The unknown is exciting. As a species we seem innately curious about seeing whats over the next hill, beyond the next valley, what happens if we heat this liquid to its boiling point, etc etc. But fairly obviously, we quickly realised that if we didn’t exert some level of control over the things we were curious enough about to examine closely then the results were arbitrary and meaningless.
“Hey, look at that!” we exclaimed to ourselves, “we’ve just invented the scientific method. How cool are we?”.
Unfortunately, as well as being logical, nuanced creatures capable of appreciating such things as the pathos in satire we’re also reactionary and blinkered. As someone recently remarked:
Too many people on all sides of the debate(s) seem to wear blinders that prevent them from acknowledging how little we all know.
A statement I fully support. However, there are certain things that we need to be certain about when we treat autistic children.
Is chelation safe? Here’s Wade again, quoting a commenter called Random John:
At any rate, it’s still pretty unclear why chelation therapy seems to be successful for some children, but not for others. The polarity of the thimerosal and chelation debates does not seem to cover the ground necessary to understand what’s really going on.
Which is very true. Unfortunately, its yet another example of shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted. To worry about these things after you’re already treating an autistic child with something like chelation is quite simply stupid. If there are people who are concerned about what effects chelation may or may not have on autistic children then basic medical principles need to be applied: first, do no harm.
That means you need to conduct safety trials before using something that has the following warning on it:
The use of this drug [EDTA] in any particular patient is recommended only when the severity of the clinical condition justifies the aggressive measure associated with this type of therapy.
Recently such people as Dr. Mary Jean Brown, Chief of the Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch of the Centers for Disease Control claimed that if chelators were used properly then they’d be safe. I take extreme issue with this viewpoint.
Chelation is essentially a chemical process – it alters the chemical composition of the body. Bearing that in mind, consider the following:
This review focuses on recent advances in the in vivo study of the whole brain in idiopathic autism…..Diffuse abnormalities of brain chemical concentrations, are…found. Abnormalities of ….brain chemistry…are evident by early childhood….
So, the brains of autistic people are chemically different then the brains of non-autistics. Given that fact, is it a) stupid or b) clever to use a process that alters the chemical composition of the person and which has never undergone any safety trials in regards to autism?
There’s a whole bunch of people here who need to take a drastic step backwards and do some basic safety trials on what is, irrespective of their beliefs, a poorly understood and potentially dangerous/fatal process.
Recent Comments