View Full Version : FAO mamamax

11-21-2009, 10:24 AM
Your response on Fix's forum (ETA: and here) in re first degree relatives is NOT to a published article. It is to Dingo's fatally flawed little bunny analysis that he wrote to look like a published abstract and posted here and a few other places. It is now leading the blind on at least two other fora because they don't realize it is not a published article but rather the fatally flawed analysis of a lay untrained person.

And Dingo is NOT correcting people when they assume it is a published article rather than his own thoughts made to look like a published article. It is dishonest. If lay untrained folks could produce real knowledge then we wouldn't need PhD programs or peer review. This is an example of that.

Note how there is no citation.

11-22-2009, 12:45 PM
Thanks Sharon. I had bookmarked the post, as I didn't have time to do the research. I agree that the post feels deceptive.


11-22-2009, 01:07 PM
You know, when I read it I didn't think he was trying to be deceptive.

But when someone responded on another forum clearly indicating they thought it was a published abstract and Dingo responded WITHOUT correcting them that it was his unpublished (and unpublishable) work, then I thought he was being deceptive.

He had a chance to correct this other reader and didn't take it.

The question remains why he put essentially two simple yet incorrect calculations in a standard abstract format rather than just type the two calculations.

I think the Social Text Affair is relevant here and shows that form can hide a complete lack of substance as is the case here.

Social Text Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair)

As for Dingo's work, it is only two simple divisions and both are too flawed to publish for various reasons. As bad as the literature is, no journal is likely to publish a paper that is entirely two flawed calculations. That is one reason how we can know even without the citation that it is not a published abstract.

Let's just take one of the simple calculations... 2/20.5.

Here are some questions:

1. Is 41 a large enough sample to apply a country-wide rate? Would even a province-wide rate be sufficient? Would even the actual rate for that extended family even be sufficient?

2. Would a paper with 41 cases EVER be published using anything but the actual clinically determined rate of scoliosis in parents and siblings? The literature is bad but there are limits!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:

3. The unstated assumption behind the two cases among siblings among the 41 is that the other siblings would be old enough to know whether or not they have scoliosis. That is CERTAINLY and WITHOUT DOUBT a very bad assumption for obvious reasons. Since AIS is the most common form by far, you would have to know (or guess) what percentage of siblings would be old enough to be diagnosed with AIS. And then you would have to radiograph them. And the parents for the other simple calculation.

4. the 2%-3% incidence worldwide DOES NOT rule out clustering within families which is completely ignored in Dingo's attempt. In fact I would say AIS is clustered within families and is explained by that recent article claiming the results are in and AIS has a very strong genetic component. Now I have applied the 2-3% figure to the Danish Twins study because they were dealing with almost 50,000 twin pairs (or twins, can't recall). That is a far cry from 41!

I think what is missing is some sense of proportion about what is unsupported and what is clearly wrong. Unsupported stuff in medical fields can and does get published but things that have two simple calculations both of which are clearly flawed will never be published. If they are then we can all go home as far as I'm concerned.

Happy Birthday Mamamax!

11-22-2009, 01:14 PM
Happy Birthday Mamamax!

How utterly civilized - somewhere ;-)

Thanks Sharon

11-22-2009, 01:20 PM
Do you consider childish name-calling civilized BTW?

11-22-2009, 05:23 PM
Do you mean like your signature?