• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Beware non-evidence-based treatments

Tom

Tom

Well-Known Member
V.I.P Member
Title says it all and article gives details of 19 current medically unapproved therapies. None has any scientific evidence of positive results and some are outright dangerous

https://autismsciencefoundation.org/what-is-autism/beware-of-non-evidence-based-treatments/

One example:

Stem Cell Therapy: Stem cell therapy for autism is illegal in the United States, but that hasn’t stopped some from offering this as a treatment for autism in Costa Rica, China, and other countries. There is no evidence that the treatment is safe or effective for autism, and no guarantee that the stem cells used in these countries are even human.
 
Even evidence based is iff-y. I prefer science based.
 
Tom said:
I believe by evidence based they mean science based.
Click to expand...
No, they are different. Evidence based means just that. Science has different criteria.

There are many articles out there defining the two. Here are a few....It's a fine line, I agree, but it should not be. Science is much more rigorous. Evidence can be vague. Like with EMDR. The "evidence" behind that is simply it appeared to work on X number of people. Science would require different criteria........

Still, I would love your opinion on these articles. I am open minded about both terms...


Evidence-based medicine actually isn’t

'Science'-Based Medicine Versus 'Evidence'-Based
 
There are so many quack doctor "cures" and remedies for all kinds of disorders and illness it's both fascinating and revolting. I've been to a website called Quackwatch where there are a number of personal horror stories of people's lives being ruined because of quack treatments, usually given to them when they were kids and had no control over how their parents decided they should be treated.
 
Last edited:
OkRad said:
No, they are different. Evidence based means just that. Science has different criteria.

There are many articles out there defining the two. Here are a few....It's a fine line, I agree, but it should not be. Science is much more rigorous. Evidence can be vague. Like with EMDR. The "evidence" behind that is simply it appeared to work on X number of people. Science would require different criteria........

Still, I would love your opinion on these articles. I am open minded about both terms...


Evidence-based medicine actually isn’t

'Science'-Based Medicine Versus 'Evidence'-Based
Click to expand...

They used the term Evidence based but if you read article seem firmly to mean Science based. That is how I take it anyway.

"Before beginning any treatment, parents should question whether there is a coherent scientific rationale behind it, and think critically about its associated risks and benefits. They should also ask their healthcare practitioner whether the treatment has been proven effective and safe in objective scientific studies, and whether those studies have been published in well-established, highly reputable, peer-reviewed medical journals."
 
I really dreaded clicking on the link, but the article is
shorter than I supposed, and the bold headings make
it easy to see the type of "treatments" discussed.

Raw Camel Milk
Nicotine patches
Holding
Horseback riding
Antifungal treatments
Stem Cell Therapy
etc
 
Does it mention Jedi mind tricks?

"You don't want to be autistic...
You can go about your business.
Move along."
 
Science is bunch of snobs who hate new radical solutions... all they do is treat symptoms and make $$$, not interested in making people well.
So i imagine they would suppress anything that they feel is too good to be true without even testing it, because all they believe in is chemical method of treatment which is outright faulty since all it can treat one symptoms and introduce 5 new ones.
 
In a trial 3000 random men and women were selected and we gave them 2 apples each. Granny Smith apples. Of the 3000, 2200 vomited and exhibited flu like symptoms for 3 days, 140 died, 240 broke out in a rash.
Therefore Granny smith apples are bad, because evidence.

(Oh right i forgot to mention in the study that the 3000 random men and women that were selected were from a pool of those with comprised immune systems. Oh ya! Also forget that we covered the apples in a contagion. Oopsie! Well whatever. The public won't think outside of the "evidence" in the study and will now instead buy our employers pacific rose apples!)
:D Mission complete

... o_O
 
Objective scientific enquiry and corporate driven scientific propaganda are poles apart. Unfortunately it can often be difficult to tell the difference in today's profit driven climate. REAL science is objective and as close to real truth as you're likely to find, corporate science is the edited truth that supports the interests of the shareholders.
 
Preventing autism is one thing, but attempting to cure it is another. I have no understanding of the science behind cures for ailments, but I don't see autism as an ailment. All of us know what we are experiencing, so we can identify with the value of medication that might reduce the affects of anxiety or ADHD.

Because Autism is seen as a horrible condition, people who have never experienced it look anywhere they can to contain or control it. The decision makers, parents and medical professionals, don't have enough information or experience to effectively choose some method of treatment for either the symptoms or the condition as a whole.

Many parents want to do "something" for their kid with Autism. Adults, by virtue of being adults, have their say in selecting methods of treatment. There are no guarantees with meds, and the meds themselves produce undesirable side effects. The poor kid has to endure the procedure, but it not mature enough to properly communicate the results back to the adults.

This article is valuable because it highlights the extend to which people will go to try and wipe away the effects of Autism. People should be careful when they seek treatment. I'm not convinced they know what they are treating. They just want the issues to go away, at any cost. I've seen enough doctors in my life to know that someone who is not a specialist is incapable of handling a condition like Autism in a responsible manner.
 
WTH??? Lupron therapy? I have Lupron injections as part of my hormone therapy for breast cancer. It's a hormone blocker, not just for testosterone. It most certainly has not cured my Asperger's.

Bleach therapy - I remember a while back there was a huge scandal about this. Clears out all you bad bacteria, but also all your good bacteria, leaving you with the potential to replace it with bad bacteria, beside all the harmful side effects.

Horse riding therapy - I loved horse riding as a child and found it relaxing once I learned it - certainly can do no harm unless you have an accident, but it did not cure my Asperger's.
 
While horse riding isn't a cure at least that one could be fun and shouldn't be dangerous. Most of the others are pretty bogus.
 
Progster said:
Bleach therapy - I remember a while back there was a huge scandal about this. Clears out all you bad bacteria, but also all your good bacteria, leaving you with the potential to replace it with bad bacteria, beside all the harmful side effects.
Click to expand...
Antibiotics do same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Top Bottom