What Are Common Myths About Ear Cleaning?

Ear hygiene is often the subject of much speculation, with some practices even harming ear health. Proper ear hygiene helps prevent damage to the eardrum, ear canal, or outer ear. However, ear cleaning should not be done routinely, and certainly not with a cotton swab. Here are some misconceptions about ear hygiene and the right methods to protect your hearing.

Myth: Cotton Swabs Provide Safe and Effective Ear Cleaning

Although it is one of the most common tools for ear cleaning, the cotton swab is mainly intended for cleaning the outer ear’s folds. When used inside the ear canal, it pushes dead skin further down, potentially creating a wax plug.

A cotton swab or ear pick is not effective for removing wax in the ear canal. In the worst case, you risk a perforated eardrum and hearing loss. Consult an ENT doctor to remove earwax plugs safely and painlessly.

Opt for gentle cleaning with a cotton swab to improve ear hygiene. An ear spray, with its misting system, provides a safe and effective solution. For example, products on audispray.com contain hypertonic seawater to dissolve accumulated wax.

After using the spray, gently massage the ear and tilt your head to help the solution drain outward. Finally, properly wipe away any residual liquid with a cotton piece.

Myth: Frequent Ear Cleaning Reduces the Risk of Wax Buildup

The human ear has its own cleaning mechanism that regulates wax production. Cleaning too frequently disrupts this balance and may even cause blockages. You should only intervene when there’s a noticeable wax buildup. The ideal cleaning frequency? Once a week or every two weeks. Here are recommended cleaning methods:

• Cleaning spray to quickly remove wax
• Warm water cleaning using a showerhead or syringe
• Olive oil ear cleaning

If using warm water, ensure you dry both the ear canal and outer ear afterward to prevent water from stagnating, which helps prevent ear infections. Warmed olive oil can be applied drop by drop or with a soaked cotton piece in cases of earwax buildup.

Regular cleaning should not be routine. If your ears produce more wax than average (excess wax), consult an ENT doctor who can recommend suitable products: saline solution, irrigation kit, hydrogen peroxide, ear spray, etc.

Myth: Babies’ Ears Don’t Need Cleaning

This myth, linked to the fragility of newborns, can be harmful to their auditory health. Earwax production starts at birth and intensifies as the baby begins chewing (around six months). It increases further around ages 1 to 2.

When cleaning a baby’s ears, take precautions to avoid irritation, injury, or infection of the ear canal. Avoid ear picks and cotton swabs, and ensure you don’t insert anything sharp into their ears.

The ideal cleaning method is to take advantage of bath time to gently soap the baby’s ears. Soapy water is enough to soften the wax, but you may also use purified seawater or a baby-safe cleaning spray once a week.

Don’t forget to clean the ear folds and outer ear with a piece of cotton or a compress. Finally, dry the ear and remove any dirt at the ear canal entrance without pushing it inward with a pointed cotton swab.

Feel free to consult an ENT doctor to determine the most suitable ear care method.

Read More

The Surprising Potential of Viagra: Could It Save Thousands of Lives?

 For the past two decades, Viagra has transformed the lives of countless men around the world, thanks to its specific effects on male physiology. However, recent research suggests that this little blue pill may have an unexpected side effect that could potentially save thousands of lives.

Scientists studying the effects of Viagra (also known as sildenafil) on mice have made a remarkable discovery. They found that a small daily dose of the drug, administered through the animals’ drinking water, significantly reduces their risk of developing colorectal cancer. According to biochemist Darren D. Browning from Augusta University, “Giving a small dose of Viagra can cut the number of tumors in these animals by half.” While these findings are intriguing, it’s important to note that they have only been demonstrated in mice so far, making human trials the next logical step.

The research team is eager to move forward with clinical trials involving patients who are at risk of developing colorectal cancer or have a family history of the disease. If these trials receive approval and yield similar results in humans, it could represent a groundbreaking advancement in saving millions of lives lost each year. Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer globally, and researchers believe Viagra could play a significant role in reducing these alarming statistics.

The studies have shown that a daily dose of Viagra effectively halves the formation of polyps—abnormal cell clusters that develop on the intestinal lining and can lead to tumors. Another drug tested by researchers, linaclotide, which is used to treat constipation and irritable bowel syndrome, was even more effective than Viagra. However, it caused diarrhea, making it unsuitable for long-term use. In contrast, low doses of Viagra appear to be free of significant side effects in humans.

But how does Viagra work in this context? The drug seems to encourage the production of a chemical called GMP (GlycoMacroPeptides) in the intestines. While the exact mechanism through which these peptides benefit the intestinal lining is still under investigation, initial findings suggest that GMP suppresses excessive cell proliferation—the formation of new cells—within the intestines. In essence, it appears to promote the growth of normal cells while eliminating their abnormal counterparts.

It’s also crucial to highlight that Viagra’s effects are preventive; it does not seem to combat tissues that are already cancerous.

Additionally, the preliminary results hint at the possibility of Viagra being effective in preventing other types of cancers as well. More studies are needed to explore sildenafil’s potential to inhibit cell proliferation in various organs, which could open new avenues for cancer prevention, particularly for individuals at high risk of developing tumors in locations other than the colon. However, until these hypotheses are confirmed through human clinical trials, caution is advised.

As research progresses, the unexpected benefits of Viagra may not only improve men’s health but could also pave the way for significant advancements in cancer prevention. It’s an exciting time in the field of medicine, and we’ll be watching closely to see what the future holds.

You will find all the details of this study in the journal Cancer Prevention Research.

Read More

Exploring the Mystery of Déjà Vu: What Science Tells Us So Far

 Déjà vu—literally "already seen"—is a strange and fascinating sensation experienced by people across the world. Despite being such a common occurrence, science has yet to fully explain why déjà vu happens, although some compelling theories trace the phenomenon back to the brain itself.

At the Core: A Brain Malfunction?

Déjà vu is that uncanny feeling of reliving a moment, as if a present conversation or situation has already been experienced. This sensation often affects younger people and typically arises in the evening, when fatigue levels are higher. Although there was once a rare case of a young man experiencing extreme déjà vu for several years, most episodes are brief, lasting no more than thirty seconds and occurring sporadically. The term "déjà vu" first appeared in 1876, in the French philosopher Émile Boirac’s book, L'Avenir des sciences psychiques. Boirac also described similar phenomena, such as déjà vécu (already experienced), déjà senti (already felt), and déjà visité (already visited).

Today, while we haven’t pinpointed the exact cause of déjà vu, scientists have proposed various hypotheses. The leading theory suggests it may be a perceptual error the brain quickly tries to correct. This idea is supported by past experiments where small electric shocks were applied to patients' brains to artificially induce déjà vu.

An Undetermined Cause

In 1888, British neurologist John Hughlings Jackson was one of the first to investigate déjà vu scientifically. He noted that some of his epileptic patients experienced what he called “dreamy states”—moments when they seemed to relive past scenes. However, without modern technology, he couldn’t track brain activity in these states. Years later, Canadian neuroscientist Wilder Penfield made significant strides in déjà vu research by stimulating the brains of conscious patients in the 1930s to 1960s. By performing these experiments, Penfield artificially triggered déjà vu and shed light on the brain regions involved.

Since then, scientists have zeroed in on the entorhinal cortex, hippocampus, and amygdala—areas linked to memory formation, object recognition, time perception, emotions, and memory recall. While these regions are known to be involved, the exact reason for déjà vu remains unclear.

A Brief Brain “Glitch”

The prevailing hypothesis is that déjà vu stems from a momentary lack of coordination between these regions—specifically a brief desynchronization between the hippocampus and the entorhinal cortex, leading to a “glitch.” This desynchronization might cause the brain to retrieve memories in a way that brings a sense of familiarity, without actual memory recall. When this feeling of familiarity surfaces without true memory retrieval, déjà vu occurs. Conversely, if familiarity fails to happen during memory retrieval, a phenomenon known as jamais vu (never seen) might occur. Another theory proposes that déjà vu might result from a brief delay in information transfer between the brain’s hemispheres.

Science may not have cracked the code of déjà vu just yet, but with advances in brain research, we continue to inch closer to understanding this eerie sensation. Until then, déjà vu remains an enigma—a reminder of the mind's incredible, sometimes puzzling, complexity.

Read More

Humans Exposed to Over 3,500 Chemicals in Contact with Food

A recent study conducted in Switzerland highlights a concerning phenomenon: human exposure to chemicals in contact with food. Researchers discovered several thousand chemicals present in food packaging and other items that come into contact with food. Among these substances are the highly controversial PFAS (or "forever chemicals").

An Alarming Study on Chemicals in Food Contact The human body is continuously exposed to no fewer than 3,601 chemicals found in food packaging and other food contact objects. This is the finding of a study published in the Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology on September 17, 2024. Led by the Food Packaging Forum Foundation in Zurich, Switzerland, this study suggests an underestimation of exposure to these substances, particularly as they have been found in various human samples, such as urine, blood, and breast milk.

Among the substances of concern, bisphenol A can still be cited, as it remains present in the lining of canned goods, cans, and bottles. Additionally, phthalates are found in plastic bottles, baby jars, and printing inks. The authors of the study also noted the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), primarily in Teflon cookware.

Furthermore, this research highlighted significant gaps in biosurveillance and toxicity data. With the help of four academic institutions, the team at the Food Packaging Forum Foundation compiled an interactive tool for greater clarity: FCChumon. It is worth noting that the term FCC stands for food contact chemicals.

The Urgency to Act It is difficult to discuss these various substances without mentioning health risks. Indeed, there are concerns about cancer risks, immune system disruptions, and adverse effects on reproduction. Moreover, researchers estimate that other products are still not being monitored today.

In terms of recommendations, the authors of the study addressed policymakers as well as food industry companies. One of the alternatives mentioned is the use of glass packaging, although packaging is only part of the problem. In reality, there should also be a complete reassessment of the composition of various containers and kitchen items.

Martin Scheringer, a group leader at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich and an expert in hazard and risk assessment of various chemicals, participated in the study. He expressed his views in a publication by the association Le Pouvoir d’Agir in May 2024. The expert specifically emphasized the urgent need to rapidly ban PFAS in as many applications as possible.

Read More

Finally, the Human Sense of Smell May Not Be as Weak as We Think

When we hear that ants can detect cancer and dogs can sense our stress through smell, our humble nose—which stops working entirely at the slightest cold—might seem rather unimpressive. Even in scientific circles, it is accepted that the human sense of smell is “slower” than sight or hearing. However, although our sense of smell is far from rivaling that of many animals, it is not as bad as most people believe. According to a new study, humans can detect subtle odor changes in just a few milliseconds, as quickly as they notice a change in color.

An Experiment to Test Our Sense of Smell

Researchers from the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ohio State University developed an inhalation-triggered device equipped with one-way valves to ensure odors travel in a single direction. The setup also includes Teflon tubes that deliver scents to the human nose with a precision of 18 milliseconds.

In 649 sessions, the researchers asked 229 adults in China to wear this device and smell various combinations of scents—two odors presented in rapid succession during a single inhalation. These scents included apple, sweet floral fragrances, citrus aromas, and onion smells.

The goal of the experiment was to test whether participants could distinguish between two odors presented in one order and then in reverse, with varying intervals. While a single breath, which lasts only about three to five seconds on average, might seem to limit the speed at which we can detect smells, the scientists' findings told a very different story.

Extraordinary Results from Our Ordinary Nose

Published in Nature Human Behaviour, the study shows that our olfactory perception can capture subtle chemical changes within a single breath, challenging previous assumptions about the limits of our sense of smell. Earlier research suggested that it takes around 1,200 milliseconds to differentiate between two odor sequences.

However, “We were amazed to find that participants could distinguish two odors presented in one order and then reversed with latencies as short as 60 milliseconds,” said Dr. Wen Zhou, the study’s lead author and researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing. “For comparison, the duration of a blink is about 180 milliseconds,” he added.

Testing with Meticulously Timed Odor Sequences

Over five experiments, the device enabled the presentation of two odors in rapid succession with exceptional precision. In one experiment, two odors—a fruity apple scent and a floral fragrance—were sequenced and delivered to participants' noses, with one odor arriving 120 to 180 milliseconds before the other. Participants correctly identified the order of the scents in 597 out of 952 trials, with an accuracy of 63%. Similar results were obtained with 70 additional participants exposed to lemon and onion scents.

What Are the Implications of This Research?

A Deeper Understanding of Human Smell

In the animal kingdom, the ability to distinguish odors during a single inhalation is critical for identifying what a scent is and where it might be located. “The demonstration that humans can distinguish odors as they change within a single breath shows that timing is crucial for the sense of smell across species. It also suggests that rhythm is a fundamental principle underlying olfactory function,” explained Dr. Sandeep Robert Datta, professor in the Department of Neurobiology at Harvard Medical School, who was not involved in the study.

“The study of human olfaction has historically lagged behind research on vision and hearing because we tend to think of ourselves as visual creatures that rely primarily on speech to communicate,” Datta added. He noted that these findings help “fill a critical gap in our understanding of how humans perceive odors.” The implications of this research go beyond the laboratory, offering fascinating insights into how smell shapes human behavior and interactions.

Health and Industry Applications

Recognizing the olfactory system's ability to quickly differentiate between subtle chemical differences could revolutionize industries that rely on scent, such as food and beverages, perfume manufacturing, and even healthcare. A more refined understanding of how we perceive odors over time could allow professionals to enhance flavor development, improve perfume design, and refine scent-based therapies.

“Our device could also have therapeutic applications, such as olfactory rehabilitation for patients suffering from loss of smell,” suggested Dr. Zhou. “More broadly, our findings could guide the design and development of electronic noses and olfactory virtual reality systems, which could have significant clinical benefits.”

Read More

Toothbrushes and shower heads: they are teeming with viruses

 

Hygiene Tips to Combat Viruses

Forget tropical rainforests and coral reefs. If you’re searching for a biodiversity hotspot, look no further than your bathroom, home to a surprising microbial jungle. In a recent study by Northwestern University, microbiologists discovered that showerheads and toothbrushes host an incredibly diverse range of viruses, most of which are previously unknown to science. While this may sound alarming at first, the study shows that the discovery is actually good news. Here's why.

A Surprising Variety of Viruses

You’ve likely heard the urban legend that bathroom toilets contaminate toothbrushes with fecal matter. However, the new study, published on October 9 in Frontiers in Microbiomes, builds on previous research led by Erica Hartmann, a microbiologist at Northwestern University. Her earlier findings revealed that the majority of microbes found on toothbrushes come from the user’s mouth rather than toilet aerosols.

This research sparked further interest. “We wanted to understand which microbes live in our homes,” Hartmann explains. “Surfaces like walls and tables aren’t very friendly environments for microbes, but they thrive in places with water. So naturally, we looked at showerheads and toothbrushes.”

Analyzing Showerheads and Toothbrushes

The research team collected DNA samples from these items, sequencing them to identify the viruses present. They found 614 different viruses across 92 showerheads and 34 toothbrushes in the U.S. Interestingly, no two samples were identical — each object seemed to host its own unique viral community, with many viruses likely unknown to science.

“The sheer number of viruses we found is astounding,” says Hartmann. “We discovered many viruses we know almost nothing about and many others we had never seen before. It’s incredible to realize how much unexplored biodiversity surrounds us, and we don’t even have to leave our homes to find it.”

Better News Than It Seems

Though the idea of viruses on your toothbrush might make some people uneasy, the researchers emphasize that these findings are not a cause for concern. "Microbes are everywhere, and the vast majority of them pose no threat to us," Hartmann reassures. Most of the viruses found in the study were bacteriophages — viruses that exclusively infect bacteria. These phages are harmless to humans and specifically target mycobacteria, a group of bacteria responsible for diseases like tuberculosis, leprosy, and some chronic lung infections.

Bacteriophages act in two ways: they either destroy bacteria by using them to replicate or integrate into bacterial genomes, modifying bacterial behavior.

Significant Health Implications

With an estimated one trillion microbial species on Earth — 99.9% of which remain undiscovered — this type of research is essential for advancing our understanding of microbiology.

Hartmann also suggests practical applications for these viruses: “We could use mycobacteriophages to clean pathogens from plumbing systems.” Her team aims to explore the full potential of these viruses and how they might be used.

This research could also aid in developing treatments against antibiotic-resistant superbugs. Scientists are actively working on phage therapies, where viruses complement or replace traditional antibiotics to target resistant bacteria. Currently, drug-resistant pathogens kill about 1.3 million people annually and contribute to nearly five million deaths. A recent estimate from The Lancet predicts that over 39 million people could die from drug-resistant infections by 2050, underscoring the importance of these findings.

Practical Hygiene Tips

To maintain good hygiene, Hartmann recommends cleaning showerheads with soap and water or soaking them in vinegar to remove calcium buildup. She also advises regularly replacing electric toothbrush heads and traditional toothbrushes. However, she cautions against using antimicrobial toothbrushes, which could promote the growth of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

“Microbes are everywhere, and most won’t harm us. The more we fight them with disinfectants, the more likely they are to develop resistance and become harder to manage. We just need to learn to coexist with them,” Hartmann concludes.

You can read the study in detail here. 

Read More

Are Psychopaths Capable of Loving Their Own Children?

 The Dark Triad of personality traits (DTP) consists of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. These traits manifest as excessive self-love, manipulative behavior, and a lack of empathy. Psychopaths are often deeply self-centered, leading to abusive relationships. Their partners are frequently the first victims—manipulated, exploited, and abruptly devalued before being discarded. But what about their children? Are they treated the same way, or is it different?

According to Perpetua Neo, a psychologist and therapist specializing in DTP, the answer is no. "Narcissists, psychopaths, and sociopaths lack empathy and cannot develop it. As a result, they never truly love anyone," she explained to Business Insider. "This doesn’t change when they have children. There is no primal instinct to protect or nurture their offspring because they don't see them as independent beings but as tools for their use." Neo adds, "Rather than saying, 'I will nurture you so you can become the amazing person you're meant to be,' a psychopath will think, 'You’re supposed to grow up and become my trophy.'"

The environment in which the child grows up is thus unhealthy: the child is unable to develop an independent sense of self and is burdened by the parent’s emotional distress. "Narcissists, for instance, tend to be deeply unhappy people with low self-esteem, dumping unnecessary emotional baggage onto their children," the psychologist explains.

A psychopath views their child as their "property," using them as an emotional outlet or sounding board as the child grows. "Some patients have told me that their parents said, 'The only reason I had you was so you could take care of me for the rest of my life,'" Neo notes. The psychopath also protects their "trophy," their possession: "You’re not allowed to have children," says Neo, "and you’re not allowed to get married. The parent will interfere in all kinds of relationships, stirring up drama to ensure the child remains single."

This toxic relationship becomes increasingly challenging as the child matures. As the child grows stronger and more self-aware, the parent becomes more fragile and, in response, attacks the child’s self-confidence to maintain control. "In the eyes of the psychopath, the child must be devalued. The parent will say things like, 'You’re fat, you’re useless, or you’re ugly.'"

On the other hand, when the child achieves something, the parent must take credit. "Everything always circles back to them," Neo explains. "As a result, the child grows up thinking, 'I have no say, and I don’t matter.'"

Do children of psychopaths end up becoming like their parents? "This only happens in a minority of cases," writes psychotherapist Michelle Piper. "Some children develop 'siege responses,' becoming emotionally withdrawn, highly independent, and less sensitive to others. They may manipulate others as if they were parents demanding their needs be met." However, Piper notes, "The most common response is 'compliance,' where the child learns to set aside their own needs and bend over backward to please others."

Children of narcissists, in particular, tend to exhibit "this compulsion to serve others," the psychologist concludes. "They become hyper-empathic, overly generous, and often remain trapped in relationships with narcissists throughout their lives."

The emotional and psychological impact of such family dynamics is profound and long-lasting. Growing up under the control of a narcissistic or psychopathic parent distorts the child’s sense of self and worldview. These children often suppress their emotions and ignore their needs, developing hypervigilance and a tendency to anticipate others’ reactions to avoid conflict. This coping mechanism can lead to toxic relational patterns in adulthood, where they unconsciously replicate behaviors of submission or, conversely, hyper-control, in an attempt to reclaim the sense of power they never had during childhood.

Read More