'Vitamin' for baby brain disorder (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

Researchers say taking a special vitamin supplement during pregnancy could prevent hydrocephalus - one of the most common birth brain defects.

Tests on rats showed a combination of folates dramatically reduced the rates of hydrocephalus - in which fluids build up in the brain's chambers.

They even seemed to work after the condition had started to develop.

But the work, published in the Journal of Neuropathology and Experimental Neurology, is still at an early stage.

The team from the universities of Manchester and Lancaster hope to get permission to start clinical trials in pregnant women with babies diagnosed with hydrocephalus.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7950590.stm

[LeftishBrit]

1. Interesting

It's already known that taking folic acid in pregnancy reduces the risk of spina bifida; and, since folic acid has been prescribed for pregnant women, a lot fewer babies have this disorder. I hope this will turn out to be something similar.

[unc70]

2. Flours are also enriched with folic acid -- made the big difference with S.B.

Efforts to have women take folic acid "just in case" they were to get pregnant failed. Finally, NC led an effort to enrich flour with folic acid. This has greatly reduced the rate of various birth defects.

There is some very preliminary research that suggests that increased folates might increase the risk of prostate cancer. Much too early to worry about any such down-side risk, particularly given that almost every man will have prostate cancer. The probablility of having prostate cancer is roughly the same as a man's age, so it is really difficult to attribute it to any specific causes. Age and genetics overwhelm everything else.

[Why Syzygy]

3. One in six .

That's not nearly "every man".

Radio talk show host Don Imus has plenty of company in his recent prostate cancer diagnosis: The disease strikes 1 in 6 American men.
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-he-closer23-2009mar23,0,1042900.story

[unc70]

4. Difference in rates for diagnosed vs undiagnosed prostate cancer

The "incidental" rate for cancer of the prostate (CaP) is based upon findings during autopsies for deaths with other causes (e.g. accident, homicide) where CaP had not previously been diagnosed. These rates for undiagnosed CaP are reported as over 30% for men in their 60's, over 40% for men in their 70's. The more closely the prostate is examined, the more likely that tiny tumors will be found.

The combined diagnosed and undiagnosed CaP rate for men in their 70's is over 60%. Some researchers have suggested that the Probability(CaP) is roughly equal to ones age. The prostate is the only organ where they find such high rates of undiagnosed disease.

The problem for doctors and patients alike is how to determine which CaP will remain contained to the prostate versus escaping to other parts of the body.

[Why Syzygy]

5. Have you seen

the latest news? I can't dispute what you say. I'm certain you're more informed on the matter.
http://news.google.com/news?pz=1&topic=m&ncl=1316151645

[unc70]

6. The US study is flawed and misleading

The US study divided subjects between those with screening and those having their normal (uncontrolled) medical treatment which would often including some level of PSA and DRE screening as part of a normal physical, etc. So it does not compare screening versus no screening; rather screening versus some screening. A research mess that can't be fixed with statistics or otherwise, confounded by self selections and other biases.

The European study is a little better.

Unfortunately, I know a lot more about this topic than I would like; I had surgery for CaP earlier this year and am now crossing my fingers that it hadn't already spread. I have an educational background in research and statistics so I can evaluate the studies. I see much of what is widely published as being wrong, misguide, or wishful thinking. Here is where I think things currently stand:

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer, and only lung cancer kills more of us. CaP is more common and more deadly than breast cancer.

The autopsy studies suggest that much of the differences in rates around the world are really differences in detection and reporting methodology, probably with some genetic components.

None of the claims of increased risk based on diet have been confirmed under closer scrutiny -- things like red meat or fats. Neither have the beneficial claims for selenium or vitamin E or any other dietary component.

BTW the high rates of "incidental" CaP from autopsies was first reported over 75 years ago.

Until the DNA and cell biology research gets an understanding of what is really happening, we are all left with a very unsatisfying situation. The PSA is a mediocre screening techinique with high rates for false positives and false negatives. The standard 12-core biopsy may have a false negative rate of 30%, missing significant tumors with Gleason 6 or even Gleason 7 ratings. (This is from looking at the rate of negative second biopsies when the first biopsy was positive.) No one wants to have an 80-core biopsy.

[Why Syzygy]

7. I have a new friend

who was recently diagnosed. She sent me this >
http://www.blochcancer.org/
(see Articles)

Wishing for you the best outcome.