In Stone Mountain, Georgia, right in the middle of summer 2008, there occurred an incident that defines the very word "tragedy." During their summer break, two brothers, ages 14 and 11, drowned in a pond. Each child died in succession, the older one drowning after jumping in to try and save his younger brother. More tragic still was the situation that led up to their deaths.
Police say the brothers had been playing with a group of children when one child apparently tossed a can into the water. It must have been something of some personal importance, because the younger child, 11-year-old Jaqures Brown, went in to retrieve it. When the lad went underwater and didn't come up, his older brother Jacoby jumped in to rescue him. Sadly, he disappeared under the murky water as well. The bodies of both boys were later found about 10 feet from the shore of the pond.
This is a unique story, but one with a common theme: one child's callous treatment of another child's possessions sets off a chain of events that ends with a child dead or seriously injured. I'm reminded of a similar personal experience that took place several years back. I was returning from child care bus-runs when a scene quickly unfolded in front of me. The school bus had just let off a group of elementary students outside an apartment complex, and so dozens of kids were walking home from the stop. Three boys were walking back in a group, when one of the older boys, apparently acting quite maliciously, threw the younger boys possession, which had been given to him to look at, out in the middle of the road. Instantly this boy’s face contorted into a look of agony and despair, and he burst into tears. I was probably 100 yards away, yet I'll never forget that look. I couldn't tell exactly what it was the older boy had thrown in the road, but it was quite apparently something of significant emotional importance. The child who threw it seemed mighty pleased with himself. Just as suddenly as this boys face had distorted into despair, I found myself overcome with anger and rage over what was transpiring.
I pumped my brakes to try and avoid running whatever it was over, but there wasn't time to stop. I think I missed it anyhow. For a moment I planned to stop and give the pair the scolding of their lives. But considering my emotional state, I envisioned myself chasing them down the road and thought better of it. I considered stopping the van in the middle of the road and helping the child retrieve whatever it was that was thrown. But then I wondered about how wise it would be to stop in the middle of a moderately trafficked road to get out and hunt for a trinket while leaving a van of 14 grade-school kids unattended in the middle of the left lane. There were no sides to pullover to. In the end, my indecision triumphed and I drove right past. Keep in mind this is all going in about 2 or 3 seconds at 35 miles-per-hour. By the time I decided I should have stopped to help the poor kid fetch it, we were already well past. It's a moment I've regretted everyday since. I should have doubled back and found some way to park and help. So to that little boy, wherever he is today, please accept heartfelt apologies for my inaction. To those boys who should have been chased down the road, shame on you.
The reason I bring this story up is because it illustrates an all-too-common pattern for how childhood shenanigans (or just plain meanness) can turn tragic. Other children have died after being hit by a car while trying to retrieve something in the road that was rudely deposited there in just such a manner by another child. I don't know whether this youngster got his possession back, but I'm fairly certain he got through the day safely, because I never heard about it on the news. There were no sirens to be heard from our center, which was only about half a mile away as the crow flies. Still, the potential danger of such a situation cannot be understated.
What happens all too often is that this teary-eyed little boy, overcome with the emotions of the moment, rushes out into traffic to retrieve his treasure and gets nailed by an oncoming car. Or jumps into a river to try and get his toy back, only to be swept away downstream to a watery death. Or falls through the ice and dies of hypothermia after a mean-spirited peer tosses his mitten out in the middle of a frozen pond. Others have been hit by trains or suffered fatal falls from trees or ledges. The stories of tragedy go on and on, each a little different but all with the same theme: They are set into motion by a child chucking something.
Much of child safety and accident prevention is a game of instilling children with a repertoire of second thoughts to avoid ill-advised decisions. Building that instinctual voice that pipes up and warns them of dangerous situations. So if you get the opportunity, either before bed tonight or during the ride to school tomorrow, tell your kids about these two stories. Talk with them about how it's not very wise to throw anything in the road, onto tracks, or into bodies of water. Talk with them about how horrible they'd feel later on for doing such a thing out of meanness. How disappointed you'd be in them. How demented preschool teachers in big white vans might just get out and chase them down the road next time around. Also tell this story from the victim’s standpoint, and emphasize how important it is to stop, calm down, and get help so that you can act safely to retrieve it. Teachers: these stories make a great opportunity for group time discussion.
A little discussion of potential consequences could get kids to stop and think twice and sometimes that extra thought is all it takes to make the difference between life and death. It might also save other children from ever having to manage such an agonizing expression. Either way, it’s worth the talk.
Visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org for discussion of important safety issues.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
When Their Life Is On The Line, Will Your Child Wake Up?
House fires are one of the most lethal childhood killers that a family confronts. With every year that passes, there are around 380,000 residential home fires, which claim the lives of around 800 kids and seriously injure tens of thousands of others. When we say "seriously injure," we mean it. Anyone who’s ever visited a burn unit knows just how catastrophic and life-altering fire-related injuries can be. Fire safety is also an area where a little bit of planning can often mean the difference between life and death. But while many parents take the time to studiously study any sex-offenders who may be in the neighborhood, few do all that's necessary to protect their children from a house fire; something that poses a far greater threat. (Put in other terms, it would take registered sex-offenders around 1,600 years or more to kill as many children as are killed by fire in just one year, at current statistical rates.) Needless to say, a little bit of prevention focused on this area would be time well spent.
One aspect of fire safety that is especially neglected is the night-time fire drill. Most fatal house fires occur at night. This means that waking up to the smoke detector and getting out quickly is probably what will determine whether or not your child lives or dies. Yet tests done in child care centers during nap time have also revealed that a large majority of kids will sleep right through the sound of your common household variety fire alarm. (Side note: Fire alarms in commercial child care centers and schools are commercial systems which are much louder, so you needn't worry about this issue at their school.) Such tests beg an important question: when their life is on the line, will your child wake up? If not, there is a crucial flaw in your family's fire safety plan, which is why we advocate that all families conduct a night-time fire drill with their children. So...
After the kids have gone to bed (on a non-school night, obviously) and after they've been sleeping for at least an hour, set off the smoke alarms in your house. You want to make sure of two things:
1. Your children are awoken by the fire alarm.
2. They realize what to do and can overcome a groggy state of mind to react quickly and appropriately.
Now I realize that the thought of intentionally waking your children in the middle of the night may sound about as appealing as a double root canal. It may seem like a hassle, and we won't lie: it may indeed be one. But it's a necessary hassle. It will give you vital information about how safe your family really is, and you should only have to do it once. (Though additional practice won't hurt for those so inclined.) If all goes well, hopefully your children are awoken by the alarm and spring into action without hesitation. You'll learn your family is safe and your children the embodiment of safety excellence. If you're like most families, however, you might find that your children's safety net in this regard is a little lacking.
If your children woke up and knew exactly what to do and how to respond, then congratulations: your family is protected and you shouldn't have to do a thing. Yet if things didn't go quite as planned, take heart. Most who try this usually discover some fairly decent flaws that would jeopardize their child's safety in a real-life situation. This is good: It means an opportunity to fix those problems and provide a new level of safety and comfort that you didn't have before. That's the whole point in performing these drills.
If your child failed to wake up at the sound of the alarm...
1. Upgrade the alarm system in your house to a louder model, and place a detector directly outside the child's door if there isn't one already..
2. There are numerous types of fire alarms on the market. One particular type is a voice activated model. Parents record a short message ("Jamie! Get up! There's a fire in the house! Get out right away!") so when the alarm sounds, it plays this message over and over again either by itself or in combination with a standard alarm. Studies have found that children are more likely to wake up to a parent's urgent voice than they are to an alarm. Just like parents tend to get sensitized towards their child's cries, children build sensitivity towards their parents' voice. Such alarms tend to do a much better job of awakening children, and they have the added benefit of providing a groggy child with information about what the alarm means and how to act.
3. Whether you choose to go with additional smoke detectors or a different type, or perhaps both, we have some bad news: you have to do it again. Run another test while they are sleeping, and continue until you find an arrangement that wakes your child.
If your child was groggy, confused, or didn't know how to act...
1. Most often, indecisiveness comes from inexperience and the novelty of this new situation. So if you go over what to do a few times and talk about the experience as much as possible, they should perform much better the second time around.
2. Make sure your child can identify the unique sound of your smoke alarm. It's not enough for children to be awoken by an annoying sound, they need to know what that annoying sound means. This is why parents should regularly set off the alarm so that children become familiar with what it sounds like. This way they can quickly identify it and act appropriately.
3. Make sure to do regular daytime fire drills, so that children know exactly what to do. Repetition builds competency.
In general...
1. Have children sleep with the door cracked, preferably not wide open, as doors are a natural fire barrier and can prevent their room from filling with smoke. Many fire safety experts will tell you to keep them closed, period. But other safety issues (abduction, general welfare) provide better protection when children aren't noise-proofed from their parents. A good compromise is to crack it slightly. It makes the room less soundproof but still serves as a natural smoke barrier.
2. Work into your family's fire escape plan a way for an adult to exit through a route that allows them to check on the child on their way out. Every child's bedroom should have a window to escape through if they become trapped, and adults can simply make this the primary escape route if it's on the first floor. If the children sleep in different rooms, assign a different adult to check on each child. Also always make sure your child has some sort of direct escape route from their room, which might mean purchasing a portable safety ladder for the window if they sleep on the second floor. Post a sticker on the window to alert firefighters of a child's room. Most important of all, practice. Children 4 and up should receive practice about how to get themselves to safety, because you may not be able to reach them in an actual fire
3. Read your children some of our fire safety books. These go over the basics of house fires and escape routes.
One aspect of fire safety that is especially neglected is the night-time fire drill. Most fatal house fires occur at night. This means that waking up to the smoke detector and getting out quickly is probably what will determine whether or not your child lives or dies. Yet tests done in child care centers during nap time have also revealed that a large majority of kids will sleep right through the sound of your common household variety fire alarm. (Side note: Fire alarms in commercial child care centers and schools are commercial systems which are much louder, so you needn't worry about this issue at their school.) Such tests beg an important question: when their life is on the line, will your child wake up? If not, there is a crucial flaw in your family's fire safety plan, which is why we advocate that all families conduct a night-time fire drill with their children. So...
After the kids have gone to bed (on a non-school night, obviously) and after they've been sleeping for at least an hour, set off the smoke alarms in your house. You want to make sure of two things:
1. Your children are awoken by the fire alarm.
2. They realize what to do and can overcome a groggy state of mind to react quickly and appropriately.
Now I realize that the thought of intentionally waking your children in the middle of the night may sound about as appealing as a double root canal. It may seem like a hassle, and we won't lie: it may indeed be one. But it's a necessary hassle. It will give you vital information about how safe your family really is, and you should only have to do it once. (Though additional practice won't hurt for those so inclined.) If all goes well, hopefully your children are awoken by the alarm and spring into action without hesitation. You'll learn your family is safe and your children the embodiment of safety excellence. If you're like most families, however, you might find that your children's safety net in this regard is a little lacking.
If your children woke up and knew exactly what to do and how to respond, then congratulations: your family is protected and you shouldn't have to do a thing. Yet if things didn't go quite as planned, take heart. Most who try this usually discover some fairly decent flaws that would jeopardize their child's safety in a real-life situation. This is good: It means an opportunity to fix those problems and provide a new level of safety and comfort that you didn't have before. That's the whole point in performing these drills.
If your child failed to wake up at the sound of the alarm...
1. Upgrade the alarm system in your house to a louder model, and place a detector directly outside the child's door if there isn't one already..
2. There are numerous types of fire alarms on the market. One particular type is a voice activated model. Parents record a short message ("Jamie! Get up! There's a fire in the house! Get out right away!") so when the alarm sounds, it plays this message over and over again either by itself or in combination with a standard alarm. Studies have found that children are more likely to wake up to a parent's urgent voice than they are to an alarm. Just like parents tend to get sensitized towards their child's cries, children build sensitivity towards their parents' voice. Such alarms tend to do a much better job of awakening children, and they have the added benefit of providing a groggy child with information about what the alarm means and how to act.
3. Whether you choose to go with additional smoke detectors or a different type, or perhaps both, we have some bad news: you have to do it again. Run another test while they are sleeping, and continue until you find an arrangement that wakes your child.
If your child was groggy, confused, or didn't know how to act...
1. Most often, indecisiveness comes from inexperience and the novelty of this new situation. So if you go over what to do a few times and talk about the experience as much as possible, they should perform much better the second time around.
2. Make sure your child can identify the unique sound of your smoke alarm. It's not enough for children to be awoken by an annoying sound, they need to know what that annoying sound means. This is why parents should regularly set off the alarm so that children become familiar with what it sounds like. This way they can quickly identify it and act appropriately.
3. Make sure to do regular daytime fire drills, so that children know exactly what to do. Repetition builds competency.
In general...
1. Have children sleep with the door cracked, preferably not wide open, as doors are a natural fire barrier and can prevent their room from filling with smoke. Many fire safety experts will tell you to keep them closed, period. But other safety issues (abduction, general welfare) provide better protection when children aren't noise-proofed from their parents. A good compromise is to crack it slightly. It makes the room less soundproof but still serves as a natural smoke barrier.
2. Work into your family's fire escape plan a way for an adult to exit through a route that allows them to check on the child on their way out. Every child's bedroom should have a window to escape through if they become trapped, and adults can simply make this the primary escape route if it's on the first floor. If the children sleep in different rooms, assign a different adult to check on each child. Also always make sure your child has some sort of direct escape route from their room, which might mean purchasing a portable safety ladder for the window if they sleep on the second floor. Post a sticker on the window to alert firefighters of a child's room. Most important of all, practice. Children 4 and up should receive practice about how to get themselves to safety, because you may not be able to reach them in an actual fire
3. Read your children some of our fire safety books. These go over the basics of house fires and escape routes.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Botox and Child Abuse
You have probably heard the story about the mother who injected her 8 year old daughter with Botox before beauty pageants to reduce the girls wrinkles when she smiled. The absurdity of the parent believing that an 8 year olds' skin needs wrinkle treatment has created a firestorm of controversy. For sure, this mothers' action are highly questionable. Aside from the medical risk, we were most concerned about the psychological messages this girl was receiving (no 8 year old needs a cosmetic procedure to be beautiful).
But I was more disturbed upon opening up a magazine and seeing a news brief that CPS workers had taken custody of the girl. Those who aren't equally horrified by this outcome need to pay close attention to the following information.
Far too many people have the impression that it is somehow a benign process to kidnap a child from their home and place them with strangers. I assure you it is not. (This belief is just as absurd as the idea that an 8 year old needs Botox.) CPS removal is an unspeakable trauma for the child. The fact that the kidnappers are wearing state issued name tags rather than ski masks doesn't make it any less terrifying for the child who finds herself suddenly uprooted from everything and everyone she has ever known. Even when parents are less than perfect, or even flat out abusive, this is a horrible experience for the child. It is usually met with screams of protest and someone physically overpowering the child to yank them away from their loved ones. Research on foster children is bleak: they show far more disturbance than those children who endure actual abuse of other types. Which makes a mockery of our ideas of children being "rescued."
This mothers actions were outrageous, fanatical, and potentially harmful; but what she did hardly warrants snatching this kid from her home; especially in light of the countless other options available.
As for this girl, a small injection to the forehead is nothing compared to the abuse she is suffering now. To those insensitive souls who were clamoring for this outcome to fulfill some sadistic sense of shadenfraude, congratulation: you've succeeded in bringing about unspeakable torment to a defenseless little girl. It makes the mother look like mother of the year in comparison.
But I was more disturbed upon opening up a magazine and seeing a news brief that CPS workers had taken custody of the girl. Those who aren't equally horrified by this outcome need to pay close attention to the following information.
Far too many people have the impression that it is somehow a benign process to kidnap a child from their home and place them with strangers. I assure you it is not. (This belief is just as absurd as the idea that an 8 year old needs Botox.) CPS removal is an unspeakable trauma for the child. The fact that the kidnappers are wearing state issued name tags rather than ski masks doesn't make it any less terrifying for the child who finds herself suddenly uprooted from everything and everyone she has ever known. Even when parents are less than perfect, or even flat out abusive, this is a horrible experience for the child. It is usually met with screams of protest and someone physically overpowering the child to yank them away from their loved ones. Research on foster children is bleak: they show far more disturbance than those children who endure actual abuse of other types. Which makes a mockery of our ideas of children being "rescued."
This mothers actions were outrageous, fanatical, and potentially harmful; but what she did hardly warrants snatching this kid from her home; especially in light of the countless other options available.
As for this girl, a small injection to the forehead is nothing compared to the abuse she is suffering now. To those insensitive souls who were clamoring for this outcome to fulfill some sadistic sense of shadenfraude, congratulation: you've succeeded in bringing about unspeakable torment to a defenseless little girl. It makes the mother look like mother of the year in comparison.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Bacteria Act Selflessly in their Battle Against YOU!
They're one of mankind’s oldest arch enemies. With a stealth that far outdoes that of the most cunning community predator, they lurk all around you, inside your home and around your children's parks and playgrounds, yet you'll seldom notice they're there. They can kill more children in a single year than sex offenders do in a millennium, and now evidence has been uncovered that they're sharing secrets in order to defeat our best defenses against them.
In a new study in the September 2, 2010 edition of Nature, researchers studying the question of antibiotic resistance discovered something that even took seasoned scientists by surprise: bacteria who prove resistant to drugs seem to sacrifice themselves in order to give their fellow bacteria a better chance at surviving the assault by antibiotics.
Working with an experimental Escherichia Coli (E-Coli) colony, they found that the most antibiotic-resistant bacteria amongst the group willingly shared their secrets with others at the expense of themselves, by producing a small molecule called an 'indole' when treated with antibiotics. This protein compound then floods through the communal broth of the colony, triggering similar mechanisms of protection in the less-resistant members.
As surprising as this finding was, equally as shocking was that bacteria do this even though it comes at a personal cost in overall health. This secret sharing ends up weakening the individual bacteria that produce it, leaving them less fit to grow and thrive, thus lessening their own chances at survival. Essentially, they're "taking one for the team," says James Collins, a professor of biomedical engineering at Boston University and one of the study's authors. "It's not that they die, but they would do better if they didn't produce this protein." Who would guess it: Bacteria act altruistically. Perhaps calling someone scum isn't such an insult after all.
This discovery adds a new sense of urgency to worries about antibiotic overuse. Previously, scientists believed that bacteria developed resistance only through random mutation. It's natural selection at work: if you bombard bacteria with antibiotics, most will die off. But the few whose genetic makeup prove resistant are those that will survive and reproduce, passing on their resistant genes to their offspring. Over the course of many generations, the original strain is all but replaced by the resistant strain, precisely because the resistant strain were the only ones surviving to reproduce. This is how 'superbugs' are born.
That situation was bad enough, but the fact that bacteria are actually plotting against us in the here and now, sharing secrets about how to defeat our best medicines, adds a new twist to the debate on antibiotic overuse. In this study, only around 1% of the bacteria were highly resistant to the antibiotics, but they shared this resistance with others in order to help their neighbors develop the same traits.
Bacteria have been around for millennium, and so you shouldn't let this panic you or cause unnecessary anxiety. But in this back and forth tug of war between them and us, between the drugs we try to kill them with and the adaptations they implement to survive, there are a few simple things you can do to fight back:
1. Avoid using antibiotics unless you absolutely need them, and ask your doctor to do the same in prescribing them to you. One of the trends contributing to this resistance is the tendency for doctors to over prescribe antibiotics for every little thing. The more we expose potential pathogens to this weapon, the more bacteria work out defenses to defeat them.
2. When you or your child are prescribed antibiotics, make sure you use them all, even if you start to feel better. The way strains become resistant is by being hit with antibiotics without being completely wiped out. They then come back, more resistant to the drugs used to treat them.
Your immune system can take care of the remaining 1% of pathogens once antibiotics help your body knock out most of the infection to gain the upper hand. But if you stop too soon, the bacteria could come back with a vengeance, and they are likely to be more comprised of this newly resistant variety.
3. Purchase organic meat and beef. At large commercial producers, livestock are literally fed antibiotics in their feed in order to keep them healthy amongst the cramped and deplorable conditions that might otherwise make them sick. This practice has worried scientists and medical professionals for years, not just as a threat to our livestock supplies, (a resistant bacteria wipes out most of our cattle), but that this widespread and indiscriminate use of one of mankind’s best medical weapons could put humans at risk, by making bacteria in general more resistant to such medicines.
So far, there hasn't been a problem. Sorta like a year ago, there hadn't been a problem with deep-water oil drilling, and several years back there hadn't been a problem with the modern U.S. financial system. We can only hope that it doesn't become a problem.
To learn more about child safety issues visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org
In a new study in the September 2, 2010 edition of Nature, researchers studying the question of antibiotic resistance discovered something that even took seasoned scientists by surprise: bacteria who prove resistant to drugs seem to sacrifice themselves in order to give their fellow bacteria a better chance at surviving the assault by antibiotics.
Working with an experimental Escherichia Coli (E-Coli) colony, they found that the most antibiotic-resistant bacteria amongst the group willingly shared their secrets with others at the expense of themselves, by producing a small molecule called an 'indole' when treated with antibiotics. This protein compound then floods through the communal broth of the colony, triggering similar mechanisms of protection in the less-resistant members.
As surprising as this finding was, equally as shocking was that bacteria do this even though it comes at a personal cost in overall health. This secret sharing ends up weakening the individual bacteria that produce it, leaving them less fit to grow and thrive, thus lessening their own chances at survival. Essentially, they're "taking one for the team," says James Collins, a professor of biomedical engineering at Boston University and one of the study's authors. "It's not that they die, but they would do better if they didn't produce this protein." Who would guess it: Bacteria act altruistically. Perhaps calling someone scum isn't such an insult after all.
This discovery adds a new sense of urgency to worries about antibiotic overuse. Previously, scientists believed that bacteria developed resistance only through random mutation. It's natural selection at work: if you bombard bacteria with antibiotics, most will die off. But the few whose genetic makeup prove resistant are those that will survive and reproduce, passing on their resistant genes to their offspring. Over the course of many generations, the original strain is all but replaced by the resistant strain, precisely because the resistant strain were the only ones surviving to reproduce. This is how 'superbugs' are born.
That situation was bad enough, but the fact that bacteria are actually plotting against us in the here and now, sharing secrets about how to defeat our best medicines, adds a new twist to the debate on antibiotic overuse. In this study, only around 1% of the bacteria were highly resistant to the antibiotics, but they shared this resistance with others in order to help their neighbors develop the same traits.
Bacteria have been around for millennium, and so you shouldn't let this panic you or cause unnecessary anxiety. But in this back and forth tug of war between them and us, between the drugs we try to kill them with and the adaptations they implement to survive, there are a few simple things you can do to fight back:
1. Avoid using antibiotics unless you absolutely need them, and ask your doctor to do the same in prescribing them to you. One of the trends contributing to this resistance is the tendency for doctors to over prescribe antibiotics for every little thing. The more we expose potential pathogens to this weapon, the more bacteria work out defenses to defeat them.
2. When you or your child are prescribed antibiotics, make sure you use them all, even if you start to feel better. The way strains become resistant is by being hit with antibiotics without being completely wiped out. They then come back, more resistant to the drugs used to treat them.
Your immune system can take care of the remaining 1% of pathogens once antibiotics help your body knock out most of the infection to gain the upper hand. But if you stop too soon, the bacteria could come back with a vengeance, and they are likely to be more comprised of this newly resistant variety.
3. Purchase organic meat and beef. At large commercial producers, livestock are literally fed antibiotics in their feed in order to keep them healthy amongst the cramped and deplorable conditions that might otherwise make them sick. This practice has worried scientists and medical professionals for years, not just as a threat to our livestock supplies, (a resistant bacteria wipes out most of our cattle), but that this widespread and indiscriminate use of one of mankind’s best medical weapons could put humans at risk, by making bacteria in general more resistant to such medicines.
So far, there hasn't been a problem. Sorta like a year ago, there hadn't been a problem with deep-water oil drilling, and several years back there hadn't been a problem with the modern U.S. financial system. We can only hope that it doesn't become a problem.
To learn more about child safety issues visit www.keepyourchildsafe.org
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Can You 'Catch' Obesity From A Common Cold?
In the never-ending cycle of hyper-inflated science "breakthrough" claims making their rounds in the news of late, one in particular is generating a lot of discussion: the idea that obesity may be caused by a common cold virus. But before you press the panic button because your child has the sniffles, you should know a little bit beyond the sound bites.
A study published online September 20, 2010 in the journal Pediatrics found that children who had been exposed to adenovirus-36 were more likely to be obese than children who had not. It found that whereas 7% of normal-weight kids had such antibodies, 22% of obese children did. What's more, it discovered that kids with evidence of previous adenovirus-36 infections were about 35 pounds heavier on average than obese children who hadn't caught the virus.
The study adds to several others, including one of Korean children and one of American and Italian adults, which have turned up higher rates of the virus in those who are obese. About 30% of obese adults carry antibodies x against adenovirus 36, compared to 10% of normal weight people. And there is lab research to back it up. Chickens, mice, rats, and monkeys infected with the virus show weight gain, even when they don't eat more or exercise less. Experiments with human cells grown in laboratory dishes also provide a potential mechanism for such a correlation: adult stem cells infected with the virus make more fat cells, and those fat cells store more fat than normal cells.
These are intriguing correlations to be sure, but before you start believing that obesity is caused by a virus, we need to put these findings through a little bit of a reality check, in order to place this knowledge in its proper perspective.
Why Obesity Can't be Blamed On A Virus
It's important to note that the vast majority of obese kids in the study DID NOT have antibodies for the virus (78%), which means that most kids are getting fat for reasons other than a cold virus. Even if such a cause and effect does exist, it is but a small player in the child obesity epidemic. When you further consider that 7% of kids tested positive for the virus yet were maintaining a normal weight, this would seem to indicate that catching the virus hardly dooms a child to obesity, and that it DOES NOT trump environmental factors. (85% of kids have already demonstrated the virus to be irrelevant, so only 15% of the issue is even up for debate.)
There are other reasons to be cautious. The sample size was relatively small, consisting of just 67 obese and 57 normal-weight children. If I flip a coin 124 times, I may very well end up with a differential of plus or minus 15 for either heads or tales, but that doesn't necessarily mean the results are anything more than random. Since obese kids have weaker immune systems and get sick more often, this finding could be corollary and not causative. Considering that two other studies have failed to provide a link between adenovirus-36 and obesity, this link, while interesting and worth exploring, is still far from established fact.
Even Jeffrey Schwimmer, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of California, Sand Diego and author of the study admits that a link between the virus and obesity doesn't mean the virus causes weight gain: "I don't think we know enough to say, 'Oh, if you get this virus you're going to be obese,'" he told Science News.
So while it's an interesting development that is being further explored, this does not mean that children catch obesity from a virus. The good news is that a vaccine against the virus is already in existence, so if this link does become established, we can easily address the problem.
One last note: you can't "catch" this virus from obese people, as some rumors have already begun to allege. So let's not go getting all silly with prejudice. The virus is long gone before any obesity-related effects would take place.
In the mean time, the tried and proven method for preventing childhood obesity is just as true as ever, and will remain so far into the future, regardless of what happens on this topic: proper diet, filled with fruits and vegetables, combined with plenty of exercise, will always overcome any genetic or viral influence.
Reference:
1. Tina Hesman Saey, "Exposure to cold virus linked to obesity epidemic among children." Science News, 178(8):5-6, Oct. 9, 2010
A study published online September 20, 2010 in the journal Pediatrics found that children who had been exposed to adenovirus-36 were more likely to be obese than children who had not. It found that whereas 7% of normal-weight kids had such antibodies, 22% of obese children did. What's more, it discovered that kids with evidence of previous adenovirus-36 infections were about 35 pounds heavier on average than obese children who hadn't caught the virus.
The study adds to several others, including one of Korean children and one of American and Italian adults, which have turned up higher rates of the virus in those who are obese. About 30% of obese adults carry antibodies x against adenovirus 36, compared to 10% of normal weight people. And there is lab research to back it up. Chickens, mice, rats, and monkeys infected with the virus show weight gain, even when they don't eat more or exercise less. Experiments with human cells grown in laboratory dishes also provide a potential mechanism for such a correlation: adult stem cells infected with the virus make more fat cells, and those fat cells store more fat than normal cells.
These are intriguing correlations to be sure, but before you start believing that obesity is caused by a virus, we need to put these findings through a little bit of a reality check, in order to place this knowledge in its proper perspective.
Why Obesity Can't be Blamed On A Virus
It's important to note that the vast majority of obese kids in the study DID NOT have antibodies for the virus (78%), which means that most kids are getting fat for reasons other than a cold virus. Even if such a cause and effect does exist, it is but a small player in the child obesity epidemic. When you further consider that 7% of kids tested positive for the virus yet were maintaining a normal weight, this would seem to indicate that catching the virus hardly dooms a child to obesity, and that it DOES NOT trump environmental factors. (85% of kids have already demonstrated the virus to be irrelevant, so only 15% of the issue is even up for debate.)
There are other reasons to be cautious. The sample size was relatively small, consisting of just 67 obese and 57 normal-weight children. If I flip a coin 124 times, I may very well end up with a differential of plus or minus 15 for either heads or tales, but that doesn't necessarily mean the results are anything more than random. Since obese kids have weaker immune systems and get sick more often, this finding could be corollary and not causative. Considering that two other studies have failed to provide a link between adenovirus-36 and obesity, this link, while interesting and worth exploring, is still far from established fact.
Even Jeffrey Schwimmer, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the University of California, Sand Diego and author of the study admits that a link between the virus and obesity doesn't mean the virus causes weight gain: "I don't think we know enough to say, 'Oh, if you get this virus you're going to be obese,'" he told Science News.
So while it's an interesting development that is being further explored, this does not mean that children catch obesity from a virus. The good news is that a vaccine against the virus is already in existence, so if this link does become established, we can easily address the problem.
One last note: you can't "catch" this virus from obese people, as some rumors have already begun to allege. So let's not go getting all silly with prejudice. The virus is long gone before any obesity-related effects would take place.
In the mean time, the tried and proven method for preventing childhood obesity is just as true as ever, and will remain so far into the future, regardless of what happens on this topic: proper diet, filled with fruits and vegetables, combined with plenty of exercise, will always overcome any genetic or viral influence.
Reference:
1. Tina Hesman Saey, "Exposure to cold virus linked to obesity epidemic among children." Science News, 178(8):5-6, Oct. 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)