A local father is suing the mother of his autistic child because she refuses to sign consent to have their son treated at Thoughtful House with intravenous chelation. The parents are, of course, divorced. The mother has no lawyer, and the father has primary custody. That alone has proved fodder for fallacious arguments in the comments to this story that her not having primary custody in some way supports the father's contention that this child should be subjected to a "treatment" that is medically unproven and has killed previously. I blog a lot about tradeoffs and risk-benefit analyses as a necessary part of every parenting decision. Given the utter lack of studies demonstrating any efficacy of chelation in ameliorating the manifestations of autism, there's not a cost-benefit analysis to consider here. While the list of reactions to vaccines can be daunting, the risk-benefits equation is pretty clear about where the weight of the decision lies. But chelation for autism simply yields zero confirmed benefit, given the lack of scientific support for its efficacy as an autism "treatment," as this attests. Confronted with that zero on the benefit side, how could the following list of potential complications result in anything but a "hell, no" following rational consideration?
Thoughtful House's IV chelation consent form, which Juli Martinez provided to the American-Statesman, includes a long list of possible side effects that include intestinal disorders, joint pain and, in rare cases, "allergy, anaphylaxis, arrhythmia and even death." It adds that the treatment offers no guarantee of success.
The child has been having suppository chelation treatments already, which the mother claims have had adverse effects on their son. The judge is waiting to hear from the Thoughtful House doctor overseeing this treatment, Bryan Jepson. I'd also suggest that the judge review the vaccine court rulings that essentially excoriated one doctor associated with Thoughtful House.
I say bring this one on. Let's have an airing of these practices. Let's have a public weighing in a court of law of the risks against the benefits, with justice holding the scale.
