Colds May Trigger Childhood Cancers 216
Tiger4 writes "BBC News is reporting that the incidence of childhood cancers may be affected by the colds that child has had. From the Article: 'Scientists have found further compelling evidence infections such as colds may trigger childhood cancers. The University of Newcastle-led team looked at 3,000 childhood cancers in 0 to 14-year-olds from 1954 to 1998, the European Journal of Cancer reported. Researchers found unusual clusters of brain tumors and leukemia which were typical of infection-related disease.' As much as an 8 percent increase was observed. However, the article goes on to say that some risks go down with very early exposure to other children, 'In April, a Leukemia Research Fund study found that children introduced to nursery before the age of one were found to be at lower risk of leukemia.'"
Hmm,... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hmm,... (Score:2, Interesting)
In the years before I got cancer, I was never "overmedicated" or medicated at all for colds or the flu. Since all the OTC and perscription drugs for colds are tested and none of them cause cancer, I think you might be off base.
Re:Hmm,... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmm,... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll easily grant you that bacterial immunity of antibiotics is a very bad thing, but to make the audacious claim that it causes cancer is going a bit overboard, no?
Antibiotics, fungus and cancer (Score:5, Interesting)
Antibiotocs kill the beneficial bacteria that keep fungus in check. Cancer rates started to explode after WWII, concurrent with the rise of antibiotic use. It could be that what we're seeing is actually an explosion of fungal infections, but interest in studying and testing for fungus waned as scientists became enthusiastic about studying bacteria, viruses and retroviruses.
Many people seemingly come down with cancer after experiencing an illness for which they took antibiotics. Since many doctors and parents still insist on giving antibiotics to children with colds, there "could" be a connection. Many illnesses that doctors still give antibiotics for may actually be fungal infections, and the infection remains after the course of antibiotics runs out. Sinus infections come to mind. At least 80% of sinus infections are actually fungal in nature, but the majority of doctors don't test for fungus or prescribe antifungals- they still give antibiotics instead. There are other ways to "catch" a fungus; antibiotics are only one way.
A number of children with leukemia that develop "secondary" fungal infections have gone into remission as a result of the antifungal medication they received. What if their problem was never cancer in the first place, but was a fungal infection to begin with? If you want more information about this, I HIGHLY recommend a book by Doug Kauffman called "The Germ that Causes Cancer". It has a lot more scientific documentation in it than the cheesy title would indicate.
Re:Antibiotics, fungus and cancer (Score:2, Informative)
Source? According to this Virtual Hospital article [vh.org], Allergic Fungal Sinusitis accounts for "5% to 10% of cases of chronic sinusitis requiring surgical intervention". From the article, it sounds like the fungal infections tend to be worse than the bacterial ones, so it'd be less than 5-10% of all sinus infections.
Re:Antibiotics, fungus and cancer (Score:2, Informative)
Fungi are closely related to bacteria.
That is completely WRONG. In reality, we've learned that (true) fungi, things like bread mold (Rhizopus), black mold (Stachybotrus and Aspergillus), etc. are more closely related to animals (and yes, we are officially "animals") than bacteria.
This is why bacterial diseases of animals are (relatively) easy to control with antibiotics. We can take seriously "powerful" inhibitors of bacterial biological process
Re:Hmm,... (Score:4, Informative)
Fact 1: Cancer is caused by mutated cells run amok.
Fact 2: Over-the-counter pills do not directly change your DNA. They are not overtly carciongenic, and even if they are carcinogenic in large quantities, the effects would take years to manifest. (Think about how long it takes most smokers to get lung cancer.)
Fact 3: Cold viruses do change your DNA. Just because our bodies are used to fighting off various strains of the common cold, it doesn't make them any less mutagenic to individual cells.
With these facts in mind, which is most likely to cause cancer? The weak drugs, or the cell-mutating virus? You offer no evidence to support your claim except for your social commentary. That is not science any more than Intelligent Design is.
Re:Hmm,... (Score:2)
I think a few colds.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hmm,... (Score:3, Funny)
Or causality? (Score:4, Interesting)
William of Ockham would agree with me. (-:
Either way, don't feed them crap: breast-feed for as long as reasonably possible, then get them into eating their food as fresh, raw and un-tinkered-with as possible (a tactic which admittedly might not go down well amongst meat lovers).
Re:Or causality? (Score:2)
Your body can't process raw food well. It has evolved to handle cooked food.
Raw veggies contain most of their nutrients packed in cellulose. Which you can't digest. The only way to break them out is to cook the food - which kills off some of the nutrients, but unleashes a he
Living condition (Score:2, Funny)
EVERYONE suffers from colds. (Score:4, Insightful)
Grossly misinformed! (Score:5, Funny)
They're obviously wealthy enough to have someone do it for them!
Re:EVERYONE suffers from colds. (Score:2)
So is cancer these days. Odds are high that unless you flame out early in a car wreck or something befor you reach 50, you will get a cancer of some type before you die.
Re:EVERYONE suffers from colds. (Score:2)
My wife's an MD, and she has said numerous times that if one lives long enough, one will get cancer. Period. So, to extend you statement based on my understand of her remarks, the odds you mention are 100% if something else does not kill you first.
Re:EVERYONE suffers from colds. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:EVERYONE suffers from colds. (Score:2)
At least, it isn't 100% so far.
Only the mortality of dead humans is 100%.
The mortality of live humans is 0%.
Re:EVERYONE suffers from colds. (Score:2)
What if you're a masochist?
--
A masochist is someone who likes pain, so he avoids it. -Unknown
Re:Living condition (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Living condition (Score:2)
Cause or correlation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2, Interesting)
These findings provide more clues to a link between viruses and some types of childhood cancer, but we need more evidence before we can be sure
clearly indicates he needs further evidence.
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because somebody does something for a living, even if they have numerous qualifications and credentials, does not mean that they are actually any good at it.
It's just as easy for a trained scientist or doctor to overlook a flaw in their data or findings as it is for a programmer to dereference a NULL pointer.
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2)
I have seen far too many "professionals" try to s
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case it might be the problem with the reporting. The researcher should report what she or he found in fact based on data. In this case what the researcher you quoted said was exactly what the headline should have been. Between the "link" and "cause" is a big difference. So to jump from that to "cold triggers cancer" is big mistake.
You might also want
Faith has no place in science (Score:2, Insightful)
Science is science because its based on doubt. I also immediately went for the third conclusion. Perhaps something is depressing the immune system, while weakening you enough for the cold may lead you to another infection. Perhaps its a hormonal problem, which often affects the immune system too, that is overstimulating cell growth in that region for a prolonged period. Maybe it is the previously mentioned overmedication, or a certian type of medication even. All that the
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:5, Insightful)
-Chris
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2, Informative)
Eh, no. H.pylori are quite easy to eradicate using a 3-way cure of
1: omeprazole or esomeprazol (ProtonPumpInhibitor)
2: clarithromyzin
3: metronidazole or amoxicillin
to be taken daily for a week. If that is difficult, look up the cure for TB.
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2)
Cancer == Colds == Weak Immunity == Stress==Cancer (Score:2)
<Gong!>
.
-shpoffo
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2)
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:3, Informative)
The team found a pattern emerged where by the types of cancer repeatedly occurred at similar times and geographical locations, known as "space-time clustering". Disease caused by more constant environmental factors produce clusters of cases in one place over a much longer period of time.
The way I read that is that there was a time/space correlation between those cancer "outbreaks" which made them look like infectious outbreak
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2)
We're needing more studies by independent researchers into childhood diseases and problems. I personally don't trust the AMA, but I also don't trust anecdotal evidence. I have a friend who believes that AIDS occurs from a mutation, not blood/fluid exchange. He's a tinfoil investor, but there is research out there by the medical communi
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2)
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2)
In the case of the vaccinations and autism, I wonder if there could be a third variable that should be considered - for example what if there is something else that parents who do not vaccinate their children do t
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2)
Could children with early stage cancer be more likely to catch a cold?
Really the chances of a child getting cancer is already so low that multipling it by 1.08 doesn't increase the odds all that much. IMHO anyway.
Exactly Right (Score:2)
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2)
Man, you're like, cranky, dude.
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2)
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2)
bacteria are microorganisms very much alive whether or not they are inside you. bacteria are less picky about where they live any place with food and not enough poisons to kill them will do just fine.
antibiotics help kill bacteria, destroying viruses is much harder because, unlike biologically active b
Sickness and Attendance (Score:2)
Sniffing their nuts? Er... you do realize that "obedience school" is only meant for your
Re:Cause or correlation? (Score:2)
Is that really the cause? (Score:2, Interesting)
Suspect data quality. (Score:2)
That said, what is the quality of the data from forty or fifty years ago? Are there misdiagnoses mixed in, for instance?
genes? (Score:2, Insightful)
If so, this could be concrete evidence of an evolutionary mechanism.
Re:genes? (Score:2, Interesting)
Because I, dear Sir, are slightly more knowledgable about the subject than you.
Isn't any cancer a genetic mutation of sorts?
Exactly my point! The idea behind testicular or ovarian cancer, however, is that it can affect the reproductive organs of an individual. This makes a larger difference in an individual that has yet to reproduce than in someone who has already reproduced.
Ah. But the age of the victim is all too important
Viral causes for disease (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically anything that fiddles with your DNA is quite dangerous, be it smoking or radiation and the like. Viruses modify the DNA of millions of cells, most of which are destroyed in the process. Unfortunately a few survive, which can cause mutations that lead to cancer.
I suspect the early exposure to colds actually boosts a child's immune system. They're better able to fight off colds, so though they get more at a younger age, the ones they get later don't modify as many cells. Just a guess, of course. I doubt they'd approve a scientific study on modifying the DNA of small children.
Re:Viral causes for disease (Score:2)
Not to mention cervical cancer (Score:2)
Of course, here on Slashdot, we're probably fairly safe from such things.
Re:Not to mention cervical cancer (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Not to mention cervical cancer (Score:2)
Re:Not to mention cervical cancer (Score:2)
Please provide a link to "some groups" as I'd like to see their logic.... I'm assuming their fundies.
Another one (Score:2, Interesting)
signal to noise ratio? (Score:4, Interesting)
first off, the study only speaks to cancer rates in one very small (geographically speaking) portion of the world. the researchers themselves point out the importance of geography, so i'm not quite certain how they arrive at their conclusion that viral infections are linked. i'm not saying it's not possible, i'm just saying that it's a pretty common occurrance when running clustering algorithms to find that you're either converge to different solutions, your clusters actually split "natural" class boundaries, and so on. without seeing their cluster analysis results (and, in particular, what clustering algorithm they used), it's potentially easy to explain away their results as artefacts of the clustering algorithm.
secondly, the article doesn't really go into great detail, but i'm not really convinced that there is a statistically significant variation here (or, rather, i'm not sure what the statistical significance of the variation is). 8% isn't really a whole lot -- certainly not in my line of work. i imagine that when dealing with human beings, most things in that ballpark of 10% can be explained away by looking at the population variance. of course, i am not a doctor, i have no idea what their statistical methodology was, etc. etc. etc.
Disregard Please. (Score:2, Informative)
The BBC article doesn't even mention the actual article, which I assume is this article [nih.gov], or perhaps this one [nih.gov].
Here are some of the juicy conclusion which I assume the craptacular BBC writer honed in on for his/her craptastic masterpiece.
Re:Disregard Please. (Score:2)
Do you take umbrage at my slam on the BBC? If so, then lay out your reasoning.
Or do you not like my interpretation of the findings?
It does a disservice to the general public for the BBC to post this crap, then to have it propagated by sites like Slashdot.
Re:Disregard Please. (Score:2)
The ranting has to do with the irresponsible "journalism" at the BBC--and most other "news" organizations-- vis-a-vis science.
1. The BBC article's headline "Colds 'may trigger child cancers'" is sensationalistic to say the least. Monkeys may fly out of my ass, but it is unlikely. Perhaps the single quotes around 'may trigger child cancers' mean that the author made such a statement, but the article never says so. I can only conclude the editor chose this headline for shock value,
Re:Disregard Please. (Score:2)
A little more poking around takes you to the abstract [sciencedirect.com] at Science Direct
Re:Disregard Please. (Score:2)
If you note, in my post I linked to both relevant publications in Pubmed and in a latter post linked to the full articles in EJC.
Thanks for the heads up!
Pathogens and genes (Score:3, Interesting)
Along these lines, he suggests that homosexuality is best explained as a side-effect of some early childhood or pre-natal infection. The numbers simply don't work out for any genetic theory. (Such as the gay uncle who improves the fitness of his nieces and nephews.)
Re:Pathogens and genes (Score:2)
Then one would be inclined to expect outbreaks of 'gay' infections. I buy that it is environmental at a very young age, and I agree that it is statistically improbable that it is purely genetic, but I find it hard to believe that an infection would be the (singular) cause of it. I suppose I could be wrong... it might explain the Ancient Greek's.
Re:Pathogens and genes (Score:2)
Computers cause gayness, that must be it!
Re:Pathogens and genes (Score:2)
Re:Pathogens and genes (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pathogens and genes (Score:2)
In fact, the only genetic disease with nearly the same fitness hit would be sickle cell—in some of the high-malaria regions of Africa it kills 1 or 2 percent of the population. That's still far lower than the fitness hit of the imaginary homosexuality gene. Sickle cell is only around because it has been selected for. (One copy is a malaria defense, and m
Re:Pathogens and genes (Score:2)
A trackable example is the yellow gene in Labrador Retrievers. In the 1800s, yellows were usually bucketed as an "off colour", and remained rare as a phenotype, tho the gene persisted. However once the colour gained acceptance, the percentage recorded in the registries normalized to around a quarter of the population. (And when selection FOR the colour started, s
Re:Pathogens and genes (Score:2)
Re:Pathogens and genes (Score:2)
That said, the women I've talked to in bars over the last few years have all turned out to be lesbians, so either 20% is too low, or...OMFG, I'm a NERD!!!
20% Figure (Score:2)
FWIW, that statistic has been floating around for a long time. Last I heard, it was traced back to a British study which asked after how many males had had a homosexual experience. *shrug* From what I understand, 1 in 5 said that they had had at least one ex
Re:Pathogens and genes (Score:2)
And 5 people in 1 is an orgy.
Re:Pathogens and genes (Score:2)
Re:Pathogens and genes (Score:2)
Cochran, Gregory M. "Infectious Causation of Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective" Perspectives in Biology and Medicine - Volume 43, Number 3, Spring 2000, pp. 406-448
May depends on the virus specie (Score:5, Informative)
Second : There's a lot of virus that can cause cancer. They do this by inserting bogus genetic material into the cell that causes it to replicate, or that disables important anti-cancer genes at the point of insertion.
Examples of such known viruses includes Human Papilloma Virus [wikipedia.org], of which some variants (although rarer in the western world) could cause cancer [wikipedia.org] of the woman genitalia (to be precise : the cervix. It's a part of the uterus) and is routinely monitored by the gynecologist.
Some of these viruses, like the Epstein Barr virus [wikipedia.org], may only manifest as "colds" or even be asymptomatic, specially in young children (Mononucleosis [wikipedia.org] happens more to older children).
So, most likely, cancer isn't caused by "common cold" (influenza, RSV, or a bunch of other common viruses and bacteria), but the increased numbers may be explained because some cancer-associated viruses may have "cold"-like symptoms. (Even if the "cancer" variant are rarer in europe than some other parts of the world, as far as I know)
Mecanisme in EBV causing cancer (Score:2)
- From an evolutionnary standpoint it's logicall for the virus : more cell copies means more virion-producing cells.
- Also, the immune system loosing time on counter-productive tasks (like replicating uselessly, or producing wrong anti-bodies*) make it less efficient and gives more time to virus to replicate before getting destroyed.
- But as any thing that increase cell repl
Illness and Asthma? (Score:2)
I think the theory was that colds and flus strengthen the immune system, and asthma was somehow related to a non-strengthened immune system.
I'm not sure how you keep kids from getting sick... mine get a cold three or four times a year (a couple times more than my wife and I).
Re:Illness and Asthma? (Score:2)
Basically, the hypothesis is that the immune system is designed to be constantly fighting off the kind of relatively benign organisms (bacteria, virii, parasites, etc.) found all around us in dirt/soil/water/etc. There are antibodies and white blood cells constantly circulating throughout our system look
Well that sure screws up one saying. (Score:2)
What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. Nope wrong again.
All of sudden those Star Trek jokes where they still have not found a cure for the common cold is not so funny eh?
I am not going to make any usefull comments of course. Virusses of a different kind I know something about. I am not even sure what causes a cold.
Yes... (Score:2, Funny)
Causality? We don't need no stinking causality (Score:2)
Re:Causality? We don't need no stinking causality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, Slashdot... (Score:2)
This article couldn't have come at a worse time, as right now all three of my kids have a cold.
So if they get a tumor, I'm blaming *you*.
Re:Intelligent Design on cancer. (Score:2, Funny)
At least, that's my understanding from watching crazy religious people any time tragedy strikes.
Re:Intelligent Design on cancer. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to support ID, but probably as a form of negative feedback. You don't want your creations populating your planet out of control. If you've ever written predator/prey population simulations, you know what I mean.
I'm a staunch evolutionist, but "Why would God do X?" questions are not the way to fight Creationism. You are trying to claim you know what some immense superbeing would optimally do when creating a self-sustaining planetary ecosphere, and that's actually worse than the ID-ers arguments.
Haven't you ever triggered and earthquake or flood in SimCity just to see what happens? ;-)
Re:Intelligent Design on cancer. (Score:2, Interesting)
You are mixing two things up. The maker in the ID is unspecified. The only thing assumed about her is she made life on Earth. It is quite arrogant to claim you spotted one of her mistakes as that implies you know how to de
Re:Intelligent Design on cancer. (Score:2)
Well, not IMHO, but that wasn't my point.
So, it is possible to attack creationism with arguments about design flaws in living beings.
Why? Who's to say that some theoretical God wouldn't design in flaws in order to make the Earth a place of trials? School of hard knocks and all that. That's what some of the New Agers are always going on about- that the Earth is supposed to be a massive crapfest because it forges great souls or somesuch thing.
So... what may seem like flaw
Re:Intelligent Design on cancer. (Score:2)
creationism is a pig
Intelligent design is a pig in a dress and makeup
Re:Intelligent Design on cancer. (Score:2)
Re:as for myself.. (Score:2)
Uh... (Score:2)
Radiation beats up cells, causing damage. Damage predisposes you to cancer. Radiation exposure, I think, has been pretty well linked to cancers. There may ALSO be other, less controllable factors for cancer, such as viral infection.
It's totally possible that we're seeing more cancer because more people are living longer, or because of better reporting of cancers.
RTFP (Score:2)
Re:Association does not mean causation (Score:2)
100% incorrect. Cancer is an unregulated growth of cells which have mutated either by random chance or due to some external influence (such as radiation), and is not eradicated by the immune system because, genetically speaking, it is as much "you" as healthy cells are; the immune system simply doesn't realize it should be attacking those cells.
To use a computing analogy, anti-virus software will delete viruses wherever they occur; AV software wil
Re:The perfect excuse! (Score:2)
Why would you want one?