Normally I learn a great deal from the Schwab Learning website and the weekly e-newsletter. But this week’s edition (in the words of fellow Blogger Sandra) is “horse hockey!”

The article entitled Controversial Treatments for Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder caught my eye. But before long I realized that the author’s contention was that there were a number of “unproven” interventions for ADHD and because these studies had not been fully tested, with double-blind studies to prove their efficacy, parents are warned to avoid them.

Now, I’m not against parents being careful stewards with their time and therapy dollars (which are always in short supply). And I definitely have a “no harm” policy when it comes to treatments, so I always ask the provider for documentation on the risks. But I hate it when an expert labels treatments as “controversial” as a way to discredit them, when, in fact, they may indeed have some validity.

The treatments that are controversial in the ADHD world are:
• Dietary interventions. The Feingold Diet is mentioned by name, but other diets are also implied as worthless efforts and not able to improve a child’s learning or attention problems.
• Vitamin and mineral supplements. The author specifically mentions the free radical theory, but also mentions that there appears to be no research that links deficiencies in copper or zinc or other minerals to learning or behavioral difficulties.
• Neurofeedback, actually the article is so old that the author actually calls it EEG Biofeedback.
• Candida Yeast. This isn’t actually an intervention, but a theory that yeast overgrowth can cause problems with absorption in the intestines, which can alter both the immune system and brain chemistry.
• Vision therapy, auditory processing therapy and applied kinesiology all got the controversial label as well.

The problem I have with discounting all these “controversial” therapies isn’t that I’m advocating for any one of them, but that the people who pronounce these as quackery rarely ever offer other options. In this article, the author says medications and behavior management are the most effective options. Yet I know tons of children for which the ADHD meds haven’t worked, or worked well enough to see great improvement. And behavior management alone is rarely successful, especially if there are other co-existing conditions (which this author and Schwab both will tell you happens in the majority of ADHD cases).

I also have a problem with reprinting a 7-year-old article, especially about treatments that have likely had more research done on them, as they are gaining awareness. How much more information is out there on the use of these treatments? I keep thinking of all the research that shows how Fast ForWord helps with auditory processing and reading issues…and it has been extensively researched.

It is very interesting to me that the ADHD community…even the CHADD website…doesn’t seem nearly as interested in exploring alternative treatments. Is this because living with a child with ADHD doesn’t pose as many challenges as living with a child with autism, or one with severe PTSD?

But what happens to those children who do have aggressive or self-injurious behaviors? What happens to those families who have tried medications and behavior therapies, but are still struggling? And what happens if they find relief in one of the “controversial” therapies? Does it matter one bit to the parent of a child making progress that the experts don’t have proof the intervention works? How do you put a pricetag on watching your child succeed?

Summary of Biomedical Treatments for Autism

Interventions: What to Do Next?