This makes no sense. Surely they would have to be introduced directly to the affected tissue (in this case the whole temporal lobe??) to be effective? This would be extremely risky (how do you promote generation of brain cells rather than bone, for example and how do you prevent formation of cancerous growths?)! Also; if hypoxia is the cause, could there be tissue burring or scarring? If so, how is this removed before treatment? It is also suggested that this condition may be autoimmune, and so ongoing. Surely then this type of treatment, in isolation, would be ineffective?
The paper suggests the requirement for MRI and a battery of biochemical tests prior to selection for treatment. I.e. a diagnosis of autism alone should not be enough to pursue this treatment.
The supplied research paper does not, in my opinion, offer compelling evidence that this type of treatment would be effective, largely as the treatment and proposed treatment mechanisms have, at least at the time of the generation of the paper, not been proven even in animal models and are largely theoretical. I am also uncomfortable with the phrases "...in complance with local ethics laws.." (without defining where these may be for) and "...anecdotal evidence supplied by our partners...". It is also unclear quite how closely the treatments supplied by the agency match those indicated in the paper.
This makes no sense. Surely they would have to be introduced directly to the affected tissue (in this case the whole temporal lobe??) to be effective? This would be extremely risky (how do you promote generation of brain cells rather than bone, for example and how do you prevent formation of cancerous growths?)! Also; if hypoxia is the cause, could there be tissue burring or scarring? If so, how is this removed before treatment? It is also suggested that this condition may be autoimmune, and so ongoing. Surely then this type of treatment, in isolation, would be ineffective?
The paper suggests the requirement for MRI and a battery of biochemical tests prior to selection for treatment. I.e. a diagnosis of autism alone should not be enough to pursue this treatment.
The supplied research paper does not, in my opinion, offer compelling evidence that this type of treatment would be effective, largely as the treatment and proposed treatment mechanisms have, at least at the time of the generation of the paper, not been proven even in animal models and are largely theoretical. I am also uncomfortable with the phrases "...in complance with local ethics laws.." (without defining where these may be for) and "...anecdotal evidence supplied by our partners...". It is also unclear quite how closely the treatments supplied by the agency match those indicated in the paper.
