The Best News Ever To Kick Off The New Year!

The use of the phrase 'bad luck' (probably by journalists rather than the scientists) is certainly insensitive, but in fact I would think your son's friend's family can in fact take a modicum of comfort from this story. The research has suggested that the majority of cancers (although the study specifically relates to adults in fact) are caused by 'random mutation' and not by external factors.

Parents always look for ways to blame themselves for the illness of a child, so I would think that it might be of some reassurance to them that her cancer is less likely to be as a result of anything inherited from them, or lifestyle choices they have made on her behalf - which is what the study has shown.

Obviously not much is of any comfort at all for a child with cancer, and there isn't much more ghastly in the world, but lots of other people may now be relieved to discover that cancer is - apparently (according to this study) - more random and less of a hereditary likelihood than previously believed.

I hope your son's best friend recovers quickly and completely from her illness.

Of course, you need to take with a very large pinch of salt the reporting of scientific "studies" in newspapers in general. Journalists often pull headline information from abstracts and press releases without any reference to the study itself, which are frequently at variance (and occasionally contrary to) the actual findings. They rarely if ever refer to sample sizes, durations, peer reviews or alternative viewpoints, - none of which makes for a 'good story'.

"Studies", and the incomplete reportage of them, have been responsible for all manner of misinformation over the years, from the 'only' wrong to the just plain dangerous (MMR being the obvious and most extreme case - for which many newspapers, and not just Wakefield, have blood on their hands).

When you do have expertise in a particular subject, and read about it in a newspaper, you realise just how much nonsense gets reported as fact. It's very scary to extrapolate that out and believe it might be true of all subject areas, but it probably is...

This news report had me gnashing my teeth this morning. Such a stupid way or presenting science. The headine that will derive from it could do a great deal of harm. I'll try to be succint.

Firstly 'cancer' is not a single disease, but a huge variety of them with pathological simlarities.

We have always know a significant proportion of malignancies don't have clear risk factors, or indeed that although we have identifed risk factors this is not the same as pure causation. This varies hugely between different conditions. Two examples;

The overwhelming majority (maybe even 100%?) of mesothielioma is caused by asbestos. 100% of people exposed to asbestos don't get it though.

The links between certain forms of skin cancer and sunlight are well established, but some non light exposed areas can get the condition.

Cancers are caused by a mixture of risk factors, genetic and environmental triggers and yes bad luck/random variation or factors we don't yet understand. What this study appears to be saying is that about 2/3rds of malignancies may be caused by random mutations that are not currently explicable. That is across all varieties of malignancy. in some types the data will be very different. Of course it will be read by most as 'what the hell, it is all down to luck'.

The truth is your own risk factors load the dice in your favour or otherwise but this does not work in a perfect fashion.

I had a conversation last week with a patient who had just found out a second brother had been dagnosed with lung cancer within 6 months. 'I reckon it was something in that house we grew up in' he told me. I suggested the fact they smoked 40+ cigs all day all their lives was more likely but in truth neither, either or both may be correct.

Cancer happens, not always explicable or preventable-same as with almost all the things we get ill with. This report does not change the message; those with more healthy lifestyles reduce their odds of premature illness but sh*t still happens.

Happy New Year

Bruce

I just heard the doctor in charge of this study being interviewed on the radio and he sounded almost as exasperated by the questions (Radio 4) and reporting as you do Bruce.

They only studied 31 types of cancer (out of around 200) and he was quite emphatic that taking the results of their research to mean "go ahead, it may or may not happen anyway" is just plain wrong because so many cancers are influenced by environmental causes about which we can and should do something to help limit the likelihood.

But this was an adult study, not children - for whom I'm sure a completely different set of factors would apply.

From my six decades on this planet, it seems clear to me that so much of life is simply a matter of good luck - success and failure, good and bad health.  Thank God I so not currently live in Syria (you can extend the list).  Thank God I married the woman I did.  Thank God I was not in the road when that refuse lorry ran away the other day.

So thank God, or call it luck.

Happy 15

Don, sunny downtown York

Rod & Bruce - excellent posts bringing some welcome balance to today's media hype.  A couple of common characteristics of many of us are (i) looking to blame anything or anyone else rather than look at whether one's own behaviour may have made a contribution to one's ills (ii) hearing what we want to hear, a characteristic many newspaper articles seem keen to exploit. 

Bad/good luck is as good an explanation for some diseases as any other. A child is hardly likely to live a lifestyle that promotes cancer. So if not bad luck then what?