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.'"
So you have genetic structures being manipulted in pre-pubescent humans? Is there such a thing as early-onset testicular or ovarian cancer? Something like that could affect the stem cells producting reproductive cells.
If so, this could be concrete evidence of an evolutionary mechanism.
signatures are for fools with hands
It's interesting that for awhile, people were looking at genetic causes for various diseases such as cancer. Now we're back to the disease model, which turns out to also be due to genetics.
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.
Given that the vast majority of cervical cancer turned out to be a result of HPV infection, it easily falls into the realm of possibility that other cancers have their roots in viral infections, such as colds, as well.
-Chris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
Are you serious? Everyone gets colds, including the rich and the poor. Colds are a part of life, just as much as shitting and pissing are.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
When I read the article, it doesn't actually quote one of the scientists as saying 'colds cause childhood cancer.' It seems to me that the media has once again sensationalized this, and mixed up correlation and effect. Next up: When children cry, scrapes appear!
OK, so children today are overmedicated. How to you jump from that to this unfounded claim that they're causing cancer?
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?
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
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? ;-)
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 to consider that some of the Slashdotters are also researchers and not just "kewl" 16 year old "Hax0rz".
Have some faith in science and scientists okay? That is exactly the wrong way to approach science. People shouldn't have blind faith in scientists, instead they should be educated enough to scrutinize them.
Homosexuality seems to hover at around 20% of the population, regardless of other factors. This would be reasonably consistent with the expected expression of a widespread simple recessive gene, where there is no selection FOR that trait.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
"faith in science and scientists"
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 theyve proven at this point is that its more than coincidental that the two are found together. Faith only leads you to erroneous conclusions.
A child that is forced into daycare (sometimes after six weeks!), is going to incurr many more illnesses than a child that has the benefit of a stay-at-home-parent.
That certainly feels true, but is it? Does anyone have supporting data?
At least one recent study suggests children who go to day younger get cancer less frequently. The study results summary:
The study authors conclude "These results support the hypothesis that reduced exposure to infection in the first few months of life increases the risk of developing acute lymphoblastic leukaemia." The "dose-response" trend means that higher levels of social activity correlated directly to lower incidence of ALL.
ALL is acute lymphoblastic leukemia (aka acute lymphocytic leukemia and less commonly a couple of other "L" words as the second word), the most common childhood cancer. It's also the type of cancer my five year old son is being treated for. He went to daycare young, didn't get sick often (and still doesn't even though he is immunosuppressed from the chemotherapy), and was diagnosed a year ago after a period that did not include a cold. Of couse, our experience can't be extrapolated to trends of childhood cancer.
As a side note, a standard part of the treatment for childhood ALL includes twice daily doses of an antifungal and thrice weekly doses of an antibiotic. Patients undergoing chemotherapy are prone to getting bacterial and fungal infections. Supporters of alternative explanations for "cancer" claim these prophylactic meds may be what "cures" the cancer.
Everything I've heard from oncologists and other doctors indicates that early exposure to other children (e.g. daycare) tends to result initially in more minor illnesses and a stronger immune system with lower incidence of illness later.