Nashaway Pediatrics Sterling – University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
Correspondence
Heather Finlay-Morreale, MD, Pediatrics UMass Medical School, Worcester, MA.
You are reading: Invasive therapy for children with autism is not justified
Corresponding Author
Nashaway Pediatrics Sterling – University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
Correspondence
Heather Finlay-Morreale, MD, Pediatrics UMass Medical School, Worcester, MA.
PDF
Please Reviews our Terms and Conditions of Use và check box below khổng lồ share full-text version of article.
Shareable Link
Use the links below to lớn share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.
Read more: The 5 Best Doctor Of Literature &Bull; Monarch Business School Switzerland
Dear Editors,
I am writing about the paper “Outcomes of bone marrow mononuclear cell transplantation combined with interventional education for autism spectrum disorder” by Tkhô nóng et al,1 first published September 9, 20trăng tròn in STEM CELLS Translational Medicine.
As a pediatrician who cares for autistic children, I have grave concerns about this paper. This paper does not describe valid retìm kiếm but rather details the abuse of disabled children. For one, the authors did not inject stem cells—they injected mononuclear bone marrow cells. They did not report on how many stem cells are in their preparation. Furthermore, injecting anything intrathecally can have sầu serious consequences, including the development of lifelong pain (arachnoiditis) or bleeding inlớn the spinal cord causing paralysis. Such a risky intervention should only be considered if the alternative sầu of no treatment is more dire. Autism is not a dire sentence. There are alternative effective sầu therapies for autism. Subjecting children, without their consent, lớn a seriously risky procedure is abuse. Forty-eight percent of the children have side effects, including pain. I bởi not consider pain a minor adverse event; I consider it major & related khổng lồ the study. Furthermore, these are disabled children & are a protected vulnerable group in whom retìm kiếm should only be performed if it is of likely/potential benefit và poses minimal risk. In the United States, I doubt this study would be approved by an internal review board.
In addition, the authors” claims based on their results are dubious. Reassessment was done 18 months later & after a mean behavioral intervention time of 3.5 years. Perhaps the children just improved as they matured & because of the behavioral interventions. There is no proof the dangerous injection was the cause of the improvement. There was no control of behavioral intervention without spinal injection. There was no blinding lớn the study. There was no control group.
I urge you lớn retract this paper immediately. It does damage khổng lồ the autism community in general. It is biased and ableist & continues the tradition of unaccepting parents abusing their children with treatments such as bleach ingestion, spine injections, and chelation. None of these treatments work và they cause harm. This is abuse of disabled children. These children need khổng lồ be accepted và helped—not abused và subjected to lớn harmful experiments.
Read more: Top 100 Literary Research Paper Topics For Students, Good Topics For Literary Research Papers
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
Categories: literature