I don’t think I see a problem with this situation. “Do you want me to kiss your injury?” is simply asking about their preferences, and makes no assertion about the healing powers of the kiss. “Do you want me to kiss it better?” does make a bit of an assertion, but at least at this point, it’s clear that it provides comfort to your son—it makes him feel better—so I think the phrasing is ok.
Also, there is research suggesting that saliva on wounds is in fact helpful:
Our results show that human saliva can stimulate oral and skin wound closure and an inflammatory response. Saliva is therefore a potential novel therapeutic for treating open skin wounds.
Licking wounds is useful elsewhere in the animal kingdom; see Wikipedia. My guess for humans would be “it probably helps a bit—though, if Neosporin is available, I’d prefer the latter”. If it does help, then I think we’d expect baby animals who aren’t able to lick the wounded area (or who just don’t lick it for some reason) to be adapted to, upon getting injured, cry loudly until a parent comes by and licks their wounds / otherwise attends to them; and humans probably inherited the adaptation.
I’d say it’s less likely (though possible, with the “inflammatory response”?) that it helps with bruises or other injuries that don’t break the skin. But it’s also plausible that babies can’t tell the difference between a wound that bleeds and one that doesn’t, or that evolution didn’t find it worthwhile programming an exception for the latter.
So I suspect that your son’s crying followed by his “it’s magically better now” response may be an evolved behavior. (Even if saliva did nothing, the general “cry for help when you get hurt until someone tends to your wounds” reaction seems reasonable.) In which case kissing his injury is speaking directly to that evolved part of him.
Avoid the Neosporin. Prolonged exposure to one of the active ingredients (neomycin) often causes an allergic reaction, i.e. inflammation indistinguishable from an infection. Then putting more on to treat the “infection” just makes it worse. The triple-action seems to be more marketing than science. Polysporin, plain bacitracin, or even just petroleum jelley (Vaseline) is probably a better choice. The moisturizer is helpful (because it prevents scab formation and scarring), but it’s not clear that the antibacterials are helping much. There’s also some concern that Neosporin may promote antibiotic-resistant bacteria, like MRSA.
I see, interesting. I’ve tended to talk about Neosporin and Polysporin interchangeably, not knowing the difference and figuring they were similar; the thing I’ve been using is actually Polysporin.
Looking into it… Wikipedia does say “In 2005–06, Neomycin was the fifth-most-prevalent allergen in patch test results (10.0%)”. Is the 10% the number of people with an allergic reaction? (Would there be >10% with nonzero but subclinical reactions?) Also, if there are bacteria that the Neosporin doesn’t kill, then might it actually be good for the body to be conducting a heightened immune response? Or would that interfere with wound healing in the common case? Googling suggests the latter is indeed a problem.
I also find that both bacitracin and neomycin have been named Allergen of the Year. Also, Wikipedia on bacitracin says “In 2005–06, it was the sixth-most-prevalent allergen in patch tests (9.2%).” Wow, that is kind of hilarious in the context of this debate. The article also says “[bacitracin] is generally safe when used topically, but in rare cases may cause hypersensitivity, allergic or anaphylactic reactions, especially in patient[s] allergic to neomycin.” My impression of the immune system is that it’s not too surprising for it to become highly prejudiced against anything new it encounters in open wounds… So is the one actually better than the other? I do find more internet-people advocating for Polysporin on allergen grounds, and I can believe that putting more potential allergens into a wound is more likely to cause a reaction.
I would agree that, in lots of cases (e.g. a paper cut while indoors), there’s little need for antibacterials; I mostly think of the moisturizing and “covering the wound” benefits, which would indeed be served by plain petroleum jelly. That said, if you have a tube of the stuff around, I think you might as well include the antibiotics unless you’re allergic.
Regarding antibiotic-resistant bacteria, how does overuse of Neo/Polysporin rate against, say, overuse of antibacterial hand soap and other products? I have a feeling that the latter are much larger culprits. I have one tube, roughly thumb-sized, of Polysporin, which I still haven’t used up after >10 years (perhaps any active ingredients have expired).
I don’t think I see a problem with this situation. “Do you want me to kiss your injury?” is simply asking about their preferences, and makes no assertion about the healing powers of the kiss. “Do you want me to kiss it better?” does make a bit of an assertion, but at least at this point, it’s clear that it provides comfort to your son—it makes him feel better—so I think the phrasing is ok.
Also, there is research suggesting that saliva on wounds is in fact helpful:
Licking wounds is useful elsewhere in the animal kingdom; see Wikipedia. My guess for humans would be “it probably helps a bit—though, if Neosporin is available, I’d prefer the latter”. If it does help, then I think we’d expect baby animals who aren’t able to lick the wounded area (or who just don’t lick it for some reason) to be adapted to, upon getting injured, cry loudly until a parent comes by and licks their wounds / otherwise attends to them; and humans probably inherited the adaptation.
I’d say it’s less likely (though possible, with the “inflammatory response”?) that it helps with bruises or other injuries that don’t break the skin. But it’s also plausible that babies can’t tell the difference between a wound that bleeds and one that doesn’t, or that evolution didn’t find it worthwhile programming an exception for the latter.
So I suspect that your son’s crying followed by his “it’s magically better now” response may be an evolved behavior. (Even if saliva did nothing, the general “cry for help when you get hurt until someone tends to your wounds” reaction seems reasonable.) In which case kissing his injury is speaking directly to that evolved part of him.
Avoid the Neosporin. Prolonged exposure to one of the active ingredients (neomycin) often causes an allergic reaction, i.e. inflammation indistinguishable from an infection. Then putting more on to treat the “infection” just makes it worse. The triple-action seems to be more marketing than science. Polysporin, plain bacitracin, or even just petroleum jelley (Vaseline) is probably a better choice. The moisturizer is helpful (because it prevents scab formation and scarring), but it’s not clear that the antibacterials are helping much. There’s also some concern that Neosporin may promote antibiotic-resistant bacteria, like MRSA.
I see, interesting. I’ve tended to talk about Neosporin and Polysporin interchangeably, not knowing the difference and figuring they were similar; the thing I’ve been using is actually Polysporin.
Looking into it… Wikipedia does say “In 2005–06, Neomycin was the fifth-most-prevalent allergen in patch test results (10.0%)”. Is the 10% the number of people with an allergic reaction? (Would there be >10% with nonzero but subclinical reactions?) Also, if there are bacteria that the Neosporin doesn’t kill, then might it actually be good for the body to be conducting a heightened immune response? Or would that interfere with wound healing in the common case? Googling suggests the latter is indeed a problem.
I also find that both bacitracin and neomycin have been named Allergen of the Year. Also, Wikipedia on bacitracin says “In 2005–06, it was the sixth-most-prevalent allergen in patch tests (9.2%).” Wow, that is kind of hilarious in the context of this debate. The article also says “[bacitracin] is generally safe when used topically, but in rare cases may cause hypersensitivity, allergic or anaphylactic reactions, especially in patient[s] allergic to neomycin.” My impression of the immune system is that it’s not too surprising for it to become highly prejudiced against anything new it encounters in open wounds… So is the one actually better than the other? I do find more internet-people advocating for Polysporin on allergen grounds, and I can believe that putting more potential allergens into a wound is more likely to cause a reaction.
I would agree that, in lots of cases (e.g. a paper cut while indoors), there’s little need for antibacterials; I mostly think of the moisturizing and “covering the wound” benefits, which would indeed be served by plain petroleum jelly. That said, if you have a tube of the stuff around, I think you might as well include the antibiotics unless you’re allergic.
Regarding antibiotic-resistant bacteria, how does overuse of Neo/Polysporin rate against, say, overuse of antibacterial hand soap and other products? I have a feeling that the latter are much larger culprits. I have one tube, roughly thumb-sized, of Polysporin, which I still haven’t used up after >10 years (perhaps any active ingredients have expired).
I didn’t realize bacitracin allergies were nearly as prevalent as neomycin. Still, better one allergen than three.
As an aside, it’s usually sufficient to kiss my hand and then wave it vaguely in his direction.