FASD in bio kids....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes! After reading up on the physical description, I had to examine my DS. He doesn't have developmental delays but he has dyslexia. Some of the physical characteristics are similar to our ethnic blend - as in we're part Latino. He was wide-spaced eyes that are slightly almond shaped (as do I) and he has a slightly flatter nose than Caucasians, which also is within the range of normal for Latinos. That fold above his mouth is there but isn't super deep. His chin seems normal. He has a full upper lip.

I don't really think he has FAS. He doesn't have anything similar to ASD/ADHD. Just plain boring dyslexia. But, those physical characteristics caught my eye. He looks like me, though, and I don't have FAS. My mom didn't drink. I can't recall really drinking when I was pregnant. Maybe 1-2 drinks all together for the full 9 months?

You are not making any sense.

She made complete sense. She read all the drama here and got scared that she caused a birth injury with a few drinks in her child.

[Anonymous]

Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

Huh? That's like saying that driving without a seatbelt isn't risky because people in the 50's didn't all die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

Actually, yes. Read the recent studies.

[Anonymous]

I’m kind of shocked by this and do plan to take a look at the studies. My mom, who had four kids in the 70s and 80s, told me she drank through all of her pregnancies. (We’re all fine.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

Huh? That's like saying that driving without a seatbelt isn't risky because people in the 50's didn't all die.

No. But people in that era who did not wear seatbelts and were in an accident were more likely to die. However, there was widespread prenatal alcohol exposure in the 1950s but not widespread fetal alcohol syndrome. These two things are different because one of them happened to the vast majority of people but the other only happened to those unlucky enough to be in an accident

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

Huh? That's like saying that driving without a seatbelt isn't risky because people in the 50's didn't all die.

No. But people in that era who did not wear seatbelts and were in an accident were more likely to die. However, there was widespread prenatal alcohol exposure in the 1950s but not widespread fetal alcohol syndrome. These two things are different because one of them happened to the vast majority of people but the other only happened to those unlucky enough to be in an accident

The incidence of FAS in various recent studies of children and adults ranges from between 1 and 5% (this is the accepted range) and to 14% and up to 40% in some sun populations.

Indeed, there has been widespread prenatal alcohol exposure and in some populations is increasing. The message is not getting out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

Actually, yes. Read the recent studies.

What recent studies? There's one study that was based on pretty dodgy techiques of measuring facial features (unblinded) that sounds like phrenology and does not work with non-caucasian facial features.

There are zero studies showing that a drink or two before you know you are pregnant (or light drinking in pregnancy) cause any harm.

All there is is the precautionary principal that says "no level of alcohol use can be proven to be safe." Which I suppose is true, but no level of driving has been proven to be safe from accidents, no level of vegetable consumption has been proven to be safe from food-borne illness, no level of leaving your house has been proven safe from meteor strikes, and on and on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

Huh? That's like saying that driving without a seatbelt isn't risky because people in the 50's didn't all die.

No. But people in that era who did not wear seatbelts and were in an accident were more likely to die. However, there was widespread prenatal alcohol exposure in the 1950s but not widespread fetal alcohol syndrome. These two things are different because one of them happened to the vast majority of people but the other only happened to those unlucky enough to be in an accident

The incidence of FAS in various recent studies of children and adults ranges from between 1 and 5% (this is the accepted range) and to 14% and up to 40% in some sun populations.

Indeed, there has been widespread prenatal alcohol exposure and in some populations is increasing. The message is not getting out.

This whole entire thread is just another example of worried-well privileged anxieties about childrearing.

The fact is, there ARE populations with awful alcoholism and FAS rates -- such as extremely poor reservations/indigenous communities in the US and Canada. They desperately need support, treatment, interventions. A well-off DC woman who had a few glasses of champagne or even a big "girls night out" before her positive test is extremely unlikely to face any repercussions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

Huh? That's like saying that driving without a seatbelt isn't risky because people in the 50's didn't all die.

No. But people in that era who did not wear seatbelts and were in an accident were more likely to die. However, there was widespread prenatal alcohol exposure in the 1950s but not widespread fetal alcohol syndrome. These two things are different because one of them happened to the vast majority of people but the other only happened to those unlucky enough to be in an accident

The incidence of FAS in various recent studies of children and adults ranges from between 1 and 5% (this is the accepted range) and to 14% and up to 40% in some sun populations.

Indeed, there has been widespread prenatal alcohol exposure and in some populations is increasing. The message is not getting out.

This whole entire thread is just another example of worried-well privileged anxieties about childrearing.

The fact is, there ARE populations with awful alcoholism and FAS rates -- such as extremely poor reservations/indigenous communities in the US and Canada. They desperately need support, treatment, interventions. A well-off DC woman who had a few glasses of champagne or even a big "girls night out" before her positive test is extremely unlikely to face any repercussions.

She won't. But her children might.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

Actually, yes. Read the recent studies.

What recent studies? There's one study that was based on pretty dodgy techiques of measuring facial features (unblinded) that sounds like phrenology and does not work with non-caucasian facial features.

There are zero studies showing that a drink or two before you know you are pregnant (or light drinking in pregnancy) cause any harm.

All there is is the precautionary principal that says "no level of alcohol use can be proven to be safe." Which I suppose is true, but no level of driving has been proven to be safe from accidents, no level of vegetable consumption has been proven to be safe from food-borne illness, no level of leaving your house has been proven safe from meteor strikes, and on and on.

Yep. In fact, even in pregnant alcoholics, the rate of FAS is not that high. And sometimes, one child is affected while the siblings are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

Actually, yes. Read the recent studies.

What recent studies? There's one study that was based on pretty dodgy techiques of measuring facial features (unblinded) that sounds like phrenology and does not work with non-caucasian facial features.

There are zero studies showing that a drink or two before you know you are pregnant (or light drinking in pregnancy) cause any harm.

All there is is the precautionary principal that says "no level of alcohol use can be proven to be safe." Which I suppose is true, but no level of driving has been proven to be safe from accidents, no level of vegetable consumption has been proven to be safe from food-borne illness, no level of leaving your house has been proven safe from meteor strikes, and on and on.

Yep. In fact, even in pregnant alcoholics, the rate of FAS is not that high. And sometimes, one child is affected while the siblings are not.

But maybe it is. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/30/study-suggests-rate-of-foetal-alcohol-syndrome-disorder-higher-than-thought

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

Actually, yes. Read the recent studies.

What recent studies? There's one study that was based on pretty dodgy techiques of measuring facial features (unblinded) that sounds like phrenology and does not work with non-caucasian facial features.

There are zero studies showing that a drink or two before you know you are pregnant (or light drinking in pregnancy) cause any harm.

All there is is the precautionary principal that says "no level of alcohol use can be proven to be safe." Which I suppose is true, but no level of driving has been proven to be safe from accidents, no level of vegetable consumption has been proven to be safe from food-borne illness, no level of leaving your house has been proven safe from meteor strikes, and on and on.

Yep. In fact, even in pregnant alcoholics, the rate of FAS is not that high. And sometimes, one child is affected while the siblings are not.

But maybe it is. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/nov/30/study-suggests-rate-of-foetal-alcohol-syndrome-disorder-higher-than-thought

"“This study, as the authors themselves acknowledge, does not prove any causal link between pregnancy drinking and the developmental outcomes recorded, and may cause pregnant women and parents needless anxiety."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Every bit of alcohol during pregnancy is risky.

Then everyone would have had FAS before 1973. Did that happen?

No. So you are wrong.

Huh? That's like saying that driving without a seatbelt isn't risky because people in the 50's didn't all die.

No. But people in that era who did not wear seatbelts and were in an accident were more likely to die. However, there was widespread prenatal alcohol exposure in the 1950s but not widespread fetal alcohol syndrome. These two things are different because one of them happened to the vast majority of people but the other only happened to those unlucky enough to be in an accident

The incidence of FAS in various recent studies of children and adults ranges from between 1 and 5% (this is the accepted range) and to 14% and up to 40% in some sun populations.

Indeed, there has been widespread prenatal alcohol exposure and in some populations is increasing. The message is not getting out.

This whole entire thread is just another example of worried-well privileged anxieties about childrearing.

The fact is, there ARE populations with awful alcoholism and FAS rates -- such as extremely poor reservations/indigenous communities in the US and Canada. They desperately need support, treatment, interventions. A well-off DC woman who had a few glasses of champagne or even a big "girls night out" before her positive test is extremely unlikely to face any repercussions.

She won't. But her children might.

there is approximately zero point zero to the zeroth power evidence that light drinking causes any developmental issues.