Toni Braxton says her child "cured" of autism through early intervention

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^so are you saying we should not try to diagnose and provide interventions at a young age but wait until the kid is older and clearly autistic to provide therapies?

Not that poster, but yes, I don't think ASD should be diagnosed till later, and kids should receive the services regardless of the diagnosis. With language kids it teases out around 4-5-6, when they are talking. If its a dual diagnosis, its also pretty clear as well. We did unnecessary therapies for a long time till I had enough and choose the ones I thought were helpful for my child's specific needs.

I am that PP, and I agree with this. Treat all the needs right away with services, but don't give a child a label like ASD until you know for sure what you are dealing with. Use a broader Developmental Delay label.

I understand what you are saying, but how can services be evidence based if there is no diagnostic category?

[Anonymous]

Don't school systems use "developmental delay" for young kids already? My kid who already had an autism diagnosis in preschool got services through his IEP under "developmental delay" until he was in K at a DC charter and so did all the other kids in his class with IEPs in preschool. (Yes, the parents know each other through a networking get together soon arranged by the school)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^so are you saying we should not try to diagnose and provide interventions at a young age but wait until the kid is older and clearly autistic to provide therapies?

Not that poster, but yes, I don't think ASD should be diagnosed till later, and kids should receive the services regardless of the diagnosis. With language kids it teases out around 4-5-6, when they are talking. If its a dual diagnosis, its also pretty clear as well. We did unnecessary therapies for a long time till I had enough and choose the ones I thought were helpful for my child's specific needs.

I am that PP, and I agree with this. Treat all the needs right away with services, but don't give a child a label like ASD until you know for sure what you are dealing with. Use a broader Developmental Delay label.

I understand what you are saying, but how can services be evidence based if there is no diagnostic category?

There are only a few services - Speech, OT, PT, and ABA covered. You look at the persons need, and diagnose a developmental delay until it is very clear what is going on. Either way the child needs the same or similar services (catered to their individual need). You can tell once you start services if it is right for your child. ABA was a waste of time for us but if my child had autism or behavioral issues, I can see where it was helpful. Who actually knows if time/services or what make kids progress? We don't really know as those of us who do services have no baseline to know if they helped or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't school systems use "developmental delay" for young kids already? My kid who already had an autism diagnosis in preschool got services through his IEP under "developmental delay" until he was in K at a DC charter and so did all the other kids in his class with IEPs in preschool. (Yes, the parents know each other through a networking get together soon arranged by the school)

Not all of us use school system services. We got such a run around that we gave up and went private (the delays were severe enough). But, insurance forced us (the doctor associated with it) to do it under an autism code and would not/will not pay under a language disorder nor take the time to look at what really could be the cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^so are you saying we should not try to diagnose and provide interventions at a young age but wait until the kid is older and clearly autistic to provide therapies?

Not that poster, but yes, I don't think ASD should be diagnosed till later, and kids should receive the services regardless of the diagnosis. With language kids it teases out around 4-5-6, when they are talking. If its a dual diagnosis, its also pretty clear as well. We did unnecessary therapies for a long time till I had enough and choose the ones I thought were helpful for my child's specific needs.

I am that PP, and I agree with this. Treat all the needs right away with services, but don't give a child a label like ASD until you know for sure what you are dealing with. Use a broader Developmental Delay label.

Diagnoses are medical.

Labels are school designations.

Some people just don't like that they received an autism diagnosis and their kid high functioning whereas other people's kids are less high functioning but not on the spectrum. Get over it.

The issue is the labels carry with the child and its near impossible to get them removed. Every time we meet a doctor we have the same discussion. The first thing out of their mouth is about autism, will my kid cooperate, blah blah blah and then when my kid presents very differently I get the lecture of is it correct, what am I doing about it (nothing, they need to get it removed, not me), and its very uncomfortable and a huge time waster. They initially treat my child very differently and then do a 180 (except one ER doc who was great) and it gets very old very quickly. At that point, my kid picks up on it and will not go near the doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was autism, there is no cure. So, her son got the wrong diagnosis. My son was also diagnosed at 2. A few years later he had his struggles but one doc still insisted it was autism by history. It makes no sense to me. Autism has now become the catch phrase for we don't know what is wrong with your kid and sadly minimizes the word and true meaning for those kids who do have it and deserve all the supports and help they can get.

I don't really agree. LIke ADHD, it's diagnosed by symptoms, so if you treat the condition so successfully that the symptoms disappear, then you may no longer meet the diagnostic criteria. Plus, the brain is really plastic at young ages, so it makes some sense to me that, if the condition is caused by the brain being wired in a certain different way, that a particular kind of therapy can result in the brain re-wiring itself. (Look at someone like Gabby Giffords for a really extreme example of how the brain can rewire itself. Her brain re-wired itself around a great big hole in her brain.) I just don't think we know enough about what causes the condition to be able to say that "there is no cure." It's not even really clear that there's just one condition. (There was a really interesting article in the NYT recently about research into regressive autism, and the researchers finding that, in many ways, it looks really different from other types of autism.)

I disagree. That's more like being in remission, where maybe due to treatment (EI in this case) it is undetectable. It isn't "gone" and you have no guarantee it won't flare up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^so are you saying we should not try to diagnose and provide interventions at a young age but wait until the kid is older and clearly autistic to provide therapies?

Not that poster, but yes, I don't think ASD should be diagnosed till later, and kids should receive the services regardless of the diagnosis. With language kids it teases out around 4-5-6, when they are talking. If its a dual diagnosis, its also pretty clear as well. We did unnecessary therapies for a long time till I had enough and choose the ones I thought were helpful for my child's specific needs.

I am that PP, and I agree with this. Treat all the needs right away with services, but don't give a child a label like ASD until you know for sure what you are dealing with. Use a broader Developmental Delay label.

I also agree with this as well, but unfortunately insurance doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was autism, there is no cure. So, her son got the wrong diagnosis. My son was also diagnosed at 2. A few years later he had his struggles but one doc still insisted it was autism by history. It makes no sense to me. Autism has now become the catch phrase for we don't know what is wrong with your kid and sadly minimizes the word and true meaning for those kids who do have it and deserve all the supports and help they can get.

I don't really agree. LIke ADHD, it's diagnosed by symptoms, so if you treat the condition so successfully that the symptoms disappear, then you may no longer meet the diagnostic criteria. Plus, the brain is really plastic at young ages, so it makes some sense to me that, if the condition is caused by the brain being wired in a certain different way, that a particular kind of therapy can result in the brain re-wiring itself. (Look at someone like Gabby Giffords for a really extreme example of how the brain can rewire itself. Her brain re-wired itself around a great big hole in her brain.) I just don't think we know enough about what causes the condition to be able to say that "there is no cure." It's not even really clear that there's just one condition. (There was a really interesting article in the NYT recently about research into regressive autism, and the researchers finding that, in many ways, it looks really different from other types of autism.)

I disagree. That's more like being in remission, where maybe due to treatment (EI in this case) it is undetectable. It isn't "gone" and you have no guarantee it won't flare up.

It doesn't go in remission. Either you have it or you don't. Its very easy to misdiagnose a child at age 2-3-4, since if a child doesn't have automatic eye contact, they label it autism. If a child lines up toys, they call it autism, etc. I think treatment gave my child the tools they needed, but I don't think it rewired my child or cured him of something he never had. Many kids outgrow things, and sometimes new issues crop up, but that does not mean those new issues are autism. Reality is anything that one cannot explain now is lumped into autism "spectrum" and very few take the time to actually figure out what it means. Its easier to trow multiple therapies at kids than look at what they actually need. Instead of being a kid, mine went though 6 months of unnecessary ABA till I had enough despite being pushed to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was autism, there is no cure. So, her son got the wrong diagnosis. My son was also diagnosed at 2. A few years later he had his struggles but one doc still insisted it was autism by history. It makes no sense to me. Autism has now become the catch phrase for we don't know what is wrong with your kid and sadly minimizes the word and true meaning for those kids who do have it and deserve all the supports and help they can get.

I don't really agree. LIke ADHD, it's diagnosed by symptoms, so if you treat the condition so successfully that the symptoms disappear, then you may no longer meet the diagnostic criteria. Plus, the brain is really plastic at young ages, so it makes some sense to me that, if the condition is caused by the brain being wired in a certain different way, that a particular kind of therapy can result in the brain re-wiring itself. (Look at someone like Gabby Giffords for a really extreme example of how the brain can rewire itself. Her brain re-wired itself around a great big hole in her brain.) I just don't think we know enough about what causes the condition to be able to say that "there is no cure." It's not even really clear that there's just one condition. (There was a really interesting article in the NYT recently about research into regressive autism, and the researchers finding that, in many ways, it looks really different from other types of autism.)

Exactly. Why do some people here believe the brain can't heal from a disease?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^so are you saying we should not try to diagnose and provide interventions at a young age but wait until the kid is older and clearly autistic to provide therapies?

Not that poster, but yes, I don't think ASD should be diagnosed till later, and kids should receive the services regardless of the diagnosis. With language kids it teases out around 4-5-6, when they are talking. If its a dual diagnosis, its also pretty clear as well. We did unnecessary therapies for a long time till I had enough and choose the ones I thought were helpful for my child's specific needs.

I am that PP, and I agree with this. Treat all the needs right away with services, but don't give a child a label like ASD until you know for sure what you are dealing with. Use a broader Developmental Delay label.

Diagnoses are medical.

Labels are school designations.

Some people just don't like that they received an autism diagnosis and their kid high functioning whereas other people's kids are less high functioning but not on the spectrum. Get over it.

While this is true, most people don't know to distinguish between the two. And unfortunately, doctors have gotten as sloppy as schools about claiming a child is autistic. Schools are driven by their programming, and doctors by the fact that ASD triggers insurance coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it was autism, there is no cure. So, her son got the wrong diagnosis. My son was also diagnosed at 2. A few years later he had his struggles but one doc still insisted it was autism by history. It makes no sense to me. Autism has now become the catch phrase for we don't know what is wrong with your kid and sadly minimizes the word and true meaning for those kids who do have it and deserve all the supports and help they can get.

I don't really agree. LIke ADHD, it's diagnosed by symptoms, so if you treat the condition so successfully that the symptoms disappear, then you may no longer meet the diagnostic criteria. Plus, the brain is really plastic at young ages, so it makes some sense to me that, if the condition is caused by the brain being wired in a certain different way, that a particular kind of therapy can result in the brain re-wiring itself. (Look at someone like Gabby Giffords for a really extreme example of how the brain can rewire itself. Her brain re-wired itself around a great big hole in her brain.) I just don't think we know enough about what causes the condition to be able to say that "there is no cure." It's not even really clear that there's just one condition. (There was a really interesting article in the NYT recently about research into regressive autism, and the researchers finding that, in many ways, it looks really different from other types of autism.)

Exactly. Why do some people here believe the brain can't heal from a disease?

Because autism isn't exactly a disease and is a host of things no one really understands. The nature of autism is that it cannot be cured or healed. There is a lot of misdiagnosis and diagnosis to get insurance coverage, which is what happened to us. The diagnosis has no exact medical testing and is very subjective. We got the diagnosis after a 30 minute appointment when my child was two with a developmental ped. who refused to talk to anyone else about what they observe. That is NOT proper diagnosing but we are stuck for insurance reasons and cannot change doctors. So, an label is stuck to my child that makes no sense. People then really don't understand him as they expect all "autism" kids to behave in a specific way and he is very different from their expectations as he is misdiagnosed. Why cant you believe some kids do get misdiagnosed? Kids are often not diagnosed autism who are, therefore being denied valuable services that could have helped, and kids are diagnosed with autism as its easy and gets services regardless of what it really is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^so are you saying we should not try to diagnose and provide interventions at a young age but wait until the kid is older and clearly autistic to provide therapies?

Not that poster, but yes, I don't think ASD should be diagnosed till later, and kids should receive the services regardless of the diagnosis. With language kids it teases out around 4-5-6, when they are talking. If its a dual diagnosis, its also pretty clear as well. We did unnecessary therapies for a long time till I had enough and choose the ones I thought were helpful for my child's specific needs.

I am that PP, and I agree with this. Treat all the needs right away with services, but don't give a child a label like ASD until you know for sure what you are dealing with. Use a broader Developmental Delay label.

Diagnoses are medical.

Labels are school designations.

Some people just don't like that they received an autism diagnosis and their kid high functioning whereas other people's kids are less high functioning but not on the spectrum. Get over it.

The issue is the labels carry with the child and its near impossible to get them removed. Every time we meet a doctor we have the same discussion. The first thing out of their mouth is about autism, will my kid cooperate, blah blah blah and then when my kid presents very differently I get the lecture of is it correct, what am I doing about it (nothing, they need to get it removed, not me), and its very uncomfortable and a huge time waster. They initially treat my child very differently and then do a 180 (except one ER doc who was great) and it gets very old very quickly. At that point, my kid picks up on it and will not go near the doctor.

Remove it? It's part of a medical history, so you'd be having repeat conversations with every doctor. It's part of the in-take/patient process.

You're not getting a lecture, the doctor is asking questions to get a sense of who your kid is. If your kid had diabetes or severe allergies, no doubt that would also play into the discussions. You need a thicker skin. A doctor usually has limited time and is trying to hit the highlights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^so are you saying we should not try to diagnose and provide interventions at a young age but wait until the kid is older and clearly autistic to provide therapies?

Not that poster, but yes, I don't think ASD should be diagnosed till later, and kids should receive the services regardless of the diagnosis. With language kids it teases out around 4-5-6, when they are talking. If its a dual diagnosis, its also pretty clear as well. We did unnecessary therapies for a long time till I had enough and choose the ones I thought were helpful for my child's specific needs.

I am that PP, and I agree with this. Treat all the needs right away with services, but don't give a child a label like ASD until you know for sure what you are dealing with. Use a broader Developmental Delay label.

Diagnoses are medical.

Labels are school designations.

Some people just don't like that they received an autism diagnosis and their kid high functioning whereas other people's kids are less high functioning but not on the spectrum. Get over it.

The issue is the labels carry with the child and its near impossible to get them removed. Every time we meet a doctor we have the same discussion. The first thing out of their mouth is about autism, will my kid cooperate, blah blah blah and then when my kid presents very differently I get the lecture of is it correct, what am I doing about it (nothing, they need to get it removed, not me), and its very uncomfortable and a huge time waster. They initially treat my child very differently and then do a 180 (except one ER doc who was great) and it gets very old very quickly. At that point, my kid picks up on it and will not go near the doctor.

Remove it? It's part of a medical history, so you'd be having repeat conversations with every doctor. It's part of the in-take/patient process.

You're not getting a lecture, the doctor is asking questions to get a sense of who your kid is. If your kid had diabetes or severe allergies, no doubt that would also play into the discussions. You need a thicker skin. A doctor usually has limited time and is trying to hit the highlights.

Maybe your kid is picking up on what makes you uncomfortable. You've obviously have never come to accept part of who he is and just want to "remove" it b/c you're hung up on a label.

[Anonymous]

I'm an adult with autism. Please don't mistake "outgrowing" for "learning how to adapt and blend in." A kid who at age 3 does not normally make eye contact can be taught that he needs to. Through intervention, he may finally learn that to get people to stop bugging him, he should look at their eyes. Eye contact will never be his natural inclination, and because of this, he is still autistic despite the fact that he was, for lack of a better word, trained to appear normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't school systems use "developmental delay" for young kids already? My kid who already had an autism diagnosis in preschool got services through his IEP under "developmental delay" until he was in K at a DC charter and so did all the other kids in his class with IEPs in preschool. (Yes, the parents know each other through a networking get together soon arranged by the school)

Not all of us use school system services. We got such a run around that we gave up and went private (the delays were severe enough). But, insurance forced us (the doctor associated with it) to do it under an autism code and would not/will not pay under a language disorder nor take the time to look at what really could be the cause.

Your choice.

Again, your choice; seek a second opinion if you're dissatisfied with a diagnosis. No one "forced you."

Also, most health insurers do not cover services for language disorders. So you are incredibly lucky.