My Photo
Buy Your Copy Now!
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 12/2003

« The War on Christmas | Main | Rats! »

Thursday, November 29, 2007


Lisa Rudy


Just for the record, the article was not intended as a review of "quack" versus "scientific" treatments, but rather as a way to make parents aware that there are many treatments for autism that are neither costly nor risky.

I certainly did NOT recomment any of the treatments you noted (hyperbaric oxygen, chelation, and so forth). I did mention them as being costly and having the potential for significant side effects.

The truth is, many parents are using these treatments. I certainly can't feel any sense of remorse at recommending others!

FYI, the "gold standard" treatment, behavioral therapy, certainly has its detractors as well. It's also extremely expensive - and while some feel it's benign, others feel differently.

One other FYI. I'm the mother of a child with autism, a writer, and a researcher. But I am not a doctor or a researcher myself-nor do I play one on TV!


Lisa Rudy Guide to Autism


I'm also not so sure about the low/lower cost of some of the treatments listed. Over time, the "special diet" can be quite costly, if one buys a lot of specialty foods.

Ray Girvan

I find patchy in its quality, and I think the peer review process is especially lax once you get into alternative therapies. You won't get balance within an article; everything is framed as "A Whatever Therapy Perspective". So, for instance, even though they've been past the Medical Review Board, you'll get no hint from the Practitioner Perspectives on Migraine or Craniosacral therapy articles of the mainstream position on craniosacral therapy (i.e. that it's absolute bilge).


Interesting. I don't like either. And the jury is still out on Mahalo, but I decided to check into their hand-built search results page. I found it much more objective:

The comments to this entry are closed.


What I'm Tweeting

    follow me on Twitter