Here's What Your Earwax Reveals About Health
Earwax, technically known as cerumen, might seem like an unpleasant byproduct of the body, but it serves several important functions. It traps dust, bacteria, and foreign particles, keeping the inner ear clean and protected. Surprisingly, its colour, texture, and amount can offer insights into your overall health. From infections to genetic markers, earwax may act as an early warning sign for certain conditions. According to the American Academy of Otolaryngology, earwax is a natural self-cleaning agent and a key indicator of ear health. Paying attention to changes in earwax could help detect potential issues before they become serious.
What changes in earwax might signal
Earwax isn't just about hygiene, it reflects what's happening inside your body. Variations in its colour, texture, or odour can point toward infections, stress, metabolic conditions, and even inherited traits. Understanding these subtle shifts can help you better monitor your ear and general health. Let's take a closer look at what different types of earwax may reveal.
1. Dry vs wet earwax
One of the most basic distinctions in earwax is whether it's dry (grey and flaky) or wet (yellow to brown and sticky). This is determined by a single gene, ABCC11. Most East Asians have dry earwax, while people of African or European descent generally have the wet type. While this difference is harmless, it may also be associated with body odour tendencies.
2. Yellow or light brown
This is the most common colour and texture of earwax in children and young adults. It's sticky and traps debris efficiently. This type usually indicates a healthy, functioning ear canal. If you notice this and there are no symptoms like pain or hearing loss, there's likely no cause for concern.
3. Dark brown or black
Dark-coloured earwax is often a sign of older cerumen that has collected dust or debris. However, very dark or black earwax can also be linked to oxidative stress, which may result from anxiety or environmental factors. Unless accompanied by discomfort or odour, it's generally harmless, but worth monitoring if it happens frequently.
4. White, dry, or flaky
Earwax that appears white and flaky may suggest an underlying skin condition such as eczema or psoriasis, especially if there is associated itching or scaling near the ear canal. People with these conditions are also more prone to wax build-up and blockages.
5. Greenish or foul-smelling wax
If your earwax is green or has a bad odour, it could indicate a bacterial infection in the ear canal. This may be accompanied by symptoms like pain, fluid discharge, or hearing issues. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), foul-smelling earwax is often an early sign of otitis externa or 'swimmer's ear.'
6. Watery or runny earwax
Thin, watery wax, especially if accompanied by popping sounds or ear pressure, may suggest fluid behind the eardrum, a symptom common in ear infections or sinus issues. This is particularly frequent in children and can impact hearing if untreated.
7. Bloody earwax
If your earwax is tinged with blood, it might signal a scratch, ruptured eardrum, or even more serious issues like a tumour or chronic infection. The Mayo Clinic recommends consulting an ENT specialist if you notice blood in earwax, especially if paired with hearing loss or dizziness.
Earwax is more than just an ear-cleaning mechanism, it can be a useful indicator of your inner health. By observing changes in texture, colour, and smell, you can detect early warning signs of infections, skin disorders, or even genetic traits. If in doubt, consult a medical professional rather than self-cleaning with cotton buds, which may worsen the issue.
Disclaimer: This content including advice provides generic information only. It is in no way a substitute for a qualified medical opinion. Always consult a specialist or your own doctor for more information. NDTV does not claim responsibility for this information.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Trump wants cheaper drugs like Europe has. How it works.
President Donald Trump doesn't just want to bring down prescription drug prices for Americans. He wants European countries to raise them to make up the revenue that drugmakers would lose from his policy. Trump is proposing a so-called most-favored-nation pricing model, which would set U.S. drug prices at the lowest level in other wealthy countries. But the pharmaceutical industry isn't buying into tying drug prices in the U.S. to prices in Europe—at least not knowing the details of the president's proposal. More details about the government's pricing model could come this week. On May 12, Trump directed government health officials to benchmark drug prices to international standards within 30 days. The lobbying group PhRMA, with members including U.S. pharma giants Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and AbbVie, has argued there are two reasons why U.S. drug prices are high: foreign countries not paying 'their fair share" for medicines, and middlemen such as pharmacy-benefit managers. Today, U.S. drug pricing is largely market driven. It involves negotiations between drug manufacturers, pharmacy-benefit managers, healthcare insurers and providers. European countries do it much differently. Each has its own way of determining drug prices, but most follow one of two broad approaches. The first approach, which Germany and France use, considers the overall clinical effectiveness of a new medicine. How does the new treatment compare to existing ones? Does it have added therapeutic benefits? If the new drug is substantially better, its price would reflect that. A second approach, used by the U.K., the Netherlands, and Sweden, analyzes cost effectiveness. This model not only compares the new drug to existing ones but also assesses the incremental value that the medicine brings to the health system. After the assessments, negotiations between drugmakers and the countries begin. Because many European countries have national health systems, they are in a strong negotiation position. If government negotiators think a medicine is too expensive for its effectiveness, they won't recommend its use. How Trump's MFN policy would work in practice isn't clear. Drug prices would probably be based on list prices in Europe since the prices paid by national health systems, or net prices, are confidential. The president's open-ended directive, laid out in an executive order, has many wondering how the U.S. could raise prices in Europe. Trump has made clear he wants to close the gap between U.S. and international prices, and has suggested he would use tariffs and export controls to achieve his goal. In theory, drugmakers could set list prices higher in Europe as long as it doesn't affect net prices, health policy expert Dr. Huseyin Naci told Barron's. In the U.K., for example, a higher list price could still lower the prices in other European countries. 'So that would still not be an acceptable approach to many other European countries," said Naci, who is associate professor of health policy at the London School of Economics. Overhauling Europe's decades-old pricing approaches would require fundamental changes to their pricing regulations—and there will be 'little appetite or ability" to alter them, Naci added. Cost is another complicating factor. 'Pharmaceutical spending is already one of the top categories of spending in many countries in terms of healthcare expenditure, so there's little room to accommodate higher prices and spending for pharmaceuticals in Europe," according to Naci. How Trump is planning to make Europeans pay more for drugs is the big question. He could use tariffs and trade negotiations as leverage. In early April, the president said a 'major" tax on pharmaceutical imports is coming 'very shortly," however nothing has been announced yet. In a trade agreement with the U.K. a month later, there is a provision on pharmaceuticals that states the U.K. will 'endeavor to improve the overall environment for pharmaceutical companies." What that means in practice still isn't clear. Write to Elsa Ohlen at
Hindustan Times
5 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Gastroenterologist explains how fibre can make your constipation worse if you don't follow this key step
Fibre is often a go-to for many people to treat their constipation. But did you know that consuming fibre can go wrong for you if you don't follow an important step? Also Read | Woman who dropped 90 kilos, shares 3 mistakes that slowed down her weight loss: 'Not focusing on nutrition' According to a gastroenterologist, Dr Wendi LeBrett, MD (gastroenterology), fibre can become a concrete block in your stomach if you don't drink enough water with it. In an Instagram video posted on June 6, Dr Wendi explained how fibre harms you more if you don't consume it the right way. In the video, Dr Wendi showed a glass filled with psyllium fibre and demonstrated that when there is not enough water, it turns into a hard, concrete-like substance. She did this by overturning the glass of psyllium and showing that it didn't move even a smidge inside the glass. A post shared by Dr. Wendi (@socalgastrodoc) According to the gastroenterologist, psyllium fibre is her favourite way to treat constipation. But, she cautioned that if you don't take enough water with it, it forms this concrete-like substance in your gut and just makes your constipation worse. She explained, 'Fibre supplementation is one of the best ways to treat constipation, but often people experience bloating, gas, and constipation - not drinking enough water is often the culprit.' According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), dietary fibre interacts with water by means of polar and hydrophobic interactions, hydrogen bonding and enclosure. The results of these interactions vary with the flexibility of the fibre surface. So, what happens when you consume dietary fibre that is soluble? Per the Mayo Clinic, soluble fibre, which dissolves in water, forms a gel-like material in the stomach that slows down digestion. Per a report by Johns Hopkins Medicine, this gel also acts as a natural stool softener, making bowel movements easier and more comfortable to pass. Meanwhile, soluble fibre is found in oats, peas, beans, apples, bananas, avocados, citrus fruits, carrots, barley and psyllium. It can help lower cholesterol and blood sugar. Note to readers: This article is for informational purposes only and not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your doctor with any questions about a medical condition.
The Hindu
19 hours ago
- The Hindu
NIH scientists publish declaration criticising Trump's deep cuts in public health research
In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. 'Dissent," he said, 'is the very essence of science.' That commitment is being put to the test. On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, challenging 'policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' It says: "We dissent." In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, 92 NIH researchers, programme directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter — and their careers on the line. An additional 250 of their colleagues across the agency endorsed the declaration without using their names. Core demands and scientific concerns The letter, addressed to Bhattacharya, also was sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH. White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the administration's approach to federal research and said President Donald Trump is focused on restoring a 'Gold Standard' of science, not 'ideological activism.' The letter came out a day before Bhattacharya is to testify to a Senate committee about Trump's proposed budget, opening him to questions about the broadside from declaration signers, and it stirred Democrats on a House panel to ask the Republican chair for hearings on the matter. The signers went public in the face of a 'culture of fear and suppression' they say Trump's administration has spread through the federal civil service. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritises political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the declaration says. Bhattacharya responded to the declaration by saying it 'has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months," such as suggestions that NIH has ended international collaboration. 'Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive,' he said in a statement. "We all want the NIH to succeed.' Named for the agency's headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world's premier public health research institution over the course of mere months. It addresses the termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12 billion and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants. Health disparities, broken trials and rising dissent In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients. In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyse the work, the letter says. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million,' it says, 'it wastes $4 million.' Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., to talk about what's happening at the NIH. At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organiser of the declaration. 'I want people to know how bad things are at NIH," Norton told The Associated Press. The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration in 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School. His declaration drew together likeminded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive COVID-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracised by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH. 'He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours," said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration. As chief of the Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who've been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. Cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimising its destruction. "So much of it is gone — my work,' she said. The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because she didn't want to be "a collaborator' in the political manipulation of biomedical science. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. 'We have a saying in basic science,' he said. 'You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients. 'We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future,' he added. But that won't happen, he said, if Trump's Republican administration prevails with its searing grant cuts. The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasised they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes nor the NIH. Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants. The letter asserts 'NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety' and the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who 'braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health.' Political context and DEI backlash The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money. At the White House, Desai said Americans 'have lost confidence in our increasingly politicised healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago.' This has forced 'indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' the declaration says. Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya's town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH's direction. The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a lynchpin in science. With that in place, he said in a statement in April, 'NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation." Now it will be seen whether that's enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him. 'There's a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can't be brave if you're not scared,' said Norton, who has three young children. "I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it's only going to get harder to speak up. 'Maybe I'm putting my kids at risk by doing this," she added. "And I'm doing it anyway because I couldn't live with myself otherwise.'
