I'm confused. They state that none of the women were more than 21 weeks into the pregnancy. By saying that they are acknowledging that a large number were well into their Second Trimester. Seeing that the brain begins to develop at 8 weeks, would this study be more accurate if they made that the cut off? That way all the babies in the study would be ones that took the oil since brain development began. How do they know for sure that the brain doesn't develop its' future cognitive skills at week 10?

I just think that starting some of the babies on the study 13 weeks after the brain begins developing is not the most accurate time to start.

Great point, Ivan, I agree!

I also question the dose they used of DHA - 200 mg sounds too low - and the fact they did not also supplement EPA.  Some studies suggest that EPA and DHA (two normal components of fish oil) work best together.

Another challenge with this study; autism and other developmental challenges do not often appear until 24-48 months of age, and while the paper describes the difference in rates of post-partum depression as possibly due to chance, when you have over 2,000 participants, there's good reason to conclude that there was significant power in the model to rule out chance effect.

Epa omega 3 fatty acids are the only acids that have been linked to cognitive growth and stability. Obviously this experiment was set for the use of government funds. Not only is it not informitive, it is also incorrect.

21 weeks into the pregnancy? maybe they should try pre conception. that will get some real results. that and a more higher dosage would be appropriate. not to mention micro filtered fish oil pills to avoid any negative effects of mercury. overall a poorly done study