CLOSE
Original image

Hounds, Fevers & Fish-oil...Not a Country Song

Original image

...but the latest agents that keep infant allergies at bay. Babies fare better against allergens, apparently, when they're burning up. Prevention.com sites that:

About one-quarter (207) of the children had suffered at least one documented fever of 101 degrees Fahrenheit or more; this group was less likely to suffer from allergies now (as measured by atopy, serotopy, and allergic sensitization). And children who had had two such fevers were less likely to suffer allergies than those who had only one.

And don't forget fish-oil, says nutritionist Leslie Beck:

The theory is that because omega-3 fatty acids have anti-inflammatory properties, they may affect the developing immune system in a way that makes it less prone to allergic reaction, according to study author Dr. Susan L. Prescott of the University of Western Australia in Perth.

According to the study authors, it's possible that the rise in allergic disease over the past few decades could be related, in part, to a decline in omega-3 fats in the Western diet. Fatty fish like salmon, tuna and sardines are a prime source of omega-3s; the fats are also found in certain vegetable sources, such as canola oil and flax seed.

sdlfkjasUniversity of Cincinnati researchers found that children were two times less likely to wheeze when they lived in homes with high levels of endotoxins (natural compounds produced by pathogens) and more than one dog. And if you're already setting up the dog pen next to your playpen, maybe consider adopting a (fertile) dachshund...word is they're dwindling.

Original image
iStock
arrow
Health
Here's How to Tell If You Damaged Your Eyes Watching the Eclipse
Original image
iStock

Amid the total solar eclipse craze, experts repeatedly warned spectators not to watch the rare phenomenon on August 21 with their naked eyes. But if you caught a peek sans glasses, pinhole projector, or protective filter, you may be wondering if your peepers were damaged. (After the sky show, "my eyes hurt" spiked as a Google search, so you’re not alone.)

While the sun doesn’t technically harm your eyes any more than usual during a solar eclipse, it can be easier to gaze at the glowing orb when the moon covers it. And looking directly at the sun—even briefly—can damage a spot in the retina called the fovea, which ensures clear central vision. This leads to a condition called solar retinopathy.

You won’t initially feel any pain if your eyes were damaged, as our retinas don’t have  pain receptors. But according to Live Science, symptoms of solar retinopathy can arise within hours (typically around 12 hours after sun exposure), and can include blurred or distorted vision, light sensitivity, a blind spot in one or both eyes, or changes in the way you see color (a condition called chromatopsia).

These symptoms can improve over several months to a year, but some people may experience lingering problems, like a small blind spot in their field of vision. Others may suffer permanent damage.

That said, if you only looked at the sun for a moment, you’re probably fine. “If you look at it for a second or two, nothing will happen," Jacob Chung, chief of ophthalmology at New Jersey's Englewood Hospital, told USA TODAY. "Five seconds, I'm not sure, but 10 seconds is probably too long, and 20 seconds is definitely too long."

However, if you did gaze at the sun for too long and you believe you may have damaged your eyes, get a professional opinion, stat. “Seeing an optometrist is faster than getting to see an ophthalmologist,” Ralph Chou, a professor emeritus of optometry and vision science at the University of Waterloo, in Ontario, Canada, told NPR. “If there is damage, the optometrist would refer the individual to the ophthalmologist for further assessment and management in any case.”

Original image
iStock
arrow
Health
New Test Can Differentiate Between Tick-borne Illnesses
Original image
iStock

Time is of the essence in diagnosing and treating Lyme disease and other tick-borne illnesses. Fortunately, one new test may be able to help. A report on the test was published in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

Ticks and the diseases they carry are on the rise. One 2016 study found deer ticks—the species that carries Lyme disease—in more than half of the counties in the United States.

The two most common tick-borne illnesses in the U.S. are Lyme disease and southern tick-associated rash illness (STARI). Although their initial symptoms can be the same, they’re caused by different pathogens; Lyme disease comes from infection with the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi. We don’t know what causes STARI.

"It is extremely important to be able to tell a patient they have Lyme disease as early as possible so they can be treated as quickly as possible," microbiologist and first author Claudia Molins of the CDC said in a statement. "Most Lyme disease infections are successfully treated with a two- to three-week course of oral antibiotics." Infections that aren't treated can lead to fevers, facial paralysis, heart palpitations, nerve pain, arthritis, short-term memory loss, and inflammation of the brain and spinal cord.

But to date, scientists have yet to create an accurate, consistent early test for Lyme disease, which means people must often wait until they’re very ill. And it’s hard to test for the STARI pathogen when we don’t know what it is.

One team of researchers led by experts at Colorado State University was determined to find a better way. They realized that, rather than looking for pathogens, they could look at the way a person’s body responded to the pathogens.

They analyzed blood samples from patients with both early-stage Lyme disease and STARI. Their results showed that while all patients’ immune systems had mounted a response, the nature of that response was different.

"We have found that all of these infections and diseases are associated with an inflammatory response, but the alteration of the immune response, and the metabolic profiles aren't all the same," senior author John Belisle of CSU said.

Two distinct profiles emerged. The team had found physical evidence, or biomarkers, for each illness: a way to tell one disease from another.

Belisle notes that there’s still plenty of work to do.

"The focus of our efforts is to develop a test that has a much greater sensitivity, and maintains that same level of specificity," Belisle said. "We don't want people to receive unnecessary treatment if they don't have Lyme disease, but we want to identify those who have the disease as quickly as possible."

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER
More from mental floss studios