Fantastic reductions in brace!

[Pooka1]

So why it has not sense to say that something is done in the wrong way? I sure that using a brace without enough reduction in brace is something wrong and I say why.

You need to consider that there are unknown unknowns.

[flerc]

AS YOU UNDERSTAND them. That is not the same as an understanding you get from being in this field.

The hallmark of research is to be skeptical and to doubt until the evidence is overwhelming. Lay people DO NOT do that... they cherry pick individual articles that they really don't understand and make statements of "fact."

I see you and Dingo practicing research without a license. You have no training and so don't know to be skeptical enough. You don't know what you don't know and don't accept that there are unknown unknowns at all. Both you and Dingo could come up to speed but you haven't. I am very sure you have no idea what it takes to get to a point where Dr. McIntire is with his doctorate and post doc. You could be at the same point if you learned how to approach science but neither of you have done so.

I may say exactly the same about you.

I know what I had to do to earn a doctorate and get through a post doc. I have not done anything close to that in the field of scoliosis. I use the general tools of science and research to poke around a bit but that is all it is... a lay jaunt through another field of science that is not my own.

Do you have a doctorate? In what? You don't know nothing about me, which is my science background and absolutely nothing about me except why I'm too much interested in scoliosis. I also don't know nothing about you. We have the same discussion many times ago and we both knows how it always finishes. So the last I will do because I don't want to receive again warnings, is to repeat again what I said several times before: If you try to disqualify people here saying you have a great science knowledge and understanding and not other members here going absolutely against your thoughts and claims about scoliosis, YOU MUST TO PROVE IT. YOU MUST TO PROVE YOU HAVE DOCTORATE AS THE MEMBER KEVIN_MC DID.

My training in research has taught me to very extremely skeptical of everything. The answer to many things is there is not enough evidence to say one way or another. For something like bracing or PT, it is so complex that we may never get an answer about the long term effectiveness.

You never shows to be skeptical about nothing except what is against you use to say. Certainly I'm only saying that braces don't should be used without reduction in, you said that it never should to be used.
But we are talking about reduction in brace, not about me or you, as we are not talking about Clear or Chiropractors. You know science is not something so simple as only quoting about evidence in order to know what really is or not. I think we may say that probably there is not enough evidence showing per se if reduction in brace is necessary or not so we may use our brains. I think is what the people who established the brace protocol did. Do you know how it is? It allows to put a brace without any reduction in brace? Why they did the protocol as it is. I may be enough sure I'm understanding the foundations in favor to a significant reduction in brace and how hard they are!. Do you understand the foundations to say it's not important? I don't knows them. I think you have enough intelligence to debate about about this. If evidence would be enough, debates would not exists, don't you think?

[flerc]

You need to consider that there are unknown unknowns.

Is not what you do when you claim against the use of braces.

[flerc]

Against non surgical options really

[Pooka1]

I may say exactly the same about you.

You are making my point. How would you even know if I am approaching it wrong it not?

You and Dingo are not approaching this like a scientist would approach it. Nobody is born knowing this. Scientists are scientists because they get training. Lay people are lay people because they don't.

[Pooka1]

Against non surgical options really

I am against unfounded claims. YOU interpret that as me being against non surgical options. I keep trying to get you to see this point. You confuse my pointing out a lack of evidence for me just being randomly against something for no reason. There is always a reason.

I have no dog in the fight. If I am against something it is because there is no good evidence for it. Your inability to recognize this because you are not focused on evidence as opposed to your feelings that you can understand complex issues without putting in the hard work to actually understand them. Dingo was a master at the 5-minute google search that he thought made him equal for experienced researchers. If it wasn't sad it would be funny.

[Pooka1]

Is not what you do when you claim against the use of braces.

No. I am not against braces. I am against people making claims that they work if there isn't good evidence they work, at least in the long run.

The latest study considers bracing a "success" if the child has a 49* curve with up to 25 percent of growth remaining. Do you consider that a success?

Also they have never published the ending curves of the bracing "successes." Does anyone doubt that some/most of the children with curves in the 40s will go on to need fusion? I would like to see a 10 year follow up to the BRAIST study and see if they are still claiming victory for braces.

Ask yourself why you don't think of questions like this.

[flerc]

You are making my point. How would you even know if I am approaching it wrong it not?

Sorry, it seems I'm not understanding your English. What I said is that you no doubt until the evidence is overwhelming, and with the same right you are saying this about me I may say that you also cherry pick individual articles that you really don't understand and make statements of "fact." Also that you are practicing research without a license. You have no training and so don't know to be skeptical enough. You don't know what you don't know and don't accept that there are unknown unknowns at all. You could come up to speed but you haven't. I am very sure you have no idea what it takes to get to a point where Dr. McIntire is with his doctorate and post doc. You could be at the same point if you learned how to approach science but you don't have done so.

You and Dingo are not approaching this like a scientist would approach it. Nobody is born knowing this. Scientists are scientists because they get training. Lay people are lay people because they don't.

Again.. I may say exactly the same about you. This is all you have?.. Before moderator come of course.

[flerc]

I have never seen a scientist refusing a debate.

[flerc]

I think there are enough reasons to think that braces don' should be used without reduction in brace. What do you think.. or do you not think nothing until the moment when evidence says us the true?

[flerc]

Fortunately is not the way that Science works!

[Pooka1]

Fold.


.

.

[flerc]

Ok, just only something about this point:

No. I am not against braces. I am against people making claims that they work if there isn't good evidence they work, at least in the long run.

I'm not against people really, I'm against some decisions. Someone (I don't know who) seems to have decided that braces may be used without reduction in brace. They could have decided the opposite, that is to not use it until having enough flexibility in order to have enough reduction in brace. Is what some Drs do as I know. I think it really should to be analyzed and decided again, specially because all the very much strong arguments (based in facts) in favour of only bracing when reduction is significant. I cannot do anymore that post this here.

[flerc]

They could have decided the opposite, that is to not use it until having enough flexibility in order to have enough reduction in brace. Is what some Drs does as I know.

I know a Spinecor Dr. who measures flexibility and if it is under 40% he refuses to do the treatment.
Certainly I think there are many cases of flexible spines and when the brace was collocated, there was no reduction in brace. This possibility should to be avoided. If flexibility is measured first and then there is no reduction in brace, something was done wrong.
This what are saying these researchers should to be enough (even is probably no the main reason) to understand why is to much important reduction in brace http://www.uvm.edu/~istokes/pdfs/nonfusion.pdf

[flerc]

' These results suggest that if appropriate
loads can be applied to human vertebrae, scoliosis
with vertebral wedging can be corrected without a spinal
fusion in both adolescents and adults, but with greater
difficulty in older patients'

Adults not too older yet should to be doing something now!