Vijf Harvard onderzoekers
accepteren de vitamine D theorie mbt autisme
Last month, Dr. Dennis Kinney and four of
his colleagues at Harvard University accepted the Vitamin D theory of autism and then
expanded it by adding five usual suspects. While I was thrilled to see the Vitamin D
theory accepted, appreciate them crediting the theory to me, and loved seeing their paper
in the same journal that published the original theory, Medical Hypotheses, their five
additions are all toxins, the usual suspects. The authors imply these toxins are delivered
to our genome by air or water pollution, such as mercury contaminated seafood, where these
toxins selectively damage the genome of those silly enough to be Vitamin D deficient.
My problem with the paper is the same problem I have with any of the air and water
pollution autism theories, why now? Certainly, if a toxin was causing autism, evidence
exists that exposure to that toxin has increased part and parcel with the epidemic of
autism. For awhile, that was one of the strongest arguments for the mercury in
vaccines theory; administration of more and more mercury-containing vaccines paralleled
the increase in autism. The problem with the vaccine theory is that when they took the
mercury out of vaccines, the incidence of autism went up, not down. What about air and
water pollution? Any self-respecting environmentalist will tell you pollution in the USA
is at record levels today; that is, American air and water has never been dirtier.
However, I am older than sixty, so that nonsense won’t work on me. I remember acid
lakes, burning eyes and blazing rivers. As a child, I remember thinking God wanted me to
see the air I breathed. That is, I remember the USA before the clean air and clean water
acts of the 1960s. If air and water pollution caused the autism epidemic, then that
epidemic began in the late 1940s, climbed dramatically in the 1950s, peaked in the 1960s
and then decreased in the late 1970s. Just did not happen.
One could accurately say that cleaner American air and water is associated with increasing
rates of autism, but with a significant lag time. Perhaps air pollution from Eastern
Europe, India and China, which has been increasing in the last 20 years, has engendered
the current crop of autism, the “foreigners did it” theory of autism. However,
why would foreign coal-burning air pollution of today do what good old American
coal-burning air pollution of the 50s and 60s could not? Take mercury in seafood,
terrible right? As mercury is one of the autism-causing toxins he listed, I assume Dr.
Kinney predicts mercury-containing seafood consumption during pregnancy would increase
risk of autism. However, I predict the opposite, that is, consumption of
mercury-containing seafood during pregnancy would improve the offspring’s mentation,
the benefits of Vitamin D in fish overwhelming any detriments of mercury. Consistent with
that prediction, the three largest studies found higher maternal consumption of
mercury-containing fish was associated with better, not worse, infant cognition with the
greatest benefit for infants whose mothers consumed the most mercury-containing fish. Do
not misunderstand me; the three studies below show mercury is bad, Vitamin D-rich fish and
mercury is better, and Vitamin D-rich fish without mercury is the best.
Oken E, et al. Maternal fish consumption, hair mercury, and infant cognition in a U.S.
Cohort. Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Oct;113(10):1376-80. [Link]
If you think the beneficial effect was from
omega-3 fats, you’d be wrong. In another Harvard study, the benefits for the child of
mother’s fish consumption again overwhelmed the harm from mercury. Omega-3 fats
consumption could not explain the beneficial effects of mercury-containing seafood, that
is, neither total maternal intake of omega-3, nor omega-3 content of mother’s red
blood cells, was associated with the child’s cognition.
Oken E, et al. Maternal fish intake during pregnancy, blood mercury levels, and child
cognition at age 3 years in a US cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 2008 May 15;167(10):1171-81. [Link
]
In yet a third study, NIH researchers found
benefits for mothers who ate mercury-containing seafood during pregnancy. Benefits of fish
consumption again overwhelmed the harm of toxins in fish. More importantly, low maternal
seafood consumption (and thus low seafood mercury consumption) resulted in children with
lower verbal IQs and suboptimal outcomes for pro-social behaviors, fine motor,
communication, and social development, that is, autistic symptoms.
Hibbeln JR, Maternal seafood consumption in pregnancy and neurodevelopmental outcomes in
childhood (ALSPAC study): an observational cohort study. Lancet. 2007 Feb
17;369(9561):578-85. [ Link
]
So I heartily recommend seafood to
expectant mothers and give my highest endorsement to vitamin D-rich, mercury-poor fish
like small salmon. (By the way, the omega-3 literature is hopelessly confounded by Vitamin
D.) However, the essence of Dr. Kinney and colleagues’ addition to the Vitamin D
theory is that at least some of the autism generating toxic genetic damage is done to the
father’s sperm, not the mother’s egg.
That is, toxins ingested by Vitamin D deficient men causes oxidative damage leading to
genetic mutations in sperm. The authors’ suggestion is to give Vitamin D to men,
before they go around impregnating women, to prevent genetic damage by toxins and thus
prevent autism. While I certainly agree men should take Vitamin D before they impregnate
anyone (and I suspect they will be more successful in their mission if they do), I doubt
healthy men will take Vitamin D any time soon.
Even if the new Food and Nutrition Board recommends 5,000 IU/day for healthy adults –
and they won’t – healthy men will ignore any new FNB recommendation because most
men will not take supplements, unless they think it prevents hair loss, increases sexual
abilities or improves athletic performance (Vitamin D has no effect on the first two but
certainly improves the third).
However, unlike men, pregnant women will take a supplement, and almost always do so, a
prenatal vitamin. Currently, that prenatal contains a meaningless 10 micrograms of Vitamin
D (400 IU). Say it contained a physiological amount, say 125 micrograms (5,000 IU). If it
did, I predict the incidence of congenital autism (obvious in the first few months of
life) would dramatically reduce almost immediately and the overall incidence would begin
decreasing in several years. However, it would not affect the autism caused by the severe
childhood Vitamin D deficiency that occurs when toddlers are weaned from Vitamin D rich
formula to my favorite toxin, natural organic fruit juice.
All in all, I liked Dr. Kinney and colleagues’ paper; I hope Dr. Kinney can wake
someone up at Autism Speaks, which funds Dr. Kinney. (If Autism Speaks doesn’t hurry
and help fund the Vitamin D Council, they won’t be able to get any credit at all for
helping discover the cause of autism.) The authors also listed evidence that strengthens
the Vitamin D theory of autism, evidence I discussed in the original paper. [ Link
]
That evidence is: 1) autism is more common
in cloudy and rainy areas; 2) dark-skinned immigrants have much higher rates of autism; 3)
there are more cases in the northern US than in the South, and 4) autism is more common in
urban than rural areas, just like rickets. The authors forgot to add a fifth fact, the NIH
found widespread bony abnormalities in autistic kids, abnormalities that look like the
effects of chronic low-grade rickets to me.
Also, if Dr. Kinney and colleagues are correct in their revision of my theory, then
Vitamin D should not have a treatment effect in children with autism, unless Vitamin D can
repair
genetic defects. I predict the opposite: Vitamin D will be found to have a treatment
effect in autism, as Vitamin D acts quickly to prevent further oxidative brain damage and
increases brain glutathione, which promptly dispatches the usual suspects.
John Cannell, MD
The Vitamin D Council
