Leukaemia linked to affluence

Link didn't work for me - try this:
www.theguardian.com/science/2018/dec/30/children-leukaemia-mel-greaves-microbes-protection-against-disease?

Interesting article. More evidence that being too hygienic is a bad thing!

Thank you for posting the link, interesting article.

I was never a mum who protected my lot from dirt. Because I live near a beach the children were always finding/picking up " oddments ", dead fish, crabs and then proceeded to eat their sandwiches------no washed hands.

Grubby and playing children are happy healthy children. I'd worry if my children remained spotless.

Pets are a good thing for children too.

I was never clinical in my approach to bringing up children because even in the 60's I didn't believe in it so such reports are well behind the times.

I was never clinical in my approach to bringing up children because even in the 60's I didn't believe in it so such reports are well behind the times.
Did you read the article, ellanvannin?

It’s actually about modifying the gut bacteria to improve the immune system.
I thought that was a relatively new idea.

My boss originally proposed the idea of leukaemia as a rare response to infection in the late 1980s, not a new idea

My boss originally proposed the idea of leukaemia as a rare response to infection in the late 1980s, not a new idea

Well yes
But the article implies that it has evolved from an idea to evidence with a treatment plan on the horizon

And not just a treatment plan, notanan, but a preventive measure too.
The article is about a man’s life’s work and about his being honoured for it.
I don’t understand why people have to be so dismissive.

No I didn't/haven't read the literature janeainsworth.

It would be wonderful if a preventative measure could be created. I have two friends who have had children with leukaemia. One is now through treatment and the future is looking good. The other friend tragically lost her child to this illness.

I note the mention of the cure rate. My dd is a medical student and she says their tutors no longer speak in terms of cure rates. It's very hard to define what a cure is - five years? Ten years? If you survive for more than five years but the disease returns in your sixth year, have you been cured and become ill again or has the disease recurred?

As the frequent news items show, our understanding of these diseases is becoming more complex and individualised. I hope these clever scientists will eventually be able to crack the nut and turn cancer into 'just another illness'.

I wasn't being dismissive Jane I posted the article because I think its great!

It is a "treatment" in so much as it treats a dysfunctional immune system which in turn can prevent diseases...but my point was that things seem to have moved on from the theory stage on this to becoming actually clinically applicable which is amazing!

I'd take this with a big pinch of salt. How many babies get through the first year of life without getting some sort of an infection? Most babies get a dose of the sniffles and even a bit of a cough. Don't believe that mums trying to keep the house germ free has anything to do with it.

And babies are taken out and about a lot more these days, whereas he says there is less interaction with other children.

Another expert, another theory.

When it comes to things like Cancer, the more experts there are the better I say! What is this anti-expert thing?

Don't mind me. Just getting cynical in my old age. I hope he has found a way of preventing this terrible disease.

Notanan Oh dear- it wasn’t you I was referring to!
It was the subsequent posters’ remarks about the article being behind the times and nothing new!

I do hope that this research produces good results but I, too, would have a lot of reservations about it.

From this perspective, the disease has nothing to with power lines or nuclear fuel reprocessing stations, as has been suggested in the past, but is caused by a double whammy of interacting prenatal and environmental events, as Greaves outlined in the journal Nature Reviews Cancer earlier this year.
How much research has gone into his conclusion involving how many scientists and how many children?
What is the extent of his research and has he done any clinical trials - until he has and results are proven this is just a theory and a possibility, surely?

I thought that the links between nuclear fallout and cancers had been established - but he is saying it may well not be true. Why then, are there clusters of such cancers in areas where there is a nuclear power station?
Are cases on the increase as a result of the fall-out from Chernobyl which may have affected parents of babies affected?

All research is worthwhile but I don't think we can take any conclusions from this in the immediate future.

jalima I think the particular research referred to in the article refers specifically to childhood leukaemia for which there appears no obvious cause.
It’s not saying that nuclear fallout doesn't cause cancers, just that childhood leukaemia may be treated and prevented by modifying the gut bacteria.

A very interesting read,and especially the part about type 1 Diabetes as it may help to explain why my youngest DD developed this hideous condition at aged 8 when there was no history of it in either family!

My nephew died of leukemia aged 16. His parents were convinced it was due to the electricity pylons he used to play around outside their home. Other people have supported this theory.

It is sad that,when a person has worked hard to try to find ways to cure/ prevent a disease, it is often dismissed by people, sometimes those with no medical or scientific knowledge. An individual's anecdotal " evidence" is given greater credence than several years scientific research! Of course there are mistakes because scientists are human but on the whole they have improved life chances for sick people. At one time we blamed the old lady with a cat living on her own for the ills of the village. Now we know it was the dirty water!,

But what do you actually think of this particular research and theory PECS?

gonegirl I think that as I have only read the Guardian article and not the full research it is hard to know properly. However, research has focussed on the gutand, as it is a very large organ, it is thoght now to have more influence on other areas of health. So it is making sense to me. Especially as increasses are in areas where "cleanliness" has become more pronounced. I hope his work helps .

How much research has gone into his conclusion involving how many scientists and how many children?

Quite a lot I would expect given that childhood leukaemia is one of the better funded areas of cancer research (often to the frustration of reasearchers working on rarer or adult cancers)

Why then, are there clusters of such cancers in areas where there is a nuclear power station?

Clustering = a normal distribution pattern. It would not be normal for a distribution to be spread out equally every x houses everywhere.

Some clusters are near phone masts etc (to be expected in normal distribution patterns) some are not. Some times people read too much into a cluster

It said "nuclear processing stations" not nuclear fallouts.

I thought that the links between nuclear fallout and cancers had been established -