Marijuana Use During Pregnancy Linked To Autism In Babies, Study Says

[appalachiablue]

Source: CNN

By Sandy LaMotte, CNN, 11:28 AM ET, Aug. 10.

(CNN) In what they call the largest study ever done, researchers found using marijuana while pregnant may increase the risk that a child will develop autism.

"Women who used cannabis during pregnancy were 1.5 times more likely to have a child with autism," said study author Dr. Darine El-Chaâr, a maternal fetal medicine specialist and clinical investigator at Ottawa Hospital Research Institute in Canada ."These are not reassuring findings. We highly discourage use of cannabis during pregnancy and breastfeeding," she said.

Past studies have shown the use of marijuana during pregnancy is linked to low birth weight, impulsivity, hyperactivity, attention issues and other cognitive and behavioral issue in children, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Pregnant women who use marijuana, one study found, have a 2.3 times greater risk of stillbirth. "Based on that, I'm not too surprised by these findings," El-Chaâr said. "Fetal brain development occurs throughout all gestational ages."...

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/10/health/weed-marijuana-pregnancy-autism-link-wellness/index.html

[Fiendish Thingy]

1. Colour me sceptical- what are the other correlates with marijuana use?

Do women who use cannabis during pregnancy also have a higher rate of alcohol consumption? Tobacco use? Other high risk unhealthy behaviour?

Ok, I see this is a Canadian study of 2,200 women who used marijuana only during pregnancy, no alcohol, tobacco or opioids.

The latest data on Canadian autism rates is 1 in 66 youths age 5-17

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/infographic-autism-spectrum-disorder-children-youth-canada-2018.html

So out of 2200 births, one would expect about 33 children to have autism; if cannabis use increases the rate by 1.5, then you would expect these 2200 women to have about 49 children with autism.

Hmmm...

[appalachiablue]

2. The women's diet, lifestyle and habits were

part of the study I would think.

[LisaL]

5. Pretty much reaction I expected out of DU.

Cause marijuana can't possibly have harmful side effects.

[Nitram]

15. Gee, Lisa, you just lumped everyone on DU into a rather narrow category.

Is it possible you believe all liberals are marijuana users who know nothing of science?

[Warpy]

7. How do they explain autistic children born to mothers who have never used cannabis?

Oh, I'm not doubting a statistical correlation, I just think they might be looking at the wrong variable. Correlation can't be confused with causation.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. I agree - more study needed nt

[Nitram]

16. Exactly.

[RhodeIslandOne]

27. A lot of things seem to "cause" autism

I'm not a fan of women using weed during pregnancy any more than they should be drinking or smoking....but I wonder too.

[Warpy]

28. How about dads drinking?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140214075405.htm

It's not all Mom, you know.

However, this is just the latest thing to blame it all on Mom. Back in the late 50s and early 60s when autism was being recognized as a separate cause of developmental disorder, it was because Mom didn't bond with the baby or wasn't slopping over with enough sugar during early childhood. Then it was because Mom didn't want the kid to die of preventable diseases and made sure all the shots got given. Then she did something wrong while pregnant or maybe she had bad genes. This study blames pot but as usual, didn't look at what dear old dad was doing to his own body. It turns out that they should.

While they have found various genetic markers, they still don't know what switches them on or off. We're in the infancy of learning about things like this and there are no easy answers, not thimerosal (which is out of all but flu vaccine) and not pot.

It might not even turn out to be due to the inherent wickedness of mothers.

[marie999]

32. This is about during pregnancy.

[Warpy]

33. So what?

This needs more study, a hell of a lot more, and blandly blaming women's behavior for it is not going to solve the puzzle. For instance, did they test the mothers for ASD? It's a lot more prevalent in women than once thought and diagnosis often falls through the cracks because it's expressed so differently. Perhaps they were self medicating to cope with a neurotypical world. What were their other life circumstances? Were they self medicating to cope with partners on the spectrum? There are so many variables that no one considered.

This is just the latest in a series of dishonest studies. There is just so much to pick apart in it. If they want to blame Mom, they're going to have to take a closer look at her besides "she was pregnant and smoked pot."

I'll look for the breakthroughs in ASD from the molecular biologists and geneticists.

[marie999]

35. This is about during pregnancy.

You were writing about men. The last time I looked men can not get pregnant yet.

[Warpy]

37. Which likely has no bearing on it, at all, since other factors were not considered.

Remember crack babies?

Turns out poverty was the culprit. Infants born dependent on crack in higher income households met all developmental milestones.

Repeating an idiocy doesn't make it come true.

[sl8]

36. I don't think they claim it's the *only* cause.

People who have never smoked develop lung cancer, but that doesn't invalidate studies that link smoking and lung cancer.

I don't know his good this particular study is, but they don't need to account for all cases of autism for it to be valid, just some.

[Warpy]

38. I don't think they claim its a CAUSE, at all

They claim an epidemiological correlation. This is slippery territory because they did not bother to explore any other variables.

ASD is genetic, buried deep in the DNA.

[JudyM]

3. This will be heartbreaking news for some moms of autistic kids.

[OverBurn]

4. Maybe they just ate more junk food than the others.

[appalachiablue]

6. I thought that as well, the toxins & possibilities

are massive-- chemicals and additives in plastics, soaps, foods, cleansers, cosmetics, textiles, carpets...

[Nitram]

14. "Maybe they just ate more junk food than the others." That's exactly the problem with studies of

this kind if they are not properly designed and controlled.

[maxsolomon]

8. Now, to replicate this finding.

In a separate study. Color me skeptical.

Glad I won't be pregnant anytime soon!

[msongs]

9. 100 per cent of autistic babies had moms who breathed. there it is nt

[LanternWaste]

11. Hence, the keen consistency with "n/t posts"?

Breathe.

Just... breathe.

[olddad65]

10. So does nicotine

[Devil Child]

21. Yep, alcohol, cocaine, etc...

All that good stuff doesn’t do future baby much good. Best to pull a Nancy Reagan and just say no for 9 months.

[Nitram]

13. President Nixon's "National Commission on Marijauna and Drug Abuse" concluded that the THC was

neither dangerous nor addictive to users. That doesn't mean it couldn't have effects on a developing fetus. But the commission looked at people in Jamaica who had smoked an ounce a day for 30 years. While a few suffered from emphysema (not surprising given the volume of smoke inhaled), none had serious side effects of other kinds. Did their children suffer autism or other abnormalities? Nixon never publicized the findings, but it was published in paperback at the time and I have a copy.

[eggplant]

17. A lot of research has been done in the last fifty years.

Not saying that you are wrong, but your evidence is a bit stale.

[Nitram]

20. True, some of it must be outdated. But my main point is that the commission looked at the effects on

very, very heavy users, and the only health effects they found were due to the smoke itself. As for "a lot of research...over the last fifty, years," Marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug and research has been very limited for much out that time.

[VA_Jill]

18. Color this study

bullshit. I have a feeling this person started out with preconceived results and went backwards. Some people do this, either consciously or unconsciously. And look who announced the results. Could that be who she did it it for, in which case that is the result they *wanted*?

[Steelrolled]

29. FYI, author and peer review manager info...

Author information
Affiliations

Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Daniel J. Corsi, Steven Hawken, Darine El-Chaâr, Shi Wu Wen & Mark Walker

CHEO Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Daniel J. Corsi & Deshayne Fell

School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Daniel J. Corsi, Steven Hawken, Deshayne Fell & Shi Wu Wen

ICES uOttawa, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Jessy Donelle & Ewa Sucha

Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Helen Hsu

Depatment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Darine El-Chaâr, Shi Wu Wen & Mark Walker

BORN Ontario, CHEO, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Lise Bisnaire

Peer review information Kate Gao was the primary editor on this article and managed its editorial process and peer review in collaboration with the rest of the editorial team.

[VA_Jill]

39. Yeah well

You can get anyone to peer review anything if you look hard enough. Besides which I note they're all home cooking. And as you know you can prove anything you want to by manipulating statistics.

Disclaimer: My dad was a research scientist, so I think I know a a little about how this works. Also, I am the mother of a person on the ASD spectrum who did not drink, smoke, or use cannabis in my pregnancy.

[Devil Child]

19. Who would've guessed that bong rips during pregnancy might not be good practice?

Future dads should probably put down the pipe before donating stoner sperm also.

[Nitram]

22. I cast a very jaundiced eye on reports like this. That may be because in the early 70's I

wrote a paper that looked at all the published studies that had been done on LSD, starting with those that purportedly found gene breakage in users. It should be noted the early studies that announced alarming results were funded by a Nixon administration eager to find evidence that psychedelic drugs were dangerous. The early studies were later proved to be seriously flawed. Later research found absolutely no physical damage to health health, and no possibility of addiction. In a properly controlled "set and setting," adverse mental effects were found to be transient and persistent positive results to outlook and state of mind were common.

[RobinA]

23. So I Should

stop waiting for those flashbacks? I mean, it's been 32 years, but still...

[Nitram]

24. I did experience a full-blown LSD flashback a week or so after a powerful experience on acid

when I smoked a joint. There was no mistaking the difference between a pot high and an LSD trip. It didn't last very long, but it did take me by surprise. Fortunately, it never happened again.

[SarasotaDem]

25. And this too

Autism prevalence and socioeconomic status: What's the connection?

Higher income = more autism

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171011180552.htm

[melm00se]

26. If anyone has a subscription to Nature

the full study, which would (or should) address the majority of questions asked in this thread, is available here

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1002-5

[Steelrolled]

30. Thanks for the link

Even the abstract provides a lot of information and indicates proper statistical modeling.

[Descrypticon]

31. Invalid Source/Study

"The study did not capture the amount and type of marijuana the women used during pregnancy. Nor did the study know when during the pregnancy or how often women used it. And while the study could only show association, not cause and effect, researchers said they did their best to eliminate confounding factors."

This is the worst kind non peer-reviewed nonsense. I don't see any reason to believe this study is true. Coincidental with Harris being VP/ her record on MJ enforcement? Yes.

[lapucelle]

34. Nature is a peer-reviewed journal.

About the Journal
Aims & Scope

Nature is a weekly international journal publishing the finest peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology on the basis of its originality, importance, interdisciplinary interest, timeliness, accessibility, elegance and surprising conclusions. Nature also provides rapid, authoritative, insightful and arresting news and interpretation of topical and coming trends affecting science, scientists and the wider public.
Nature's mission statement

First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life.
Nature's original mission statement was published for the first time on 11 November 1869