To believe in biomedical intervention as a benefit for autistic children is a personal opinion that some think should be respected in a similar fashion as a religion.
I would disagree with that. All of the biomedical interventions are based on junk science (as far as I know), specifically the theory that autism is caused by some sort of chemical imbalance (such as mercury poisoning), as opposed to a difference in brain structure. The evidence seems to suggest that autism is a difference in brain structure (as far as I know, there appear to be various correlations with genes that directly affect neurology). I think that the biomed parents are just as curebie, and just as misguided, as Autism Speaks et al. (otherwise they wouldn't be trying to "cure" their kids of autism with quack treatments). I don't think it's a good idea to "respect" medicine that is based on junk science.
While chelation might have a rumour of being dangerous most of it comes from the death of Tariq Nadama back when they used disodium EDTA instead of DMSA as chelation agents, resulting in a mixup that caused Tariq to be injected with sodium EDTA. (did you see the difference to the two names?)
Even if it is safe if done properly, chelation is completely uselss for autistics. The "heavy metal posioning" theory has been basically disproven.
Many of the biomed community also dislike Autism Speaks, while maybe for other reasons. I don't think biomed parents approve of abuse in institutions either, do you? Many of the stories from people who use biomed also tell of nightmare experiences with mainstream's use of drugs.
Just becuase they don't like AutSp (and I'm not sure about that, I thought AutSp supported biomed to some extent) or institutional abuse of autistics, doesn't mean they should be considered to be on our side. This isn't a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" ("enemy" is a bit of a strong word here, though - the majority of curebies do want what is best for autistics, but are at odds with with what the majority of autistics want). They are still trying to "cure" their kids, and therefore, by definition, they are at odds with people who support neurodiversity.
The main reason I oppose Autism Speaks is not because if their "curebie" mindset, but because they put loads of funds into stuff that is completily useless for the autistic population, including development of prenetal tests - and this some of the biomed folks agree with is bad.
But chelation and other such quackery are just as worthless. I would say focus on funding REAL support, not useless quack medicine (which can sometimes potentially be dangerous). I don't think that the "mercury militia" care much about actual support for autistics.
Anyone with an idea of what I'm saying?
My idea of what you're saying is that there are those, parents and autistics, who make use of biomedical methods in the hope, and perhaps in the realisation, of them improving some aspects of health or quality of life for their children or themselves.
You're saying that those who favour some form of biomedical approach are not necessarily very far away from the people here in terms of a positive view of neurodiversity and that those people could be our allies. Yes?
Earlier I've defended ABA on this forum at the same time as I argued against it on another. Some time after that some people began to stop thinking that all behavioral therapy was child abuse.
I still had to clarify that I still thought that alot of forms of ABA and for some children was better avioded, like the one you see on JRC where they give burn wounds for picking your nose - I wouldn't make it, I pick my nose all the time.
I sort of agree there. I think that it might be possible to do ABA right (although I'm not totally sure if it actually is) if it isn't trying to make kids act "NT" (trying to force eye contact, suppress stimming, etc.).
Still not all of those believing in biomedical treatments view autism this way, they don't necessarily believe that chelation is going to "get rid of the autism problem", but rather that it might have benefit for their children because of all the stories they have heard of improvement in development of speech etc. - which, for the record, is something that has earlier mislead parents to get eg secretin treatment that was later proven to not be beneficial.
I wouldn't have thought that - after all, the reasoning behind using chelation on autistics is because of the largely disproven theory that autism is some kind of heavy metal poisoning, since chelation is a therapy to remove heavy metals such as mercury from the bloodstream. The only valid use of chelation is in actual cases of heavy metal poisoning (there are other quack misuses of chelation besides attempting to "cure" autism, such as trying to use it to treat cardiovascular diseases).
The online autistic community seems to be the neurodiversity bible. DAN! seem to be the one to write the biomedical bible with the addition of personal stories from parents who tell of progress after treatment.
Most of those stories are just anecdotal evidence. The only real way to tell is with an actual study (and as far as I know, all studies on biomed autism treatments showed no difference between the ones taking them and the controls). I would say that in the majority of cases, the kids are just "progressing" because they are maturing, and not because of the biomed treatments. I actually read an article a while ago about a family who tried various kinds of biomed treatments, and their kids did "progress", but stopping the biomed treatments didn't cause any "regression".