| Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.  |
| What do you call a lot of ducks together? A quackery? |
Before we move on, I'd like to share with you a quote about Dr. Herbert:
Harvard pediatric neurologist Dr. Martha Herbert, who has given speeches at Autism One conferences, is often cited by advocates in the recovery movement as proof that people with stellar credentials support them.The publisher description of this book--due in March--bears out this "recovery movement" emphasis on woo and the service that Dr. Herbert does to the autism subset of the World of Woo. I have not read this book but find this description and the previous actions of one of its authors disturbing.
First, the publisher blurb describes the book as offering a "revolutionary and transformative" way of "dealing" with autism. I realize that marketing speak is marketing speak, but with these opening words, my woodar is already fired up. Then it says,
Autism is not a hardwired impairment programmed into a child's genes and destined to remain fixed forever.I would love to see the data that support implications of this sentence that autism isn't genetic or "wired" into the brain, which flies in the face of any study I've seen on autism genetics and its level of heritability.
Then, we get to this, telling us that autism
is the result of a cascade of events, many seemingly minor: perhaps a genetic mutation, some toxic exposures, a stressful birth, a vitamin deficiency, and a series of infections.Now that I've seen the word "toxic" and the word "vitamin" along with "stressful," my woodar is on full alert. Also, where are the data showing that a "cascade" of events like this--conveniently common to just about every human being on earth--is causative in autism? What this phrase does, though, is let a parent think, "Wow...a lot of that happened to my child!" and buy into what this book is selling--never mind that what it describes is essentially the human condition.
Then it goes on to say that "your doctor"--because doctors are always the bad guys in the woo world--your doctor may "dismiss your child's physical symptoms" such as diarrhea, anxiety, sensory overload, sleeplessness, immune challenges, and seizures as "coincidental and irrelevant." Really? Doctors dismiss seizures as irrelevant? They ignore parental concerns about anxiety or diarrhea? I'd say, "Get a new doctor," but obviously, that's not where this description is heading.
No. Instead, if offers you a "revolution" that will allow you to "approach autism as a set of problems that can be overcome." See, I'd always felt that our approach to autism was to understand our child who has it as well as possible and work from there. The book alleges to be based on the "newest research, technologies, and insights." (a) I don't think that can be possible, given the turnaround time required for book publishing, and (b) I keep up with the "newest research" and have yet to see anything that supports what this description is asserting as causative in autism.
Then, we get to it: "Her specific recommendations aim to provide optimal nutrition, reduce toxic exposures, shore up the immune system..." and KABOOM. The triple threat of the World of Woo right there: nutrition, toxic, immune.
It goes on to violate my personal rule of "Thou shalt not use the word 'paradigm'" while offering "hope and healing" for the "millions of families" who have autism in their lives.
The book comes with the usual assortment of blurbs. One of them says that Herbert offers
A convincing case is made that autism is a disorder of both the brain and the body, and that there are many features of the environment—from the foods we eat to the pollutants that we breathe—that may play a role. This book will provide a blueprint for the future research agenda on this fascinating condition.First of all, I don't think it's a newsflash to anyone that autism involves both the brain and the body--the motor deficits alone get that across. Second of all--pollutants we breathe? Foods we eat? Can someone please point me to the studies that show the causative links with these things? 'Cause in spite of my years of vigilance, I've missed the mechanistic data demonstrating that. Finally... this book is setting a research agenda? That's odd because based on this description, research doesn't appear to be its cornerstone.
I know that publishers will write things about books that perhaps don't reflect wholly accurately the book's contents. But I can only infer that words like "toxic" and "pollutants" and "biomedical" and the Doctor as Bad Guy reflect the overall tone of this book. And I find that deeply concerning, not least because Dr. Martha Herbert has been described as being "big on biomedical woo" and it's been noted that "Age of Autism loves her." Not a compelling selling point for people seeking evidence-based information and help.
Add to that this interview [PDF], published in Medical Veritas--yes, that Medical Veritas--and we've got a woo-toned tome on our hands that carries the imprimatur of Harvard Medical School, reminiscent of the recent Stanford-associated "expert" promoting antivax seminars. Speaking of antivax, Dr. Herbert's not immune to that herself and once unsuccessfully tried to testify in court that a child became autistic as a reaction to mold growing in the child's apartment.
Kirkus Reviews opens a review of this book (paywall) with, "A neurologist breaks with professional orthodoxy..." Why? And why is that considered a selling point? With every step forward that the science community makes to communicate the need for evidence-based practices and conclusions, for critical thinking, something like this comes up takes us two steps back ... and for what? I'm sure mother warriors everywhere will be happy to dig into their pockets to add this one to their arsenal. I'm guessing that's the What For.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am adding this, which is from a comment I made on Facebook:
This began when one of the book authorspromoted the book in a talk at a major scientific meeting and another persontweeted that promotion without knowing the background of the main author or anyof the issues surrounding the distinction between using a train of speculationto devise an "autism cure" to sell to people and using hard work,understanding, and method to support autistic people in every possible way.That's goading to me on any number of fronts, and I hate to see the field ofstudy I love manipulated in this way almost as much as I hate to see people inneed manipulated in this way. Just when science and evidence seem to be makinginroads and helping autistic people more and more, another tome emergespromising "revolution" and "transformation." As ascientist, I have to ask: If it's so revolutionary and transformative, why notmake it publicly available via peer-reviewed papers so that everyone can accessthe information and it can undergo the gold standard of scientific confirmation?
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.![]()
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.