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

[Anonymous]

Claims early intervention and ABA cured her son. Most likely, he never had it anyway. But she was lucky to have money to throw at his issues.

http://blackdoctor.org/505945/wow-toni-braxton-reveals-son-no-longer-has-autism/

Home » Health Conditions » Brain and Nervous System » WOW! Toni Braxton Reveals Son No Longer Has Autism


Award-winning singer Toni Braxton just revealed that her youngest son who was diagnosed as autistic at age two, has been cured of the condition.

In a recent sit down with “Access Hollywood,” she shared that now, her youngest son Diezel, who is 13-years-old, is no longer on the autism spectrum.

“My youngest son— everyone knows— my son Diezel suffers from—or I should say suffered from Autism,” explains Braxton. “I am one of the lucky parents. Early diagnosis changes everything. I will tell you this. I will shout it from the rooftops. My son Diezel is off the spectrum. Off the spectrum being autistic. Susan Wright, who unfortunately just passed from Autism Speaks, when she found out about my son and I she called me immediately and said ‘Get him in this program. Do this, do that.’ She’s been an advocate in helping me so much. I miss her already. I mean, I can’t believe she’s gone.”

[Anonymous]

Good for her son. Every child with autism is different.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

What she means is, early intervention and whatever other therapy he got did such a great job of teaching him social skills that he can now manage relationships and life. None of us know how he will feel as he gets older. But good for him -- isn't that what we all want out of the therapies we get for our kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for her son. Every child with autism is different.

+1

[Anonymous]

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.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What she means is, early intervention and whatever other therapy he got did such a great job of teaching him social skills that he can now manage relationships and life. None of us know how he will feel as he gets older. But good for him -- isn't that what we all want out of the therapies we get for our kids?

This. My step son has autism, and he's very low functioning and non verbal. He's an adult in a group home now. But I work with two men on the spectrum who are very functional.

Both are in their 40s or 50s, and both have gotten better (socially) since I've been working there (about 10 years). My step son will never get much better, but I have really high hope for people who get therapies and other supports.

[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.)

But, by your definition, it would not be autism either. There is NO cure. If you are cured, you never had it.

[Anonymous]

I think Toni said her son is off the spectrum, like his symptoms no longer meet the diagnostic criteria, although presumably the underlying pathology is still there. I wish the blurb explained what exactly worked so well.

[Anonymous]

Lazy doctors are calling everything autism these days. And you can't really trust a diagnosis under 3. Back when her son was diagnosed, studies were showing 60 percent of kids under 2 were misdiagnosed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lazy doctors are calling everything autism these days. And you can't really trust a diagnosis under 3. Back when her son was diagnosed, studies were showing 60 percent of kids under 2 were misdiagnosed.

It's because of funding. Autism diagnosis = therapy paid for by insurance.

Ironically not a lot of research is done on how to treat the lower functioning ones more successfully. I suppose it's easier to have results if you are treating kids who just have mild issues - makes everyone feel good and productive.
But honestly I was sitting in the Drs office and picked up a science magazine where they explained that they have studied very few 'non verbal children' because they are not out in the community and they don't know where to find them. Just so depressing - isn't that what all this funding is supposed to be for?

[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.)

But, by your definition, it would not be autism either. There is NO cure. If you are cured, you never had it.

I'm not following your logic, and I don't think you've caught "my definition" (if I offered one, which I don't think I did).

If, at point X, you meet the diagnostic criteria for a condition, you "have it." If, at point Y, you no longer meet the diagnostic criteria for a condition, you no longer "have it." You can then say it's in remission (if it's that kind of illness and is expected to return) or that its adequately controlled by treatment (which suggests that, if the treatment stopped, the symptomology would return). If the underlying causal factors have changed such that it won't come back even if you stop treatment, I think medical professionals would say that is a "cure." Since we don't know the underlying causal factors for autism, I don't know that one can say whether the disappearance of symptoms means that one is "cured" or merely that the symptoms are adequately controlled with treatment and would return absent treatment. One of the underlying causal factors for autism appears to be differences in brain wiring (at least in my understanding, which is not comprehensive) -- it's at least theoretically possible that the brain is re-wiring as a result of treatment which could result in a "cure."

But, putting aside this whole argument about "cure"....I am suspicious of any diagnosis at age 2. There's a lot going on developmentally at that age, and I'm not sure it's worthwhile to make a neurological diagnosis -- synaptic pruning has barely begun at that age, so it's not really useful to talk about brain wiring being established in any real way at that age. I also don't think it's clear, as of yet, whether what's called autism is really one condition, or is a bunch of different conditions, with different etiologies, that have overlapping symptomology. (See the recent NYTimes article about research into regressive autism.) There's a lot of unknowns here.

[Anonymous]

Another "celebrity" using her kid for attention, it is disgusting.

[Anonymous]

I read a comprehensive article in NYT that claimed some children do respond to experimental treatment to autism, and some don't. I am glad it worked out for her family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lazy doctors are calling everything autism these days. And you can't really trust a diagnosis under 3. Back when her son was diagnosed, studies were showing 60 percent of kids under 2 were misdiagnosed.

It's because of funding. Autism diagnosis = therapy paid for by insurance.

Ironically not a lot of research is done on how to treat the lower functioning ones more successfully. I suppose it's easier to have results if you are treating kids who just have mild issues - makes everyone feel good and productive.
But honestly I was sitting in the Drs office and picked up a science magazine where they explained that they have studied very few 'non verbal children' because they are not out in the community and they don't know where to find them. Just so depressing - isn't that what all this funding is supposed to be for?

That's BS. They didn't find them because they didn't want to. These children are in the community receiving special education services, being treated by healthcare professionals, and have parents who advocate and join organizations like the ASA, Autism Speaks, etc.