Scientific American has a story up today that's particularly interesting in light of yesterday's link to the Wired interview with autism activist and presidential appointee Ari Ne'eman.
Sci Am offers up the results of a review that grades autism treatments—not on how effective or safe the treatments are, but on whether those treatments have received anything close to adequate research. In other words, are claims about the treatment based in fact, or in speculation. Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of the treatments don't have quality data backing them up. In fact, of 16 treatments, only one got an "A" grade—meaning that it's been tested in a number of randomized, controlled trials, and that data from multiple labs has been compared in meta-analyses.
Ironically (though, again, perhaps unsurprisingly), what all that quality research found was that the treatment in question, a gastrointestinal hormone called secretin, has no benefit to people with autism.
Another seven treatments received the lowest grade—"C"—meaning that they have nothing backing them up beyond individual case studies, anecdotes and unsupported theory. Anything can be said about these treatments, but they've not been seriously studied in any reliable way.
Scientific American—Alternative Biomedical Treatments for Autism: How Good is the Evidence?
Also worth reading: Related piece on what happens when desperation drives parents to try under- and un-studied treatments on their autistic children
Image: Some rights reserved by Pink Sherbet Photography
