Advanced Maternal Age Associated with AIS?

[hdugger]

1 child in 100,000 - could easily be genetic
1 child in 10,000 - most genetic disease aren't more common than this
1 child in 1,000 - theoretically possible to be genetic but doubtful
1 child in 100 - not genetic

I know sickle cell is a slightly different case, since it's related to the ability to fight malaria, but it's fairly common for a genetic disease - around 1 in 500 in the affected population. And that's for a lethal disease.

I'd also have to think about how having scoliosis reduces the rate of childbirth. Isn't the rate of scoliosis curves so severe that they'd preclude having children pretty rare? As long as people are healthy enough during their child-bearing years, that's not really going to affect the rate at which it's inherited.

[rohrer01]

I really don't have any more to add. When there is a strongly entrenched belief system involved it is pointless to argue or even give the facts (not implying that all belief systems are wrong, so don't even start that argument). I know there are some on here that can weigh through the mud-slinging and come to logical conclusions. However, I hope some of you reading this thread are at least informed as to where some of us are coming from. You can read this same line of reasoning on multiple threads on this forum, unfortunately. For me, personally, the more tools I have available to me in helping to determine treatment for a loved one, the better. Thankfully my daughter didn't progress - at least to my knowledge. I wish I had Scoliscore available to me because I think it would affect her treatment to this day. If we didn't believe, based on hard evidence, that contributing our DNA to the developers of Scoliscore would benefit children and their terrified parents, my parents and I wouldn't have given it. My parents only wished they had Scoliscore available when I was a child - they were terrified just like all the rest of you parents out there. Just remember, YOU are the parents and can still choose what treatments you put your children through, despite what the Scoliscore test says. It's just a tool. (I mentioned that already)

[mariaf]

I agree with hdugger, this is exceedingly boring.

The fact of the matter is, scientists are wrong a lot of the time even when they join alpha-packs to try to force other scientists into submission, which unfortunately seems to be increasingly common here in the US.

I mean this sincerely and not as any sort of attack - but if anyone is bored by this discussion I would simply suggest they skip this thread. I have been following along and find some of it rather interesting. I always try to 'take what I need and leave the rest'.

As for the state of medicine and/or scienftific research in the US (which, of course, are closely related), I'll take our doctors and medical researchers any day of the year over that of most other countries. Just my opinion of course.

[Pooka1]

I agree with hdugger, this is exceedingly boring.

The fact of the matter is, scientists are wrong a lot of the time even when they join alpha-packs to try to force other scientists into submission, which unfortunately seems to be increasingly common here in the US.

There are probably various modes of developing scoliosis influenced by varying genetic predispostions as shown in the statement that started this thread. But amazingly, even that very rational statement by neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons is enough to throw certain ideological people into a tizzy.

I, bunny, have no issue with any statement made by researchers in the field if it is supported by evidence to include the statements in the pub that started this thread. The other bunnies seem to have considerable problems with those statements in addition to a passel of other claims though.

I do have considerable issue with folk biology claims.

Meta comment - You, hdugger and Dingo are clearly capable of very ordered, very scientific, very logical thought on these issues. I don't understand why it is blocked so often.

[Ballet Mom]

I agree with hdugger, this is exceedingly boring.

The fact of the matter is, scientists are wrong a lot of the time even when they join alpha-packs to try to force other scientists into submission, which unfortunately seems to be increasingly common here in the US.

There are probably various modes of developing scoliosis influenced by varying genetic predispostions as shown in the statement that started this thread. But amazingly, even that very rational statement by neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons is enough to throw certain ideological people into a tizzy.

[Pooka1]

For Pooka1 or anybody else who believes that disease hits all people around the world equally and at an unvarying rate because humans are homogenous... (facepalm)

You are confusing the claim that certain things occur at a relatively steady worldwide rate (identical twinning, scoliosis, etc.) with the claim that ALL things occur at a relatively steady worldwide rate. That is a strawman and nobody claimed it or would ever claim it. You have to try to follow along.

[Pooka1]

For Pooka1 or anybody else who believes that disease hits all people around the world equally and at an unvarying rate because humans are homogenous... (facepalm)

Disease doesn't hit people at the same rate even inside of a nation's borders.

Race Gap Narrows for Some Cancers in African-Americans; Continues to Increase for Others

There are reasons why folks refuse to acknowledge that we are all African.

[Dingo]

For Pooka1 or anybody else who believes that disease hits all people around the world equally and at an unvarying rate because humans are homogenous... (facepalm)

Disease doesn't hit people at the same rate even inside of a nation's borders.

Race Gap Narrows for Some Cancers in African-Americans; Continues to Increase for Others

[Pooka1]

Folk biology

Some common folk biology modes of thought on this and other threads:

1. Genetic etiology is less tractable than germ theory etiology.

2. As a result of #1, a denial that researchers are and have been largely focussed on genetic etiology to inlcude straight (albeit complex) genetic inheritance and other genetic modes as mentioned by rohrer. I have to wonder if there is a single instance of any researcher investigating "environmental" in the folk biology sense of meaning germ theory. I haven't seen it. I suggest there is too much genetic evidence already on the table (Scoliscore being somewhat of a nail in that coffin perhaps)to veer away from that to complete germ theory.

3. Genetic eitiology requires non-conservative treatments whereas "environmental" etiology in the lay meaning of germ theory allowing for conservative treatments.

4. Equating deadly childhood genetic diseases with ones like scoliosis wherein the vast majority of people need no treeatment and indeed many don't even know they have it. It could not be more apples and oranges if you tried.

5. Lay people can save experienced researchers decades of "wasted" research because lay people are smarter and more informed than researchers.

6. Claiming that effective conservative options exist perforce and absent evidence.

[Pooka1]

We have seen the folkscience claim that scoliosis is too prevalent to be a genetic disease. I have countered that argument already with other reasoning but here is another stab at it.

Here is a list of genetic diseases that have a similar prevalence rate as scoliosis, some many-fold more prevalent than scoliosis.

Scoliosis: ~2 to 4 % worldwide

Otosclerosis: As many as 10% of Caucasians have the condition but most do not get symptoms; about 1 in 100 cases actually lose hearing from otosclerosis

Sickle Cell Anemia: Estimated 1 per 1,000. Hispanic Americans are affected by sickle cell disease in the US

Deuteranopia: About 1% of white males

Protanopia: About 1% of white males

Red-green color blindness: About 10% of males

Of course there are many genetic diseases that are far rarer due to their virulence. Scoliosis, where only about 1 in a 1,000 require fusion and some of these people never get fusion and still live long enough to reproduce, is obviously nowhere near as virulent as the rare genetic disorders. That accounts for the observed incidence rate of 2-4% worldwide; no need for a germ theory of scoliosis.

Here is a short explanation of how prevalence, incidence, etc. have specific meanings...

http://www.bmj.com/epidem/epid.2.html

I think I have been using terms wrongly at times and would need to study this if I continue these ridiculous exchanges.

Last, science advances by trying to disprove false claims. Folkscience "advances" by trying to prove false and, by chance alone, true claims.

[Dingo]

Rohrer01

Anything that causes damage to a gamete (sex cell) can cause a genetic disease. A couple of examples are radiation and chemical toxins, whether exposure comes accidentally or by consumption of something or smoking or whatever.

Scoliosis could work like that. Radiation might damage our DNA or part of the nervous system and that in turn triggers a gene to go haywire and cause Scoliosis. But the problem is the environment because without radiation poisening the gene works fine. It's also possible that some people might posess genes that don't provide a strong protection against radiation poisening. However that's not a genetic disease either, the problem is still radiation poisening.

My beef is that some people believe that Scoliosis is spread through heredity like Sickle Cell Anemia or Cystic Fibrosis. That's not going to be the case. No childhood genetic disease is as common as Scoliosis. I am confident that scientists will determine that environmental damage is the cause of Scoliosis like it is for nearly all childhood disease. It's possible that genes may play a role in susceptability to this damage or the disease process that is set in motion after the damage occurs.

You mentioned that your family has several cases of Scoliosis. Have you ever wondered how a gene that made so many children sick in one family could survive? If every few generations your extended family produced just 1 less child compared to a control family that gene would quickly become rare. And yet Scoliosis is anything but rare.

1 child in 100,000 - could easily be genetic
1 child in 10,000 - most genetic disease aren't more common than this
1 child in 1,000 - theoretically possible to be genetic but doubtful
1 child in 100 - not genetic

Type 1 Diabetes runs in families just like Scoliosis. If my memory serves me correct if a parent has Type 1 his/her child has about a 1 in 3 chance to get Type 1. But childhood Diabetes is not a genetic disorder and not too many generations ago it was a fatal condition. Recent research suggests it's being triggered by a common virus that is spread orally. Genes may play a role in susceptability to the virus or the damage it causes.

Study Of Human Pancreases Links Virus To Cause Of Type 1 Diabetes

[Pooka1]

I think much of the environmental interest is in things which don't affect genes.

Not sure that's true among the researchers. It seems to be true among the bunnies.

"It's all genetic."

[Pooka1]

Scoliscore is designed so that if someone progresses to 40 degrees, their test is still considered successful. So even if someone scored 10 on the Scoliscore and progressed to 40 degrees it would fall within the test parameters. And some kids will progress to greater than that, and that will also be expected to happen with this test (and has). So if you increase the x-ray interval to a year instead of six months, a whole lot of kids will progress to those levels, no one knows which kids are actually going to progress or how fast.

I certainly wouldn't take that gamble with my child.

You are necessarily taking that gamble if no conservative treatment changing natural history as seems to be the case in the majority of cases.

[Pooka1]

I think we're still drifting off course with the genetic discussion. Somehow we keep ending up in academic definitions, when what we're really interested in is practical issues.

In terms of the current discussion, the only meaningful definition of a genetic disease is one which is familial and over which we don't have any control. If something in the environment causes a mutation, that may be genetic in academic terms, but it's environmental in the sense that it's something we can change.

There is no higher potential to cure AIS if it environmental versus if it is genetic. You can't make that move because it is likely a bad assumption. It might be easier to solve if it is strictly genetic. Who knows.

[Pooka1]

I think people are arguing nonsense here. This same argument seems to keep appearing. Genetic vs. Environment.... Many, many, and I stress MANY "genetic" diseases are caused by environmental Factors. Anything that causes damage to a gamete (sex cell) can cause a genetic disease. A couple of examples are radiation and chemical toxins, whether exposure comes accidentally or by consumption of something or smoking or whatever. Just because something in the environment causes the damage doesn't mean it's not genetic. The two ideas aren't as polarized as people are making it sound. That's the last I will say on the matter of genetics vs. environment. It's like arguing "nature vs. nurture", there is a component of both.

Yes. It is impossible to discuss any of this if the bunnies go off on a different directions and start defining words and then misunderstanding. The researchers get to define the words in their field and the bunnies are then obligated to understand that and learn it and use it in the same way. We don't obtain that result here and elsewhere.

If we know the current etiology of a problem, despite how it started, it may or may not help in treatment options, but at least it's a starting point.

Bingo. The leap/connection between etiology and treatment mode (conservative versus not) some are trying to make here is not a valid move. But it was eye-opening to me in terms of why folks resist facts about the consensus of the research community and why we constantly need mini monkey trials here. The resistance to the idea that AIS being genetic has come up before and Pnuttro tried to field a reason for it. She may be right or wrong but there is necessarily some reason for resistance to facts among the bunnies. And the reason that they tie it in fallaciously with treatment modes is a good candidate reason in my opinion.