Testosterone and Autism

Post Reply New Topic

Testosterone and Autism - Dr James Pate

Interesting Q&A with an OB/GYN. He himself is not an autism expert but he does cite a variety of studies in his response that I haven't seen before.

Posting for the curious.

You do understand how much I cringed when I saw the title?

Even if you do not read the article, please read Liz Ditz's comment at the bottom and click on the link. Go through as many of the references as you can on the blog to get yourself informed and tell others.

No, but this is the bast part: that LUPRON drug all the anti-Big Pharma people claim was a miracle? Made by Abbott Pharmaceuticals, which is Big Pharma. It might be one of the few times a trade name was used in a scientific paper. I cannot even find documentation on Abbott's website that it is supposed to be used in America.

Chelation and/or chelation in combination with Lupron to rid the body of toxic metals is not an approved treatment for Autism. But, chelation is approved for ridding the body of toxic metals in those that test positive for heavy metal poisoning. At this point there is no credible evidence that heavy metal poisoning causes Autism, but heavy metal poisoning in itself is a serious, and possible life threatening condition.

The research on prenatal testosterone and Autism, is considered credible, and reported as a contributing factor to Autism, in mainstream publications like Discover Magazine. However, as this article states exposures to excessive levels of testosterone in the womb does not invariably result in Autism. Very professionally written, and an excellent source of factual information regarding testosterone and how it affects development in general.

What the Doctor in question did, that he apparaently lost his license for, was in regard to thirmesol and the idea that mercury bonds with testosterone; however it had nothing to do with the research that suggests that prenatal testosterone may be associated with Autism.

I don't think one would get the idea that the two are directly related from reading the article and/or the comments, but just wanted to clarify here in case anyone thinks the two might be related.

You cannot be serious...I never said they were related...you can obviously tell from reading BOTH that they are not related.

This is ridiculous. I've known this situation for about 5 years and you try to put the word out about the monstrosity...

I'm not sure why anyone would cringe by reading the title testosterone and autism; most are aware of the prenatal research on testosterone and autism, some take it seriously some don't.

However, after noticing the link in the comments section, after you brought it to our attention, I can see where the title might remind you of the doctor using Lupron to rid the body of mercury that may have bonded with testosterone, in an autistic child.

All of us don't know about the Lupron related incident; and don't understand why the title reminded you of that incident. Your question was "You do understand why the title of this made me cringe?".

I'm clarifying to you why many people would have no idea why the title made you cringe, unless they were familiar with the Lupron incident and clarifying to others specifically what the issue was with chelation, mercury/testosterone, and lupron, if they don't take the time to look at the link in the comments section.

Dude, mercury binds with testosterone at 400 degrees Celsius IN A BENZENE SOLUTION. It cannot bind in a human body. You cannot believe how misleading that statement is!

How, how are you not sure why I would cringe!?

It's not my idea or theory that mercury binds with testosterone, it is a theory proposed by the doctor that used the lupron. I am recounting the Doctor's rationalization for using Lupron to treat the Autistic child, that is stated in the link, it is not scientifically proven, I don't agree with it, and as I stated before, I can see how the idea of this would make a person cringe.

The title of this topic and the information in the article itself, had nothing to do with the Lupron incident. I read the title of the topic and read the article and thought it was very informative, and after you pointed out the unrelated comment, and read it, I understood what you were talking about when you said the title made you cringe.

The lady that brought up the lupron incident in the comments also stated that the article was presented in a calm and factual manner. As per exercept from comments section:



Again, you prefaced your comment with "You do understand how much this title made me cringe? If someone saw the topic, read the article, didn't notice the comments, and liked the article, as the lady did that brought up the Lupron incident did in the comments, would they be able to figure out why the title made you cringe?

You asked a question. I answered it.

And here I expected some backlash about the circumstances of the couple asking the question...

Not posing a personal opinion on this one because the science is still too controversial and unfounded as yet. Just thought the list of references might prove useful or at least interesting. The title was simply the one on the original posting - nothing more.

Thank you, The author of the Article, Dr. Pate, brought up a lot of interesting facts related to testosterone, that I found interesting, that weren't related to Autism. Very informative article. And the circumstances of the couple answering the question was a unique one that I never considered in regard to prenatal testosterone and Autism, or in having children in general.

Dr. Pate also seems to have some - er - interesting notions as regards sexuality, especially female sexuality. I'm sure it will come as a surprise to my wife that her preferring so-called "male" toys as a child was not an artifact of having an older brother she looked up to, but was in fact the result of being somehow exposed to excess testosterone in the womb, and being indicative of her lesbian tendencies (which, incidentally, she doesn't actually have...).

Dr. Pate's views are simplistic at best. That whole "autism is just extreme male brain" crap is barely better than the "autistic kids are just disobedient and need more spankings" meme. Autism isn't "just" anything, and anyone trying to boil it down to simplistic statements like that can be safely disregarded, no matter how many multisyllabic words they try to hide said simplistic statements in.

All of the scientific findings presented in the article are from reputable sources, referenced at the end of the article.

From the article:



He clearly states here that the cause of Autism is not known, and is just quoting scientific findings on the correlation with prenatal testosterone, that also within the text of those findings state that autism is not invariably a result of exposure to prenatal testosterone.

Also in the scientific findings regarding prenatal testosterone exposure and female preference for male toys it clearly states that there is only a general relationship there, and he provides no evidence that playing with male toys indicates that a female has been exposed to prenatal testosterone or is more likely to become a Lesbian.

The only scientific correlation of evidence of prenatal exposure to testosterone that he provides is the digit ratio correlation; he then provides evidence that the exposure to the prenatal testosterone creates measurable differences in behavior, including playing with male toys. However, remember, this is not his opinion, the specific findings can be found by searching his research references at the bottom of the article.

I think it is clearly understood in the scientific community that prenatal testosterone effects gender, brain development, and behavior.

The correlation of prenatal testosterone with autism is just a correlation, not unlike the hundreds of other correlations that exist. He's clearly not trying to make it something that it isn't.

The correlation of prenatal testosterone and playing with male toys, is perhaps a stronger correlation, but those studies have been ongoing for decades. Again though, one cannot definitively determine whether or not a child has been exposed to excess levels of prenatal testosterone by the toys they play with, and there is no suggestion of that in the article.

One could draw their own conclusions, but it is evident that the Doctor is being careful not to do that.

From the article:





References for all of these scientific findings are at the bottom of the article.

This is a very accurate picture of who I happen to be.

Excuse my ignorance but where did this theory of testosterone in utero even gain relevance? In a case as presented in the Dr's article, where extreme levels of introduced testosterone is present, I can understand questioning the potential effects. But use of testosterone therepeutically is fairly recent and not so wide spread as to cause the 'autism epidemic'. Sure, there are naturally occurring instances where a womans testosterone could increase during pregnancy but those instances are also rare. Tumor activity, adrenal malfunction, etc...

They have also recently determined that the placenta itself is responsible for producing the hormones necessary for fetal development - they are not delivered from the mother as was believed. The placenta is not just a filter, it is a chemical producing organ responsible for fetal growth and development. With this new finding, it turns all sorts of prenatal thinking on its head.

As a tomboy who played with boy toys, I'd like to know. I came out hetero though so I'm not sure how that throws a monkey wrench into the works. I'd also like to know why genetics alone cannot be responsible for all of these variations. Why are these variations considered a 'flaw' that has need to be explained through some sort of environmental degradation or disease process?

Research shows that fetal testes in males are a source of testosterone in the eighth week, and research in the 90's theorized that the placenta was a source of hormones for development. I can't remember reading that the mother was responsible for delivering testosterone to the fetus, but research shows that high levels of maternal testosterone affect the fetus. However, the correlations are diverse, and not conclusive.

The fact someone is a Tom boy and likes to play with boy toys doesn't mean a woman is going to necessarily be a homosexual, just as exposure to extreme levels prenatal testosterone don't necessarily mean a boy is going to be a heterosexual.

Looking at the study that the author presented the evidence suggests that 67% of woman exposed to high levels of prenatal testosterone are not of homosexual orientation, so by that correlation, one would expect that if a female was exposed to high levels of testosterone that there would be a greater chance that they would have a hetero orientation. So your preference, in general would be expected if you were exposed to high levels of prenatal testosterone. It doesn't throw a monkey wrench into the study because the study is not suggesting that your behaviors are unusual.

I don't think we will ever fully understand what causes all human variation. Genetic influence along with maternal environment, external environment, and a myriad of other variables may have separate roles in all of it.

What is a flaw and what is not a flaw is subject to how a person feels about a variation. However some of the variations studied pose real problems for some individuals with the variations, so that would be reason enough to take the time to study what causes the variations.

I think scientists study many things that don't warrant the funding and effort that is required, but apparently they and others look at it in a different way than I do.

Lupron is a nasty drug and there is no case where it should be used in kids.

It's extremely expensive too. Up to $1000 per shot, is my understanding. A form of it is FDA approved in children for Central Precocious Puberty. But that is the only FDA approved for usage in children. There are no long term studies to project the impact on children later down the road, so it seems like a risky proposition to me, but clinical endrocrinologists are using it more frequently, at least at the time the following research was done:

http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/91/5/1862.long