Pinworms are particularly common in children, with prevalence rates in this age group having been reported as high as 61% in India, 50% in England, 39% in Thailand, 37% in Sweden, and 29% in Denmark. [1]
prevalence is the proportion of a particular population found to be affected by a medical condition (typically a disease or a risk factor such as smoking or seatbelt use) at a specific time.
And yes, kids. Pinworm is literally called 'children worm' here.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinworm_(parasite)#burkhart200...
Things like rules for handwashing and standards for things like residential plumbing improved hygiene and reduced ringworms. Many urban and rural households didn’t have things we take for granted like hot water!
> ringworms
Typo? Ringworm is fungal despite the name.
NICE estimate 20-30% of kids 4-11 have an infestation. I have three kids in this bracket and yeh this tracks
That said, I also had a kid in the 00s and my friends have kids now, and nobody has mentioned getting worms.
It’s not super common (if you live in Europe) but it happens.
Meanwhile my friends who grew up in a tropical country they had to take anti-worm meds regularly.
It depends a lot on your circumstances
With those rates, my guess is that you probably had it several times, but just thought your bum was itching for no reason (or you were one of the asymptomatic cases). I think the awareness of it has gone up, now it's common to let the kindergarten know if you suspect it in your child, and they send a message to the other parents.
If you don’t think it’s super commen in Europe it’s generally a lack of diagnoses. Literally 1/5th Of British kids have it at any given time (and I imagine that tracks across Europe and USA at least)
For example if you know anyone who raised early concerns about antivaxxers causing short supply of ivermectin formulations for human use during the pandemic. More or less anyone who knew what ivermectin was at that point in time was either a farmer, a vetinarian, a doctor… or a patient with a condition.
Many parasites are endemic to the southern USA. As a child I was checked for parasites every year. Most modern doctors I've met are negligent in this regard. Under questioning several have stated that it is unimportant. Some doctors assert incorrectly that blood tests would reveal any significant parasitic infestation. I always correct them but I also change doctors b/c medical school seems to "harden" the brain - nothing new can be learned once they have graduated.
Ever walk barefoot across the lawn?
Ever eat uncooked fish/flesh/sushi?
Ever own/pet a cat?
If so, you might want to get tested!8-))
Neglected Parasitic Infections: What Family Physicians Need to Know—A CDC Update:
But if you're slicing up something you just caught that could be an issue. It's a concern with hunting/game as well. Most people who get trichinosis in the US get it from eating bear apparently.
As far as i know, current medical advice is not to treat toxoplasmosis (except in exceptional situations like if you have AIDs) so im not sure what the benefit of getting tested would be.
Unless you mean other parasites.
In my case it was getting mud into my mud boot from interacting with an aggressive horse. It took me a while to figure out the thing on my foot was not fungal but a parasite. Ivermectin horse paste cleared it up but I also have FenBen just in case I missed one. Most of them exited on their own after applying acetic acid.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/jun/23/mosqu...
Beneficial parasite would be a symbiote so the Tok’ra as well
These would be far less pure in to 1800s. That would effect the accuracy of readings.
They were also hand made back then too.
If the theory of body temp being higher is predicated upon averages, it could skew. I wonder if such studies took this into account?
So, I doubt that immune system theory, since for most of mankind’s existence, they were not part of our life.
> for most of mankind’s existence, [parasites] were not part of our life.
This is not something you should have been able to say with a straight face. It proves nothing other than that nobody should ever take you seriously.
Wow. Someone must have had a crappy Christmas, all by itself alone, deep in their basement arguing with strangers on the internet.
But here it goes one of many articles - by actual experts - that share my viewpoint.
“ Conclusions
It seems plausible that there was a pronounced spread of this parasite during the Late Mesolithic, possibly reflecting a shift to a more sedentary lifestyle with long continuous presence at permanent occupation sites, thus facilitating the spread of this disease and possibly increasing its prevalence rate in the populations.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03054...
It would seem reasonable to say on a statistical sample of 1 we have no reason to believe this was common or uncommon, or do we say on the basis we found one, the assumption is that it was universal?
We know some things like floor rushes were picked to deter fleas, were there oral or rectal treatments which worked for worms?
Intelligence, even?
Nothing of this is really news as not having parasitic worms is very recent development, and getting G. duodenalis with unsanitized water continues to be common today. Healthy immune system can deal with it, as it could in 90 AD, hence antibodies.
The story is an obvious attempt to produce as much words from as few facts as possible, and the headline is meaningless.
eszed•1mo ago
thaumasiotes•1mo ago
- Transmission is easier in the city due to closer contact and more shared resources.
- Urban parasites are likely to be more debilitating to the victim because they may come from an unfamiliar environment. (Compare how hookworm in the American south was a nuisance to blacks, but debilitating to whites.)
We know that diseases were a much heavier burden in cities than they were in rural regions. Parasites are mostly just bigger diseases; you'd need to come up with a really interesting idea to explain why they were a smaller issue in cities than outside of them.
Hookworm is an interesting example to consider here; you catch them by stepping on soil with your bare feet. Stereotypically they are a problem of the rural south. But I found this paper on "neglected tropical diseases" in the United States, which had this to say:
> Toxocariasis is a soil-transmitted helminth infection [it isn't hookworm, but hookworm is also a soil-transmitted helminth infection] that can result in visceral larva migrans, visual impairment from ocular larval migrans, or a condition that resembles asthma, known as covert toxocariasis. Urban playgrounds in the US have recently been shown to be a particularly rich source of Toxocara eggs, and inner-city children are at high risk of acquiring the infection.
https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journa...
Another example to consider might be covid, where my read of the consensus is that (1) initial nature -> human infection is more likely in rural areas (where there's more nature), but (2) once it can live in humans, it's a bigger problem in urban areas (where there are more humans).
throwup238•1mo ago
eszed•1mo ago
The corollary hypothetical is that Roman cities had well-developed water and sewer infrastructure, whereas isolated forts were drinking out of wells and using latrines, with a higher probability of cross-contamination. They also might have had higher incidental population density (low-ranking troops sleeping in barracks; common meals) than at least some urban districts.
But... I don't know which case is actually true, and am curious what the evidence might show!