Ok, that does it. I'm buying a pillow condom.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051014_pillow_ecosystem.html

Unless you have an allergy, what's the problem? Mites and countless other tiny organisms are crawling all over your house and body right now, eating the tissue you're shedding. Pillows, mattresses, furniture, clothes, carpets -- everywhere.

*sigh*
If someone who has actually read the article has a response, I'll be eager to hear it.

...I read it. I fail to see the hubub.

People have been sleeping on pillows for a long time now. Even the sick ones don't suffer too many ill effects from their pillows.

Tuda is correct...we're walking smorgasboards for microscopic beasties.

It's the aspergillus fumigatus not the dust mites. Although they're living in synergistic harmoney in there, one feeding on the other.

Invasive Aspergillosis occurs mainly in the lungs and sinuses, although it can spread to other organs such as the brain, and is becoming increasingly common across other patient groups. It is very difficult to treat, and as many as 1 in 25 patients who die in modern European teaching hospitals have the disease.

Immuno-compromised patients such as transplantation, AIDS and steroid treatment patients are also frequently affected with life-threatening Aspergillus pneumonia and sinusitis. Fortunately, hospital pillows have plastic covers and so are unlikely to cause problems, but patients being discharged home - where pillows may be old and fungus-infected - could be at risk of infection.

Aspergillus can also worsen asthma, particularly in adults who have had asthma for many years, and cause allergic sinusitis in patients with allergic tendencies. Constant exposure to fungus in bed could be problematic. It can also get into the lung cavities created by tuberculosis which affects a third of the world's population, causing general ill-health and bleeding in the lung, as well as causing a range of plant and animal diseases.

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/news/pressreleases/pillows/

Seems like wrapping your pillow in a condom, of sorts, is a prudent thing to do. Especially if you've got any sort of respiratory issues going on or immune system issues. It isn't much fun having your internal organs colonized by a toxin producing fungus.

It's the aspergillus fumigatus not the dust mites.
I wonder if aspergillus fumigatus makes your pee smell funny...

/em throws his pillows into the washer and sets the temp to hot.

or you could put your pillow in the laundry more often!

I tried to wash my pillow, but it is a solid foam one. Didn't really work. I'm buying a pillow condom! (They sell them in linen stores).

9 out of 10 homes in the United States are suspected to have mold.
Air within a home is often of poorer quality than outdoor air.

While more and more concern is being placed on the quality of air that we have in our homes, most experts still agree that you won't see a major effect on your health unless you have a serious infestation. In order to find out, you still have to have a specialist come to your house and test for various allergens (or do it the old fashion way, and sniff the air).

eanwhile, if you're building a home, there are tons of new products on the market - such as antibacterial/antifungal wood and insullation, HEPA quality AC systems, moisture wicking drywall, etc, etc. If you're building a new home, these items are probably worth looking into, as the investment will probably help sustain the value of your home in the future. However, in the older homes, most of these would be considered major upgrades, and not worth the money to put in - quite simply, it'd be easier to sell your house and build a new one.

Oh, and if you're only worried about your pillow, there are a few companies out there that market antibacterial and antifungal synthetic pillows.

I see they're also making a new drywall that isn't lined with paper, to inhibit mold growth inside of walls.

Frankly, I'm more worried about the mold source I shove my face into every night.

Some, including myself, wonder whether ever-increasing numbers of allergies are related to the more sterile environments our kids live in. One school of thought is that kids playing outside in muck (or maybe sleeping on dirty pillows) build up their immune system, thus avoiding allergies later in life.

This article made me think of my Mom. She's had a chronic cough for about 40 years. When she was admitted to the hospital in May they found strange things on her lung xray and wanted to do a biopsy. But she is 86 years old and didn't want to have it done because she felt it was too invasive and she probably wasn't long for the world anyway.

I wonder if perhaps what they found in her lungs might have been a fungus. I had just seen an episode of Dr. G, Medical Examiner, where she found a major fungal infection in someone's lungs.

Anyway, her health has improved hugely since she's been living in a nursing home and, I bet, the pillows are in a better state than they would be at home.

Just something I wonder about. Also, I have a lot of sinus stuffiness at night. The pillow might be the cause of that.

Anyway, her health has improved hugely since she's been living in a nursing home and, I bet, the pillows are in a better state than they would be at home.Yep, it couldn't be the nursing staff, medications, and specialized medical environment. Must be the pillow. <img src=http://lag9.com/rolleyes.gif> Run out and dump money on pillow condoms!

This is another case of paranoia leading to irrational conclusions. As the article states, it's a concern for those with asthma, AIDS, or tuberculosis, not the general public.

As Thicket states, if you try to sterilize your environment too much, you're doing yourself and your immune system a disservice.

As Thicket states, if you try to sterilize your environment too much, you're doing yourself and your immune system a disservice.
Until they know what exactly primes the immune system, and what age(s) it happens at, then leaping to that conclusion is premature. It is called the hyiene hypothesis ('http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1448690).
All they've done up to this point is speculate about it since it's known that people living in pretty primitive circumstances have fewer autoimmune diseases. However, you look at less clean environments in inner cities, they've got a lot more asthma. Even if there were strong evidence that the hygenie hypothesis is true do all possible pathogens support it, or just some. We've got bacteria, viruses and funguses to choose from. Which of those? And of those, is it respiratory infections, intestinal or something else? Is it a particular pathogen or all possible pathogens? The popular media makes it sounds like it's a free-for-all. But they're grossly over simplfying and most people are ignorant enough to believe the blurbs they hear and make assumptions based on them.

I mean, if you really believe you should be priming your immune system... perhaps you should eat some cow dung and invite sick people to spray you with sneezes.

e, I think I'll pass on infecting myself with a fungus.

I mean, if you really believe you should be priming your immune system... perhaps you should eat some cow dung and inviting sick people to spray you with sneezes.Cow dung can carry dangerous pathogens, and it's hardly appetizing either, though it's probably present in small quantities in your food. As for spraying you with sneezes, if you go into any public building, you're effectively doing that. A sneeze just seems more dramatic to you than touching a doorknob, shaking someone's hand, or just breathing in recirculated air.

Basically, you're letting paranoia guide you, instead of objective facts.

That review of the Hygiene Hypothesis was very long, here's a part of the analysis I think is relevant:
Developing a rational approach to home hygiene
Regardless of whether the hygiene hypothesis is correct, the popular interpretation that ‘dirt is good for us’ [243] has considerably influenced attitudes, and caused loss of confidence among the public regarding home hygiene. One positive benefit however is a recognition by public health professionals of the need to provide clearer guidance. One of the concepts which we need to clarify is the difference between ‘dirt’ and ‘germs’, and between ‘cleanliness’ and ‘hygiene’. Without knowing the nature of the microbial exposure which may be critical for immune priming, it is difficult to reformulate hygiene policy, in favour of improving immune function without compromising protection against ID. Even if we had the correct information, selective targeting of hygiene interventions, as a means of maintaining beneficial microbial exposure, would only be an option if their mode of transmission were significantly different from that for pathogens. If it were proved that intense infection is an essential factor, the evidence suggests that encouraging such exposures would cause significant morbidity and mortality; if the main effect was, for example, a reduction in hayfever, with little or no impact on asthma, the ‘trade off’ would represent a very poor bargain. If it turns out that more general ‘background’ exposure is needed, e.g. organisms with low invasiveness or virulence, such as the rapid growing saprophytic strains of Mycobacteria, the idea of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ types of microbial exposure is academic, unless we could engineer the ‘right’ exposure, without introducing dangerous organisms. As untreated water may contain up to 109 mycobacteria per litre, the difficulty is how to preserve the ‘friendly’ species while removing those likely to cause disease. One option that is already being pursued is an attenuated vaccine containing the ‘right’ type of microbes (e.g. saprophytic mycobacteria), and there is evidence of efficacy of a vaccine strategy in animal studies [244] and in some of human trials [245, 246]. With vaccine strategies, there is no conflict with hygiene.

ID means infectious disease.

I used to suffer bronchitis, sinus infections, colds, and flu every year.
Then I started reading about vitamins, which were safe to take in certain doses (fat soluable), and which you can take all you want (water soluble)

(I feel like an infomerical)

Then I put together a list of vitamins and minerals that were high in antioxidants, and have supposed protective effects on vision, cardiorespiratory function, and antioxidant properties.

4,000 mg Vitamin C
800 IU Vitamin E
Vitamin B complex 150
1,000 mg Omega-3 oils
1,000 mg Calcium-Magnesium-Zinc formulation
800 mcg Chromium Picolinate
200 mg Selenium
150,000 IU Beta-Carotene
320 mg aspirin
1,000mg L-Carnitene
6mg Lutein
100mg CoEnzyme Q10

Now I get maybe a mild cold once every 2 years or so. They aren't miracle pills, but they seemed to help me.

old is another thing I have thought about seriously. I almost bought one of the air purifiers from Sharper Image, but half of the info I get on them say the ozone they produce is pretty bad for you. But they do seem to destroy mold spores and the like, if you want to trade one potential problem for another potential problem.

I almost bought one of the air purifiers from Sharper Image, but half of the info I get on them say the ozone they produce is pretty bad for you. But they do seem to destroy mold spores and the like, if you want to trade one potential problem for another potential problem.The Sharper Image models produce toxic levels of ozone (http://www.aircleaners.com/sharperimage2.phtml), don't buy them (if they're even still made, I remember hearing something about a recall). If you want quality air filtration, get an IQAir (http://www.iqair.us/home_products_healthpro.html). Cheap systems branded by various appliance manufacturers (Sears, etc.) are mostly useless.

I've been using my old Honeywell HEPA filters, but I hate paying the $80ish for the replacement core filters - however it seems like many of the newer replacement filters can be vacuumed out and used again.

As for the Sharper Image ones, I think they now have a ozone remover. I've heard some good stuff about their new top of the line purifier though.
http://sharperimage.com/us/en/catalog/productview/sku__SI724GRY

I'm not concerned about mold in the air, I've got no idea how much there is, if any. Like I said, putting my face into a pile of mold every night... not so good.

And thus do we begin to destroy our natural immunities which have permitted humans to evolve over tens of thousands of years.

And thus do we begin to destroy our natural immunities which have permitted humans to evolve over tens of thousands of years.
Yeah, I mean, we pretty much wipe out chicken pox, cholera, typhoid, small pox, measels... we're doomed!

Yeah, I mean, we pretty much wipe out chicken pox, cholera, typhoid, small pox, measels... we're doomed!

We didn't wipe them out until a goodly portion of of humans had developed at least limited immunity...

But, if you go around killing every virus or bacteria...then we'll end up immune to none of them and then let the epidemics begin.

And what evidence do you have that this is a problem? Or is even happening? As the article I posted from the NIH says, the Hygeine Hypothesis is very faulty and most people believe it in far more than the evidence warrents. Meanwhile, we live with probably a lot more mold than we ever have, our houses being so tightly enclosed, lots of lovely places for mold to grow in (wall-to-wall carpeting, drywall, mattresses).

In fact, the reverse is happening. Bacteria at least are evolving quite capably to evade our strategies (antibiotics and the way we raise cattle nowadays and what not). In fact, we're helping them along quite a bit. We can't really do anything with viruses except innoculation, which just primes the immune system to be ready to handle it in advance. So that pretty much rules out viruses.

Plus mold isn't bacteria or a virus.

Lets see... what was the big disease in the 1950's that we had a terrible time with, left people in Iron Lungs and crippled. Cholera still kills many, many people, just not where drinking water is pretty good. The only one I think us white folks were handling pretty well on our own was the one that killed so many Indians. We Euro's had had a long, long exposure to it. Probably many thousands of years to develop resistance to it.

Europeans brought smallpox, typhus, measles, influenza, bubonic plague, mumps, yellow fever, cholera, malaria and whooping cough to the Americas. In return, native Americans transmitted Chagas' disease, syphilis and yaws to Europeans.

Although estimates are difficult to confirm, millions of native Americans, constituting more than half of the population are thought to have died of these diseases. Native populations that were almost entirely annihilated include the Arawak and Caribs of the Caribbean and the Beothuks of Newfoundland.

I find the 'Hygiene Hypothesis' totally believable. It's exactly the principle behind immunization. Inject a weak form of a disease at a young age to build up immunity to that disease.

Consider mumps. It's a viral disease that's fairly harmless to children. If you are 'protected' from getting it as a child, and get it when you are an adult, mumps can have serious consequences. This includes the evolutionary dead end of infertility.

Consider chicken pox. If you get it as a child, it's fairly harmless. Although deaths from chicken pox are rare, about 80% of the deaths are adults. Chicken pox can only be gotten once, except in rare immuno-deficient cases.

... and the best example of all is War of the Worlds :) . Those nasty aliens died because they had never been exposed to the brew of disease organisms found on Earth.

I find the 'Hygiene Hypothesis' totally believable. It's exactly the principle behind immunization. Inject a weak form of a disease at a young age to build up immunity to that disease.

The real hygine hypothesis is about explaining increasing asthma rates. Not about losing immunity to infectious diseases. In fact, we still have immunity to diseases, we just get innoculated versus surviving plagues.

The reason we've got people dying of E. Coli isn't because we're not eating enough of it... or are not breathing enough mold, it is because the strain of E. Coli has modified due to the changes in how we raise cattle on corn and soy in feed lots. It acidifies their digestion tract which the new E. Coli bacteria thrives on.

Now... would you be willing to infect yourself and your family with this new strain of E. Coli on the chance that you might build up an immunity to it if you don't die?

Consuming the old E. Coli varients isn't going to help you one bit, you already deal with them pretty well.

And what evidence do you have that this is a problem? Or is even happening?First, what Thicket said about the Native Americans -- it's quite true, sometimes entire villages were wiped out by disease before the Spanish conquerers had even step foot in them.

For an example that's more relevant today, look at the delta 32 mutation in the CCR5 gene (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_plague/index.html). When bubonic plague broke out in Europe, some people developed genetic resistance through that mutation. Today, that same mutation also prevents HIV infection. If you have European ancestors and inherited the mutation from both parents, you are nearly immune to HIV.Plus mold isn't bacteria or a virus.So?we just get innoculated versus surviving plaguesIt's not the same. See my delta 32 example.

What does any of this have to do with protecting yourself from mold?

What does any of this have to do with protecting yourself from mold?Because you don't need to protect yourself from mold, unless you have an immune deficiency or you are dealing with concentrations that a healthy immune system can't handle. You are better off exposing yourself to the small quantities and keeping your immune system strong.

Ok, show me proof that exposing yourself to toxic mold "keeps your immune system strong".

For an example that's more relevant today, look at the delta 32 mutation in the CCR5 gene. When bubonic plague broke out in Europe, some people developed genetic resistance through that mutation. Today, that same mutation also prevents HIV infection. If you have European ancestors and inherited the mutation from both parents, you are nearly immune to HIV.
This is a mutation, it has nothing to do with strengthening your immune system. If you happened to have gotten this mutation, excellent, but being exposed to pathogens doesn't cause the mutation.

You've badly mangled what the hygiene hypothesis is about -- it isn't about preventing infectious diseases it is a very disputed attempt to explain increasing amounts of asthma and autoimmune diseases. And you seem to take it as established fact, which it isn't by a long shot.

Ok, show me proof that exposing yourself to toxic mold "keeps your immune system strong".Show me proof that the toxic mold can adversely affect a normal, healthy adult.

Other systems in your body degenerate from lack of use; what makes you think your immune system is any different?You've badly mangled what the hygiene hypothesis is about -- it isn't about preventing infectious diseases it is a very disputed attempt to explain increasing amounts of asthma and autoimmune diseases. And you seem to take it as established fact, which it isn't by a long shot.I haven't mangled anything. <i>You're</i> the one talking about the "hygiene hypothesis"; I'm citing examples where exposure to pathogens has been beneficial to humans.

I haven't mangled anything. You're the one talking about the "hygiene hypothesis"; I'm citing examples where exposure to pathogens has been beneficial to humans.
Sure, if you don't count the millions that died to bring you immunity via random mutations. I guess it depends on which side of the mutation you fall on as to whether you should be deliberately exposing yourself to pathogens.

If we all consume the more virulent e coli and don't die, our progeny will thank 2 of us for a mutation we passed along.

I haven't mangled anything. You're the one talking about the "hygiene hypothesis"; I'm citing examples where exposure to pathogens has been beneficial to humans.... You are better off exposing yourself to the small quantities and keeping your immune system strong.
Except that here you're reciting a badly managed platitudes published in such respected scientific journals like The Reader's Digest.

Thicket brought up the Hygiene Hypothesis and you agreed with him. He didn't name it though, just recounted the usual garbage that is printed about it. Then you said that You are better off exposing yourself to the small quantities and keeping your immune system strong.

The hypothesis that Ticket summarized is very disputable, as I've shown repeatedly now and it if intentionally exposing your immune system to potentially deadly pathogens is more beneficial than risky there certainly no proof of that.

Not only that, we don't actually live in even remotely sterile environments.

Show me proof that the toxic mold can adversely affect a normal, healthy adult.
It is rare but not unheard of. (http://www.google.com/search?q=aspergillosis+in+healthy+people&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official)
Aspergillosis is a fungal infection. It can occur in people with healthy or suppressed immune systems. In people with healthy immune systems, it usually causes mild or moderate lung problems. In people with suppressed immune systems, aspergillosis can cause serious lung problems and can also spread to other organs, including the kidneys, liver, skin, bones, and brain. Because these more severe forms of aspergillosis can be life threatening, it is important to diagnose and treat this infection quickly.

However lots of people take drugs (steroids) or have conditions that might otherwise predispose them to such an infection.

And who is to say when you're in bed, sick with the flu, you're not a ready receptacle for a lovely aspergillus infection of the lungs. Last time I had the flu I wasn't in any condition to buy a pillow condom.

People don't die because of non-sterile furniture and bedding in their homes. Not unless they've been doing something really dirty. Can we get this all in perspective please?

Not unless they've been doing something really dirty.
You mean, like this? Fungi having sex (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/050713_fungal_sex.html) (They put the Fun back in Fungi).

Now we're going to have to outlaw Fungodomy and amend the constitution to specificy that the man and woman can't be fungi