Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 190

Thread: Gene Associated With Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis Identified

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by flerc View Post
    What people? Here in this forum? Who? Can you be more specific please?
    That would be picking on an individual or individuals at a personal level rather than discussing ideas. So, no, I won't be more specific.
    Be happy!
    We don't know what tomorrow brings,
    but we are alive today!

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Dingo View Post
    To keep this from becoming confusing.

    My original question.
    If you know of any genetic disease that deforms 3% of children's bones I'd like to read about it.
    Again, scoliosis. There's all sorts of research papers cited on the forum, including the one you posted.


    If scientists knew that idiopathic Scoliosis was caused by heredity it wouldn't be called 'idiopathic" scoliosis. Idiopathic means of unknown cause.
    Like I mentioned before, I believe that the term "idiopathic" will eventually be done away with and each case will be classified into the category of which it's original etiology came from. Not every case of scoliosis is idiopathic. We know that already. Right now it's called idiopathic for those for whom they haven't discovered the underlying cause.
    Be happy!
    We don't know what tomorrow brings,
    but we are alive today!

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8,901
    Quote Originally Posted by flerc View Post
    You talk as if your only preoccupation would be the researcher’s honor. Good for you, but try to show some kind of respect for people with a serious problem and trying to solve it as they can. .
    You have to separate the people from the wacky ideas.

    People affected by scoliosis need respect and concern.

    Wacky ideas held by these people need to be criticized for being wacky because they help nobody. Yes believing a falsehood is a kind of safety blanket for the people who hold the wacky idea but they should keep it to themselves and not post it on a public forum and especially not in a "research" section! There is nobody here doing research on scoliosis etiology. This section is useless at best.

    There are people experimenting with conservative treatments and some have carefully documented what they are doing to their great credit.

    But again, nobody should be respecting bad ideas.

    The facts REQUIRE biologists and geologists to disrespect claims of young earth creationists.

    The facts REQUIRE astronomers to disrespect claims of astrologers.

    The facts REQUIRE chemists to disrespect the claims of alchemists.

    Now lay people trotting out hypotheses about scoliosis etiology don't require disrespect from researchers in this field only because the researchers never hear about them and never have to deal with them. But any researcher would make very short work of all the lay claims fueled by 2 minutes searches on google in this sandbox.
    Last edited by Pooka1; 05-16-2013 at 05:14 PM.
    Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis

    No island of sanity.

    Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
    Answer: Medicine


    "We are all African."

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8,901
    Quote Originally Posted by rohrer01 View Post
    Like I mentioned before, I believe that the term "idiopathic" will eventually be done away with and each case will be classified into the category of which it's original etiology came from. Not every case of scoliosis is idiopathic. We know that already. Right now it's called idiopathic for those for whom they haven't discovered the underlying cause.
    Even scoliosis associated with Marfans wherein a specific gene had been identified is still considered idiopathic by at least some professionals because they can't absolutely tie the gene into the scoliosis. Moreover, some people who have the gene don't have scoliosis. Real life is considerably more complex that what lay folks think then understand from google.

    This is yet another example of how lay people and researchers are not using words in the same way. Even if something is known to be hereditary as is idiopathic scoliosis, if they don't know the exact biochemical pathways involved then it is "idiopathic." Only lay people think "hereditary" rules out "idiopathic." That's my understanding of this issue but I am not a biologist.

    The other big misunderstanding is how researchers and lay folks are using the word "environmental" as if they are two ships passing in the night. If lay folks want to try to play this game, they have to learn how to use the terminology correctly.
    Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis

    No island of sanity.

    Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
    Answer: Medicine


    "We are all African."

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by rohrer01 View Post
    The study that Dingo posted probably tested Caucasian and Asian populations (limited study).

    I don't know about the Texas study.

    The Scoliscore study group was not limited to people living in Utah. I was in that study and I've never lived in Utah. I am of Mormon ancestry, but the developers of that study had no way of knowing that.
    I didn't need to be told that the researchers tested both races. That is pretty obvious.

    I am more interested in the possibility that the genes discovered here in the United States weren't traceable to other races when they tried to replicate the study. Perhaps that makes the genes not universal to scoliosis and maybe they identified something unique to a specific race. Maybe the US researchers just haven't replicated the study with Asian races at this point to see if it affects them also. Who knows.

    The Utah researchers specifically wanted Mormons to use in their study due to their genealogical records so they could trace back the family tree. Maybe that's how you were included in their study.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by hdugger View Post
    I'd suggest that most standard scoliosis treatments - bracing, fusion, VBS - are examples of medical people working as lay people in engineering . The thing that made VBS go from failure to success was finding a metal with the correct properties - something which I suspect is not mostly taught in medical school.
    I have to say that many of the spine surgeons, including my daughter's and even my daughter's female dermatologist were engineering majors before they went to medical school.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Dingo View Post
    Updated question for Rohrer01 or anybody else who cares to answer

    If you know of a genetic disease that deforms the bones of 3% of ANY species of mammal on earth I'd like to read about it.

    If you asked the man on the street my assumption is that most people believe that genetic diseases are common in children when in fact they are exceptionally rare.

    Any genetic disease more common than about 1 in 10,000 children is considered very common by genetic disease standards.

    There are variations of "normal" in any genome. Some people might think that very large or small ears or nose, etc. is a "deformity". After all, a narrow nose can interfere with breathing. A spine has to be curved to at least 10* to be considered scoliosis. There are many people that have functional scoliosis, meaning no symptoms other than the curvature, and lead very normal lives. It survives because people grow up to reproduce.

    Hdugger has a very good point about malocclusions and poor eyesight. Saying that malocclusions come from eating a softer diet may hold "some" credibility. My daughter's malocclusion took the exact form of my mother and my sister. She also wore appliances to make her jaws bigger to allow room for her permanent teeth, something not invented when my mother and sister were kids. My oldest son, on the other hand, has a perfect set of 32 well formed and straight teeth. He ate the same diet growing up as my daughter. Oops, what happened to that theory?

    As far as eyesight: Eyeglasses were invented during a time when people, for the most part, still worked outside. You say nothing of hyperopia or astigmatism. How does anyone know if "primitive" people had good or poor eyesight? No one was there to give them a test. I suppose they could speculate by the shape of the eye socket, but that doesn't guarantee accuracy by any means. My youngest kids have a combination of their father's myopia and my astigmatism. My oldest son has better than perfect eyesight like his father. Hmmmm?
    Be happy!
    We don't know what tomorrow brings,
    but we are alive today!

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by flerc View Post
    Not, what only it prove is that Engineers are advocated to solve problems using Physics facts and Medicine only have technicians (physicians) and researchers. If we would have not Engineers, we would continue riding horses.. as is it seems to be happening with medicine.. I may say that not only with scoliosis.
    There are medical engineers.
    Be happy!
    We don't know what tomorrow brings,
    but we are alive today!

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by hdugger View Post
    Just to quote correctly, here's is Dingo's position:

    "Nearly all disease appears to follow that common pattern.

    Genetic susceptibility + environmental damage = disease.

    In addition once a disease takes hold genes can make symptoms less severe or more severe."

    So, is anyone arguing something other than that? Like, does someone think scoliosis is 100% genetic and 0% environment? Sometimes I think we're so caught up in the argument that it isn't obvious that everyone is in agreement
    This "appears" to be Dingo's position, but then he argues the most off topic things to try to make odd proofs. That's what I have a problem with.
    Be happy!
    We don't know what tomorrow brings,
    but we are alive today!

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Dingo View Post
    Even simpler still...

    The purpose of our DNA is to facilitate reproduction. A chicken is an egg's way of making another egg.

    If something interferes with reproduction it almost always comes from the environment, not heredity.

    Would Scoliosis reduce the rate of reproduction or interfere with child rearing even if only slightly? Yes. Therefor I can bet with 99% accuracy that it's triggered by something in the environment.

    The world is exactly that simple.
    An egg is a chicken's way of making another chicken. An egg serves no purpose other than to make chickens and provide food for other animals.

    This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about in my previous post.

    Scoliosis, in general does not reduce the rate of reproduction enough to significantly eliminate it's genetic component. Just because someone with scoliosis doesn't have children doesn't mean that they can't. By the way, where do you come up with that hypothesis? No one is arguing an environmental trigger. I have my doubts about the "germ" theory, though.

    I'm glad you think that the world is that simple. =)
    Be happy!
    We don't know what tomorrow brings,
    but we are alive today!

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by hdugger View Post
    I knew you weren't a camp'er You don't have the "it must work this way or I'll just die" vibe.



    I'm completely dumbfounded by anyone who is wildly pro surgery or bracing. I totally get the necessity thing, but I don't see how anyone can love the idea of long-term bracing or spinal fusions - they both have to be near the bottom of "medical treatments I just love." You do them, if you must, and then you spend the rest of your life trying to figure out how to keep anyone else from having to do them. That doesn't mean that they don't have a place in the realm of medical treatments, i just don't see how one can get really enthusiastic about them.

    I more easily understand the enthusiasm about exercise treatments, since they seem generally benign, broadly helpful, and not downright arcane in the way that standard scoliosis treatment seems. But I also suspect that it may be a pretty small subset for whom they'll turn out to be hugely effective.
    Exactly who is wildly pro bracing? Or who loves it? It simply is. Just as many other medical treatments are.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Dingo View Post
    Yes.
    If a disease is rare, group specific or hits primarily old people it's possible that it's caused by heredity.

    If a disease is ancient, common and widespread (especially if it hits young people) it's almost impossible for it to be caused by heredity because natural selection is the mortal enemy of disease.
    I beg to differ. Muscular Dystrophy is inherited and hits kids. Where do you get the notion that genetic diseases are old people's diseases? What about color blindness?

    You make headway with some of your reasonings and then you say stuff like this...??? That's why you get attacked in the research forum. You have offered a lot of valuable information, but we have to sift through statements like this to find it.

    You just contradicted yourself, again, by discounting heredity all together. Natural selection is not a mortal enemy of anything. If natural selection is your thing, then we should be getting better, not worse. Remember the malocclusion and eyesight posts? You can't have it both ways.

    Bold mine.
    Be happy!
    We don't know what tomorrow brings,
    but we are alive today!

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by flerc View Post
    If those are the kind of comments you like to do, continue posting rarely or better stop for ever.. nobody will miss your posts here.
    I agree with you completely flerc. Those kind of posts have been around for a long time and they are absolutely pointless. By the way, I want to commend you on your English skills. They have improved SO much over the past few years. Kudos to you! :-)

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    8,901
    Quote Originally Posted by hdugger View Post
    Just to quote correctly, here's is Dingo's position:

    "Nearly all disease appears to follow that common pattern.

    Genetic susceptibility + environmental damage = disease.
    Saying environmental "DAMAGE" is lay talk that absolutely demonstrates the lack of understanding on his part. He thinks in those terms because he is using "environmental" differently from researchers.

    It's environmental "FACTORS" like maternal age and epigenetics. Maternal age and epigenetics are not "DAMAGE", they are "FACTORS," to those with relevant training.

    Research training, knowing your subject and its terminology from more than just google, and rational, scientific thinking... more than just good ideas.
    Sharon, mother of identical twin girls with scoliosis

    No island of sanity.

    Question: What do you call alternative medicine that works?
    Answer: Medicine


    "We are all African."

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    948
    Quote Originally Posted by rohrer01 View Post
    I beg to differ. Muscular Dystrophy is inherited and hits kids.
    You miss the point. Muscular Dystrophy is rare. That's the way genetic diseases work in children.

    CDC: Muscular Dystrophy
    An estimated 1 of every 5,600 to 7,700 males 5 through 24 years of age had DBMD. That is approximately equal to a prevalence of 1.3 to 1.8 per 10,000 males 5 through 24 years of age in the four states.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •