The Confusing World Of Biomedical Treatments
As someone relatively new to the world of autism I have read up on the biomedical treatments. Only after reading about them did I find the counter points to biomedical treatment. It is really a contradictory world with many strong emotions on both sides of the coin. After reading everything that was thrown at me I made the choice to not do any invasive biomedical treatments with my daughter. Thankfully she has responded so very well to therapy that I am not second-guessing my decision to not ‘detoxify’. What exactly is detoxifying? Basically it is chelation. Dictionary.com defines chelation as:
Medicine/Medical.
| a. | a method of removing certain heavy metals from the bloodstream, used esp. in treating lead or mercury poisoning. |
| b. | a controversial treatment for arteriosclerosis that attempts to remove calcium deposits from the inner walls of the coronary arteries. |
There are other biomedical treatments but for the purpose of this blog post I am going to focus on chelation. There is a local naturopathic college that is running a chelation study for children who have been diagnosed with autism. I contacted the school to get more information and found out that they use IV chelation. That pretty much sealed the deal for me - I didn’t want something as invasive as an IV. So why are people using the word detoxify instead of chelation? Dr. Kenneth Bock was on the CBS Morning Show yesterday discussing his new book Healing the New Childhood Epidemics: Autism, ADHD, Asthma, and Allergies: The Groundbreaking Program for the 4-A Disorders and he used the term detoxify instead of chelation. In my opinion this is happening because detoxify is a much more positive word. Many people don’t immediately know what chelation is and when they read up on it they might read about the controvery surrounding it (including an autistic child’s death). I am a member of several internet support groups for autism and a few of them are very heavily into the biomedical route. I read and learn but am still not convinced.
I probed a little more around the ‘net and found this counter argument to the CBS piece: CBS Softballs Doctor Promoting Dangerous Therapy for Autism.
Just some food for thought. I will never say someone is wrong for choosing a biomedical route in an attempt to cure their child of autism but I’m not sure I’ll ever understand it. The science behind it just doesn’t make sense.
