Common Plastic Additive Linked to Autism And ADHD, Scientists Discover (ScienceAlert)

[eppur_se_muova]

Health
07 October 2023
By David Nield

***
A new study now reveals there's a difference in how children with autism or ADHD clear the common plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA), compared to neurotypical children.

BPA is used in a lot of plastics and plastic production processes, and can also be found inside food and drink cans. However, previous research has also linked it to health issues involving hormone disruption, including breast cancer and infertility.

In this new study, researchers from Rowan University and Rutgers University in the US looked at three groups of children: 66 with autism, 46 with ADHD, and 37 neurotypical kids. In particular, they analyzed the process of glucuronidation, a chemical process the body uses to clear out toxins within the blood through urine.

The research found that kids with ASD and ADHD couldn't clear out BPA and another similar compound called Diethylhexyl Phthalate (DEHP) with as much efficiency as other kids, potentially leading to longer exposure to their toxic effects.

"Detoxification of these two plasticizers is compromised in children with ASD and ADHD," write the researchers in their published paper. "Consequently, their tissues are more exposed to these two plasticizers."

It was only in the case of BPA that the difference was statistically significant though: the efficiency was reduced by about 11 percent for kids with ASD and 17 percent for kids with ADHD, compared with the control group of children.
***
more: https://www.sciencealert.com/common-plastic-additive-linked-to-autism-and-adhd-scientists-discover
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0289841

Interpret these results cautiously! This is not proof these additives cause autism, but they may complicate health issues for autistic and ADHD children.

[cyclonefence]

1. I was involved in medical publishing for most of my professional life

and I have never heard of the journal (PLOS one) which published these results. From what I can find out, articles it accepts are peer-reviewed (which is good) but authors pay for publication (which is very, very, very bad).

I would not give any credence at all to these results unless the study is picked up by a major, main-line, no-payment-to-publish medical journal like JAMA or the Lancet or NEJM.

The information reported is very important, and a major medical journal would be happy (to say the least) to publish them. The information reported is also important enough to attract attention in the main-line press as well, and all I hear is crickets.

[erronis]

2. PLOS One has been around for many years and is respected, AFAIK

Very surprised you haven't heard of the PLOS One publications. They are very well-known in the scientific and medical communities that I have frequented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLOS_One

It is a threat to the common for-profit publishing model that Elsevier and others have, so that may be part of your skepticism.

The major journals such as JAMA and NEJM have had their share of fake publications recently with plenty of very embarrassing retractions. Check out KHH (khh.org) or Science-Based Medicine (sciencebasedmedicine.org) or Respectful Insolence (respectfulinsolence.com) or Incidental Economist (incidentaleconomist.com) for many examples.

[appalachiablue]

3. TY!

[NNadir]

5. ...and of course...there's "Retraction Watch."

Retraction Watch

I love this feature:

Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers

A few weeks back I was privileged to attend a lecture by K. Barry Sharpless, the only living double Nobel Laureate.

Part of his message was "Don't believe everything you read."

I read PLOS often, and have found papers in it that are very clearly reproducible.

[KPN]

7. Wow. Interesting site/link --- retraction watch. Hadn't

heard of it before. Thx for posting!

[erronis]

8. I do agree with keeping a certain level of skepticism. Just added RetractionWatch.org

to my RSS feeds. I have pulled up some of their articles via other news sites in the past but it is interesting to see the quantity of papers that are alerted.

[Farmer-Rick]

11. Thanks for the link

A great asset in understanding science.

Wow, the number of COVID 19 retracted papers is larger than I expected.

[progressoid]

6. I found mixed reviews of PLOS One.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-do-you-think-about-publishing-in-PLOS-ONE


Online Mega Journals like PLOS One are also for-profit.

[NNadir]

9. I wouldn't characterize Elsevier as a "not for profit" enterprise.

[cyclonefence]

12. Your experience differs from mine

When my last published article appeared (in a respected main-line journal) my email was flooded with offers to publish pretty much anything I wanted to write--for a price. And I was second author!

I automatically shelve pay-to-publish scientific journals on my suspicious list, but you may well be correct about this one.

Does this publication has a hard copy available, or is it strictly on-line?

Edited to add: of course well-known scientific journals are published for-profit. But the profits come from subscriptions and in some cases advertising sales, *not* from authors who pay to be published.

[burrowowl]

4. Interesting Kick!

[Ziggysmom]

10. As long as it's not blaming vaccines, that's positive!