Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Risk of Scoliosis Among 1st Degree Relatives

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    to be fair

    mamamax

    I don't think it would be useless.
    To be fair I think Pooka1 was correct. Her post would most likely be devoid of value.

    Comment


    • #17
      Dingo,

      I have a hard time with just checking over family members to determine if they have scoliosis or not. As one of the studies Mamamax posted "Treating children with idiopathic scoliosis can amaze someone at the many different ways in which the deformity can present". Unless everyone in the family gets an x-ray there is no way that just by checking the family member's backs will the researchers find all the scoliosis present.

      My daughter's pediatrician who checked my daughter AFTER she was already diagnosed with a 35 degree curve, decided that the x-rays must have been mixed up at the orthopedist's office. He couldn't believe she had scoliosis. Granted, this was when the curve had bounced back to about 28 degrees when she first got her bending brace, but still....unnoticeable to a highly trained and highly experienced pediatrician. He was dumbfounded. I think it would still be hard for someone to diagnose her with scoliosis and she has a 35 degree curve.....and yet you say you can see your son's at eleven degrees. Amazingly varied presentations of scoliosis that could only be accurately identified with x-rays.


      Sharon,

      Originally posted by Pooka1 View Post
      There is enough nonsense in the published, peer-reviewed papers already. We don't have to add more nonsense in the form of mock abstracts. It is beyond obvious that most people will be fooled by that post because they can't adequately evaluate the material and because it is in abstract format. I can list the several people who were fooled and some who were fooled and not edified when the chance arose also.

      Read the abstract again. There are obvious red flags about how it can not be a published study even without a citation. The literature is bad but there are limits.

      More generally, honest researchers approach a subject without preconceived notions and consider evidence for and against. The way science works best is to ESPECIALLY consider the evidence against a proposition and try to find flaws in it. They don't focus ONLY on supportive evidence and ignore everything else and tailor their subsequent analyses to fit their preconceived notions. That is a sure recipe to NOT find the right answer.

      This is what I mean by diametrically opposing approaches.
      Since we are discussing "research deception", I am quite interested in your response to the scandal regarding the "science" behind Anthropogenic Global Warming and the hacking of Britain's Climate Research Unit. I do recall being called something to the effect of being a denier regarding AGW when I mentioned that I thought AGW was propaganda. Sounds like that's exactly what it is....whatever the party line is to promote its agenda of global governance.

      For those unaware of what's happened:

      http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...hadley_hacked/

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

      Or should we just chalk it up to the old "most research results are false" and move along quietly....?
      Last edited by Ballet Mom; 11-21-2009, 03:32 PM.

      Comment


      • #18


        Dingo - Well we will have to agree to disagree on that one. I would love to see Sharon's rebuttal (done in the same format). Why? Between any one given study (mock or otherwise) and its rebuttal (and often, the rebuttal of the rebuttal) - valuable information surfaces.

        Kudos to you again on the well done presentation. Sharon, according to her profile, is an actual research scientist - I think a well referenced rebuttal would be informative.

        I'm observing that those who actually publish papers in all the journals we read tend to do this all the time - and from such, the knowledge base grows.

        Impressive it is to see that this forum has one person such as yourself who is capable of writing on the same level as we see in journal publications - maybe we have two?

        Comment


        • #19
          you love to stir it don't you?

          Pooka1

          I sourced my post like a web post, (Source) not like a scientific study with footnotes. You noticed that right?

          Comment


          • #20
            0% chance

            Sharon, according to her profile, is an actual research scientist
            Why do I find that unlikely?

            Comment


            • #21
              self reporting

              BalletMom

              It's certainly possible that self reporting would not include all cases of Scoliosis. I think among siblings most (or all) of the cases in this sample would have been found. Among parents probably less.

              However even if they missed half the cases the percentages would still be in line with earlier studies that found a relatively low risk for 1st degree relatives. (A Genetic Survey of Idiopathic Scoliosis in Boston, Massachusetts) Everyone in this study was checked by a physician. The risk of a 10 degree curve was about 15% and a 20 degree curve was about 11%.

              That's WAAAAAaaaaaay lower than that recent Japanese study that found a 62.5% concordance rate among fraternal twins (siblings). (Idiopathic scoliosis in twins studied by DNA fingerprinting) It's studies like this where people got the idea that Scoliosis was 92% concordant among identical twins. It's just not the case.

              Comment


              • #22
                I would love to send a comment to the Journal of Dingo, but I am afraid the reviewers would put me off endlessly.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by PNUTTRO View Post
                  I would love to send a comment to the Journal of Dingo, but I am afraid the reviewers would put me off endlessly.
                  The Journal of Dingo doesn't accept actual research results or comments thereon, only those from lay, untrained parents. Untrained people "reviewing" back of the envelope misguided calculations. That way it is all consistent.

                  I find it incredible that folks think that mock abstract required more than 1-2 minutes to produce (not including typing).
                  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."

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Ballet Mom View Post

                    Sharon,

                    Since we are discussing "research deception", I am quite interested in your response to the scandal regarding the "science" behind Anthropogenic Global Warming and the hacking of Britain's Climate Research Unit. I do recall being called something to the effect of being a denier regarding AGW when I mentioned that I thought AGW was propaganda. Sounds like that's exactly what it is....whatever the party line is to promote its agenda of global governance.

                    For those unaware of what's happened:

                    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...hadley_hacked/

                    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

                    Or should we just chalk it up to the old "most research results are false" and move along quietly....?
                    I read that in the paper today and chuckled because the article didn't really include much of the emails and I thought it was just silly talk in emails.

                    Now that I see some of the emails I find it somewhat alarming.

                    Though climate is a related field and I have done some studies that talk about climate signals, I am not a climate type and can't really comment on the science especially the global models. I will say that sometimes what scientists refer to as "tricks" are not illegitimate in the lay sense. It's still the actual data but presented on a log versus linear scale for example. I call that a "trick" but it really isn't. The point is you have to be absolutely clear in what you present in a graph and never include data that you fail to mention in the figure title and text and never omit data that is mentioned in the figure title and text.

                    I'm not saying that these guys aren't using real tricks but if they are then they should be canned. And I saw mention of FOIA... Federal scientists can be canned for destroying material that should be retained for x number of years to avoid a FOIA as far as I know.

                    Last, I will say that these two groups in the UK and the US are not the only ones who have concluded that AGW is a real possibility as far as I know. So we have to wonder how far reaching any conspiracy is or can be. The larger the less likely it is to be contained.
                    Last edited by Pooka1; 11-21-2009, 04:24 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."

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Dingo View Post
                      Why do I find that unlikely?
                      You find it unlikely that I am a research scientist because you have ZERO relevant training in research, don't have the first clue how research scientists operate, and therefore can't understand why it is diametrically opposite to how you operate.

                      If lay untrained parents can produce adequate research on the back of envelopes in a few minutes then why do people bother to go through PhD programs, post docs, years of research,

                      Pnuttro is a research scientist. Do you also churlishly deny that?
                      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."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Pooka1 View Post
                        I'm not saying that these guys aren't using real tricks but if they are then they should be canned. And I saw mention of FOIA... Federal scientists can be canned for destroying material that should be retained for x number of years to avoid a FOIA as far as I know.
                        I agree, a very good start....

                        And what does the new European Union president have to say about global governance? Listen at 1:55 if you're interested.

                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ToNZaEZJI

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Pooka1 View Post
                          The Journal of Dingo doesn't accept actual research results or comments thereon, only those from lay, untrained parents. Untrained people "reviewing" back of the envelope misguided calculations. That way it is all consistent.

                          I didn't realize this website was to be restricted to only those who are "research scientists", at least by self-identification. If only we could get rid of those pesky "little people", life would be so much easier for those "research scientists" just "honestly" trying to get to the facts of the matters. Remember, there's a reason if "most research studies are false". I wonder what that is....hmmmm.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by PNUTTRO View Post
                            I would love to send a comment to the Journal of Dingo, but I am afraid the reviewers would put me off endlessly.
                            The Journal of Dingo. I like that!! No one seems to have what it takes to do the rebuttal (in the same format) including myself.

                            Maybe you PNUTTRO? I don't think reviewers would put you off endlessly.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Ballet Mom View Post
                              I didn't realize this website was to be restricted to only those who are "research scientists", at least by self-identification. If only we could get rid of those pesky "little people", life would be so much easier for those "research scientists" just "honestly" trying to get to the facts of the matters. Remember, there's a reason if "most research studies are false". I wonder what that is....hmmmm.
                              This website isn't the Journal of Dingo. He is invited to start his own website to bask in lay untrained "research." He is NOT invited to mislead other lay people here nor on other fora devoted to helping lay untrained readers.

                              Lay people who are honestly trying to get to the facts of the matter are helpful to all.

                              That is not what is on the table.

                              We have lay people putting specious calculations and "reasoning" in formal formats that is in fact fooling other lay people into thinking it is peer reviewed research when it is lay back of the envelope specious calculations.

                              I can list the people by name who were fooled. Some are moderators who appreciated it so little that they amended Dingo's thread title.
                              Last edited by Pooka1; 11-21-2009, 07:27 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."

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by mamamax View Post
                                The Journal of Dingo. I like that!! No one seems to have what it takes to do the rebuttal (in the same format) including myself.

                                Maybe you PNUTTRO? I don't think reviewers would put you off endlessly.
                                Let me start you off. What is OBVIOUSLY wrong with the calculation of 2/20.5. It's very obvious. Think about this for at least 30 seconds.
                                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."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X