Post 1301120 - (Article advocating dangerous treatment on autistic child)

Post a reply

Username

Subject

Message body

Emoticons





View more Emoticons

[quote="Sophist"]In response to that thread: using case studies is good and well. It's a respected form of qualitative research. HOWEVER, it doesn't hold the same weight as quantitative research. No one should use a single case study, or even a handful, as the only supporting evidence.

I haven't read the original article, however, it sounded like this wasn't even a case study but anecdotal evidence (i.e., apples and oranges). Anecdotal evidence, while undoubtedly valuable in qualitative research, is not as highly regarded as quantitative research because with it comes the inherent flaws of human judgment and having one's own agenda and biases.

Ideally, a case study should be performed by an outside experimenter unrelated to the subject. They should collect information on a variety of areas regarding the person's life (that varies according to the purpose of the case study).

Also, performing a quantitative study on chelation is certainly possible, although probably still unethical (though not for the reasons that person espouses), considering there is not enough strong evidence (evidence showing consistently and considerably higher heavy metal levels in the serum) to support taking the risk going through chelation for several years. Say goodbye to the experimental group's livers! :roll:

The scientific reason that chelation should not be supported is because, since it hasn't been studied in large numbers in relation to autism, THERE IS NO WAY TO PREDICT THE RISKS. And science sticks as strongly to the motto "Do no harm" just as much as doctors do (well, ideally ;) ). It doesn't matter if chelation is the next miracle drug that gives long life and increases fertility! It hasn't been tested, the evidence supports that there's too much of a risk to do any sort of longitudinal study, and that's that. QED.

And any person who supports it not only is being a bad layman scientist, but is also putting their child's life at risk. The unknown is always a risk, it doesn't matter how many anecdotes you've heard to the contrary. As Stalin put it, "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" -- meaning that despite that we humans should know better, we constantly trust a single anecdote over mounds of numerical evidence to the contrary. Why? Because usually the single anecdote is more emotionally moving than a group of numbers. Which is why, as humans, we need to be aware of this tendency of ours and distrust our own trust in the Anecdote.

Do people want to gamble with their children's lives? Because this treatment has the potential for real harm-- and I'm not talking about the kids who were overdosed or given the wrong treatment. I'm talking about performing chelation over an extended period of time, taxing the liver, and using the treatment in a way in which is was NOT DESIGNED.

It's the liver that gets to process all the heavy metals that the treatment flushes from the body. And you run the risk of cirrhosis, cancer, etc., just the same as you do with alcohol and other medications that are hard on the liver.

We're not talking a one or two-time dose. Like the person in that post mentioned, we're talking potentially YEARS.

So what'll they have? They'll still have autistic kids, only later down the line, they'll also get the joy of having their children put on transplant lists. :evil:

Sorry for posting all this here. Preaching to the choir, I know. But my IP for some reason is blocked on Wiki... :?[/quote]

Options
HTML is OFF
BBCode is ON
Smilies are ON

	Disable BBCode in this post
	Disable Smilies in this post