[Clodfobble]

A new study against the dietary treatments puts a rather desperate spin on things:

The frequency of GI symptoms was about 77 percent in the autism group and 72 percent among the others, not considered a statistically significant difference.

However, almost 34 percent of the autistic children, compared with nearly 18 percent of the others, had constipation.

Apparently constipation isn't a GI symptom anymore.

Those differences could stem from what the researchers called neurobehavioral issues connected with autism, such as the ritualistic practices, they said.

"Many patients with autism insist on eating the same thing and might not consume enough fiber," said the study's lead author, Dr. Samar H. Ibrahim, a fellow in gastroenterology and instructor in pediatrics at the Mayo Clinic. "We think this may be contributing to the constipation."

So, wait, they are hardcore self-selecting themselves to specific foods (you know, wheat and dairy--never in the history of autism or childrearing in general has there been a kid who self-selects himself to broccoli) and this is leading to constipation. Thus, getting them to eat different foods would relieve this constipation. That sounds like... getting them to eat different food would be a good thing?

"For me, this study lends support to the recommendation I make to a lot of families that there is no evidence to support restricted diets," she said. "They're dangerous and risky."

I'm sorry, what? It's dangerous and risky to make my child eat fruits and vegetables instead of bread and cheese? This shows how desperate people are getting--the one thing doctors have always conceded is that there is absolutely no harm in trying the diet. The only meaningful nutrient you might miss is calcium, and the reality is most normal kids don't get enough calcium either, which is why calcium supplements come in fucking gummy bear format. I saw an NBC medical correspondent make a complete fool of herself with her insistence that this "proves it," "case closed," "there is absolutely no link, we've proven it." Real scientists know one study is just one study, and you never ever call something definitively closed. That is the purpose of science, to constantly search for more information and new ways to look at it.

How many old studies exist that prove no link between smoking and cancer, I wonder?