Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

Vitamin D Deficiency During Pregnancy Linked To Autism (newatlas.com) 216

New submitter future guy quotes a report from New Atlas: The researchers examined around 4,200 blood samples from pregnant women and their children and discovered a link between autism and low levels of vitamin D. More specifically, they found that pregnant women who were vitamin D deficient at 20 weeks gestation were more likely to have a child with autistic traits by the age of six. Rather than taking in more sunlight and the heightened risk of skin cancer that it carries, the researchers suggest that making inexpensive and safe vitamin D supplements available to at-risk groups may be a better path forward. "This study provides further evidence that low vitamin D is associated with neurodevelopmental disorders," says Professor John McGrath from the University of Queensland. "Just as taking folate in pregnancy has reduced the incidence of spina bifida, the result of this study suggests that prenatal vitamin D supplements may reduce the incidence of autism." The research was published in the journal Molecular Psychiatry.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vitamin D Deficiency During Pregnancy Linked To Autism

Comments Filter:
  • Can't they just get some vitamin shots for this?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That's the recipe for Aspergers!

    • Can't they just get some vitamin shots for this?

      A Vitamin D vaccine? Hell no! Vaccines cause autisim! Jenny McCarthy told me so.

  • Where is the news? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by quenda ( 644621 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @02:45AM (#53495797)

    Where is the news?
    This seems to just confirm previous data, which is important to researchers, but not that interesting to the public.

    The vitamin-D hypothesis has been around for years. It would be interesting if a causal link, or treatment, could be demonstrated,
    e.g. a randomised placebo controlled trial of supplements during pregnancy. But there seems to be none of that yet.

    • by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:59AM (#53495933)

      Where is the news?
      This seems to just confirm previous data, which is important to researchers, but not that interesting to the public.

      Well, this is how science works. Overall, it is extremely rare to make astounding, new discoveries; most scientific research is about confirming what we already know or improving our observations - even the Higgs boson was just a confirmation of what we already knew, really. It is easy to get the idea that all science is making sensational finds, if you only read the popular science stuff, and it gives you the completely wrong picture. Important science is mostly routine. It has to be - the scientific method dictates that you must keep testing, because the only certainty you can achieve lies in falsifying predictions. That is why there still are people who keep finding new ways of testing that gravity still works as predicted; next time it might not - that is of course taking it to the extreme, but it is scientifically very valid to keep asking the question.

      The vitamin-D hypothesis has been around for years. It would be interesting if a causal link, or treatment, could be demonstrated, e.g. a randomised placebo controlled trial of supplements during pregnancy. But there seems to be none of that yet.

      I think you are getting things mixed up a bit. Randomised trials are meant specifically for testing the efficacy of new medicines. The method would work for vitamin D, of course, but it would be ethically unsound to deliberately expose groups of people to the well-documented risks that this deficiency would cause, and it would be extremely difficult to control the parameters, I think; you get vitamin D from many sources, such as exposure to sunlight, and you would have to keep large groups of pregnant women confined indoors for 9 months, and so on. Can't be done practically.

      But it isn't really necessary. Firstly, I think we have confirmed that the correlation is real, not spurious, so presumably we now have a confirmed pattern of vitamin D deficiency correlating to a certain increase in the risk of developing autism. Secondly, other research seems to point to plausible mechanisms - we know something about what goes on in an autistic brain, and we know that vitamin D probably plays an important role in the development of certain features that appear to be important in connection with autism.

      But you are right, this is not a surprising, new discovery; we are simply inching closer to understanding how autism develops.

      • Bullshit, with a large enough cohort, and without telling them it's vitamin D just a new drug, you would have baseline control probably close enough to the average rate of autism that you could discern any potential benefits from vitamin D. That assumes, of course, that this report itself doesn't spur a large amount of mothers to start taking large vitamin D supplements, thus changing the average prior to any trials if the link actually exists.

        • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @10:01AM (#53497027)

          Bullshit, with a large enough cohort, and without telling them it's vitamin D just a new drug, you would have baseline control probably close enough to the average rate of autism that you could discern any potential benefits from vitamin D. That assumes, of course, that this report itself doesn't spur a large amount of mothers to start taking large vitamin D supplements, thus changing the average prior to any trials if the link actually exists.

          Its rather amusing that a person who calls bullshit is so full of it.

          You weren't by any chance involved in the Tuskegee syphilis experiments were you?

          And just how many experimental trials were you involved in?

          This isn't the 1940's any more. Any medical experimentation is subject to ethical review, and before you get to even start the experiment. There is absolutely no way that a trial that involves purposefully causing a vitamin deficiency in a selected group will ever make it through an ethics review.

          Sorry Dr Mengele, you can't do your twin vivisection experiments any more.

          • Bullshit, with a large enough cohort, and without telling them it's vitamin D just a new drug, you would have baseline control probably close enough to the average rate of autism that you could discern any potential benefits from vitamin D. That assumes, of course, that this report itself doesn't spur a large amount of mothers to start taking large vitamin D supplements, thus changing the average prior to any trials if the link actually exists.

            Its rather amusing that a person who calls bullshit is so full of it.

            You weren't by any chance involved in the Tuskegee syphilis experiments were you?

            And just how many experimental trials were you involved in?

            This isn't the 1940's any more. Any medical experimentation is subject to ethical review, and before you get to even start the experiment. There is absolutely no way that a trial that involves purposefully causing a vitamin deficiency in a selected group will ever make it through an ethics review.

            Sorry Dr Mengele, you can't do your twin vivisection experiments any more.

            I don't think he means intentionally depriving them of vitamin D, rather I think he means simply creating a control group being given a placebo (pills of sugar, perhaps), and another group being given pills of vitamin D. The control group would have no worse outcomes than the average pregnant women would have, while the experimental group should show some improvement.

            However, your point still stands; you wouldn't be able to easily control for lifestyle choices, and those have much more of an impact on vi

            • I don't think he means intentionally depriving them of vitamin D, rather I think he means simply creating a control group being given a placebo (pills of sugar, perhaps), and another group being given pills of vitamin D. The control group would have no worse outcomes than the average pregnant women would have, while the experimental group should show some improvement.

              That wouldn't be a proper experiment according to his wishes. You can't prove that a deficiencey causes something unless you create that deficiency. Because if you geive people extra Vitamin D, and less or no autistic children are born, he'll be screaming "Correlation!=Causation" because you have to prove lack of something causes something. And there is enough variation in human activity to cast doubt on the exactitude of any experiment. You have to specifically cause the problem to determine if a problem i

    • by guises ( 2423402 )
      What is your question exactly? Are you asking why this is being published on Slashdot? Because there exist people who believe that autism is caused by something else, and being able to point at something and say, "Hey look, real evidence showing that it might be this thing instead of that make-believe thing" is a useful bit of information to share with the public.

      Or are you asking why the research was done at all? Maybe because the researchers were not as confident of the correlation between vitamin D de
      • What is your question exactly? Are you asking why this is being published on Slashdot? Because there exist people who believe that autism is caused by something else, and being able to point at something and say, "Hey look, real evidence showing that it might be this thing instead of that make-believe thing" is a useful bit of information to share with the public.

        Exactly this! One of the arguments I used that always shut the vaccine assholes up, was pointing out how fixated they were on first that merthiolate was the cause, then something else was the cause after merthiolate was removed, then drug companies were in a conspiracy even after it was proven that the only conspiracy was between the asshole that started the whole thing and a lawyer who were going to capitalize on the sympathetic victim effect in the courts.

        It always ended up with the statement "Your vac

    • Where is the news? This seems to just confirm previous data, which is important to researchers, but not that interesting to the public.

      The vitamin-D hypothesis has been around for years. It would be interesting if a causal link, or treatment, could be demonstrated, e.g. a randomised placebo controlled trial of supplements during pregnancy. But there seems to be none of that yet.

      Severe ethics and social problem there. Its just about impossible to have trials of medicine with pregnant women or young children involved, as any birth defects or developmental problems and the people running the tests will be crucified.

      You won't ever see any test like that, the closest thing they can do is do analysis after the fact, when they are not held responsible for any problems.

      • by quenda ( 644621 )

        Severe ethics and social problem there. Its just about impossible to have trials of medicine with pregnant women

        Many pregnant women already take supplements which include vitamin D. It is approved, and any serious negative effects should already be visible.
        For a trial, you exclude those women. Then give group A daily pill containing folate and iron, group B get folate, iron and vitamin D. randomised, double-blind. Then come back in a few years and see how they are doing.

        • Severe ethics and social problem there. Its just about impossible to have trials of medicine with pregnant women

          Many pregnant women already take supplements which include vitamin D. It is approved, and any serious negative effects should already be visible. For a trial, you exclude those women. Then give group A daily pill containing folate and iron, group B get folate, iron and vitamin D. randomised, double-blind. Then come back in a few years and see how they are doing.

          The problem of course, is that you actually have to create the autism. Otherwise you have no exact causation. If there is one thing you won't find, it is a company or government that would ever sponsor such a test. That's why you don't see many drugs designed for pregnant women. One birth defect, not necessarily even caused by the drug test, and as they say "You are well and Truly fucked". Your ass would be hauled into court, and you'll be painted as the big conspiratorial Pharma, while the weeping mother a

  • Another possibility (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    1. Autism is primarily genetic

    2. Autistic individuals seem to have real problems metabolizing some vitamins and minerals from food. Vitamin B-12 is one well-known example... basically, autistic individuals aren't able to adequately metabolize forms like cyanocobalamin into something that can cross the blood-brain barrier, but giving them injectable methylcobalamin (which CAN cross the BBB) can reduce some symptoms of autism by giving their brain access to a vitamin it would otherwise be deficient in.

    3. By e

    • Whether autism is "primarily genetic" is still a matter of a lot of debate, not least because we don't really understand enough about genes in general to determine whether things are due to variations in DNA or due to epigenetics - ie the interface between environment and DNA. It is not at all implausible that differences in the availability of vitamin D can have a profound impact on the expression of genes, IMO. Also, it has to be added that no study is suggesting that autism is caused exclusively by any o

  • And schizophrenia. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nbritton ( 823086 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:04AM (#53495837)

    Don't forget schizophrenia too. Vitamin D3 deficiency (Calcitriol) is why black mothers who give birth in winter months have a significantly high percentage of having a child that develops schizophrenia. D3 has a strong catalytic effect on glutathione production in the brain (PMID 10428085), and without adequate glutathione the body will not have a way to control reactive oxygen species. This oxidative stress then irrevocably damages the brain during fetal development and you end up with a wide range of problems down the road like Autism and mental health problems.

    Also don't forget that the half-life for the active metabolite of vitamin D is on the order of 21 days. That means it takes about 5 months to reach steady state. One of the best advice I can recommend is that all pregnant women take at least 2,000 IU of D3 per day, with a 21 day 4,000 I.U. loading dose.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 16, 2016 @03:39AM (#53495901)

    This is consistent with studies going back to the late 1990's.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vitamin-d-and-autism/

    >... Swedish researchers published a study in Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology that found the prevalence of autism and related disorders was three to four times higher among Somali immigrants than non-Somalis in Stockholm. The study reviewed the records of 2,437 children, born between 1988 and 1998 in Stockholm, in response to parents and teachers who had raised concerns about whether children with a Somali background were overrepresented in the total group of children with autism.
    >
    > In Sweden, the 15,000-strong Somali community calls autism "the Swedish disease," says Elisabeth Fernell, a researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and a co-author of the study.

      In Minnesota, where there are an estimated 60,000 Somali immigrants, the situation was quite similar: There, health officials noted reports of autism among Somali refugees, who began arriving in 1993, comparable to those found in Sweden. Within several years of arrival, dozens of the Somali families whose children were born in the U.S. found themselves grappling with autism, says Huda Farah, a Somali-born molecular biologist who works on refugee resettlement issues with Minnesota health officials. The number of Somali children in the city's autism programs jumped from zero in 1999 to 43 in 2007, says Ann Fox, director of special education programs for Minneapolis schools. The number of Somali-speaking children in the Minneapolis school district increased from 1,773 to 2,029 during the same period.

  • I'm - as I suspect most of us are here - your classic nerdy/geeky semi-ADHD/Auspergers type. But generally speaking AFAICT nutrition has been linked to this condition and personality type more than once (look for the book "The LCP Solution"). My mother told me she was practically addicted to licorice during her pregnancy with me. This could have been a "self-medication" attempt of her body to mitigate the lack of vitamin D which she recently noticed. And, fittingly enough, excess licorice consumption during

    • I'm - as I suspect most of us are here - your classic nerdy/geeky semi-ADHD/Auspergers type. But generally speaking AFAICT nutrition has been linked to this condition and personality type more than once (look for the book "The LCP Solution"). My mother told me she was practically addicted to licorice during her pregnancy with me. This could have been a "self-medication" attempt of her body to mitigate the lack of vitamin D which she recently noticed. And, fittingly enough, excess licorice consumption during pregnancy is actually in fact one of those rare things that has been found to correlate with ADHD symptoms in the child.

      As for vitamin D I haven't had a bloodwork in more than a decade but I'd bet money that I've got a vitamin D deficiency, as any indoor computer expert guy probably has. My mom herself is of the nerd/shut-in/bookworm type and ADHD disposition runs on my mothers side of the family.

      I myself don't drink alcohol, eat meat very rarely and live quite healthy aside from the fact that I am basically a sugar-addict. A thing I certainly link to my mothers excess licorice consumption during her pregnancy. I also notice that as soon as I actively curb my sugar addiction and lean towards a more organic balanced, whole & fresh foods diet, my awareness hightens notably and I get cooler/calmer than I usually am. If you're a nerdy type, try it out and go full organic & balanced for 8 weeks. The difference you'll notice is palpable.

      I'm coping pretty well and wouldn't call my ADHD a disfunction rather than a disposition ... "Hunter/Gatherer in a Farmer/Settler society, Rebel/Adventurer/Leader disposition, etc, jada-jada" ... you probably know the evolutionary theories concerning ADHD. That aside I truely believe backed by what I've read and experienced nutrition is the biggest leverage any ADHD/Aspergers candidate has, aside from regular excercise and a diversified daily routine.

      My 2 cents.

      It probably played a role, but something else to consider might also be a genetic component. This can roll two ways; potentially, there might be a gene that weakens your ability to synthesize vitamin D from the sun, which is the primary manner of how we obtain it, or there could be a gene that simply gives you the condition directly. If such a thing were to be the case, it wouldn't matter how your mother raised you, but it would simply be something you were born with - and your children may inherit, should

  • If you don't like the taste look for mint flavored cod liver oil.

  • Ok, lets be clear this is a retrospective cohort study. That means that no experimental treatments were applied, so cause and effect cannot be determined on the basis of this trial. This is a clear example of what is wrong with most people's understanding of "BIG DATA". Just because the sample size is enormous, it does not immediately follow that differences detected are real, meaningful, or causal. In-fact, large sample sizes Guarantee that spurious differences will pop up in the data pretty regularly.

    Eve
    • You're proposing that it would be ethical to conduct a study in which we'd intentionally put children at risk for developing autism? There's a reason you can't do double blind experiments for everything...
      • No, I'm proposing that we limit our assertions to what can be supported by the available evidence.

        There are various ways in which we could strengthen or disprove this association.

        1. One could be to survey 1000 pregnant women for Vitamin D status. Then (accounting for status) provide half with a Vitamin D supplement for the duration of their pregnancy and look at the results. Since vitamin D supplementation is not a routine pre-natal practice no one would be at increased risk of Autism (assuming that the
        • I fail to see how (1) is superior to post hoc data analysis of a larger cohort looking at Vitamin D supplementation across the cohort. You're still trying to generate correlation with poor controls.
    • I agree that the data is insufficient to make a scientifically sound claim that vitamin D deficiency is causally linked to increased autism risks, but I disagree that the authors should have avoided making a recommendation.

      Consider: essentially they're recommending to people that they take supplements for a deficiency that we know most people have, and that we know will help reduce lots of other health and developmental issues, and *might* help reduce the risks of a very unlikely condition that gets a ridic

      • Vitamin D is not without it's risks. As a fat soluble vitamin, it can accumulate in fat stores. Particularly if people are taking higher doses. Vitamin D can be toxic at high enough concentrations, particularly in young children and presumably the developing fetus.

        I consider this irresponsible because they have not confirmed that their recommendation does not constitute the lower risk option. They have just assumed that action is better than inaction, which is not a safe assumption.

        A good example of thi
    • Ok, lets be clear this is a retrospective cohort study. That means that no experimental treatments were applied, so cause and effect cannot be determined on the basis of this trial.

      Welcome to the ethics of dealing with humans, and especially with children.

      This is a clear example of what is wrong with most people's understanding of "BIG DATA".

      Hardly clear. Perhaps you are having a little difficulty dealing with trying to apply rigorous scientific experimentation to woarking with humans and medical issues. Would you take responsibility for assigning test subjects a protocol that might kill them and you know it might kill them? Good luck getting subjects willing to have you assign death or disability to their children.

      So we are left with the data. There are certainly prop

      • As I pointed out to another commenter, testing this hypothesis more rigorously does not require putting anyone at elevated risk. You assume, incorrectly, that subjecting one group to a restriction would be necessary.

        Having one group proceed as they would normal (change in risk of precisely ZERO), and have one group take a Vitamin D supplement. You can balance for pre-existing Vitamin D status so that the two groups are similar before starting. The Vitamin D supplement would constitute an altered risk (an
  • Again, another issue - whether proven or not, that indicates that pre-natal vitamins ARE THE BEST THING YOU CAN INVEST IN FOR THE HEALTH AND FUTURE OF YOUR IN-UTERO DEVELOPING CHILD ! ! !
    It's a shame that these supplements are not covered as a matter of course for EVERY pregnant woman in the world.

    • Considering that an overdose of some vitamins is actually harmful to you (and in turn a potential fetus growing inside of you), you might want to reconsider that.

      I agree that a sensible level of all essential substances you might need is a good thing, but simply saying "pump as much of that stuff into your body" isn't going to cut it. That's like watching an anorexic woman giving birth to a sick child and concluding that every pregnant woman should drink a few gallons of fat every day, even if she looks lik

      • Please note that I said PRE-NATAL VITAMINS - - - implicitly referring to medically prescribed levels of vitamins and supplements.

        Agreed, dosing the body with massive supplements is bad, and in many cases is tantamount to self-poisoning, along the same lines of taking arsenic to restore youthful appearance. Without medically approved control of vitamins and supplements, you may as well eat a bullet - - - at least that would be quicker and more painless than the damage you can do to your body by gulping mass

  • If Vitamin D is a culprit, then we should see more autism in places like the UK, which are historically deficient in sunlight. Furthermore, this correlation should be strongest in specific locales where a modern supplemented diet does not predominate.

  • Physicians always strongly suggested a multi-vitamin during pregnancy, and even wrote scripts for them - has this stopped?
  • by laughingskeptic ( 1004414 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @11:01AM (#53497471)
    Blood draws are required to measure efficacy. For instance, most vitamin D supplements did not improve my wife's vitamin D levels. Science requires measurement and the science people should care the most about is the science of their own health. Doctors telling patients to take supplements without follow up are poor practitioners of medicine.
  • by ilsaloving ( 1534307 ) on Friday December 16, 2016 @11:14AM (#53497559)

    Reading this, all I can think of is how much sooner would we have figured this out if we hadn't wasted millions of man-hours and 10s of millions of dollars fighting against all the anti-vaccine idiocy.

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Working...