

Early Intervention in Babies May Eliminate Autism Symptoms by Toddlerhood - tokenadult
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/09/09/early-intervention-in-babies-may-eliminate-autism-symptoms-by-toddlerhood/

======
mpyne
I hope this helps as many children out there as possible.

But I'm actually more worried that this, left as it is, is just going to be
used by mothers and fathers of children with autism, or the adults around
them, as an indictment that they weren't "good enough parents".

This was a common refrain leveled at mothers of children with mental illnesses
not that long ago, and it would be unfortunate indeed if we let that type of
accusation creep back into popular wisdom, to the extent that it's unfounded.

~~~
jerf
"But I'm actually more worried that this, left as it is, is just going to be
used by mothers and fathers of children with autism, or the adults around
them, as an indictment that they weren't "good enough parents"."

That's already something parents with autistic kids get to live with. You may
get to choose your friends, but you don't choose your relatives, and some
relatives have a hard time dealing with autistic grandkids/nephews/nieces/etc.
Denial is a popular option. It would be stupid to even think about holding
back a treatment because of this concern.

I'm also frankly astonished that we have to preface stories about autism
treatments with how wonderful autistic people are and how we're not trying to
"eliminate their uniqueness". My autistic son is only lightly autistic, but
believe me, this is a disability. It's great, it's truly great that many
people manage to live with it and their lives aren't entirely ruined, but
believe me, it's still a disability. If you can mitigate it, do so.

~~~
otakucode
>I'm also frankly astonished that we have to preface stories about autism
treatments with how wonderful autistic people are and how we're not trying to
"eliminate their uniqueness".

Even the most profound and obvious disabilities are adopted by parents who
refuse to see it as a disability. They take this so far that they will resist
attempts to correct it. This is huge in the deaf community, for example. There
is open aggressive opposition to cochlear implants, because they are seen as
robbing deaf children of exposure to 'deaf culture'. It is a complex issue,
because children need to be given cochlear implants long before they are
capable of making decisions for themselves, so they are often crippled for
life at the hands of their own parents - parents who can not share in the same
treatment because they are too old. The lowest weaknesses of the human spirit
are on display in some of these people, denying hearing to their children
because they don't want their children to be 'better' than they are.

~~~
dogecoinbase
As a thought experiment (I'm not saying it's exactly analogous), imagine some
sort of genetic treatment for a fetus that gives it white skin rather than the
black skin of its parents. White people have more opportunities in life, are
generally more successful, certainly have a lower lifetime risk of being
murdered by police, et cetera. What arguments apply in the case of a cochlear
implant that do not apply here?

~~~
jerf
In a nutshell, I refuse to engage in the degree of ethical chicanery necessary
to even pose such a silly question. This is one place where "common sense" has
it right, and sophomoric philosophical debates are just a way of seeming
sophisticated while in truth being horribly debased.

But hey, if you're going to play "I'm too twisted in knots by postmodernism to
understand ethics anymore", why not ask whether it would be correct for a deaf
couple to _deliberately_ induce deafness in a child not otherwise destined to
be deaf?

(The best part is that these questions probably cease to be hypothetical in
another 20 or 30 years.... and then the shit _really_ hits the fan....)

~~~
Houshalter
This has already happened. A deaf couple used genetic prescreening to select
an embryo that that carried the condition.

------
otakucode
Did I just miss it or did they completely not even mention how many infants
who are 'symptomatic' naturally grow out of these deficiencies without
developing autism? Without knowledge of that number, and whether this
represents a statistically significant improvement, the findings are
completely meaningless and honestly quite dishonest.

~~~
wwkeyboard
They also didn't link to the original study, where you could find this
information. There are four links in the article, and they mention the
original journal(but not the edition), and they don't link to the article.
This seems like terrible journalism.

------
whiddershins
An encouraging idea, and I hope they get somewhere with it.

But how can they assert with confidence that they've successfully treated a
condition for which diagnosis at such a young age isn't accepted? Quite
possibly 6 of the 7 children would have lost their symptoms anyway.

The study was not random, controlled, or blind.

------
trhway
"Early Start focuses on engaging a child’s attention in everyday activities
with the parents – focus on the parents’ faces and voices, interactions
between parent and child that foster joy and smiling in both parent and child,
the parent’s imitation of the infant’s vocalizations and actions, and using
toys to support a child’s social interaction."

sound like any child would benefit from it. And if it is enough to move a
child above the autism threshold - that's just great.

That also bring question about the role of technology for parents who can't do
that for one reason or another - can a computer/robot or a remote Mechanical
Turk or some other technological way substitute the parent here, at least
partially?

------
araes
My sister used to be part of the autism treatment programs funded by BC up in
Canada, and I was honestly amazed how much the right kind of attention and
order made in autistic kids lives. Strong cause and effect relationships for
reward / punishment, time degrading incentives for participating in "normal"
behaviors, firm willed discipline when they regressed to earlier outbursts or
triggers, and a steady diet of signals for what is "ok" or not without
smothering or coddling. Hell of a lot of work for her when they were pre-
teens, but if they can get on it early, and produce these kinds of shifts when
kids are still young? Could be awesome. Now just need a bigger sample than 7
kids.

------
jeffdavis
Tiny study (7 infants), no control group.

~~~
tedivm
Are you sure you're reading the right paper? They specifically mention the
control group in the article and make comparisons between the different
group's responses.

~~~
cmkrnl
Comment by Alice Walton, the author of the article:
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/09/09/early-
in...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2014/09/09/early-intervention-
in-babies-may-eliminate-autism-symptoms-by-
toddlerhood/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1543-13071-2418)

    
    
      They actually gave all 7 the therapy. There were controls
      but it wasn’t really random assignment. They definitely
      need to do a larger study to look into it more (which
      they will), but it seems promising as a pilot study.

------
Nursie
So before I even read this article - is this a real, scientifically sound,
proven way for this to happen? Or is this woo, hope, prayer 'biomed', quackery
and other nonsense?

Because everyone and their grandmother has a 'cure' for 'recovering' autistic
kids, but most of it is bullshit bordering on abuse.

~~~
tedivm
UC Davis is a fairly well known and respected school. They do actual research,
which gets published in peer reviewed journals (as much as that matters these
days).

