Genetics Confirmed Succeptiblity to KD

[Momcat]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22081228

[Nancy]

Very interesting, thanks !
what a fascinating group of researchers who participated in this project !!

nancy

[liquidambar]

There was advice against the use of Odds Ratio, given without explanation. The reason for this is that an explanation needs more mathematics than many readers are comfortable with.
That is the first problem with this study.

[Momcat]

Yes, I would hate to think that all of these researchers involved in the human genome study, with taking apart molecules and long sequencing of DNA, using computers with extremely complex mathmatical programs would have overlooked such an important piece of advice. Let alone they did the whole thing TWICE to make sure.. You should really start taking up your debate with all of them across the globe because this information is coming out of all nations now and I'm not so sure they all have figured out that they are ALL wrong. Certainly we have heard it here over and over that genetics has nothing to do with being succeptible to KD.....but have you told any of THEM yet?

[liquidambar]

They put their pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us.

If you go to the study you can click on each of the names and the internet comes up with what other papers they have worked on.
I did not do all to all of them - since the first names on the paper is suppose to be the ones that worked on it the most - well some times it does. the first four names- was all I did and - not all that impressive.

A lot of authors???? Does not make it a great paper but one that is perhaps more prone to ghost writers, passing the buck, not doing your own work, depending too much on one or two of the authors, and all the pit falls that comes from large group working together.



That said
It was not my advise!
It was a QUOTE from several well known statiticians, that has brought some well founded complaints to the scientific community esp those studing genetics for using this.
.
Sorry, I did not put the advise in -- quotation marks, last night, but it was a very tiring day - one of those days that you feel like the morning part of it was so long ago that it had to be yesterday.

But at any rate there has been a lot of abuse of odds ratio - it has been used to confuse, and mislead esp in a lot of genetics studies. some that are well know like the recent link of a gene to MS, and so forth.

They probably used this because a straight forward study would probably show that ALL people have this gene - except only a FEW people have it activated which leads us back to what environmental trigger turned it on, and as we know the IVIG turns if off, if we are lucky.

Once more the main hurdle that has to be crossed is: a genetic disease remains stable and does not increase. If it increases/decreases it is the environment.

[liquidambar]

"The odds ratio is used extensively in the healthcare literature. However, few people have
a natural ability to interpret odds ratios, except perhaps bookmakers. It is much easier to
interpret relative risks. In many situations we will be able to interpret odds ratios by
pretending that they are relative risks because, when the events are rare, risks and odds are
very similar. Indeed even when events are quite common, as in our example, the odds ratio
and the relative risk will be very similar provided the odds ratio is close to 1. The odds ratio
may be a misleading approximation to relative risk if the event rate is high (Deeks (1996) and
Davies et al"

"When can Odds Ratio Mislead" http://www.bmj.com/content/316/7136/989.full

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/rr&or.htm - John Brignell and his advise on not using odds ratio. If you want to know who John Brignell is find out - at
http://search.aol.com/aol/search?query= ... d_rollover

[Momcat]

LA, these people do not guess. DNA is extremely specific. The odds are outrageous that they will NOT find matching sequencing in genes. To be able to tear apart the DNA of victims of Kawasaki Disease and compare them to others that had KD requires an exact science. There are no reasons why any of them should match at any of the same places, let alone if they are working on a sequence of a gene that has something to do with the immune response or not. To find ANY correlation is an exacting science. This is why it is probably done more than once, just for reliability sake. As researchers pour over the billions of combinations of nucleotides in each persons DNA, finding similarities is the needle in the haystack. This isn't risk, it is specific. Could you please explain the risk you are talking about when researchers study the sequencing of gene codes?

[Nancy]

note:

Ghost writers, etc NOT involved !

This was a worldwide study involving experts from all over the world...each working on their own "piece of the puzzle" and
corroborating the results found by others to make it a very credible project !!

As for "not impressive"...I would suggest that anyone familiar with KD research would be very impressed by such names
as Dr Jane Burns, Dr Anne Rowley, Dr Stan Shulman, Dr Jane Newburger, Dr Takahashi and Dr Melish..these are THE names
in the world of KD research and knowledge ! (and Jason and I had the incredible opportunity to meet all of them at the
San Diego KD Symposium ! )

nancy

[liquidambar]

Nancy;
I know you have meet them. I think that I can imagine how it must feel, to be around intelligical giants, in a certian field of study ;that has so effected your life, as well as mine, so profoundly - to our very core - our children!

Being close like that can do either of two things;
Make us see more clearly
or
well
"A penny will hide the biggest star in the Universe if you hold it close enough to your eye". ~Samuel Grafton




Science News did a recent article call "Odds are its Wrong"
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature ... _Its_Wrong

Some things that the article said in brief are:

"It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous, and tests of medical dangers or treatments are often contradictory and confusing. "


"Replicating a result helps establish its validity more securely, but the common tactic of combining numerous studies into one analysis, while sound in principle, is seldom conducted properly in practice. "


"Experts in the math of probability and statistics are well aware of these problems and have for decades expressed concern about them in major journals. Over the years, hundreds of published papers have warned that science’s love affair with statistics has spawned countless illegitimate findings. In fact, if you believe what you read in the scientific literature, you shouldn’t believe what you read in the scientific literature."

"There is increasing concern,” declared epidemiologist John Ioannidis in a highly cited 2005 paper in PLoS Medicine, “that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims.”

Are these Kawasaki disease experts immuned to what this article discussed?
I know that you say in your heart and mind - that they are immuned!
Yet with all these experts - Since 1967 there has been no great break throughs, and what break throughs there are , there seems to remain a silence on what they "really mean" to the patient.

I can't help it when I read these things, listen to them talk - trying to put it all together that-----
Perhaps when calculating the odds ratio --- the probablility factor that was used in this math formula - had something to do with very high wind currents carrying (????) well since it is also genetic according to them - it must be "genetic material"- 1000s of miles around the Pacific Ocean.

And yet this genetic disease is increasing - looking very much like an environmental disease.

[Momcat]

Someday I truly hope you get your bias's and head out of the sand.
Genome testing is not a statistical test! Gene mapping is extremely specific. These are NOT tests that can be misinterpreted. We are talking about DNA and the building blocks of what makes a person a specific person. If you test one persons DNA, it will map out the SAME every single time. There is no error in gene mapping! You are talking about a general combining of information and assumptions made in medical literature. This is not a mixing of articles to come to a conclusion, this is specific genome research (which is new since the uncovering of the sequencing of DNA a few years ago). These articles are extremely specific, no chances of ODDS having to be calculated when doing gene mapping- Like I said-map out a persons genetic code and you get the SAME RESULTS every time.
Once again you fail to see that this theory-and yes it is a theory- is that there are certain individuals with certain types of genetics that are more succeptible to WHATEVER might be in the environment that triggers the over-active immune response to it being in the body. It may be something extremely common in our air-water-environment-etc. Most people may not have any reaction at all to whatever it is - say a specific virus. Maybe it is around us all of the time. Yes, there are high and low seasons of when people get KD. Mostly in the winter, of course there are variables and some get it at other times. They are saying most of the population is probably immune to it. (Heck for all we know, maybe the rest of us aren't and this is where the beginning of heart disease starts-with minor irritation to the coronary arteries-just a mild case.) Who knows?
You seem to be unable to even get the basic facts of this. No one has said it is a genetic disease. No one has said that there isn't something in the environment that triggers this reaction in certain individuals. Please read that last sentence over and over to yourself so you understand what you are attacking-you attack even your own theory.
One of my questions to the researchers will be-if this is the theory, then why don't these individuals continue to get KD if they are exposed to it again? I do know that there are cases of kids getting KD twice, and certainly my daughters case went on and on-like a continual exposure.
But to just site random studies to try to prove a point that you don't believe in any KD genetic scientific research seems a bit unbalanced and extremely biased. It is very apparent you do not understand genome research. It is not some sort of mathmatical formula, it does not include numerous studies combined. Replication of testing in this situation means you would get exactly the same results.

[liquidambar]

What was so random about the studies I sited?
The studies were about the problems with stats in research, and research period - most of what I said came from others in the research field and it is well earned criticism aimed a lot at mostly genetic studies. Genetic studies have become an easy cash cow for researchers needing a quick buck from the taxpayer with little effort, hard work, thinking or real results.

What sentence do you want me to read over and over?
Is it this one;
"No one has said that there isn't something in the environment that triggers this reaction in certain individuals." Is that the sentence?

Then how come certian individuals are growing in numbers, which means to me; we need to hold some people's feet the fire, demanding from them better work.

You said:
"Genome testing is not a statistical test!"
Then what is the "odds ratio" given in this study if not stats? Odds ratio by the way is shoddy work, and with such a large group of people putting their name on a paper they should have done better.

Oh, and the head in sand comment - I beg to differ in which one of us has our head in the sand.

[Momcat]

OK, I quit, you can win in your own mind. There is no reasoning here and you have your own will that you follow. Hopefully most people will see that there is no clear answer as to what causes KD and can take hunches, assumptions, beliefs, science, research, etc. into consideration when contemplating how they or their child fits into the KD world.

There is not enough money for this work, you act like they are living on unlimited government funds. Many of these programs work from grants they have to apply for-like trying to get a scholarship for college. Many hours of volunteers to work on getting funding. Do you think KD research is way up there on the funding list like breast cancer, lung cancer, AIDS,etc? No way! It is WAY down on the list and many people still do not even KNOW what KD is. Profit from the studies? You've been reading too many "woo-woo" books and anti-government propaganda I'm afraid!

Because something takes a lot of devoted attention and specific detail you think that by threatening them and telling them to get with it faster it will help somehow? The advances have been phenomonal in KD research, even in the last 5 years. You are in a poor spot to criticize......amazing that you even have the nerve to.

[liquidambar]

President Obama has encouraged "lots" of money toward immunity studies.
This is our opportunity.
This is a once in a life time chance.
And yes right now there has been money to burn.
And what do they do with it?
Wasting it.
I notice that you always attack me (once again) and never anything specific about the information.