Scoliscore - Quo Vadimus?

[Prfbones]

Prfbones



You claim to have a PHD and to know a lot about genetics. Like I said before...

Can you name a single, childhood disease caused by heredity that looks anything like Scoliosis?
i.e. Common, widespread around the world, potentially fatal, etc. etc.

Like I said, the entire American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) newborn genetic testing core panel. All of these diseases are common and potentially fatal. The United States has mandated that all newborns born in a hospital in the US are tested for them for those reasons. They are all genetic. You can look them all up for yourself, it's quite an extensive list. But if you've had a child and it was born in a hospital, as a good parent that wanted to be informed of procedures being done to your newborn, I'm sure you've already looked them up.

[Dingo]

really?

Prfbones

Like I said, the entire American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) newborn genetic testing core panel. All of these diseases are common and potentially fatal.

Wrong again. Before I do my first google search I know that genetic diseases in children are either rare or regional (racial).

But I'll google anyway...

American Academy of Pediatrics: Newborn Screening Fact Sheets

biotinidase deficiency (1 in 60,000 newborns)
congenital adrenal hyperplasia (1 in 10,000 to 18,000 children are born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia.)
congenital hearing loss (Moderate to profound hearing loss is estimated to occur in approximately 1 out of every 2,000 newborns.) About half caused by genetics
congenital hypothyroidism (1 in 4,000 newborn infants has a severe deficiency of thyroid function) Only some caused by heredity
cystic fibrosis (Approximately 1 in 3,000 caucasian babies in USA - 1 per 31,000 among Asian Americans)
galactosemia (1 per 60,000 births - much rarer in Japan)
homocystinuria (1 in 200,000)
maple syrup urine disease (1 out of 180,000 infants)
medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency (1 in 16,000 people in the USA)
phenylketonuria (1 in 15,000 births but varies by country - 1 in 4,500 in Ireland - 1 in 100,000 in Finland)
sickle cell disease (In the United States, about 1 in 5,000 black babies have sickle-cell anemia.)
Tyrosinemia (Type I, 1 person in 100,000 - Type II, 1 person in 250,000)

[Pooka1]

More apples and oranges

Prfbones



Wrong again. Before I do my first google search I know that genetic diseases in children are either rare or regional (racial).

But I'll google anyway...

Newborn Screening Fact Sheets

biotinidase deficiency (1 in 60,000 newborns)
congenital adrenal hyperplasia (affects less than 200,000 people in the US population.)
congenital hearing loss (Moderate to profound hearing loss is estimated to occur in approximately 1 out of every 2000 newborns.) About half caused by genetics
congenital hypothyroidism (1 in 4000 newborn infants has a severe deficiency of thyroid function) Only some caused by heredity
cystic fibrosis (Approximately 1 in 3,000 caucasian babies in USA - 1 per 31,000 among Asian Americans)
galactosemia (1 per 60,000 births - much rarer in Japan)
homocystinuria (1 in 200,000)
maple syrup urine disease (1 out of 180,000 infants)
medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency (1 in 16,000 people in the USA)
phenylketonuria (1 in 15,000 births but varies by country)
sickle cell disease (In the United States, about 1 in 5,000 black babies have sickle-cell anemia.)

You have to compare the prevalence of these which are all very serious and will prevent a person from reproducing absent intervention to scoliosis wherein even the vast majority of people who reach surgical range still reproduce.

About 1 in a 1,000 people with scoliosis ever reach surgical range. Of these many will not even reach it until after the childbearing years. Maybe a good number for the worldwide percent of people who will reach surgical range who don't reproduce is maybe 1 in 1,000 (just guessing) (assuming surgical range is 50*). So that is one in a million people with the genetic disease called scoliosis will have it prevent them from reproducing. That is a LOWER prevalence rate than all the diseases you mention.

This is not hard. You are avoiding the obvious facts to hold on to your folk science.

The real question is why isn't the prevalence HIGHER given the specific characteristics of scoliosis (i.e., many people never realize they have it, most cases are non-surgical, even most surgical cases likely reproduce at some point, etc. etc. etc.).

[Pooka1]

Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience

http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...cs/pseudo.html

This was written by Rory Coker, Ph.D. and I will bullet out the indicators...

The word "pseudo" means fake. The surest way to spot a fake is to know as much as possible about the real thing—in this case, about science itself. Knowing science does not mean simply knowing scientific facts (such as the distance from earth to sun, the age of the earth, the distinction between mammal and reptile, etc.) It means understanding the nature of science—the criteria of evidence, the design of meaningful experiments, the weighing of possibilities, the testing of hypotheses, the establishment of theories, the many aspects of scientific methods that make it possible to draw reliable conclusions about the physical universe.

Because the media bombard us with nonsense, it is useful to consider the earmarks of pseudoscience. The presence of even one of these should arouse great suspicion. On the other hand, material displaying none of these flaws might still be pseudoscience, because its adherents invent new ways to fool themselves every day. Most of the examples in this article are related to my field of physics, but similar beliefs and behavior are associated with iridology, medical astrology, meridian therapy, reflexology, subluxation-based chiropractic, therapeutic touch, and other health-related pseudosciences.

Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.

Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.

Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis—usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible—and then looks only for items which appear to support it.

Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.

Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.

Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough.

Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.

Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.

Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.

Pseudoscience does not progress.

Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist).

Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.

Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies, strange events, and suspect claims—rather than from well-established regularities of nature.

Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or distrust of established fact.

Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature.

Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all.

Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology while simultaneously denying their validity.

Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."

Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.

Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking.

Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.

[Prfbones]

Prfbones



Wrong again. Before I do my first google search I know that genetic diseases in children are either rare or regional (racial).

But I'll google anyway...

American Academy of Pediatrics: Newborn Screening Fact Sheets

biotinidase deficiency (1 in 60,000 newborns)
congenital adrenal hyperplasia (1 in 10,000 to 18,000 children are born with congenital adrenal hyperplasia.)
congenital hearing loss (Moderate to profound hearing loss is estimated to occur in approximately 1 out of every 2,000 newborns.) About half caused by genetics
congenital hypothyroidism (1 in 4,000 newborn infants has a severe deficiency of thyroid function) Only some caused by heredity
cystic fibrosis (Approximately 1 in 3,000 caucasian babies in USA - 1 per 31,000 among Asian Americans)
galactosemia (1 per 60,000 births - much rarer in Japan)
homocystinuria (1 in 200,000)
maple syrup urine disease (1 out of 180,000 infants)
medium-chain acyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase deficiency (1 in 16,000 people in the USA)
phenylketonuria (1 in 15,000 births but varies by country - 1 in 4,500 in Ireland - 1 in 100,000 in Finland)
sickle cell disease (In the United States, about 1 in 5,000 black babies have sickle-cell anemia.)
Tyrosinemia (Type I, 1 person in 100,000 - Type II, 1 person in 250,000)

I think your definition of rare is not same as the rest of the medical community. In the US, rare = less than 200,000 people (defined by the NIH).

And just an aside, Google searches aren't research. Many people make this mistake. Try looking on some of the validated databases to answer your more complicated issues. You often have to pay for the information (to avoid copyright infringement), or join a service to do this (as in Lexus-Nexus), but research really begins at that level, not with web browsers. Be careful what you subscribe to with simple web browsing when it comes to medicine. There is a whole lot of bad information out there.

[Dingo]

Pnuttro

Prfbones

I think your definition of rare is not same as the rest of the medical community. In the US, rare = less than 200,000 people (defined by the NIH).

Let's check the definition.

In the United States of America, the Rare Disease Act of 2002 defines rare disease strictly according to prevalence, as "any disease or condition that affects less than 200,000 persons in the United States,"[2] or about 1 in 1,500 people.

You are correct. Rare is less than 200,000 people in the USA, or 1 in 1,500 people.

Let's get back to your point professor.

Like I said, the entire American College of Medical Genetics (ACMG) newborn genetic testing core panel. All of these diseases are common and potentially fatal.

Take a look at the newborn screening test again. Every single disease is rare (occurs in less than 1 in 1,500 children). It looks like you were wrong again.

Welcome back to my ignore list PNUTTRO.

[skevimc]

This is a patent application. The problem with patents in medicine is that there's no peer-review, safety studies, or efficacy studies. You can patent anything for any reason, it's your money.


Yeah, they're throwing rocks and hoping they'll hit a target and someday be able to sell the patent to a pharma company. Since there's only one article in PUBMED with a loose connection to scoliosis and osteopontin, this is a broad, but little-hope patent. Any dose for any reason. Yikes.

This has always bothered me with this group specifically (Moreau). I have seen him present on this blood test since ~2002. They kept it a big secret for many years while claiming that it was a huge discovery. So would present data on mystery protein A - when present showed increased progression and when decreased showed a stable spine (or something like that).

It always rubbed me the wrong way that they potentially had a great discovery but they were intentionally keeping it under wraps because of patent/commercial issues. To be fair, I think they were also concerned with safety and wanting to be sure before they said anything. But it still always seemed a bit strange since that's what research is all about. That is, being unsure of something and so you test it. And let other people test it. And then you get together and discuss it. And then test some more. Instead they did all the testing, got a patent and then released it. I guess we all do it for different reasons.

[Dingo]

Dr. Moreau

Skevimc

Instead they did all the testing, got a patent and then released it. I guess we all do it for different reasons.

If Dr. Moreau has investors funding his work they certainly won't let him say too much even if he wants to.

Remember this blowup from a few weeks ago?

iPhone 4G prototype found on a bar floor?

He can't have something like that happen to his work.

[skevimc]

Skevimc



If Dr. Moreau has investors funding his work they certainly won't let him say too much even if he wants to.

Remember this blowup from a few weeks ago?

iPhone 4G prototype found on a bar floor?

He can't have something like that happen to his work.

Yeah. I never like or want to question someone's motives. Because there is frequently more than meets the eye. I guess we could look at his papers and see who has funded the osteopontin work and see what conflicts of interest he is reporting.

[Pooka1]

Yeah. I never like or want to question someone's motives. Because there is frequently more than meets the eye. I guess we could look at his papers and see who has funded the osteopontin work and see what conflicts of interest he is reporting.

Just based on that one talk about the top hypothesis for AIS etiology which mentioned two of his ideas, I think Moreau is not viewed as being outside mainstream medicine. But I have to wonder how long that will last given all this stuff. Maybe it is not unusual to tout an unproven idea for years and years. Who knows.

[LindaRacine]

Welcome to our world.

LOL

And because I need more characters...

LOL again.

[rohrer01]

Why?

Dingo, why do you insist that scoliosis is not a genetic disease? I don't understand, considering ALL of the evidence that there is out there, especially that it runs in families.

Yes, I will agree with you that it was most likely "initially" an environmental problem. But what happens is that environmental damage to the germ line, ova and sperm, then become "genetic" because it is a change in the "DNA". These occurances are very, very rare. We would not expect to see it happen over and over again to produce a population of people with scoliosis that we have. If you look at genetic diseases, they probably ALL started that way. So in a sense you are right. It is environmental. But how are you going to go find the person hundreds if not thousands of years ago who sustained the "environmental" damage and study what happened to them. You simply can't.

PrfBones is completely right about doing Google searches. You do have to pay to get into the real literature, at least for more than an abstract. When you choose to completely ignore the overwhelming data that points to genetics in favor of the few feable studies or hypotheses that look at other things (not that there is anything wrong with looking elsewhere), it is misleading to the laypeople out there who think you are an authority on the matter. You're not. Real science doesn't exclude ANY findings that are actually relevant in any way.

This is not a legal venture where we look for precedents. Science doesn't work that way, although it might be nice sometimes if it did. But it doesn't. You come up with a variety of diseases to support your "case", but they are totally unrelated to scoliosis. You would make a great lawyer, but a poor scientist, I'm afraid. I'm not trying to be mean, just honest. Hope no offense is taken.

[Dingo]

heredity

Rohrer01

When you've got some evidence to support your hypothesis please post it.

Until that time the I in AIS stands for Idiopathic. We don't know what causes scoliosis. Scientists consider the notion that it's caused by heredity "controversial".

[Pooka1]

Rohrer01

When you've got some evidence to support your hypothesis please post it.

Until that time the I in AIS stands for Idiopathic. We don't know what causes scoliosis. Scientists consider the notion that it's caused by heredity "controversial".

You don't have the first clue what scientists consider, think, how they operate, etc. etc. etc. and it shows.

[Pooka1]

PrfBones is completely right about doing Google searches. You do have to pay to get into the real literature, at least for more than an abstract. When you choose to completely ignore the overwhelming data that points to genetics in favor of the few feable studies or hypotheses that look at other things (not that there is anything wrong with looking elsewhere), it is misleading to the laypeople out there who think you are an authority on the matter. You're not. Real science doesn't exclude ANY findings that are actually relevant in any way.

I posted the hallmarks of pseudoscience on the other thread. I may start listing all the ones associated with everything Dingo says on each of his posts. It's the majority of them, not just a few. It's classical folkscience.

You come up with a variety of diseases to support your "case", but they are totally unrelated to scoliosis. You would make a great lawyer, but a poor scientist, I'm afraid. I'm not trying to be mean, just honest. Hope no offense is taken.

Classic folkscience.