Scoliogold?

[txmarinemom]

... it seems that Scoliosis SOS have been prevented from using the Scroth name. Shroth is something else entirely, particulary when combined with bracing - an altogether more reputable form of treatment!

Um, except when hawked by a certain member of this forum (BETall - Beatriz Torres - advertised on the NSF homepage under Schroth practitioners ... who posts Schroth as an answer to EVERYTHING).

She send parents of unfused kids links to failed fusion studies. Unethical, not to mention CRUEL. These kids *may* NEED fusion at some point. I won't tell you it's the best thing that can happen to you, but it *certainly* isn't the worst.

This has been brought up numerous times, and her endorsement by NSF remains right there ... no matter what horrors she posts or PM's to parents.

Someone needs to report her to the governing body for PT's in CA. I'm sure they'd be ashamed at her method of "educating" people.

Pam

[Writer]

So warning parents of significant dangers of surgery, documented in a peer-reviewed article by a medical doctor (Dr H-R Weiss trained as an orthopedic surgeon), is "unethical" and "cruel?" This is quite an extraordinary perspective.

It seems to me that NOT warning potential patients of risk of complications of scoliosis surgery is unethical and cruel. As are continuous attempts to shout down or suppress mention of viable, conservative alternatives to surgery on this board.

[txmarinemom]

So warning parents of significant dangers of surgery, documented in a peer-reviewed article by a medical doctor (Dr H-R Weiss trained as an orthopedic surgeon), is "unethical" and "cruel?" This is quite an extraordinary perspective.

It seems to me that NOT warning potential patients of risk of complications of scoliosis surgery is unethical and cruel. As are continuous attempts to shout down or suppress mention of viable, conservative alternatives to surgery on this board.

Torrez responded to a request for bracing shirts with a fake link to the shirts that was actually CLAIMED failed fusion stats. Typical. Very surprised she didn't include a link to her own site again, trying to drum up business. (that would be typical, as well)

Neither of you have contributed anything to this site other than "Schroth cures all!", and "surgery is the anti-christ!"."

And, yes, Writer ... it IS cruel to do that to a Mom who simply asked for undergarment info, with a child in a brace (no matter how much you idolize the Weiss clan). I'll assume you don't have children (or a heart) if you find what she did acceptable.

You seem to have a problem with me, specifically ... and if it's all you have to do with your life, carry on. I can handle your sad little obsession, and your own "extraordinary perspective" with a smile. You're so *cute* when you wax omniscient.

I've said several times before ... most of us are aware of BETall's vested interest ($$$, of course!). One of these days, I'd love to hear yours. One of these days I'll figure it out anyway.

[Writer]

I'm afraid you contribute a great deal of hostility and abrasive remarks to this site, noted by many others over the past few months.

And your obsession is promoting surgery and surgeons, as though observation-brace-surgery were the only solutions. Notice your signature -- "Posterior fusion Feb. 5th, 2008, T4-L1 ... Darrell S. Hanson, BCM - Houston" -- Isn't that "advertising?" Pot and kettle problem here.

Relatively uncomplicated physical exercises can help scoliosis more often than not, yet several people on this board take great offense at Schroth being mentioned. This is quite bizarre, especially in the Non-Surgical section of the forum. People come here seeking pertinent information about the whole spectrum of alternative treatments, and they deserve to hear about solutions other than the extremely expensive and extremely invasive spinal fusion.

[Pooka1]

Does evidence of efficacy enter into the picture anywhere?

What if someone came on touting homeopathy? What about chiro?

These things and others have never ponied up evidence that they can be used to avoid surgery or bracing.

Until the claims are documented, you are touting a faith position, not a scientific one.

ps. Can you reveal any monetary interests you have in anything you tout? Is there some reason you don't want to do so?

[Writer]

It's a good and valid point that you bring up, pooka, since you are a scientist. People here are looking for real evidence and verification of efficacy. But anybody who works in a research field, and I have worked in several, knows that research is always ongoing and rarely definitive. Let's look at ALL the approaches to scoliosis treatment. Here is an article published this year in a peer-reviewed journal about research on surgery for scoliosis;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

Quote: "RESULTS: No controlled study, not in the short, mid or long term, searched within the review, has been found to reveal evidence to support the hypothesis that the effects of surgery as a treatment option for AIS is superior to natural history. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence has been found in terms of prospective controlled studies to support surgical intervention from the medical point of view."

On bracing and observation, the other two fundamental treatments of the orthopedist, a 2007 article by two prominent authors concludes:

"When pooled, the bracing surgical rate was 23% compared with 22% in the observation group. Pooled estimates for surgical rate by type of brace, curve type, Cobb angle, Risser sign, and dose were also calculated. CONCLUSION.: Comparing the pooled rates for these two interventions shows no clear advantage of either approach. Based on the evidence presented here, one cannot recommend one approach over the other to prevent the need for surgery in AIS. This recommendation carries a grade of D, indicating that the use of bracing relative to observation is supported by "'troublingly inconsistent or inconclusive studies of any level.'"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17728687?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez. Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.P ubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles& logdbfrom=pubmed

In other words, all three approaches of the orthopedic surgeons to adolescent scoliosis have little or weak scientific support.

Regarding the orthopedists' common contention that physical exercises are ineffective for scoliosis, Dr. Martha Hawes points out in the Foreword to her book Scoliosis and the Human Spine, available at the NSF Store online, that:

"statements claiming that scoliosis cannot be stabilized or reversed without bracing or surgery are not, and never have been, supported by scientific data. On the contrary, as detailed in this book, long-standing basic and clinical research results documented in reputable medical journals are consistent with the hypothesis that scoliosis can be reduced if not eliminated using nonsurgical approaches."

I have referred many times in other posts to studies on the Schroth method, which is the most prominent non-surgical treatment for scoliosis. It is not the only one, it simply has the longest history and best documentation, which is why I focus on it. Search PubMed for studies by "Weiss HR scoliosis" in particular, since he is the current medical director of the Schroth clinic.

A recent overview of literature about exercise therapy (Schroth and others) for scoliosis concluded that:

"all studies confirmed the efficacy of exercises in reducing the progression rate (mainly in early puberty) and/or improving the Cobb angles (around the end of growth). Exercises were also shown to be effective in reducing brace prescription."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18432435?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez. Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.P ubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=5&log$=relatedarticles& logdbfrom=pubmed

For conservative methods other than Schroth, see the developing literature (online journal and a couple Proceedings volumes) of SOSORT at http://www.sosort.org The president of the NSF, Joe O'Brien, sits on the SOSORT board of directors and sponsored their annual meeting in 2007.

One can also read personal testimonies of patients or parents on this board for this or that kind of conservative therapy. The evidence is there for exercise therapy if one looks for it.

[Pooka1]

Here is an article published this year in a peer-reviewed journal about research on surgery for scoliosis;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

Quote: "RESULTS: No controlled study, not in the short, mid or long term, searched within the review, has been found to reveal evidence to support the hypothesis that the effects of surgery as a treatment option for AIS is superior to natural history. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence has been found in terms of prospective controlled studies to support surgical intervention from the medical point of view."

I don't know what is going on here, whether that is a non-peer-reviewed journal or a junk journal or went to inappropriate reviewers (i.e., a nefarious editor actually got an Intelligent Design Creationism paper published in a reputable Biology journal but he did it dishonestly and bypassed the peer review process that would have correctly labeled it as religion not science).

Or maybe an article which would consist of a penetrating glimpse into the obvious (i.e., surgery is required to avoid becoming a pretzel) is unpublishable. Similarly, I imagine it would waste journal space to publish an article detailing how setting broken bones is advantageous.

The article you cite seems to just point out that there are no published studies showing the efficacy of surgery to correct certain cases of AIS. It does NOT prove that surgery isn't absolutely necessary (not cosmetic!) in some cases. It's too obvious that surgery is not only indicated in certain cases but is the only effective solution.

If it was purely cosmetic, why do insurance companies pay out so much for the surgery? I mean they certainly don't view it like a face lift. How do you explain that?

Rather than trying to shoot down an established effective modality (surgery), those authors should instead busy themselves with putting forth evidence for their position which is always conspicuous by its absence.

[mariaf]

If it was purely cosmetic, why do insurance companies pay out so much for the surgery? I mean they certainly don't view it like a face lift. How do you explain that?

I have no desire to join the debate, except to say that what you wrote about insurance companies, Sharon, is so true.

Just last week I took my daughter to the dermatologist and he prescribed a form of Retin-A for her skin (acne). Well, at first the insurance company would not approve the prescription because they said the cream is also used to treat wrinkles and for other cosmetic purposes. I said, um, she's 17 so it obviously isn't being given for wrinkles!

I had to jump through hoops and have the doctor write a letter of WHY he was prescribing it before they would pay. So, yes, insurance companies do NOT like to pay for anything they consider "cosmetic", let alone a costly surgery.

[Pooka1]

After that Intelligent Design Creationism article came out in a reputable science journal, I have lost faith (heh) in the integrity of the editorial process.

Most of the time it works. In fact virtually all the time. But if you have a nefarious editor with a non-scientific, religious agenda, inappropriate articles can get through. The article was retracted by the journal as soon as the funny business was detected but the damage was already done.

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the subject article.

[Pooka1]

in case anyone cares... first paragraph...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sternberg

Richard M. Sternberg is an American scientist and intelligent design proponent. He was the editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington who controversially handled the review and editing process of the only article published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal advocating intelligent design. The journal subsequently declared that the paper "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings" and would not have been published had usual editorial practices been followed.[2]

In re the discussion on the other thread, yes, there are intellectually dishonest scientists who are NOT using the scientific method. Luckily, they are few and far between and should not be held up as some sort of Achilles Heel in the scientific method.

[txmarinemom]

... And your obsession is promoting surgery and surgeons, as though observation-brace-surgery were the only solutions. Notice your signature -- "Posterior fusion Feb. 5th, 2008, T4-L1 ... Darrell S. Hanson, BCM - Houston" -- Isn't that "advertising?" Pot and kettle problem here. ...

That may be the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen you post, and that's HUGE considering some of your previous posts.

You are dead wrong my "obsession is promoting surgery". You obviously haven't read enough of my posts - or simply choose to read the ones where surgery is *discussed*, and without looking, I can assure you it's pre-op and post-op advice/support for people who have already decided to have surgery. You might have a few wackos around who buy your views on that, but the majority of this board knows that is absolutely false.

I NEVER *push* surgery on anyone. The closest I've ever come is encouraging someone to see a competent surgeon to get the facts about their curve(s). I happen to believe it's irresponsible of you to not suggest someone be examined by a real doctor before even trying Schroth.

Whether you believe it or not, not all surgeons push surgery. Mine didn't. He suggested I try yoga, wished me well with it, suggested I read Wolpert's book so I'd know what I was getting myself into IF *I chose* surgery, and said he sincerely hoped I wouldn't be back.

What's your smarmy rebuttal for that? I'm certain you have one.

Never have you made one post of support on here for anyone. Every single post you've made is an ad for Schroth - even for progressing 60-70° curves.

Writer, I actually have nothing against Schroth. If someone wants to try it, more power to 'em. Whether I believe it can correct a curve or not, there's no reason to believe it couldn't be a tool in the pain management arsenal.

Your tactics and bizarre statements (like the one quoted above) are what triggers the alarms for me.

It's clear your purpose here (although more thinly veiled than BETall's) is to make contacts - and I'll go as far as to surmise for monetary gain as a practitioner.

Pam

[Pooka1]

I don't understand this "pushing" surgery charge.

My kid would be a pretzel by now absent her surgical correction of her ever-progressing curve.

In her case at least, the only thing "pushing" the surgery was the curve.

[Karen Ocker]

1: Disabil Rehabil. 2008;30(10):799-807. Links
Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) - an indication for surgery? A systematic review of the literature.Weiss HR.
Asklepios Katharina Schroth, Spinal Deformities Rehabilitation Centre, Bad Sobernheim, Germany. hr.weiss@asklepios.com

PURPOSE: Historically, the treatment options for AIS, the most common form of scoliosis are: Exercises, in-patient rehabilitation, braces and surgery. While there is evidence in the form of prospective controlled studies that Scoliosis Intensive Rehabilitation (SIR) and braces can alter the natural history of the condition, there is no review on prospective controlled trials for surgical treatment. The aim of this review was to perform a systematic search of the Pub Med literature to reveal the evidence on scoliosis surgery. METHODS: A systematic review has been performed using the Pub Med database. Literature has been searched for the outcome parameter; 'rate of progression' and only prospective controlled studies that have considered the treatment versus the natural history have been included. RESULTS: No controlled study, not in the short, mid or long term, searched within the review, has been found to reveal evidence to support the hypothesis that the effects of surgery as a treatment option for AIS is superior to natural history. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence has been found in terms of prospective controlled studies to support surgical intervention from the medical point of view. In the light of the unknown long-term effects of surgery and in concluding on the lack of evidence already found that surgery might change the signs and symptoms of scoliosis, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is long overdue. Until such a time that such evidence exists, there can be no medical indication for surgery. The indications for surgery are limited for cosmetic reasons in severe cases and only if the patient and the family agree with this.

PMID: 18432438 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Related ArticlesThe treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) according to present evidence. A systematic review. [Eur J Phys Rehabil Med.

In other articles written by this author HR Weiss- some of their patients still need surgery despite their best efforts. I believe Schroth can be helpful but still fails and is confined to mostly adolescents. Bracing and PT are used.

I also wonder if this has been correctly translated from German.:confused:

[Qikdraw]

I don't understand this "pushing" surgery charge.

My kid would be a pretzel by now absent her surgical correction of her ever-progressing curve.

In her case at least, the only thing "pushing" the surgery was the curve.

I'd be dead long ago if my surgery never happened. So I know I am a little biased.

[Pooka1]

I'd be dead long ago if my surgery never happened. So I know I am a little biased.

Exactly!

I mean we don't need no steenkin' publications to know that plenty of folks who be in serious trouble, if not dead, without surgery.

And yet we see these pubs from Scroth types pointing out the lack of pubs supporting the efficacy of surgery in some scoliosis cases as a "Look at the Wookie" ploy to draw attention away from the fact that they are NOT publishing any positive evidence for Scroth (or rather only THREE pubs by affiliated people in 90 years).