It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PSA: Taking Antidepressants During Pregnancy Increases Risk Of Autism By 87%

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Now, this is interesting considering a recent news article of Benzos linked to all kinds of horrid things. I assume these antidepressants are the same class of drugs.

Definite warning to be aware of if anyone is on these things. I will never, ever take this stuff and neither will any of my family.


Benzos Linked to Dementia And Death
www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.nouvelles.umontreal.ca...



Lundi, 14 Décembre 2015 11:00

Using antidepressants during pregnancy greatly increases the risk of autism, Professor Anick Bérard of the University of Montreal and its affiliated CHU Sainte-Justine children's hospital revealed today. Prof. Bérard, an internationally renowned expert in the fields of pharmaceutical safety during pregnancy, came to her conclusions after reviewing data covering 145,456 pregnancies. “The variety of causes of autism remain unclear, but studies have shown that both genetics and environment can play a role,” she explained. “Our study has established that taking antidepressants during the second or third trimester of pregnancy almost doubles the risk that the child will be diagnosed with autism by age 7, especially if the mother takes selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, often known by its acronym SSRIs.” Her findings were published today in JAMA Pediatrics.

Bérard and her colleagues worked with data from the Quebec Pregnancy Cohort and studied 145,456 children between the time of their conception up to age ten. In addition to information about the mother's use of antidepressants and the child's eventual diagnosis of autism, the data included a wealth of details that enabled the team to tease out the specific impact of the antidepressant drugs.


edit on 14-12-2015 by infolurker because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

I think it's rarely all genes, usually genetic susceptibility and environmental exposure to some crud or another.

We jacked with the environment pretty good since the industrial revolution.

ooopsies?



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
I saw that. Its an interesting wrinkle to absorb. I also saw this about polycycstic ovarian syndrome, too.

It seems that exposure to the wrong sex hormones at the wrong times in the wrong amounts may also play a part.

So is it the vaccine link everyone wants to blame, or is it something that happens in utero? I wonder how many Amish are on anti-depressants?



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:20 PM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

Have you ever stopped an SSRI cold turkey? It affects some people worse than others. A friend of mine did that and went crazy (hallucinations, OOBEs, panic attacks, fits of rage, acute psychosis) for a week and a half from SSRI withdrawal. Imagine what that does to a baby leaving the womb.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

It's okay they give infants speed now. Shouldn't be long before they're giving newborns antidepressants.




posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

You are not supposed to stop those cold turkey. You need to wean off them gradually. Ideally, the mother wouldn't be one them at all when she got pregnant. I can't imagine why any doctor would tell her it's cool to take them during pregnancy, but I guess we also thought Thalidomide was all right at one point too.

My neurologist and I discussed what strategies I could use for migraine prior to attempting to have mine, and the daily med was never on the table. I was off of it before ever trying, but there was a category for the others ... I think it's schedule C or B or something, basically whatever they called it, it meant they didn't have enough information about what it did to a mother/baby to know how safe or even if it was safe, so it was best not to go there, but if you did, to let the doctors know so experiences and data could be recorded to determine if it could then be sorted into one of the other two categories: safe, not safe.

Yep, that's how they research the effects of drugs on unborn - through accidental exposure at first and then through intentional as more evidence shows it's not probably bad.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Okay, so I saw this on Reddit earlier, and one person there brought up a good point...

The findings show an 87% risk increase, but what was the baseline risk to start with? You could go from .01% to .0187% (which is 87%). See how just looking at headlines can be misleading? The devil is in the details. There is a difference between statistically significant and clinically significant.

edit on 14-12-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

A total of .72% were diagnosed out of 145,456.

If you take 145,456*.0072 you come to find the 1,054 number.

It states:



The findings are hugely important as six to ten percent of pregnant women are currently being treated for depression with antidepressants.


Let's wing it and assume a middle figure 8%,

8% were at an 87% increased risk, or (.08 x 1.87) -.08 = 6.96% more cases to the total number.

Not sure about you, but that seems clinically significant to me.

percentage wise, .73% total, .05% of that from antidepressants.

so the rate would go from 1 in 147 to 1 in 136.
edit on 14-12-2015 by ringdingdong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Who in the right mind would take antidepressants during pregnancy in the first place ?! Those things are pure poison for the human mind. Some a**hole doctor prescribed them to me when I was 14, somehow I managed to realize they are doing more harm than good to me so I stopped taking them cold turkey without telling my mom or my doctor - what fun weeks I had


Is it a usual procedure to give a pregnant woman antidepressants in North America?



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ringdingdong

There's a lot of other variables that aren't accounted for. Lifestyles perhaps? People on anti-depressants might not eat as well as those that don't take them for example.

Until a clear chemical pathway has been isolated that shows how an SSRI causes autism, those numbers to me don't mean much.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
1 in 10 Americans are on antidepressants...but if you look around ATS, you'd think they're the scourge of the Earth and no one here has ever taken them, does take them, or will take them.

Just like McDonalds. Everyone loves to pile on the "I hate that garbage food!" meanwhile they're in the drive-thru the next week ordering a 10 piece McNugget.

*shrug*



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
1 in 10 Americans are on antidepressants...but if you look around ATS, you'd think they're the scourge of the Earth and no one here has ever taken them, does take them, or will take them.


I don't agree with that. There's numerous threads on ATS about their use of psychiatric drugs, and how it effects them.


Just like McDonalds. Everyone loves to pile on the "I hate that garbage food!" meanwhile they're in the drive-thru the next week ordering a 10 piece McNugget.

*shrug*


Speak for yourself. I eat fast food once or twice a year on average.
edit on 14-12-2015 by ringdingdong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
This is the link that really makes me wonder.
www.google.com...

The problem is if you are rh- there really is no alternative. Not having this # can cause serious harm to mother and child.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Newly developed, insufficiently tested pharmacueticals - which drastically alter a person's brain chemistry to make them think they are not living miserable lives - can have side effects?

And these side effects include altered brain function in developing children during pregnancy??

And this comes as a surprise???
edit on 14-12-2015 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I can't verify this because I couldn't really be arsed looking into it, but I thought that taking any anti-depressants whilst pregnant was a bad idea?

SSRIs and SNRIs are nasty, horrible drugs. I was prescribed Effexor (venlaxafine), an SNRI anti-depressant, after speaking with a GP for about 2 minutes, if that. Thing is, doctors receive nice incentives for prescribing certain drugs. If they aren't allowed to accept cash directly, the drug companies will invite them to conferences, where they'll put them up in five star hotels and give them nice expensive gift bags and basically just spoil them rotten. In return, the doctors will happily shell out whichever drugs the companies want to promote.

I was horrified when I learned the extent of prescription drug advertising in the US. SSRI's are no joke. They cause serious side effects, and serious withdrawals when you try to stop taking them. Unless you're a serious case, stay the hell away from them.

What also shocked me is that natural anti-depressants like 5-HTP and Tryptophan are banned in Australia. No danger to health, no addiction potential, naturally occurring substances, and banned. I tried to enquire about it, but was met with only silence. You can still buy it, but it is technically illegal.

I would've thought that taking anti-depressants during pregnancy would lead to something like a "crack baby" where the baby is born addicted to the drug?



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Okay, so I saw this on Reddit earlier, and one person there brought up a good point...

The findings show an 87% risk increase, but what was the baseline risk to start with? You could go from .01% to .0187% (which is 87%). See how just looking at headlines can be misleading? The devil is in the details. There is a difference between statistically significant and clinically significant.

Of course!
It's the difference between a 'HEADLINE' or something buried on the bottom of page nine!
Stats are synonymous with lies!



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ringdingdong

Actually, it's higher than 1 in 10 ...



Nearly one in four women ages 50 to 64 were found to be on an antidepressant, with 13 percent of the overall population also on antidepressants.

CBS

So 13% of us are on these drugs...Every time there's a mass shooting or some kind of thread about "mind control" people scream and point fingers at the antidepressants and nary a member on them ever says a thing. If 13% of the population is on these drugs, and yet we're at a 50 year all time low for violent crime...how can these drugs be the cause? They can't and aren't.

These drugs have been used since the 1970's. And looking at the study itself, it seems that even if you take these drugs, your kids have a 99.3% chance of being fine. We're talking about hundredths of a percent in a sample size smaller than 200,000 ...

Is there an increased risk? Sure...but the article makes it sound like 87% of babies born to mothers taking antidepressants will have autism, which is dangerous and irresponsible. The general public doesn't look into the details.

It's sensational headline, and an actual chemical pathway/method of action showing how these drugs cross the placental barrier and effect the fetus's developing brain hasn't been found.
edit on 14-12-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
I just wanted to add, whilst we're on the topic of anti-depressants, that their negative effects are not just limited to humans. Due to the massive over-prescribing of these evil drugs, significant amounts find their way into bodies of water. When we take a piss or a dump, to put it in nice terms, we tend to think nothing of it when we flush the toilet. Because so many people are prescribed various drugs (not just anti-depressants), the trace amounts that are excreted have to go somewhere. This wouldn't be a problem if not many people were taking these prescription drugs, but because so many people are using these drugs, the trace amounts that find their way into water systems drastically increase.

To put it simply - anti-depressants are being found in fish.

Antidepressant Pharmaceuticals in Two U.S. Effluent-Impacted Streams: Occurrence and Fate in Water and Sediment, and Selective Uptake in Fish Neural Tissue

That's just one paper, if you google around you will find plenty of sites detailing the impact of these drugs upon the environment. What will the long term effects of eating fish contaminated with such drugs be? I love to fish and hunt, and I really do not at all like the idea of my supposedly natural wild-caught fish containing these kind of drugs.

The problems with anti-depressants (and other prescription drugs) are not limited to humans.

I think the link between autism and anti-depressant use during pregnancy is dubious, but even if there is no link to autism at all, there is a whole host of serious issues with these drugs. Autism is of the least concern when you think about the other, proven, very real and very serious problems caused by these drugs.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: ringdingdong

Actually, it's higher than 1 in 10 ...



So 13% of us are on these drugs...


Since we're talking about pregnancies, what percentage of women who get pregnant are between the age of 50 and 64? I'd also like to point to the fact that the multiple fold increase in antidepressant use over the decades goes against your case.


Every time there's a mass shooting or some kind of thread about "mind control" people scream and point fingers at the antidepressants and nary a member on them ever says a thing. If 13% of the population is on these drugs, and yet we're at a 50 year all time low for violent crime...how can these drugs be the cause? They can't and aren't.


Mass shooters are disproportionately on antidepressants at the time of, or just before they go off the rails. This would mean higher than 1/10 whatever figure you come up with. Secondly, violent crime does not equate to "mass shootings". You are conflating the issue.


These drugs have been used since the 1970's. And looking at the study itself, it seems that even if you take these drugs, your kids have a 99.3% chance of being fine. We're talking about hundredths of a percent in a sample size smaller than 200,000 ...


The use of antidepressants has risen dramatically since the 1970s. The sample size is comparatively large considering the bulk of studies produced.


Is there an increased risk? Sure...but the article makes it sound like 87% of babies born to mothers taking antidepressants will have autism, which is dangerous and irresponsible. The general public doesn't look into the details.


Well, you're not the general public, but still can't properly decipher the information presented. We have to speak a language that people can understand.


It's sensational headline, and an actual chemical pathway/method of action showing how these drugs cross the placental barrier and effect the fetus's developing brain hasn't been found.


It's a focusing on the most pertinent facts. If those facts are so shocking as to be proclaimed "sensational" by individuals who can't seem to make sense of the information, so be it. That the method of action/chemical pathway has yet to be found in no way detracts from the facts presented.
edit on 17-12-2015 by ringdingdong because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Absolute vs. relative statistics.

These are much better than the stats for statin drugs. Oddly even on ATS I haven't noticed much about that. Possibly the second greatest Big Lie evil ever to befall mankind. Statistics only lie if you don't look into them.




top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join