7 ms·

I don’t think it’s as black and white as this article suggests. We don’t know what causes Autism and to the best of our knowledge it doesn’t exist in any other

by SamAtt 17y ago

I don’t think it’s as black and white as this article suggests. We don’t know what causes Autism and to the best of our knowledge it doesn’t exist in any other species. Even if it did exist in other species it would be almost impossible to diagnose. So there’s really no testing (other than long term trials) that can be performed on perspective treatments. This results in a marketplace where completely bogus treatments look no better or worse than ones that have potential. Combine that with Parents who are desperate to help their children and you get a very dangerous and volatile situation. That situation is what this article tries to address. But I’m not sure you can fault parents who try alternative treatments that are supervised by physicians. These researchers act like their opinion should be the last word on the findings in their report. That’s especially frustrating when their opinion is “we don’t know what it means and have no real way to find out”. All these parents are doing are taking an aggressive approach. Again, I don’t support anyone who tries a treatment that isn’t supervised by a physician but I don’t see anyone doing that here.

roc 17y ago
I didn't see anything in the article that suggested the parents were at fault. It read to me as solely faulting the 'physicians': the ones that we hope and expect to know the difference between snake-oil and medical science; the ones we trust to behave appropriately.
- SamAtt 17y ago
  I read the blame differently but I don't agree that the physicians are at fault here either. The article treats the researchers' opinion as if it was unquestionably correct. The researchers said x wouldn't work and this person tried it so they are ignoring science. But the researchers are no more qualified to interpret their results than another clinical researcher specializing in the field (the whole point of a research paper is to present what you found not interpret it for the audience). If someone else thinks x might work and they are backed by their own research and a physician who makes sure it isn't dangerous than I don't see the problem.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - antipaganda 17y ago
    You don't see a problem with using autistic children as guinea-pigs for experimental treatment, based on nothing more than a preliminary study? In many of these cases, the study itself warns against using it as the basis for any sort of treatment! Also, there's no double-blinding. Hello placebo effect!
robotrout 17y ago
I agree. As long as the treatment is likely to 'do no harm', I see no reason not to try it. To be alarmist about things as unlikely as catching mad cow disease, as a reason not to try a treatment is B.S. Are there people who take advantage of the sick, and those who care about them, solely to make money? Yes there are, and I hope there is a special corner in hell reserved for them. But to imply that every physician that tries new, unblessed therapies is of this group, while it makes you sound oh so wise and politically correct, is irresponsible and harmful.
lmkg 17y ago
You're right that the parents aren't at fault. Nonetheless, I think there is legitimate blame to place on the cottage industry of autism treatment. The published paper suggest a possible line of future research, but not (yet) actionable treatment methods. The snake-oil salesmen peddling unproven treatments to desperate parents under the veneer of science are being somewhere between willfully ignorant, and downright predatory.

by SamAtt 17y ago

roc 17y ago

I didn't see anything in the article that suggested the parents were at fault. It read to me as solely faulting the 'physicians': the ones that we hope and expect to know the difference between snake-oil and medical science; the ones we trust to behave appropriately.

SamAtt 17y ago
I read the blame differently but I don't agree that the physicians are at fault here either. The article treats the researchers' opinion as if it was unquestionably correct. The researchers said x wouldn't work and this person tried it so they are ignoring science. But the researchers are no more qualified to interpret their results than another clinical researcher specializing in the field (the whole point of a research paper is to present what you found not interpret it for the audience). If someone else thinks x might work and they are backed by their own research and a physician who makes sure it isn't dangerous than I don't see the problem.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- antipaganda 17y ago
  You don't see a problem with using autistic children as guinea-pigs for experimental treatment, based on nothing more than a preliminary study? In many of these cases, the study itself warns against using it as the basis for any sort of treatment! Also, there's no double-blinding. Hello placebo effect!

robotrout 17y ago

I agree. As long as the treatment is likely to 'do no harm', I see no reason not to try it. To be alarmist about things as unlikely as catching mad cow disease, as a reason not to try a treatment is B.S. Are there people who take advantage of the sick, and those who care about them, solely to make money? Yes there are, and I hope there is a special corner in hell reserved for them. But to imply that every physician that tries new, unblessed therapies is of this group, while it makes you sound oh so wise and politically correct, is irresponsible and harmful.

lmkg 17y ago

You're right that the parents aren't at fault. Nonetheless, I think there is legitimate blame to place on the cottage industry of autism treatment. The published paper suggest a possible line of future research, but not (yet) actionable treatment methods. The snake-oil salesmen peddling unproven treatments to desperate parents under the veneer of science are being somewhere between willfully ignorant, and downright predatory.