The Real Reason the Lyme Disease Vaccine Had No Shot

iStock
iStock

With the potential for causing a variety of lingering symptoms ranging from lethargy to nervous system damage, Lyme disease has become a perennial concern for people venturing outdoors in the summer months. Carried by deer ticks, the Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria can challenge our immune systems and prove frustrating to treat. About 30,000 cases are reported to the CDC each year, although the total cases of unreported transmissions could be ten times that number.

So why don’t we have a vaccine for it? We did. And it disappeared.

According to Vox, the spread of Lyme cases in the 1990s compelled pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline to research and develop a vaccine called LYMErix that attacked the outer protein present in the bacteria. It did so by becoming proactively aggressive, killing off the bacteria while it was still in the body of the attached and feeding tick. More than 1.5 million people were given the vaccine before 2000. Clinical trials demonstrated up to a 90 percent success rate.

While that kind of efficacy and protection would be welcome today, at the time doctors weren’t quite certain what kind of demographic they should be recommending the vaccine to: There was less information about regional areas of tick concentrations than there is now. The vaccine also required three doses in the span of a year, making it slightly inconvenient; some health insurers resisted the $50 cost for each injection.

Those issues were surmountable over time. But some members of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) panel that had approved the vaccine voiced concern that LYMErix might potentially attack healthy proteins in the body. This autoimmune reaction was never demonstrated in trials, but the theory made consumers wary when it was publicized in the media, and some of those treated complained of arthritis symptoms. Coupled with increasing scrutiny and apprehension over vaccines in general, LYMErix failed to become a staple of vaccination schedules. Sales dropped and GlaxoSmithKline stopped production. With the patent having expired, it’s not likely drug companies will be interested in resurrecting it, only to face additional bad press. Alternative vaccines are being considered, but could take years before coming to market.

In the absence of an effective vaccine, the best way to ward off Lyme remains prevention. If you’re going to be in wooded areas where the ticks tend to congregate, wearing light-colored clothing will help you spot the small nymphs. Insect repellent is important, and examining your body—particularly behind the ears and armpits—for ticks after being outside is also a must. If you find one, remove it with a pair of tweezers.

For more information about Lyme disease, check out our 15 Useful Facts.

[h/t Vox]

Fart All You Want—These 'Flatulence Jeans' Were Designed to Absorb the Smell

Shreddies
Shreddies

Like it or not, everyone farts, and they do it far more than you’d think. Healthy people pass gas up to 20 times a day, and, as we recently learned, even if you try to hold your farts in, they’ll come out one way or the other—possibly through your mouth. Depending on what you eat and where you pass it, that can get pretty smelly. That is, unless you’re wearing fart-proof pants. A UK-based company called Shreddies makes “flatulence filtering” jeans that promise to eliminate your worst smells before they can escape into the wider world, Business Today reports.

Shreddies products are lined with activated charcoal, a substance that’s great at absorbing odors and gases—so much so that it’s a go-to ingredient for home air filters and purifiers. According to Shreddies, the odor-absorbing qualities of the fabric last around two to three years, at which point you’d probably be buying new jeans, anyway.

A side view of a woman wearing fart-filtering underwear
Shreddies

You still have to mind your farts, though. The company says that to be effective, the jeans have to fit tightly against the skin, ensuring that your gas is absorbed directly into the fabric. “To avoid flatulence escaping around the filter we recommend that you stand with your legs together and try to let your wind out slowly,” the Shreddies website instructs (emphasis theirs). “When sitting, keep your knees together so that flatulence escapes through the carbon panel.” As long as the jeans fit correctly, the filter should absorb all the foul odors leaking out of your body.

The jeans, available for men and women, cost roughly $130 (£100) plus shipping, a price that probably seems worth it to the people in your life who have to deal with your noxious toots.

Not a jeans person? Fear not. The company also makes fart-filtering underwear and pajamas. There are gift options, too, for all of your favorite flatulence-prone friends.

[h/t Business Today]

How Microwaving Food Affects Its Nutritional Value

iStock/grzymkiewicz
iStock/grzymkiewicz

There’s probably no household appliance that sees more use than a microwave. For people who don’t have the time or inclination to prepare dinners from scratch or heat meals in a conventional oven, zapping food has become the ultimate method of time management in the kitchen.

Some people harbor the belief that a price has to be paid for that convenience—specifically, that food loses nutritional value by being subjected to a quick nuking.

The truth? Microwaving doesn’t harm a food’s nutrients. In fact, it may preserve them more than some slow-cook methods do.

The reason is found in how microwaves work. The appliances heat food by blasting it with waves of energy not unlike radio waves. These waves target water and other molecules in the food. Thermal energy quickly builds up, and dishes come out heated in a relatively short period of time. This process avoids two of the factors that can lead to nutrient loss: cooking duration and high temperatures. Typically, the longer and hotter food is cooked, the more its nutritional value dissipates.

The other advantage is that microwaves don’t require water for heating. If you boil broccoli, for example, the hot water allows nutrients to leach out of the vegetable. (While that makes for a good stock, your broccoli may be robbed of some of its healthy benefits.) A quick steam in the microwave leaves broccoli relatively intact.

That’s not to say that microwave cooking is superior to a stovetop. Cooking foods at reasonable temperatures and durations shouldn’t result in significant nutrient loss, though some is inevitable for any manner of cooking. But microwaving isn’t going to erase nutrients via some mysterious microwave alchemy, either.

[h/t CNN]

SECTIONS

arrow
LIVE SMARTER