In The Politics of Autism, I write: "If the science were not confusing enough, its coverage in the mass media has added another layer of murk. News reports hype tentative findings and weak correlations as “breakthroughs” in the quest for autism answers."
Reuters Fact Check debunks media reports about a dubious study:A U.S. study does not show severe autism can be “reversed”, contrary to misleading headlines shared on social media making that claim and calling the results a “miracle”.
The case report of just two young girls is anecdotal, based on “questionable” methods and may only show the girls were taught new behaviours that masked or reduced some symptoms, according to experts who also criticised media coverage of the study.
Facebook posts,sharing newspaper headlines about the study, said: “Autism can be reversed, scientists discover”, and: “’Miracle’ trial claims severe autism can be reversed”. One post received more than 28,000 views.
The study, published as part of a special issue on treating possible environmental contributors to autism in the Journal of Personalized Medicine, (JPM), followed the development of non-identical twin girls who were diagnosed with severe autism when they were aged around 20 months. It was a case study, not a clinical trial of any kind.
The study authors described a long list of interventions by clinicians and the girls’ parents - including dietary changes, speech therapy and applied behaviour analysis - and reported that the girls’ scores improved in some behavioural categories on the Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC), opens new tab, a questionnaire that aims to assess the effectiveness of autism treatments.
However, experts say claiming the study shows autism can be reversed is wrong because a possible reduction in one category of symptoms would not be a “reversal” of the condition or autism diagnosis and two individuals is too small a sample to draw any conclusions from. The published study also acknowledges: “Since there were fewer than three individuals in this report, this is not considered a systematic investigation designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge”.
