Skip to content

Could the bacteria described in this research be another probiotic or beneficial bacteria (besides Lactobacillus sakei) that helps protect against sinusitis? New research found that the harmless bacteria Corynebacterium accolens is "overrepresented" in children free of Streptococcus pneumoniae (pneumococcus) -  which commonly colonizes in children's noses (and that can live harmlessly as part of a healthy microbiome), but it is also an important infectious agent. Streptococcus pneumoniae is a major cause of pneumonia, septicemia, meningitis, otitis media (ear infections), and sinusitis in children and adults worldwide.

The researchers did an analysis on the microbes in the nasal passages of children and found that the nasopharyngeal (nostrils) microbiome was different in children with and without pneumococcal nasopharyngeal colonization. This revealed that Corynebacterium species and Dolosigranulum were "overrepresented" in children negative for pneumococcal colonization, whereas Streptococcus was "overrepresented" in children positive for Streptococcus  pneumoniae colonization.

The researchers found that higher numbers of  Corynebacterium accolens cells deter and limit S. pneumoniae nostril colonization, which might partly explain why children without S. pneumoniae colonization have higher levels of nasal Corynebacterium species. The researchers write that "there is direct antagonism" between Corynebacterium spp. and S. pneumoniae in the human nose. How do children get this beneficial bacteria? Interestingly, at 6 weeks of age, Corynebacterium species. and Dolosigranulum species are also "overrepresented" in the nasopharyngeal microbiota of breastfed infants compared to formula-fed infants. From Science Daily:

Good bacteria might help prevent middle ear infections, pneumonia

A new study is helping to shed more light on the important connections among the diverse bacteria in our microbiome. According to research published in mBio, scientists at Forsyth, led by Dr. Katherine P. Lemon, along with their collaborator at Vanderbilt University, have demonstrated that a harmless bacterium found in the nose and on skin may negatively impact the growth of a pathogen that commonly causes middle ear infections in children and pneumonia in children and older adults.

This study provides the first evidence that Corynebacterium accolens, a harmless bacterial species that commonly colonizes the nose, can help inhibit Streptococcus pneumoniae (S. pneumoniae) -- a major cause of pneumonia, meningitis, middle ear infection and sinusitis. According to the World Health Organization, S. pneumoniae leads to more than 1 million deaths each year, primarily in young children in developing countries. Although most people that host S. pneumoniae do not develop these infections, colonization greatly increases the risk of, and is a perquisite for, infection and transmission.

The study, titled, "Corynebacterium accolens (C. accolens) Releases Antipneumococcal Free Fatty Acids from Human Nostril and Skin Surface Triacylglycerols," is published on January 5, 2016 in mBio. In this study, first-author Dr. Lindsey Bomar and her colleagues show that C. accolens are overrepresented in the noses of children that are not colonized by S. pneumoniae, which is commonly found in children's noses and can cause infection. In laboratory research, the team further found that C. accolens modifies its local habitat in a manner that inhibits the growth of S. pneumoniae by releasing antibacterial free fatty acids from representative host skin surface triacylglycerols. The team went on to identify the C. accolens enzyme needed for this. These results pave the way for potential future research to determine whether C. accolens might have role as a beneficial bacterium that could be used to control pathogen colonization.

A provocative and thought-provoking article in which the title says it all: Cancer screening has not been shown to 'save lives'. The following is from the Medscape analysis/reporting of the original British Medical Journal article and accompanying editorial ( BMJ. January 2016, Article, Editorial), and both the original and Medscape analysis are well worth reading. From Medscape:

Cancer Screening Has Not Been Shown to 'Save Lives'

Debates about cancer screening programs tend to focus on when to start, who to screen, and the frequency of screening. But some investigators are asking a far more provocative question: Do screening programs actually save lives?

We do not know the answer to that question, and would need to conduct massive clinical trials to find out, said Vinay K. Prasad, MD, MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland."Proponents of cancer screening say that screening tests have been shown to save lives. What we're trying to show is that, strictly speaking, that's sort of an overstatement," he told Medscape Medical News.

In an analysis published online January 6 in the BMJ, Dr Prasad and his colleagues argue that although cancer screening might reduce cancer-specific mortality, it has not conclusively been shown to have an effect on overall mortality. The researchers go on to suggest that the harms of screening might actually contribute to overall mortality rates. These potential harms include false-positive results that lead to unnecessary biopsies or therapeutic interventions and overdiagnosis, in which treatment is delivered for a condition that is unlikely to affect patients during their natural lifespans.

"There are two chief reasons why cancer screening might reduce disease-specific mortality without significantly reducing overall mortality," the researchers write. "Firstly, studies may be underpowered to detect a small overall mortality benefit. Secondly, disease-specific mortality reductions may be offset by deaths due to the downstream effects of screening." "The bar to say that screening saves lives should be overall mortality, and we haven't met that bar," Dr Prasad told Medscape Medical News.

The rationale for cancer screening is based on the assumptions that screening will reduce deaths from cancer and that lowering cancer-specific deaths will decrease overall mortality. These assumptions remain unsupported by facts, Dr Prasad's team contends.

They illustrate this point with data from the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST). Although there was a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer deaths with low-dose CT screening, compared with chest x-ray, and a 6.7% relative reduction in overall mortality, the absolute reduction in risk for overall mortality was just 0.46%....The team also notes that "the benefit in lung cancer mortality of CT screening (estimated to avert over 12,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States annually) must be set against the 27,034 major complications (such as lung collapse, heart attack, stroke, and death) that follow a positive screening test."

The decision to undergo screening should be part of an informed discussion between the patient and clinician that takes into account personal preferences and the risks and benefits of screening. Dr Prasad explained. "Declining screening may be a reasonable and prudent choice for many people," the researchers write. "Doctors should be comfortable with whatever choice people make when they hear about all the potential benefits and the known harms," Dr Prasad added.

However, in an accompanying editorial, Gerd Gigerenzer, PhD, from the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, argues that "rather than pouring resources into 'megatrials' with a small chance of detecting a minimal overall mortality reduction, at the additional cost of harming large numbers of patients, we should invest in transparent information in the first place." He explains that information about screening should be presented in a "fact box" that lays out the benefits and risks of mammography with numbers for how many women would be affected."It is time to change communication about cancer screening from dodgy persuasion into something straightforward," he concludes.

Richard L. Schilsky, MD, chief medical officer for the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), said that although, in general, ASCO supports cancer screening, "it's a very imperfect process....The often high variability in the natural history of many cancers has been the source of particular confusion and uncertainty surrounding screening, he noted. For example, there is little value in screening for aggressive cancers for which interventions are unlikely to make a difference in outcomes, no matter how early the disease can be detected. Conversely, "if the cancer is never going to kill you, no matter what the doctors do, then screening won't help either," he said. Additionally, there are some cancers for which treatments are sufficiently effective that they can be successfully managed whether they are diagnosed at an early or later stage. "When you consider all these factors, the number of individuals who will actually benefit from detecting a screen-detected cancer is very small," Dr Schilsky said.

This is an issue that a lot of women I've known over the years have wondered about: if a woman gets pregnant while on birth control pills (oral contraceptives) - and many women do - does it mean higher rates of birth defects? This study says NO to higher rates of major birth defects which is very reassuring, but it doesn't answer the issue of more subtle effects (e.g., behavioral effects) from the hormones in the contraceptives. From Medical Xpress:

Oral contraceptive use not associated with increased birth defects risk

Oral contraceptives taken just before or during pregnancy do not increase the risk of birth defects, according to a new study by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Statens Serum Institut in Denmark. They found that the prevalence of major birth defects was consistent (about 25 per 1,000 live births) across all pregnant women in the study population regardless of contraceptive use.

Even though oral contraceptives are more than 99% effective with perfect use, almost 10% of women become pregnant within their first year of use. Many more women will stop using oral contraceptives when planning a pregnancy and conceive within a few months. Little is known about the potential health effects to children from in utero exposure to the hormones in oral contraceptives.

....Charlton and colleagues were able to tap into a wealth of data collected from multiple Danish health registries between 1997 and 2011 and linked by the unique personal identification number assigned to all Denmark residents. The researchers looked at 880,694 live-born infants, and the health of these children at one-year follow-up. Oral contraceptive use was estimated based on the date of the mother's most recently filled prescription.  Among the women in the study population, a fifth had never used oral contraceptives before becoming pregnant, and more than two-thirds had stopped using oral contraceptives at least three months before becoming pregnant. Eight percent had discontinued use within three months of becoming pregnant, and 1%, or well over 10,000 women, had used oral contraceptives after becoming pregnant.

The prevalence of birth defects was consistent across each category of oral contraceptive use, and remained so when the researchers added in pregnancies that ended as stillbirths or induced abortions.

 The following research finds a link (it doesn't establish cause) - but these interesting associations with vitamin D keep popping up. The research looked at leukemia rates in 172 countries and found that living closer to the equator (and assumed to have higher levels of vitamin D due to sunlight exposure) is linked to lower levels of leukemia. By far the best source of vitamin D is sunshine (and not food). From Medical Xpress:

Researchers link higher risk of leukemia to low sunlight and vitamin D

Epidemiologists at University of California, San Diego School of Medicine report that persons residing at higher latitudes, with lower sunlight/ultraviolet B (UVB) exposure and greater prevalence of vitamin D deficiency, are at least two times at greater risk of developing leukemia than equatorial populations.

These results suggest that much of the burden of leukemia worldwide is due to the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency we are experiencing in winter in populations distant from the equator," said Cedric Garland, DrPH, adjunct professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Public Health and member of Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego Health. "People who live in areas with low solar ultraviolet B exposure tend to have low levels of vitamin D metabolites in their blood," Garland said. "These low levels place them at high risk of certain cancers, including leukemia."

According to the American Cancer Society, 54,270 cases and 24,450 deaths from leukemia occur in the United States alone each year. There is no known way to prevent most types of leukemia, though some types may be prevented by avoiding high doses of ionizing radiation, exposure to the chemical benzene, smoking and certain types of chemotherapy.

The UC San Diego study analyzed age-adjusted incidence rates of leukemia in 172 countries from GLOBOCAN, an international agency for research on cancer that is part of the World Health Organization, comparing that information with cloud cover data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project. The study follows similar investigations by Garland and colleagues of other cancers, including breast, colon, pancreas, bladder and multiple myeloma. In each study, they found that reduced UVB radiation exposure and lower vitamin D levels were associated with higher risks of cancer.

Leukemia rates were highest in countries relatively closer to the poles, such as Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Ireland, Canada and the United States. They were lowest in countries closer to the equator, such as Bolivia, Samoa, Madagascar and Nigeria.

This study was done in mice, but...it may apply to humans. The researchers found that sugar intake in mice comparable with levels in Western diets (in humans) led to increased breast tumor growth and metastasis.They specifically found that table sugar and high fructose corn syrup "was responsible for facilitating lung metastasis and 12-HETE production in breast tumors" in mice. So, at the very least, think about eliminating high fructose corn syrup from the diet - read labels and definitely eliminate soda (a huge source of added high fructose corn syrup).From Science Daily:

Sugars in Western diets increase risk for breast cancer tumors and metastasis

The high amounts of dietary sugar in the typical Western diet may increase the risk of breast cancer and metastasis to the lungs, according to a study at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center.The findings, published in the Jan. 1, 2016 online issue of Cancer Research, demonstrated dietary sugar's effect on an enzymatic signaling pathway known as 12-LOX (12-lipoxygenase).

"We found that sucrose intake in mice comparable to levels of Western diets led to increased tumor growth and metastasis, when compared to a non-sugar starch diet," said Peiying Yang, Ph.D., assistant professor of Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine. "This was due, in part, to increased expression of 12-LOX and a related fatty acid called 12-HETE.Previous epidemiological studies have shown that dietary sugar intake has an impact on breast cancer development, with inflammation thought to play a role.

"The current study investigated the impact of dietary sugar on mammary gland tumor development in multiple mouse models, along with mechanisms that may be involved," said co-author Lorenzo Cohen, Ph.D., professor of Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine. "We determined that it was specifically fructose, in table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup, ubiquitous within our food system, which was responsible for facilitating lung metastasis and 12-HETE production in breast tumors." Cohen added that the data suggested that dietary sugar induces 12-LOX signaling to increase risks for breast cancer development and metastasis.

Identifying risk factors for breast cancer is a public health priority, say the authors. The researchers state that moderate sugar consumption is critical, given that the per capita consumption of sugar in the U.S. has surged to over 100 lbs. per year and an increase in consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages has been identified as a significant contributor to an epidemic of obesity, heart disease and cancer worldwide.

The MD Anderson team conducted four different studies in which mice were randomized to different diet groups and fed one of four diets. At six months of age, 30 percent of mice on a starch-control diet had measurable tumors, whereas 50 to 58 percent of the mice on sucrose-enriched diets had developed mammary tumors. The study also showed that numbers of lung metastases were significantly higher in mice on a sucrose- or a fructose-enriched diet, versus mice on a starch-control diet.

More and more negative news about phthalates: men with greater exposure to DEHP (a phthalate) have lower sperm motility (how the sperm move or their ability to swim), and pregnant women with higher levels of phthalates have a higher rate of pregnancy loss (miscarriages - mainly between 5 and 13 weeks of pregnancy). Phthalates are found in many plastics, are thought to be endocrine disruptors, and can be measured in urineFrom Medical Xpress: Lower sperm motility in men exposed to common chemical

Men with higher exposure to the substance DEHP, a so-called phthalate, have lower sperm motility and may therefore experience more difficulties conceiving children, according to a Lund University study. Phthalates is an umbrella term for a group of substances based on phthalic acid, some of which are suspected to be endocrine disruptors. Many phthalates are found in soft plastics in our daily surroundings.... Since phthalate molecules leak out of plastics, we are exposed to it daily and absorb the chemicals through food, drink, skin contact and inhalation. 

"We have studied metabolite levels of the phthalate DEHP (diethylhexyl phthalate) in urine as an indicator of exposure, as well as the semen quality of 300 men between the ages of 18 and 20. The results show that the higher metabolite levels the men had, the lower their sperm motility was", says Jonatan Axelsson, researcher at the Department of Laboratory Medicine, Lund University. For the one quarter of the men with the lowest levels of exposure, 57 per cent of the sperm cells were moving forward, compared to 46 per cent for the quarter of the men with the highest levels of exposure.

As previous research has reported that there is a linear connection also between sperm motility and chances of becoming pregnant, the findings could indicate that the more exposed one is to DEHP, the smaller the chances are of having children.

From Medical Xpress:  Exposure to phthalates could be linked to pregnancy loss

A new study of more than 300 women suggests that exposure to certain phthalates—substances commonly used in food packaging, personal-care and other everyday products—could be associated with miscarriage, mostly between 5 and 13 weeks of pregnancy

Out of concern over the potential health effects of phthalates, the U.S. has banned six of these substances from use in certain products made for young children. But many are still included as ingredients in paints, medical tubes, vinyl flooring, soaps, shampoos and other items. Research on phthalates has shown that long-term exposure to low levels of the some of these compounds harms lab animals' health and can increase their risk for pregnancy loss. Additionally, at least one study found that female factory workers exposed to high levels of phthalates through their work were at a higher risk for miscarriage.

The researchers tested urine samples from 132 women who had miscarriages and 172 healthy pregnant women in China. They found pregnancy loss was associated with higher levels of urinary phthalate metabolites from diethyl phthalate (DEP), di-isobutyl phthalate (DiBP) and di-n-butyl phthalate (DnBP). Although this doesn't prove that phthalates cause pregnancy loss, the study suggests an association exists that the researchers say should be studied further.

When we think about air pollution, we usually think about pollutants in the air that we breathe in. But there is a growing body of evidence that some pollutants found in the air, including a group of chemicals called phthalates, can be absorbed directly through the skin (dermal absorption or dermal intake). A recent study has found that the skin absorption of certain phthalates (DERP and DnBP) is comparable to that from inhalation.

Phthalates are linked to a number of negative health effects, and so we should try to minimize our exposure to them.(Oct. 8, 2015 post and Sept. 29, 2015 post). The findings of this study is another strong argument against using scented products in the home, because phthalates are found in fragrances - whether air fresheners, scented candles, perfumes, dryer sheets, etc. Just think of them as indoor air pollution. From Environmental Health Perspectives:

Transdermal Uptake of Diethyl Phthalate and Di(n-butyl) Phthalate Directly from Air: Experimental Verification

Fundamental considerations indicate that, for certain phthalate esters, dermal absorption from air is an uptake pathway that is comparable to or greater than inhalation. Yet this pathway has not been experimentally evaluated and has been largely overlooked when assessing uptake of phthalate esters.This study investigated transdermal uptake, directly from air, of diethyl phthalate (DEP) and di(n-butyl) phthalate (DnBP) in humans.  ...continue reading "We Are Absorbing Some Air Pollutants Through Our Skin"

Two recent studies found health problems associated with low levels of vitamin D: higher risk of stress fractures and also increased severity of IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) symptoms. From Science Daily:

Low levels of vitamin D may increase risk of stress fractures in active individuals

Vitamin D plays a crucial role in ensuring appropriate bone density. Active individuals who enjoy participating in higher impact activities may need to maintain higher vitamin D levels to reduce their risk of stress fractures, report investigators in The Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery.

The role of vitamin D in the body has recently become a subject of increasing interest owing to its many physiologic effects throughout multiple organ systems. Vitamin D is an essential nutrient that can behave as a hormone. It is obtained through diet and through the skin when exposed to the sun's rays. It is essential for bone development and remodeling to ensure appropriate bone mass density. Low levels of vitamin D can lead to osteoporosis, osteomalacia, decreased bone mineral density, and risk of acute fracture.

Investigators tested the serum concentration of 25(OH)D, which is used to determine vitamin D status, in patients with confirmed stress fractures....Using the standards recommended by the Vitamin D Council (sufficient range 40 to 80 ng/mL), more than 80% of these patients would have been classified as having insufficient or deficient vitamin D levels. According to the standards set by the Endocrine Society (sufficient range 30 to 100 ng/mL), over 50% had insufficient levels.

"Based on these findings, we recommend a serum vitamin D level of at least 40 ng/mL to protect against stress fractures, especially for active individuals who enjoy participating in higher impact activities," explained Dr. Miller. "This correlates with an earlier study of 600 female Navy recruits who were found to have a twofold greater risk of stress fractures of the tibia and fibula with a vitamin D level of less than 20 ng/mL compared with females with concentrations above 40 ng/mL.

From Science Daily: Large proportion of IBS sufferers are vitamin D deficient

A large proportion of people living with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) are vitamin D deficient, a new study has found. Researchers from the University of Sheffield discovered a significant association between a patient's vitamin D levels and the severity of their IBS symptoms, particularly the extent to which IBS affects their quality of life.

The study, which is the first of its kind, found that out of 51 IBS patients tested 82 per cent exhibited insufficient vitamin D levels....IBS is a chronic and debilitating functional disorder of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract which affects around 10-15 per cent of the western population. Little is known about why and how the condition develops, although it is known that diet and stress can make symptoms worse. 

More evidence that traditional toys and books are superior to electronic toys in both verbal parent-child interactions and non-verbal interactions for young children. Parent-child verbal interactions are so important because they teach young children language, lay the groundwork for literacy skills, teach role-playing, teach emotional and social skills such as turn-taking and accepting others' leads. In other words, put down the electronic gadgets and go spend time talking and interacting with your young child with old style traditional toys and books. From Science Daily:

How does type of toy affect quantity, quality of language in infant playtime?

Electronic toys for infants that produce lights, words and songs were associated with decreased quantity and quality of language compared to playing with books or traditional toys such as a wooden puzzle, a shape-sorter and a set of rubber blocks, according to an article published online by JAMA Pediatrics.

Anna V. Sosa, Ph.D., of Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, and colleagues conducted a controlled experiment involving 26 parent-infant pairs with children who were 10 to 16 months old. Researchers did not directly observe parent-infant play time because it was conducted in participants' homes. Audio recording equipment was used to pick up sound. Participants were given three sets of toys: electronic toys (a baby laptop, a talking farm and a baby cell phone); traditional toys (chunky wooden puzzle, shape-sorter and rubber blocks with pictures); and five board books with farm animal, shape or color themes.

While playing with electronic toys there were fewer adult words used, fewer conversational turns with verbal back-and-forth, fewer parental responses and less production of content-specific words than when playing with traditional toys or books. Children also vocalized less while playing with electronic toys than with books, according to the results.

Results also indicate that parents produced fewer words during play with traditional toys than while playing with books with infants. Parents also used less content-specific words when playing with traditional toys with their infants than when playing with books. The authors note results showed the largest and most consistent differences between electronic toys and books, followed by electronic toys and traditional toys.

"These results provide a basis for discouraging the purchase of electronic toys that are promoted as educational and are often quite expensive. These results add to the large body of evidence supporting the potential benefits of book reading with very young children. They also expand on this by demonstrating that play with traditional toys may result in communicative interactions that are as rich as those that occur during book reading. ... However, if the emphasis is on activities that promote a rich communicative interaction between parents and infants, both play with traditional toys and book reading can be promoted as language-facilitating activities while play with electronic toys should be discouraged," the study concludes.

EDITORIAL: "Electronic toys that make noises or light up are extremely effective at commanding children's attention by activating their orienting reflex. This primitive reflex compels the mind to focus on novel visual or auditory stimuli. The study by Sosa in this issue of JAMA Pediatrics suggests that they may do more than just command children's attention; they appear to reduce parent-child verbal interactions. Why does this matter? Conversational turns during play do more than teach children language. They lay the groundwork for literacy skills, teach role-playing, give parents a window into their child's developmental stage and struggles, and teach social skills such as turn-taking and accepting others' leads.

Verbal interactions of course are only part of the story. What is missing from this study is a sense of how nonverbal interactions, which are also an important source of social and emotional skills, varied by toy type," write Jenny S. Radesky, M.D., of the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, and Dimitri A. Christakis, M.D., M.P.H., of Seattle Children's Hospital and a JAMA Pediatrics associate editor, in a related editorial.

The results of this study lead me to say DUH...of course spending time with children and being responsive to them, talking and interacting a lot with them, being affectionate and loving with them is best. So in this holiday season, don't just give gifts and toys to your children and think you can leave them to their own devices  or with others, but spend time with them, talk a lot to them, play games with them, interact, and do things with them. Put down your own electronic devices (cell phone, laptop, tablet, etc) and go spend time with your child. From Science Daily:

Parent touch, play and support in childhood vital to well-being as an adult

Did you receive affection, play freely and feel supported in childhood? Childhood experiences like these appear to have a lot to do with well-being and moral capacities in adulthood. In a forthcoming article in the journal Applied Developmental Science, University of Notre Dame professor of psychology Darcia Narvaez and colleagues Lijuan Wang and Ying Cheng, associate professors of psychology, show that childhood experiences that match with evolved needs lead to better outcomes in adulthood.

According to Narvaez, one of the reasons that the well-being of children in the United States lags behind that of children in other advanced nations is because "we have forgotten that we are social mammals with specific evolved needs from birth."

"Humans evolved with a nest of care for their young that matches up with the maturational schedule of the child. It was shaped over 30 million years ago and modified through human evolution," Narvaez said. "We call it the evolved developmental niche." In describing this niche, Narvaez emphasizes six components: Soothing, naturalistic perinatal experiences; responsiveness to a baby's needs including sensitivity to the signals of the baby before the baby cries; constant physical presence with plenty of affectionate touch; extensive breastfeeding; playful interactions with caregivers and friends; and a community of affectionate, mindful caregivers.

Narvaez, Wang and Cheng asked adults to reflect on their childhoods according to several components of the evolved developmental niche (EDN): How much did they receive physical affection? Play freely outside and inside? Do things as a family inside and outside the home? Feel supported?

Adults who report receiving more of such parenting practices in their childhoods display less depression and anxiety, greater ability to take the perspective of others and an orientation toward compassion. Adults who report less of these parenting practices in their childhood have poorer mental health, more distress in social situations and are less able to take another's point of view.

"Our research shows that when we don't provide children with what they evolved to need, they turn into adults with decreased social and moral capacities," Narvaez said. "With toxic stress in childhood, the good stuff doesn't get a chance to grow and you become stress reactive. It's hard to be compassionate when you are focused on yourself. We can see adults all around us who were traumatized or undercared for at critical times." In prior research, Narvaez and her colleagues found that children who experienced more of the evolved developmental niche exhibit, for example, more empathy, self-control and conscience.