Talk:Autism therapies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Gold Salts

It seems to me this is quite lengthy for a treatment that has only rarely been used.. perhaps we could cut down the details and quotes a little and move them to their own article (then add a "for more details see...")? I didn't want to do this without discussing it first, given that this section has obviously been written with a lot of care. Opinions? Sparkleyone 04:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but the content has repeatedly been removed from the new gold salts article itself, with similar justifications. Given that gold salts have been a backwater of medical treatment for decades, apparently replaced for the most part by allopathic drugs such as methotrexate, it seems rather ridiculous that strident efforts are being made to downplay the current intrigue by removing content from the article where it belongs, despite the fact that the heyday for the use of gold salts for other purposes may have reached its zenith nearly a century ago. Trimming the reference in this article makes far more sense, given that a great deal of emphasis, upon a wide range of desperately needed interventions, have generated more interest, thus far, than gold salts. Ombudsman 04:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The content is much more consise presented at gold salts, and I think at the moment is somewhat to short. That is different from being removed. --KimvdLinde 05:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

At first, the entire section was being removed, now there is an overly truncated 'effects on autism' section that has replaced the brief aside elsewhere in the article that previously was offered as a substitute. The current lead for the abbreviated section, where the name of a journalist, Dan Olmsted, comes first, needs a rewrite that addresses the science first. It is good to see additional editors involved, in order to keep the focus on reaching a compromise on content, rather than constant distractions caused by wholesale deletions. Ombudsman 08:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Could we please limit our discussions to the current version, and leave the history for what it it. The curent version at gold salts is somewhat truncated in my opinion, but the focus is diffeent there than here. --KimvdLinde 12:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
First off, let me apologise for commenting on something that has obviously been widely discussed elsewhere. It's a tricky one this, because while I can see this section's place over at Gold salts I can also see it here, just not at the level of detail currently described. Please do not read too much into this, but I think it should be cut down here because whilst it may have potential as a treatment it is not currently being used on a regular basis as the others are, therefore should not be discussed as extensively. My other concern is that the section is dominated by quotes that the reader can clearly see for themselves if they go to the linked article. Anyway, this is my suggestion for the gold salt section in this article, obviously linked, properly edited and so forth.
Gold salts have been suggested as a treatment for individuals afflicted by autistic spectrum disorders, because mercury and gold interact in a way that could de-activate ongoing toxic effects of heavy metal poisoning, thought by some to be a major factor in the increase in autism rates in recent decades. Boyd Haley, a University of Kentucky professor and leading proponent of the mercury-autism theory, has suggested that it may reverse conditions attributed to mercury administration, as the gold molecules bond with the mercury molecules and in turn may detach the mercury from the enzyme it is attached to.
The salts are administered by way of injection. The treatment was given to the first child diagnosed with autism at the Campbell Clinic in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1947, and reports suggest that the child’s symptoms improved significantly. The treatment is not in widespread use, but research continues into the effects of gold salts in animals bred to be susceptible to thimerosol, a mercury-based compound that was used in many vaccinations until recently.
Sparkleyone 07:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
(I have made you suggestion italic as to distingish it from ordinary comments.) The major problem with the piece as it is now (at the article), is that there is to much speculation, hypothesis etc, based on some anecdotal (yet important) information. So, I think it needs to reflect what we do know, and limits on the speculation. And the reporting should be factual. So, start with the anecdotal story, then move to the general idea (there is no need to discuss the whole mercury-vaccination-controversy), then current research and finally caution (Crucial to mention, you do not want tons of people demanding gold salt treatment because they have read something about it here!)....
Gold salts have come recently in focus as a potential treatment for authism when Dan Olmsted[1] reported on an autistic patient who was treated for arthritis using gold salts. Together with the clearing up of the arthritis, the "extreme nervousness" and excitability that had afflicted him cleared up as well, according to his brother.
Boyd Haley, a University of Kentucky professor and leading proponent of the mercury-autism hypothesis, has suggested that gold salts may reverse conditions attributed to mercury administration in the form of thimerosal that was used as a preservative in vaccinations untill recently. Currently, Dr. Mady Hornig of Columbia University is testing gold salts on mice specially bred to be susceptible to thimerosal. However, Haley cautions "[p]lease note that I am not recommending using gold salts to treat autistics, but it would certainly be worth a project if carefully monitored by a physician in a good clinic".
Just my 0.02 euro cents --KimvdLinde 12:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Methotrexate

Methotrexate: allopathic; Gold salts not?

Methotrexate has been used for some time by conventional doctors to reduce immune activity in Rheumatoid arthritis

Gold salts have been used for some time by conventional doctors to reduce immune activity in Rheumatoid arthritis

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but the only differences here seem to be that nobody at all has yet suggested that Methotrexate might improve autism (has any autistic person had methotrexate I wonder?) whereas one case report suggests improvement in one patient after one gold salt. I think the definition of allopathic in regard of drugs may need a bit more work there. Midgley 13:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well by the reasoning suggested by some of the contributors, of course methotrexate should be effective in improving autism given the undoubted efficacy of gold salts. The only reason why it hasn't been used is that, of course, there's a medical-political conspiracy to suppress its benefits! Andrew73 13:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry, do you suggest to include methotrexate also as a potential treatment of authism? KimvdLinde
No, I was just being sarcastic! Andrew73 13:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind the fact that Wakefield treats his autistic enterocolitis patients with mercaptopurine. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of information

Ombudsman removed well-sourced information (URL to an article by James R. Laidler) in favour of his unsourced POV. JFW | T@lk 14:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

And again. JFW | T@lk 21:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ABA

"Some claim Lovaas' ABA methods were the first scientifically validated therapy for autism"

WP:Weasel. Was there a claim of a previous sc. val. Rx? Are there claims beyond the rest of that para that ABA is sc. val.? Who claims it? Needs recasting. Midgley 13:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that a couple anecdotal "ABA horror stories" from parents are not appropriate sources for this article? Rhobite 14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ABA horror stories are inappropriate. Incidences of malpractioners shouldn't be used to indict a scientifically validated therapy. Bbrazy

[edit] Merge with biomedical intervention for autism

A recent Australian study categorized early interventions as behavioral, developmental, combined, and a few other categories I can't remember now. Biomedical interventions seem to be only a small part of what is available so to merge these doesn't seem warranted. One example of these categories is at:http://www.autism-help.org/early-intervention-aspergers-autism.htm Quihn 07:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I discovered Biomedical intervention for autism. That article basically has the same information as the Biomedical intervention section in this article. A merge would be to prefer.

The question then arrises if the biomedical section of this article should be moved to the other article, or if the additional information in the other article should be brought here and the other article then would be changed to a redirect?

Thoughts? --Rdos 06:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Latter I would say - if this article is to cover 'autism therapies' it needs to have the biomedical stuff here. Sparkleyone 08:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What I actually meant was that if you make Biomedical intervention for autism the main article on this subject, this article should be renamed to Behavioral intervention for autism or something similar. --Rdos 11:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merge...there is much overlap between the two articles. Perhaps biomedical and behavioral intervention could both be incorporated into the same article. Andrew73 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The merge is critical there is too much redundency and on the other article there is too little information on drug therapy which this article has. I third the motion of merger.

Well i too i'm in favor of a merge--Pixel ;-) 19:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == No therapy ,not a disorder view ==

I reverted the above section because it is written very badly. There are no sources - who holds this view? - and it describes therapy as "racism". People with Autism are not a race. Please clean up the section before you put it back in. ... discospinster talk 14:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV dispute

I am marking the "Non-coercive approaches" section of this article as having questionable neutrality. The section tries to shoot down each of the non-coercive approaches by saying that they "have been criticized", that it "gives false hope to parents", or both. This section sounds critical of each non-coercive approach mentioned within it.

Personally, I am appalled by the first sentence of the "Non-coercive approaches" section:

"The autism rights movement has been criticized for promoting 'doing nothing' about autism."

What does this sentence have to do with non-coercive approaches?! Also, the sentence assumes that the reader knows the values of the autistic rights movement.

The "Non-coercive approaches" section should simply list and describe non-coercive approaches, and then state their pros and cons--without opinion or bias. Just let the facts speak for themselves, and this section will be much more encyclopedic. --Voidxor 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biomed section suggestions

I think the biomed section should be more clear on the fact that no double-blind studies exist on any of the treatments currently listed. This is important with something like autism, because it's a developmental delay, not a developmental halt. Perhaps it should list Secretin, with a discussion of existing double-blind studies, and claims about recovery rates prior to those studies. The section is also missing the Ketogenic diet, L-carnosine, and Omega-3 supplementation (the latter 2 do have one unreplicated double-blind study each). Neurodivergent 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Merging

I think that the Biomed section could be reduced to a synopsis of the biomed article and any additional information here transferred there. As for merging the entire article, clearly this article on therapies covers much more material in different areas and the merge would mean placing a lot of peripheral material in the biomed article. So no, not a wholly constructive idea. Malangthon 02:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let me hear your voice

I removed a big chunk of a paragraph from the page, that basically came across as a plug for Bridget Taylor to my eyes. I left in the Let me hear your voice 'cause I'm happy to include it (surprised there's not an article already), it was a good book and I believe one of the first discussing autism. Incidentally, the editor who added the paragraph wholesale really seems like a [[WP:sockpuppet|sockpuppet] for User:Squeaky2, apologies if I'm wrong. Anyway, I took out most of the rest of the paragraph, here's the gist and here's why: Previously, the research documenting the effectiveness of this approach had been little disseminated outside of academia and a handful of center based school programs.

needs a citation

The lead therapist of the children was Bridget Taylor, one of the country's most renowned ABA professionals.

This addition is questionable, and appears to be a way of avoiding the orphan tag on that page. I'd never heard of her before, and when I worked in ABA I'd never heard of her during my training. The whole page seems like a vanity addition to me too.

Both children are considered to be indistinguishable from their peers.

I'd like to see a citation for this, at least a reference to a page number in LMHYV.

Thoughts? Am I over-reacting? WLU 01:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newest EL

What do people think of this EL:

ABA Resources for Recovery from Autism/PDD/Hyperlexia - Information on behavioral intervention (ABA)

Though it does look like it has a ton of possible references, it's not a professional site. Looking at WP:EL, in the "Links normally to be avoided" section, #11 says no personal webpages, and though this is a fairly comprehensive site, it is still one guy's. WLU 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/t/Talk%7EAutism_therapies_f51a.html"