I am not disenchanted with science, in general, nor have I promoted any conspiracy theories, here, that I am aware of. (Though I do think it is ironic that a food supplement, with supplements so often berated in this forum area, has been scientifically determined to be the best way that we know of to address the dramatic problems of anencephalic births.) I also recognize that resources for health research are not unlimited and that ideally cold hard rational determinations about the appropriations of such resources should be made. (Although I also realize that the actual appropriations of such resources are more often than not, determined by the possibility of profit. That is not a conspiracy theory. It is just a recognition that we live in a capitalistic society. And probably, we are, generally, better off, than we might otherwise be, for it.) Still, I don't know the cost/benefit analysis of not addressing anencephaly more effectively, but I wonder if the costs of the lifetime of care of anencephalic persons has been figured in to the cold hard equation. Maybe, most people assume that a baby born without brains parts will quickly die and go away. Some don't, and are hidden away from society's general consciousness, in institutions, well in to adulthood, and sometimes, even, old age. Also, I have pointed out a problem with public education about what the general public should know to potentially better address the occurrence of anencephalic births. This is not a failure on the part of science or researchers. But when statistically anomalous clusters of anencephaly occur, and the public shows interest, it seems to me an opportunity for SOMEBODY to educate the public on the specifics of what we do know and what can be done about it. (And not stop with assurances that it is most likely a statistical phenomena of no common cause, implying that there is really no need to further attend to the issue.)So, again, after, at least, 22 years, where is the effective research that has lead to reports that indicate ways to avoid having a baby without a brain, other than to suggest taking folic acid?I think this illustrates a common but inappropriate expectation of science that feeds a lot of disenchantment with it, as well as some of the conspiracy theorizing associated with medicine... ...The fact that these small clusters of cases, which as has already been pointed out and accepted may be statistical anomalies without any single common cause, or the basic problem of anencephaly cannot be solved in a couple of decades leads to the suggestion that either the methods of science aren't working or that scientists aren't trying hard enough. That view seems to me more a function of unrealistic expectations than evidence of a failure of science or scientists. Of course, we should care about these individuals and make efforts to find a way to prevent this problem from occurring. But we cannot do everything all at once, and as a proportion of the health problems we must devote our resources to understanding and solving, these clusters are tiny. The fact that they are tragic doesn't necessarily mean we should do more, inevitably at the expense of efforts to understand and deal with much larger, equally tragic but often less dramatic health problems.
nor have I promoted any conspiracy theories, here, that I am aware of. (Though I do think it is ironic that a food supplement, with supplements so often berated in this forum area, has been scientifically determined to be the best way that we know of to address the dramatic problems of anencephalic births.)I wasn't implying you have advanced any conspiracy theories, only that very similar complaints and reasoning are often used as support by those who do. I should have been clearer about that. As for the idea that supplements are often "berated," I think that mischaracterizes the situation. Those of us critical of supplements are critical specifically of claims made without appropriate supportive scientific evidence. There are many scientifically validated uses of dietary supplements, and the use of folic acid discussed here is one of them. There is nothing wrong with supplementation per se, and I don't think anyone has suggested there is. It is simply that there is a pervasive sense in our culture, which appears in this forum as well, that their use can be assumed to be safe and beneficial regardless of the state of the evidence. I guess I feel that if something appears to be a statistical anomaly, saying so is intended to reassure people that there is not some hidden danger they need to guard against. It isn't intended to diminish the importance of the suffering of those afflicted, nor to suggest that what can be done to prevent it shouldn't be done. But unfortunately, it is very difficult for most people to accept the idea of statistical clusters without any real meaning or value in guiding behavior, and it seems like part of the rational approach to managing health risks and allocating preventative resources which we both agree is desirable involves trying to explain why we shouldn't do more than we are doing in some cases.
Granted. But since humans tend to over-generalize, such over-generalizations can go both ways. Thus a distorted sense of the value and safety of supplements can go either way, with persons who aren't presented with, or don't take in, the explicit subtleties of which supplements are of value, in which circumstances and when are they safe, and when they pose both the possibility of positive and negative results. Hence, IMO, the irony.nor have I promoted any conspiracy theories, here, that I am aware of. (Though I do think it is ironic that a food supplement, with supplements so often berated in this forum area, has been scientifically determined to be the best way that we know of to address the dramatic problems of anencephalic births.)I wasn't implying you have advanced any conspiracy theories, only that very similar complaints and reasoning are often used as support by those who do. I should have been clearer about that. As for the idea that supplements are often "berated," I think that mischaracterizes the situation. Those of us critical of supplements are critical specifically of claims made without appropriate supportive scientific evidence. There are many scientifically validated uses of dietary supplements, and the use of folic acid discussed here is one of them. There is nothing wrong with supplementation per se, and I don't think anyone has suggested there is. It is simply that there is a pervasive sense in our culture, which appears in this forum as well, that their use can be assumed to be safe and beneficial regardless of the state of the evidence.
... I guess I feel that if something appears to be a statistical anomaly, saying so is intended to reassure people that there is not some hidden danger they need to guard against. It isn't intended to diminish the importance of the suffering of those afflicted, nor to suggest that what can be done to prevent it shouldn't be done. But unfortunately, it is very difficult for most people to accept the idea of statistical clusters without any real meaning or value in guiding behavior, and it seems like part of the rational approach to managing health risks and allocating preventative resources which we both agree is desirable involves trying to explain why we shouldn't do more than we are doing in some cases.I think that helping people understand the concept of how clusters of data points can occur by chance, is valuable. I think that explaining why we shouldn't do more than we are doing in some cases, is valuable (though it make rub many people the wrong way). I think that recognizing the horror, grief, and sadness of others who are effected by adverse circumstances is valuable (though we can only, typically, take this in small doses). I think that explicit rational advice/education, in terms of what we do know, that can, potentially avert the occasions for such experiences of horror, grief and sadness, is most valuable. But as to this last point, I do not know what the best structure for that should be. It just seems to me, that it does not happen as effectively as it might or should.
I agree completely.