Study finds link between autism, antidepressant use during pregnancy , page 1

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

Topic started on 9-7-2011 @ 06:10 AM by Freedom_is_Slavery

Study finds link between autism, antidepressant use during pregnancy

The study, published in July in the Archives of General Psychiatry, analyzed prenatal data for women who took antidepressants in the class of "selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors" known more commonly as SSRIs. These are the most-prescribed mood enhancers in the world, known generically as paroxetine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram and fluoxetine. Researchers analyzed prenatal and maternal data from 1,805 children. Researchers stopped short of saying that antidepressants cause autism, because that connection was not made. They simply reported that mothers of autistic children were more likely to have taken SSRI antidepressants, which begs the question: Should you wean off your antidepressants if you are planning to become pregnant?

This is an interesting study that has been done, from the findings it looks like you double your chances of having a baby with autism as a side effect of taking this poison, or depressed people have higher chance of having autistic children?
I'm going with this is a lasting chemical side effect of the SSRI's, these have only been in use since the 80's so there is alot to be learnt about them.
I found the following sentence interesting, Can it be explained by this study?

The number of people diagnosed with autism has increased dramatically since the 1980s, partly due to changes in diagnostic practice; the question of whether actual prevalence has increased is unresolved.

Wiki Autism

It's certainly worth a discussion with your doctor, outlining other treatment options for depression, both pharmaceutical and alternative. Knowing your options becomes incredibly important, especially since there is not a cure for autism, so anything you can do to prevent it is helpful.

Source

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 06:17 AM by unityemissions

Basically, a good chunk of the synthetic chemicals introduced into the environment since the petrochemical age has contributed to the mucking up of our genetic base.

Check.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 06:24 AM by TechUnique

Originally posted by unityemissions
Basically, a good chunk of the synthetic chemicals introduced into the environment since the petrochemical age has contributed to the mucking up of our genetic base.
Check.

That alongside the mass of unnatural signals and radiation plaguing our planet.
IMHO.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 07:08 AM by MIDNIGHTSUN

I threaded a topic how vitamin D affects some 200 human gene by repairing the damage or defect. It must be the chemicals in antidepressant that switch genes off or on or damage the DNA. We do know how chemicals cause birth defect in children, which just makes whatever we put into our body more important.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 07:09 AM by bluemirage5

reply to post by Freedom_is_Slavery

What a load of garbage.....

how many mothers giving birth to Autistic kids used anti-depressants during their pregnancies?

Long before during and after my pregnancy I never smoked, nor drink alcohol, never took medication of any kind, never consumed fast food or commercial food, was incrediably healthy, did all the right things.....and I give birth to a baby diagnosed with Autism at the age of 4.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 10:20 AM by unityemissions

reply to post by bluemirage5

It's multifactorial. That much is obvious.

Considering that fact, AND that a statistical significance was found from just one factor alone...it becomes ever more relevant and should be given attention.

The study didn't say every case of autism will come from antidepressants...relax.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 10:29 AM by bluemirage5

reply to post by unityemissions

Are you aware of how many excuses they use as a possible link to Autism?

If it's not smoking during pregnancy, it's alcohol, vaccines, anti-depressants, other medications, plastics, pesticides....you name it there's a link.

Quite frankly, it's all hogwash in my books.

No body knows for sure what the real reasons are that causes Autism....birth injuries is high on my list as genetics and environmental. We do know a vast majority of these kids are A+ and almost all of them have Germanic/Semitic genetic pointers, we also know they have a large mercury count in their blood stream..

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 10:33 AM by unityemissions

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by unityemissions

Are you aware of how many excuses they use as a possible link to Autism?

Excuses

If it's not smoking during pregnancy, it's alcohol, vaccines, anti-depressants, other medications, plastics, pesticides....you name it there's a link.

Uh, they're all detrimental to one's health. How could you not think this could be transferred to the child is beyond my comprehension.

Quite frankly, it's all hogwash in my books.

A lack of intelligence...check.

No body knows for sure what the real reasons are that causes Autism....birth injuries is high on my list as genetics and environmental. We do know a vast majority of these kids are A+ and almost all of them have Germanic/Semitic genetic pointers, we also know they have a large mercury count in their blood stream..

We know much more than that, but you choose to pick what sounds reasonable and what sounds like hogwash.

That's called bias.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 10:41 AM by bluemirage5

reply to post by unityemissions

I never said medication, drugs, smoking, alcohol etc can not do damage to an unborn child now did I!

However, how many Autistic children have mothers who kept excellant health throughout their pregnancies? A majority of them !

yes I like to keep to what is reasonable and common sense. All those studies are fair game in my books and none of the researchers can answer what is the true cause of Autism simply because they really do not know, otherwise Autism would dramatically decrease.....and it's increasing each and ever day. One child is born with Autism in every 300 daily.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 10:50 AM by unityemissions

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by unityemissions

I never said medication, drugs, smoking, alcohol etc can not do damage to an unborn child now did I!

You tell me:

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by unityemissions

Are you aware of how many excuses they use as a possible link to Autism?

If it's not smoking during pregnancy, it's alcohol, vaccines, anti-depressants, other medications, plastics, pesticides....you name it there's a link.

Quite frankly, it's all hogwash in my books.

However, how many Autistic children have mothers who kept excellant health throughout their pregnancies? A majority of them !

This seems to be an exaggeration. I have no reason to accept this information without data to support it.

yes I like to keep to what is reasonable and common sense. All those studies are fair game in my books and none of the researchers can answer what is the true cause of Autism simply because they really do not know, otherwise Autism would dramatically decrease.....and it's increasing each and ever day. One child is born with Autism in every 300 daily.

Okay, again...it's MULTI FACTORIAL. There is NO one cause. Looking for one is nonsensical.

The reason we "really do not know" what causes autism, is because the label is a bit of a farce in itself. We're looking at multiple things, which are caused by multiple things, which seem to fit into a constellation of symptoms and behaviours which we've chosen to put a label on: autism.

There have been many people who tried out one or several protocols to help their selves or their children, and some of them have worked. What works for one autistic may not work for the next. Obviously, there is no cure all.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 11:05 AM by sliceNodice

People who use psychoactive drugs during pregnancy are retarded.
Ya think you are going to do damage to your baby?

A new study like this comes out every week... GET A CLUE PEOPLE.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 01:01 PM by DevolutionEvolvd

archpsyc.ama-assn.org...

Out of nearly 300 cases with Autism Spectrum Disorders, 20 (6.7%) of the mothers reported prenatal use of anti-depressants. Of the approximately 1500 randomly selected control children, and their mothers, 50 (3.3%) had prenatal exposure to anti-depressants. The risk seemed to be much stronger if exposure was reported during the first trimester.

It's a small sample size, but it represents a correlation that certainly warrants further investigation.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 01:47 PM by VneZonyDostupa

Again, the problem here is that there are many people on ATS who feel themselves to be experts in medicine, who then make sweeping proclamation like "people who use these while pregnant are retarded" despite not knowingt he full story.

Currently, antidepressant use during pregnancy is a hotbed for clinical research. The reason is that while antidepressants DO have a noted risk for congenital issues, SO DOES DEPRESSION. Infants born to mother who were suffering from untreated depression during the pregnancy typically have lower birth weights, poor feeding, slower learning, and are generally less healthy and resilient.

So, deciding whether or not to treat a mother's depression is a double-edged sword: do you treat the depression and risk affecting the fetus, or do you not treat the mother and risk allowing the depression to affect the fetus? You can't know for sure if the depression or medication WILL affect the fetus, it's all based on probability.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 02:29 PM by DevolutionEvolvd

I was just about to post about the problem with these observational studies. There is no arrow of causation. We have no way of knowing whether it was the depression or the anti-depressives (or both...or some other unseen confounding factors) that contributed to the Autism Disorders (or lack thereof).

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 02:50 PM by VneZonyDostupa

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Absolutely agreed. The problem with studies like these are that the "control" isn't truly a control. You can't really eliminate confounders too well. That's not to say these studies are worthless, but alone they are NOT enough to alter current standards of medical practice.

reply posted on 9-7-2011 @ 04:20 PM by DevolutionEvolvd

....they're just enough to form a hypothesis that needs to be poked and prodded by better designed, higher quality studies (double-blind, randomized controlled trials).