LONGECITY

SSRI's And Environment Strong Autism Contributing Factors Over Genes

New research this week points to a link between the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), a type of antidepressant, and the occurrence of autism in unborn kids. Another study found that among twins, the environment plays a bigger role in the development of autism than genetics which is a game changer considering past investigation into autism cause factors.
Over the past 30 years, the number of children with autism has increased from about 4 in 10,000 to about 40 in 10,000.

First off, research led by Kaiser Permanente Northern California reviewed the medical records of more than 1,600 children, 298 of whom had autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). They found that the risk of having a child with autism spectrum disorder was about twice as high among women who took SSRIs in the year before delivery. That risk was even four times higher in women who took SSRIs during their first trimester. SSRIs include such well-known brands as Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil and Celexa.

But though these numbers may seem alarming, the authors warn that they shouldn't be over-interpreted. Catherine Lord, director of the University of Michigan Autism and Communication Disorders Center in Ann Arbor states:

"As a general practice, I believe most [primary care physicians] discourage women considering pregnancy to avoid using medications that are not necessary, but the benefits of SSRIs in treating depression and as alternatives to other measures have to be weighed on an individual basis."



The researchers and other autism experts also stress the importance of balancing the needs of a depressed mother against the harm that could be done to the fetus by SSRIs.

Dr. Shlomo Shinnar, professor of neurology, pediatrics and epidemiology and population health at Montefiore Medical Center in New York continues:

"Major depression is a serious disease that needs treatment and the associations [in this study], while statistically significant, are not sufficient to change that."



Aside, past studies have estimated about 90% of the risk of autism is attributable to genetic factors. However, researchers at the Stanford School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California compared 192 sets of twins in cases in which one had an autism spectrum disorder and the other did not and made an interesting discovery.

The study explains:

"The results suggest that environmental factors common to twins explain about 58% of the liability to autism. Although genetic factors also play an important role, they are of substantially lower magnitude than estimates from prior twin studies of autism."



While more and more research is contributing to the understanding of where autism fits in the causal debate, there is still a lot left to learn about precisely what genetic and environmental factors are and whether or not they interact.

I think it`s very hard to draw a conclusion from this. This study is, in my opinion, certainly no proof that SSRI`s cause autism in unborn children.

Mothers who are taking an SSRI are more prone to mental problems. Maybe its the depression SSRI`s are ment to treat that causes the increase of autism, or maybe it`s the genetics that cause both the mother and the child to be more prone to mental problems.

Ya it could be anything, I just thought it was interesting that SSRI's taken a year before pregnancy double the rate of autism in the baby, and when SSRI's are taken in the first trimester, there is triple the chance. That, along with the fact that Autism, which was not a problem in earlier years of humanity, has increased dramtically along with an increase in availability of drugs such as SSRI's, amphetamines, ect. There seems to be a casual connection being formed from medication treating immediate problems and benefits, and the way it seems to take away from natural processes that occur throughout life. Like energy sort of, it can't be created or destroyed, but can only be moved or transformed. Too not sound to stupid because this is real anecdotal and a philosophical sort of thinking.. it can seem like SSRIs or amphetamines cause an increase in "energy" to be used at the time, but where does that energy come from? Since it can't be created or destroyed, could it be that we are taking away energy from what is meant to be used later in life; or in some other aspect of life such as your children, who would be missing that "energy" which was taken away unnatrually by drugs, leading to cases such as autism, depression, ect

That, along with the fact that Autism, which was not a problem in earlier years of humanity, has increased dramtically along with an increase in availability of drugs such as SSRI's, amphetamines, ect.

It's always been a problem. It's just that forty years ago we didn't recognize and diagnose the milder forms, like Aspergers, so that was swept under the rug. I would be interested in seeing what the historical vs. modern rate is when lack of diagnosis of high-functioning cases is taken into account. I've known a number of nerds, geeks, and weirdos from my early years who today would be diagnosed as 'on the spectrum'.

Too not sound to stupid because this is real anecdotal and a philosophical sort of thinking.. it can seem like SSRIs or amphetamines cause an increase in "energy" to be used at the time, but where does that energy come from? Since it can't be created or destroyed, could it be that we are taking away energy from what is meant to be used later in life; or in some other aspect of life such as your children, who would be missing that "energy" which was taken away unnatrually by drugs, leading to cases such as autism, depression, ect

The "energy" comes from serotonin. I don't know of any evidence that women who use ssri's while pregnant have kids who are more likely to be depressed, but it would be worth looking at, I suppose. I do know that a depressed mother is not going to be great for the child. IMHO, we shouldn't make too much of this study for reasons given by DaneV, though the anti-med crowd is likely to run with it anyway.

Perhaps the chemical contaminant or microbe that causes autism in the child previously caused depression in the mother.

That, along with the fact that Autism, which was not a problem in earlier years of humanity, has increased dramtically along with an increase in availability of drugs such as SSRI's, amphetamines, ect.

It's always been a problem. It's just that forty years ago we didn't recognize and diagnose the milder forms, like Aspergers, so that was swept under the rug. I would be interested in seeing what the historical vs. modern rate is when lack of diagnosis of high-functioning cases is taken into account. I've known a number of nerds, geeks, and weirdos from my early years who today would be diagnosed as 'on the spectrum'.

Too not sound to stupid because this is real anecdotal and a philosophical sort of thinking.. it can seem like SSRIs or amphetamines cause an increase in "energy" to be used at the time, but where does that energy come from? Since it can't be created or destroyed, could it be that we are taking away energy from what is meant to be used later in life; or in some other aspect of life such as your children, who would be missing that "energy" which was taken away unnatrually by drugs, leading to cases such as autism, depression, ect

The "energy" comes from serotonin. I don't know of any evidence that women who use ssri's while pregnant have kids who are more likely to be depressed, but it would be worth looking at, I suppose. I do know that a depressed mother is not going to be great for the child. IMHO, we shouldn't make too much of this study for reasons given by DaneV, though the anti-med crowd is likely to run with it anyway.

We shouldn't make too much of this article, as it provides very little information on the study; but as far as the study itself goes, I think we really need to wait to read the research report. According to the CNN article I posted under the Medicine & Disease sub forum, the authors did make an effort to control for mental health issues (obviously problematic.) The CNN article also mentions that animal studies have show that maternal serotonin levels do have downstream effects on fetal development and offspring.

It's always been a problem. It's just that forty years ago we didn't recognize and diagnose the milder forms, like Aspergers, so that was swept under the rug. I would be interested in seeing what the historical vs. modern rate is when lack of diagnosis of high-functioning cases is taken into account. I've known a number of nerds, geeks, and weirdos from my early years who today would be diagnosed as 'on the spectrum'.

I don't know niner, I and everyone I've had a conversation about this never remembers having kids in their neighborhoods and schools with function issues of the severity that pops up all over the place today. I have a very good memory, and I am intensely observant, and I do not remember seeing as many kids as I see now functioning a certain way 20 or 30 years ago.

There is a difference between nerds, geeks, and wierdos, and the kids that I've worked with that have asperger's and other autism spectrum disorders are the wild and bazarre outbursts of rage, the great inability to adapt, and the incredible amount of inflexibility, things I did not see with the nerds, geeks and weirdos in my youth.

I agree there autism spectrum disorders are being properly diagnosed these days, and back in the day they were not, contributing to the rise in occurrence. What I do not agree with is that something that is becoming such a widespread epidemic was always widespread, regardless of factors like population growth making for a greater relative occurence of these disorders. Something odd is going on here, and it's not just the oddity of nerds, geeks and weirdos.
Edited by MorganM, 07 July 2011 - 07:13 AM.

As far as SSRIs are concerned, woman that are planning a pregancy should also be planning a way to safely get off SSRIs and find other ways to manage things until after they reach full term.

I don't know niner, I and everyone I've had a conversation about this never remembers having kids in their neighborhoods and schools with function issues of the severity that pops up all over the place today. I have a very good memory, and I am intensely observant, and I do not remember seeing as many kids as I see now functioning a certain way 20 or 30 years ago.

I don't believe it's a challenge of your memory powers, I think even the best memory is subject to perception bias. I question your objectivity more than I question your memory. I see it as simply a fundamental problem with cognition. I don't think it's possible to craft a sane and reasonable view of the world if we try to negotiate the way we each remember the world being.

I don't think SSRIs are strictly harmless, but I think you have a naive view of their application and the conditions being treated. I think these are significant quality of life issues and your suggestion that there are other ways to manage things until they reach full term I find unreasonable. I can agree that there will be mild cases that can manage, but I see the endocrine system as a powder keg and any blanket view of how to proceed seems error prone to me. I see major depressive disorder, postpartum depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder as significant and potentially life threatening mental disorders. I think ceasing treatment for, in my view, the sake of chemical purity just doesn't sound like a solid plan. We can't keep pregnant women locked in stasis and treat them with academic debate until delivery. We have SSRIs right now, we can work on improving therapies but until they emerge and produce a track record of positive results, this is what we have.

SSRIs have contraindications and significant side effect profiles, there's no denying that. I'd never say I recommend them for pregnant women, but I don't see it as a decision anyone but a treating physician can be in a position to decide. I find the evidence that SSRIs cause autism about equal with the evidence that vaccines cause autism.

I don't believe it's a challenge of your memory powers, I think even the best memory is subject to perception bias. I question your objectivity more than I question your memory. I see it as simply a fundamental problem with cognition. I don't think it's possible to craft a sane and reasonable view of the world if we try to negotiate the way we each remember the world being.

I don't think SSRIs are strictly harmless, but I think you have a naive view of their application and the conditions being treated. I think these are significant quality of life issues and your suggestion that there are other ways to manage things until they reach full term I find unreasonable.

Not unreasonable at all, when considering the potential for harm to a developing child in the womb. Any woman that refuses to get off her medication just before and during being pregnant is being selfish, it is that simple. She may not feel as stable as on SSRI treatment, but it is worth the sacrifice for the health of a child. There are too many people selfishly having children out there, not willing to make the necessary compromises and sacrificies to ensure the health, mental and physical, of the child.

I don't know niner, I and everyone I've had a conversation about this never remembers having kids in their neighborhoods and schools with function issues of the severity that pops up all over the place today. I have a very good memory, and I am intensely observant, and I do not remember seeing as many kids as I see now functioning a certain way 20 or 30 years ago.
SSRIs have contraindications and significant side effect profiles, there's no denying that. I'd never say I recommend them for pregnant women, but I don't see it as a decision anyone but a treating physician can be in a position to decide. I find the evidence that SSRIs cause autism about equal with the evidence that vaccines cause autism.

Exactly, every physician treating a pregnant or soon to be pregnant woman should be doing everything in their power to get their patient off SSRIs or any drug that can potentially harm the child. SSRIs may not be linked with Autism, but there are other potential issues and defects that can arise from SSRI use during pregnancy.

They found that the risk of having a child with autism spectrum disorder was about twice as high among women who took SSRIs in the year before delivery.

How do we casually dismiss this?

People who are depressed shouldn't have babies before they are feeling better, women who are pregnant shouldn't pop pharmaceuticals!

It's always been a problem. It's just that forty years ago we didn't recognize and diagnose the milder forms, like Aspergers, so that was swept under the rug. I would be interested in seeing what the historical vs. modern rate is when lack of diagnosis of high-functioning cases is taken into account. I've known a number of nerds, geeks, and weirdos from my early years who today would be diagnosed as 'on the spectrum'.

I don't know niner, I and everyone I've had a conversation about this never remembers having kids in their neighborhoods and schools with function issues of the severity that pops up all over the place today. I have a very good memory, and I am intensely observant, and I do not remember seeing as many kids as I see now functioning a certain way 20 or 30 years ago.

There is a difference between nerds, geeks, and wierdos, and the kids that I've worked with that have asperger's and other autism spectrum disorders are the wild and bazarre outbursts of rage, the great inability to adapt, and the incredible amount of inflexibility, things I did not see with the nerds, geeks and weirdos in my youth.

I agree there autism spectrum disorders are being properly diagnosed these days, and back in the day they were not, contributing to the rise in occurrence. What I do not agree with is that something that is becoming such a widespread epidemic was always widespread, regardless of factors like population growth making for a greater relative occurence of these disorders. Something odd is going on here, and it's not just the oddity of nerds, geeks and weirdos.

I've known people from my past, or people who are pretty old today, who are clearly on the spectrum. I don't mean to say that it was widespread way back when, but sometimes people talk about it like it was one in ten thousand, and now it's one in 100. I think the rate was higher in the past than some give credit for, and I think that a lot of it is because we call things 'autism' today that we didn't then. That said, I can believe the rate really is higher today than it was then, and it would be good to get to the bottom of it. The SSRI study is interesting and deserves followup. If you think about the percentage of pregnant women using SSRIs, (~10%? That's probably a little high but not wildly wrong) and the reported increase in rate that SSRIs cause, there clearly have to be other causes. People are having kids later in life, and that has been shown to be associated with risk. They could probably look at a lot of other meds and environmental chemicals (endocrine disruptors?); there's a lot of stuff in our environment that's new.

Brainfogged, sometimes people get pregnant when they weren't planning on it. They could always abort, but opinions vary on that. Otherwise, you have to run with the mother you have rather than the mother you want. Popping pills might be the least worst option.

Is there any interest in the idea that pregnancy only lasts ~9 months. In the study it said there is 2 fold the risk when SSRI's are taken a year (12 months) before delivery. That means there is a theoretical window of 3 months before any type of fetus exists where if the woman was taking SSRI's there would be a much greater chance of autism. I feel that 90% of the population doesn't pay attention to what they are consuming 3 months before any type of conception.

Not only this theory, but then there is the other notion of three times the risk for autism during the first trimester with SSRI use. This is very early in the pregnancy, and not much is separating it from the 2 fold risk before pregnancy and the 3 fold risk right after conception. maybe it figuratively could be some synergistic type effect, just speculation

I've known people from my past, or people who are pretty old today, who are clearly on the spectrum. I don't mean to say that it was widespread way back when, but sometimes people talk about it like it was one in ten thousand, and now it's one in 100. I think the rate was higher in the past than some give credit for, and I think that a lot of it is because we call things 'autism' today that we didn't then. That said, I can believe the rate really is higher today than it was then, and it would be good to get to the bottom of it. The SSRI study is interesting and deserves followup. If you think about the percentage of pregnant women using SSRIs, (~10%? That's probably a little high but not wildly wrong) and the reported increase in rate that SSRIs cause, there clearly have to be other causes. People are having kids later in life, and that has been shown to be associated with risk. They could probably look at a lot of other meds and environmental chemicals (endocrine disruptors?); there's a lot of stuff in our environment that's new.

Gotchya, I agree. I do remember some people being very odd that could have fallen under the spectrum. I just don't remember anyone knowing any kids that were so severely impaired like the children I see all the time now. I don't know, maybe they were just locked up in the attic by the evil step parents.
Edited by MorganM, 08 July 2011 - 03:27 AM.

People who are depressed shouldn't have babies before they are feeling better, women who are pregnant shouldn't pop pharmaceuticals!

It's rare that I fully agree with you but on this I do (of course, the practicality of it is a little harder - depressed people may do stupid things and then get pregnant...). Additionally, how do we know that the mother is not depressed precisely because she is on the autistic spectrum herself and the kid just inherited those symptoms from the parents?

Gotchya, I agree. I do remember some people being very odd that could have fallen under the spectrum. I just don't remember anyone knowing any kids that were so severely impaired like the children I see all the time now. I don't know, maybe they were just locked up in the attic by the evil step parents.

I'm guessing that you work with troubled kids in some way. My son is on the spectrum (Aspie), so I'm exposed to other kids in his school and the outside social skills group that he goes to. I don't see anyone out of that sample that I could call severely impaired. Are they still being hidden away? I once saw a kid in a restaurant who was clearly pretty messed up, and was obviously pretty deep in 'the spectrum', but aside from that, I guess they're still being hidden away. I know that there are some special schools for such kids... I met a guy once whose kid was in one. Where do you see these severely impaired kids?

http://www.naturalne...perm_SSRIs.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000526_DNA_sperm_SSRIs.html

"The bottom line? Taking SSRIs may very well destroy your genetic future. It also means that the laws of natural selection are working against those who take pharmaceuticals."
Edited by aaron43, 11 July 2011 - 06:20 PM.

well... we probably dont know everything about aspirin either. It´s all a mystery!

Gotchya, I agree. I do remember some people being very odd that could have fallen under the spectrum. I just don't remember anyone knowing any kids that were so severely impaired like the children I see all the time now. I don't know, maybe they were just locked up in the attic by the evil step parents.

I'm guessing that you work with troubled kids in some way. My son is on the spectrum (Aspie), so I'm exposed to other kids in his school and the outside social skills group that he goes to. I don't see anyone out of that sample that I could call severely impaired. Are they still being hidden away? I once saw a kid in a restaurant who was clearly pretty messed up, and was obviously pretty deep in 'the spectrum', but aside from that, I guess they're still being hidden away. I know that there are some special schools for such kids... I met a guy once whose kid was in one. Where do you see these severely impaired kids?

I worked with a 3 year old autistic child doing applied behavioral analysis for 3 months, that was 5 years ago. I also worked as an instructional assistant for learning disabled kids in an elementary school for 3 years. During most of those 3 years I worked closely with an Aspie that may have been like your son(unfortunately, he probably was not loved and cared for like your son is, which can really impair any child's development). I worked in Fairfax Co. Public schools, one of the best in the U.S., where they try to practice as much inclusion as possible.

I'm guessing you're not being completely serious about children being hidden away, I surely wasn't. Sorry if I did not make myself clear. My point was that it seems to be, though may not be, the case that there are more severely impaired kids walking around nowadays. What may be the main reason for so many people not remembering farily badly impaired autistic children at school is the children are being brought into the school to be helped instead of staying at home. It just seems strange that a few friends of mine worked as Autistic specialists on the elementary level and had a few children that had to wear diapers at ages as old as 8 and 9. At the organic market I work at, I have seen 5 autistic kids that are severely impaired socially, 3 of them likely being fairly impaired intellectually. Three of these kids come in regularly and it is obvious they are autistic. I realize that an organic market, where there are many gluten free and casein free foods, is going to attract more parents of autistic children than the average. Like I said before, I have a very good long term visual memory and have always been a people watcher, and I just do not remember seeing children behave and function in the way that some of today's autistic children do.

I forgot to mention that my cousin is autistic. He was very fortunate to have two very loving and devoted parents that recognized there was something going on early and got him help. He was in therapy for several years starting early in the age of 3. His parents hired students to work with him for at least 30 hours a week and they themselves worked hard with him for probably another 20 or 30 hours a week. He may have been in therapy for even more time than that at one point. His mother was never on an SSRI though : )

http://www.naturalne...perm_SSRIs.html

"The bottom line? Taking SSRIs may very well destroy your genetic future. It also means that the laws of natural selection are working against those who take pharmaceuticals."

Are you going to take a life extension drug that alters the laws of natural selection and changes your genetic future? I don't see how they can come to the conclusion that SSRIs could destroy one's genetic future. In the years that I took SSRIs I functioned at a high level, felt pretty darn good, looked younger than the average person my age, and slept like a baby. Hey, no drug is perfect, and SSRIs are far from it, but statements like the one above are unsubstantiated and used as scar tactics to try to force people to choose a drug free way of life(not at all realistic). You gotta stop reading that anti-drug propaganda by the douchebag over at natural news. You realize that he is probably against taking an synthetic drug that could extend life, don't you?

http://www.naturalne...perm_SSRIs.html

"The bottom line? Taking SSRIs may very well destroy your genetic future. It also means that the laws of natural selection are working against those who take pharmaceuticals."

Are you going to take a life extension drug that alters the laws of natural selection and changes your genetic future? I don't see how they can come to the conclusion that SSRIs could destroy one's genetic future. In the years that I took SSRIs I functioned at a high level, felt pretty darn good, looked younger than the average person my age, and slept like a baby. Hey, no drug is perfect, and SSRIs are far from it, but statements like the one above are unsubstantiated and used as scar tactics to try to force people to choose a drug free way of life(not at all realistic). You gotta stop reading that anti-drug propaganda by the douchebag over at natural news. You realize that he is probably against taking an synthetic drug that could extend life, don't you?

I think you overlooked the possibility of someone reading what someone posted and highlighting a remark in it.
I don't need you to tell me about my personal thoughts/beliefs and definitely don't need you to generalize my behavior and then categorize into a stereotypical demeaning group.
It's something to look at and does not need to have an unsubstantiated personal response with no positive idea's that contribute to the learning of the matter.
Ya it may be stupid, but tell me why scientifically it's stupid

http://www.naturalne...perm_SSRIs.html

"The bottom line? Taking SSRIs may very well destroy your genetic future. It also means that the laws of natural selection are working against those who take pharmaceuticals."

Are you going to take a life extension drug that alters the laws of natural selection and changes your genetic future? I don't see how they can come to the conclusion that SSRIs could destroy one's genetic future. In the years that I took SSRIs I functioned at a high level, felt pretty darn good, looked younger than the average person my age, and slept like a baby. Hey, no drug is perfect, and SSRIs are far from it, but statements like the one above are unsubstantiated and used as scar tactics to try to force people to choose a drug free way of life(not at all realistic). You gotta stop reading that anti-drug propaganda by the douchebag over at natural news. You realize that he is probably against taking an synthetic drug that could extend life, don't you?

I think you overlooked the possibility of someone reading what someone posted and highlighting a remark in it.
I don't need you to tell me about my personal thoughts/beliefs and definitely don't need you to generalize my behavior and then categorize into a stereotypical demeaning group.
It's something to look at and does not need to have an unsubstantiated personal response with no positive idea's that contribute to the learning of the matter.
Ya it may be stupid, but tell me why scientifically it's stupid

My main issue with this study is that only paroxitine was used. If there are other studies on other SSRIs with similar results, I may start to be slightly concerned about using an SSRI. Also, It's ridiculous how the titles of these articles say, "Antidepressants", as if all antidepressants have been studied this way. While SSRIs are fairly similar in how they impact serotonin, they are also very different in many ways, including how they are processed by the liver.

I didn't mean to offend you in any way. What do you mean by "categorize into a stereotypical group"? I have an idea, but it's not totally clear to me.

Maybe I and others would have to consider getting off their SSRI for a few months during the time of trying to concieve a child. I would consider that, but I'm not going to get off my SSRI for good because of results like this. Until there is solid proof that SSRIs can shorten lifespan(I think there is evidence that sertraline could at least enhance healthspan), I'm not going to be concerned at all about SSRI use. Besides, like I said before, one SSRIs may cause issues that another SSRI does not.

http://www.naturalne...perm_SSRIs.html

"The bottom line? Taking SSRIs may very well destroy your genetic future. It also means that the laws of natural selection are working against those who take pharmaceuticals."

Ya it may be stupid, but tell me why scientifically it's stupid

I'll take a shot at it. "destroy your genetic future" says to me that it would eliminate my ability to pass on my genes. There's no evidence at all that this is the case if you're male. If you're female, there is some evidence that if you use SSRIs near or during pregnancy, you have increased odds of bearing a child on the autism spectrum. Even if this is the case, the woman has still passed on her genes, and their is no evidence I know of that the SSRIs have changed the genome, though they may well alter development in the child. There's no reason to believe that the child couldn't pass on his or her genes successfully, and have a non-autistic child, so no one's 'genetic future' was destroyed.

I'm not really sure how the laws of natural selection 'work against' those who take pharmaceuticals. I suppose that means that if a person is defective in some way that would have prevented them from passing on their genes, and the drug rescues the person so they can pass on their defective genes, then natural selection was subverted. But that isn't 'working against' the person who took the drug. It might be working against their descendants, who might also need to take the same drug.

Natural News seems to be ground zero for fear mongering paranoia.

http://www.naturalne...perm_SSRIs.html

"The bottom line? Taking SSRIs may very well destroy your genetic future. It also means that the laws of natural selection are working against those who take pharmaceuticals."

Ya it may be stupid, but tell me why scientifically it's stupid

I'll take a shot at it. "destroy your genetic future" says to me that it would eliminate my ability to pass on my genes. There's no evidence at all that this is the case if you're male. If you're female, there is some evidence that if you use SSRIs near or during pregnancy, you have increased odds of bearing a child on the autism spectrum. Even if this is the case, the woman has still passed on her genes, and their is no evidence I know of that the SSRIs have changed the genome, though they may well alter development in the child. There's no reason to believe that the child couldn't pass on his or her genes successfully, and have a non-autistic child, so no one's 'genetic future' was destroyed.

I'm not really sure how the laws of natural selection 'work against' those who take pharmaceuticals. I suppose that means that if a person is defective in some way that would have prevented them from passing on their genes, and the drug rescues the person so they can pass on their defective genes, then natural selection was subverted. But that isn't 'working against' the person who took the drug. It might be working against their descendants, who might also need to take the same drug.

Natural News seems to be ground zero for fear mongering paranoia.

Yep, the "destroys your genetic future" was another statement I had a major problem with that there is no evidence for.

While I agree

What evidence do you have to authoritatively prove that it doesn't alter any genetic material? While I understand that one type of SSRI was used, has there been any studies done proving this type of safety aspect with other SSRI's?

and about the statement:
Did you ever think that the statement could be an over-exaggeration of the idea that pharmaceuticals have unknown effects on the vigilance of one's offspring?
Edited by aaron43, 14 July 2011 - 02:11 AM.

What evidence do you have to authoritatively prove that it doesn't alter any genetic material? While I understand that one type of SSRI was used, has there been any studies done proving this type of safety aspect with other SSRI's?

All drugs have to pass genotox testing; that's something they always look at. I don't know how detailed or long-term those tests are; they are probably done in animals and in vitro systems. One can't 'authoritatively prove' that no genetic material is altered, because no matter how many millions of cases you look at, the one that shows up could be just around the corner. That's why they say "you can't prove a negative". We do have a pretty good idea what mutagens look like, and they don't look like SSRIs.

and about the statement:
Did you ever think that the statement could be an over-exaggeration of the idea that pharmaceuticals have unknown effects on the vigilance of one's offspring?

I don't think that over-exaggerations are at all useful. They confuse and mislead people, and leave them unwilling to trust accurate information that's presented the next time. They are a net negative.

What evidence do you have to authoritatively prove that it doesn't alter any genetic material? While I understand that one type of SSRI was used, has there been any studies done proving this type of safety aspect with other SSRI's?

Personally, I don't give a fuck if SSRIs alter some genetic material to a certain extent, as long as I feel good, function well, and live a long happy fulfilling life. You're likely at some point going to have to alter genetic material in order to drastically extend lifespan, and this could possibly result in no longer being able to fertilize the female egg and pass on healthy genetic material to offspring.

I can't fucking stand little Mikey the ranger guy who continuously spews a bunch of worthles, and potentially harmful, crap out of his ass.
Edited by MorganM, 14 July 2011 - 03:12 AM.