>Strangely, one researcher -- Patricia Kane -- reports that
>autistic kids tend to have unnaturally *high* level of omega 3
>fats to begin with, and recommends against supplementation.  I
>have no idea what to make of that recommendation; I'm just
>passing it along.

This make me think of the issue of nutrients deficiency and supplementation.
When we mesure a deficiency of some sort in the body ,the "logical" response
to it is to supplement.
But i am wondering if  " deficiencies" are not more representing a
difficulty in the regulating system of nutrients levels.than a truely
deficient intake. ( and especially if deficiencies are measured in the
blood).
The body is allways trying to maintain homeostasis to keep an even level of
nutrients available to cells. To do so it might have to go thru temporary
low or high levels. so depending at what time they are measured or taken in
isolation from a context , they might  not represent necessarely a true
picture of what is going on .
The yo yo of "hypoglycemia" is a good illustration of that. We know that
eating more sugar is not the real  answer to hypoglycemia, that it just
further upsetting the regulating system.
It is this phenomenon of "action -reaction "observed so often in Nature
that keep me away from supplementation as a solution for "deficiencies".
I will rather trust the own innate ability of the body to regulate its
nutrients intake by providing as diverse a diet as possible.
An idea about this high level of omega 3 ( stored in fatty tissues or where
else measured ?) in autistic children : could it be omegas 3 fatty acids
that the body is unable to use properly for whatever reasons?
rather than representing to much intake.
The same kind of questions could be ask about  measured"deficiencies. Could
it represent an unusually high requirement for a specific nutrient and use
it too much because of a too high intake of an "antagonist " nutrients .
 the same way that sodium and potassium are antagonists)?
jean-claude