Glauben Sie nicht den Behauptungen, dass Autismus durch Darmbakterien verursacht wird
Glauben Sie nicht den Behauptungen, dass Autismus durch Darmbakterien verursacht wird
3 Kommentare
Hello, and welcome back to *Everyday Science*.
It always surprises me how much the emerging science of studying our [gut bacteria](https://inews.co.uk/news/gut-bacteria-may-have-an-impact-on-our-mental-health-254205?ico=in-line_link) has captured the public interest.
It sometimes feels like the microbiome has been claimed to be a cause of almost every disease you can think of, from [cancer](https://inews.co.uk/news/science/new-vaccines-treatments-could-stop-cancer-3872359?ico=in-line_link), to obesity, to depression.
One of the more attention-grabbing theories is that gut bacteria could be involved in [autism](https://inews.co.uk/topic/autism?ico=in-line_link), when people have problems with communication and social interactions.
The theory has had widespread media coverage, including in a recent Netflix documentary called *Hack Your Health: Secrets of the Gut*. Some children with autism are being given probiotics claimed to help with the condition. And a major science funder has just announced it will give $50m (£38m) to scientists to further investigate.
The trouble is that the autism-microbiome theory might be completely wrong. A paper has come out today saying it is all based on poor science.
So, what do and don’t we know about autism and gut bacteria and where could the research have gone wrong?
It a shame that articles like this one tend to get far less traction and engagement than ones all about how we’ve “hacked the microbiome”, or how “there’s a CLEAR pattern to biome development in people with ASD”. It’s the exhausting trudge of reiterating scientific consensus while also considering how to improve quality of life for neurodiverse people.
The frustrating thing is that the area IS worth exploring, but is so jumbled with pseudo-scientific nonsense thanks to Wakefield and other scam artists that it needs to be done carefully and with such delicate language to avoid reinforcing those views.
literally breaks rule #1