequate protein, lots of vegetables, and whole grains remains the best way to get sufficient nutrition. And buy organic when you can.

kebod

argh! I hate it when this happens, I just wrote a LONG post and then accidentally ended backing up a page and it's lost!!! sigh,
thanks for posting this K. I like all the comments below that article too, like, do people use multis as a crutch or substitute for eating lots of fruits and veggies? I can imagine they are hard on our livers, does taking on an empty stomach make it worse? etc... I have known people who don't take multis who on their likely deathbed have been told they had deficiencies, given vites or minerals and then recovered. They didn't eat doughnuts for breakfast. They ate as they have been told is ok. So unless these studies are specifically evaluated against various models of eating (not the SAD), I don't know what to think... tho I do worry a bit that all the A and betacarotenes are hard on my liver.
JohnE, the NYT is not infallible though so as with everything else, evaluate for yourself. They had (or have) a writer, Jane Brody, who pushed the high carb diets, whole grain and bean of course, for years, she had cookbooks. Yet, I think she had it wrong for many of us. I think eating that way does work for some people, not me. Then there's Taubes, whose book influenced me enormously. He writes for NYT also. He goes too far toward the Atkins spectrum for some people but I do think his book illuminated the research showing how bad carbs can be for many of us via their elevation of insulin. so, there you are, keep a skeptical mind but not a closed mind, I say...
oh, and I think you should start a journal johnE, 27 pounds! hooray!
-- bd

"A Johns Hopkins School of Medicine review of 19 vitamin E clinical trials of more than 135,000 people showed high doses of vitamin E (greater than 400 IUs) increased a person’s risk for dying during the study period by 4 percent. Taking vitamin E with other vitamins and minerals resulted in a 6 percent higher risk of dying. Another study of daily vitamin E showed vitamin E takers had a 13 percent higher risk for heart failure."

wow, maybe i should stop taking vitamin E. the article also said people taking beta carotene were 28%
more likely to get colon cancer, wow. i guess its time to rethink vitamins. I was disopointed that there was no mention of vitamin b17 and cancer rates.

yah bd im finding out that i have to sift through all my media outlets to find the trueth, i cant simply disregaurd everything someone says if i dont agree with one of there views. i cant just put them in the bad catogory, or the good catogory...theres got to be a middle catogory.
ill start a journal when i get all the facts in.

__________________
Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.
Benjamin Franklin
************************************************** *******

Over how long a period of time would one have to take Vit. E in order to increase the mortality rate? I have wondered about this.

kebod