Disability cures and treatments: hype and hope

By the time Danny was five years old, it was pretty clear to my husband and I that we were going to be in the disabilities game for a long time. In the early years, I read and heard about many purported cures and treatments that promised to make our boy "snap out of it" and get on with his life as a normal person. There were always caveats, however. If the treatments and therapies did not have the desired effect, it was probably because the parents weren't doing it right or they weren't sufficiently committed to the idea to make it work. Because Danny's care was so exhausting, it was a relief to me when the latest fad proved to be without merit before I had a chance or inclination to try it out. After a while, the fads that I might have fallen for earlier began to seem absolutely bonkers.

At a United Cerebral Palsy conference, I sat through a presentation about how you can improve your child's emotional health and behavior by painting his room the correct color to match his condition. "The spinal cord is a rainbow!" said the man who was presumably paid to present this drivel. As I recall, he had charts and diagrams showing how the color of the room somehow worked its way through the eyes and brain to the spinal cord with miraculous effect. I later referred to this method as Cure by Interior Decoration.

Then there was patterning that promised that after a mere 8 or 9 hours per day of taking Danny through rigorous movement exercises, new pathways would be forged in his damaged brain, allowing him to progress. Swimming with dolphins, said Parade Magazine, improved the speech of Down Syndrome children by 20% (20% of what, it did not say). Behavior modification could produce improvement of inappropriate or sometimes just annoying behaviors through positive and negative reinforcement to encourage the child to behave. In case that didn't work, aversive behavior interventions were available to threaten, intimidate, and physically force the child to do what you wanted.

In an odd twist, advocates of Neurodiversity oppose spending money on research to find cures for autism and related disabilities. They believe that people with these conditions represent diversity on the broad spectrum of human behavior and thought. Since there is nothing wrong with them, they don't need to be cured. They especially oppose research on genetic causes of autism that might lead to their eugenic elimination. I wonder how many people with these "differences" take medication to reduce symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and obsessive compulsive disorder? Are they being true to their beliefs when they refuse to accept "differences" that can be conveniently treated with medication? Is it cheating for a person with seizures to take anti-seizure medication or a diabetic to take insulin? The Neurodiversity idea raises more questions that it answers.

Once in a while a really kooky idea comes along that actually works. The Ketogenic Diet, for instance, is a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet that reduces or eliminates seizures in some kids. Recommending the diet doesn't take a lot of high-pressure salesmanship on the part of doctors who are willing to monitor kids on this diet, because the results speak for themselves. That this is a difficult diet to maintain and hard on families is acknowledged upfront and the parents ultimately decide whether it is worth a try to stop intractable seizures in their children.

Recently, the New York Times published an article, Promise Seen in Drug for Retardation Syndrome, 4/29/2010, that describes hope for a medical treatment for some symptoms of Fragile X Syndrome. Fragile X is "the most common cause of inherited mental impairment. This impairment can range from learning disabilities to more severe cognitive or intellectual disabilities. ... FXS is the most common known cause of autism or 'autistic-like' behaviors. Symptoms also can include characteristic physical and behavioral features and delays in speech and language development". (This is according to the National Fragile X Foundation Web site.)

Research on Fragile X is done by real scientists (rather than interior decorators and dolphin trainers) who work to improve understanding of the genetic causes of the syndrome in hopes of finding a way to lessen its symptoms and perhaps point the way to treating other related conditions. Here are the fascinating details from the article on how Fragile X Syndrome works, in case you're interested:

"Fragile X is caused by a genetic stutter in which a portion of the gene gets repeated like a scratched album. With each subsequent generation, the number of repeats tends to rise. So if a mother has 10 repeats, her child might have 11 or 12. For reasons that are not well understood, however, this process of repeat amplification can suddenly go haywire. So mothers who have 55 or more repeats tend to have children with hundreds.

"In anyone with 200 or more repeats, the body shuts off the gene. Since genes are used to make proteins, this genetic silencing means the encoded protein is never made. The absence of this protein in cells causes the wide-ranging effects of fragile X syndrome. Those with 55 to 200 repeats are considered carriers, and recent research shows they can have severe neurological declines late in life that mimic Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s."

Getting back to the new discovery that the article features, scientists have found that fragile X patients have an "overload of unchecked synaptic noise" (the synapses are the junctions between brain neurons). The new drug produced by the drug company Novartis appears to reduce the noise by replacing at least one missing protein so that "memory formation and high-level thinking can take place allowing children to develop normally."

Wow! The president of the Fraxa Research Foundation that finances fragile X research says "this may be the key to solving the mystery of autism and other developmental disorders." A spokesperson from Autism Speaks says pretty much the same thing. A former researcher at another big drug company Merck says this is "the most promising therapeutic discovery ever for a gene-based behavioral disease." The best news is that if you are a mouse, a fish, or a fruit fly that has been genetically engineered to have fragile X, you will be rendered practically normal if you take a compound including the missing fragile X protein.

Is this too good to be true? Probably. If you read the article carefully you find out that the trial for the drug involved only a few dozen patients with fragile X and only some of those benefited. The study was too brief to measure effects on basic intelligence. Improvement was seen in an "undisclosed biological trait". A total of two parents were euphoric with the results of the trial. The Novartis results were not published or peer reviewed (this means they were not refereed by other experts in the field, including competitors, for publication). For commercial reasons, many details were not divulged. The drug is years from being available if it even survives more rigorous trials and further study.

The article includes many fascinating details of fragile X syndrome and how research has progressed over the years, but the drug companies and the groups that raise money for fragile X and autism research will probably benefit the most from the publicity. Parents are prone to euphoria when they hear of a solution to a difficult and sometimes desperate situation with their child, and who can blame them. Hope is never a bad thing, but exploitation of that hope for publicity and fundraising makes me queasy.

Buyer beware! You might want to investigate Web sites like Quackwatch before investing money, time, and energy in alluring cures and treatments that aren't all they pretend to be.