Comments on: On Autism Detox

By: Reva

Reva — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:53:29 +0000

Jenny McCarthy has never used the term “cured” to describe her son. He has, however, “recovered”.

By: Hope

Hope — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:00:47 +0000

is it so wrong that parents look for hope. There are different levels of autism and perhaps thats why some parents have seen better results than others. As for an actural cured status, perhaps its better to state in remission. The FDA can and has been wrong yet there are people who believe in the FDA. Why is it that some people have reactions to certain FDA medication and others don’t. Look how time has changed such as expectant mother’s limiting certain vitiams, folic acids, and fish containing mercury from their diets to prevent birth defect. I applaud all parents who attempt on their own to find a solution. What about the Dr. at Haley VA hospital who claims to find a cure for cancer and has seen great results. Why doesn’t the FDA stand in and study and support his claim. Oh, perhaps because look at what it would do to the economy. How many years must go by before the FDA approves anything. How many years must go by before the FDA does find a link to vaccines and autism. Parents, do not give up hope in your attempts. Continue to search and fight for what you believe in. Don’t sit back and watch and wait for someone else to think they know whats best. Do your research.

By: DIY Chelation: Not Recommended

DIY Chelation: Not Recommended — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 06:02:26 +0000

[...] and everything (including a certain kind of enema), all in the name of detoxifying autistic children’s bodies of supposed excessive heavy metals, toxins, and so forth. Dr. [...]

By: Kristina Chew, PhD

Kristina Chew, PhD — Mon, 12 May 2008 19:49:07 +0000

Orac posts about "clean rooms" as a "a high tech form of the same old detoxification."

By: The Autism Treatment Subculture

The Autism Treatment Subculture — Fri, 09 May 2008 05:03:10 +0000

[...] administered to remove “heavy metals” from a person’s body and thereby to “detoxify” his or her system. Dr. Novella discusses the recent dropping of charges against Dr. Roy [...]

By: Last Week’s Top Posts: Awareness Month Ends and an Award

Last Week’s Top Posts: Awareness Month Ends and an Award — Sat, 03 May 2008 17:34:01 +0000

[...] On Autism Detox “Detoxifying” a child’s body of “heavy metals” via chelation is an alternative, and not uncontroversial, treatment for autism. [...]

By: stopautismquackery

stopautismquackery — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:54:46 +0000

http://www.autism.com/dan/index.htm

By: liquid zeolite

liquid zeolite — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:18:36 +0000

stopautismquackery,

I couldn’t find info on the ARI (autism.com) website that they were a dan organization. From their home page:

“The Autism Research Institute (ARI), a non-profit organization, was established in 1967. For more than 40 years, ARI has devoted its work to conducting research, and to disseminating the results of research, on the triggers of autism and on methods of diagnosing and treating autism. We provide research-based information to parents and professionals around the world.”

From what data do you base this premise:
“Also, remember this survey is generally taken by those who subscribe to the ‘DAN’ premise of treatment.” Also, I didn’t say pharma drugs worsen autism, I said “Why then do the pharma drugs have “worsened condition” much more than the supplements?” Better said, “much more often than..” For example, if you add “got worse” and “no effect” vs “got better”, you’ll find that only 6 phara drugs out of 54 reported “got better” more than “got worse or no effect” What the hell, people are paying big money for drugs that only improve symptoms about 10% of the time? That is ridiculous in my opinion and an outrage! Compare that to the so called “quack” cures, ie, supplements, detox, and diet. 21 out of 39 times “got better” outscored “got worse or no effect”. That’s better than 50% of the time! The results would be 32 of 39 if you lower the standard to supplements that rated “got better” with scores of 40% or more vs “got worse” or “no effect” and if you put “got better” head to head vs “got worse”, only St Johns Wart rated 16% “got better” vs 18% “got worse”, the rest reported “got better” much higher than “got worse”. Not so for the pharma drugs. 23 out of the 54 drugs produced “got worse” responses that were HIGHER than “got better”. Are you okay with that?

By: Regan

Regan — Thu, 01 May 2008 22:15:38 +0000

What the survey may indicate more than anything is the popularity of certain things among people who choose to respond to the survey over some unknown timeframe, or more specifically the opinions of the people who choose to visit this website. Since they don’t indicate the timeframe of the survey and whether people return to amend the scores, in addition to composition of the group or the specifics of the information, it strikes me as possibly interesting, but not particularly reliable.

By: Regan

Regan — Thu, 01 May 2008 21:55:57 +0000

Don’t know why in the case of this survey, and it is a self-selected survey, which does not specify the “behavior” (a pretty broad brush). If I were a less honest person, I could go and randomly type in “data”, which would be included in the database for good or for bad.
Perhaps there is an effect of looking more critically at standard medications (and I do note that some of those do have postive:negative ratios which err to the positive). The natural and diet interventions overwhelmingly err to the positive, which speaks to the self-selection, and possibly the expectancy. I also note that some of the alternative treatments also cite negative and no effect.
But again, this is not a controlled survey in either direction.
If you expect an improvement and nothing happens, subjectively that could be construed as a negative reaction. Medications also have side-effects; example, I can’t take a particular type of antibiotic. The antibiotic portion did, and does the job of handling the infection, but a constituent disagrees with my stomach. That is a negative effect, but the overall effect is positive.
And sometimes things are misprescribed or things are misdiagnosed. Without the specifics of the situation, it is speculation.