Posts Tagged ‘rubbish’

Bees, wasps and other stinging insects

`Know your enemy’ is always a good motto, but particularly for those with insect-sting allergy. Being allergic to wasps or hornets, for example, is enough of a problem without panicking every time you encounter a hoverfly as well. If your reaction to this is ‘What’s a hoverfly?’ then you need a good field guide or a friend who knows a little about natural history. These common insects have yellow-and-black stripes to mimic those of wasps, giving them some protection against predatory birds. They fool a lot of people as well as birds, but it isn’t difficult to tell the two apart — hoverflies are a different shape from wasps, hold their wings differently at rest, and fly in a completely different way (for one thing they hover, unlike wasps). Being able to tell one from the other will make life much more relaxing.
If you did not see the insect that stung you, ask the doctor which skin tests came up positive (see p. 61), and use a field guide to check exactly what the insect(s) looks like.
As well as knowing what your problem insect looks like, you need to know a little about its habits and tastes.
These are the general characteristics of stinging insects that you need to know about:
• The most dangerous thing you can do is to disturb the nest – all stinging insects go into attack mode when this happens. If there is a nest in or around your house, call in a pest control expert to destroy it. Never tackle this job yourself, nor allow anyone else to do it while you are in the vicinity.
• If you think there may be an insect nest in or around your house, call in a pest control expert to do a survey. Regular annual checkups of your property are advisable if insects have nested before.
• Insect repellent works only for biting insects, such as mosquitoes. It does not repel wasps, bees or other stinging insects.
• Insecticide spray can be useful, but make sure the insect is really dead before you touch it. A groggy poisoned insect may well sting.
• A small but thick blanket can be useful for catching bees or wasps that have flown into cars. Don’t try to do this yourself unless there is no alternative. Ask a passer-by to help you if you are alone.
• Always stay as calm as possible.
Wasps and hornets (vespids)
• If you react to one species of vespid, you may well have a cross-reaction to other species in this group, so take care.
• Wasps like sweet foods (e.g. jam, honey, cakes) and you should avoid taking these on picnics. They will also crawl into open cans of beer or soft drinks. Never ever drink from the can, as you can get a mouthful of cross wasp with your drink.
• In spring and early summer, wasps collect protein-rich food for their young, and may be attracted to meat. If eating outdoors, as far as possible keep food covered.
• Wasps come to fallen fruit in the autumn. They get very sluggish and bad-tempered late in the year, and will sting with little provocation. They may crawl into crevices or hollow logs as winter approaches. Be very careful about picking up fruit or dead leaves, or working in the garden –always wear thick gloves.
• Wasps are often on the ground, especially in late summer and autumn. Wear shoes and socks for protection. If working outside where there may be wasps, long trousers and long-sleeved shirts are also advisable.
• Rubbish bins and litter bins are also very attractive to wasps. Make sure your own bin has a tightly fitting lid, and that no rubbish accumulates around it. Ask neighbours to do the same. Keep away from litter bins, and from picnic sites, orchards and tea gardens, all of which are havens for wasps.
Cross-reactions between insect stings
There are cross-reactions between the venoms of wasps, hornets and related insects (vespids), so if you are allergic to one, you may react to another. Cross-reactions are very unlikely between bee and wasp venoms.
Honeybees and bumblebees have very similar venom and these cross-react (but honeybee immunotherapy does not work for bumblebee allergy – see p. 168). Surprisingly, there is some cross-reaction between honeybee venom and snake venom.
The usual suspects
Wasps (yellow-jackets in the United States), hornets and bees are the most common source of allergic reactions worldwide. Locally, there are allergic reactions to various other stinging or biting animals. Fire ants are a particular problem in the southeastern United States. Hopper ants are a cause of anaphylaxis in Australia, and allergy to leech bites has been reported from Tasmania. A few people are allergic to the kissing bugs (Triatoma spp.) – also called cone-noses, ‘big bed bugs’ or ‘Mexican bed bugs’ – that are found in South and Central America, as well as rural areas of North America. These large insects creep into beds and bite painlessly, by night. In urban areas of Italy, where large numbers of pigeons live in some old buildings, pigeon ticks that find their way indoors have sometimes caused anaphylactic shock by biting during the night. Localised reactions to earlier bites had occurred in all cases.
Honeybees and bumblebees
• When it stings, a bee loses part of itself – the stinger and venom sac – and therefore dies. So stinging is very much a last resort. Most honeybees are not aggressive, and only sting if their nest is attacked, or if they are threatened when feeding.
• Bees feed on nectar from flowers. They may be attracted by brightly coloured clothes, especially red, orange and yellow, and flower-prints, mistaking these for flowers. Wearing dull colours is advised.
• Some perfumes, shampoos and scented cosmetics or lotions may also attract bees. If bees do approach you, never swat at them, and don’t panic. The best thing is to brush them away very gently.
• Bees often feed on clover, which grows in lawns and other grassy places, and it is easy to tread on them in this situation. Walking barefoot outside is therefore dangerous.
• Bees are attracted by water, including swimming pools and paddling pools.
• Although large, bumblebees are also very placid and rarely sting.
• Swarming bees are dangerous because they have the queen with them. If you see a swarm, keep well away.
Africanised honeybees
If travelling abroad, you should remember that Africanised honeybees – found in South and Central America, Texas, Arizona and parts of California – will sting with much less provocation than ordinary bees.
They are hybrids between domestic honeybees and an aggressive variety of wild African bee mistakenly introduced to South America. While they are much more pugnacious than ordinary bees, Africanised honeybees are only intent on defending their hive, and do not maliciously hunt people down as some horror movies have implied! They inject slightly less venom with each sting than a normal bee, but multiple stings are more likely because more than one bee is usually involved.

The days when doctors wanted their patients to obey orders and ask no questions are largely gone. Patients with allergies and other forms of sensitivity - or their parents -

have to play a key role in managing the disease. Most doctors now recognise this, and encourage their patients to learn about their illness, its diagnosis and treatment, and to

be partners in their own medical care.
Quite apart from this, there are aspects of allergy management where few doctors can afford the time to become experts. The nitty-gritty details of dust-mite avoidance or food

labelling practices are good examples. You can usefully supplement your doctor’s treatment here, by informing yourself.
But where should this process stop? That is a difficult question which doctors are increasingly forced to consider. One modern phenomenon, being discussed in many medical

journals at present, is the abundance of medical information on the Internet. Some doctors dread the arrival of patients who have logged on the night before their appointment

and are armed with a huge number of facts about their illness -some accurate, some utterly wrong and some highly debatable. But other doctors welcome the fact that patients are

actively interested in their health problems.
The reactions of doctors to ‘Internet patients’ highlight an issue that also runs right through this
book - that of medical orthodoxy. Who decides what is true and what is false in medicine, and how do they do it? Make no mistake - this is a deep and abiding problem which

afflicts not just scientific medicine, but science in general.
If a doctor, confronted with a web-page claiming that allergies are caused by space aliens intent on
destroying Western civilisation, snorts ‘Rubbish!’, he or she is not, strictly speaking, taking a scientific approach. In science, you should consider all the different

hypotheses.
In theory, science works by questioning everything and taking nothing on trust - but you can’t make much practical progress if you stick rigorously to that approach. Neither

scientists nor doctors start their careers by running experiments to establish the truth of everything they were ever taught. At some point in science, and in scientific

medicine, you have to assume that certain things are probably true, and proceed accordingly. If you make significant progress working on those assumptions, then the chances are

they were correct. But a good scientist always remembers that they are only assumptions.
Scientific medicine rests on a huge number of assumptions. Some of these are clearly accurate - for example, that eating wheat triggers coeliac disease -and it would be

time-wasting to argue about them. But this ‘fact’ about coeliac disease began as just a theory (see p. 70), and a highly debatable one. It has taken time for it to become

substantiated by more and more evidence.
Some medical assumptions become enshrined as facts rather too quickly. Fifty years ago, orthodox medicine accepted as a ‘fact’ that many asthmatic children had ‘intrinsic

asthma’, which was psychological in origin. Research since then has shown that there is almost always an allergy underlying childhood asthma. Many other examples could be given

of medical ‘facts’ that are overturned by subsequent research.
Doctors thirst for certainty, something that is quite understandable when they are faced with so much human need. A significant part of the healing power of medicine comes from

placebo effect (see p. 233), and that relies on patients having faith in the doctor. The traditional way for doctors to cultivate that faith was by assuming an air of absolute

certainty - about their diagnosis of the patient’s illness, about the treatment, and about medicine in general. This need for certainty has always hastened the transformation of

assumptions into facts.
The fatherly authoritarian attitude of old-fashioned doctors was, in large part, a reflection of how little they had in the way of useful treatments, and how much they relied on

placebo effect. Modern doctors have far more genuinely effective remedies to offer and can afford to take a different approach. Many now rely on a different kind of authority,

one based on intelligence, good information, flexibility, curiosity and openness. It’s a form of authority that allows a doctor to say ‘I could be wrong…’ or, ‘Let’s try this

and see what happens…’ without losing face.
Unfortunately, there is another powerful force at work in this complex situation, and that is quackery -the age-old business of selling phoney cures (see p. 209). Official

bodies within the medical community try to curb quackery by weighing the evidence about novel treatments and coming to decisions on their validity. This can be very useful. But

in deciding what is, and what is not, good scientific medicine, medical organizations always run the risk of mistaking their own unverified assumptions for facts.
Establishing criteria for good treatment is essential in medicine, but when this develops into dogmatism, that is decidedly unhealthy. Among the treatments that are being

dismissed as valueless today, there are
several that deserve a fairer hearing.
Some of these treatments have been shown to work by the most excellent of scientific methods. The use of elimination diets in Crohn’s disease is a good example - for some

patients, there is a huge and sustained improvement, suggesting that their disease was caused, at least in part, by food sensitivity. The tactic used by those who want to reject

this evidence is simply to ignore it. When scientific review papers (summaries of all the current knowledge and latest research) are written about Crohn’s disease, the research

on diet is usually not mentioned. Evidence that is routinely ignored in this way slips into oblivion because most doctors only have time to read the review papers, not the

original research reports.
Occasionally - and this is even more shameful -good scientific evidence that goes against the grain of current orthodoxy is actually misreported in review papers. This happened

with an impeccable scientific study showing the benefits of an elimination diet for some patients with rheumatoid arthritis. By missing out certain key facts, a review author

managed to give the impression that the results of this study supported the conventional view on the subject (that diet makes no difference to rheumatoid arthritis), whereas

they actually disputed the conventional view.
Unthinking rejection of new treatments often occurs with currently untreatable diseases such as autism and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). Such medical problems always attract

experimental treatments, just as they always attract sheer quackery, and sorting out one from the other is not easy - it takes time, and a clear-headed approach, not knee-jerk

dismissal.