Jump to content



Photo

Antidepressant/autism


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 fishinghat

fishinghat

    Site Partners

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,893 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 14 December 2015 - 07:25 PM

Now I wonder how many lawsuits will fly over this?

 

 

http://archpedi.jama...ticleid=2476187

89 percent had exposure during the first trimester and 54 percent had exposure later in pregnancy.

The increased risk was limited to a family of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that includes drugs such as Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft and Celexa. SSRIs were linked to a more than doubled risk of autism.


#2 lady2882Nancy

lady2882Nancy

    God-like

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,271 posts
  • LocationSaskatchewan, Canada
  • why_joining:
    I need help and I know I will feel better if I can offer help to others

Posted 15 December 2015 - 12:04 AM

They reported this on our News here in Canada today saying that it was SSRI and SSNRI medications with the greatest risk occurring with exposure being in the second and third trimesters.

I was glad to see it reported even on the small local channels whereas for so many years this kind of information would have been hushed up with kept hidden from the general public.


#3 brzghoff

brzghoff

    Like a Family Member

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 859 posts
  • Locationjust south of sanity

Posted 15 December 2015 - 12:04 PM

Now I wonder how many lawsuits will fly over this?

 

 

http://archpedi.jama...ticleid=2476187

89 percent had exposure during the first trimester and 54 percent had exposure later in pregnancy.

The increased risk was limited to a family of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) that includes drugs such as Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft and Celexa. SSRIs were linked to a more than doubled risk of autism.

 

i doubt any lawsuits would be successful. while it was an 89% increase, it was from +/- 1% of general population to +/- 2% of general population. also, did they control for the changes in how autism is evaluated? the questionnaire used has changed as well, resulting in many more children being diagnosed on the spectrum. that is why we're seeing such an increase in actual numbers overall over the past several years - rather than more kids actually developing the disorder. 

 

in the old days, kids who presented characteristics that now show up on the lower end of the spectrum were simply considered withdrawn, shy, introspective, etc. i have a nephew who was evaluated and "tested". he was labeled as mildly autistic. his only real symptom is lacking eye contact. not a good thing. he is definitely a loner. he doesn't socialize well - but he does have friends, although not many and nothing close to having a "best friend". he's 13 and has never earned anything lower than an A in school so far - from 1st grade through 8th. he is enrolled in the pre- international baccalaureate program at his middle school and is an accomplished musician on several instruments. he's also a black belt in karate. i realize that high intelligence is also associated with mild autism. so is attractiveness - if it wasn't for his personality he'd be a chick magnet for sure ;-) however, when i was in school , we called a kid like that a nerd. the typically grew up to be extremely successful. as he's grown older, his social skills have come a long way. honestly, i think most of his issues are the result of his mother doing everything for him. she still cuts up his meat :-(

 

i am not doubting the existence of autism at all. i've worked with autistic kids at a summer camp. it was one of the most difficult things i've ever done. some were non communicative and displayed the classic rocking behaviors. others were uncontrollable and threw feces. its obviously a condition that affects their sensory perception and communication skills. i've always felt that if we were able to make a connection by understanding and interpreting their "wiring" we'd see major break throughs. not unlike how we teach dyslexics how to read. we had to figure out how they process written language first. its not that something is wrong with them, just that they are a smaller part of the population who experiences their world differently. 

 

 

per the CDC (emphasis mine) http://www.cdc.gov/n...utism/data.html

 

  • About 1 in 68 children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) according to estimates from CDC's Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network.
  • ASD is reported to occur in all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups.
  • ASD is almost 5 times more common among boys (1 in 42) than among girls (1 in 189). 
  • Studies in Asia, Europe, and North America have identified individuals with ASD with an average prevalence of about 1%. (not sure the discrepancy between first bullet point and this one) A study in South Korea reported a prevalence of 2.6%. 
  • About 1 in 6 children in the United States had a developmental disability in 2006-2008, ranging from mild disabilities such as speech and language impairments to serious developmental disabilities, such as intellectual disabilities, cerebral palsy, and autism. 

 

these numbers are outrageous and i question their validity. personally, i think developmental disorders have become an industry. but, that's just my personal opinion. i've never studied any of it. 


#4 fishinghat

fishinghat

    Site Partners

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,893 posts
  • LocationMissouri

Posted 15 December 2015 - 01:52 PM

Excellent post and points Brz. I learned a lot from that. Even though the legal points you made on the research are true I think the lawyers will sue anyway just for target practice.  lol





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users