Scientists Can Not Determine The Cause Of Autism – Part 2 of 3
In-depth blind analysis of each child’s original diagnostic report revealed that the now-“optimal outcome” group had, as young children, shown signs of community impairment that was milder than the 44 children who had “high-functioning” autism. As young children, the now-optimal group had suffered from equally severe communication impairment and repetitive behaviors as those in the high-functioning group.
That said, the optimal company retained none of the telltale signs of autism with respect to impaired social skills, communication behaviors or the ability to recognize faces. What’s more, all were enrolled in shape settings that did not cater in any special way to the needs of children with autism.
Fein stressed that her group’s work is ongoing, and the team will analyze brain imaging information that might reveal some of the structural shifts under particular among the formerly autistic group. The researchers also will look at various types of therapies the children had received following their initial diagnosis, to determine what kind of intervention seemed to have the greatest stubborn impact. “We do have data on this, but we haven’t looked at it yet. From 40 years of clinical experience, it seems to me that behavioral interventions are the ones that are most likely to produce this outcome.
So “But I want to objective out that this is the result of years of hard work. This is not anything that happens overnight. I would say that at minimum we’re talking about two to three years of all-out therapy to produce this outcome, but it could also be five years. It’s variable. “The other important thing to say is that, even for the minority of children who experience this outcome, you don’t want to let go of therapy prematurely.