- Autism treatments: Risky alternative therapies have little basis in science
- Autism treatment: Success stories more persuasive to some than hard data
- Questionable treatments for children with autism
What do readers think?
You can probably tell I "stole" those links from Orac. I'll also link to his post:
I noticed that "biomed" pushers have shown up in comments, and their primary counter-attack seems to be roughly this: "FDA-approved drugs also have serious side-effects!"
They do. Anti-psychotics, especially, can have nasty albeit rare side effects like neuroleptic malignant syndrome. But the biomed people are just trying to change the subject, aren't they?
Feel free to use the comments section to discuss the ethics of FDA-approved drugs for autism. Do the benefits documented in trials outweigh their more serious side-effects? Are there concerns about the evidence of their efficacy? Do we even understand how they work?