Talk:Autism therapies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


The fact that the diet was created and named for autisim needs further research. It's a diet for those with Celiac disease, and it's the only treatment for it. Autism is also directly related to celiac. Anytime, a gluten free diet is talked about regardless of what use, it needs full research. This was very incomplete information. Rocky79 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[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] The Categories and sub-headings need to be reorganised

I suggest that the autism therapies can be categorised as follows: behavioral; sensory; educational/developmental; biomedical/dietary; pharmaceutical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sojmed (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 April 2007 (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)

Is there a case for removing section 4.1 Autism is not a disorder? It seems to be wholly inappropriate to this article. User:Sojmed 19 Oct 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree; there's little in that section about autism therapies, and the material seems more appropriate for Controversies in autism. Eubulides 02:03, 19 October 2007 (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)

The "Non-coercive approaches" section of the article has been improved considerably. Unless I see any objections posted here, I will remove the neutrality tag in a week. Thanks to those who revised the wording. --Voidxor 03:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My objection is to the inclusion of "Non-coercive approaches" as a seperate header. What does it refer to? I can find no references to non-coercive approaches to autism on internet except in the context of criticism of ABA. User:Sojmed 13 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree; that section title should go. Some of its subsections are no more "non-coercive" than some of the therapies mentioned elsewhere. The simplest fix is to flatten the hierarchy. Some of the content of the section lead is worth keeping, though; the bit about social skills training. Eubulides 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually I find the text about 'promoting the development' more worthwhile, while the piece on social skills seems randomly dropped into the lead, as if 'social skills intervention' encompasses all of the 'non-coercive' approach. It may be difficult to integrate into the article as it is now, the current (single) hierarchy with it's separation into behavioral and biomedical treatments does not lend itself for the inclusion of any other approach. --Fenke 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to wonder if the entire article tends to a POV, because it appears to reflect on treatments as if autism is something that can be viewed separately from the autistic person. --Fenke 11:00, 13 October 2007 (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)

[edit] Gluten-free, casein-free diet

The GFCF diet section has a single citation, to a Defeat Autism Now conference, with 15 participants in one stream, and an unidentified number of matched partners participants in a second. I think the contents are a bit of a stretch considering the single citation, which isn't reported in a reliable source as far as I'm concerned. WLU 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that section had two citations, one to the DAN conference, the other to a refereed journal review. The latter suffices, so I removed the earlier and redid the text to match the latter. Eubulides 18:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There are emerging studies supporting the findings of gastrointestinal illness in children with autism, in which case, diet is not as far-fetched as this article might lead one to believe. Some diet studies, besides the small Knivsberg study (which did find cognitive improvements - read the abstract), are also worth mentioning. I will include some of these with references. There's a fine line between skepticism and closed-mindedness, arrogance and curiosity - let's be fair. Most parents aren't as stupid as some doctors make them out to be. Speace 07:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Recent reviews by reliable sources (Christison & Ivany 2006, Angley et al. 2007) agree with the article's summary about the effectiveness of diet treatments. These sources are cited in the article. If there are other reliable reviews with different opinions, by all means let's see them. Please WP:MEDRS for what constitutes a reliable source in medical articles. Eubulides 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Patterning

I think it is important to qualify the statement about patterning..."it was found in a study that"...or something to that effect...just stating that "The therapy is based on oversimplified theories and is not supported by carefully designed research studies" does not seem neutral, imho...Perhaps if it were to read "Research indicates that patterning is based on oversimplified theories and remains unsupported by carefully designed empirical studies" -- or something like that?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that Wikipedia must present all possible views; it means merely that Wikipedia must represent fairly and (as much as possible) without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources; see WP:NPOV. For patterning, we do have a reliable source (the American Academy of Pediatrics) for what's in the article; I don't know of any reliable source that disagrees, but if so we should include it and mention both sides. The text should be about autism therapies, not about the controversies about or researchers of autism therapies (that's for other articles); we should not preface every cited sentence with a phrase like "studies have shown". Eubulides (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I haven't found a reliable source that disagrees either. The AAP are quite unequivocal their opposition, and have been since 1968. The IAHP article has more room to expand on the controversy, which is why I think this section should link to it. IMO, you should try to insert "outmoded" or equivalent, into the description (as used by the source). It is not just over-simplified; it is wrong, and has been known to be wrong for decades. Colin°Talk 17:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I like that -- what if we broke the article into 'Approved/Supported treatments, unsupported treatments, and outmoded treatmensts' or something to that effect? I'm not sure what 'Parent Mediated..' is -- when i first saw it, I assumed it was treatments in which Parents did the treating...which Patterning would fall into, as well as some of other the educational interventions, I think. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Not a good idea. It isn't always a black & white issue. There are many good medical therapies, protocols or conventions that actually have very little evidence to support them (I'm not talking about autism here; it's not my subject). Drawing a line forces a pro/anti mainstream battle for territory. The separation is similar to having a "Criticism" section in an article, which is discouraged (a quick search found this essay but I haven't read it, only remember seeing such advice a while back). The IAHP article has a Criticism section; I'm not proud of it :-). Colin°Talk 19:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Individual vs group differences

This change weakened the discussion of the Magiati et al. 2007 study by mentioning that there were significant differences among the individuals in the study. But that's true for every such study, even of ineffective therapies: some children do better, some don't, and some might even do worse. The change also created a sentence with two "however"s in it, which is hard to parse. I don't get the point of the change, so for now I'm reverting it; perhaps someone can explain why a change is needed here so that we can get the text improved. Eubulides (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I included that because the abstract mentioned the large difference in progress...indicating that it may not have been treatment differences, but rather that the IQ and language level differences may have as much to do with it as the 'treatment procedures' Here is a quote from the abstract: "However, there were large individual differences in progress, with intake IQ and language level best predicting overall progress."Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
The body of the paper makes it clear that the Early Intensive Behavioural Interventions (EIBI) group started with a significantly higher IQ than the nursery group (which used an eclectic approach). The point about individual differences is that the most important predictors for improvement, for both groups, were IQ and verbal abilities at intake. This point doesn't affect the main conclusion of the study, which is that both groups had comparable outcomes. Eubulides (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
ahh -- I couldn't get access to the main body, so only went by the abstract...thanksJosh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insurance coverage of autism therapies

Where would be a good place to discuss medical insurance coverage of various autism therapies? Is there another article that discusses this topic? --Pesco (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a new section called Economics, just before Autism therapies #Research. The last paragraph of the lead is a summary of the sorts of things that should be in that section. Eubulides (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I agree with you that Autism therapies #Research is odd. It makes good points, but it seems a bit out of place. Eubulides (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The Economics section sounds good. I think I will also propose a similar section in the Applied behavior analysis article. Of course, the scope of the economics section in this article would be greater because it would address various therapy types. --Pesco (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis?

In my opinion this has no place in this article. The source is speculative at best and there is nothing of value that this one sentence brings to this article. There are millions of speculative, unresearched treatments and interventions that are thought to maybe, almost, perhaps help with autism. These don't need to be here and neither does this. I don't think it is nearly notable enough to be included in this article. I haven't looked for one but if there is a Wikipedia Page regarding medical applications of THC then include this there. Otherwise, leave it out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.97.49 (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but doesn't the same point apply to several of the other therapies described in this article? The scientific evidence for hyperbaric oxygen therapy, prosthetics, and neurofeedback (to take three examples) is no stronger than that for cannabis, so if cannabis is removed shouldn't the other three be removed too? Another way to put it is: where should we draw the line and why? Eubulides (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth. If the therapy (more accurately a conjecture) is reported in a reliable source, then it's appropriate for the page depending on number of sources available and the degree of coverage it gets. I'd say a single sentence is appropriate pending another source to shout it down or expand. WLU (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit strayed from sources

This edit introduced some changes that introduced weasel words or strayed from sources:

  • It changed "there is no good evidence" to "the evidence … is not considered good by some researchers". The cited source (Rogers & Ozonoff 2005, PMID 16313426) does not suggest that there is any conflict on this issue by mainstream researchers; there is no reason to weaken the text by saying "some researchers".
  • It changed "have a questionable rationale and no empirical evidence" to "have rationale that has been questioned, and lack empirical evidence". The cited source (Baranek 2002, PMID 12463517) says "Some of the treatments reviewed (e.g., sensorimotor handling) provide a questionable rationale for their use with children with autism and have no empirical evidence to evaluate their efficacy with this population." This supports the original wording; no reason was given to weaken it.
  • It changed "; these treatments include prism lenses, physical exercise, auditory integration training, and sensory stimulation techniques such as "deep pressure"—firm touch pressure applied either manually or via an apparatus such as a hug machine or pressure garments" to ". These treatments include prism lenses, physical exercise, auditory integration training, and sensory stimulation techniques. Firm pressure (deep pressure touch stimulation) is used for calming as well as stimulation, and can be applied manually or mechanically using devices such as a hug machine or a pressure garment." This loses the point that firm pressure is one of the techniques for which few conclusions can be drawn due to methological problems with its studies. Also, it creates a red link.

I made this change to attempt to address these problems. Eubulides (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)