Recent study on Melatonin and Scoliosis

[Dingo]

Scary I know

Sadly herpes causes more than cold sores, an embarassing STD and Alzheimers.

If a pregnant mom has it she can give her unborn child Cerebral Palsy.

It's bad stuff.

[Pooka1]

Sadly herpes causes more than cold sores, an embarassing STD and Alzheimers.

If a pregnant mom has it she can give her unborn child Cerebral Palsy.

It's bad stuff.

That's some fancy "intelligent" design.

[txmarinemom]

If a person with scoliosis was slightly less fucund and had 3 children and a person w/o had 4, then that would be sufficient for natural selection to work (if the scoliosis was genetic).

The condition actually killing the indivudal before reproduction is not necessary and P is either wrong or made an oversimplification. All that is necessary is a small difference in reproductive success.

On this point, I would guess that P would concede she overstated the issue. (perhaps in an attempt to dumb it down or simplify it).
But, differential reproductive success would not require the extreme situation she put forth (hideously ugly ...).

How cute you're now so intuitive/cognizant. Look who you've been following and make your own judgement. Who's the expert, CD? If it's Dingo, I'll eat my hardware.

I suspect the hamsters are happy ... drinking (vs. *this). I see you finally *maybe* see the folly of Dingo's posts ...

For YOUR sake, I *hope* so.

[Dingo]

Polio

All figured extrapolated from the Wiki page on Polio and Scoliosis

If 10000 children are infected with Polio

9000 to 9500 experience no negative symptoms
400 to 800 get mildly sick but make a full recovery
100 to 200 experience Aseptic Meningitis but make a full recovery
5 to 25 will experience paralytic polio but make a full recovery
5 to 25 will experience paralytic polio and suffer permanent disability or even death

By comparison

Out of 10000 children

200 to 300 suffer from a curve greater than 10 degrees
4 suffer from a curve greater than 20 degrees

The 10 degree curve group is roughly equal to the Aseptic Meningitis group for Polio.
The 20 degree curve group is roughly equal to the permanent disability group for Polio.

[PNUTTRO]

You are incorrect about how natural selection works. For a gene to succeed it has to spread to the next generation at the same rate as other genes. Even a slight reduction in fitness can ensure a gene's extinction over time.

Then what is the positive selective pressure for achondroplasia?

"achondroplasia, for instance, are known from records and depictions from the Roman and medieval periods (such as in the Bayeux Tapestry), but archaeological evidence for the condition exists as far back as the Late Upper Palaeolithic in Italy, and a single British example from the Neolithic has been tentatively diagnosed. "

[PNUTTRO]

All figured extrapolated from the Wiki page on Polio and Scoliosis

If 10000 children are infected with Polio

9000 to 9500 experience no negative symptoms
400 to 800 get mildly sick but make a full recovery
100 to 200 experience Aseptic Meningitis but make a full recovery
5 to 25 will experience paralytic polio but make a full recovery
5 to 25 will experience paralytic polio and suffer permanent disability or even death

By comparison

Out of 10000 children

200 to 300 suffer from a curve greater than 10 degrees
4 suffer from a curve greater than 20 degrees

The 10 degree curve group is roughly equal to the Aseptic Meningitis group for Polio.
The 20 degree curve group is roughly equal to the permanent disability group for Polio.

How is this evidence?

I think that you want scoliosis to NOT be genetic because that gets you off the hook. If its genetic, then maybe your genes are what caused your son's problem. (Which is also some F***ed up reasoning--and untrue.)

[Dingo]

Scoliosis as a genetic disease

PNUTTRO

I think that you want scoliosis to NOT be genetic because that gets you off the hook.

Any disorder that hits 2% to 3% of children around the globe is highly unlikely to be a genetic disease. The Danish twin study was the nail in the coffin of what was a shaky concept to begin with. If you know of a genetic disease that common and widespread in children please post it. Let me save you some trouble, nothing like it exists.

However in spite of that you happen to believe that Scoliosis is a genetic disease. Fair enough, we disagree on that point.

As a responsible adult who believes that Scoliosis is a genetic disorder and knows the suffering first hand you didn't have kids, right?

[Pooka1]

Then what is the positive selective pressure for achondroplasia?

"achondroplasia, for instance, are known from records and depictions from the Roman and medieval periods (such as in the Bayeux Tapestry), but archaeological evidence for the condition exists as far back as the Late Upper Palaeolithic in Italy, and a single British example from the Neolithic has been tentatively diagnosed. "

Upper Paleolithic = between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago.

In other words, prior to the Big Bang.

[Dingo]

Achondroplasia

PNUTTRO

Achondroplasia Dwarfism is a very rare genetic disorder.

Achondroplasia is one of several congenital conditions with similar presentations, such as osteogenesis imperfecta, multiple epiphyseal dysplasia tarda, achondrogenesis, osteopetrosis, and thanatophoric dysplasia. This makes estimates of prevalence difficult, with changing and subjective diagnostic criteria over time. One detailed and long-running study in the Netherlands found that the prevalence determined at birth was only 1.3 per 100,000 live births. However, another study at the same time found a rate of 1 per 10,000.

1 child out of thousands or less is typical for a genetic disease. If a genetic disease is found in an isolated group the magnitude can grow considerably. Scoliosis is extremely common and not a regional or group specific disorder.

[concerned dad]

Originally Posted by concerned dad

If a person with scoliosis was slightly less fucund and had 3 children and a person w/o had 4, then that would be sufficient for natural selection to work (if the scoliosis was genetic).

The condition actually killing the indivudal before reproduction is not necessary and P is either wrong or made an oversimplification. All that is necessary is a small difference in reproductive success.

On this point, I would guess that P would concede she overstated the issue. (perhaps in an attempt to dumb it down or simplify it).
But, differential reproductive success would not require the extreme situation she put forth (hideously ugly ...).

How cute you're now so intuitive/cognizant. Look who you've been following and make your own judgement. Who's the expert, CD? If it's Dingo, I'll eat my hardware.

I suspect the hamsters are happy ... drinking (vs. *this). I see you finally *maybe* see the folly of Dingo's posts ...

For YOUR sake, I *hope* so.

Look, I "follow" no one and I try to learn from everyone. I respect P’s contribution to this discussion. I also respect Dingo’s contribution. You see Pam, the funny thing is, on the main issue, they are both essentially saying the same thing. Is that the cute part?

I was very fortunate that a professor who studied under Stephen J Gould at Harvard came to teach at the university where I spent 10 years of my life. This professor was one of the most interesting and engaging lecturers I have ever heard. He was a paleontologist and not surprisingly, as a SJ Gould protégé, he often spoke of not only evolution, but the tempo of evolutionary change (Gould introduced the concept of punctuated equilibrium, well worth a google search). I took a few courses with this professor and attended some seminars. Entirely unrelated to my career, I just found them interesting electives. (I received a B in his graduate level course which was the only B I received in grad school. I essentially traded a 4.0 for the opportunity to learn from this fellow and I would do it again in a heartbeat). But, the concept of the pace of evolutionary change was something that stuck with me. Even Gould’s punctuated changes which are considered rapid by geologic time scales, take many generations to resolve.

So, when P says

Natural selection doesn't get rid of scoliosis because is does not kill the individual before reproducing. The only way that a scoliosis gene would not transmit is if the curve made people so hideously ugly that no one would ever have sex with them.

I KNOW it is wrong. I allowed for the possibility, even likelihood, that it was an overstatement. I don’t know how else to politely say those statements are incorrect.

Talking about being incorrect, why is it that I feel like I am the only person here who can admit when they are wrong or inaccurate about something?

Come on P, tell Pam those two sentences above are not correct.

And Dingo, for the love of God, please just say that you were referring to the single gene genetic disorder when you said

in all likelihood Scoliosis is not typically a genetic disease

and when you continue to say essentially the same thing.

As an important aside (and maybe the only worthwhile thing in this post), Gould wrote an inspirational paper after his initial diagnosis with cancer in the early 80’s., "The Median is not the Message," . I would recommend it to anyone who has received, or has a loved one who received, a diagnosis of a disease with a bad prognosis.

[Dingo]

Single gene disorder

Concerned Dad

And Dingo, for the love of God, please just say that you were referring to the single gene genetic disorder when you said

If that twin study means anything it's that Scoliosis is not a single gene or for that matter multi gene disorder. That doesn't mean that genes aren't involved. Common genes and gene combinations have the potential to make someone susceptible to every manner of disease or disease process. There is no logical reason to suspect that Scoliosis is different. The 13% MZ and 0% DZ concordance rates suggest that genes play some role although in most cases probably a small one.

Genetic susceptability aside I believe the evidence strongly suggests that Scoliosis is triggered by a microbe. I am confident that if we knew what to vaccinate against Scoliosis would disappear like Polio and so many other childhood diseases. To a few people on this thread that statement burns like holy water. In ten years time I doubt their opinion will be the same. I hope they are alive and still have enough mental faculties remaining to remember this thread.

[Dingo]

I liked the Stephen Jay Gould article

The article was very comforting.

My son caught Scoliosis at the worst possible time. He was diagnosed at age 5 but probably had it since at least age 3.

However...

He is in otherwise perfect health
He lives in a happy home with a close extended family
He is a boy and their curves tend to progress slower and end smaller
He has an excellent doctor
We've maximized his natural Melatonin production which may potentially slow curve progression
He'll probably still be dealing with this 8 or 10 years from now but by then there may be more advanced therapies

He is in the worst group but he has a lot of other things in his favor. I pray that the worst he has to endure is night bracing.

[Dingo]

For what it's worth

This study looked into heredity.

Melatonin Signaling Dysfunction in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis

All participants in this study had scoliosis that progressed to surgery. These are the tough cases. Out of all the children who are genetically susceptible to Scoliosis these kids are probably in pole position.

From the study

Hereditary links were established by asking the patients and their relatives about the presence or not of a spinal deformity affecting a family member.

Out of 41 participants only 15 (36%) had 1 or more family members with a spinal deformity of some type. "Spinal deformity" is a pretty wide net. I wonder what the numbers would have been if they kept it to Scoliosis.

If you picked any child at random wouldn't you guess that he had a 36% chance to have 1 relative in his extended family with some type of spinal deformity? Spinal deformities are fairly common. Scoliosis by itself occurs in 2% to 3% of children. 36% sounds about right. If that number is higher than average I doubt it's by all that much.

[Pooka1]

I was very fortunate that a professor who studied under Stephen J Gould at Harvard came to teach at the university where I spent 10 years of my life. This professor was one of the most interesting and engaging lecturers I have ever heard. He was a paleontologist and not surprisingly, as a SJ Gould protégé, he often spoke of not only evolution, but the tempo of evolutionary change (Gould introduced the concept of punctuated equilibrium, well worth a google search). I took a few courses with this professor and attended some seminars. Entirely unrelated to my career, I just found them interesting electives. (I received a B in his graduate level course which was the only B I received in grad school. I essentially traded a 4.0 for the opportunity to learn from this fellow and I would do it again in a heartbeat). But, the concept of the pace of evolutionary change was something that stuck with me. Even Gould’s punctuated changes which are considered rapid by geologic time scales, take many generations to resolve.

Wow that is so cool, CD.

Talking about being incorrect, why is it that I feel like I am the only person here who can admit when they are wrong or inaccurate about something?

I've said it to you before... you are extremely open-minded. That is a rare quality. Science training involves being open-minded and you obviously have had good training. It's the opposite of having a mind gripped in dogma. It's the folks who can evaluate evidence for all positions and make up their own mind based on that evidence who advance specific fields in particular and thinking in general. Opinions converge when many folks understand the evidence.

In my opinion, you approach this as a scientist. In other words, you get it.

[Dingo]

Update

Background

On my son's 4th birthday his pediatrician noticed a small rib hump. He did not take an x-ray and he told us to watch and wait. On Scott's 5th birthday the rib hump had increased and his pediatrician sent us to a scoliosis specialist. My son was diagnosed with a 12 degree thorocolumbar curve.

How fast had his curve been progressing?
From old movies we can tell that his curve started sometime between the age of 2 and 3.5. This means that his curve had been progressing at a rate between 4 and 8 degrees per year.
Start age 2 = 4 degrees per year
Start age 3 = 6 degrees per year
Start age 3.5 = 8 degrees per year

What we did
Around 2 months after Scott's official diagnosis we blacked out his room to increase his natural prodution of Melatonin. His sleep and mood in the morning improved immediately. At around 5 months we started giving my son pharmeceutical grade fish oil supplements with his breakfast in the hope that it might increase Melatonin production and reduce any inflammation associated with Scoliosis.

Recheck
A week ago Scott visitied the doctor for his first recheck. It had been 7.5 months and his curve measured 11 degrees. The doctor called it stable.

What might this mean?
A) The doctor measured his curve incorrectly
B) The curve stopped progressing on it's own
C) Scott's curve stopped progressing because we increased his natural production of Melatonin. This is consistent with the findings of the Japanese study mentioned at the beginning of this thread.