PDA

View Full Version : Risk of Scoliosis Among 1st Degree Relatives



Dingo
11-20-2009, 01:20 PM
Risk of Spinal Deformity Among 1st Degree Relatives Of Children With Scoliosis

Author:
Dingo

Objective:
To estimate the risk of spinal deformity among 1st degree relatives of 41 Canadian children who underwent spinal fusion for Scoliosis.

Data:
The sample of 41 children comes from Dr. Moreauís 2004 study, Melatonin Signaling Dysfunction in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis. (Source (http://pico.sssup.it/files/allegati/2004_1469.pdf)) From the study, "Hereditary links were established by asking the patients and their relatives about the presence or not of a spinal deformity affecting a family member."
Family size comes from the 2006 Canadian census. (Source (http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil50a-eng.htm))

Background:
Scoliosis is the most common, childhood, spinal deformity. Spinal curves greater than 10 degrees occur in approximately 3 children in 100. Spinal curves greater than 20 degrees occur in approximately 1 child in 2000. (Source (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2674301/table/T1)) All children in this sample had severe Scoliosis and underwent spinal fusion. Cobb angles ranged from 30 degrees to 90 degrees. Curves of this magnitude occur in a small fraction of the patient population. It's possible that this sample contained children who posessed an increased, genetic susceptability to Scoliosis.

1st degree relatives share an average of 50% of the same genetic material. They include parents, siblings and fraternal twins. (Source (http://www.datadictionaryadmin.scot.nhs.uk/isddd/24260.html))

Results:
The risk of spinal deformity for parents was 7.3%
The risk of spinal deformity for siblings was 9.8%

The risk of spinal deformity for 1st degree females was 11.7%
The risk of spinal deformity for 1st degree males was 3.9%

Discussion:
The risk of spinal deformity among parents and siblings was similar. These numbers were consistent with earlier research which found that 1st degree relatives had an 11.1% risk of Scoliosis that was 20 degrees or greater. (Source (http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/55/5/974.pdf)) 1st degree females had a 300% increased risk of spinal deformity compared to 1st degree males.

Calculations:
The sample included 41 children.
Out of 82 parents 6 had a spinal deformity. (6 / 82 = 7.3%)
Although it is likely that all siblings of patients who underwent spinal fusion would be screened for Scoliosis the same isn't true for parents. It is possible that this number understates the total number of parents with some type of deformity.

The number of siblings was not collected for Dr. Moreauís study. Data from the 2006 Canadian census was used to determine the approximate number of siblings. According to the census among families who had children the average number of children living at home was 1.5. This suggests that 41 Canadian children would have approximately 20.5 siblings. In Dr. Moreau's sample 2 siblings had a spinal deformity. (2 / 20.5 = 9.8%)

1st degree females included 41 mothers and approximately 10.25 sisters (20.5 / 2) which amounted to 51.25 persons. Among this sample 6 had a spinal deformity (6 / 51.25 = 11.7%)

1st degree males included 41 fathers and approximately 10.25 brothers (20.5 / 2) which amounted to 51.25 persons. Among this sample 2 had a spinal deformity (2 / 51.25 = 3.9%)

mamamax
11-21-2009, 10:27 AM
I'm not sure how to interpret this study because: (1) the collected data is limited to the families of 41 patients requiring surgery and (2) hereditary links have been established through self reporting via a questionnaire. It looks like the calculations were based upon the reporting rather than screening and we all know that people can have a mild case of scoliosis without being aware of it. Family members can also be unaware of others in their family who have been diagnosed. I certainly was unaware of some in 2004. Today I know my mother had a mild case in her youth, a case that became seriously advanced in old age. My maternal grandmother the same. Both my mother and myself are one of four siblings and the only ones to be effected (that I am aware of).

I wonder what different results may be established through a repeated study using actual screening techniques vs self reporting techniques. Expanding the study to include those who do not require surgery would also be informative.

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 10:29 AM
[COLOR="Navy"]I'm not sure how to interpret this study because:

This is not a published study. It is Dingo's fatally flawed thoughts on the subject that have been put in the standard abstract format to try to fool people. And he isn't correcting people when they assume it is a published study. This is proof of his intent to deceive. But the material is clearly flawed so that is a clue it is not published.

Note there is no citation. That's another BIG clue.

mamamax
11-21-2009, 10:39 AM
Ha! This is Dingo's? Wow ... that tosses a different light on the subject. It's well done! There are a lot of flawed studies out there (Wong's flawed Spinecor study is my favorite).

Well done Dingo - and yes, Sharon I missed the lack of citation. The work was so well presented I assumed its presence and broke my own rule which is - assume nothing.

I've learned something and have been most amused (at my own expense) in the process. Me thinks our Dingo ranks with the best :-)

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 10:47 AM
Researchers operate one way and Dingo operates in a diametrically opposite fashion. He is a lay untrained parent and it shows.

Blind leading the blind leading the naked.

Putting that "material" in standard abstract format is deceptive. He deceived you and would not have corrected you at any point based on his comments elsewhere.

Do you like being deliberately deceived?

mamamax
11-21-2009, 11:18 AM
Do I like being deliberately deceived? Oh gosh - well, you know, a lot of studies deliberately deceive .. my answer is - generally speaking, no ... although I can see where there have been exceptions in my life ;-)

Maybe Dingo assumed we would all know this was not a published study and for that reason did not elaborate - either way it does demonstrate something important.

Many studies (more than we would imagine) are flawed and therefore deceptive. We always need to look deep. And sometimes, the obvious escapes us.

I'm betting Dingo would have straightened out my misunderstanding.

This is rather reminiscent of Wells' War of the Worlds.

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 11:28 AM
I'm betting Dingo would have straightened out my misunderstanding.


Why would he straighten you out and not others?

Does he like you better?

Dingo
11-21-2009, 11:32 AM
Mamamax

Glad you liked it, I wrote that yesterday. I didn't realize that people wouldn't know that I wrote that. I posted it everywhere and I certainly plan on taking credit for it. :)


I wonder what different results may be established through a repeated study using actual screening techniques vs self reporting techniques.

Self reporting does raise the odds that a case of Scoliosis will be missed. I doubt that many (or any) sibling cases were missed. However with parents it's a different story. Some parents may not be aware that they have Scoliosis, particularly if it's mild.

However even if some cases were missed the numbers wouldn't be that different. Earlier work based on direct measurement found an 11.1% risk of 20 degree Scoliosis and a 15.8% risk of 10 degree Scoliosis among 1st degree relatives. (Source (http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/55/5/974.pdf)) I bet if you could ferrit out the unknown cases in Dr. Moreau's sample (if there were any) my analysis would align very closely with those numbers.

mamamax
11-21-2009, 11:51 AM
Dingo ~

Like it? I Loved it! For many reasons. I would hypothesize that if such a study were conducted using screening vs self reporting techniques that the percentages would be much higher.

Your ability to gather information and present it is impressive and comparable to those who do it for a living.

I would challenge anyone who takes some great exception to your study of studies - to prepare a rebuttal in the same format. That would be interesting. Unfortunately beyond the scope of my present abilities :-)

Thank you Dingo.

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 11:53 AM
http://www.scoliosis-support.org/showthread.php?t=8843

New thread title - "A mock study by Dingo: "Risk of Scoliosis Among 1st Degree Relatives"

They added the first part, "A mock study by Dingo:" to Dingo's original thread title.

Apparently the mods there thought he was being deceptive also.

Hopefully the mods here will make the same thread title change to avoid deception.

mamamax
11-21-2009, 12:12 PM
Looks like it was most enjoyed and admired over there also!

Oh - how I wish I could present so well. You give me something to strive for Dingo. An innocent posting with some really enlightening results. Obvious to me that there was no attempt to deceive - you just didn't realize how good you are at expressing yourself. Presume that you now do.

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 12:29 PM
Most people (except Pnuttro and dhuggan as far as I know) posting here are bunnies. I am a bunny. I admit that.

There is enough nonsense in the published, peer-reviewed papers already. We don't have to add more nonsense in the form of mock abstracts. It is beyond obvious that most people will be fooled by that post because they can't adequately evaluate the material and because it is in abstract format. I can list the several people who were fooled and some who were fooled and not edified when the chance arose also.

Read the abstract again. There are obvious red flags about how it can not be a published study even without a citation. The literature is bad but there are limits.

More generally, honest researchers approach a subject without preconceived notions and consider evidence for and against. The way science works best is to ESPECIALLY consider the evidence against a proposition and try to find flaws in it. They don't focus ONLY on supportive evidence and ignore everything else and tailor their subsequent analyses to fit their preconceived notions. That is a sure recipe to NOT find the right answer.

This is what I mean by diametrically opposing approaches.

mamamax
11-21-2009, 12:34 PM
Sharon -

You are a research scientist, yes? I would like to see you take this opportunity to post a rebuttal in the same format.

I don't know what a bunny is but if most are, I suppose I am one also?

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 12:57 PM
Sharon -

You are a research scientist, yes? I would like to see you take this opportunity to post a rebuttal in the same format.

I don't know what a bunny is but if most are, I suppose I am one also?


It would be useless because it would go against his tightly-held preconceived notions.

Look at how he continues to post the Danish Twins study which by their own numbers is missing at least half and maybe 2/3 of the scoliosis cases. That matters as they were dealing with 220 when they actual number might be 660. That matters.

I pointed out these fatal flaws a long while ago and more recently a researcher in the field pointed out one of the IDENTICAL fatal flaws in order to dismiss the Danish twins study. And I'm just a bunny so those flaws were OBVIOUS and still Dingo missed them.

It is useless.

mamamax
11-21-2009, 01:02 PM
I don't think it would be useless. Maybe you underestimate your own abilities. I think your rebuttal (from an actual research scientist) in the same format would be very useful - if not legendary ;-)

Dingo
11-21-2009, 03:01 PM
mamamax


I don't think it would be useless.

To be fair I think Pooka1 was correct. Her post would most likely be devoid of value.

Ballet Mom
11-21-2009, 03:19 PM
Dingo,

I have a hard time with just checking over family members to determine if they have scoliosis or not. As one of the studies Mamamax posted "Treating children with idiopathic scoliosis can amaze someone at the many different ways in which the deformity can present". Unless everyone in the family gets an x-ray there is no way that just by checking the family member's backs will the researchers find all the scoliosis present.

My daughter's pediatrician who checked my daughter AFTER she was already diagnosed with a 35 degree curve, decided that the x-rays must have been mixed up at the orthopedist's office. He couldn't believe she had scoliosis. Granted, this was when the curve had bounced back to about 28 degrees when she first got her bending brace, but still....unnoticeable to a highly trained and highly experienced pediatrician. He was dumbfounded. I think it would still be hard for someone to diagnose her with scoliosis and she has a 35 degree curve.....and yet you say you can see your son's at eleven degrees. Amazingly varied presentations of scoliosis that could only be accurately identified with x-rays.


Sharon,



There is enough nonsense in the published, peer-reviewed papers already. We don't have to add more nonsense in the form of mock abstracts. It is beyond obvious that most people will be fooled by that post because they can't adequately evaluate the material and because it is in abstract format. I can list the several people who were fooled and some who were fooled and not edified when the chance arose also.

Read the abstract again. There are obvious red flags about how it can not be a published study even without a citation. The literature is bad but there are limits.

More generally, honest researchers approach a subject without preconceived notions and consider evidence for and against. The way science works best is to ESPECIALLY consider the evidence against a proposition and try to find flaws in it. They don't focus ONLY on supportive evidence and ignore everything else and tailor their subsequent analyses to fit their preconceived notions. That is a sure recipe to NOT find the right answer.

This is what I mean by diametrically opposing approaches.

Since we are discussing "research deception", I am quite interested in your response to the scandal regarding the "science" behind Anthropogenic Global Warming and the hacking of Britain's Climate Research Unit. I do recall being called something to the effect of being a denier regarding AGW when I mentioned that I thought AGW was propaganda. Sounds like that's exactly what it is....whatever the party line is to promote its agenda of global governance.

For those unaware of what's happened:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Or should we just chalk it up to the old "most research results are false" and move along quietly....?

mamamax
11-21-2009, 03:31 PM
Dingo - Well we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I would love to see Sharon's rebuttal (done in the same format). Why? Between any one given study (mock or otherwise) and its rebuttal (and often, the rebuttal of the rebuttal) - valuable information surfaces.

Kudos to you again on the well done presentation. Sharon, according to her profile, is an actual research scientist - I think a well referenced rebuttal would be informative.

I'm observing that those who actually publish papers in all the journals we read tend to do this all the time - and from such, the knowledge base grows.

Impressive it is to see that this forum has one person such as yourself who is capable of writing on the same level as we see in journal publications - maybe we have two?

Dingo
11-21-2009, 03:32 PM
Pooka1

I sourced my post like a web post, (Source) not like a scientific study with footnotes. You noticed that right?

Dingo
11-21-2009, 03:33 PM
Sharon, according to her profile, is an actual research scientist

Why do I find that unlikely? :)

Dingo
11-21-2009, 03:46 PM
BalletMom

It's certainly possible that self reporting would not include all cases of Scoliosis. I think among siblings most (or all) of the cases in this sample would have been found. Among parents probably less.

However even if they missed half the cases the percentages would still be in line with earlier studies that found a relatively low risk for 1st degree relatives. (A Genetic Survey of Idiopathic Scoliosis in Boston, Massachusetts (http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/55/5/974.pdf)) Everyone in this study was checked by a physician. The risk of a 10 degree curve was about 15% and a 20 degree curve was about 11%.

That's WAAAAAaaaaaay lower than that recent Japanese study that found a 62.5% concordance rate among fraternal twins (siblings). (Idiopathic scoliosis in twins studied by DNA fingerprinting (http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/80-B/2/212.pdf)) It's studies like this where people got the idea that Scoliosis was 92% concordant among identical twins. It's just not the case.

PNUTTRO
11-21-2009, 03:56 PM
I would love to send a comment to the Journal of Dingo, but I am afraid the reviewers would put me off endlessly.

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 04:03 PM
I would love to send a comment to the Journal of Dingo, but I am afraid the reviewers would put me off endlessly.

The Journal of Dingo doesn't accept actual research results or comments thereon, only those from lay, untrained parents. Untrained people "reviewing" back of the envelope misguided calculations. That way it is all consistent.

I find it incredible that folks think that mock abstract required more than 1-2 minutes to produce (not including typing).

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 04:19 PM
Sharon,

Since we are discussing "research deception", I am quite interested in your response to the scandal regarding the "science" behind Anthropogenic Global Warming and the hacking of Britain's Climate Research Unit. I do recall being called something to the effect of being a denier regarding AGW when I mentioned that I thought AGW was propaganda. Sounds like that's exactly what it is....whatever the party line is to promote its agenda of global governance.

For those unaware of what's happened:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Or should we just chalk it up to the old "most research results are false" and move along quietly....?

I read that in the paper today and chuckled because the article didn't really include much of the emails and I thought it was just silly talk in emails.

Now that I see some of the emails I find it somewhat alarming.

Though climate is a related field and I have done some studies that talk about climate signals, I am not a climate type and can't really comment on the science especially the global models. I will say that sometimes what scientists refer to as "tricks" are not illegitimate in the lay sense. It's still the actual data but presented on a log versus linear scale for example. I call that a "trick" but it really isn't. The point is you have to be absolutely clear in what you present in a graph and never include data that you fail to mention in the figure title and text and never omit data that is mentioned in the figure title and text.

I'm not saying that these guys aren't using real tricks but if they are then they should be canned. And I saw mention of FOIA... Federal scientists can be canned for destroying material that should be retained for x number of years to avoid a FOIA as far as I know.

Last, I will say that these two groups in the UK and the US are not the only ones who have concluded that AGW is a real possibility as far as I know. So we have to wonder how far reaching any conspiracy is or can be. The larger the less likely it is to be contained.

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 04:27 PM
Why do I find that unlikely? :)

You find it unlikely that I am a research scientist because you have ZERO relevant training in research, don't have the first clue how research scientists operate, and therefore can't understand why it is diametrically opposite to how you operate.

If lay untrained parents can produce adequate research on the back of envelopes in a few minutes then why do people bother to go through PhD programs, post docs, years of research,

Pnuttro is a research scientist. Do you also churlishly deny that?

Ballet Mom
11-21-2009, 05:32 PM
I'm not saying that these guys aren't using real tricks but if they are then they should be canned. And I saw mention of FOIA... Federal scientists can be canned for destroying material that should be retained for x number of years to avoid a FOIA as far as I know.


I agree, a very good start....

And what does the new European Union president have to say about global governance? Listen at 1:55 if you're interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ToNZaEZJI

Ballet Mom
11-21-2009, 06:04 PM
The Journal of Dingo doesn't accept actual research results or comments thereon, only those from lay, untrained parents. Untrained people "reviewing" back of the envelope misguided calculations. That way it is all consistent.



I didn't realize this website was to be restricted to only those who are "research scientists", at least by self-identification. If only we could get rid of those pesky "little people", life would be so much easier for those "research scientists" just "honestly" trying to get to the facts of the matters. Remember, there's a reason if "most research studies are false". I wonder what that is....hmmmm.

mamamax
11-21-2009, 06:47 PM
I would love to send a comment to the Journal of Dingo, but I am afraid the reviewers would put me off endlessly.

The Journal of Dingo. I like that!! No one seems to have what it takes to do the rebuttal (in the same format) including myself.

Maybe you PNUTTRO? I don't think reviewers would put you off endlessly.

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 07:24 PM
I didn't realize this website was to be restricted to only those who are "research scientists", at least by self-identification. If only we could get rid of those pesky "little people", life would be so much easier for those "research scientists" just "honestly" trying to get to the facts of the matters. Remember, there's a reason if "most research studies are false". I wonder what that is....hmmmm.

This website isn't the Journal of Dingo. He is invited to start his own website to bask in lay untrained "research." He is NOT invited to mislead other lay people here nor on other fora devoted to helping lay untrained readers.

Lay people who are honestly trying to get to the facts of the matter are helpful to all.

That is not what is on the table.

We have lay people putting specious calculations and "reasoning" in formal formats that is in fact fooling other lay people into thinking it is peer reviewed research when it is lay back of the envelope specious calculations.

I can list the people by name who were fooled. Some are moderators who appreciated it so little that they amended Dingo's thread title.

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 07:25 PM
The Journal of Dingo. I like that!! No one seems to have what it takes to do the rebuttal (in the same format) including myself.

Maybe you PNUTTRO? I don't think reviewers would put you off endlessly.


Let me start you off. What is OBVIOUSLY wrong with the calculation of 2/20.5. It's very obvious. Think about this for at least 30 seconds.

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 07:34 PM
Remember, there's a reason if "most research studies are false". I wonder what that is....hmmmm.

(Lack of controlled studies largely confined to the medical literature... unheard of in other scientific fields.)

Pooka1
11-21-2009, 08:02 PM
... and being critical of Tonibunny too who is just trying to stop the deception.

Dingo writes on another forum... "Kooka (as per usual) went bonkers and ToniBunny jumped in on her side to help out."

Very "adult" and "mature," Dingo ("as per usual").

mamamax
11-21-2009, 08:51 PM
The Dingo Study does seem better received elsewhere: http://www.scoliosis-support.org/showthread.php?t=8843&page=2

Some entertaining name calling going on over here ... and still, no one can duplicate (or even imitate) the Dingo Study.

Score one for the alleged lay guy :-)

Pooka1
11-22-2009, 09:22 AM
Sharon,



Since we are discussing "research deception", I am quite interested in your response to the scandal regarding the "science" behind Anthropogenic Global Warming and the hacking of Britain's Climate Research Unit. I do recall being called something to the effect of being a denier regarding AGW when I mentioned that I thought AGW was propaganda. Sounds like that's exactly what it is....whatever the party line is to promote its agenda of global governance.

For those unaware of what's happened:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Or should we just chalk it up to the old "most research results are false" and move along quietly....?

Even though the subject of AGW is way off topic, Balletmom is exactly right that the issue with these hacked emails is one of potential deception and that is very relevant to this thread.

Those emails I read were sufficiently alarming to me that I dug further. Here is a site that includes a rational explanation for the apparent "hidden data" graph written by "somewhat" of a third party (see reference).

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the_hacked_climate_science_ema.php

You will note the explanation of "tricks" and it is what I stated earlier... something is not a trick when the data are "hidden" in plain view and a full explanation is included. The way I use the word "trick" when graphing some data let's say would be alarming to lay folks when it is not deceptive at all. It's just scientists jargon.

You will also note mention of the lack of evidence of a worldwide conspiracy which is another point I made earlier. Some of these points are obvious and you don't have to be in the climate game to surmise them. But other things are just going to be almost impossible to understand without being in the climate game. I would need to put in several weeks worth of reading to understand what exactly is going on with these emails, something I won't be doing. The truth is likely at neither end but somewhere in the middle. My guess is the underlying science will stand but some people are going to get black eyes for perhaps massaging the data a little too much in their irrational exuberance.

And I still say the Feds who destroys documents before the seven year hold period ended (or whatever it is) or the Feds who did anything to avoid a FOIA should be canned whether or not the underlying science stands. There should be no reason to avoid a FOIA even though it can entail huge amounts of work because the requester pays for the expense as far as I know. You may have to bring people on to answer the request but it's paid for as far as I know.

Pooka1
11-22-2009, 09:28 AM
Some entertaining name calling going on over here ... and still, no one can duplicate (or even imitate) the Dingo Study.


Mamamax, the "work" in question entails two division calculations of questionable significance. How long does it take you to do two division problems? Do you have a calculator?

If he presented it as simply two division calculations instead of padding it with verbiage that would only be necessary if it was publishable, would you be drooling over it so much? Can you ask yourself this?

You need to recognize form versus substance. Boil it down. Your constantly asking to respond in the same "format" is not going to help matters. A fancy format isn't going to change deficient substance.

mamamax
11-22-2009, 09:37 AM
Case in point - I rest my case. :D

Pooka1
11-22-2009, 09:43 AM
Well I see I walked into that.

But don't you see that you were fooled by form and didn't boil it down to the substance which is two questionable division calculations?

How long would it take a person to critique those two calculations do you think? How long if they just wrote it versus put it in some particular format? Does the format matter? Should it?

Why don't you critique those two calculations and see how long it takes?

mamamax
11-22-2009, 09:59 AM
ok - I'll walk into this :-)

I'm not going to spend my time on the mathematical calculation because - math ain't my thing. If a mathematical error was made in the Dingo study, it wouldn't be the first such error made in any study.

The Dingo Study was better than good - and as I understand it, involved hours of work. The presentation was the result of countless hours of research and formatted as well as any published study I've been reading over the past year. Format is important and I guess the reason why many journals have format guidelines.

I like such studies - they are constructed without explosive emotion - giving me a chance to focus on the issues at hand and further research on my own.

When there are inaccuracies in any study - I look forward to the rebuttal for the same reasons.

Deception was not the intention and as it turns out - Dingo was quite surprised to discover that we didn't understand he was in fact posting his own study. I find the resulting awareness of all that - enchanting - and impressive.

Sharon - upthread you expressed an opinion that the Dingo Study would have taken only a few minutes to compose. If that's true, then the same should be true for a rebuttal. Was hoping to see that on my birthday ;-)

Pooka1
11-22-2009, 10:46 AM
Here's a birthday present for you....

The thread on SSO was either pulled or asked to be removed by the OP.

I disagree with removing that thread if the mods pulled it which I don't think is the case.

mamamax
11-22-2009, 10:58 AM
I see that the Dingo Study has been reposted without previous history:

http://www.scoliosis-support.org/showthread.php?t=8854

Pity the history is gone - there was more support than angst in that thread, from the mods as well. Maybe Dingo requested the update. That would be my bet.

Also see another is interested in a rebuttal - haha, I am not the only one!

oojackapivvy
11-22-2009, 11:56 AM
I'm titch, site owner and one of the admins across at SSo.

I pulled the thread and asked Dingo to repost, with it clear at the outset that he was the author, so that we could re-open discussion of it. Previous experience of contentious posts suggests that while matters are normally resolved within a page or two (as was the case here, as Dingo posted publically that the study was by him, at the first opportunity he got), many people come late to the party and dealing with their posts (either supportive or antagonistic) actually prevents discussion of the informational aspects of the original post. Hope that actually makes sense, I've had to take a fair few painkillers today as my back is murderous.

Anyway. Point is, it was not pulled to cover up controversy or anything like that, but rather so that if there is discussion to be had about it, we are able to sensibly discuss things such as how applicable the figures derived from the Canadian census are, rather than spend the next 2 weeks intermittently pointing out to people that there is no longer any controversy over ownership and that it was a big misunderstanding. It's to keep things productive :)

mamamax
11-22-2009, 12:25 PM
Hi Titch - Nice to meet you. Thank you for the clarification which makes perfect sense. Sorry to hear you are a little under the weather today (pain wise) and hope you feel much better very soon.

Dingo
11-22-2009, 03:10 PM
I just updated my analysis and included a comparison of 1st degree females vs. males. No surprise females had a significantly higher risk of Scoliosis compared to males.

Dingo
11-22-2009, 06:33 PM
How many cases of Scoliosis among siblings would Dr. Moreau need to have missed to match his sample up with this study?

Idiopathic scoliosis in twins studied by DNA fingerprinting (http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/80-B/2/212.pdf)


We investigated 21 pairs of twins for zygosity and idiopathic scoliosis. DNA fingerprinting confirmed that 13 pairs were monozygotic and eight were dizygotic. There was concordance for idiopathic scoliosis in 92.3% of monozygotic and 62.5% of dizygotic twins.

Dizygotic twins commonly known as fraternal twins are genetically equivalent to brothers and sisters. They are 1st degree relatives.

In Dr. Moreau's sample 2 siblings out of approximately 20.5 had a spinal deformity. (2 / 20.5 - 9.8%) That's a far cry from the 62.5% found in the Japanese study mentioned above. How many cases of Scoliosis would Dr. Moreau need to have have missed to bring my analysis into line with the Japanese results? 11 missed cases. Instead of 2 cases in roughly 20, the number would have needed to be 13 cases in 20.

13 cases may have matched Dr. Moreau's sample up with the Japanese study but they would have pushed his work completely out of line with earlier studies that used direct physical examination.
(A Genetic Survey of Idiopathic Scoliosis in Boston, Massachusetts (http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/55/5/974.pdf))
This study found that among first degree relatives there was a 15.8% chance of a 10 degree curve and an 11.1% chance of 20 degree curve. Those results were nearly identical to what was found in Dr. Moreau's sample of children with severe scoliosis.

Ballet Mom
11-22-2009, 07:55 PM
(Lack of controlled studies largely confined to the medical literature... unheard of in other scientific fields.)

Well, that's the first I've heard that your comments about most research results being false was confined to medical research!

No, actually I was going for the old.....follow the money...


i.e.:


Just in case you still think Jones is just some no-name boffin toiling pitifully in academia's climate change coal mines, one file in the exposed CRU records reveals that he has collected 13.7 million in grants since 1990.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/warming-to-the-climate-con-job/story-e6frezz0-1225801796426

Ballet Mom
11-22-2009, 08:02 PM
Even though the subject of AGW is way off topic, Balletmom is exactly right that the issue with these hacked emails is one of potential deception and that is very relevant to this thread.
/
/
You will note the explanation of "tricks" and it is what I stated earlier... something is not a trick when the data are "hidden" in plain view and a full explanation is included. The way I use the word "trick" when graphing some data let's say would be alarming to lay folks when it is not deceptive at all. It's just scientists jargon.


Yeah, yeah, yeah....the innocent "trick" was to "hide the decline" in certain temperatures. How convenient the "trick" was to make it look like the data was in line with what they are trying to promulgate and not the other way around.




The veil comes off global warming

Here's a baffling headline: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out.

Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents.

So why are they baffled? The question answers itself. Their predictive models are inadequate. Instead of simply admitting it, they are saying that nature doesn't play fair because the world is not conforming to their computer predictions.

[M]eteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany's best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. "There can be no argument about that," he says. "We have to face that fact."

Because climate science is a financial racket more than a scientific discipline (more about that in a moment) the wonder is not that the warming predictions were wrong, but that scientists like Latif are finally admitting that they basically don't know what they're doing. Fact is, they have been doing science hardly at all. They've been running computer programs that confirm their own biases, the main one of which is to publish papers that please politicians who are ever-thirsty for more power. Climate alarmism is the hottest thing going for statist ideology today across the globe and politicians reliably keep the gravy train running for scientists who buttress it.

In fact, none of the modeling used to predict the end of the world as we know it accounts for:

The effect of water vapor, which accounts for 95 percent of atmospheric temperature effects,
The influence of clouds,
The influence of cosmic radiation of cloud formation,
An atmosphere that does in fact end in space - models mathematically assume the atmosphere extends to infinity,
The effect of deep-ocean, cold water flows,
The effect of sunspots,
The intensity of sunlight.

http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2009/11/veil-comes-off-global-warming.html#links

Ballet Mom
11-22-2009, 08:25 PM
In Dr. Moreau's sample 2 siblings out of approximately 20.5 had a spinal deformity. (2 / 20.5 - 9.8%) That's a far cry from the 62.5% found in the Japanese study mentioned above. How many cases of Scoliosis would Dr. Moreau need to have have missed to bring my analysis into line with the Japanese results? 11 missed cases. Instead of 2 cases in roughly 20, the number would have needed to be 13 cases in 20.



Hi Dingo,

I'm just wondering if the Japanese x-rayed all the relatives? If not, there is always the possibility that because Japanese people tend to be quite a bit thinner than westerners...at least the ones that stayed in Japan, they were able to detect more scoliosis than westerners can without the x-rays.

My daughter is very thin and it's hard to see the scoliosis with a significant curve, it would be much harder to see those with scoliosis with a lot of weight on - unless there were significant rotation.

I think that in any of these studies, unless they x-ray all the family members, they simply could be missing a significant number of unidentified scoliosis cases that may never be identified.

Dingo
11-22-2009, 10:25 PM
BalletMom

I'm fairly sure that in the case of Dr. Moreau's sample most (or all) siblings would have been checked. However it's always possible that they missed some cases. Even so it's not that they would have missed some cases, it's that they would have missed nearly EVERY case.

Anything is possible but when Moreau's sample lines up with the Boston sample you have to bet that both guys did their job just about right.

The Japanese study never mentions how they put their sample together. My guess is that it wasn't random which explains their off the chart concordance rates. Also it didn't look at relatives, only the twins.

The Moreau sample (41 kids) and the Japanese sample (21 twin pairs) were about the same size. But the Boston sample which produced almost the same 1st degree risk numbers as Moreau's sample was enormous! It contained 207 kids and over 1,000 relatives. All of these people were x-rayed.


All index patients and first degree relatives (parents and siblings) included in the survey were seen personally and roentgenograms were obtained. Second degree relatives (grandparents, uncles, and aunts) and third degree relatives (first cousins only) whenever possible were seen and examined. In the case of those living at a distance, diagnosis was made on the basis of the roentgenographic examination only. The total number of second degree relatives was 1,720. No information was obtained on 543 of them (350 were dead at the time of the survey and 193 could not be traced). Roentgenograms were obtained for the remaining 1,177 (that is, 86 per cent of those still living).

roentgenogram means X-ray

Obviously the Boston study is a lot better than my analysis. What I should say is that my analysis backs up the Boston study, not the other way around. Both produced numbers in a completely different orbit than the Japanese study which is the point I'm trying to get at.

The next time somebody tells you that Scoliosis is 90% concordant among identical twins ask them where they heard that. If it comes back to this singular Japanese study that's not a strong sign.

Pooka1
11-23-2009, 05:29 AM
Well, that's the first I've heard that your comments about most research results being false was confined to medical research!

Actually I think that article was only referring to the medical literature as there is no way the authors could possibly get their arms around much else in one lifetime. Nevertheless I think it does apply to the rest of science for other reasons. When you can't get an uncontrolled study published in another field obviously uncontrolled studies are NOT the reason most of those results are false.


No, actually I was going for the old.....follow the money...


i.e.:



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/warming-to-the-climate-con-job/story-e6frezz0-1225801796426

No the money thing is a red herring and you never see this mentioned by folks who know how monies are awarded in the case of merit-based science.

Pooka1
11-23-2009, 05:41 AM
Yeah, yeah, yeah....the innocent "trick" was to "hide the decline" in certain temperatures. How convenient the "trick" was to make it look like the data was in line with what they are trying to promulgate and not the other way around.

See this topic almost can't be discussed because of the huge divide between scientist jargon and the general public. Take for example the word "theory." The lay public thinks this word means a guess. In fact in science "theory" is the most complete explanation that captures the most data. So when something is elevated to a theory like evolution by natural selection (evolution is also a fact so this might be confusing) it means there is a boatload of data that supports it, almost no unexplained data that undermines it, and virtually all scientists (all intellectually honest ones at least) accept it because of that.




http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2009/11/veil-comes-off-global-warming.html#links

No the money thing is never advanced by people who understand this topic as far as I know.

Consider the following:

1. That is the money he and his colleagues got in grants over ~19 YEARS I assume. That would not be unusual but it's pretty good. (ETA: The salaries of these researchers are fixed. It doesn't go up as the grant money goes up. I assume you knew that, yes?)

2. Federal NSF monies are awarded on the basis of merit via peer review, not political expedience. Now the call for proposals guides the research but those never fund specific conclusions, only specific fields of study. The research falls out whichever way it falls out.

3. You can bet you bottom dollar several of those millions that researcher was awarded were awarded during the 8-year Bush administration, the SAME Bush administration which was publicly accused of suppressing results consistent with AGW. How does that square with your claim that politics determines Federal research funding?

concerned dad
11-23-2009, 09:35 AM
I am as guilty (perhaps more so) as the next person in swinging posts off topic.

I spent sometime this weekend trying to understand the issue of torso rotation therapy and, while doing so, realized the extent of the challenge that folks face while trying to follow a topic here on NSF.

The topic of the recent release of internal emails from the top scientists involved in climate science is relevant to our discussions about scoliosis research and scientific integrity. I started a new thread in ďResearchĒ where perhaps we can continue the discussion.

Ballet Mom
11-23-2009, 11:51 AM
Thanks CD,

I will respond to Sharon in your new thread.

Ballet Mom
11-23-2009, 12:00 PM
But the Boston sample which produced almost the same 1st degree risk numbers as Moreau's sample was enormous! It contained 207 kids and over 1,000 relatives. All of these people were x-rayed.

Obviously the Boston study is a lot better than my analysis. What I should say is that my analysis backs up the Boston study, not the other way around. Both produced numbers in a completely different orbit than the Japanese study which is the point I'm trying to get at.



Thanks Dingo. I'm very happy to hear that the Boston study x-rayed all these kids and even the relatives! Good for them, it makes it more likely that their results are valid.

I am still interested in the Japanese study though. I wonder if the Japanese may actually have more noticeable scoliosis than those of western descent and that may account for some of the difference in rates? You yourself have brought up the idea that perhaps muscle mass helps prevent progression of scoliosis. Perhaps with the slimmer build of the Japanese, they could have more progression of scoliosis than those of the west, seeing as we have a large proportion of Germans and Swedes, etc...that tend to have more muscular builds. It's a thought anyway as to why there may be such a large difference in the studies.

Dingo
11-23-2009, 01:55 PM
BalletMom

It's certainly possible that Japanese might have more curve progression because they half smaller frames on average than Europeans. I'm not saying I know anything about that but it's possible.

Everything I read suggests that in general the more muscle the better.

Oddly enough even before my son was diagnosed and I knew anything about Scoliosis I had a sense that it was a small person's disorder. I know that's a stereotype but you don't automatically think of The Terminator and Scoliosis together. :)