Genomics Called Key on Asthma

[Guest guest]

Posted on: Sunday, 10 June 2007, 12:00 CDT

Genomics Called Key on Asthma

By Elaine Jarvik Deseret Morning News

RedNova Sun, 10 Jun 2007 11:07 AM PDT

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/962667/genomics_called_key_on_ast

hma/index.html?source=r_health

Mold, genetics, ZIP codes -- scientists and public health officials

are looking in all kinds of places to tease out what causes asthma

and how to prevent it.

The interplay of genes and environment -- known as genomics -- is

the future of asthma study, says , associate professor

of epidemiology at the University of Washington Center for Genomics

and Public Health. presented current research Thursday at

the Second Annual Asthma and Genomics Conference, sponsored by the

Utah Department of Health.

The conference comes on the heels of a DOH study released last week

showing that children living in Woods Cross/North Salt Lake,

Riverdale and Glendale had asthma rates 9.2 to 13.1 percent higher

than children in Bountiful, Provo south and north Orem. Now

researchers have to figure out why. Is it the homes? The

neighborhoods? Something about the families themselves?

Asthma tends to run in families. University of Utah graduate student

Craig Teerlink told the conference about his study that used the

Utah Population Database and death certificates to show that even

third-degree relatives of people who died of asthma had

a " significantly increased risk " of also dying of the disease.

But screening for a single " asthma gene " is unlikely, said ,

whose presentation began with her favorite cartoon: men in lab coats

each showing off the needles they've found in a haystack, under the

headline " The Search for Asthma Susceptibility Genes. " More than 100

genes have so far been found to be linked to the complex, chronic

disease.

In the meantime, as genetic research continues, public health

researchers across the country are also taking oral family histories

and trying innovative interventions.

In Michigan, the Department of Community Health is studying 300 low-

income households that each have at least one child with asthma.

Family histories of the participants reveal that 29 percent of the

children have siblings with asthma, 30 percent have a father with

asthma, 30 percent have a mother with asthma, and 82 percent have a

first- or second-degree family member with the disease.

The project, the Healthy Home University Program, aims to teach the

families about asthma triggers and also provides " intervention

products " that include HEPA vacuums, mildew-proof shower curtains,

and hypoallergenic mattress covers (at a total average cost of

$370).

In the low-income Seattle neighborhood of High Point, a " Breathe

Easy Homes " project has provided new housing for 35 families of

children with asthma. The homes are built with airtight drywall, low-

emission paints, HEPA filters and no carpets. The goal,

says, is to " test the benefit of a new home over education-only

intervention. " To participate, the families had to agree to have no

pets and no smoking.

After listening to ' presentation, toxicologist

Packham of Utah's Division of Air Quality and the Utah Asthma Task

Force, noted that " It almost seems doable, and that's very

encouraging. "

E-mail: jarvik@...

Source: Deseret News (Salt Lake City)

[Guest guest]

The focus on genomics has a number of different factors driving it, and they

are not all beneficial.

As long as 1/3 of every health care dollar goes to health insurance

companies, a big factor driving genetic research expenditures will probably

be the health insurance industry trying to figure out how to cut their

expenditures on healthcare providers and services by using genetic

information to deny coverage. Its my opinion that our current method of

paying for healthcare with private insurance has many incompatibilities with

the goals often cited as driving genetic testing and data collection.

(improving the quality of healthcare)

Also, the various special interests are desperate to find risk factors that

divert attention away from the environmental risk factors for diseases that

we know are controllable, (but which represent cuts in their profits) such

as controlling exposures to xenobiotics and toxic chemicals, air pollution,

mold, lead mercury from coal fired power plants, etc.

[Guest guest]

even with some bad genes it doesn't mean they will ever get activated

and cause you problems. you body doesn't just up and deside to turn

against itself one day. if these illnesses were solely caused by

inherited genetics, you'd by born with your illness.

--- In , LiveSimply <quackadillian@...>

wrote:

>

> The focus on genomics has a number of different factors driving it,

and they

> are not all beneficial.

>

> As long as 1/3 of every health care dollar goes to health insurance

> companies, a big factor driving genetic research expenditures will

probably

> be the health insurance industry trying to figure out how to cut

their

> expenditures on healthcare providers and services by using genetic

> information to deny coverage. Its my opinion that our current

method of

> paying for healthcare with private insurance has many

incompatibilities with

> the goals often cited as driving genetic testing and data

collection.

> (improving the quality of healthcare)

>

> Also, the various special interests are desperate to find risk

factors that

> divert attention away from the environmental risk factors for

diseases that

> we know are controllable, (but which represent cuts in their

profits) such

> as controlling exposures to xenobiotics and toxic chemicals, air

pollution,

> mold, lead mercury from coal fired power plants, etc.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

IT IS A COMPLETE FALLACY THAT THE WORD 'ALLERGY' MEANS THAT ONLY SOME PEOPLE

WILL

GET SICK FROM HIGH LEVELS OF A GIVEN 'ALLERGEN'.

*IF LEVELS GET HIGH ENOUGH* 100% OF A GIVEN POPULATION WILL BECOME

HYPERSENSITIZED TO THAT ALLERGEN WITH PREDICTABLE - OFTEN TRAGIC

RESULTS.

A leading allergist told me recently that the whole concept of only some

people getting a given allergy

is not coming from the scientific community, its simply a common

misconception. Yes, the levels

of sensitivity vary, but that is based on a lot of things. Genetics is part

of it. PAST HISTORY OF

EXPOSURE IS ANOTHER, JUST AS SIGNIFICANT PART. In other words, if you get

major

or sometimes even simply longterm exposure to an allergen you can go from

not having

that as an allergy to having that as an allergy.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME WITH MOLD.

Aspergillus fumigatus is an example of a fairly common species of mold that

causes major allergic hypersensitivity.

Anyone can end up with this IF THEY GET ENOUGH EXPOSURE.

Its just a matter of degree. Thats why mold exposures need to be regulated.

Its becoming increasingly obvious to me that poor people, in particular,

often get exposed repeatedly and it wears their immune systems down.

On 6/11/07, who <jeaninem660@...> wrote:

>

> even with some bad genes it doesn't mean they will ever get activated

> and cause you problems. you body doesn't just up and deside to turn

> against itself one day. if these illnesses were solely caused by

> inherited genetics, you'd by born with your illness.

>

>

> >

> > The focus on genomics has a number of different factors driving it,

> and they

> > are not all beneficial.

> >

> > As long as 1/3 of every health care dollar goes to health insurance

> > companies, a big factor driving genetic research expenditures will

> probably

> > be the health insurance industry trying to figure out how to cut

> their

> > expenditures on healthcare providers and services by using genetic

> > information to deny coverage. Its my opinion that our current

> method of

> > paying for healthcare with private insurance has many

> incompatibilities with

> > the goals often cited as driving genetic testing and data

> collection.

> > (improving the quality of healthcare)

> >

> > Also, the various special interests are desperate to find risk

> factors that

> > divert attention away from the environmental risk factors for

> diseases that

> > we know are controllable, (but which represent cuts in their

> profits) such

> > as controlling exposures to xenobiotics and toxic chemicals, air

> pollution,

> > mold, lead mercury from coal fired power plants, etc.

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

From: LiveSimply

Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:54 PM

Subject: Re: [] Re: Genomics Called Key on Asthma

* Do you think this applies to food too? Would any normal person who ate

large quantities of the same food at every meal, become allergic to that food?

IT IS A COMPLETE FALLACY THAT THE WORD 'ALLERGY' MEANS THAT ONLY SOME PEOPLE

WILL

GET SICK FROM HIGH LEVELS OF A GIVEN 'ALLERGEN'.

*IF LEVELS GET HIGH ENOUGH* 100% OF A GIVEN POPULATION WILL BECOME

HYPERSENSITIZED TO THAT ALLERGEN WITH PREDICTABLE - OFTEN TRAGIC

RESULTS.

A leading allergist told me recently that the whole concept of only some

people getting a given allergy

is not coming from the scientific community, its simply a common

misconception. Yes, the levels

of sensitivity vary, but that is based on a lot of things. Genetics is part

of it. PAST HISTORY OF

EXPOSURE IS ANOTHER, JUST AS SIGNIFICANT PART. In other words, if you get

major

or sometimes even simply longterm exposure to an allergen you can go from

not having

that as an allergy to having that as an allergy.

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME WITH MOLD.

Aspergillus fumigatus is an example of a fairly common species of mold that

causes major allergic hypersensitivity.

Anyone can end up with this IF THEY GET ENOUGH EXPOSURE.

Its just a matter of degree. Thats why mold exposures need to be regulated.

Its becoming increasingly obvious to me that poor people, in particular,

often get exposed repeatedly and it wears their immune systems down.

On 6/11/07, who <jeaninem660@...> wrote:

>

> even with some bad genes it doesn't mean they will ever get activated

> and cause you problems. you body doesn't just up and deside to turn

> against itself one day. if these illnesses were solely caused by

> inherited genetics, you'd by born with your illness.

>

>

> >

> > The focus on genomics has a number of different factors driving it,

> and they

> > are not all beneficial.

> >

> > As long as 1/3 of every health care dollar goes to health insurance

> > companies, a big factor driving genetic research expenditures will

> probably

> > be the health insurance industry trying to figure out how to cut

> their

> > expenditures on healthcare providers and services by using genetic

> > information to deny coverage. Its my opinion that our current

> method of

> > paying for healthcare with private insurance has many

> incompatibilities with

> > the goals often cited as driving genetic testing and data

> collection.

> > (improving the quality of healthcare)

> >

> > Also, the various special interests are desperate to find risk

> factors that

> > divert attention away from the environmental risk factors for

> diseases that

> > we know are controllable, (but which represent cuts in their

> profits) such

> > as controlling exposures to xenobiotics and toxic chemicals, air

> pollution,

> > mold, lead mercury from coal fired power plants, etc.

> >

> >

> >