This paper is talking about using administered folinic acid to address a deficiency of folate transport within the brain, where that deficiency is caused by a known cluster of genetic mutations, in a person diagnosed with ASD.
This is not talking about causing autism via the mother taking something during pregnancy.
It is talking about how, for a subset of ASD people, who have this particular cluster of genetic mutations, that taking folinic acid can alleviate some of the symptoms associated with folate deficiency.
Nothing to do with folic or folinic acid taken by the mother during pregnancy causing autism.
Its talking about a potential subset of autism being potentially treateable, that subset being broadly in line with what the OP Nature article/paper here describes as ‘early diagnosis autism’, which has much more readily apparent and obviously recognizable behavior patterns than ‘late diagnosis autism’.
If you go into that paper, you will indeed see that they found that amongst people with ASD, but without the associated folate disorder connected mutations, giving them folinic acid doesn’t really make any noticeable difference…
… which arguably lends creedence to the idea that there are at least two different ‘kinds’ of actual things going on that, which are currently all being lumped together as ASD.
… ok?
This paper is talking about using administered folinic acid to address a deficiency of folate transport within the brain, where that deficiency is caused by a known cluster of genetic mutations, in a person diagnosed with ASD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerebral_folate_deficiency
This is not talking about causing autism via the mother taking something during pregnancy.
It is talking about how, for a subset of ASD people, who have this particular cluster of genetic mutations, that taking folinic acid can alleviate some of the symptoms associated with folate deficiency.
Nothing to do with folic or folinic acid taken by the mother during pregnancy causing autism.
Its talking about a potential subset of autism being potentially treateable, that subset being broadly in line with what the OP Nature article/paper here describes as ‘early diagnosis autism’, which has much more readily apparent and obviously recognizable behavior patterns than ‘late diagnosis autism’.
If you go into that paper, you will indeed see that they found that amongst people with ASD, but without the associated folate disorder connected mutations, giving them folinic acid doesn’t really make any noticeable difference…
… which arguably lends creedence to the idea that there are at least two different ‘kinds’ of actual things going on that, which are currently all being lumped together as ASD.