• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

This study and article from 2014 made me angry.

This is a real article that I find insulting from the editorialisation by the author. Although much more benign than the hoax article, I find problems with the tone and the language. I wonder if you guys think I am reading into it too much.

http://uproxx.com/news/autism-prenatal-vitamins-folate-study/

As if the risk of your child developing autism is not scary enough, a study pinpoints an association between the risk of developing an autism spectrum disorder and a crucial ingredient found in prenatal vitamins — folate.

Folate, or folic acid, is an important component in many biological reactions, including DNA synthesis and proper cell division. According to New York Magazine‘s The Cut, doctors for years have advised pregnant women to up their folic acid intake in order to avoid brain and spinal birth defects. It’s not uncommon for prenatal vitamins to contain an amount of folate that’s 100 percent more than the daily recommended amount.

But a new study shows high levels of folate consumption is associated with children developing an autism spectrum disorder. As explained in The Cut article:

So what does the new study show, exactly? The research, conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, found that “if a new mother has a very high level of folate right after giving birth – more than four times what is considered adequate – the risk that her child will develop an autism spectrum disorder doubles.” They also found that very high vitamin-B12 levels are “potentially harmful, tripling the risk that her offspring will develop an autism spectrum disorder.” Moreover, if both levels are extremely high, the risk that a child will develop the disorder increases 17.6 times.


Those findings sound extremely scary, don’t they?
This could be especially worrisome since folate is added to a lot of our food staples, in addition to making a prominent appearance in prenatal vitamins. This doesn’t mean, however, that we should do away with supplemental folate completely, though. Pregnant women and their babies still benefit enormously from this vitamin, but the key is to aim for a specific level, rather than overdoing it.

But what is that optimal dose? According to the lead author, women may still need more education on that. “We tell women to be sure to get folate early in pregnancy,” says lead author Ramkripa Raghavan. “What we need to figure out now is whether there should be additional recommendations about just what an optimal dose is throughout pregnancy.” Basically, get the right amount of vitamins, don’t overdo them — which is about as close to conventional wisdom as you can hope to get.
 
I didn't find the tone too bad, or at least not unusual, tbh. It is standard more or less in news and the medical profession to think of autism as a undesirable disability.
 
I didn't find the tone too bad, or at least not unusual, tbh. It is standard more or less in news and the medical profession to think of autism as a undesirable disability.

The invocation of fear is what bothers me. Linguistics matter.

We know this because of the disparity about public opinion polls about the danger posed by the "mentally ill" vs the statistical truth.

What is there to be afraid of? If it is just the universal anxiety of prospective parents, then it deserves no mention.
 
I should add that the study cited is new, has not been peer reviewed or verified (repeated) and another study is said to contradict it. It's pretty common these days for these things to get publicity and be stated as facts prematurely. I think it is because there is a lot of focus on the subject and some jump the gun hoping to be the discoverer of the cause or the prevention method.

I no longer just take them with a grain of salt, but the entire shaker.
 
I should add that the study cited is new, has not been peer reviewed or verified (repeated) and another study is said to contradict it. It's pretty common these days for these things to get publicity and be stated as facts prematurely. I think it is because there is a lot of focus on the subject and some jump the gun hoping to be the discoverer of the cause or the prevention method.

I no longer just take them with a grain of salt, but the entire shaker.

I don't care about the study, it is statistically insignificant.

I am concerned about the language of fear.

But one of my topics of intense interest is sociolinguistics.
 
The invocation of fear is what bothers me. Linguistics matter.

We know this because of the disparity about public opinion polls about the danger posed by the "mentally ill" vs the statistical truth.

What is there to be afraid of? If it is just the universal anxiety of prospective parents, then it deserves no mention.

I can agree with that, the choice of the word scary conjures a exaggerated negative image.
 
These statistics arent helping those on the spectrum be liked by nts but gives them more the reason to judge us when most of us arent psychotic killers.
 
I know this might be messed up to say but I am going to say it anyway, I would not be surprised if Autism Speaks came up with this. Autism Speak is a Society that sees Autism as a disease that must be cured. I might seem paranoid but at the same time not surprised if it was true.
 
That's just awful! I hate it when junk science is thrown together under the guise of research!

Worse even when the true intent is just political satire without stating it. Misleading on multiple levels. I get that the concept is constitutionally protected, but that doesn't mean this Aspie has to like it. It's hurtful to us as a community and the author apparently doesn't care. :mad:
 
This does make my point that dumping all of the different brain diferences into one pile Aspergers is not in our best interest. There are some brain conditions that effect judgement and selfcontrol quiet a bit and I think at a bare minimum they should have their own separate catagory or we all will get tagged for their bad stuff.
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uproxx
The site featuring the 2nd article mentioned in this thread
[Post #21] is slanted toward males, 18- 34 years old.
It is written in a casual way to generate traffic.

What's "scary" interests people, they figure.
Uproxx writers rewrite articles to appeal to a mass audience,
rather than a scientifically informed readers.

The 'oooh it's scary' uproxx version came about by rewriting this much
more neutral presentation:
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/studies-folate-may-or-may-not-cause-autism.h
The headline here is a yawn, compared with the uproxx version.
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Top Bottom