Does Vitamin D Deficiency Cause Austism

[cillakat]

it just might be triggering gene expression to do exactly that:

 

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/

 

Vitamin D Theory of Autism

 

In addition to the current epidemic of vitamin D deficiency, say another epidemic—an epidemic of autism—was upon our children? What if the autism epidemic began at the same time the epidemic of vitamin D deficiency began? What if both epidemics had worsened in unison? What if one theory explained all the unexplained facts about autism? What if both epidemics had the same root cause: sun avoidance? What if both were iatrogenic, that is, medical advice to avoid the sun had caused both epidemics? Be warned, what follows is not light reading—autism is not a light disease.

Does The Vitamin D Theory Best Explain Autism?

 

The theory that vitamin D deficiency, during pregnancy or childhood, causes autism is just a theory. However, the theory has a plausible mechanism of action, explains all the unexplained facts about autism, subsumes several other theories, implies simple prevention, and is easily disprovable—all components of a useful theory. A genetic lesion (abnormality) in some component of the vitamin D system—a lesion vitamin D's unique pharmacology could overcome—would explain why monozygotic (identical) twins are highly affected while fraternal twins are not. Varying brain levels of activated vitamin D during later life would explain why some identical twins get severe disease while others are barely affected. Falling vitamin D levels over the last 20 years due to sun-avoidance explain autism's rapid increase in incidence during that same time. The very different effects estrogen and testosterone have on vitamin D metabolism may explain why boys are much more likely to get it than girls are. Lower vitamin D levels in blacks may explain their higher rates of autism. The vitamin D theory has tenable explanations for all the epidemiological features of autism.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

It's a very detailed long paper with meticulous citing.....continue reading at the above link.

[athena1277]

If autism is caused by vitamin D deficiency, then wouldn't there be a noticeable difference in the number of autistic children in Northern vs Southern climates? I've heard many times about general vitamin D deficiency in children in colder climates who sped much of the year with their skin covered against the cold. Where I've lived in the deep south, this is rarely a problem, because most people get plenty from the sun.

[cillakat]

Read the article;) There is a difference......rates decrease as one gets closer to the equator.

 

However, even the deep south isn't that far south. Deficiency is still very common. I've been up to my ears in D research for about 5 years now and am constantly 'on' my friends to get tested. Not one of them has come back at 'normal' levels let alone optimal levels......

 

I was very deficient the first time I was tested in August 2003. Not as bad as my friends in NJ, UT, MI, but still very low. Never ever wore sunscreen. Ever. And was outside a bunch with two small kids. However, I did seek shade whenever possible and it was too hot to go out midday.....b/c of those two things, my D production was minimal.

 

When I used to get more incidental exposure, 2000 IU per day in addition to that exposure kept me at optimal levels (55ish ng/mL). Now I'm very sun protective and am needing 6,000 IU per day to maintain optimal levels.

 

 

All the best,

 

K

[HappyGrace]

cillikat-the article is fascinating! Thank you!

 

I'm a Vitamin D convert too. Thanks to these boards (and your posts) I got cked and was low. Instead of the prescription (50,000 IU once per wk) I got the Carlson 2,000 iu drops and took the equivalent. I cannot believe the difference-I am a totally different person! I have more energy than ever before. I was living with a low level of depression forever and it helped so much. It has changed my life and I bug everyone I know to get tested. Quick question-at the dr.'s office they told me to take the 50,000IU/wk for 12 wks and then be off it a MONTH and then come in for a retest. I went off it for a WEEK and plummeted mentally. I could not for the life of me figure out what was wrong til dh sat down with me to figure out what was different, and the D was the only thing. He told me to just keep taking it and don't stop. My question is: do I have to be off it for any period of time before getting tested again? I had never heard that before my dr. said that. Anyway, sorry this is a little OT. But the article is one more reason to be bugging my friends to get their D tested/take their D!!!!!!!

[Pink Fairy]

Wow, this is really interesting! I was planning on going in for a checkup in a couple of weeks, and I'm definitely adding this to my list of things to be tested.

[muffinmom]

wow...very interesting.

[cillakat]

My question is: do I have to be off it for any period of time before getting tested again?

 

Yes, but only for 48h. No D 48h prior to the test. In fact, no supplements 48h prior to typical blood work - it'll artificially elevate your D, you iron etc....

 

:)

Katherine

[Orthodox6]

I will read the article a second time, more thoroughly.

 

I could not find any "peer review" of this organization, which seems to be a "one man band" group of the doctor. Everything I could find, so far, relied on quotes from the organization itself.

 

We all are "wishing on a star" for an explanation of autism, (as well as for explanations of so many other situations which affect our children and ourselves health-wise), and I'm just too soured out to pin hopes on the latest in a stream of theories.

 

This week's news also suggested that glugging coffee will forestall Alzheimer's. So I can avoid Alzheimer's, by means of damaging other body systems with the caffeine.

 

Every theory has a down side, in other words. Vitamin D therapy shall be no different. Yes, I'm writing negatively. That comes from reading too many health-related theories over the past twenty years. . . . It all makes me just feel more down.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Orthodox6

[Mommyof4ks]

I will read the article a second time, more thoroughly.

 

I could not find any "peer review" of this organization, which seems to be a "one man band" group of the doctor. Everything I could find, so far, relied on quotes from the organization itself.

 

We all are "wishing on a star" for an explanation of autism, (as well as for explanations of so many other situations which affect our children and ourselves health-wise), and I'm just too soured out to pin hopes on the latest in a stream of theories.

 

This week's news also suggested that glugging coffee will forestall Alzheimer's. So I can avoid Alzheimer's, by means of damaging other body systems with the caffeine.

 

Every theory has a down side, in other words. Vitamin D therapy shall be no different. Yes, I'm writing negatively. That comes from reading too many health-related theories over the past twenty years. . . . It all makes me just feel more down.

 

I too was wondering where the peer reviews were. It is an interesting theory, but hopefully it is not seen as a 'magic bullet' like so many others. Likely this is a multifaceted disease like so many others.

 

The vit D levels are still a mystery to me. Who decided X was the right amount of vit that will prevent 'this, that, or the other illness'? I remember the article that came out about breast cancer and vit d levels, but I never discovered if the women had 'low' vit d prior to cancer or if the cancer could have lowered the vit d level (like so many other vit and min levels) when it took over. Sorry, negative here too.

 

Going back to reread the article to see if I missed something.

[cillakat]

I too was wondering where the peer reviews were

 

The autism theory is his. If you read it, you'll see it's not a study, so it's not peer-reviewed. Nor are organziations peer reviewed. However, you'll note that each of the green diamonds (at the end of various sentences and paragraphs) are pop up links to appropriate citations from the medical literature

 

I found it interesting that the AAP thinks enough of it - the extremely conservative AAP - to recommend that hcp's of pregnant women, text 25(OH)D levels in those women and treat appropriately.

 

Test your vitamin D levels. See what you find out. So far, I know of no one who has tested normal (let alone optimal) when not taking D or getting midday sun.

 

Vitamin D deficiency is pandemic. Have a look at the massive body of evidence (this guy may or may not be an authority....i'm just sending this link b/c it's a repository for links to good evidence.....but vitamindcouncil.org is the best)

http://enews.endocrinemetabolic.com/2009/02/medicares-idiocy-vitamin-d-alert.html

Edited July 12, 2009 by cillakat

[Orthodox6]

I spoke of "peer review" of an organization loosely, using the term inexactly. What I was trying to say was that I could not (yet) locate evaluative remarks about the organization from other parties. Articles that I skimmed featured laudatory quotes from members of the organization itself. Somewhat like finding book reviews written only by the author (or his relatives).

 

Now, however, you've shared -- (and thanks !) -- that the AAP is keying into the idea. More, then to read and learn.

 

Nor am I contending that there is nothing at all useful from this new theory. There may well be ! It's just one among myriad others.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Orthodox6

[cillakat]

More meticulous citing:

http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/newsletter/pregnancy-and-gestational-vitamin-d-deficiency.shtml

 

I can't help but think of Schopenhauer and Semmelweis.....

 

Eventually, vitamin d deficiency as the cause of many diseases and disorders will be self evident. It'll be amazing to us that we ever doubted it.

 

Humans were meant to get a lot of sun. And we no longer do.

 

:)

K

[HappyGrace]

Thanks, K, for the info-glad to hear it's only 48 hours! I've gone to every other day anyway with my D since it's fat soluble. Now I can schedule the test-I'm anxious to see what it is now after about 16 wks or so on D.

[cillakat]

Now I can schedule the test-I'm anxious to see what it is now after about 16 wks or so on D.

 

 

Anxious? Or do you mean eager.....

;)

 

I too am looking forward to hearing about your results. I hope they're up! In an ongoing harvard study, 4,000 IU per day was enough to get the 'average' woman (whatever that is) to 32 ng/mL.....which is just to the bottom edge of normal. it's been so enlightening to me gathering data over the last few years. I've been continually suprised.

 

 

 

K

[HappyGrace]

EAGER! :D It was 21 before starting supplementation. (Would that be considered desperately low, or average low, would you say, based on other women's numbers that you've heard?) After the 12 wks was up, I've only been taking about 4,000IU every other day. Sounds like maybe that isn't enough. I will see what I test at and then adjust accordingly. Thanks!

[cillakat]

EAGER! :D It was 21 before starting supplementation. (Would that be considered desperately low, or average low, would you say, based on other women's numbers that you've heard?) After the 12 wks was up, I've only been taking about 4,000IU every other day. Sounds like maybe that isn't enough. I will see what I test at and then adjust accordingly. Thanks!

 

A very typical low.....two years ago, it was still the bottom end of the cut off for lab norms. But heck, I was having extreme muscle fatigue, autoimmune disorders, bone pain etc etc Now it's known to be deficient (based on how much D we would make in our skin and have in our bloodstream with sun exposure).

 

Most I know end up at 19-24 if they're getting incidental exposure without sunscreen - ie going to the car to run errands, popping into stores, heading to the park with the kids but mostly seeking shade, avoiding midday sun but not working hard to avoid sun totally.....wearing s/s when at the beach/pool etc.

 

32 is the bare minimum low for lab norms now.....

55-80 *ng/mL* (US scale) is probably about optimal...

 

Oh! If your doc/lab uses Quest, you must divide your result by 1.3 as quest uses an assay that runs high. LabCorp uses what is considered the gold standard.

[Wyndie]

VERY interesting reading. I've read about the importance of D before (we are all deficient in our house) and I have seen improvements in all children and myself while taking D, I don't think it can be a sole cause. I think it may be a contributing factor, whether major or minor I don't know; but something worth continuing to look at for sure.

[cillakat]

I think it may be a contributing factor, whether major or minor I don't know

 

But we do know it can trigger gene expression.......

 

Heavy stuff. Let's just all make sure we're getting optimal levels of D;)

 

K

[Karen sn]

If autism is caused by vitamin D deficiency, then wouldn't there be a noticeable difference in the number of autistic children in Northern vs Southern climates? I've heard many times about general vitamin D deficiency in children in colder climates who sped much of the year with their skin covered against the cold. Where I've lived in the deep south, this is rarely a problem, because most people get plenty from the sun.

 

But think of all the people who use sunscreen and are afraid of the sun.

AND - you can't wash off the oils on your skin for it to be effective. When you come home from the beach you can rinse off but to use soap and wash off the oils will defeat the purpose of getting sun in the first place. I know plenty of people in Florida who are pasty white and fear the sun.