Fourth phalange on my little finger

tap wrote:I have found a few references to this 'extra transverse digital crease' on the 5th finger associated with class II 1q21.1 deletions.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B7RKV-506RN8S-1&_user=10&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1758457065&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=5c85a32b09f53e95e8256e2e1df8e5e9&searchtype=a

tap

tap wrote:Hi Stalin and Martijn

I agree Stalin "There is no least absolute can be seen from this kind of diagnostic ideas."

stalin.v wrote:Hello patti and tap,

Just would like to make some statements on such diagnostic grounds. There is no least absolute can be seen from this kind of diagnostic ideas. This diagnostic values are just equal to how the author of novel give name to the characters of his story. The sad part of diagnosis is that it has the majority of exceptionals. ie., all simian crease individuals are not having genetic disorder -down's syndrome.

tap wrote:
Martijn, you are right. 2 totalty different topics.

The wikipedia link for 1q21.1 deletion syndrome does state " is a rare aberration of chromosome 1"

Yes Tap, that is correct: I noticed the word 'rare' at the Wikipedia page as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1q21.1_deletion_syndrome

But that page also reports the 2% in autism... and because autism is seen in about 0.2% of people worldwide... the 1q21.1 deletion syndrome is seen in AT LEAST 4 per 100.000 live births.


PS. But I think the number is actually much higher because not all people with the 1q21.1 deletion syndrome have autism; but if the percentage is higher than 10% than that would indicate that the 1q21.1 deletion syndrome is probably seen in not many more or less than 1 in 10.000 live births... which still can be described as 'rare' ...

(If you understand how I used the statistics, this should make sense)

tap wrote:...

Martijn are you saying it is rare? I need to read both pages again.

tap

Well Tap, both syndromes can be described as 'rare'... but while the TAR syndrome is seen in about 0.42 cases in 100.000 live births, the 1q21.1 deletion syndrome is seen about 20x more often than TAR syndrome with close to 10 cases in 100.000 live births.


Anyway, let's not forget that the extra transverse is much more common... because it is seen in many populations, including e.g.: health indivuals!

...Makes sense now?

stalin.v wrote:Hello tap, patti, martijn,

It has no principle in both palmistry and scientific views, as these are based on probability. you could not even prove atleast 1percentage . Then how it can be applicable universally.

stalin.v wrote:Hello tap, patti, martijn,

It has no principle in both palmistry and scientific views, as these are based on probability. you could not even prove atleast 1percentage . Then how it can be applicable universally.

@patti, I can submit good number of cases who has good finger joints with extra Interphalangeal crease. Again that is being unscientific. Every cell of our body, beyond metabalism, originated since we are in the womb. Hence, It is no wonder that extra phalangeal creases were present in some cases since they born or during their intra-uterine life. The thing is that what you can say from this crease from the palmistry view point. Again lot of assumption we made than to make it science. science doesnt take palmar crease for diagnostic purpose. Rather, they have made speculation with rarest and least statistic rank results. Again it is being unscientific. Hence, This studies can waste your time much. but, never can give you solution through out.

Patti wrote:

stalin.v wrote:Hello tap, patti, martijn,

It has no principle in both palmistry and scientific views, as these are based on probability. you could not even prove atleast 1percentage . Then how it can be applicable universally.

@patti, I can submit good number of cases who has good finger joints with extra Interphalangeal crease. Again that is being unscientific. Every cell of our body, beyond metabalism, originated since we are in the womb. Hence, It is no wonder that extra phalangeal creases were present in some cases since they born or during their intra-uterine life. The thing is that what you can say from this crease from the palmistry view point. Again lot of assumption we made than to make it science. science doesnt take palmar crease for diagnostic purpose. Rather, they have made speculation with rarest and least statistic rank results. Again it is being unscientific. Hence, This studies can waste your time much. but, never can give you solution through out.

I thought you were a medical student? I guess I thought wrong about that?

stalin.v wrote:

Patti wrote:

stalin.v wrote:Hello tap, patti, martijn,

It has no principle in both palmistry and scientific views, as these are based on probability. you could not even prove atleast 1percentage . Then how it can be applicable universally.

@patti, I can submit good number of cases who has good finger joints with extra Interphalangeal crease. Again that is being unscientific. Every cell of our body, beyond metabalism, originated since we are in the womb. Hence, It is no wonder that extra phalangeal creases were present in some cases since they born or during their intra-uterine life. The thing is that what you can say from this crease from the palmistry view point. Again lot of assumption we made than to make it science. science doesnt take palmar crease for diagnostic purpose. Rather, they have made speculation with rarest and least statistic rank results. Again it is being unscientific. Hence, This studies can waste your time much. but, never can give you solution through out.

I thought you were a medical student? I guess I thought wrong about that?

Hello patti,

The term modern palmist is out of existence. still, some claim themselves they are. However, your sarcasm sounds meaningless unless or until you make scientific discussion . However, we have wasted 3 pages of discussion with no use already.