Curing Autism in Infants via Behavioral Therapy?

Post Reply New Topic

Apparently the University of California at Davis have gotten rid of most of the developmental delays associated with autism with intensive ABT in infants http://time.com/3305027/autism-symptoms ... tter-brief. It is a very small sample etc etc but people should not be in denial that this really could a big step towered the long feared or anticipated depending your point of view cure. If is very possible if not likely that once a large sample is used this therapy will be shown to be flawed. I have little doubt the curabee scientists will learn from their mistakes and create therapies that will work.

I don?t know what argument the neurodiversity movement can put up to stop this. It is not eugenics which California has a sordid history of http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/E ... 549771.php The "choice" argument is irrelevant with infants. The neurodiversity movement has argued that while behavioral therapy to gets ?results? trying to change who a person can in the long run cause long term damage. But this involves intervening at a time when a person is being formed.

I hope I am wrong.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 09 Sep 2014, 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What's ABT?

A form of behavioral therapy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_behavior_analysis

The subjects are only 3 now. It remains to be seen how "un-autistic" they will be as they get older.

There's no such thing as a "cure" for autism. Therapies such as ABA teach individuals skills. It doesn't "remove" the autism from them or turn them into an NT (even if they behave in a way that seems NT, they're still innately autistic)

My first red flag on this claim. If you read closely on this from multiple sources, they cherry picked who to include on the study. This makes it biased as they deemed some too bad to take part in the study for various reasons.

My second red flag is that only 7 infants were studied, all VERY similar in traits. From what I know they can't definitively diagnose children at this young an age for being on the spectrum (6 months). I have seen a few studies that suggest they can spot some who will end up with autism, but at this young an age they can do so with NO certainty. Most diagnosed as being on the spectrum generally are diagnosed after they have started school.

Third red flag Only 12 sessions were required? It is that simple? I really doubt that. And yes I saw that the parents had to apply and work with these infants daily.

Sorry but this seems really far fetched. The old adage states if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is. They need to open up the study to far larger sampling of children that are suspected of possibly being on the spectrum at this age. Personally I feel this is a bit of bad reporting with the headline stating it Erases Autism Symptoms by age 3. We all know it is a spectrum for a reason. Every one of us and our issues are different then another on the spectrum. As they say if you have seen one autistic child, you have seen one autistic child. I can't see a generic program like this working TBH.

Listen to "Alex" don't be easily swayed by the nuttyness of mankind - listen to yourself also

I do not think Behavior Therapy is a good way to try and 'cure' autism, as it only adresses outside behaviors and basically attempts to make the kid feel like behaving naturally is 'wrong' to make them behave in ways un-natural to them with no proper natural outlet such as stimming or getting into a special interest to the extent autistics do. I think this is likely to just cause a lot of pent up stress/anger/frusteration and negative feelings in general.

I find this experimental approach highly dubious. For many of the reasons that other posters have pointed out. It's inherently biased; and I question that infants can be diagnosed since all infants, be they NT or ASD, are not yet processing everything in their environment and responding with the "proper" response. They say that if a baby doesn't play peek-a-boo with a parent by a certain number of months, it is likely autistic, but I don't recall what month or what percentage of these are proven to be accurate later on. Could be that the baby was just angry and not willing to respond. Anyways I digress. My sentiments are that early intervention, while to a certain degree effective, is by no means a panacea and could even stir up resentment in its subjects (e.g. taking away "special interests", as another poster pointed out). At too young of an age, even in our preteens, we can't fully appreciate all of life's later incentives like attaining higher education, having a good career, successful dating, lasting friendships, marriage, owning a house etc etc...so those who are put on ABA programs in childhood might not see the bigger picture as to "why" they're doing it then, when they just want to be "free". Like I was, many of us just think at an early age that "somehow things will all sort themselves out" later on. So while I believe some early intervention is good, it must instill meaningful incentives in its subjects. But then how do you do that without creating a sense of entitlement, is the million dollar question.

It seems they may have been gradually desensitizing them from social anxiety and allowing others into their "space". At that age the brain is still developing so I do not see why it is not worth trying.

Isn't that a good thing rather than having a child sitting alone in a corner where they may be seen as an outcast and treated as such? Isn't this better than them spending their whole childhoods doing that with the soul crushing isolation, bullying and few or no friends? Isn't it a positive thing for young ASD children to have the opportunity to socially bond with others before their brain becomes even more unable to?

That is not eugenics.

If their brains have the potential to learn social skills then that is part of their potential and not denying who they are meant to be. It is just nurturing a seed that is already there before it is lost with age.

Never say never. I have seen so many things that were thought to be absolute certainties, undisputable turn out be wrong. Brains (and genes) are not some deity just molecules. It's complicated but I have never been shown any logical reason why it can't be eventually figured out and changed. But that does not mean it should be changed. That is why this project is so evil. Getting at people as they form as a person before they are even 1 years old all under the guise of cuteness. What a dystopian nightmare. Like everybody said this research has it's flaws and probably will flop so it will be easy to deny and blow off the idea itself instead of the execution of it.

How will it turn out 20 years from now? They don't know, I don't know but you don't know either. What will matter is if it is perceived to be working. And there is enough of desperation and money so that people will convince themselves of it. Just look at how wildly popular the ABA we have is.

Personally I wish I had've had at least someone try this with me. Just because a child is sitting on their own that doesn't mean they enjoy it or are choosing to.

I think they are too young to know for sure whether they are autistic or not. Many NT children can have autistic behaviours as infants or even before they enter school. I watch my little nieces and nephews closely. They all show some sort of autistic behaviour. It depends on how often and how severe the symptoms are.

Most of us never show any autistic symptoms before we're 2 years old. I didn't.

This I know:

Autism is not a disease and does not need a cure.

Children can be reliably diagnosed with autism at the age of 3.

3yo children are routinely taught all of the "musts" of the society they live in. At that age, something like eye contact or smiling can be inculcated as a reflex. Research as to how autists differ from the majority and decisions about what to inculcate are what some people would consider a "cure" or a "behavioural" correction.

But we must choose responsibly. The majority is not the standard to be met at all costs. I am different; society should meet me part way.

In my life, if I could go back to age 3 with today's know-how, I would like to learn the smile reflex, since it's so helpful when I do remember to smile. I know my staring makes people uncomfortable, so I would like to regulate that (impossible?). Sighing is a problem - honestly, I think society should learn to live with that - learn that sometimes it does not mean impatience. And so on.

They call this new but the way it is described has no difference from Stanley Greenspan's Floortime therapy. I did that with my daughter from his book rather than via a professional instructor. Doing it from a book meant I may have deviated a bit but it really isn't conceptually difficult, it's just not intuitive for parents.
behav
The result (if it had any effect) is that I have a daughter who is willing to engage with other people perhaps more (or perhaps not) and is able to stim while simultaneously talking. Multitasking! But it isn't remotely a cure and she nevertheless goes to a school for autistic kids.

They say these kids are indistinguishable from their peers at 3 and perhaps they are. But that's not the same as being indistinguishable at 13 or 25.

I do think it's a valuable therapy. It may only engage a subset of kids but it seemed to be good for teaching how to break out of perseveration. They call it social engagement but if you look at the description what they are doing, they are actually getting parents to tweak a routine to include the parent and then to tweak again and again until having a routine tweaked is acceptable. My daughter still perseverates but can break out of the perseveration faster than some of her (middle school) classmates.
o
Researchers get fooled by what I think of as tromp l'oeil behaviors. They see a kid make eye contact or hand an adult a toy and think 'not autistic anymore'.

You can't cure how we are wired.... but...
Perhaps like young limbs are flexible when little, the brain may be a little more flexible at that stage.