Help at Work II

[Barney]

Just remember, that 99% of all statistics are rubbish! And 1% are almost erroneous!

Source?

[Andrew MacLean]

I like that Jay. I'll probably use it often!

Nature -v- nurture. At the moment nature has it by a short head, but nurture is closing fast in the inside fence ...

Andrew

[John Smith]

The Yorkshire study is interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly, it compares the incidence of KC by race against the population breakdown by race (largely known) - which makes it a fair study, unlike the hair colour thing, where the incidence in the population is not known.

Also, the study quoted shot itself in the foot on the racial argument as it admitted that there is a much higher degree of "in-breeding" (for want of a better term). I think that their conclusion - that KC has a genetic basis - is valid; but the intermediate inference - that Asians are more likely to suffer KC than Caucasians is not valid. Given the same cultural circumstances we don't know what would happen.

This is a great example of the relevant genes being kept "in the mix" because of cultural rather than racial reasons.

[Sajeev]

I think the same genes are in "circulation" with the pakistain connection, so to me the study shows the gene connection more than anything else.

I think any group can be sub divided like this to see what is going on and trends seen like with this study ...for what ever reason as the reasons are not fully known and this is why we are here.

The thing is, places like pakistain and other non-developed countries may have much more cases of KC, but at the same time their resources are low to record it.

[jayuk]

John

It has been assumed for some time that India and Trinidad have a high number of KC affected people.....but whats more is that ever since I was being seen at MEH; I was always told by them that KC is the most common amongst Indian\ Asian people..and this was from a mulititude of sources in Clinic three.....I would suspect that this is still the case......as I ev since heard this being said outside of MEH......Id probably hold that kind of data higher than some other study...as here we are getting information from a hybrid number of professionals at various levels; who get to see a whole host of people.....and are probably better placed to comment

Who knows!..

[Matthew_]

Sajeev,
The study you are using is based on ethnic origin. I have no argument that ethnic origin is significant as shown by the high confidence level (more than 99%). This shows the statistical significance of ethnicity in that area. The assumption then of course is that ethnicity is siginificant elsewhere. I think this is fair enough although the sample is actually pretty small compared with the overall population for that area, I would venture.
Anyway, the point that I made was about blonde hair / blue eyes which is a genetic trait not a racial issue. I accept that there is a link but there more dark haired, dark eyed white people than blonde / blue. If you are saying white people are less likely to have KC, I think the studies so far would bear that out, although that is far from the whole picture. My point is that when you venture into hair / eye colour you start to venture onto shaky ground statistically. You may aswell compare ear shape or nose length. The only reason that eye/hair colouring is considered is because socially these are are the sort of things humans notice about each other. Genetically it is all a bit 'so what?'.
To summarise: Agree with you on the race point (although I also think it is a lot more complex than that). Disagree with you on the eye/hair factor: where's your evidence for this?

[Barney]

If, as seems, the incidence of KC is influenced by ethnic origin then I'd expect some correlation to hair colour. Hair colour is an indicator of race just as are facial features and skin colour. Blonde hair would suggest European origins but black hair could indicate origins that were Celtic or from any other continent. If the incidence of KC is higher in Indo Asians than in North Europeans then it would be unsurprising to see a lower incidence in people with blonde hair.

I think that research into any relevant environmental factors, especially those that unlike ethnicity could be modified or controlled, would be more rewarding.

PS. I wonder if it would be possible to use our own avatars rather than national flags. As proud as I am to be British I don't see it as relevant in this context and would hate to be mistaken for a flag-waving loon from the National Front.

[Sajeev]

Matthew, and Barney,

It felt wrong to me to ask on the web out-right... are you black? are you white? I did not think it was right for me to do that, and I could not tell them why i needed to know for with out leading the question?!

So I though ok lets keep it general and rough for now, although I wanted to ask directly what i wanted to ask, and ask more "nosey" question's, but just left it as that as its only the web, its when a eye care specilist and the stats on different people having transplants also saw a pattern that I remebered about all this.

[Matthew_]

I agree, if KC has an ethnic factor, skin / hair and eye colour may be indicative but that's very different to saying KC is related to eye colour. You are not a higher risk because you have brown eyes but you may be if you are Asian plus the right environmental triggers are encountered.
What I am saying is that no-one can postulate that blue eyes / blond hair = less risk of KC. You might say blond/blue = white (probably) = less risk of KC. This might seem like splitting hairs but it is important that we identify the causes not the outward signs of KC if we are to build up a true picture.
Once again, my personal view is that we are not close to having a predictive understanding of KC yet. But the blond/blue argument is going to be less than helpful in this quest!

If you look at the genetic profiles for mainland UK you will see a very mixed picture. How, then can you hope to extract genetic pre-dispositions from such a population? I think that we become too absorbed with physical and easily observed factors, hair/eye/skin colour,height, weight etc. KC ignores our obsession with these outer flourishes!

[Matthew_]

Oh, sorry Sajeev,
I am white but dark hair and eyes. Strangely enough I do have tall blonde haired, blue eyed relatives who do not have KC. Both my brother and I (also with KC) have dark eyes and hair. But I don't think that is proof!!!!!
My family is East Anglian , it came over with the Normans in the 11th century and stayed within a 50 mile radius of the first family name recorded in 1215. So we might fall into the saxon category? Although many Normans were in fact Norse. Also it is possible that pre-existing saxon or celtic communities adopted a popular norman name but were not actually normans themselves. In fact the gene pool is bound to be so incredibly mixed you cannot draw any conclusions at all!