Again, mildly locked. This is the link to Johns Hopkins' press release. I will pick a few of its nits below.
Again, mildly locked. This is the link to Johns Hopkins' press release. I will pick a few of its nits below.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-05/jhub-tmf050916.php
1) Language, people.
Consider the difference in impression created by "there could be serious risks in having far too much" versus
"there could be risks in elevated levels". That last bit is my suggested, more responsible rewording of the same info.
2) Qualitative versus quantitative.
"a very high level of folate" means what?What are the normal ranges, specifically in pregnant women, more specifically at particular time points? Or is it important to know what the steady state level is over time?
3) It's all about the timing.
The press release itself says preliminary findings presented May 13, press conference scheduled for May 11. I don't even know what to say about this. Because what it looks like is a nakedly manipulative bid for attention unrelated to any genuine public health concern.
For those of you who haven't been to a scientific or medical meeting before, my universal experience has been that there are press releases and interviews, etc. the same day a paper or poster or other keynote result is presented, not before. If something major is expected, there may be a prior release to get press attention that says something like "Major Results to be Announced", or something like that, but not this click-bait stuff.
4) Double take.
Per the press release, re: folate - "Deficiencies early in pregnancy have been linked to birth defects and to an increased risk of developing an autism spectrum disorder." Wait. You click-bated a headline that folate causes autism, now you bury a throwaway that lack of it can cause it?
5) Number crunching.
Press release states "researchers analyzed data" Which I would love to see. They held a press conference to get attention, but I cannot find the data anywhere. This is my very humorless auntie face. Any legit research should make their data available.
6) Timing is everything.
They checked the mother's blood folate levels once sometime between 1 and 3 days after delivery. It's a bit of a stretch to connect a post-partum blood measurement with everything that's happened in the nine months prior with absolutely no other indication of why that should be credible, even as an association.
Then they follow this with WHO numbers for acceptable range of folate "in her first trimester". Which would not be three days after having the baby. Unless maybe it's different on the Julian calendar, or maybe it's Lunar.
So, yeah. We can haz problems entirely separate from the whole civic responsibility angle.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-05/jhub-tmf050916.php
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-05/jhub-tmf050916.php
1) Language, people.
Consider the difference in impression created by "there could be serious risks in having far too much" versus
"there could be risks in elevated levels". That last bit is my suggested, more responsible rewording of the same info.
2) Qualitative versus quantitative.
"a very high level of folate" means what?What are the normal ranges, specifically in pregnant women, more specifically at particular time points? Or is it important to know what the steady state level is over time?
3) It's all about the timing.
The press release itself says preliminary findings presented May 13, press conference scheduled for May 11. I don't even know what to say about this. Because what it looks like is a nakedly manipulative bid for attention unrelated to any genuine public health concern.
For those of you who haven't been to a scientific or medical meeting before, my universal experience has been that there are press releases and interviews, etc. the same day a paper or poster or other keynote result is presented, not before. If something major is expected, there may be a prior release to get press attention that says something like "Major Results to be Announced", or something like that, but not this click-bait stuff.
4) Double take.
Per the press release, re: folate - "Deficiencies early in pregnancy have been linked to birth defects and to an increased risk of developing an autism spectrum disorder." Wait. You click-bated a headline that folate causes autism, now you bury a throwaway that lack of it can cause it?
5) Number crunching.
Press release states "researchers analyzed data" Which I would love to see. They held a press conference to get attention, but I cannot find the data anywhere. This is my very humorless auntie face. Any legit research should make their data available.
6) Timing is everything.
They checked the mother's blood folate levels once sometime between 1 and 3 days after delivery. It's a bit of a stretch to connect a post-partum blood measurement with everything that's happened in the nine months prior with absolutely no other indication of why that should be credible, even as an association.
Then they follow this with WHO numbers for acceptable range of folate "in her first trimester". Which would not be three days after having the baby. Unless maybe it's different on the Julian calendar, or maybe it's Lunar.
So, yeah. We can haz problems entirely separate from the whole civic responsibility angle.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-05/jhub-tmf050916.php
Comments
Post a Comment