How reliable is science? (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Saturday, April 14, 2012, 17:43 (5186 days ago) @ xeno6696

I do owe you guys an update! >_< > > Cherri has a faulty MTHFR gene, meaning that she doesn&apos;t metabolize folic acid like most people, and she runs a higher risk than average for blood clots. Her dad&apos;s side of the family has a strong history of dying from blood clots--Great grandpa at 29, her grandparents at 79, 80, and her dad at 59. > > Because of that she will be on a folic acid complex the rest of her life. > > That caused a great fear of neural tube defects in the baby, and we saw the perinatalogist two wednesdays ago. The baby girl is just fine, 69%ile. > > The specialist is exactly what I would want in a doctor: Confident and arrogant. And he took a shot at the OB, which I appreciate because I don&apos;t think she&apos;s handled this well. "An ultrasound is 97% effective at catching neural tube defects." The subtext was "I&apos;m not sure why you&apos;re here." > > He probed us about an amnio, and my response was "well, the OB said that there would be a 1:300 chance of problem" to which his response was immediately "Well, in my hands that would be more like 1:1600. I&apos;ve done more than she has." But he advised against one because of the efficacy of the ultrasound. > > Everything that *can* be medically handled is now handled. We should have a normal pregnancy, but we do have a higher risk of early delivery. I can live with that. > > We go back in about 2 months.-Fabulous story with great insight about doctors. Keep up the great consultations.Sounds like you will do fine, thank goodness.