Paper about not-so-benign fasciculations

General Topics

Moderators: JohnV, Arron, garym

Re: Paper about not-so-benign fasciculations

Postby crotwich on December 19th, 2014, 10:41 am

Even though I don't like to do this, I'll do some basic statistics. For simplicity, I'll assume that all involved variables are independent (they are dependant of course, but to reduce the involved dependencies, I'll increase the values of variables).

1. Let's assume that the incidence of ALS is 3/100 000=0,00003 (as I said, I started to exaggerate a little).
2. Assume that the patent's only symptom is twitching and that she/he had a clean clinical exam. I'll use the Eisen's famous 6.7% (this percentage is probably even lower, because most of us don't have frequent cramps on weird places). So we get a number of 0,00000201 (6 zeros).
3. Also assume that you had a clean EMG after several months of twitching. Many neuros will say that EMG is more than 90% reliable with respect to LMN abnormalities, so if I use 10%=(100-90)%, we get 0,000000201 (7 zeros).

If the numbers from this site http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/odds.htm are correct, you can see that the odds of being struck by lightning in a given year is 1/1,190,000=0,000008403 (6 zeros). How many of you are afraid to be struck by lightning in the year 2015?

4. Moreover, if you are younger than 40, you have even more than 90% less chance of developing ALS at your present age... So, as I already said in my previous post, the chances are indeed astronomically low.
crotwich
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 58
Joined: July 31st, 2014, 5:33 am
Location: Europe

Re: Paper about not-so-benign fasciculations

Postby RobJ on December 19th, 2014, 10:50 am

Mommnylondon,

What did I say that leads you to believe I'm creating fear?

Let's me state again the facts. There are studies that indicate twitching does occur prior to weakness. That's not me, you can google them, or I can send them to your email. I disagree with these studies. Most of these people on this site, have read these same studies. It's as simple as typing it. You also get into the AL$ forum site where it's discussed.

I disagree....You are in denial if you think people on this site are not looking at this information. They are, that's why they come to this site, looking for people to disagree with it. AND I DO! I DISAGREE!

Others, haven't read your back posts, want to say the data doesn't exist, when it does. Who's creating fear? You created fear by saying I saying something that I am not!

LET ME BE CLEAR, I DON"T BELIEVE TWITCHING PRECEDES WEAKNESS!
RobJ
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 86
Joined: February 15th, 2014, 8:48 am

Re: Paper about not-so-benign fasciculations

Postby johnnythejet on December 19th, 2014, 10:56 am

Cue circus music
User avatar
johnnythejet
Saint
Saint
 
Posts: 1602
Joined: September 15th, 2005, 2:36 pm
Location: Kansas

Re: Paper about not-so-benign fasciculations

Postby Ghayes420 on December 19th, 2014, 10:58 am

This is entertaining. And very depressing because this thread is definitely going to set off fears in the poor newbie who clicks on this thread. Glad this thread wasn't around 3 years ago. :shock:

I have a simple question for rutra80 because I am trying to be open minded and understand your thought process. Please bear with me.

When you wrote "3-5 years. Do your best to find some really good physician, do EMG every year or a half, plus other tests, and if they're fine, you're most probably fine."

You used the term IMO. So did you come to this opinion and conclusion because:

A.) you read the Walton report by Dr. Singh. ironically, this is the only published medical report that gives this 'exact' time frame of 3-5 years before a benign dx is secured in his opinion.

B.) your personal opinion as a non-medical professional based on Internet forums and various other studies you compiled.

C.) you were told this timeframe from an ALS/MND specialist that you saw personally and he told you this piece of information during your visit with him/her.

Was it just A or a combo of both A and B?

Thank you for taking the time to clarify how you came to this conclusion.

Merry Christmas everyone!
A very proud fasciculator since 8/14/2011. :)
User avatar
Ghayes420
Hero
Hero
 
Posts: 464
Joined: August 29th, 2011, 9:00 pm
Location: Nor Cal

Re: Paper about not-so-benign fasciculations

Postby bobajojo on December 19th, 2014, 11:14 am

@rutra80, I manipulated your words? I'm sorry, I thought I read "ONLY TIME WILL SHOW what is on with you. 3-5 years." Did I not?

@Robj, I don't know what to make of anything you've been posting. Its like you're trying to reassure people while scaring them at the same time.

The reason we read only parts of your posts are because they are meaningless and a complete waste of time, and exactly the opposite of what I've been told by the Mayo Clinic. I'm not much of a fiction reader, never have been.

-Matt
Over 10 billion twitches since May 2011.
User avatar
bobajojo
Saint
Saint
 
Posts: 1013
Joined: July 1st, 2011, 6:41 am

Re: Paper about not-so-benign fasciculations

Postby RobJ on December 19th, 2014, 11:18 am

J4son,

I understand, I'm confusing, My boss tells me all the time that I forget to connect the dots in my emails and then people assume.

I'm not saying people shouldn't listen to their doctors. They should. I'm saying it's OK to question them. J4son, story after story after story I could tell. I'm sure you have your own. My current GP who is now my Son's GP, is the type of doctor where the leg has to fall off to be seen by someone, which frightened me recently when he saw my twitching and starred, then I made my leg cramp on call, he starred, then said "I'm OK with this because you've been twitching for sometime" but I think you should see a neuromuscular specialist again? Why did he say this? So I challenged him, after arguing, we decided on seeing a neurologist in the area. I did this not for myself, I settled for him. This new neurologist, I saw, was physically uncomfortable with my twitching and cramping and actually said to me I've never seen this?

I'm saying that people on this sight are doing more harm than good when they discredit other studies. It's a form of denial, they are doing it for their own benefit, not someone else's. Some are so far in denial that they make up stuff or as you can see they say I'm saying things I'm not.

Then there are other replies where they are making fun? You can see them.
RobJ
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 86
Joined: February 15th, 2014, 8:48 am

Re: Paper about not-so-benign fasciculations

Postby mommylondon on December 19th, 2014, 11:39 am

Quote: To mend the hearts of everyone that feels alone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd6BlNKCkRs
User avatar
mommylondon
Saint
Saint
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: May 16th, 2010, 10:37 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Paper about not-so-benign fasciculations

Postby leaflea on December 19th, 2014, 12:06 pm

Only thing for me to add is that J4son, I have been watching you and your posts for a while now...and my vote is for you with the most even handed mind for reason. Your calm and rational posts have helped me. Thank you.
Matthew 6:27 Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?
User avatar
leaflea
Saint
Saint
 
Posts: 523
Joined: November 12th, 2013, 2:06 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: Paper about not-so-benign fasciculations

Postby garym on December 19th, 2014, 12:18 pm

I've read enough....the world isn't round guys and if you think it is, prove it.
garym
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: August 23rd, 2003, 1:24 pm
Location: Texas

Re: Paper about not-so-benign fasciculations

Sponsor

Sponsor
 

Previous

Return to General Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests