This story discusses chelation, the use of drugs to ‘bind’ heavy metals in the body so that they can be excreted, for the potential treatment of autism spectrum disorder in children. Chelation is based on the largely discredited view that mercury in vaccines triggers autism. Under this theory, removing heavy metals like mercury from the body will ‘cure’ autism. This story does a good job of presenting evidence about this harmful and potentially fatal practice. It successfully addresses the disease-mongering that could result around this emotionally charged issue. The story was well done but could have included a few more details such as the cost of various chelation treatment.
Autism spectrum disorder is a devastating condition that affects thousands of children and their families each year and the number of cases continues to rise. There is no known cause or cure which has led to use of uNPRoven and potentially harmful treatment in children.
Costs are not mentioned. Our research indicates that 5 suppository treatments cost ~$119. A liquid formula that is taken as a few drop 3 times a day cost ~$46 for 100 mL. Costs are particularly important in unconventional therapies as they are largely out of pocket expenses.
The story appropriately addresses the issue of benefits. Benefits are anecdotal and reported by parents. No credible, evidence-based benefits have been seen as noted in the story.
This story correctly notes that chelation poses significant harms including depletion of essential minerals and death.
The story is clear that there is very little evidence, if any, to support the use of chelators to treat autism spectrum disorder. As noted in the story, a review of scientific studies conducted by the Institute of Medicine has failed to show a link between between a vaccine containing a mercury based preservative, thimerosal, and autism spectrum disorder. The story also indicates that a controversial research study designed to test the potential use of chelation in children with autism spectrum disorder was canceled based upon the death of a child undergoing chelation and harmful effects on cognitive function seen with animal testing.
This story highlights disease-mongering surrounding the unfounded and potentially dangerous use of chelators to treat or ‘cure’ autism spectrum disorder in children.
The story provides information through interviews of several medical experts. All of the experts interviewed noted the lack of evidence and potential harms; however, their opinions are shared by the majority of the scientific community.
The only approved drug, resperidone, could have been mentioned in the story. In addition, a variety of behavioral interventions are felt to be "best practice" for managing some of the manifestations of autism.
This story correctly indicates that chelators are available in several forms including creams, capsules, suppositories and intravenous infusions of drugs. Chelation is thought to be used by thousands of parents on their children with autism spectrum disorder.
The use of chelation to treat autism spectrum disorder is not new. Appropriately, the story does not try to imply that this is new, or that its use in autism is new.
This story does not rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Take all the issues enmeshed in any cancer screening story and amplify it with the liquid biopsy issue. @AP's @CarlaKJohnson. did a solid job here. https://apnews.com/article/science-business-health-hodgkin-lymphoma-oregon-ca899bb9c4c7f1859d4e9ce16a1cf78d
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.