move on!

adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: see other sites for the scientific definition.
faults of current treatments(in my non-scientific opinion):
what is wrong with brace treatments?-i do not think they work.
physiotherapy exercise?-likewise.
bach flowers for the shock?-this is not the actual condition anyway.
raindrop therapy?-???
surgery?-side effects, regression possibility, neural damage possibility, pain, not always suitable, fused discs can not be unfused, not a cure.(some people have some success with surgery if the surgeon is good and they are the right case for surgery.)

why i think the current treatments and understanding of AIS are wrong:
the treatments are spine oriented and i do not think there is anything wrong with the spine.
i think the skin, connective tissue, ligaments, muscles and bio-chemistry is the key. these structural components; as i view them, are failing to adequately support the spine.
i see this as happening inside the body and braces cannot forcibly alter biochemistry in any sensible way. fusion surgery with rods seems a clumsy non-solution and interferes with the spine which i do not think is at fault- so why should it be altered?
i think the skin,muscle etc. is the key and should be sussed out for ways they can be altered to enable adequate support and length for the healthy spine. exercise doesn't cure as it can not lengthen skin, muscle, ligaments and impact connective tissue chemistry- exercise will not really give people a new body structure.
computer modelling of the body could help analyse the faults and propose corrections needed for the body to enable spinal alignment.
sites with real human specimens preserved through plastination might be referrred to also for those guessing a cure/explanation of AIS.
externally fitted appliances/braces etc. and new ideas for these are not sought on this site. Likewise ideas for internal rods and staples etc. as for current spinal surgery.
my theories.(unscientific)
the skin is not adequately elastic. evidence-stretch marks on some cases. there is insufficient skin for the spine length. tight skin, plus ligaments not elastic enough, plus insufficient fat tissue support on the back/pelvis/hip/buttock/thigh, causes insufficient bulk, strength and length to align the spine.
the relevant inadequate tissues - fat, muscle, needs to be implanted so that the support is there.
the elasticity of the skin needs increasing; evidence-some cases have been exposed to high levels of sunlight and this has tightened skin which is unable to stretch to the length needed by the spine.
AIS is more prevalent in females. evidence the body structure of the pelvis/hip/buttocks/thighs are implicated. - that these are not sufficiently supportive and this also for the back tissue which fails to support the ribcage. female skin differs from males and this implicates the skin. females need more fat on the support base of their larger pelvis. female hormones are a factor in this fat and implicate the biochemistry. evidence-some cases do too much sport in childhood and nutritional inadequacies coupled with this cause reduced female hormones and less body fat. also females have less muscle fibre and if this is stressed/altered by over exercise the fat/muscle ratio needed to support the female biochemical system may be wrong. Or the ligaments may be damaged by too much sport.
the legs may also not be long and bulky enough to support the spine. i think AIS is not a spine condition. it is a tissue disorder.
there is a need to move on from the current treatments which have not progressed to a cure and from the current explanations they are based on. there is exploitation and people are having to guess which treatment to have out of a range of tragic options.