Advanced Maternal Age Associated with AIS?

[Pooka1]

Can I ask again for Ballet Mom and Pooka to take their personal dispute somewhere else. NOONE ELSE CARES!

Only if you return to the old hdugger everyone knew and loved.

[Pooka1]

You are a disgrace to your profession. Whatever that may be.

I'm sorry. Forgive me?

[Ballet Mom]

Can I ask again for Ballet Mom and Pooka to take their personal dispute somewhere else. NOONE ELSE CARES!

I would like for Pooka to remove her personal dispute from this forum also.

[Pooka1]

I would like for Pooka to remove her personal dispute from this forum also.

I'll do it under that one condition.

[hdugger]

Well, I can see that worked remarkably well. Fortunately, if you two won't disengage, I can.

[hdugger]

Narcolepsy and H1N1 Vaccine

You may have seen this already, but they the WHO is investigating a link between Narcolepsy and the H1N1 Vaccine.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/che...ause_narc.html

Seems that it triggers the disease in people with a genetic predisposition.

A common vaccine - that would be an awfully likely distribution method for a triggering event which shows up across all kinds of countries and people.

Of course, I just got my H1N1 shot, so, if you noticing me drifting off in conversation, you'll know why.

[rohrer01]

Maybe I'll get some sleep now, hee hee!

[Dingo]

hdugger

Wow, the flu vaccine might trigger Narcolepsy? Scientists have long suspected that damage from a virus is the trigger for Narcolepsy. I wonder if this suggests that the flu virus is what they've been looking for.

[skevimc]

Kenneth Ward, MD this month: "With the SCOLISCORE Test, we proved that patients with low-risk scores often do not develop progressive scoliosis, which means surgeons can determine a more appropriate treatment path. "

(along with more specific "cost savings" associated with this).

http://www.beckersorthopedicandspine...-axial-biotech

Is that good enough for your daughter if she was diagnosed with scoliosis? Not good enough for mine if I know that they set the parameters at 40 degrees and many kids are progressing to that.

It's good enough for me if my daughter has a score >190° to say I'm not going to bother with a brace and we'll look into other more aggressive treatments. If she has <150 I'm good to say, ok, her risk for progression isn't as bad as it could be. But let's stay on top of it. If the score is <50, I'm good to say, she probably won't develop to surgery (thank goodness). But let's make sure her curve stays as small as possible.

Let's hope all treatment plans in medicine don't simply become a rolling of the dice for treatment, simply based on statistically crunched odds. Think of the cost savings that can occur! No more pap smears...no more breast exams...the odds are so low for them to occur and think of all the money we can save...and we have surgery if you're an unfortunate soul. Welcome to the new dark ages of medicine.

You're being overly dramatic and projecting too far. No one is suggesting anything close to that. Pap smears and breast exams have shown good data for their clinical relevance.

Like it or not, if we don't start treating more efficiently and effectively, we're not going to be able to treat anyone. Everybody shouldn't get a brace because "what if" just like most women under the age of 40 don't get annual mamograms. I agree that we (the clinical research field) need to be careful about interpreting odds ratios and other statistical methods. But when evidence begins to clearly identify a certain group that is extremely high risk and the other group is considerably lower risk; it's time to begin to re-evaluate the standard of care. (Notice that I didn't not say "don't treat the low risk group". Because no one is saying that).

There is no suggestion in that slide regarding the paradigm shift that it only reflects those with high scoliscore numbers. It is a slide representing the entire population.

Technically you're correct. But it also doesn't say "don't worry about the low risk group. They won't progress beyond 40° so we don't need to treat them."

Let's hope that actually happens before everyone jumps onto the no bracing bandwagon. It would be nice if more kids could be braced at night if they simply did specific exercises in addition to the brace.

Again, the brace industry has a lot at stake in this game as well. If bracing advocates are smart they'll use it as an opportunity to prove once and for all that bracing works. The biggest critique I have seen with bracing studies, and any conservative study for that matter, is "you can't say that they would have progressed, therefore, your study is useless". Well, now there is a tool to better assess risk. Get a cohort with a score ~100-180, show that a low number, or zero, require surgery, and you've got a great finding. Show the same thing in a cohort with a scoliscore 180-200, and you've shown conclusively that bracing works and should be used. I know that's my plan if/when I am able to do another strength training study. My only fear is the cost involved. $2500 per study participant for the scoliscore isn't possible.

Well excuse me for offending your sensibilities...but scientists in universities nowadays seem to think that anyone opposing their agendas are big targets to offend.

Do you work at a University with scientists? If you don't, that's a big statement to say "nowadays scientists..." considering you aren't around them. Maybe you do. I know I do. I am one. And I know what you're saying is factually and demonstrably false. My hunch is that you've assigned all the things you've heard in the media to all scientists everywhere. And that's unfortunate, but it shows how influential the media and politicians are.

It offends me because you're applying your critiques of a few areas of science, and mostly politics, to science as a whole. What propaganda am I trying to push when I look at the effects of amino acid supplementation on muscle wasting in bed ridden hospital patients? Or soldiers with TBI? Or people on dialysis for ten years? Or what agenda is my friend trying to push who researches muscle stem cells to see how MS or muscular dystrophy progresses? Or the cancer researchers? Or the ALS researchers? Or the PTSD researchers? Or colitis, or kidney failure, or spontaneous miscarriages, or chronic pain, or stroke survivors, or exercise therapy for heart attack survivors, or weight loss in post-menopasual women, or type I diabetes, or aging, or osteoarthritis, or rheumatoid arthritis? What agenda are we pushing?

Scientists are fine to be critiqued. We do it all the time and have to defend ourselves all the time. It's part of the job and is frustrating at times because some people are really difficult, if not impossible, to convince. But if someone is going to try and critique my work, then they'd better be ready for me to defend it vigorously. And they'd better be prepared to discuss the specifics of the study and describe why my methods/results/conclusions are wrong. If they can't, then yes, I'll discount those arguments pretty quickly. But doing so doesn't mean I'm hiding or trying to push an agenda. It means I'm holding their argument to the same standard I hold mine to.

Pooka feels perfectly free to continually castigate me for emotionalism or whatever for believing in God, and she is certainly not alone, ...

Who cares what Pooka or anyone else says or thinks about your faith? Why do you even entertain those critiques?

Most universities quite clearly have a leftist agenda nowadays, and they think it's fine to obnoxiously attack anyone who disagrees, whether or not the person disagreeing has impeccable credentials or not.

Explain to me how any of the above examples I gave you is a "leftist agenda". Again, I think you're projecting the media portrayed debate about global warming to all of science. And again, that's pretty much what I resent.

The university scientists have brought this on themselves and really should do a lot of self-reflection in order to improve the light they are viewed in. Not everything from the left is the correct answer.

No argument from me that scientists can do a better job of explaining themselves in the public forum. A major problem for us is that we have no outlet for that. The media does it for us. And since the media is trying to gain viewers, they report anything that may seem controversial. And unfortunately, that also means that politics get involved and all of a sudden, a debate within the scientific community becomes a political agenda. When in reality it's just a bunch of normal people, who care about other people or the environment or animals or math or anything else, and are doing the best they can.

[Pooka1]

Who cares what Pooka or anyone else says or thinks about your faith? Why do you even entertain those critiques?

Hey! I don't even care what I think about Ballet Mom's faith. It's just spit ballin'.

[Ballet Mom]

It's good enough for me if my daughter has a score >190° to say I'm not going to bother with a brace and we'll look into other more aggressive treatments. If she has <150 I'm good to say, ok, her risk for progression isn't as bad as it could be. But let's stay on top of it. If the score is <50, I'm good to say, she probably won't develop to surgery (thank goodness). But let's make sure her curve stays as small as possible.

How do you plan on making sure her curve stays as small as possible when they've decided to make their cost savings by having you come back in a year's time? As we all know, there can be dramatic increases in curves during that time, and any increase is not desired.

Like it or not, if we don't start treating more efficiently and effectively, we're not going to be able to treat anyone. Everybody shouldn't get a brace because "what if" just like most women under the age of 40 don't get annual mamograms. I agree that we (the clinical research field) need to be careful about interpreting odds ratios and other statistical methods. But when evidence begins to clearly identify a certain group that is extremely high risk and the other group is considerably lower risk; it's time to begin to re-evaluate the standard of care. (Notice that I didn't not say "don't treat the low risk group". Because no one is saying that).

Doctors don't put kids in braces now unless they're progressive curves. That is a high-risk group. Just because the Scoliscore folks don't think that a larger curve is a problem to them because they've seen worse, it does matter to most other people. It should be up to the patient and their family to see if they're willing to go through bracing and all it entails.

Do you work at a University with scientists? If you don't, that's a big statement to say "nowadays scientists..." considering you aren't around them. Maybe you do. I know I do. I am one. And I know what you're saying is factually and demonstrably false. My hunch is that you've assigned all the things you've heard in the media to all scientists everywhere. And that's unfortunate, but it shows how influential the media and politicians are.

It offends me because you're applying your critiques of a few areas of science, and mostly politics, to science as a whole. What propaganda am I trying to push when I look at the effects of amino acid supplementation on muscle wasting in bed ridden hospital patients? Or soldiers with TBI? Or people on dialysis for ten years? Or what agenda is my friend trying to push who researches muscle stem cells to see how MS or muscular dystrophy progresses? Or the cancer researchers? Or the ALS researchers? Or the PTSD researchers? Or colitis, or kidney failure, or spontaneous miscarriages, or chronic pain, or stroke survivors, or exercise therapy for heart attack survivors, or weight loss in post-menopasual women, or type I diabetes, or aging, or osteoarthritis, or rheumatoid arthritis? What agenda are we pushing?

Scientists are fine to be critiqued. We do it all the time and have to defend ourselves all the time. It's part of the job and is frustrating at times because some people are really difficult, if not impossible, to convince. But if someone is going to try and critique my work, then they'd better be ready for me to defend it vigorously. And they'd better be prepared to discuss the specifics of the study and describe why my methods/results/conclusions are wrong. If they can't, then yes, I'll discount those arguments pretty quickly. But doing so doesn't mean I'm hiding or trying to push an agenda. It means I'm holding their argument to the same standard I hold mine to.

Unfortunately, the scientists are right here on the web, so we can read exactly what they're saying and thinking verbatim, and they're not just associated with global warming. It's not intermediated by the press. And a whole lot of it is not very attractive. Why is it okay for your Stanford scientists to attack the opposition as "deniers" as if they're Nazis? There are plenty of reasons for them not to be right in their science and yet they can use leftist tactics to attack their opposition. Have you heard of Alinsky?

I'm sorry if people who are not involved with it feel offended, but lots of people don't even recognize what they are doing when coming from a default viewpoint. And the universities definitely have a default viewpoint, and it is not mainstream.

Who cares what Pooka or anyone else says or thinks about your faith? Why do you even entertain those critiques?

It's always easier for everyone when someone rolls over and puts up with the bullying, isn't it? Never does anyone doing the bullying get asked to stop it. It's amazing.

[Ballet Mom]

You may have seen this already, but they the WHO is investigating a link between Narcolepsy and the H1N1 Vaccine.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/che...ause_narc.html

Seems that it triggers the disease in people with a genetic predisposition.

A common vaccine - that would be an awfully likely distribution method for a triggering event which shows up across all kinds of countries and people.

Of course, I just got my H1N1 shot, so, if you noticing me drifting off in conversation, you'll know why.

My daughter got the flu shot earlier this year and since about that time she has been falling asleep while studying, or I find her on the bathroom floor sound asleep after going to get ready for bed. Totally unusual for her. I wonder if there's any connection?

[Bigbluefrog]

I was 29 years old, when she was born.

Oddly she was my healthiest kid, she never had ear infections as a baby.

I don't remember a specific virus for the onset of her diabetes either.....it's still very much a mystery, hopefully the answers will be discovered.

So is 29 old??? LOL. Still 29 at heart :-)

[skevimc]

How do you plan on making sure her curve stays as small as possible when they've decided to make their cost savings by having you come back in a year's time? As we all know, there can be dramatic increases in curves during that time, and any increase is not desired.

I'm not going to carry this hypothetical situation out any further. It's pointless. You asked if it was ok, and I gave you my initial thoughts.

Doctors don't put kids in braces now unless they're progressive curves. That is a high-risk group. Just because the Scoliscore folks don't think that a larger curve is a problem to them because they've seen worse, it does matter to most other people. It should be up to the patient and their family to see if they're willing to go through bracing and all it entails.

And they've identified those that progress as the high-risk pool. Not everyone who get scoliosis. If the scoliscore results stand up to real time clinical scrutiny, then it's time to reassess. Again, this doesn't mean no treatment for the lower-risk group.

Unfortunately, the scientists are right here on the web, so we can read exactly what they're saying and thinking verbatim, and they're not just associated with global warming. It's not intermediated by the press. And a whole lot of it is not very attractive. Why is it okay for your Stanford scientists to attack the opposition as "deniers" as if they're Nazis? There are plenty of reasons for them not to be right in their science and yet they can use leftist tactics to attack their opposition. Have you heard of Alinsky?


I'm sorry if people who are not involved with it feel offended, but lots of people don't even recognize what they are doing when coming from a default viewpoint. And the universities definitely have a default viewpoint, and it is not mainstream.

This has nothing to do with the point I was making. How does my current research, that I posted before, pushing forward a leftist agenda?

It's always easier for everyone when someone rolls over and puts up with the bullying, isn't it? Never does anyone doing the bullying get asked to stop it. It's amazing.

It's not 'easier' for me. I don't care what you do and usually skip over the religious stuff. My faith is my own and generally, I won't let anyone on a chat board bother me about it. You evidently take a different tack.

[hdugger]

Wow, the flu vaccine might trigger Narcolepsy? Scientists have long suspected that damage from a virus is the trigger for Narcolepsy. I wonder if this suggests that the flu virus is what they've been looking for.

So, I haven't really focussed on the germ theory before - more interested in figuring out progression then trigger - but how do they begin to suspect that a virus is the trigger for a disorder? Is there something they can detect in the body itself? Or is it just the regular epidemiological detective work?