In reference to Marisa Wexler’s article (May 29, 2025), “Childhood adversity tied to greater MS risk; quality of evidence low”, I would like to raise a broader and more critical question:
If the study implies a causal link between early-life trauma and later MS risk, does this mean that children growing up in chronic conflict zones—such as Gaza, Yemen, or Ukraine—are categorically at high risk of developing multiple sclerosis?
How does the research account for those who endure profound adversity yet show no signs of MS? Might this be a case of overgeneralization—where complex psychosocial and cultural resilience factors are overshadowed by a narrow epidemiological model?
From an anthropological and ethical standpoint, is it not essential to challenge such potentially pathologizing narratives that may inadvertently marginalize the lived strength of entire populations?