Slashdot Mirror
Colds May Trigger Childhood Cancers
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.'"
It's not controversial. Most scientists believe that the only way for women to contract cervical cancer is to have HPV strains 6, 11, or 16 present. They're so sure about it that they believe cases in which HPV wasn't detected were due to an error in testing.
The BBC article doesn't even mention the actual article, which I assume is this article, or perhaps this one.
Here are some of the juicy conclusion which I assume the craptacular BBC writer honed in on for his/her craptastic masterpiece.
In science parlance those type of conclusions can be translated into, "we have no clue, but here's a guess."
agreed.... so to the incidence of stomach cancer relative to those who've had ulcers. Ulcers are now known to be caused by h.pylori infections, which are notoriously difficult to eradicate.
un burrito me trampeó.
First : The only thing that the article mentions is statistical correlation. As always repeated *THAT* doesn't constitute proof of causality. Experimental proof of the *processus* is necessary before reaching a conclusion, otherwise it may be anything else, including causes due to external 3rd factor (some other /.ers mentionned bad medication, defective immune system or poor socio-economic level. The article itselfs mentions this may depends on genetic factors), or even pure coincidence (this study hasn't been replicated yet).
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, of which some variants (although rarer in the western world) could cause cancer 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, may only manifest as "colds" or even be asymptomatic, specially in young children (Mononucleosis 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)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
No read the article. It wasn't just a simple correlation, there was also a spatial and temporal association. Pretty much cancer data overlapped with infectious data. Things like weak immune system etc. would lead to constant rates not clustered in both time and space.
No, see "Cause or correlation?" at http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170994 &cid=14242943
Although I do agree with the observation of over-medication in our society (e.g. the abuse of antibiotics and the catalyzed evolution of resistant strains of bacteria), the most likely causation here is from the actual viral infection. The corona virus (i.e. "common cold") has been shown to utilize very unique and distinct replication strategies which may be causing the mutations that would lead to increased susceptibility of tumor develop. As is stated in a later comment in these topic, HPV viral expression patterns have been shown to be linked to almost all cervical cancers. There is most likely some such related mechanism of cellular disruption causing either altered expression patterns in the cells of these children or mutations affecting the proteins that are responsible for regulating cell growth (hence tumor development). What is interesting, however, is that such situations have been shown in adults many times with various viral infections which is logical when one considers the risks of cancer related to age progression.
my site of misleading and incorrect information!
Since I can't edit I'll reply again. This is what I've based my comment on:
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 outbreaks. When you have a constant environmental or genetic factor as the cause you tend to get more uniform patterns of disease whereas an infectious etiology requires spatial and time correlations (this is required because the infection needs to be able to spread).
The thing about science is that your opinion does not change the facts.
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.
Source? According to this Virtual Hospital article, 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.
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 processes (e.g. protein synthesis) because they do not affect us. In comparison, talk to someone who's had to take medication for a systemic fungal infection, it is basically chemotherapy.
Say it with me people: Animals, plants and fungi are Eukaryotes. Bacteria are Prokaryotes. Viruses are not "alive". These are much different organisms.
h.pylori infections, which are notoriously difficult to eradicate.
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.