For reasons that may appear shortly, this is locked in a precise and focused way.
For reasons that may appear shortly, this is locked in a precise and focused way.
In a triumph of science reporting (at least the major news networks got it right) over the institutions that do science, I give you:
TOO MUCH FOLATE IN PREGNANT WOMEN INCREASES RISK FOR AUTISM, STUDY SUGGESTS
(What, your conscience got you in the end so you put in the parenthetical post-clickbait?)
This is a news release from Johns Hopkins and yes, that is the title. Yes, part of the money machine that is big research (including NIH) and big universities is blowing your own horn. Actual publicity from professional offices dedicated to it. Why these people are working for universities rather than deodorant companies is anyone's guess since the job is the same. OMG, YOU HAD NO IDEA THIS WAS MISSING FROM YOUR LIFE. YOU MUST SPEND MONEY ON IT NAO!!!!! Because science isn't interesting on its own, as so eloquently demonstrated by John Oliver's TODD talks.
The unfortunate realities of competing for funding aside, there are research ethics that are not just guidelines, they are, in fact, rules. Codes, even. However, the general principles seem to have been determined not to apply to bringing attention to ongoing research. Because if anyone thinks that there are not already posts all over the internet about the conspiracy between supplement companies, doctors, and the government to give your child autism, you aren't looking. Furthermore, this was done in cohorts specifically drawn from minority populations. Nope, no possible way to misconstrue this as part of a long series of exploitations.
To be clear, the original reason for developing large minority and underserved cohorts was because they are not usually represented in research and that matters. Thus, this was intended to redress something wrong. However, this study was done in the "Boston Birth Cohort". Have fun looking that up. I did, because I wanted to see the raw demographic data. Tl;dr I still haven't found it. Partly because I finally discovered that the BBC is not really its own study. It's made up of two other studies, Molecular Epidemiology of Preterm Delivery, and the Children’s Health Study. Prospective studies to collect a bunch of data that is put into a database researchers can then apply to comb through looking for whatever they are looking for.
Last piece of interesting info. Hopkins was awarded a $1.5 million dollar grant (read in Dr. Evil's voice for full impact) to use this data to learn more about autism. That's a lot of incentive to make sure you get attention for what had better be ground-breaking results.
I willshred analyze the press release in a separate post. The tl;dr is that the major news networks immediately said NO. Always talk to your doctor, do NOT stop taking folate if pregnant.
P.S. This is not published research. It's an abstract that hasn't even been presented yet at a meeting about autism. Way to get out in front of it, Johns Hopkins PR machine.
In a triumph of science reporting (at least the major news networks got it right) over the institutions that do science, I give you:
TOO MUCH FOLATE IN PREGNANT WOMEN INCREASES RISK FOR AUTISM, STUDY SUGGESTS
(What, your conscience got you in the end so you put in the parenthetical post-clickbait?)
This is a news release from Johns Hopkins and yes, that is the title. Yes, part of the money machine that is big research (including NIH) and big universities is blowing your own horn. Actual publicity from professional offices dedicated to it. Why these people are working for universities rather than deodorant companies is anyone's guess since the job is the same. OMG, YOU HAD NO IDEA THIS WAS MISSING FROM YOUR LIFE. YOU MUST SPEND MONEY ON IT NAO!!!!! Because science isn't interesting on its own, as so eloquently demonstrated by John Oliver's TODD talks.
The unfortunate realities of competing for funding aside, there are research ethics that are not just guidelines, they are, in fact, rules. Codes, even. However, the general principles seem to have been determined not to apply to bringing attention to ongoing research. Because if anyone thinks that there are not already posts all over the internet about the conspiracy between supplement companies, doctors, and the government to give your child autism, you aren't looking. Furthermore, this was done in cohorts specifically drawn from minority populations. Nope, no possible way to misconstrue this as part of a long series of exploitations.
To be clear, the original reason for developing large minority and underserved cohorts was because they are not usually represented in research and that matters. Thus, this was intended to redress something wrong. However, this study was done in the "Boston Birth Cohort". Have fun looking that up. I did, because I wanted to see the raw demographic data. Tl;dr I still haven't found it. Partly because I finally discovered that the BBC is not really its own study. It's made up of two other studies, Molecular Epidemiology of Preterm Delivery, and the Children’s Health Study. Prospective studies to collect a bunch of data that is put into a database researchers can then apply to comb through looking for whatever they are looking for.
Last piece of interesting info. Hopkins was awarded a $1.5 million dollar grant (read in Dr. Evil's voice for full impact) to use this data to learn more about autism. That's a lot of incentive to make sure you get attention for what had better be ground-breaking results.
I will
P.S. This is not published research. It's an abstract that hasn't even been presented yet at a meeting about autism. Way to get out in front of it, Johns Hopkins PR machine.
Comments
Post a Comment