[QUOTE=treis]
[QUOTE=Typo Knig]
Don’t tell me to deny the evidence of my own eyes.
[/QUOTE]
You should. There is a reason why the double blind study is the gold standard of evidence.
[/QUOTE]
Well let’s design a double-blind study, so neither the children (the subjects), their parents, nor the researchers who are observing the home situations know whether or not the children are ingesting dairy and/or wheat.
<crickets>
How about this: prepared meals are provided to the families. The meals may contain hidden dairy or wheat, or may not. The flavors and textures would have to be balanced so the parents could not tell whether the meals contained the test substances. The people who deliver the meals should not know what is in the meals. The people who prepare the meals should not know which meal is going to which family. For each family in the experimental group, there should be periods with and without the test substances, with enough time between for the children’s metabolism to clear of any effects.
This last point may be testable with blood work. I remember hearing that blood tests can detect gluten and casein in the blood stream, but I do not know if that has been proven. If not, then that study must be done first. After all, you never know when a kid is going to sneak a snack that is not on the allowed experimental meal plan.
Blood tests can also be used to determine which kids are biologically sensitive to dairy and wheat. Maybe kids who are not sensitive go into a control group.
(Good luck getting all those blood samples from autistic kids. I will wait over here while you do that.)
The control group either gets meals with no wheat and dairy the whole time, or some families in the experimental group get switched to GFCF diets for long periods, and act as control groups during those times. The later approach is cheaper - fewer families to observe overall. I think the former approach is more solid scientifically.
In parallel, the children’s behavior is observed and logged. The people logging the behavior data should not know whether the diet contains dairy or wheat.
Then analyze the data and publish the results (i.e., “Step 3 - Profit!”).
Don’t forget to record, and control for, the various therapies these kids are going through during the experiment. One could ask the families to suspend all other therapies during the experimental period, but given how serious autism can be that would be unethical IMNSHO.
I’m guessing that a real, well-designed study (better than some dweeb on a message board talking out of his - ahem - hat) would take a couple of years to design, a couple of years to gather participants, most of a year to run, and a year or three to analyze the data. Man, medicine is hard!
Until that happy day when the definitive double-blind experiment is done to establish, or dis-establish, the efficacy of GFCF diets on behavior of autistic children, what are parents and health care providers to do?
My advice to parents: give CF diet a whirl if you want, and see if it helps your kid. If so, cool! If not, no big deal - it’s not reported to work on all kids. If you want to try GF (which is much more of a pain in the ass), go for it. Lord knows I haven’t. Again, not a big deal either way. If you don’t feel like trying dietary changes at all, that’s fine. Dietary changes are a lot harder to implement that you might think. Especially since food allergies are often co-morbid with autism.
I’m not saying I have a cure for anything. I’m not saying it’s easy under any circumstances. I’m not saying buy my book (which doesn’t exist). I am telling you what I observed with my son.
[QUOTE=treis]
For example, you say that Dweezil’s behavior deteriorated after a birthday party. You attribute this to the dairy, but could it not have also been the stress of the birthday party? That’s an issue a proper double blind study will eliminate by isolating one factor for study.
[/QUOTE]
It wasn’t just a birthday party. It was many other occasions, both ordinary and unusual. Even other birthday parties, where he went dairy-free, or had less dairy, were less of a problem.
[QUOTE=treis]
In addition, the double blind eliminates bias in the observer. It doesn’t make you a bad person if you are biased towards seeing what you want to see. It makes you human.
[/QUOTE]
I understand what you are saying here. But what strikes me about this whole situation is that I was not expecting there to be any effect from diet. But there were. The effects were replicable for my kid. I recognize this makes my situation at best one datum - not even data (plural). The results for me and mine have been more consistent than I’ve documented in this thread. I need sleep - you’ll have to trust me on this, or not. 
[QUOTE=treis]
Double blind studies are what separate the legitimate treatments from the snake oil. Until someone comes out with one of those studies for dairy/gluten I’m going to think that it’s snake oil.
[/QUOTE]
An understandable attitude, particularly for an ignorance-fighting board. That attitude is well warranted for therapies that are risky. I remember hearing about a kid who died from chelation therapy. :shudder:
As was mentioned upthread, dietary changes can be easier to try than to test for. If they don’t work, you’re only out some extra meal planning. The only bad effect on Dweezil of being mostly dairy-free for much of his childhood, is that he’s kind of skinny.