This is a story about John Elder Robison, and his book “Switched On: A Memoir of Brain Change and Emotional Awakening.” In the book, Robison discusses his experience as a person with Asperger syndrome undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) as part of a research study. The story includes quotes from him and a doctor on the TMS research team.
This story is lacking because of its reliance on the anecdotal experience of one person. There’s no data. No broader perspective. No independent voices. No pushback at all on the statements and claims made.
While we understand that this story is supposed to be a profile of one person’s experience, that doesn’t absolve it of responsibility to evaluate whether the claims are likely to be true or broadly representative of what others can expect.
The need for treatments that can help people with autism is clear–effective, proven therapies are lacking. As such, this story offers hope to those with autism spectrum disorder and their families. But in doing so, it runs the risk that the hope isn’t really backed up by evidence. Though Robison believes the treatments have helped him, it is very difficult to assess whether TMS is responsible.
There is no discussion of costs. The exact number of sessions necessary, the duration of treatment and the repeat treatments through time are not discussed, either. But, an idea of cost is important–this treatment is unlikely to be covered by insurance, and readers given hope by this story will want to know how much it may cost.
While Robison refers to improvements in his life, there is no discussion of how long the effects last, what changes occurred and how they actually benefited Robison. And, while personal anecdotes are powerful, they don’t provide evidence that can be used to assess the likelihood of benefit or harm in general. A discussion of the research in this area should have been included.
The story does describe harms that affected the man highlighted in this piece. While that’s important for understanding his story, the descriptions provided do not help the reader determine how common these harms may be nor the severity of the negative aspects identified. Studies of TMS for the treatment of other disorders–for example, depression–could have been cited to establish common risks and side effects.
There is no evidence provided except for anecdotes. If there isn’t any substantial research on this topic, the story could have said so. At the very least, the story could’ve described the larger results of the study that Robison took part in.
There is no disease mongering. There are no well proven, effective treatments for autism spectrum disorder.
Given that this is primarily an interview with a book author, we’ll rate this N/A. However, a source who is independent of the book author (the only other person quoted is one of the research doctors), could have provided important perspectives on the treatment being discussed anecdotally.
There is no discussion of alternatives–either of alternative treatments the patient received, or of general options for people with autism.
It is clear that transcranial magnetic stimulation is available because it is used to treat depression. It is also clear from the story that TMS’s use for treating autism is still not routine or even necessarily recommended.
Though TMS isn’t new, its use for autism should still be considered novel. As the story states “TMS is not yet recommended as an autism treatment.”
This story was obviously written from an interview of the author and his doctor. It did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
SPH adjunct associate professor @garyschwitzer presented to @Georgetown University public health students on how #covid19 has been "the perfect storm of politics, PR, and polluted messages to the public."
Watch the recorded zoom presentation here: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/09/perfect-storm-of-politics-pr-polluted-messages-to-the-public/.
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.
You might also like