SSRI Antidepressants and increase in autism risk

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-04-2001
SSRI Antidepressants and increase in autism risk
2
Fri, 07-15-2011 - 12:03pm

The newspaper said that two huge studies have been completed on autism, showing 1 - there is a genetic component and 2 - there is an environmental component - even before birth.

One of those environmental components is the mother using an SSRI antidepressant anytime during the year before birth.



That means - before she even knew she was pregnant? Really???

I was not on one, but there are so many many people who are, and for many people, the withdrawal from them make it exceedingly difficult to get off them. And they seem to be prescribed like candy. In fact, one psychiatrist I know referred to them "like nothing - no big deal."

I have another thought though.... that MAYBE, MAYBE it is NOT the SSRI causing the autism, but whatever the underlying physical problem was that was causing the symptom of depression to begin with. Maybe that is the underlying environmental factor - whether it is the hormone disruption from plastics, lack of nutrients, use of antibiotics without probiotics, etc. etc.

I wonder what others think. Do you think they got it right that it is the SSRIs themselves, or it runs deeper than that -- a deeper underlying problem? The article did not mention that.


www. It's Not Mental .com


Moderator
Registered: 05-02-2011
Fri, 07-15-2011 - 2:06pm

I hope you don't mind me jumping in here - my 5 year old son has Autism and I actually talked with my doctor about this specific study when I saw him yesterday. He didn't think it holds water. Remember that the majority of these studies have very small test groups and have not had their results replicated by another researcher. The other study that came out was the sibling study which suggested that neurotypical children who had a sibling with autism had similar brain patterns. This may in fact be the case, but the study only included 120 children. That's not enough to be conclusive.

ivillage_sig
our boards | abo
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-04-2001
Sat, 07-23-2011 - 11:58am

Coincidence ... I was reading my "Science News" magazine and there was an article about the misuse of STATISTICS. They'll say a confidence of 95% meaning they are 95% certain, but it is totally false because and they gave this example: We can say a dog barks 95% of the time when it is hungry but the dog barks for other reasons, so it doesn't really mean we can be 95% certain if the dog is barking it is because it is hungry.

I admit - I took statistics in graduate school (biology) and although I got an A, you know what? I never really UNDERSTOOD it... and now what this science article was saying is neither do the scientists throwing the statistics around, let alone the journalists reporting on the studies. AND the studies are often quite flawed or the conclusions are often so blown out-of-proportion because, of course, they all want to laim it is "significant."

The article also talked about the concept of "significant" and gave an example of something being "significant" statistically but clinically is totally insignificant such as a couple more or less improved or sick out of thousands.


www. It's Not Mental .com