"Driving people away" - who, why, and does it matter?

[Pooka1]

I am so pleased that Flerc and Pooka1 have a place to argue. Keep it here and away from discussions related to surgical and non-surgical options for scoliosis, so that I do not have to read it!
Susan

There are no boundaries to where science belongs on a medical forum. If someone challenges science anywhere on the forum I will step up. I don't look where posts are made (surgical versus nonsurgical). I just look at the new posts list. I couldn't tell you where those posts are on the forum because I don't know and don't care.

This is a serious medical issue, not a game.

[flerc]

If it would be true you should to be fighting against yourself every time. To make non sense assertions is against scientist reasoning, so you have thousands of posts to reply yourself your challenge to science!.
But certainly you are insulting it since you are saying to be a scientist. Where do you see a scientist giving non sense arguments to justify his actions? Is what you do, is a fact as I explained in my previous post. And when did you see a scientist refusing to prove to be one and refusing to have the kind of discussion I challenged you to have. It seems you have not shame really. But you know that while the power here protects you, you may continue saying all the nonsenses you like to say.

[aterry]

Thank you for your good wishes, mariaf. I'm not anti surgeons. We met with B. Lonner twice and he had a broader response and seemed to be a little interested in other approaches to scoliosis. I'm not anti-surgeon. I'm anti the majority of money in the field going to surgeons and surgeons controlling so much of the research. I'm anti the notion that there is nothing to be done except wait until you need surgery. Where would we be if all the money in polio research had gone only to building better iron lungs? When I visit the clinical trials web site it is so discouraging. So little going on. There is research at a Swedish center where they are comparing approaches but the exercise part of it seems so limited: "Scoliosis specific exercises. The intervention will be delivered in 3 x 90 minute sessions, once per month during the first 3 months." ... "Additional postural specific exercises including self-mediated hyper-corrective exercises are to be performed with moderate intensity at least for 30 minutes at least 2-3 times per week. Other physical activities to fulfill the general recommended quota of more than 60 minutes moderate intensity physical activity per day are recommended. Reinforcement of the intervention will be performed in conjunction with reassessment every 6 months. A training diary will be implemented to follow and motivate the patient's training behaviour."

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/sh...oliosis&rank=2.

I don't see how that's enough of an exercise regimen to make a difference in any condition. I don't think non-surgical approaches are being given serious attention. It's not because "scientists" know best. It's because the field is controlled by those with a narrow view.

The NIH announced recently that there is a joint effort to make progress in five areas: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/feb2014/od-04.htm
I wish them well. Such intense research in those five areas will probably have spill over effect that help other areas, too, but I feel glum over how little is being done to understand scoliosis.

[susancook]

There are no boundaries to where science belongs on a medical forum. If someone challenges science anywhere on the forum I will step up. I don't look where posts are made (surgical versus nonsurgical). I just look at the new posts list. I couldn't tell you where those posts are on the forum because I don't know and don't care.

This is a serious medical issue, not a game.

As a medical researcher, I could not agree with you more that scientifically grounded evidence based decisions are important.

Since I do not read the vast majority of the conversations that have occurred on some threads that are the back and forth bantering, i have no idea what exactly triggers it or exactly who is perpetuating it. I am not blaming you. I do know that the discussion goes from "I have a back/pain/scoliosis problem and need some help/suggestions" to parrying for position, name calling, one up-man ship, etc. Then the back problem and the person's asking for help is lost and everyone gives up on the help for the back problem.

I have found that when I discover that I fell into a conversation with people that are stubborn, not open to considering alternative perspectives, and that base their information solely on personal experience or hearsay instead of on scientifically/research based outcomes, I state my conclusions or summary and then may restate in another way it if I feel that they did not hear or understand me. Then, when it appears that we are not having a useful dialog at that point or if it degenerates to name calling, I usually say something like, "decisions should be based on evidence based information and since this conversation is degenerating quickly out of that kind of discussion, I will not be having any more discussion on this topic, bye".

Best of luck in your defense of science, but know when to fold 'em. Susan

[Pooka1]

I do know that the discussion goes from "I have a back/pain/scoliosis problem and need some help/suggestions" to parrying for position, name calling, one up-man ship, etc. Then the back problem and the person's asking for help is lost and everyone gives up on the help for the back problem.

I step in when someone makes a claim of efficacy for stopping progression and especially stopping progression that avoids surgery without evidence or with poor evidence. Pain seems more amenable to conservative treatments or at least PT should be tried before surgery for pain as far as I know.

If progression could be stopped then there would be no surgery. But we don't obtain that result.

I have found that when I discover that I fell into a conversation with people that are stubborn, not open to considering alternative perspectives, and that base their information solely on personal experience or hearsay instead of on scientifically/research based outcomes, I state my conclusions or summary and then may restate in another way it if I feel that they did not hear or understand me. Then, when it appears that we are not having a useful dialog at that point or if it degenerates to name calling, I usually say something like, "decisions should be based on evidence based information and since this conversation is degenerating quickly out of that kind of discussion, I will not be having any more discussion on this topic, bye".

Best of luck in your defense of science, but know when to fold 'em. Susan

I'll take this advice onboard. Thanks.

[flerc]

If progression could be stopped then there would be no surgery. But we don't obtain that result.

We?? Be careful. If you fully explain to real scientists your 'there is no evidence' argument and how you use it to justify what you do here, of course would be obvious for them the non sense of your discourse and lead them to think in how dark seems to be your purpose here, and Susan is saying to be one and there is no reason as I know to suppose she also may be only a pretender.

I remember how you also tricked to me when I was new in this forum and I didn't see your work here yet.. someone seeming to talk in the name of science, copying phrases of Stephen Hawking and other genious.. I also supported you in a discussion you had with the great members of those times. I didn't realize what happened.. and when it began to be unsustainable for you, all the thread was deleted.. then I began to understand what was happening here.

But why do you don't fully explain to me in this thread your 'there is no evidence' argument? Of course following rules in order to avoid evasive and dirty tecniques doing impossible to not loose the focus of the reasonings. If you are a scientist as you say, you cannot be afraid to confront in a logic discussion a lay person without any idea about what science means as you are saying I am. You say to work here to defends the name of science. What do you believe may think all the people following this thread?.. 1500 vivists since my #132 post here! You should not disappoint them!