4 ms·

This webpage seems to be full of quackery. I haven't heard about AIT before, but Wikipedia's summary isn't pleasant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_int

by hannob 10y ago

This webpage seems to be full of quackery. I haven't heard about AIT before, but Wikipedia's summary isn't pleasant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_integration_training#Insufficient_efficacy_and_evidence_basis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_integration_training#... But the page advocates for a bunch of other things, from useless (Homeopathy) to harmful (claiming that Autism is related to Heavy Metal Toxicity, although the link is broken). It's unfortunate that autism is a field where quackery of all kinds is widespread.

kijin 10y ago
Quackery permeates every field from mild headache to cancer, but it's easier for people to fall for it (and for quacks to make a quick buck) in fields where science has yet to give us a good picture. I hope the situation will improve as research continues and we learn more concrete facts about autism.
- loceng 10y ago
  Or people to be skeptical because science has yet to give us a good answer, although a lot of the time the leading edge of medicine and science and skepticism is more about education and knowledge permeating society. Stem cells have been in use since 1991 on race horses to heal them - big money in race horses which is why it was tried there - however it's only just starting to become mainstream for people. That's 26 years for the science and knowledge base to develop and reach people - doctors and otherwise.
loceng 10y ago
I haven't read the Wiki, however Wikipedia includes a balance of all opinion and thought on any given topic - whether they are using science to back it up - or not. AIT lists 28+ clinical trails on their website - http://www.aitinstitute.org/ait_clinical_studies.htm http://www.aitinstitute.org/ait_clinical_studies.htm Did you read my comment with my experience? What were your thoughts on my experience and explanation? Just took a quick look at on Wikipedia link you made to the section "Insufficient efficacy and evidence basis" - they likely should update that with links to the other clinical trials. The other part to AIT is that in order for it to have a greater impact you have to also remove/fix other factors that could be overwhelming the body - food sensitivities, unknown allergies, digestive problems, etc - which people then of course can not then 100% claim that the sound therapy aspect had an impact. For me, I know it did because the result was dramatic - it wasn't placebo. That's my qualitative data to add to the mix. I'm not sure what process or protocol that research reference in the Wiki page on AIT used, don't have time to thoroughly review it and I'm not an audiologist or trained in all aspects of AIT either; my audiologist is also a naturopathic and homeopathic doctor - so his breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding of health systems of the body would give him better insight into what's important and what isn't. I welcome the skepticism though.

by hannob 10y ago

kijin 10y ago

Quackery permeates every field from mild headache to cancer, but it's easier for people to fall for it (and for quacks to make a quick buck) in fields where science has yet to give us a good picture. I hope the situation will improve as research continues and we learn more concrete facts about autism.

loceng 10y ago
Or people to be skeptical because science has yet to give us a good answer, although a lot of the time the leading edge of medicine and science and skepticism is more about education and knowledge permeating society. Stem cells have been in use since 1991 on race horses to heal them - big money in race horses which is why it was tried there - however it's only just starting to become mainstream for people. That's 26 years for the science and knowledge base to develop and reach people - doctors and otherwise.

loceng 10y ago

I haven't read the Wiki, however Wikipedia includes a balance of all opinion and thought on any given topic - whether they are using science to back it up - or not. AIT lists 28+ clinical trails on their website - http://www.aitinstitute.org/ait_clinical_studies.htm http://www.aitinstitute.org/ait_clinical_studies.htm Did you read my comment with my experience? What were your thoughts on my experience and explanation? Just took a quick look at on Wikipedia link you made to the section "Insufficient efficacy and evidence basis" - they likely should update that with links to the other clinical trials. The other part to AIT is that in order for it to have a greater impact you have to also remove/fix other factors that could be overwhelming the body - food sensitivities, unknown allergies, digestive problems, etc - which people then of course can not then 100% claim that the sound therapy aspect had an impact. For me, I know it did because the result was dramatic - it wasn't placebo. That's my qualitative data to add to the mix. I'm not sure what process or protocol that research reference in the Wiki page on AIT used, don't have time to thoroughly review it and I'm not an audiologist or trained in all aspects of AIT either; my audiologist is also a naturopathic and homeopathic doctor - so his breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding of health systems of the body would give him better insight into what's important and what isn't. I welcome the skepticism though.