SCI/TECH: Infections May Cause Childhood Cancers, page 1

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:29 PM

link

Leukemia and brain tumours which occur in clusters could be caused by common infectons found in mothers and babies according to researchers at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Dr Richard McNally said that the researchers found the place of birth was significant and suggests that an infection in a child's early years or one in the mother while carrying the baby could be a trigger factor for cancer.

www.news.com.au
"The virus would hit this mutant cell and cause a second mutation, prompting the onset of cancers like leukaemia or brain tumours," said Dr McNally.

The findings are based on a statistical analysis of data from the Manchester Children's Tumour Register, which recorded all cases of childhood cancers diagnosed between January 1954 and December 1998.

They looked for unusual patterns of cancer linked to the time and place of children's birth and where they were living when diagnosed with cancer.

In some clusters they found 8 per cent more cases of leukaemia than would normally be expected and a 13 per cent above-average incidence of the brain tumour astrocytoma.

"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," said Professor John Toy, of the charity Cancer Research UK, which funded the research.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I agree that it is possible infections are involved as they have recently found that some bacterias and viruses do causes cancers in some people but in many cancers clusters of cancers such as Leukemia, environmental factors are often involved. The environmental factors include industrial pollutants and more simple things like overhead electricity towers and cell towers.

[edit on 12-12-2005 by Mayet]

LazarusTheLong

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:46 PM

link

While i strongly believe in a connection between environmental toxins and cancer, I don't think 8-13% is worthy of worry...

after all... in the past, when an area had a "cancer cluster" it was due to increases of 50%-400% times average... and the resident polluters would still say " no connection...not us"
so...

forgive me in my jadedness, but what is so bad about an 8% increase? this would many times equate to 1 additional case...
also dont forget, the bias/error in these is usually in the 5-10% range...

soficrow

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 04:16 PM

link

Laz - the 8-13% cited above refers to the connection between viruses and cancer, not the environment and cancer.

I'm with you Mayet - cancer obviously is multifactorial - infections, contaminations and other pollutants all play a role. But the triggers do seem to be environmental, even it can't be reduced to the kind of direct cause-and-effect relationship that will stand up in an adversarial justice system.

.

ShakyaHeir

posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 06:35 PM

link

Obviously we don't have a very long running or accurate medical record (maybe the last 100 years or so) but I for one think that childhood cancers are a result of the fact that we now have the technology to treat cancer, and people who have been treated for cancer survive to pass on their genes to their children. Their children then inherit their faulty genetics and make our gene pool as a whole more susceptible to cancer.

We already have a cure to cancer, it's just that Hitler's actions ended up demonizing eugenics. If we were to make it part of your social contract that if you receive treatment of cancer you agree to be sterilized as well, cancer would be eradicated in four or five generations.

The only other feasible cures are to:

1. Live in a completely organic, agrarian society.

2. Have nano-robots that live in your body and augment your immune system.