[jrabone]

I'm still alive, that's as far as it goes. 30% + chance of recurrence and it's not like I can have those organs removed a second time. However, it's an improvement on the initial diagnosis which was stage 4 adenocarcinoma with peritoneal metastasis (ie. a Kaplan-Meyer survival of about 5 years max).

It's not just immuno-suppressed people, it's everyone, and a risk/benefit comparison with peanut allergies is spurious. If everyone smeared themselves in peanut butter before they left the house each morning, you'd have a closer comparison.

Plenty of studies at http://www.cdc.gov/handwashing/publications-data-stats.html - click on "Improved Health".

[rosser]

You're creating a false dilemma between not washing your hands and destroying your skin biome. TFA is about the latter, but you're citing studies about the former.

[jrabone]

TFA doesn't contain enough detail about hand-washing as opposed to body & hair, in much the same way that most people don't like talking about wiping their backsides vs washing them after defecating.

[Steer]

I must say that I feel bad discussing this with you, I do not enjoy trying to be objective when discussing with someone stricken by cancer like you. You have obviously been through a trauma and you are still living it. If I were religious I would pray for your recovery, but since I am not I will just say that I do hope that you live and prosper.

I am not convinced that an increased use of soap and shampoo would lead to a healthier society overall, much like an increased use of antibiotics does not seem to make a healthier society overall.

[DanBC]

> I am not convinced that an increased use of soap and shampoo would lead to a healthier society

Food poisoning can be fatal and can have severe consequences.

Some food poisoning is a result of poor hand washing hygiene.

People washing their hands correctly would reduce the amount of problems of food poisoning.

[marvin]

The big question is whether decreased use of soap and shampoo leads to a less healthy society overall. Just as with modern vaccines and antibiotics, modern first-world people just have no idea how bad things were before the invention of soap.

The researchers in this article are definitely onto something - a better understanding of microorganisms' symbiosis with humans could have great benefits - but let's not forget that playing with this on a large scale is a massive experiment with potential negative consequences. The precautionary principle holds.

[jrabone]

Thank you (I'm not religious either). I'm sorry you feel uncomfortable, that's not my intent at all. In purely objective terms, there's obviously a benefit to culling the weak.

I wouldn't necessarily advocate for _increased_ use of soap and shampoo (and certainly not for antibiotics). I also believe there is an argument that partial disinfection is much worse than nothing, when viewed in terms of selection pressure on a microbial population, and I don't think daily use of antibiotic soap is a good idea (although Triclosan is actually pretty useless anyway).

However, I definitely don't think we should be encouraging _less_ hygiene, even though I'm obviously biased.