Slashdot Mirror
New Possible SIDS Genes Identified
ScienceDaily is reporting that researchers at the Mayo Clinic have identified two more cardiac genes that could contribute to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). From the article: "In the two recent separate studies, researchers examined caveolin-3 (CAV3) and the cardiac ryanodine receptor (RyR2) and found molecular and functional evidence in both to implicate them as SIDS-susceptibility genes. Researchers examined the tissue of 135 unrelated cases of SIDS -- in infants with an average age of 3 months old -- that had been referred to Mayo Clinic's Sudden Death Genomics Laboratory for molecular autopsy. In each study, two of the 135 cases possessed mutations in either CAV3 or RyR2."
Unless it has major advantages in youth/adult life. It increases the chance of death long before sexual maturity, evolution usually weeds those genes out rather quickly. Does the gene have any other known effect?
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Something that occurs in less than 2% of studied cases is a "potential contributing cause"?
Have they tried researching culling songs yet?
Aero
Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
In each study, two of the 135 cases possessed mutations in either CAV3 or RyR2.
So one case of each mutation was found in each trial, and 266 of the 270 cases remain unsolved. It sounds like it is barely above a statistical anomaly.
If you take a random sample of 270 people that like fishing, there will be some mutation that is common between two or more of them, but that's hardly enough to claim that this mutation makes you enjoy fishing.
It looks like there is still a lot more research to do before we understand what the effects of different genes / mutations are.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Just about every study revelas something that **could** lead to some breakthough. Every Mars voyage "could explain where the world or the solar system came from". Every new concoction "could cure cancer". All this over-hyped reporting is getting very boring. And for all those people who's lives are potentially improved, well 99% of them get to be disappointed by unfulfilled hype.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Seems like a cool organisation. Wikipedia:
"Mayo Clinic is significant in the way the medical physicians' are paid. In most health care systems, medical doctors are paid based on the number of patients that they see. The more patients seen, the more a doctor gets paid. At Mayo Clinic, medical doctors are paid a salary that is unaffected by patient volume. This allows the doctors to spend time with their patients and not worry so much about time constraints. Physicians and surgeons have no undue influence upon them to do more procedures and operations."
That's a marvellous philosophy if you ask me, and they still made US$5.6 billion in 2004. Good for them.
Recessive genes survive because you can carry the gene and suffer no side-effects. You will pass it on to half of your children (on average), who will like you, become carriers but show no symptoms. If each carrier has an average 2 children, you can expect that the number of carriers will stay roughly constant from one generation to the next.
For a child to show symptoms, both of their parents must be carriers of the recessive gene, and even then there is only a one-in-four chance of a child receiving two copies of the gene in question.
Fatal genetic diseases can survive in the gene pool indefinitely if the gene that causes it is recessive.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
but as a bachelor, I feel that we, as a society, should be confronting an altogether different problem-- SIBS, or Sudden Infant Birth Syndrome. ...
Then again, it seems like most people here are doing their part for the cause.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
From TFA: SIDS -- the sudden, unexplained death of an infant under 1 year old -- is estimated to cause 2,500 infant deaths each year.
Guessed this was referring to the US only but I had to check. CDC page http://www.cdc.gov/SIDS/index.htm states: "Each year in the United States, more than 4,500 infants die suddenly of no obvious cause. Half of these sudden, unexplained infant deaths (SUID) are due to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)For the UK, I found this BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4617976.stm which states "But still over 300 babies every year in the UK are dying as cot deaths" (the Brits seem to prefer the term 'cot death' to SIDS) ... a 75% reduction after awareness was raised by a education campaign in 1991.
From what I understand, SIDS is caused when the brain doesn't properly send the "I'm not getting enough oxygen" message or the baby's unable to do anything about the message being sent. For example, sleeping on the front with fluffy blankets can make it hard for them to move around, even if they get the appropriate signal. In other cases, it may be that the signal itself may not get sent, as that part of the brain isn't developed enough. Things like pacifiers seem to help, perhaps because it maintains a level of awakeness or simply keeps their mouth open.
It may be that the search for a root genetic cause may be futile. The good news is that simple physical precautions such as sleeping on the back and pacifiers seem to cut down on SIDS dramatically.
Even if genetics play a role, it may be different than people think. It's important to realize that evolution often shoots for the "good enough" solution and that we carry around the baggage of billions of years of effort. Perhaps the babies that survived best historically were those who spent their limited growth "energy" on developing skeletal and muscle tissue. The part of the brain that signals low oxygen wasn't very useful during the first few months, as children typically slept in the arms of an adult. Speculation, of course, but it hopefully shows the ways that evolutionary pressures can lead to odd results.
The breathing impulse is driven by an excess of carbon dioxide, not a shortage of oxygen. It doesn't change the conclusion, but the distinction is interesting.
Here's a link discussing what Australia found. I tried to find a news article, but couldn't immediately
d s.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2000/nov/5/victory_over_si
What a wonderfully insulting statement to make, especially for those of who have lost children to SIDS.
You wouldn't happen to be a Scientologist like Tom Cruise, would you?
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Am I the only one who read that "New Possible SSID Genes Identified"?
:-P
So leaving your router with ssid linksys is hereditary? Who'd a thunk?
This sig rocks the casbah.
I'm going to offer an educated opinion about SIDS in general.
Parent: Why did my infant suddenly die?
Doctor1: I don't know.
Doctor2: He died of, umm, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.
I think doctor2 is pretending to say something helpful, but really, does tacking syndrome on the end of the problem do us any good?
-Dave
Interesting for one to presume that no evidence of a struggle is present in a suffocation case. Without "evidence of a struggle" due to resistive thrashing around, a body still resists deprivation if only internally able, leaving obvious signs of suffocation. But yeah, "Doesn't take a genius..." kind of shows the intellectual capacity of those which would espouse such a presumption.
Out of curiosity, to what would you attribute the SIDS cases which fall outside of your calculated "majority"?
What happens if your R2D2 gene mutates?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
kid with a weak spine
kid with a weak skull
kid with weak brain blood vessels
kid that screams for nothing
parent that doesn't handle stress well
parent with sensitive ears
All are at least somewhat genetic.
You're right that "children typically slept in the arms of an adult". We evolved to be this way, which is no good for people who want to sell cribs and cots and such.
Sleeping with the adult is safest, provided that:
a. the adult is not drunk (sleeping pills count)
b. the adult is not obese
c. the bedding is not insanely fluffy or a waterbed
d. the adult does not smoke in bed
(and if any of those risk factors are true, FIX THEM)
Here is an interesting (and potentially life saving) article on Wikipedia concerning the breathing impulse: Shallow water blackout
It's called SuddenInfant Death Syndrome.
It sounds like pure science fiction technobabble, and yet everyone's taking for granted, with no need for comment, that we're routinely doing "molecular autopsies". The forward-thinking people who landed us on the moon might have guessed that we might maybe know how to do a "molecular autopsy" within the next couple of centuries. But they wouldn't really have believed the idea has any place except between paperback covers.
There is considerable evidence that vaccines prevent far more deaths than they cause. Diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus are almost nonexistent in the U.S. while there are millions of deaths worldwide in countries that do not vaccinate their general population. Anyone who trusts the 'facts' you put in your post should look at this site.
What's wrong with you. These lies you're telling will get people killed.
Actually, it is quite a myth that vaccines work as well as they do, although I won't say they don't work at all. Many of the diseases you mentioned, such as polio, also declined dramatically around the same time periods in countries that had a fraction of the vaccine penetration that we did. If vaccines made all of these diseases go away (or at least drastically decline), what made them go away in countries that weren't vaccinating for it??? Could be 1) diets and living conditions improved. 2) The disease ran its course and declined on its own. 3) People developed natural immunity over time. But given the facts, someone with an open mind could conclude that *maybe* we are giving too much credit to vaccines.
As far as the measles, I posted on that wonderful vaccine the last time the subject came up (+4 informative):
A lot of these childhood diseases actually help strengthen the immune system. Here is an article from The Lancet, which explains that, while the measles vaccine does stop you from getting a rash...the rash is actually the body killing the virus. By stopping the rash, many vaccinated people get MUCH MORE SERIOUS diseases later on in life because they still have the virus, but because of the vaccine, the body can't get rid of it. The biggest majority of these diseases are a pain, but rarely life threatening. I would much rather have measles than lupus erythematosus, Scheurmann's diseases and chondromalacia, which are all chronic degenerative diseases...which means the doctor says, "it sucks to be you." -- Usurper_ii
More info:
-=-=-=-=-
An article in the January 5, 1985 issue of The Lancet is titled "Measles Virus Infection Without Rash in Childhood is Related to Disease in Adult Life." The research, based in Denmark, investigated the histories of people who claimed they did not have measles when they were children. Many of these people with no measles rash as a child, however, were found to have in their bloodstream antibody evidence of the measles infection. Significant numbers of these people had been vaccinated for measles, and "A high proportion of such individuals were found in adult life to have developed immuno-reactive diseases such as sebacious skin disease, tumours and degenerative disease of the bone and cartridge. These included cervical cancer, skin cancers and cases of multiple sclerosis."
The fact that the normal progression of measles was halted by the vaccination appears to have prevented the body from destroying the measles virus. This destruction of the virus takes place in the "spots" for which measles is known, but when the vaccine prevents the spots and fever from occurring, the measles virus is not destroyed, and stays in the body through adulthood, the medical journal article explains.
The Lancet article is further quoted by Chaitow, concluding that, "If this association is correct, absence of a rash may imply that intracellular virus escapes neutralization during the acute infection, and this, in turn, might give rise to developmental disease subsequently."
"Put simply this means that, as part of the process of neutralizing the invading virus, the body literally 'burns' up the cells which contain (measles virus). This incineration takes place at the site of the spots or rash, which measles are known for. If this is stopped in some way (as by an inoculation with a vaccine) then the rash is prevented and the virus survives and lives on in the body, only to cause havoc later," Chaitow writes. Among these people vaccinated for measles and who did not have a rash, the diseases they displayed later in life included lupus erythematosus, Scheurmann's diseases and chondromalacia, which are all chronic degenerative diseases.
"This research confirms the worst fears of those who have speculated on the possibility of viruses remaining dormant for many years after immunization. It also shows the folly of suppressing a self-healing mechanism, such as is displayed by the healthy body in response to infection. A healthy child will suffer no
Ron Paul
Oh yes, you outed me. I did manage to sneak into the University of Nevada School of Medicine, the office of the publication Neurology, the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) and even the office of the FDA...planting fake facts for all of them to unknowingly publish! A person sure doesn't put much over on those /.ers.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
Interesting that hindsight can be 20/20...
slash image word "immune"
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
The Lancet article you mention, among others in the 80s, are what changed vaccination guidelines from a single dose of the MMR to adding recommended booster shot later in life. NOTE: Medical professionals, who know what the fuck they're talking about, rather than some random assclownery from an "internet independent medical thinker" made the sane judgement that the immune response to the measles vaccine needed boosting later in life. Not, Hey, let's scrap vaccinations!
By the way, complications from the measles virus include seizures, pneumonia, permanent brain damage, and death. The last complication, just in case you didn't know, is untreatable. The other ones are "merely" unpleasant. Remember that when your own kids get measles because you refused to vaccinate them. (If you ever have kids.)
"Could be 1) diets and living conditions improved. 2) The disease ran its course and declined on its own. 3) People developed natural immunity over time. But given the facts, someone with an open mind could conclude that *maybe* we are giving too much credit to vaccines."
Yes, yes, and FUCK NO. People do not "develop natural immunity over time". They develop immunity through natural exposure to microorganisms and a successful immune response, or through genetic accidents they can be born with varying levels of resistance to certain diseases (cystic fibrosis heterozygotes and cholera/tuberculosis, CCR5 mutations and HIV). You can get lucky through herd immunity and not be exposed because others were smarter and got vaccinated. You don't suddenly wake up one day with a magical resistance to influenza H5N1. It's idiots like you that refuse to shut up that depresses the general level of medical knowledge in the public.
"A lot of these childhood diseases actually help strengthen the immune system. Here is an article from The Lancet, which explains that, while the measles vaccine does stop you from getting a rash...the rash is actually the body killing the virus. By stopping the rash, many vaccinated people get MUCH MORE SERIOUS diseases later on in life because they still have the virus, but because of the vaccine, the body can't get rid of it. The biggest majority of these diseases are a pain, but rarely life threatening. I would much rather have measles than lupus erythematosus, Scheurmann's diseases and chondromalacia, which are all chronic degenerative diseases...which means the doctor says, "it sucks to be you." -- Usurper_ii"
ORRRR... you can get your MMR titers checked, and get a booster if needed and avoid measles and its potentially nasty complications. But that would be too easy.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
It seems your literature is no good. It is critical to distinguish sleeping with a parent from sleeping with a sibling.
Adults have very different sleep patterns from kids. A kid will easily roll onto a baby. A healthy adult will not do so.
That said, it isn't a cure-all. Some babies are just meant to die.
Actually, it is quite a myth that vaccines work as well as they do, although I won't say they don't work at all.
Clearly, more is at work in the timeframe in medical history than just the development of vaccinations alone. However, it seems like the general tone of your post suggests that vaccinations (at least en masse) are a bad thing. As I understand it, this is an unconventional point of view.
"A high proportion of such individuals were found in adult life to have developed immuno-reactive diseases such as sebacious skin disease, tumours and degenerative disease of the bone and cartridge. These included cervical cancer, skin cancers and cases of multiple sclerosis."
While the Chaitow research you reference is very interesting (this is actually the first time I've encountered that idea, myself), couldn't there be confounding variables here? The most notable of which is average lifespan? Which is to say that, those who received vaccinations would indeed have more incidents of immuno-reactive diseases and incidences of cancer because such diseases are, in some respects, a function of age?
-Grym