Side Planks

[flerc]

Never assume fraud when plain old incompetence can explain the result. Review the issues brought up by the ISICO doctors (secondary curve larger than primary curve, mixing degenerative and idiopathic, etc. etc.). These are not orthopedic surgeons and it shows. They are pain doctors. Different specialty. No overlap.

As I said before nobody need to be a surgeon, even not need to know nothing else than the scoliosis definition to perfectly understand what means a curve, degrees, main and secondary curves.. is not possible any kind of confusion.

[flerc]

I don't remember how big but it was surgical range.

It was an adult case? I suppose that after many years with a really big curve it should to turn into a structural one.

[Pooka1]

As I said before nobody need to be a surgeon, even not need to know nothing else than the scoliosis definition to perfectly understand what means a curve, degrees, main and secondary curves.. is not possible any kind of confusion.

Then why did the pain doctors label the larger curve as secondary and the smaller curve as primary? That's something a pain doctor would do that an orthopedic surgeon would never do.

Look at all the other mistakes they made that were pointed out. This paper probably has too many errors and questions to have been published.

[Pooka1]

It was an adult case? I suppose that after many years with a really big curve it should to turn into a structural one.

Hysterical cases are not structural as far as I know.

We had an adult woman with two compensatory curves and no structural curve. Why didn't hers turn into structural curves?

[Pooka1]

As I said before nobody need to be a surgeon, even not need to know nothing else than the scoliosis definition to perfectly understand what means a curve, degrees, main and secondary curves.. is not possible any kind of confusion.

The pain doctors included curves smaller than 10* as scoliosis. That is just plain ignorant.

[flerc]

Hysterical cases are not structural as far as I know.

We had an adult woman with two compensatory curves and no structural curve. Why didn't hers turn into structural curves?

This was the post? http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showt...is-Just-an-FYI
I don't understand how tissues not suffer enough deformity along the time to turns into structural.

[flerc]

The pain doctors included curves smaller than 10* as scoliosis. That is just plain ignorant.

Yes, it's strictly a definition matter. Reasoning, criteria, has nothing to do in this case.

[flerc]

Then why did the pain doctors label the larger curve as secondary and the smaller curve as primary? That's something a pain doctor would do that an orthopedic surgeon would never do.

Look at all the other mistakes they made that were pointed out. This paper probably has too many errors and questions to have been published.

It has a lot of mistakes without any doubt, but the study try to shows that this excercise may reduce curves in a very significant way and they are saying that curves of those values (6º..120º) were reduced to almost the half. If the 120º curve had a compensatory one of 30º and after doing the exercise the main curve remains the same and just only the 30º was significant reduced, of course it would be a deliberate hoax. Even I have read he said in other note that the 120º curve was reduced to 65º.

[flerc]

What happened with the before-after x-rays of the study? They were destroyed? There is not any vestige about what they did?

[Pooka1]

This was the post? http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showt...is-Just-an-FYI
I don't understand how tissues not suffer enough deformity along the time to turns into structural.

No. That person had one large C curve. They don't develop wedging, the curve disappears if put under, and therefore those cases are not structural.

The person I am talking about had two large curves that looked exactly like a double major structural curve except neither curve was structural. Very strange.

[flerc]

My daughter has a large C curve (compensatory very small) and it disappears when she is lying down.

[Pooka1]

My daughter has a large C curve (compensatory very small) and it disappears when she is lying down.

Most structural curves become hard to see when lying down as far as I know.

The large C curves that might be hysterical involve the entire spine as I understand it. If you daughter has another small curve then the main one does not involve the entire spine.

[Pooka1]

Yes, it's strictly a definition matter. Reasoning, criteria, has nothing to do in this case.

If the authors can't even get the definition of scoliosis right, why do you think there is anything right in the paper? Things just get harder and more complex after you define terms.

[flerc]

Most structural curves become hard to see when lying down as far as I know.

The large C curves that might be hysterical involve the entire spine as I understand it. If you daughter has another small curve then the main one does not involve the entire spine.

They involve also the neck? I don't believe her curve may not be structural I think her flexibility is because GPR treatment or one sesion with other method or also because laxity, but every surgeon, osteopath. physiatrist.. who saw her back lying down over left shoulder and hip after seen it stand up, could not believe it.

[Pooka1]

They involve also the neck? I don't believe her curve may not be structural I think her flexibility is because GPR treatment or one sesion with other method or also because laxity, but every surgeon, osteopath. physiatrist.. who saw her back lying down over left shoulder and hip after seen it stand up, could not believe it.

Osteopaths and physiatrists would not believe it because this isn't their field and they would have no way to know what is normal behavior of a structural curve.

Orthopedic surgeons would believe it because it is their field and have training to know what is normal behavior of a structural curve.