Interesting!

I just watched John Oliver tear apart medical studies for being misleading and media outlets for drawing incorrect conclusions from them. I'm jaded!

I can get behind that for the most part. If you know your nutritional needs and deficiencies. Many women don't. Which is why doctors pretty much prescribe prenatals and folic acid as standards. I'm sure many lower income moms have insufficient diets and no idea what their nutritional shortcomings are. Which is one of my beefs with the study. The bloodwork was only done postpartum, and in one city, with mostly low income moms.

Also, the title says, "too much folic acid in pregnancy tied to increase in autism", but the study seemed to suggest that it was high folate, or high B12, and then particularly, high levels of both. But "high" wasn't defined, nor did the study shed any light on why the levels were so high, or what action might be taken to find any of these answers. It was confusing. And then this, to really scramble the message:

"The study also found that women who took folate and B12 supplements three to five times a week were less likely overall to have a child with autism, particularly when they're taken during the first and second trimesters."

So now, folate and B12 correlate with both an increase AND a decrease in autism.

I think these studies, overall, are nothing but researchers looking to get published. Without rigorous follow up studies, they're really meaningless. Kind of like how a lot of anything is going to give you cancer. But a little of it can prevent cancer. Unless you combine it with xyz, in which case you will instantly drop dead, or live forever, depending on where it was derived, cultivated, and consumed.

Told you. Jaded.

It would be nice. People just have to keep in mind that correlation does not mean causation.

I know very little about autism and how it is diagnosed. The spectrum keeps expanding, but I don't have any idea what it encompasses, at this point. The other day I heard a story that referred to a condition "formerly referred to as Asperger's Syndrome". I thought Asperger's was part of the spectrum. No idea whether the reporter screwed up, or there has been a change in diagnosis, or what. I do know that lots of people would rather take a pill than change their behavior.

I've decided that all kids are special needs.

I have had it explained to me by the pediatrician that in his experience most children's medical professionals don't feel their is an increase in cases, just an increase IN DIAGNOSES. We have a name for these things now. Even into the 80s kids with these issues were just kept out of sight out of mind, and there weren't many standards of care to work from. I think it's an interesting and plausible point.

I wasn't awake enough this morning to weigh in. Let's see how I do now.

There are so many theories about autism. Over the years I have been told (not by professionals, mind you) that my son's autism was caused by vaccines (duh, just no), living too close to power lines (?), genetics (which is what I firmly believe is the most likely cause), too much caffeine during pregnancy, and essentially "not snuggling him enough."

My OB knew there was an issue when he looked at my blood work. I was sent for a Doppler sonogram where they confirmed that something was indeed wrong with him. They ruled out Downs Syndrome, but autism was on a short list of other conditions that they speculated. I talked to a Genetic Counselor for over an hour about my family's history. I've got 2 nephews who are also autistic, which is why I tend to buy into any theory that supports genetics as a cause. My sister and I both treated our pregnancies very differently, and her 2 sons were raised by other family members. (Not trying to say that we all weren't too close to power lines...) The only thing we firmly had in common was our shared genes.

I thought the article was interesting, but dismiss it because this is yet another barely tested theory that points the finger of blame at the mother. I took prenatals when I was pregnant with both kids, but no other supplements.

I agree with Hangers that we see the autism label more because doctors understand the condition better now, and can properly diagnose it.

I don't think autism and special needs are interchangeable. More like all kids with autism are special needs, but not all special needs kids have autism. I think what Chelsea was saying is there's no more autism now than there ever was, we just understand it better and hear about it more often. Correct me, though, if I'm wrong!

My only point is that you have to be really careful drawing conclusions. I'm skeptical by nature, but I think it's dangerous to assign more validation to something because it sounds right. There could be hundreds of studies out there that have results that directly contradict this one. You just haven't read about them. The autism/vaccination nonsense was started by one flawed study that, despite being debunked repeatedly, got all kinds of traction, and is still widely believed.

Studies have to be repeatable. If they're not, they're invalid. Most studies are disproven, or never repeated. But people draw their own conclusions. For instance, since mammograms came into widespread use, breast cancer diagnoses have increased. You better believe that there are women who will not get one, because they are adamant that mammograms cause cancer.

I don't know, Kissy. I've only ever heard the terms as complimentary. It may be that the old labels applied that way.

One of the largest autism advocacy groups, Autism Speaks, has a great rundown on the history of the condition and causes (folic acid research is mentioned ) if you're interested in knowing more about it.

www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism