Scoliosis stories wanted

[PNUTTRO]

I will no longer engage in conversations that are more about winning some sort of rhetorical debate, than a respectful exchange of ideas.

Ms. Smith. Sorry to have hi-jacked your thread. . .

[Pooka1]

Sharon, what happened to imagination? Science would be nowhere without it. . .

I consider imagination an integral part of the scientific method.

The folks who win the Nobels wouldn't be winning them absent imagination.

The stuff that ends up in Science and Nature and the other top shelf journals takes a fair bit of imagination.

There is a very effective way for paranormalists to pull a chair up to, and be welcomed at, the big science table... present some high-quality data and get it repeated by at least one unaffiliated group.

Then we wouldn't have to sit through these mealy-mouthed claims of scientists squelching inquiry which are beneath reproach.

[Pooka1]

Ms. Smith. Sorry to have hi-jacked your thread. . .

There is no rhetorics game afoot from my perspective.

YMMV.

[PNUTTRO]

There is a very effective way for paranormalists to pull a chair up to, and be welcomed at, the big science table... present some high-quality data and get it repeated by at least one unaffiliated group.

Part of being a scientist is listening to the "paranormal" arguments and trying to find out if they have merit. One must imagine a scenario where the explanation for a particular outcome is feasible. The "paranormalist" only knows that the treatment works for them. For example, we cannot fully understand why Chinese herbal medicines or Native American medicines work, we only know that they have some benefits, or they would not have survived the test of time. Western medicine tries to speed up the process by using prior knowledge and imagination. Even peer reviewed journals publish conflicting results with varied explanations. Science and Nature often publish articles back to back when they receive two different related and timely articles for publication.

[Pooka1]

Part of being a scientist is listening to the "paranormal" arguments and trying to find out if they have merit. One must imagine a scenario where the explanation for a particular outcome is feasible.

Yes of course. Nobody is dismissing paranormal claims a priori. Rather scientists are simply pointing out the near-perfect vacuum of positive evidence presented for these paranormal claims. Chiro has been around for what, a century? Homeopathy almost as long maybe. Schroth, 90 years. Etc. Etc. Why isn't this enough time for these folks to do studies and publish them? Why do these folks instead waste time trying to knock down mainstream modalities instead of proffering evidence for their modality in some ridiculous false dichotomy effort?

The "paranormalist" only knows that the treatment works for them.

How do they know that if they can't rule out placebo?

For example, we cannot fully understand why Chinese herbal medicines or Native American medicines work, we only know that they have some benefits, or they would not have survived the test of time. Western medicine tries to speed up the process by using prior knowledge and imagination. Even peer reviewed journals publish conflicting results with varied explanations. Science and Nature often publish articles back to back when they receive two different related and timely articles for publication.

There are two issues here. One, is something efficacious? That can be answered yes or no irrespective of whether we know the mechanism involved. The example I gave earlier is Lithium which, to my knowledge, absolutely is effective for some manic depression although researchers don't really know the mode of action. They may know now though... I don't know.

The other issue is, what is the evidence for the mode of action? This is good to have but is not necessary if there is empirical evidence.

And clearly the "test of time" is not useful... look at homeopathy, which persists, wherein we can calculate that the serial dilutions don't allow even a single molecule of the solute to remain. The claimed phenomenon (the water molecules "remember" the solute") doesn't enjoy a shred of evidence nor does the efficacy of homeopathy apart from placebo. Conversely, there are any number of studies that have shot down homeopathic claims. That's how science works... by disproving nonsense and hopefully sense is left standing.

If someone ponied up any evidence homeopathy worked, it would join "science" and be unopposed. Scientists are persuaded by evidence. I'm a heathen/pagan/aztec atheist but I would RUSH to publish evidence that the earth was a few thousand years old or Jesus existed or Nazareth was inhabited at the requisite time if I found it. Any intellectually honest scientist would do so irrespective of their personal affiliations. The heart of science is intellectual honesty.

[PNUTTRO]

At least there is a lot here to scrutinize. . .

Yes of course. Nobody is dismissing paranormal claims a priori.

It seems from some of your comments that you are dismissing all "paranormal" claims---and I don't like using paranormal, while technically an accurate adjective, it connotes supernatural rather than unexplained.

Why isn't this enough time for these folks to do studies and publish them? Why do these folks instead waste time trying to knock down mainstream modalities instead of proffering evidence for their modality in some ridiculous false dichotomy effort?

Publication is a waste of time if you have a good product. Some scientists believe that a publication in a some journals is more about popularity rather than the value of your research. Some view publication by certain individuals as vainglorious. Just because it is publishable doesn't mean that it is well done.

How do they know that if they can't rule out placebo?

Regardless of what you believe, some people get good relief--temporary or otherwise--from alternative treatments. Ultimately, outcome is the standard of care not biology.

There are two issues here. One, is something efficacious? That can be answered yes or no irrespective of whether we know the mechanism involved. The example I gave earlier is Lithium which, to my knowledge, absolutely is effective for some manic depression although researchers don't really know the mode of action. They may know now though... I don't know.

The other issue is, what is the evidence for the mode of action? This is good to have but is not necessary if there is empirical evidence.

Which is also why publication is irrelevant if you product works.

And clearly the "test of time" is not useful... look at homeopathy, which persists, wherein we can calculate that the serial dilutions don't allow even a single molecule of the solute to remain. The claimed phenomenon (the water molecules "remember" the solute") doesn't enjoy a shred of evidence nor does the efficacy of homeopathy apart from placebo. Conversely, there are any number of studies that have shot down homeopathic claims. That's how science works... by disproving nonsense and hopefully sense is left standing. If someone ponied up any evidence homeopathy worked, it would join "science" and be unopposed.

There is mounting evidence that certain herbs, spices and plant extracts have great health benefits. Your dilution reference is beyond me. . . .

Scientists are persuaded by evidence. I'm a heathen/pagan/aztec atheist but I would RUSH to publish evidence that the earth was a few thousand years old or Jesus existed or Nazareth was inhabited at the requisite time if I found it. Any intellectually honest scientist would do so irrespective of their personal affiliations. The heart of science is intellectual honesty.

Would you rush to publish these things? I think your opinions are so entrenched in who you are that you would never change your opinion for fear that you are wrong. And why do you describe yourself as Aztec? Does that make you Mexican?

BTW--I am not an anthropologist or archaeologist but I do think that most people believed that a man named Jesus existed on earth. The dispute is whether or not he was the Son of God as his followers believed and wrote.

If anyone else is still reading this thread, I'm impressed.

[Pooka1]

It seems from some of your comments that you are dismissing all "paranormal" claims---and I don't like using paranormal, while technically an accurate adjective, it connotes supernatural rather than unexplained.

I am using paranormal to mean "unevidenced" in this context. Not "supernatural" and not "unexplained."

This stuff is NOT in the same category as Lithium for example where we know it works but can't explain how it works.

The "paranormal" stuff I'm referring to has not been shown to work like Lithium has been shown to work. That is a distinction that is also a difference.

Publication is a waste of time if you have a good product.

Indeed. That would explain the lack of pubs on the efficacy of surgery in certain scoliosis cases (Note to Writer). But it doesn't explain the lack of pubs for less penetrating glimpses into the obvious like Schroth, chiro, homeopathy, etc.

Your dilution reference is beyond me. . . .

Can I just ask in which field of science do you work? I trust it is a natural science as opposed to Political "science" or Social "science," yes?

Would you rush to publish these things?

Again, in which field of science do you work? I can't make sense of some of your answers.

[PNUTTRO]

As my physicist friend says, one of those -ology sciences. He lumps them all together--published by the way.

[Pooka1]

Well, PSYCH-ology is often listed in the "Math and Sciences" Division at universities though I am not clear why.

That might explain the problem with understanding my reference to serial dilution.

(shrug)

[Writer]

If anyone else is still reading this thread, I'm impressed.

Good point. pooka has hijacked it and it has become a waste of time for anyone reasonable who is looking for worthwhile information. This is now a pooka performance. I invite readers to google "pooka" for its meaning. The third google listing is quite instructive.

Pooka calls herself a scientist and keeps repeating her blatantly false accusation of "no publications" about Schroth. She hasn't bothered to read and evaluate the many publications on Schroth I've referred to elsewhere. We have a clear case of denial here.

Nor has she presented evidence to counter Dr. Weiss's recent claim -- in a peer-reviewed journal -- that fusion surgery has entirely inadequate scientific underpinning to be considered the standard method of scoliosis treatment.

When I make a point, I generally back it up with independent evidence, not just my opinion. Pooka makes her point by endlessly repeating "paranormal paranormal paranormal." This is the caliber of science that pooka practices?

[Pooka1]

Writer, "Pooka" is the name of my daughter's snake.

She started this account but never posted with it. I changed the biographical description (so it wouldn't be like an adult is posting under cover of a child's screen name as we suspect has occurred here in the recent past).

Your other points, such that there are, have been addressed.

The one outstanding point that you continually fail to address is what, if any, is your financial interest in Scroth therapy?

My financial interest lies in avoiding surgery and braces for my girls. Unfortunately, being a responsible parent, I have had to pursue both.

[txmarinemom]

Well, PSYCH-ology is often listed in the "Math and Sciences" Division at universities though I am not clear why.

That might explain the problem with understanding my reference to serial dilution.

(shrug)

Sharon,

When I'm lucky, and around the Med Center, P is able to leave her research and meet me for a sandwich.

There's no touchy-feely or political science to her job. My suspicion is she's too humble to throw around her exact profession/credentials - or just doesn't consider it germane here. Trust me when I say, however, you, your girls, and a large portion of the world *would* care if her job *wasn't* being done.

I'll leave it at that.

Carry on ...

Regards,
Pam

[Pooka1]

Well okay then.

I would like to hear her opinion about that Weiss article that purportedly claims that surgery was only done for cosmetic reasons and there being no pubs showing indications for surgery.

[txmarinemom]

I would like to hear her opinion about that Weiss article that purportedly claims that surgery was only done for cosmetic reasons and there being no pubs showing indications for surgery.

Maybe she'll post, maybe not ... I can't say.

I know any time I give up to comment on such an *obviously* utter BS article that deems scoli surgery "cosmetic" isn't worth the moments forever lost in my life.

And I hate I'm losing these.

Really.

(... it just so happens my bath water is running, and I few moments of dead air )

Two major indicators for surgery are a) past documented progression - indicating continued future progression, and b) intolerable pain (even with a static curve).

Even more so than the ignorant coments (i.e., I'm now a surgery pimp) made by the Weiss puppet in our midst, THAT article screams "We publish, therefore we are.".

I don't care HOW long they've been around, you'd be hard pressed to find a single post-op on here who simply decided to have surgery to fix their appearance in the absence of pain or genuine health concerns.

That's just insulting. And asinine. And makes me want to ponder the possibility of inbreeding in Germany ... (in a non-specific sort of way, of course!)

And let me remind everyone THIS SITE plumps this group's pockets - and thier idiocy - via a link on the homepage to Schroth practitioners. The same people who are saying I have a 19" scar - and my body rearranged to escape ridiculous pain - simply out of vanity (the Weiss clan) are the ones associated with this method.

Regards, y'all!,
Pam

[joanne mclaurin]

I need information

I had the first appointment with a scoliosis specialist in 30+ years. He took xrays and told me that I definitely have "flatback" and I have three options - two different types of surgery or medication. I told him I did not want surgery unless I got to where I could not function without. - I should say revision surgery. I asked how bad it could get, he said that I had "stablized" . I asked him about the drugs, he mentioned the name of a drug and I asked him to spell it. He said to just tell the pain doctor to give me "K meds" and he would know what I am talking about. - What the hell are K meds - never heard of them. I thought the flatback would get worse over time, I did not know it would stablize.

Anyway, anyone who might know what "k meds" are, please let me know. I have a pharmasist friend that I will call when she gets up. But I cannot find anything on the inernet except a drug for animals.

Also, has anyone out there stablized? He also told me that the bottom two disks that had not been fused during surgery in 1981, fused on their own and where solid.

Anyway, I will try anything if it will help with the pain. Thanks for any input you can give me.