I was quite surprised that there was actually a mainstream approved drug for what that is called "treatment of autism", while what it only should be used against behavioral problems, I guess it is to make them less able to act aggressively or self-injurious.
This might clarify:
http://autism.about.com/od/treatmentopti...enceok.htm
"Mainstream treatment" might also be combined with institutionalisation which I know at least one blogger in Autism Hub thinks is an even worse threat to the autistic population than any autism quackery.
I've seen that when people who market autism alternative treatments aswell as Judge Rotenberg Center are questioned with the safety of their treatments tell that "mainstream treatments are alot worse" and there are also parents who tell the story of how their child first got mainstream treatment which was "just hell" and then later found that when they were on an alternative treatment they were alot better off.
Why did the parents seek mainstream treatment in the first place? - I ask and ponder, I hope someone can give me a good answer.
It could seem to me that there have been autistics who have received the treatment while they shouldn't have.
No-one reacted, whatsoever?
Apparently this local aspie I know has been on risperdal, the person hated it apparently, I hope the person can give me some more insight.
Wikipedia on risperidal:
"In 2006 the FDA approved risperidone for the treatment of irritability in children and adolescents with autism."
Sounds like it is supposed to treat sensory issues or something.
... while it other places sounds like it is first of all meant to treat aggression in not only autistic patients, but also schizophrenic and dement patients.
I've heard stories about autistic adolescents being experimented at with drugs, could this actually be one of those?
I asked at the chat, and there are apparently many shared feelings against risperdal.
... from people who were suggested to try it by officials and went on it.
I think the worst scenarios are when parents who don't know better are suggested to give the drugs to children unable to communicate from officials.
Could it be that all the talk about GI issues in autistics is really about something that is caused by drugs children have been given?
This is pure speculation I and don't expect that I'm on to something.
I wasn't aware the FDA had approved risperdal for treatment of autism alone. This is quite disturbing as risperdal is an anti-psychotic that functions as a dopamine antagonist, essentially lowers dopamine levels and should only be used for actual psychosis. Even then, care must be taken that depression and other symptoms don't kick in due to the lowered dopamine.
I hadn't heard drugs cause GI issues - GI issues are more likely related to allergies.
risperidol can save lives - so in some ways a great drug, but ....not a drug to be taken unless completely and absolutely essential.
This is true - it can save lives, but only in those cases where there's a legit need for it. Autism is not psychosis and prescribing an anti-psychotic for sensory issues is massive overkill. What bothers me a lot is how this crap is given to very young children whose brains are still developing.
It's ironic in a sense that in "treating" these kids they may be impairing their neurological development.
I think that in the same way that many public places now have ramped access, there should also be more emphasis on low arousal environments.
I do think it would be nice to find a method of treating sensory overload (and only sensory overload) without having horrendous side effects. To continue your wheelchair analogy - how about ramps AND treatment for the conditions that cause people to require wheelchairs in the first place?
One of the main things that drives me nuts about curebies is that they don't spend a penny on researching an effective treatment for sensory overload while millions goes into genetic research. That's something that truely horrifies me at times - that so many would prefer I simply didn't exist rather than see me get help when i'm suffering from being overloaded.
This is just my opinion - please don't tear me to pieces for it.
It frustrates me that anti psychotics are used for things that actually aren't psychosis.
What frustrates me is that braindead, stupid terms like "antipsychotics" are still in use. These drugs are not magically targeted at "psychosis". There merely has been the HISTORICAL ACCIDENT that they happened to provide limited symptomatic modification to conditions associated with "psychosis".
I could just see fools in the present day were aspirin and NSAIDS instead known as "antifervetics" (anti-fever). They'd all get into hissy fits were they to be used for headaches.
THE DRUGS ARE ONLY COINCIDENTALLY CALLED "ANTI-PSYCHOTICS". They are more correctly known as "neuroleptic". Whether or not a given NEUROLEPTIC drug is really a good choice for treating symptoms associated with autism is a matter of empirical experimentation to decide, not stupid superstition over the term "antipsychotic".
I take a neuroleptic, myself--aripiprazole, which is a partial dopamine agonist. I would recommend heartily against risperidone/risperdal, though. It's a poor choice for people who do not have severe symptoms. Aripiprazole is a far better alternative to try at the beginning--I'd guess due to its partial agonist activity rather than outright antagonist activity.
Dopamine antagonists are in general a bad thing to take if you don't actually have excess dopamine.
It frustrates me that anti psychotics are used for things that actually aren't psychosis.
What frustrates me is that braindead, stupid terms like "antipsychotics" are still in use. These drugs are not magically targeted at "psychosis". There merely has been the HISTORICAL ACCIDENT that they happened to provide limited symptomatic modification to conditions associated with "psychosis".
I could just see fools in the present day were aspirin and NSAIDS instead known as "antifervetics" (anti-fever). They'd all get into hissy fits were they to be used for headaches.
THE DRUGS ARE ONLY COINCIDENTALLY CALLED "ANTI-PSYCHOTICS". They are more correctly known as "neuroleptic". Whether or not a given NEUROLEPTIC drug is really a good choice for treating symptoms associated with autism is a matter of empirical experimentation to decide, not stupid superstition over the term "antipsychotic".
I take a neuroleptic, myself--aripiprazole, which is a partial dopamine agonist. I would recommend heartily against risperidone/risperdal, though. It's a poor choice for people who do not have severe symptoms. Aripiprazole is a far better alternative to try at the beginning--I'd guess due to its partial agonist activity rather than outright antagonist activity.
Dopamine antagonists are in general a bad thing to take if you don't actually have excess dopamine.
Do you have the faintest understanding as to what a "partial agonist" is?
Risperdol is not an agonist