Aspies For Freedom

was it the chelation or early intervention with good SPED team that was key?  Maybe it was his diet?  maybe it was growth and maturation.  I don't know that autism is a specific thing, but rather a place where several paths converge.  If this is the case, then there probably will need to be interventions for specific pathways.

It is so difficult to sort out anecdotal accounts.  however, a search on pub med (abstracts) turned up (and they didn't address genetics):

Many, but not all, studies link exposure to toxins such as mercury, lead, pesticides, and in utero smoking exposure to higher levels of autism and/or ADHD. Some studies have reported many nutritional deficiencies in autism/ADHD patients. Numerous studies have reported that supplemental nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, zinc, magnesium, and phytochemicals may provide moderate benefits to autism/ADHD patients. Avoidance of food allergens, food chemicals, and chelation therapy may also provide some relief to autism/ADHD patients. Conclusions: Autistic spectrum disorders and ADHD are complicated conditions in which nutritional and environmental factors play major roles. Larger studies are needed to determine optimum multifactorial treatment plans involving nutrition, environmental control, medication, and behavioral/education/speech/physical therapies.
1: J Altern Complement Med. 2008 Jan 16 [Epub ahead of print]

Is your son using aac (i.e. PECS)?

It's a difficult one. The main problem I have with chelation is that it's based on disproved theories -  i.e. 13 separate studies have shown that there's no connection between mercury and autism.

I think any effects that have been manifest after several years can be discarded, as autistic children do often make large developmental jumps independent of chelation.

So, the bottom line is that it can be harmful, and there's nothing showing that it's helpful.

If someone finds a plausible reason that it might be helpful, or actual proof that it has helped anyone, then I might be open to listening to their ideas - but no-one ever has, and I believe that they never will.

True, but it seemed a hypothetical that was impossible to talk about - if it was beneficial, then it would be beneficial. The only way to discuss anything on this thread would be to talk about the reality of chelation - i.e. It isn't.

They've found plenty of theories for chelation, they just haven't found any plausible ones.

I agree. For example, I think the GFCF diet is worth trying, as it has helped some autistic people by assisting with digestive issues - for some reason, we tend to be more prone to them.

As far as I'm concerned, if it's a hypothetical question, it's probably a moot point if it will do any real good or not. Autism and its "cure" is such an industry these days that I would be highly sceptical of anything like chelation being of much use in any but the very smallest minority of cases.

The main reason there are "so many more kids diagnosed with autism" these days is because the diagnostic criteria have been changed and more medical people have become knowledgeable about so called higher functioning autism.

"Explosion of autism cases" makes good headlines but is based more on rabid sensationalism than true science or rational thought. In fact there is some suggestion that the number of new LFA cases is either staying stationary or reducing whereas the increase is in the moderate to HFA cases, most of which would not have been picked up until the writings of Hans Asperger were translated into English in the 1990's and the DSM criteria were improved (I argue that they need further improvement since so many females with autism seem to be missed).

I feel sorry for the poor kids subjected to all kinds of quack treatments in the futile hope that they will be cured of their autism.

Practical treatments such as PECS and occupational therapy would to my mind be far more use than pumping kids full of chemicals. I'd also have to wonder about the desirability or real use of any treatments that involve more than a few hours a week of time. Seems to me as if parents are seen as a resource to be milked of cash, and surely the money would be better spent on ensuring the family has the best quality of life possible.

If the rest of the family is stressed out, how is that going to help the child with autism. They will pick up on the tension, worsening their responses.

It could be worth giving it a whirl but do get medical advice first and be prepared that there won't be much or any difference. Some people find just cutting gluten is helpful. There is the danger that going on a restrictive diet will single your child out with his peers because they'll be able to eat a lot of foods that he "can't".

If it makes a big difference, that wouldn't matter but if it has no effect, it's better just to give him ordinary food.

It could be due mostly to maturity and it's hard to say how much it is the treatment helping and how much it is that the child's brain and coping mechanisms have matured over time. Generally, there is improvement with age anyway but it's certainly difficult to know what would have happened without the treatments.

I just think the whole family has to be considered. There is a danger in concentrating too many emotional and financial resources on the one child that other members of the family feel left out and even resentful. This happens in cases where one child has any kind of disability; not just autism.

I've known of families torn apart because one parent is keen on aggressive treatment and the other isn't. That's why I'm really not in favour of 40 hour per week ABA treatment routines. Where does the rest of the family even get a look-in? Huge financial sacrifices would be required to pay for the treatments, putting a massive amount of stress on the main breadwinner (who might be mildly on the spectrum themselves).

It seems to me that a more conservative amount of treatment is better; reducing the financial load and time pressures on the family. I'd also worry that if much money were spent on treatments, the child with autism would be put under emotional pressure to "get better" and if they didn't, their parents would be disappointed in them.

They would be saying things like "We've spent $50000 on treatments and he's never going to leave home". It would be better to realise that there is a chance that the child might not marry or have kids or hold down full time work or live alone away from the home. If they do even one of these things, such as establish independent living it is then a bonus.

I'm not sure it is always desirable for us to marry anyway, given our like for our own routines and our dislike for compromise and change. Less conventional living arrangements such maintaining our own households but spending nights at one or the other person's place, often suit us better.

It seems like the question is "do you support treatment, even if you oppose a cure?".

I think the answer for pretty much everyone would be "yes".

How would you prove it was the treatment and not some other factor?

Chelation is actually proven to be quackery!

It probably wouldn't hurt to put his bedtime back another 30 minutes too.

Does he still have daytime naps? Something that's what makes them harder to settle at night.

okay, what is chelation anyway? i know it's a way to remove heavy metals from the body, but how is it administered? do you have to take an oral medication or is it injected? please someone explain for me...

Yes, I don't think too many would argue that there are some times when chelation is beneficial but this is IF it is properly done by a medical practitioner qualified in using this procedure and IF the patient is genuinely suffering from heavy metal poisoning.

I don't too many of the kids being "dosed" come under this definition.

Oops, I meant in the last line: "I don't think too many of the kids being dosed come under this definition".