New to the game

[Pooka1]

Pooka,

Don't forget that he is studying torso rotation right now, how many papers should he have published at this point? I suspect he'll be publishing a paper, once the study is complete. Sheesh...I think they were just recruiting a few months ago. Give him some time.

He has a study published in 2003. It might not be the first on one torso rotation. The study is riddled with design and interpretation pitfalls that compromise interpretation. Ask someone who knows about experimental design... don't take my word.

Your explanation is...

Do you understand what I wrote above? I don't think you do.

[Ballet Mom]

Oh, and I don't think much about the Nobel prize, it has become politically driven more than anything else.

[Ballet Mom]

I don't think any study in the real medical world could possibly come close to your standards. There's a reason they don't do the studies the way you want them done in the medical field. There are real people's lives and health at risk.

[Pooka1]

Oh, and I don't think much about the Nobel prize, it has become politically driven more than anything else.

Amazing. Truly.

You don't actually understand the point about Pauling and Vitamin C do you?

[Ballet Mom]

Did you actually look at Dr. Mooney's CV and look through all his published papers? And did you notice the medical journals that he has been editor of? And you think you know more about medical studies than he does? Ridiculous.

[Pooka1]

I don't think any study in the real medical world could possibly come close to your standards. There's a reason they don't do the studies the way you want them done in the medical field. There are real people's lives and health at risk.

Well they are doing the BRAIST study. That's a decent design.

But yes, in general, the medical literature appears unique in the amount of uncontrolled studies being published. It is different than other scientific fields and that was an eye-opener for me.

But that doesn't mean you can't do a better job even with uncontrolled studies like the torso rotation paper Dingo posted.

You have to at least try.

[Pooka1]

Did you actually look at Dr. Mooney's CV and look through all his published papers? And did you notice the medical journals that he has been editor of? And you think you know more about medical studies than he does? Ridiculous.

I'm asking you to tell me how many are on torso rotation.

Your comment is PROOF that you don't understand my point in mentioning Pauling and ascorbate.

Do you understand why?

[Ballet Mom]

Of course you'd think Braist was an ethical design. I can guarantee you that people, including very good orthopedists, don't agree with you...and in fact refused to participate in the Braist study because of it.

[Pooka1]

How much of this thread do you think you are following?

How much of any thread do you think you are following?

[Pooka1]

Of course you'd think Braist was an ethical design. I can guarantee you that people, including very good orthopedists, don't agree with you...and in fact refused to participate in the Braist study because of it.

What makes you think I don't know that and why that is the case?

What you refuse to acknowledge is the REASON WHY ethicists gave them the green light.

Why not honestly acknowledge the reason?

[hdugger]

I'm not seeing many controlled studies of any of the various methods used to treat scoliosis. That has made it frustratingly difficult to evaluate anything very precisely.

I agree that controls and a longer study time would certainly have improved this study. However, sometimes you can use the natural course of the disease as its own control. So, if "waiting and watching" has never been reported to decrease largish curves, then having 2 of 20 participants reduce their largish curves (45 and 50 degrees) to 32 degrees is a "publishable" outcome, even without built-in controls. The normal course of the disease observed over years and years *is* the control. OTOH, if it's normal for these largish curves to regress, then it would certainly be better to have built in a control group before publishing.

I thought the editorial comment on the 2003 study was a fair assessment: "The authors are to be congratulated for bringing to our attention a novel and interesting method for the treatment of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, which will stimulate interest and research."

Beyond the rigors of science, if I had a younger teen with a smallish curve and all I wanted to do was to keep it from progressing before they finished growing, I'd certainly run my own study-of-one.

If a study: 1) is of short duration and has no followup, 2) has no control group, and 3) makes no effort to see if the study group has different results than a "virtual" group with the same age, Risser, curve magnitude, etc. characteristics then they can't say a damn thing about the efficacy of the study treatment. Yes? No? Someone is out to lunch here. If it's me then I'd like to know where I'm jumping the tracks on this.

Thanks.

[Ballet Mom]

I would LOVE to know why ethicists gave them a green light. Other than stating that some othopedists don't agree and so there.....wow, clinical equipoise! Isn't that just convenient....we could do that with just about anything.

[Pooka1]

Beyond the rigors of science, if I had a younger teen with a smallish curve and all I wanted to do was to keep it from progressing before they finished growing, I'd certainly run my own study-of-one.

Of course!

But I'm running a study with n = 2 and it's still still stem to stern nonsense!

Midline disorders like scoliosis are not amenable to study with even monozygotic twins such as mine. That is, you wouldn't expect that their curve trajectories would be the same because the splitting of the egg is known not to produce "identical" zygotes apparently. As I have come to learn.

Love,
not a biologist and never will be

[Pooka1]

I would LOVE to know why ethicists gave them a green light. Other than stating that some othopedists don't agree and so there.....wow, clinical equipoise! Isn't that just convenient....we could do that with just about anything.

No we couldn't.

At the far end, what about the folks who do jail time for withholding medical care from their children?

Apparently, some medical "facts" are so well known that they actually will throw parents in jail for withholding them.

And your explanation is...

[Pooka1]

I would LOVE to know why ethicists gave them a green light.

You know the reason.