Bee sting alergies
Jim Fare
BTW, my grandfather always claimed that beekeepers' sons were allergic
to bees. Any proof or anecdotal evidence for this?
Jack Griffes (spamblocked)
Jim Fare <ji...@fareway.on.ca> wrote in article
<34B3C2...@fareway.on.ca>...
those in a beekeeper's household that do not get stung routinely
themselves do have a higher than normal instance of sensitivity
to bee venom - this is likely do to inhaling dried venom brought
in on the beekeepers clothes
--
Jack Griffes
Onsted, MI
USA
e-mail: jack_griffes at hotmail.com
Web site: http://members.tripod.com/~Griffes/
Jeff Henkels
Jack Griffes (spamblocked) <jack_griffes"NOSPAMWANTED"@hotmail.com> wrote
in article <01bd1bcc$2d3b9600$2591...@Griffes1.ix.netcom.com>...
> Jim Fare <ji...@fareway.on.ca> wrote in article
> <34B3C2...@fareway.on.ca>...
> > BTW, my grandfather always claimed that beekeepers' sons were
> allergic
> > to bees. Any proof or anecdotal evidence for this?
> >
> > [J.F.]
> > http://www.fareway.on.ca/walter.html
>
>
> those in a beekeeper's household that do not get stung routinely
> themselves do have a higher than normal instance of sensitivity
> to bee venom - this is likely do to inhaling dried venom brought
> in on the beekeepers clothes
I just figured it was a story beekeepers told their kids to keep
them from futzing about with the hives...
George Styer
I have heard this too, but how is that? It seems to me that by inhaling small amounts of venom over a period of time a persons sensitivity would be reduced. After all, isn't this the whole idea behind allergy therapy?
--
Geo
"Honey is sweet, but the bee stings"
gst...@worldnet.att.net
Get the "L" out of there to reply via e-mail
--
Geo
"Honey is sweet, but the bee stings"
gst...@worldnet.att.net
Get the "L" out of there to reply via e-mail
Jack Griffes (spamblocked) <jack_griffes"NOSPAMWANTED"@hotmail.com> wrote in article <
01bd1bcc$2d3b9600$2591...@Griffes1.ix.netcom.com>...
> Jim Fare <ji...@fareway.on.ca> wrote in article
> <34B3C2...@fareway.on.ca>...
> > BTW, my grandfather always claimed that beekeepers' sons were
> allergic
> > to bees. Any proof or anecdotal evidence for this?
> >
> > [J.F.]
> >
>
>
> those in a beekeeper's household that do not get stung routinely
> themselves do have a higher than normal instance of sensitivity
> to bee venom - this is likely do to inhaling dried venom brought
> in on the beekeepers clothes
>
>
Jack Griffes (spamblocked)
Jack Griffes (spamblocked)
<jack_griffes"NOSPAMWANTED"@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<01bd1bcc$2d3b9600$2591...@Griffes1.ix.netcom.com>...
> Jim Fare <ji...@fareway.on.ca> wrote in article
> <34B3C2...@fareway.on.ca>...
> > BTW, my grandfather always claimed that beekeepers' sons
were
> allergic
> > to bees. Any proof or anecdotal evidence for this?
> >
> > [J.F.]
> > http://www.fareway.on.ca/walter.html
>
>
> those in a beekeeper's household that do not get stung
routinely
> themselves do have a higher than normal instance of
sensitivity
brought
> in on the beekeepers clothes
>
>
> --
> Jack Griffes
> Onsted, MI
> USA
> e-mail: jack_griffes at hotmail.com
> Web site: http://members.tripod.com/~Griffes/
>
"Spell-As-You-Go" - of course it would not have caught that
would it - guess I need "grammar as you go" as well
GrapeApe
>>>>Well, allergies are basically over-reactions of the immune system. You
can't become "desensitized" to an allergy. Repeated exposure is more
likely to lead to more and more serious reactions.[1]
[1] I'm basing my claims on what I was told by pharmacists when I used to
work in pharmacies. I bow to the greater wisdom of anyone who actually
knows what they're talking about.<<<<
I dunno what I'm talking about but I think there many allergy therapies using
repeated exposure to de-sensitize rather than sensitize.
Its natural that a phramacist would buck for the worldview that sold more
anithistamines though.
Kim
>>>>>Well, allergies are basically over-reactions of the immune system. You
>can't become "desensitized" to an allergy. Repeated exposure is more
>likely to lead to more and more serious reactions.[1]
>[1] I'm basing my claims on what I was told by pharmacists when I used to
>work in pharmacies. I bow to the greater wisdom of anyone who actually
>knows what they're talking about.<<<<
>I dunno what I'm talking about but I think there many allergy therapies using
>repeated exposure to de-sensitize rather than sensitize.
>
to three times a week. Then once. Then finally stopped. Yes, it is a
desensitivization process vaguely akin to vaccines for infectous agents.
HOWEVER, repeated exposure to some things can also result in you developing
an allergy. The human body is buggier then a Microsoft beta version.
-- Kim
Madeleine Page
Kim wrote:
:
: As a child I had almost daily allergy shots for a while. Then it went down
: to three times a week. Then once. Then finally stopped. Yes, it is a
: desensitivization process vaguely akin to vaccines for infectous agents.
There's a problem with this explanation, I think. My understanding is that
kids often simply grow out of their allergies. Given that this is true,
one doesn't know whether the allergies stopped because of desensitization
or because of growing up.
Madeleine "allergic to mildew and Funny Names threads" Page
Emily Kelly
Madeleine Page <mp...@panix.com> wrote:
>Kim wrote:
>:
>: As a child I had almost daily allergy shots for a while. Then it went down
>: to three times a week. Then once. Then finally stopped. Yes, it is a
>: desensitivization process vaguely akin to vaccines for infectous agents.
>
>There's a problem with this explanation, I think. My understanding is that
>kids often simply grow out of their allergies. Given that this is true,
>one doesn't know whether the allergies stopped because of desensitization
>or because of growing up.
Sometimes, sometimes not. Given that argument, we could extend it to
include any change in life circumstance--moving to a new region or even
a new house, increase or decrease in stress levels, whatever. And we'd be
right to wonder some--none of us live in total experimental-control-level
stasis. However, that's what we have Medline for, right? (I seem to be
posting thematically this week.) I've included the articles I found at
the bottom of my post. Most of them seemed to show that there's a fair
amount of individual variance, but a good general expectation upon
stopping immunotherapy is that the allergies will gradually return, but
not as severely.
My own experience jives with that. My siblings grew out of their
allergies just as I grew into mine (gotta love it). I started shots
as an adult, continued them for a few years, and then tapered off when
my symptoms seemed to have stabilized. Since then they've come back a
little, but not enough to bother starting up shots again.
Emily "especially since my insurance doesn't
cover them--chronic conditions be damned" Kelly
J Allergy Clin Immunol 1997 Sep;100(3):293-300
A double-blind study of the discontinuation of ragweed immunotherapy.
Naclerio RM, Proud D, Moylan B, Balcer S, Freidhoff L, Kagey-Sobotka A,
Lichtenstein LM, Creticos PS, Hamilton RG, Norman PS
BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy effectively treats the symptoms of
allergic rhinitis and improves its pathophysiology. We studied
whether the effects of immunotherapy on the early response to nasal
challenge with antigen and seasonal symptoms persist after
discontinuation. METHODS: Twenty subjects with ragweed allergy who
were receiving immunotherapy and who had nasal challenges performed
before initiation of treatment were selected. The patients had been
receiving maintenance therapy with aqueous ragweed extract at a
dose of 12 microg of Amb a 1 equivalent for a minimum of 3 years,
at which point they were randomized to receive either placebo
injections or to continue with the maintenance dose. Nasal
challenges were performed before and 1 year after randomization.
Nasal challenges were monitored by counting the number of sneezes
and measuring histamine, N-alpha-tosyl-L-arginine methyl
ester-esterase activity, and kinins in recovered nasal lavages. In
the same year symptom diaries were collected during the ragweed
season. RESULTS: The initial immunotherapy significantly reduced
responses to nasal challenge in both groups. The group continuing
to receive active treatment showed no significant changes from the
response before randomization. In contrast, the group randomized to
placebo treatment showed a partial return of histamine, kinins, and
N-alpha-tosyl-L-arginine methyl ester-esterase in nasal secretions
and the numbers of sneezes. IgG antibodies to ragweed declined only
in the group switched to placebo treatment. Seasonal rises of IgE
antibodies to ragweed did not return during the first season after
treatment was stopped. Symptoms reported during the ragweed season
were not different between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: One year after
discontinuation of ragweed immunotherapy, nasal challenges showed
partial recrudescence of mediator responses even though reports
during the season appeared to indicate continued suppression of
symptoms.
Allergy 1994 Jan;49(1):38-42
Booster immunotherapy (BIT).
Ebner C, Kraft D, Ebner H
This study tries to answer two questions: 1) how long does the
therapeutic effect of successful immunotherapy (IT) last after
termination of the treatment? and 2) what is the best treatment for
recidivist patients? To answer the first question, we asked 108
patients with rye/grass pollen allergy who had previously undergone
IT for 3-4 years and had responded well to treatment to complete a
questionnaire on the course of their recovery after termination of
the therapy. Evaluation of the answers revealed a recidivist rate
of approximately 30% in the first 3 years. According to our
results, the risk of a relapse after this period seems to be low.
To answer the second question, we included 40 patients suffering
from type I allergy to grass/rye pollen in a clinical study. Each
of them had previously undergone specific IT with a grass pollen
extract mixture and had terminated this therapy after 3-4 years
practically free of symptoms during the grass pollen season. As the
symptoms returned and increased from year to year after the end of
IT, new therapeutic steps had to be considered. We investigated the
efficacy of a short preseasonal injection treatment called "booster
immunotherapy" (BIT). BIT was performed with two different
injection-regimens, a low-dose schedule comprising six injections
and a high-dose schedule with 11 injections, in both cases
administered as a build-up regimen. In the next pollen season,
28/40 (70%) patients reported strong improvement or even complete
remission of the allergy symptoms.
J Allergy Clin Immunol 1991 Sep;88(3 Pt 1):339-348
Clinical and immunologic follow-up of patients who stop venom immunotherapy.
Keating MU, Kagey-Sobotka A, Hamilton RG, Yunginger JW
We prospectively studied 51 self-selected Hymenoptera
sting-sensitive patients to determine (1) whether a minimal or
optimal duration for venom immunotherapy (VIT) exists and (2)
whether clinical or immunologic parameters exist that are
predictive of clinical immunity after VIT was stopped. After 2 to
10 years of VIT, all patients had deliberate sting challenges
(DSCs) from live insects. If DSCs were tolerated, patients
voluntarily stopped VIT and returned annually for repeat venom skin
tests (VSTs) and DSCs. In most patients, it was possible to monitor
VST and venom-specific antibody (Ab) levels before and after VIT
was stopped. One-year after VIT, VST and venom-specific IgE and IgG
Ab level results were variable; 49 patients tolerated DSC, whereas
two patients exhibited generalized reactions. These two patients
had pre-VIT histories of grade IV field-sting reactions and had
received VIT for 2 years and 4 years, respectively. The short-term
(1 year) risk of recurrence of clinical allergy to stings after VIT
was higher in patients who had experienced grade IV field-sting
reactions before VIT versus patients experiencing grade I to III
reactions before VIT (2/15, 13% versus 0/36, 0%) and higher in
patients who had received VIT for less than 5 years versus patients
who received VIT for 5 or more years (2/20, 10% versus 0/31, 0%).
We suggest that VIT should be continued for 5 years in patients
with pre-VIT field-sting reactions of grade IV severity. VST and
venom-specific Ab results do not reliably predict the outcome of
DSC or the subsequent clinical course in individual patients
stopping VIT.
Allergy Proc 1989 Mar;10(2):97-101
Studies of the natural history of insect sting allergy.
Reisman RE
The natural history of insect sting allergy was studied by
observations of the results of re-sting on two groups of
individuals who had prior sting anaphylaxis, had demonstrable
venom-specific IgE, and did not receive venom immunotherapy. In the
first study group, the mean duration between the initial sting
reaction and re-sting exposure was 4.5 years; the re-sting reaction
rate was 35%/sting and 50%/patient. In the second long-term study,
the mean duration between the sting reaction and re-sting was 7.3
years; the re-sting reaction rate was 12%/sting and 12%/patient.
Factors influencing the likelihood of re-sting reaction included
older age, and the occurrence of cardiovascular/respiratory
anaphylactic symptoms. In a prospective and retrospective study of
133 patients with large local reactions, re-sting observations
indicated an extremely high recurrence of similar large local
reactions, with little risk of subsequent anaphylaxis. These data
suggest that: (1) insect sting anaphylaxis is a self-limiting
process for the majority of individuals, and (2) re-stings in
individuals who have had large local reactions have a relatively
benign prognosis.
And not quite allergies, but:
J Allergy Clin Immunol 1990 Aug;86(2):141-146
Evolution of the late asthmatic reaction during immunotherapy and after
stopping immunotherapy.
Van Bever HP, Stevens WJ
In previous studies it was demonstrated that the frequency and the
severity of the late asthmatic reaction (LAR) can be attenuated by
immunotherapy (IT). The present study was set up to observe the
evolution of the LAR under IT and after having stopped IT. Nineteen
children with bronchial asthma and an LAR to house dust mite
(Dermatophagoides pteronyssinus) (HDM) were selected for this
study. All subjects received IT with HDM extract during 1 year.
Thereafter, the children were divided randomly into two groups to
receive, double-blind, during a second year, IT with HDM (N = 9) or
placebo injections (N = 10). Bronchial challenges were performed
after the first and second year. After the first year, a
significant decrease in the severity of the LAR was noted in all
but one subject (mean decrease of FEV1 before, 40.53% versus after
1 year, 22.95%; p less than 0.0001). After the second year, the
severity of the LAR remained the same in the group that received
HDM injections during the second year (20.78% versus 23.00%), but
in the group that received placebo injections during 1 year, a
significant worsening of the LAR was observed after the second year
(24.90% versus 31.20%; p = 0.038). From this study it can be
concluded that the severity of the LAR decreases after the first
year of IT but that the severity of the LAR remains the same after
the second year of IT. In children who stop receiving IT after 1
year, we observed a recurrence of the LAR after 1 year to the same
level as before IT was started.
--
Emily Harrison Kelly "Human heads are merely a hobby. What I really
eke...@acpub.duke.edu want to do is direct."
--Christine Malcom-Dept describes her ambitions
For the AFU FAQ and Archive: http://www.urbanlegends.com/
Ian A. York
In article <34b97340...@news3.ibm.net>,
Mike Sphar <mi...@matches.com> wrote:
>
>Well, allergies are basically over-reactions of the immune system. You
>can't become "desensitized" to an allergy. Repeated exposure is more
>likely to lead to more and more serious reactions.[1]
Okay, I don't want to get too deep into the arcana of immunology, but this
isn't quite right. It is true that an allergy is an over-reaction of the
immune system, but it is not true that you can't become desensitized. The
phenomenon known as "immune tolerance" is ... well, it's really, really
complicated. I'll give a hideously oversimplified summary by saying that
when the immune system is presented with antigens under certain
conditions, it will stop reacting to those antigens. It depends on the
dose (very low or very high), the nature of the antigen, the route of
administration, and many more things. Allergists use this to reduce
allergies; by carefully exposing allergic people to their allergen of
choice under controlled conditions, it's possible to reduce or even
eliminate the allergy. It's not infallible, but it works reasonably well
in most cases.
>As for why inhaling dried venom would lead to the development of the
>allergy in the first place, I have no idea.
Well, inhalation is a good way to develop allergies, but I don't know if
it's true about the beekeepers' kids.
I don't find anything directly relevant in Medline, but apparently
beekeepers themselves and their relatives and neighbours are considerably
more likely to be allergic to bee venom (Annila IT. Karjalainen ES.
Annila PA. Kuusisto PA. Bee and wasp sting reactions in current
beekeepers. Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. 77(5):423-7, 1996.)
Since neighbours are in the equation, I doubt that inhalation of the dried
venom is involved; it's more like repeated exposure to the stings
themselves. Moreover, the same paper (and Pastorello EA. Incorvaia C.
Sarassi A. Qualizza R. Bigi A. Farioli L. Epidemiological and clinical
study on bee venom allergy among beekeepers. Bollettino dell Istituto
Sieroterapico Milanese. 67(5-6):386-92, 1988) found that younger/newer
beekeepers were more likely to be allergic; this implies that tolerance
might develop over a long time, and further suggests that kids are more
likely than their parents to be allergic. I wouldn't implicate inhalation
of dried venom.
>She didn't have goats, so instead every morning she would go out and handle
>poison ivy, then wash her hands thoroughly, all in the hopes that she would
>somehow pass on immunity to her children through her breast milk. All of
>which just helped me solidify my belief that intelligence plus higher
>education doesn't preclude being loopier than a good roller coaster.
It's not as loopy as it sounds, though I still wouldn't recommend doing
this. Immunity to poison ivy can and does happen, and I can think of
mechanisms by which this procedure might give the baby immunity. (It's
not as simple as passing antibodies on through breast milk ... I think I
won't go into the details of my theoretical reasoning. Please take my
word for it.)
As far as immunity to poison ivy in general is concerned, I've made a
couple of long posts about it in the past; if you're interested, try
DejaNews:
Subject: Re: Poison Ivy (cure or kill)?
From: iay...@panix.com (Ian A. York)
Date: 1996/06/14
Message-ID: <4pruv2$b...@panix.com>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
I guess this is on-topic in both sci.agriculture.beekeeping and
alt.folklore.urban, but for general tidiness I've set followups to AFU
only.
Ian
--
Ian York (iay...@panix.com) <http://www.panix.com/~iayork/>
"-but as he was a York, I am rather inclined to suppose him a
very respectable Man." -Jane Austen, The History of England
Don Whittington
>>Everybody, everywhere snipped
I used to help my aunt rob hives when I was young enough to do dumb things
like that. The conventional wisdom among beekeepers in those days was that
bee venom had some cumulative property within the system, much like what
I've heard about arsenic, such that---after a certain number of
stings---any subsequent bee sting could be life threatening. This CW may be
the foundation for the original poster's question.
The reasoning might have gone like so:
a) If the venom somehow stays stored, and raises the stakes with each
occurence, and
b) if beekeeper's children are more likely to be stung more often than
other children due to proximity, then
c) it seems logical to assume that more beekeeper's children (and
beekeepers) would be "allergic" to stings than the general population. (the
original poster's source said "all beekeeper's children" which shows
amazing confidence)
One of the medline articles in Emily's Post (Note to self: remember to ask
why she doesn't do all the netiquette articles.) seems to put the lie to
the CW mentioned above, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.
In the event, more than once I was told of some child or adult who'd been
swarmed and stung, barely survived, and were now faced with the grim truth
that if they were stung so much as once more, they might as well call their
pallbearers and thank them.
Naturally I believed all this because country folk are never wrong and
never lie.
Don "Square in the path of the Killer Bees" Whittington
Martin Veasey
On Thu, 08 Jan 1998 12:53:53 -0600, donc...@flash.net (Don Whittington)
wrote:
> I used to help my aunt rob hives when I was young enough to do dumb things
> like that. The conventional wisdom among beekeepers in those days was that
> bee venom had some cumulative property within the system, much like what
> I've heard about arsenic, such that---after a certain number of
> stings---any subsequent bee sting could be life threatening. This CW may be
> the foundation for the original poster's question.
>
> The reasoning might have gone like so:
>
> a) If the venom somehow stays stored, and raises the stakes with each
> occurence, and
>
> b) if beekeeper's children are more likely to be stung more often than
> other children due to proximity, then
>
> c) it seems logical to assume that more beekeeper's children (and
> beekeepers) would be "allergic" to stings than the general population. (the
> original poster's source said "all beekeeper's children" which shows
> amazing confidence)
>
> One of the medline articles in Emily's Post (Note to self: remember to ask
> why she doesn't do all the netiquette articles.) seems to put the lie to
> the CW mentioned above, but maybe I'm reading it wrong.
>
> In the event, more than once I was told of some child or adult who'd been
> swarmed and stung, barely survived, and were now faced with the grim truth
> that if they were stung so much as once more, they might as well call their
> pallbearers and thank them.
Some quite large elements of truth here, I think. I don't know much
about bees ... but peanuts. It's certainly true that sensitivity to a
particular allergen can build up over time. The first time someone
sensitive eats nuts they get a bad, but probably non-fatal reaction.
After that, each successive exposure yields worse results (rapidity and
severity of symptoms).
I don't know what sets the initial sensitivity off or why it gets worse.
My wife has a similar sort of problem with penicillin. This rapidly
escalating sensitivity could well explain the bee (or wasp) sting
behaviour that was explained to you.
In your post, I wouldn't worry about a). If you're allergic then your
symptoms aren't going to go away until the venom does. b) and c) might
well be true if my paragraphs above are true and beekeepers kids are
more likely to be stung than non-beekepers kids (not too sure about
that).
Your final (quoted) paragraph could be true.
Interesting to read in the thread about allergy treatment involving
introducing small quantities of the allergen. Presumably this works
because the quantities are VERY small indeed (introduced through
scratches in the skin, I believe).
--
Martin Veasey
Jack Griffes (spamblocked)
If you are interested in learning more about "Allergy to
Venomous Insects" I recomend reading chapter 27 which is written
by Justin O. Schmidt, PhD in "The Hive and the Honey Bee"
(edited by Joe Graham, 1992 edition). It has nearly 50 pages of
text, photos, diagrams, and charts followed by 10-1/2 pages of
references (which you could also track down for further info).
I quote from the above noted chapter: pg. 1246 "Family members
of beekeepers are often exposed to bee stings at a much reduced
rate relative to the beekeeper, yet higher than most of the
public. In addition, beekeeper family members often are subject
to 'odors' of bees and allergens derived from bee body parts and
debris."
[ among the body parts are stingers and venom sacs deposited in
the clothing of the beekeeper - allergens include dried venom
deposited there - Jack Griffes]
to quote further from the same chapter and page: . . . in a
study conducted by Yunginger et al. (1978) only 1% (1 of 91) of
active beekeepers were hypersensitive to bee stings; whereas 74%
(26 of 35) of family members were hypersensitive. Among family
members who had 'no contact' with bees, that is, received only 1
or 2 stings per year, the systemic reaction rate was 89% (25 of
28). Combining the data for both beekeepers and family members
revealed that among individuals who were stung daily or weekly,
there no incidences of hypersensitivity; among those stung
monthly, the rate was 8% (2 of 25); and among those stung only
once or twice yearly, it was 93% (25 of 27 (Yunginger et al.,
1978). These data indicated that the incidence of bee sting
allergy was inversely correlated with the number of stings
recieved by the individual. Similar results were reported in a
European study of 250 beekeepers." (it continues - so please
get the book out and read it if it interests you)
It would be interesting to see however if the seldom stung folks
in the study (which had such a very high rate of sensitivity)
were KNOWN by those around them to be hypersensitive and that is
why they were stung so seldom. Basically "protected" from
getting stung by giving them jobs with greatly lowered odds of
getting stung along with them wearing their bee armor when
others might be in their shirt sleeves and perhaps even shorts
whilst working bees. As a beekeeper this would be my suspicion
as I have seen it done by others as well as done it myself with
a daughter that is a "large local reactor."
It would be well to note that there are different types of
reactions possible. (see Table 3 on pg. 1217 for further
details) These very briefly include:
1) Normal, non-allergic reactions at the time of the sting
2) Normal, non-allergic reactions hours or days after the sting
3) Large local reactions (from personal observation of this type
reaction it is basically a enlarged and extended local area
reaction - extended and enlarged to the point that a sting on a
hand might cause swelling to the elbow on that limb and might
make the fingers so swollen as to prohibit use - swelling and
redness and itching in sites not adjacent to the sting site do
NOT occur - Jack Griffes)
4) Cutaneous allergic reactions - (from observation of this
reaction it involves the skin itself reacting whilst the cardiac
and respiratory systems are not reacting in any life-threatening
way - Jack Griffes)
5) Non life-threatening systemic allergic reactions
6) Life-threatening systemic allergic reactions
To put things in perspective - from pg. 1230 ". . . heart
attacks and other cardiovascular diseases cause almost 60,000
times as many deaths as honey bee stings and may be indirectly
responsible for many sting related deaths (Rubenstein, 1982;
Barnard, 1973)."
Table 7 on pg 1230 lists "Death rates in the U.S. from various
diseases, accidents, and unusual causes. It lists under Honey
bee stings 17 deaths/year which is a rate of .07 per
1,000,000/year or looked at another way is .0008% of the total
deaths. ALL insect stings (honey bee included) accounted for
41 deaths/year for a rate of .17 per 1,000,000/year - .0019% of
total deaths.
Since urban folklore is included in the posting as is beekeeping
I might also add in that I have had family experience with the
"skin allergy" type of reaction. One evening my young son got
stung about the moment we got out of the truck at what had been
a right friendly yard of bees (they were getting raided by
skunks it turned out which don't make for happy bees). This
dampened his enthusiasm for "helping Dad" and he elected to stay
in the truck instead once I got his bee armor on. A few
moments later he was yelling out of the truck window "Dad my
tummy hurts" and the alarm bells were ringing in my head. I
left the open hive I was working on and went to him and asked a
few questions. We had not had dinner yet and it was a titch
past dinner time so that possibility (just hungry) crossed my
mind but just did not "feel right" - so I closed up the hive and
we skee-daddled home (about 12-15 miles) with Dad asking
questions and looking at the boy frequently to see if we needed
to get out the bee sting kit or not. (wisdom suggests ALWAYS
having a bee sting kit with you when working bees - ALWAYS) By
the time we got home his only complaint remained a tummy ache.
Shortly after arriving home he got itchy and upon removing his
shirt you could see he had "hives" - I gave him "Benadryl" and a
baking soda bath. In a time period which is suggestive that the
benadryl had "kicked in" the hives disappeared. The boy
remained comfortable that night - Dad on the other hand was
worried enough to do some studying. That night a plan of
attack was formulated. Living on a bee farm the odds of NEVER
again getting stung were basically zero so there was little
sense in attempting utter avoidance of stings. Rather we chose
to try as suggested by certain Apitherapists to get his immune
system to "choose" (term used roughly) the route of immunity
rather than increasing hypersensivity. We did this via stinging
him intentionally (loud protestation on his part I assure you)
once each day for the next 3-4 days (been too long now and I
can't recall - I would guess 3 days plus the 4th sting was the
initial one he had reacted to). That of course is too small a
sample to mean anything but I can tell you he has so far not had
a repeat and he has of course been stung a few times since then.
With my daughter that is a Large Local Reactor we play the
avoidance game a bit more though she still does help work bees.
And if she gets stung we do not wait to see if she is going to
react - rather we start her right out on benadryl and aspirin
PRONTO and keep her on it the next couple days. This GREATLY
reduces her reaction severity and eliminates days of
disfigurement and discomfort for her. Of course it likewise
leaves us not knowing if perhaps she is not reacting so large
anymore. But that is the choice for now since the other option
is a huge disfigurative swelling for 3 or more days following a
sting and if the sting is on a hand she won't be able to fully
bend her fingers all that time. Obviously the most dangerous
sting site for a large local reactor is on the neck if proper
precaution to PREVENT swelling is not taken. And yes you can
(and we sometimes do with her - depending on the job she is
doing) give benadryl PRIOR to the bee work so it is already
working if/when a sting is recieved - though her reaction is
slow enough administering it immediately after a sting works
well leaving her with only a small normal reaction (just a bit
of redness, swelling, itching right at the sting site.
--
Jack Griffes
Country Jack's Honeybee Farm
Honeybee Improvement Program
Onsted, MI
USA
e-mail: jack_griffes at hotmail.com
Web site: http://members.tripod.com/~Griffes/
"Did you know--
* Every 13 seconds one of America's 70 million
gun owners uses a firearm in defense
against a criminal?
J. Neil Schulman,
"Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns"
http://www.pulpless.com/stopower.html
Emily Kelly
Martin Veasey <use...@cheam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 08 Jan 1998 12:53:53 -0600, donc...@flash.net (Don Whittington)
>wrote:
>
>> I used to help my aunt rob hives when I was young enough to do dumb things
>> like that. The conventional wisdom among beekeepers in those days was that
>> bee venom had some cumulative property within the system, much like what
>> I've heard about arsenic, such that---after a certain number of
>> stings---any subsequent bee sting could be life threatening.
Interesting. I grew up with a similar conventional wisdom about poison
ivy--that the reason some people react and others don't is that everyone's
born with a certain amount of "immunity" to it, and each exposure uses
some of it up, until finally it's all gone and you start reacting. That
always made an intuitive sense to me, but I've never seen any medical
corroboration, and I'm sort of skeptical now.
>Interesting to read in the thread about allergy treatment involving
>introducing small quantities of the allergen. Presumably this works
>because the quantities are VERY small indeed (introduced through
>scratches in the skin, I believe).
No, that's how they test for various allergies. The treatment involves
shots, and they start with a small dose and build it up gradually over
weeks and months to develop a tolerance.
Emily "the worst part is when they prick allergens all over
your back and you can't even reach to scratch them" Kelly
Vicki Robinson
In a previous article, eke...@acpub.duke.edu (Emily Kelly) said:
>
>Interesting. I grew up with a similar conventional wisdom about poison
>ivy--that the reason some people react and others don't is that everyone's
>born with a certain amount of "immunity" to it, and each exposure uses
>some of it up, until finally it's all gone and you start reacting. That
>always made an intuitive sense to me, but I've never seen any medical
>corroboration, and I'm sort of skeptical now.
>
Now, *I* thought that it was the same pattern (no reaction until after
repeated exposures, and, indeed, it worked that way for me), but I never
thought of it as "losing immunity" as much as "gaining reactivity."
Is this a real distinction? Do you "have immunity" to an allergan, or do you
simply not react until sensitized?
Am I making sense?
Vicki "Lost immunity big time" Robinson
--
Vicki Robinson
<blink><a href="http://www.rit.edu/~vjrnts/binky.html">BINKY!</a></blink>
Visit my home page at <a href="http://www.rit.edu/~vjrnts"> Vicki's Home Page
</a> and sign my guest book. Millions have!
Walkin Dude
<snip>
>
>Emily "the worst part is when they prick allergens all over
> your back and you can't even reach to scratch them" Kelly
>
em. then the allergin tests say your highly allergic to almost all 24<mostly
cats, dogs, all common grasses and trees> but in all actuality your not. that
really sux:)
GrapeApe
>Is this treatment ever used for people with drug allergies,
>such as to penicillin or morphine?
Some allergies need very little exposure to have quite unfreindly and serious
results (i.e death), and such drug allergies are often among these.
Which usually leads me to how the allergy may have been discovered in the first
place? How ill did the allergen make the patient in such cases.
mitcho
GrapeApe wrote:
> Some allergies need very little exposure to have quite unfreindly and serious
> results (i.e death), and such drug allergies are often among these.
Yes, death is the only allergy I have of which I am aware.
Mitcho
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitcho von Ziegehügelrattemitte mit...@netcom.com
Ziegehügel, California http://www.employees.org/~ozyman
Paraic O'Donnell
On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 07:26:36 -0800, mitcho <mit...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Yes, death is the only allergy I have of which I am aware.
As a fellow sufferer, I sympathise. I am involved in a programme of
desensitisation, which entails the regular experience of Little
Deaths.
Paraic "each night I die" O'Donnell
par...@antispam.indigo.ie
_________________________________________________________
CARTE BLANCHE A new series of gratuitous micro-literature
Nastassja, Nastassja, Nastassja,
Your name is deep-kissing; is a Turkish licquor.
_________________________________________________________
Ben Walsh
Paraic O'Donnell wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 07:26:36 -0800, mitcho <mit...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, death is the only allergy I have of which I am aware.
>
> As a fellow sufferer, I sympathise. I am involved in a programme of
> desensitisation, which entails the regular experience of Little
> Deaths.
You could try the Cole Porter method.
ben "it involves repeated farewells" w.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you name me a street | ben walsh
Then I'll name you a bar | benw at iona dot com
And I'll walk right through Hell | http://bounce.to/heretic
Just to buy you a jar" -- shane |
Michele Tepper
Paraic O'Donnell <par...@antispam.indigo.ie> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jan 1998 07:26:36 -0800, mitcho <mit...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, death is the only allergy I have of which I am aware.
>
>As a fellow sufferer, I sympathise. I am involved in a programme of
>desensitisation, which entails the regular experience of Little
>Deaths.
Yes, but do you know any songs about it?
Michele "tomorrow, I promise to post signal" Tepper
--
Michele Tepper "It's all very well to make fun of ourselves. The
mte...@panix.com real challenge is learning to make fun of others."
-- Michael O'Donoghue
Visit the scenic AFU archives and FAQ! http://www.urbanlegends.com
Ian A. York
In article <69403p$r...@panix2.panix.com>,
Vicki Robinson <vic...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>Now, *I* thought that it was the same pattern (no reaction until after
>repeated exposures, and, indeed, it worked that way for me), but I never
>thought of it as "losing immunity" as much as "gaining reactivity."
"Gaining reactivity" is better. The allergic reaction is an immune
response to an inappropriate antigen (or an inappropriate response to an
antigen, if you see the difference).
Simon Slavin
In article <34B3C2...@fareway.on.ca>,
Jim Fare <ji...@fareway.on.ca> wrote:
> BTW, my grandfather always claimed that beekeepers' sons were allergic
> to bees. Any proof or anecdotal evidence for this?
My made Adrian keeps bees. He has three daughters, none of whom
have helped him with actually doing anything with the bees. Two
of the three daughters have been stung. Neither of them had any
unusual reaction ... just the normal pain without unusual swelling
or rashes.
However, allergic reactions do, if I recall correctly, have a
sex-linked inheritance property, so this may not be relevent.
Simon.
--
Simon Slavin -- Computer Contractor. | If I ran usenet, the timestamp for
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | anything posted between 2am and 5am
Check email address for UBE-guard. | would *blink*. -- Nancy Lebovitz
My s/ware deletes unread >3 UBEs/day.| Junk email not welcome at this site.
Lon Stowell
Simon Slavin <sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk.NOJUNK> wrote:
>
>However, allergic reactions do, if I recall correctly, have a
>sex-linked inheritance property, so this may not be relevent.
Hmm. As a result of a childhood incident, I have a severe
allergic reaction to certain wasp stings. However, neither
parent has this, and at the time of the [near-fatal massive
stinging] I was much too young to be having sex even though
I wuz a precocious lad.
If Ian doesn't still have me kill-filed, can you reduce the
severity of an allergy that appears to be the result of a
massive sting incident [with no evidence of any allergy prior
to that incident] with the repeated small dose type treatment?
Ian A. York
In article <B0DC6701...@hearsay.demon.co.uk>,
Simon Slavin <sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk.NOJUNK> wrote:
>
>However, allergic reactions do, if I recall correctly, have a
>sex-linked inheritance property, so this may not be relevent.
The tendency to have allergic reactions (a condition known as "atopy") is
inherited, but it's autosomal and probably complex (i.e. multigenic). I'm
not aware of any evidence for sex-linked inheritance.
John Flemming
I have met several 'older' beekeepers who have had to give up their hobby,
because, after many years of being stung, with no effect. other than slight
soreness (some even claiming to be immune from bee stings), have then
suddenly developed near-fatal allergy to bee venom. Allergies are still so
little understood, that anyone making a 'definitive' statement on the
subject, is on shaky ground. A study would be good..........
John
Rev Jim
Being an old beekeeper I can state that when frequently getting a dose of
venom an immunity is developed. My personal record of stings at one trip
to the yard was 40, nowhere near what many beekeepers get. After going
without a sting for several years they are really a painful occurrence now.
My grandfather was a beekeeper and his children are all very sensitive to
stings.
Phil
Out of curiosity.... Are these allergic reactions more prevalent among
children that were "created" _after_ one became a beekeeper? And are the
incidences of allergic reaction the same among children of beekeepers
who had their children before they became a beekeeper?
--
Phil
autoreply is anti-spam: you must change the nte to net
C. Ramko
Allergies are an immune response. Your body views the allergen as
"foreign" and your immune system attacks. It is the attack that
causes the discomfort.
With bees, the sting itself causes discomfort with or without an
allergy to it.
An allergic response can range from mild rash to anaphylactic shock.
Because allergies are immune responses, they can be lessened using
small doses of immunosuppressive agents such as prednisone (a
corticosteroid). Most allergies are treated symptomatically but some
people will opt for the "shot series" which is similar
theraputically to giving vaccinations of live modified virus. (A
small dose of the virus is given to allow the body to build
antibodies to the "foreign" substance.
Since allergies (including bee allergies) are autoimmune related,
there is still some grey area in knowledge of them and how to treat
them.
Autoimmune is inherited and therefore all autoimmune diseases can be
passed on. Also autoimmune is not static so an allergen that
produces a mild response may someday produce a much more violent
response.
Melanie Ramko
Rev Jim
The sensitivity of the children apparently is from breathing the dried
toxins from the apparel of the beekeeper. children of beekeepers who are
also in the business do not have the problems.
Robert Ternes
In article <01bd1e01$a9a7f800$240c...@jim.smallwww.mebbs.com.www.mebbs.com>,
"Rev Jim" <jim....@www.mebbs.com> wrote:
#
#Being an old beekeeper I can state that when frequently getting a dose of
#venom an immunity is developed. My personal record of stings at one trip
#to the yard was 40, nowhere near what many beekeepers get. After going
#without a sting for several years they are really a painful occurrence now.
# My grandfather was a beekeeper and his children are all very sensitive to
#stings.
Uh oh. I see some Lamarckian theories of evolution in that last statement.
Robert "Devolved" Ternes
rte...@u.arizona.edu
Jack Griffes (spamblocked)
C. Ramko <vi...@u.washington.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.95b.98011...@homer19.u.washington.e
du>...
> Autoimmune is inherited and therefore all autoimmune diseases
can be
> passed on.
??? Would it not be more correct to say that "the predisposition
toward a certain autoimmune disease can be inherited" ????
Also autoimmune is not static so an allergen that
> produces a mild response may someday produce a much more
violent
> response.
The flip side is that likewise an allergen that has produced a
violent response may someday produce a mild one or even no
response at all. Life-threatening systemic allergic reactions
to bee venom are particularly noted for this. By that I mean
that just because you had one episode does not mean that the
next sting will produce a similarly life-threatening reaction -
it may and it may not.
--
Jack Griffes
Country Jack's Honeybee Farm
Honeybee Improvement Program
Onsted, MI
USA
e-mail: jack_griffes at hotmail.com
Web site: http://members.tripod.com/~Griffes/
"Did you know--
* A gun kept in the home for protection is
216 times as likely to be used
in defense against a criminal
than it is to cause the death
of an innocent victim in that household?
Don Whittington
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95b.98011...@homer19.u.washington.edu>, "C.
Ramko" <vi...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Allergies are an immune response. Your body views the allergen as
> "foreign" and your immune system attacks. It is the attack that
> causes the discomfort.
> With bees, the sting itself causes discomfort with or without an
> allergy to it.
To me, this is the rub.
At the risk of dragging this out beyond its capacity to enthrall, I would
still solicit an opinion from someone who really understands poisons.
So far in this thread one poster suggests that repeated stings makes one
*more* sensitive (to stings; not in the Clintonesque "I feel your pain"
sense) while another suggests the opposite. I note that in many studies of
alcoholism you find the subject who is almost invulnerable to alcohol for
years until one day it seems he's reached some personal limit. Suddenly the
man who could drink you under the table with ease becomes drunk on one or
two glasses of wine. Did he develop an allergy? I don't think so. (I
know, I know. Some people think it's exactly that.)
And so I wonder. Is there something similar with bee venom? The anecdotal
evidence so far in this thread seems to swing both ways. Does anyone
actually *know*?
Specifically, my question is:
1) Do repeated bee stings raise one's tolerance or not?
I think all this talk about allergies obscures things. Forget allergies
altogether for a moment, and address what happens to Joe Blow who gets
stung too often.
If this has already been addressed then I either missed it or experienced a
brain fart.
Don "I do that sometimes" "Okay, all the time" Whittington
Drox
Ian A. York wrote:
> Bollettino dell Istituto
> Sieroterapico Milanese. 67(5-6):386-92, 1988) found that
> younger/newer
> beekeepers were more likely to be allergic...
More allergic than who? Older beekeepers or the general populace?
> ...; this implies that tolerance
> might develop over a long time, and further suggests that kids are
> more
> likely than their parents to be allergic.
Was the implication in the article, or is this the poster's
interpretation? It seems reasonable that many old beekeepers were once
young beekeepers. They've been able to stay with it (in part) because
they didn't suffer a severe allergic reaction to bee stings. Nothing
like a life-threatening reaction to make one reconsider one's choice of
hobbies/livelihoods.
Put another way... imagine a pool of beginning beekeepers. None have
been stung very much (yet) - they're just beginning this adventure.
Their immune responses will probably be about the same as the population
as a whole - say a few non-responders, mostly mild responders
(swelling, pain and itching near the sting site) and a few who suffer
severe reactions. As they continue keeping bees, they'll get more
stings. The ones who get bad reactions will probably quit more often
than the ones with mild reactions, so by the time they're old none of
the severely allergic will be beekeepers anymore. Survey old and young
beekeepers and you'll find, on average, milder responses to stings in
the older ones. It won't neccesarily indicate anything about immunity
acquired over time, or kids being more allergic than their parents -
just that people tend to avoid activities that are painful and/or
life-threatening. That's hardly news.
-Drox
Ian A. York
In article <34B93D04...@hotmail.com>, Drox <dr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ian A. York wrote:
>
>> Bollettino dell Istituto
>> Sieroterapico Milanese. 67(5-6):386-92, 1988) found that
>> younger/newer
>> beekeepers were more likely to be allergic...
>
>More allergic than who? Older beekeepers or the general populace?
Than older beekeepers, in the first study I mentioned; than the general
populace, in this one and others.
>acquired over time, or kids being more allergic than their parents -
>just that people tend to avoid activities that are painful and/or
>life-threatening. That's hardly news.
Your point is a good one, and it's one of the reasons I used "implied",
rather than any stronger word. There are a couple of hints that
tolerance might be devloping, but I wouldn't call them more than hints.
One is in the article cited above (in the abstract I didn't quote), which
showed that half of the beekeepers they tracked over time showed reduced
reactivity. (But 10% worsened.) The other--which is even more
indirect--is that beekeepers who have more stings are less likely to be
reactive. Although this could be because those who are reactive take more
care to avoid stings, the difference appears at (what I considered) a
fairly high level of stings--people who receive between 50-200 stings per
year, were more likely to respond than those who received 200 or
more--and my feeling is that people who are concerned about
life-threatening and/or painful reactions would try to avoid getting as
many as 100 stings per year. Definitely not proof. Finally, at least two
articles do state that beekeepers (probably) become spontaneously
desensitized.
Of course, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive, and it's
likely that both happen to some extent. Based on the comment in [], I
suspect that desensitization may be more important than leaving the
profession, but who knows.
I include the full abtracts this time so you can check for yourself.
[1] Annila IT. Karjalainen ES. Annila PA. Kuusisto PA.
Bee and wasp sting reactions in current beekeepers.
Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology. 77(5):423-7, 1996
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A majority of subjects allergic to bee venom are
beekeepers, their relatives, or neighbors. Predetermining systemic
reactivity to honeybee stings and risk assessment through laboratory tests
have been unsatisfactory. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence and type
of sting reactions, and especially to evaluate potential risk factors of
systemic reactions in beekeepers. METHODS: A questionnaire concerning
sting reactions and potential risk factors was mailed to all members of
the regional beekeepers' association; 191 beekeepers were included in the
study. RESULTS: Systemic bee sting reactions were present in 50 (26%) and
large local reactions in 73 (38%) of the beekeepers. Similar reactions
following wasp stings were present in 2% and 13%, respectively.
Twenty-four (48%) of the systemic reactors and 39 (28%) of the remaining
subjects had a history of atopic symptoms (allergic rhinitis, allergic
bronchial asthma, or atopic dermatitis). While working at hives, nasal and
eye symptoms were present in 54% of the systemic reactors and in 23% of
the remaining subjects. Systemic reactors were younger and had been
beekeepers for a shorter period than nonreactive subjects. Multiple
logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of systemic sting
reaction increased fourfold when nasal or eye symptoms were present while
working at hives and twofold when the years in beekeeping were less than
15. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of systemic and large local reactions
after bee stings is high among beekeepers. A history of atopy is
associated with systemic reactions. Both the presence of nasal or eye
symptoms while working at hives and a history of beekeeping less than 15
years significantly increase the risk of systemic reactions.
[2] de la Torre-Morin F. Garcia-Robaina JC. Vazquez-Moncholi C. Fierro
J. Bonnet-Moreno C.
Epidemiology of allergic reactions in beekeepers: a lower prevalence
in subjects with more than 5 years exposure.
Allergologia et Immunopathologia. 23(3):127-32, 1995
Abstract
Beekeepers (Bks) represent a high allergic risk population against
Hymenoptera because of their frequent exposure to bee stings. Most
published studies show different percentage of sensitization and systemic
reactions with to another groups of population. With the aim to know the
prevalence and type of allergic reaction in Bks from the Canary Islands,
246 subjects were studied prospectively. A questionnaire was developed and
skin test and specific IgE determination against Apis mellifera, Vespula
and Polistes venom were performed. One hundred and twenty eight subjects
had presented at least one reaction greater than merely local. In 83.5% of
these subjects subsequent stings caused reactions of lesser intensity.
Specific IgE in serum for Apis mellifera was positive in 126 BKs, for
Vespula in 27 and for Polistes in 9. We found that the group of BKs
sensitized to Apis was significantly higher among atopics BKs (p < 0.001)
and with fewest years of working experience in beekeeping (p = 0.0134).
This study showed that sensitization to Hymenoptera is higher in
beekeepers with less than 5 years working experience and who are
sensitized to another allergens.
[3] Pastorello EA. Incorvaia C. Sarassi A. Qualizza R. Bigi A.
Farioli L.
Epidemiological and clinical study on bee venom allergy among
beekeepers.
Bollettino dell Istituto Sieroterapico Milanese. 67(5-6):386-92,
1988.
Abstract
A randomized population of 222 beekeepers from Lombardy (203 males, 19
females, of mean age 42.5 years) was studied to determine the frequency of
allergic reactions to bee sting. The type of reactions, the clinical
evolution at the subsequent stings and the risk factors concerning the
development of allergy (presence of venom specific IgE, number of stings
in a year, atopy, age) were evaluated. It was found that 170 beekeepers
never presented reactions to stings while 52 (23.4%) showed allergic
reactions consisting in 31 large local reactions and 21 systemic
reactions; of these, 3 (5.7%) were life-threatening. In the group of
beekeepers with allergic reactions at the subsequent stings, 26 (50%)
showed a spontaneous loss of reactivity, 16 (30.8%) presented persistent,
but unchanged in severity, reactions and 10 (19.2%) had a worsening of
symptoms. Specific honey bee venom IgE levels (measured by means of RAST)
were significantly lower in immune beekeepers when compared with the group
with allergic reactions (p less than 0.01) and in beekeepers with previous
allergy when compared to the ones with persistent reactions (p less than
0.05). We also found significant differences about the number of stings
received in a year by beekeepers with persistent allergic reactions (17.5
stings), beekeepers with previous allergy (89.8 stings) and immune
subjects (126.9 stings). On the contrary, no significant differences were
detected about the age and the presence of atopy. These results suggest
that practice of bee-keeping induces a relatively high incidence of
allergic reactions but with a trend to the spontaneous improvement of
symptoms and a low incidence of severe reactions.
Bousquet J. Menardo JL. Aznar R. Robinet-Levy M. Michel FB.
Clinical and immunologic survey in beekeepers in relation to their
sensitization.
Journal of Allergy & Clinical Immunology. 73(3):332-40, 1984
Abstract
Beekeepers often present allergic symptoms and represent a natural and
experimental model of anaphylaxis and specific immunotherapy. Two hundred
BKs were investigated. Both allergic and nonallergic subjects were
selected very carefully in terms of immunologic status and exposure to bee
stings. They were surveyed by a questionnaire, the titration of total
serum IgE, and bee venom-specific IgE and IgG. Skin tests to HBV were
performed in 176 subjects. Skin test sensitivity to HBV and allergic
symptoms were significantly (p less than 0.0001) related to the estimated
number of annual stings. BKs did not have allergy for more than 200 bee
stings received in a year, and skin tests were negative in all cases.
Many subjects who received between 50 and 200 annual stings had positive
skin tests, and 9% of them had a systemic allergic history. Systemic
anaphylaxis was present in 20% of BKs who received between 25 to 50 annual
stings, and in 45% of BKs who are stung less than 25 times a year.
Specific IgE was present in 42% of BKs whatever the number of stings
received, but the titer was lower when the number of stings increased.
The presence of specific IgE in subjects who are stung numerous times and
who do not present allergic symptoms at the time of the stings suggests
that outbreaks of anaphylaxis may be possible in nonallergic BKs. Specific
IgG titrated by the Pharmacia IgG-RAST was less than 150 U/ml in most
allergic subjects and over this level in most nonallergic BKs.
Bousquet J. Menardo JL. Michel FB.
Allergy in beekeepers.
Allergologia et Immunopathologia. 10(5):395-8, 1982
Abstract
Beekeepers represent a high-risk group for allergic disorders. They
are affected by beestings but only a very limited fraction of the
population develops severe anaphylactic symptoms. On the other hand
several beekeepers have slight anaphylactic symptoms when they start
working. Immunologically they are like "spontaneously desensitized
subjects". They often have bee-venom specific IgE and all of them have
very high titers of bee-venom specific IgG. Beekeepers may present an
atopic sensitization to bee-hive dust and develop asthma and rhinitis.
Finally, they may present a contact dermatitis to a bee-product: the
propolis. This type of allergy is not very frequent.
Nathan F Miller
Paraic O'Donnell <par...@antispam.indigo.ie> wrote:
>
>As a fellow sufferer, I sympathise. I am involved in a programme of
>desensitisation, which entails the regular experience of Little
>Deaths.
>
>Paraic "each night I die" O'Donnell
This is known in the lit as "therapeutic inducement of petit mort
seizures".
But this is reminding me of rather shapeless, nearly inchoate
tale--something about a woman who developed an allergic reaction to her
husband's semen, or maybe it was to his beard and body hair, or something
else, but they had to endure a nookieless marriage, or else they got
divorced, or else something else quite sad.
Anyone who has been exposed to this with a higher element of narrative is
encouraged to react appropriately.
Nathan "farfling" Miller
Jack Griffes (spamblocked)
Don Whittington <donc...@flash.net> wrote in article
<doncopra-ya0240800...@news.flash.net>...
> I think all this talk about allergies obscures things. Forget
allergies
> altogether for a moment, and address what happens to Joe Blow
who gets
> stung too often.
>
IF I am following your line of thinking you are talking about
"mass envenomation" this is a whole different puppy from the
normal reaction or even the allergic response to the various
constiuents of bee venom. In a "mass envenomation" scenario
the frequently stung commercial beekeeper has substantially
better odds of survival than does the seldom if ever stung
non-beekeeper - he/she can take more stings before it does them
in via sheer quantity of the poison (having been repeatedly
exposed commercial beekeepers are more tolerant of the venom).
In this scenario a fairly good though yet imperfect analogy
would be to consider a single sting like one thousandth part of
a venomous snakebite (though the venoms are different). In this
scenario it is indeed the venom (poison) you are worried about -
however in allergic reactions the venom is not the actual
consideration but rather the immune systems over-reaction to it
is the hazard to life. IF a life threatening allergic reaction
to bee venom occurs being young greatly increases the chance of
survival - having a heart condition seriously compromises it.
The adult human LD50 for honey bee stings is around 1,100 stings
- however health factor make a HUGE difference. Small children
and babies are likely in serious trouble if stung 100-400 times
(single occurence) since mass envenomation is a poison problem
and they are much smaller. With all that said remember is a
"odds game" you are looking at with LD50 - meaning some folks
have survived over 2,000 stings in one occurence whilst others
have died with 100-300. The basic gist being that at low
numbers of stings/occurence the danger is NOT the venom but a
severe allergic reaction to it. BUT at high numbers of
stings/occurence the venom becomes the danger.
And as a bit of education - the proper response to a mass attack
of honey bees (or other stinging insects) is to RUN away from
the nest (which they are defending) for as long as it takes to
get them to quit following you (the bees on you may not leave
off however - we are talking about the flying pursuers leaving
off not the already landed parties which are not nearly so
likely to leave off). Running through a field of tall corn or
(over your head high) grass can really slow down the bees - so
as long as it don't slow you down too much it is an advantage to
take that route if available.
IF you have some ENCLOSED vehicle (like a car with working
windows) or ENCLOSED building (not a shed or barn that ain't bee
tight UNLESS it is VERY dark inside it) that you can QUICKLY get
into then DO IT. In this manner you take in with you some bees
but eliminate any greater numbers from gaining access to you.
Some of your pursuers MAY leave off the attack and head toward
the windows IF the windows are MUCH lighter than the building
interior as a whole in the area you are. Then you eradicate the
attached bees until you are at last alone again. Yep they WILL
get inside your clothes too so don't think you are alone without
a mighty thorough check. Of course odds are you will never NEED
to know this - but it don't hurt to "Be Prepared" - just in
case.
--
Jack Griffes
Country Jack's Honeybee Farm
Honeybee Improvement Program
Onsted, MI
USA
e-mail: jack_griffes at hotmail.com
Web site: http://members.tripod.com/~Griffes/
"Did you know--
* Every 13 seconds one of America's 70 million
gun owners uses a firearm in defense
against a criminal?
Duggan
>With bees, the sting itself causes discomfort with or without an
>allergy to it.
A temporary discomfort for those who are entirely non-allergic. When I
get stung by a bee, it hurts about the same as a sliver; taken out,
there's little to no pain. Either that or I've developed a much higher
pain threshold than I thought.
Maybe I'm wrong...
Dr...@innocent.com Sean C. Duggan
UIN : 5662668
"Flames Gladly accepted for tyop's and speling error's"
"eschew obsfucation"
D.M. Procida
"Jack Griffes (spamblocked)" <jack_griffes"NOSPAMWANTED"@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> ....the proper response to a mass attack of honey bees (or other stinging
> insects) is to RUN away [and hide]...
I understood that thing thing to do was to run as fast as your legs
could carry you, and then suddenly drop down to the ground while the
bees zoom off above you. Is this not recommended?
(Followups set to a.f.u since s.c.b has probably seen this all before.)
ObUL: Crocodiles have no muscles to open their jaws (they use gravity),
so to prevent a crocodile from biting you just hold its mouth firmly
shut.
D.M. Procida
--
Now available: "Five more songs", The Awkward Moments' new EP.
CD: £4.00 Cassette: £2.50 +P&P: Europe 50p, everywhere else £1
Launch party: Chapter Arts Centre, Cardiff, 30th January 1998
Steve Harvey
As the youngest of four sons-of-a-beekeeper , I have never been allergic to
bees . The same can also be said of my three older brothers .
Jim Fare wrote in message <34B3C2...@fareway.on.ca>...
>BTW, my grandfather always claimed that beekeepers' sons were allergic
>to bees. Any proof or anecdotal evidence for this?
>
>http://www.fareway.on.ca/walter.html
Cheryl L Perkins
Nathan F Miller (nfm...@pitt.edu) wrote:
<snip>
: This is known in the lit as "therapeutic inducement of petit mort
: seizures".
: But this is reminding me of rather shapeless, nearly inchoate
: tale--something about a woman who developed an allergic reaction to her
: husband's semen, or maybe it was to his beard and body hair, or something
: else, but they had to endure a nookieless marriage, or else they got
: divorced, or else something else quite sad.
: Anyone who has been exposed to this with a higher element of narrative is
: encouraged to react appropriately.
: Nathan "farfling" Miller
Is this the 'wife allergic to husband's sperm, and therefore unable to
conceive a child' story? (Followed by, 'But she could easily get pregnant
with another man.')
I have no idea of its voracity, but I have certainly heard it used as an
explanation for infertility.
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca
Phil Herring
In article <199801122...@dialup250.dip.cf.ac.uk> D.M. Procida, pro...@cf.ac.uk writes:
>ObUL: Crocodiles have no muscles to open their jaws (they use gravity),
>so to prevent a crocodile from biting you just hold its mouth firmly
>shut.
They have muscles to open their jaws, but they're quite weak, and can be
overcome with a firm grip. However, this is not as useful as it sounds,
because croc teeth poke out of the sides of their mouth, so you'll be
grabbing hold of something rather sharp, and the the croc's instinct will
probably be to roll, turning their closed jaws into a palm grater.
In other words, don't try this at home.
I have also seen video footage of a 5m saltwater croc at a croc farm in
northern Australia being safely sat on and stood next to, by virtue of it
being tickled on the snout in just the right way with a piece of grass.
Evidently they have a reflex that makes them remain dead still while this
is being done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1998 Phil Herring. This article may not be reproduced for profit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Griffes (spamblocked)
D.M. Procida <pro...@cf.ac.uk> wrote in article
<199801122...@dialup250.dip.cf.ac.uk>...
> "Jack Griffes (spamblocked)"
<jack_griffes"NOSPAMWANTED"@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > ....the proper response to a mass attack of honey bees (or
other stinging
> > insects) is to RUN away [and hide]...
hiding in a ENCLOSED place not accessible to the bees OR a VERY
dark place (they can't fly without light but it don't take much
light for some races - for instance when we come back from a
pollination drop at night we usually bring home a few strays on
our clothes when we hop outta the truck they fly to the porch
light and fly around the lighted area a bit - if you turn off
the light they crash land RIGHT NOW) - just hiding anywhere
ain't gonna cut it ya see
>
> I understood that thing thing to do was to run as fast as your
legs
> could carry you, and then suddenly drop down to the ground
while the
> bees zoom off above you. Is this not recommended?
>
> (Followups set to a.f.u since s.c.b has probably seen this all
before.)
By the time you KNOW you have a problem with a mass attack of a
unusually nasty colony of honey bees (perhaps Apis mellifera
scuttelata commonly known as Africanized Honey Bees [AHB] when
present in North, South or Central America) they will have
planted a few stings in you and/or your clothing. The stings
will be emitting a pheremone that acts much like a target beacon
saying "sting here" - you are then a marked target and dropping
suddenly is unlikely to gain you much other than lost time when
you MUST get up and run now with a LOT more stingers in ya for
the folly.
There are other equally foolish things you can try if ya like to
get stung LOTS of times and are being mass attacked. For
instance just try jumping up and down swatting them - in the
proccess you smash many and mark yourself even more. Or after
you are getting attacked just stand there real still like a tree
thinking they won't notice you (despite a sense of smell about a
thousand times as good as a dog). Either of these follies will
likely gain you the opportunity to test out the LD50 of bee
venom firsthand if you are actually being mass attacked.
That said here in the USA we beekeepers use European races of
bees and breed them for gentleness among other things. Gee I
personally don't much care for being pestered by defensive bees
when I am working them. Fact is I MUCH prefer real gentle bees
- so gentle I can work them sans veil if I wish and yep some are
just that gentle during a honeyflow - I have worked them with
just a pair of cutoff shorts on and my sneakers on particulary
blazing hot days. And one of the Cooperators in our breeding
program, Honeybee Improvement Program, HATES wearing a veil and
I don't think I have ever seen him actually tie a veil on.
But if you live in a AHB zone (SOME parts of TX, AZ, NM, CA)
then you NEED to learn how to "be prepared" just like any
outdoorsman in rattlesnake country NEEDS to be aware of snakes
and how to avoid getting bitten and what to do if you area - it
is just something to be aware of NOT something that is likely to
ever happen to you.
and since you set this to go only to alt.folklore.urban (rather
than also cross-posting to the beekeepers newsgroup where the
probability of gaining accurate info is higher on this
particular subject) realize I will not get any further posts on
the matter unless you go to the trouble to e-mail me a copy - I
do spamblock but you can figure out my address from my sig file
below
--
Jack Griffes
Country Jack's Honeybee Farm
Onsted, MI
USA
e-mail: jack_griffes at hotmail.com
Web site: http://members.tripod.com/~Griffes/
"Did you know--
* A gun kept in the home for protection is
216 times as likely to be used
in defense against a criminal
than it is to cause the death
of an innocent victim in that household?
J. Neil Schulman,
Jason R. Heimbaugh
D.M. Procida <pro...@cf.ac.uk> wrote:
>ObUL: Crocodiles have no muscles to open their jaws (they use gravity),
>so to prevent a crocodile from biting you just hold its mouth firmly
>shut.
ObRerun: If you're ever attacked by a shark, the best way to save yourself is
to punch it in the nose. If that fails, try beating it with your stump.
--
"Hey, I'm not a lot of people." --Red Green
Steve Caskey
Paraic O'Donnell <par...@antispam.indigo.ie> wrote:
>As a fellow sufferer, I sympathise. I am involved in a programme of
>desensitisation, which entails the regular experience of Little
>Deaths.
>
>Paraic "each night I die" O'Donnell
If I were to mention Gary Numan at this point, and post a small
"correction" to Paraic's internym, I would be reviving the "songs about"
thread and therefore deserve to die.
Steve "and not just a little; a lot" Caskey
--
Just another mindless public servant at the Ministry of Education
"Did you know that a uniform attracts women like flies?"
"I wondered why all your women looked like flies."
* See the alt.folklore.urban FAQ and archive at http://www.urbanlegends.com
Eric Hocking
Phil Herring wrote:
> I have also seen video footage of a 5m saltwater croc at a croc farm in
> northern Australia being safely sat on and stood next to, by virtue of it
> being tickled on the snout in just the right way with a piece of grass.
> Evidently they have a reflex that makes them remain dead still while this
> is being done.
Wouldn't attempt it tho'
The other one is that while a saltwater (Estuarine) croc can run as fast as a man it can't turn.
To avoid a charging croc, dodge, weave or run in circles and it'll never catch you.
The fact that salties tend to prefer mangrove swamps may moot this point.
--
Eric "Never smile etc." Hocking
"A closed mouth gathers no feet."
Remove "nospam." from address to email.
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~ehocking/
MARK G SPAGNOLO
Jim Fare <ji...@fareway.on.ca> wrote in article
<34B3C2...@fareway.on.ca>...
> BTW, my grandfather always claimed that beekeepers' sons were allergic
> to bees. Any proof or anecdotal evidence for this?
>
> [J.F.]
> http://www.fareway.on.ca/walter.html
>
I have been keeping bees for 22 years and am exposed to venom and stung
everyday. I have a four year old son who has been stung a couple times.
He shows no abnormal reactions, besides a lot of crying!
Jack Griffes (spamblocked)
MARK G SPAGNOLO <MARKSP...@prodigy.net> wrote in article
<01bd2086$991d9080$71cb48a6@xpsh233>...
> I have been keeping bees for 22 years and am exposed to venom
and stung
> everyday. I have a four year old son who has been stung a
couple times.
> He shows no abnormal reactions, besides a lot of crying!
>
in youngsters crying is a NORMAL reaction to getting stung ;-)
even when Dad is administering the stings on purpose to try and
keep the boy from having a second skin allergy reaction
--
Jack Griffes
Onsted, MI
USA
e-mail: jack_griffes at hotmail.com
Web site: http://members.tripod.com/~Griffes/
"Did you know--
* Every 13 seconds one of America's 70 million
gun owners uses a firearm in defense
against a criminal?
J. Neil Schulman,
Shimbo
On 13 Jan 1998 00:50:27 GMT, Phil Herring <rev...@uow.edu.au> wrote:
>In article <199801122...@dialup250.dip.cf.ac.uk> D.M. Procida, pro...@cf.ac.uk writes:
>>ObUL: Crocodiles have no muscles to open their jaws (they use gravity),
>>so to prevent a crocodile from biting you just hold its mouth firmly
>>shut.
>
>They have muscles to open their jaws, but they're quite weak, and can be
>overcome with a firm grip. However, this is not as useful as it sounds,
>because croc teeth poke out of the sides of their mouth, so you'll be
>grabbing hold of something rather sharp, and the the croc's instinct will
>probably be to roll, turning their closed jaws into a palm grater.
>
>In other words, don't try this at home.
>
>I have also seen video footage of a 5m saltwater croc at a croc farm in
>northern Australia being safely sat on and stood next to, by virtue of it
>being tickled on the snout in just the right way with a piece of grass.
>Evidently they have a reflex that makes them remain dead still while this
>is being done.
Of course, we also have to take into account the croc's (or gator's)
tail, which is quite powerful. One swipe from that, and holding the
mouth becomes an even bigger chore.
Quita Endicott
># My grandfather was a beekeeper and his children are all very sensitive to
>#stings.
>
>Uh oh. I see some Lamarckian theories of evolution in that last statement.
>
sensitive - all that is implied here as that the children are all
sensitive - perhaps the mother of said children passed on hypersensitivity
genes to the kids.
>Robert "Devolved" Ternes
>rte...@u.arizona.edu
Quita Endicott
You are either allergic or you are not, to bee stings (or any other
substance). Your reaction (or hypersensitivity - there are 4 classes of
hypersensitivity) is dependent on a number of variables - perhaps the bee in
question produces a venom that lacks the histamine that affects your body -
perhaps you have a high number of immune response cells activated for what
ever reason. The best advice is to consult an immunologist to get your
answers. Also, I'm not sure because it has been a few years since I had
immunology, but hypersensitivity is not an autoimmune disease - it is an
over-reaction to a foreign body (or an overly aggressive immune response).
>Specifically, my question is:
>1) Do repeated bee stings raise one's tolerance or not?
Not really - again there are many variables at work - you may become more
innured to the pain associated with the sting.
Also - one more point to make that is probably unimportant, but bothering me
non-the-less: Things that are venomous bite you; things that are
poisonous - you bite. Bees, snakes and the such are venomous; plants, frogs
and the like are poisonous.
Quita
>I think all this talk about allergies obscures things. Forget allergies
>altogether for a moment, and address what happens to Joe Blow who gets
>stung too often.
>
Ben Walsh
Quita Endicott wrote:
>
> ># My grandfather was a beekeeper and his children are all very sensitive to
> >#stings.
> >
> >Uh oh. I see some Lamarckian theories of evolution in that last statement.
> >
> What is Lamarckian about that - he doesn't imply that they CHOSE to become
> sensitive
I don't know what definition of Lamarckism you're using, but it's not a
good one. The theory of Lamarckism was a precursor to that of natural
selection, and postulated evolution through inheritance of *acquired*
characteristics.
> - all that is implied here as that the children are all
> sensitive
No, that's what's stated explicitly. The *implication*, through the
juxtaposition of the two statements, is that the children's sensitivity
is due in some way to the grandfather's occupation. That is Lamarckian,
and therefore wrong.
- perhaps the mother of said children passed on hypersensitivity
> genes to the kids.
Indeed.
ben "I was stung by a bee yesterday - £20 for a jar of honey" w.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you name me a street | ben walsh
Then I'll name you a bar | benw at iona dot com
And I'll walk right through Hell | http://bounce.to/heretic
Just to buy you a jar" -- shane |
Andy Nachbaur
On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 23:38:56 +0000, pro...@cf.ac.uk (D.M. Procida)
wrote:
>> ....the proper response to a mass attack of honey bees (or other stinging
>> insects) is to RUN away [and hide]...
>
>I understood that thing thing to do was to run as fast as your legs
>could carry you, and then suddenly drop down to the ground while the
>bees zoom off above you. Is this not recommended?
Well it is said that bees can fly at 35 mph so all hangs on how fast
you can run...
For us old beekeepers we know from experience that bees are easily
confused by brush and trees and target the tallest object so we seek
protection in the brush or forrest keeping a low profile hoping not to
find a bear in the woods doing the same thing.
ttul, the OLd Drone
... "Having found the flower and driven a bee away,
>D.M. Procida
(c)Permission is given to copy this document
in any form, or to print for any use.
(w)OPINIONS are not necessarily facts. USE AT OWN RISK!
Andy Nachbaur
On 8 Jan 1998 00:26:43 GMT, "Jack Griffes (spamblocked)"
<jack_griffes"NOSPAMWANTED"@hotmail.com> wrote:
>those in a beekeeper's household that do not get stung routinely
>themselves do have a higher than normal instance of sensitivity
>to bee venom - this is likely do to inhaling dried venom brought
>in on the beekeepers clothes
Many people who become super sensitive to honeybees are found to be
sensitive to the protein of the whole bee and not just that contained
in the venom.
This works both ways and many people who have aliments that respond to
bee venom also can find the same relief from other products of the
hive without the pain of the bee sting.
An example would be my step-father who did not work around or in the
bees. In later life developed an arthritic condition that plagued him
for years until one winter he came for an extended visit an I put him
to work in the honey house cleaning out old supers with a hive tool.
His arthritis and gout went away in a few weeks and after the 2nd
winter of inside bee work, never returned, and he also did not need to
return and I lost a good free winter helper around the bee barn...
ttul, the OLd Drone
... The bee enclosed and through the amber shown,
ayres
Ben Walsh <be...@iona.nospam.please.we'reirish.com> wrote in article
<69itc1$9l5$1...@ezekiel.eunet.ie>...
> Maybe the hypersensitivity is due to environment ,
> not heredity, as in exposure to dried venom on clothing