Autism Spectrum
The absolute first thing that needs to be said about autism treatment is that the cloud of pessimism is finally lifting. This is a climate change, and no one factor is responsible. We have been both a witness to this change and a participant. We are actually nearer the beginning of the story that needs to be told than to the end. But there is urgency here for every family with a child on the autism spectrum, and we must share with you what we know, even though we still "see through the glass darkly."
The second thing to be said is that we already know that there will never be anything like a "cure," by which we mean a singular, definitive remedy. That of course has been the assumption all along, which accounts for the persistent pessimism around autism. How then can we be optimistic now, even though that statement remains true? The answer is two-fold. First, progress is being made in understanding a variety of dysfunctions in the body that contribute to autistic symptoms. Secondly, progress is being made in understanding what is actually going wrong in the brain in consequence of the identified dysfunctions.
These two lines of inquiry lead to very different ways of approaching a solution. We might call one the "bottom-up" approach, as each one of the identified deficits gets addressed specifically in each child. The other is the "top-down" approach in which the resulting deficits in brain function are addressed directly. The result is a kind of pincer movement in which the combination of approaches may lead to a substantial normalization of function.
The contribution of this volume will be to the top-down approach, where we challenge the brain to function better than before, whatever its physical limitations may be. This is just one piece of the puzzle, but we are increasingly optimistic about the recovery capacity of the brain as we explore the potential of this work. The basic idea is simple. The biomedical deficits in the autism spectrum have the effect of disrupting the brain's communication pathways. Some pathways are affected more than others, with the result that autistic children reveal a mixture of function and dysfunction.
Now some attempt along these lines has already been made, with the behavioral treatments that are recommended for autistic children. Unfortunately, these methods depend upon the very aspects that don't function well in the child. The new approach looks at behavior at the brain level rather than at the child level. That is to say, we observe the brain regulating its behavior rather than looking at the child doing so.
The brain encodes all of our sensory information about the world outside and inside, and then it processes all that information in code. We are just beginning to figure out how the brain does all this. But we can already see the difference between when it does these things well and when it does them poorly. Once this is recognized, we can train or "reinforce" the brain for moving toward a better-behaved state. That turns out to be a lot more effective than training the overt behavior. So we are just talking about applying common behavioral techniques to brain behavior, and fortunately the child's brain obliges us.
So what is the "brain behavior" that we are looking at? First of all, we recognize that the business of the brain is communication and information processing. This happens rapidly and transiently. To witness this process, we must look at the brain "at the speed of brain function." The only means we have readily available to do this is the EEG (electroencephalogram). No other kind of imagery of brain function can reveal to us what we need to see. (The only exception is the kindred MEG, for magnetoencephalogram. Here the instrumentation costs millions, so the matter is entirely irrelevant to ordinary mortals like ourselves.)
Yet even the EEG, taken from the scalp is incapable of seeing individual nerve cells do their work. With an electrode on the scalp, we are too far removed. It would be like trying to listen in on conversations in the Rose Bowl that are taking place on the other side of the stadium. On the other hand, you don't have to even be in the stadium to know when a touchdown has been scored. The collective roar of the crowd tells the tale. And that is also what we get to see in the EEG-neurons acting in groups. For that, we don't have to be so close.
It turns out that the brain does essentially everything with neurons acting in groups. Conveniently, that is also what we get to see in the EEG, which can detect the activity of as few as 10,000 neurons. So we end up watching "crowd behavior" in the brain, and just as we are able to tell a well-behaved from an unruly crowd at a British soccer match, we can tell good from bad behavior in the brain.
When we watch "neurons in groups" evolving their behavior over time, we actually never know what information the brain is dealing with at any moment. We are really just seeing the brain's process of crowd control at work. But this again takes us exactly where we want to go. We don't really care to know what the brain is "thinking" right at that place and right at that time. We just want to see how well it is doing at crowd control. The whole issue wraps around how well the brain is controlling its affairs, which boils down to how well it is handling its precious cargo, information, which is being carried by these squadrons of neurons.
In the early days of Western Union, a Wall Street guy realized that all he needed to do is track the volume of telegrams going back and forth between New York and the hinterlands in order to have a good idea about the level of economic activity in various parts of the country. He did not have to know the content of the telegrams. Matters are similar for us. We get to see the volume of the brain's telegraphic activity at any one moment and at any one place, and we don't actually have to open the mail to find out what we need to know. This analogy goes further, in that the nature of information transfer in the brain is also telegraphic!
In microcosm, the brain has the problem of maintaining the integrity of information until it is done with it, and this in turn means maintaining the integrity of the neuronal assemblies that are the carrier of the information. Right away we run into a conundrum: The neuronal assemblies must overlap in space. After all, a number things go on at any one place in cortex at any one time. Imagine for a moment that three Portuguese farmers all wanted to herd their sheep through town at the same time. If the herds were allowed to mingle, it would be difficult to segregate them again later. Not so when the sheep are neurons. It turns out that if the sheep were neurons, the three herds would each march to a different drummer, and every neuron would still "belong" to its native herd even if it found itself in the midst of the other herds.
The spatial segregation of the herds that the Portuguese farmers have to pull off occurs for the neurons in the domain of frequency. If we track the EEG at a certain point on the scalp over time, we can analyze the signal in terms of the various different frequencies that make it up. Then the whole thing evolves over time. What we observe is that the activity "bunches" at certain frequencies, and these key frequencies cover the whole EEG spectral band. Between these frequencies of peak activity we see things go to an absolute null. Neurons either belong on one side of the null or the other; they "belong" either to one neuronal assembly or the other. They do not get to equivocate in between.
This kind of segregation in frequency space must not be easy to carry off. If nature does it anyhow, despite the difficulty, we can only assume that it must be very important. We can also see how this might go badly wrong, given the incredible precision that attaches to this kind of neuronal organization. Or the organization may be compromised under some circumstances and not others, leading to episodic dysfunction.
Looking at the EEGs of lots of people makes it clear that in all of the above cases the neuronal organization is transient. The brain brings the neuronal assembly into existence only for as long as it is needed to perform its function, and then the entity either dissipates or it is actively dismantled by the brain. The more we get to witness the brain at work, the more it is apparent to us that the brain leaves very little to chance in the matter of its neuronal resources. There is also some direct evidence that the neuronal assemblies are as actively deconstructed as they were actively constructed in the first place. This process too could be subject to failure in the compromised brain.
Finally, there is the large issue of assuring that communication takes place between the relevant brain regions. If the organization of our neuronal resources is frequency-based, then an overall coordination must exist in the domain of frequency between communicating brain regions. This would seem to be an even tougher requirement to meet than the constraints on organization locally. And so it is.
With this first cut at what may be the real issues, we can suggest how these might relate to the classic autism symptoms. We have argued that the global communication relationships may be more vulnerable than the local ones. This fits with the prevailing view of autism, where we can often see highly-developed, or at least appropriately-developed function in a variety of aspects, but we see a dearth of "integration" by the child of all these disparate realities into one "narrative." We can only assume that the child's view of his or her own reality is somewhat fragmented or stunted. We can even argue that the core issue in autism at the functional level is "integration deficit disorder." Now we even have a way of modeling this in terms of the communication behavior of the neuronal assemblies, where it is typically talked about as a "connectivity deficit."
The term "connectivity deficit" may focus us on the key issue, but the term itself is not very revealing as to the precise nature of the deficit. We can try to think of examples from real life. If bad weather hangs over Chicago in winter, flights will be delayed, leading to a "connectivity deficit" that propagates to other airports around the country within hours. More and more people miss their connections, and the problem compounds. Flight schedules need to be kept to within twenty minutes at least in order for the transportation "network" to function as intended.
In the case of European rail transport, trains have to arrive within two or three minutes of schedule in order for the network to function as intended, or else we end up with another "connectivity deficit." In the case of our own cortex, global communication needs to be predictable at the level of 10 to 20 milliseconds in order for the network to function as a globally integrated network. In the obvious case of a problem with white matter "myelination," the neuronal sheathing that speeds up neuronal transmission, this criterion may be satisfied locally but not globally. The result may be the classic autistic symptoms in which the nervous system is confronted with a kaleidoscopic play of detail that forever lacks context.
When it comes to context within which we make sense of our world, nothing is more primary than our own emotions. Experience is immediately related somehow to issues of self, and this relationship is mediated by our emotions. Am I at risk? Should I be interested? Do I really care? Our emotions are as central to our experience as the musical soundtrack is to a film. It is difficult for us even to conceive of that dimension of our experience not being in play. By being ubiquitously involved in all of our experience, our emotional responding is realized through neuronal networks that are highly integrative in character. When this circuitry is off-line or dysfunctional, then we cannot be "in our bodies," our "self" cannot be actualized, and we cannot experience life in relationship to others.
I apologize at this point for seeming to reduce our exquisite emotional repertoire to the mere workings of resonant neuronal networks. This is of the same order as talking about Yitzhak Perlman's exquisite violin tones in terms of violin strings and an ash violin case set to vibrating with mere horsehair. The music is not reducible to its mechanical description, but the description is valid nonetheless. Thus it is with our emotions. Our description cannot "contain" them, but we cannot have them without the architecture of the brain, on the one hand, and suitable education of our emotional responding, on the other.
So we come finally to the good news, which is that the circuitry of our brains can be trained to function better, and that finding holds also for those things that come closest to defining us to ourselves---our emotions, beliefs, and even our core self. The reality we experience about ourselves is all held either in chemistry for long-term storage or in resonant networks for direct access. Both are alterable through the mechanisms of "brain plasticity."
We have not found a single deficit among those typically associated with autism that does not respond at some level to brain training. As we find our way with various training techniques, we have already reached the point where brain-training might well be the quickest means toward higher functionality in the child. That then lays the groundwork for all of the other techniques and remedies that should also be brought to bear.
Autism: The Integration Deficit Disorder
Some decades ago an autistic child was brought to the Harvard Medical School and the Chair summoned the class of medical students and urged them all to become acquainted with this case. He said to them: "You may never have a chance to see another case like this in your entire career." Decades later, the incidence of autism in male children has risen to 1% in this country, and a recent paper in the premier Journal Lancet reported incidence to be 2% among boys in Great Britain. That's the country that tried to discredit Roger Wakefield, MD for suggesting that the country's vaccination policy was a contributing cause in the epidemic.
Right now autism looks like a very complex disease, but at least it is now clear that it is in fact a medical disease and not just a genetically caused mental disorder. But if autism is looked at as a disease, it must also be acknowledged that diseases in general tend to look complex only when they are not yet understood. If one looked at diabetes, for example, without knowing that insulin was involved as the key player, it would also look exceedingly complex indeed.
So more than likely it is merely the expression of the disease process in the body and mind that is complex in autism. The underlying disease causative agent may be simple. It is mercury. We have been poisoning our children with mercury. We have done it deliberately; we have done our best to exonerate the practice in the face of damning evidence; and we are continuing to do it. This may turn out to be the most egregious medically caused disaster in the history of medicine, worse than when surgeons failed to wash their hands prior to surgery and as many as ten percent of women in childbirth died at their hands of childbed fever in certain hospitals.
And what has been the response? Drug companies are doing their best to insulate themselves legally from the coming liability storm through their hired guns in state legislatures. At the same time, studies that could fill in the blanks on this hypothesis, such as studying those children who have not been exposed to mercury in vaccines as a comparison group, are not being undertaken.
Mercury is the most toxic element in the periodic table, outside of the radioactive elements like plutonium. It is used as a preservative in vaccines for precisely this reason. Mercury is hostile to life itself. The reader may have been under the impression that Thimerosal was being removed from vaccines for children. Look again. Thimerosal is back in the flu vaccines, and the dose of mercury contained in them exceeds our EPA exposure limits for body sizes less than that of Shaquille O'Neill. Yet infants are given the same size dose as O'Neill.
Recently, a drug trial in the U.K. caused illness within 90 minutes among all six participants. Attention was immediately drawn to the test, and in retrospect the experimental design was labeled "botched." But what if the adverse response occurred only in a certain genetically vulnerable subgroup, at a rate of perhaps one in a thousand? The effect might not have been noticed at this point, and perhaps not even as larger trials were conducted.
And what if the vaccines to which children were exposed turned out to be quite safe when tested individually at the outset? And then thimerosal was added later when vaccines were combined into multiple doses. And then the vaccination schedule was majorly accelerated for infants, thus compounding the problem. And what if not everyone were vulnerable to the same degree? One could end up with a problem that was not apparent at each step along the way. Do we not then have an innocent explanation of how we got to this point?
Actually not. After all, it has been assumed all along that autism has a genetic component. That assumption alone invalidates all epidemiological studies of thimerosal toxicity effects based on whole populations (that is to say, under the assumption that the population is homogeneous in terms of susceptibility to mercury toxicity). We might have one reaction if we were told as parents, "there is a part in ten-thousand risk of a functional impact" on a child given this vaccine. We might have quite a different reaction if we were told, "there is a ten percent risk of functional impact" of this vaccine in a vulnerable population. We would then clearly want to know if our child is in that vulnerable population. We are having that same discussion now with regard to certain genetic pre-dispositions to breast cancer. This is something that one can explain to a ten-year-old. How is it that the CDC has a problem understanding this?
Believe it or not, one member of this medical conspiracy actually verbalized the question somewhat as follows, "If thimerosal is a problem, why then isn't everyone that gets it becoming autistic?" People with an MD cannot be that naïve. It is just not conceivable. One must suspect something worse. They are being deliberately obfuscatory.
Having fingered mercury toxicity as the problem (the evidence is available with help from your trusty servant named Google), we must hasten immediately to enlarge our horizon. Just as a child may tolerate an individual dose of vaccine and still succumb to the cumulative impact of many such doses over the first couple of years of life, so it is with mercury in general. It may be the tall pole in the tent when it comes to heavy metal toxicity, but it does not stand alone as a culprit, and vaccines do not stand alone either. The FDA failed to warn pregnant women in a timely manner about mercury in tuna fish, so a particular infant may already be starting out life with a toxic body burden of mercury because its mother thought she was doing a good thing by eating lots of fish. And a variety of heavy metals are becoming problems to our immune system integrity, not just mercury.
So the mercury-laced vaccines may serve simply as "the straw that breaks the camel's back" at the end of an accumulation of environmental insults to our biological system. This needs to be understood in big-picture sense, and that is not what research does well at all. Such studies need to be quite large to cover all the relevant variables; they need to extend over a long period of time; and they need to have participants that are exceedingly well characterized. This is hugely expensive. Absent such large-scale studies, there is lots of opportunity for the experts to fuzz up the evidence and render it innocuous if they so choose. In the face of complexity, the conspirators can win by mere indirection, by making it appear as if we were looking for one particular blotch in a huge Jackson Pollock painting.
Why is the recitation and recognition of this wretched history important? As long as our medical and governmental leadership is in denial about the underlying problem, it cannot marshal its resources for a remedy. Meanwhile, the emergency of autism is at knocking at our door, one family at a time. It is obvious that a medical disease requires a medical remedy, and lots of these have been proposed and are in the process of being implemented. Each of these techniques targets one or another aspect of the condition. An essential feature of all such approaches is that the outcome is characterized by wide variation over the autistic population. Some children benefit in a major way from one or another of these approaches, others hardly at all. We understand this in terms of a network model of regulatory function. Regulation must be seen as a multiply-connected web, not as a chain. When links in our regulatory regime are degraded, function typically degrades incrementally rather than catastrophically. Similarly, when regulation is restored, function improves incrementally in most cases, although the more isolated dramatic improvements get our attention and convince us that we are on the right track.
With our biomedical approaches, we may have to pursue quite a number of pathways to the restoration of healthy function. All these take time, and they may even have to be properly sequenced. Most are expensive and portend a huge burden on the family. Still, we have to consider ourselves fortunate that we now have a number of techniques that can tackle autism in a kind of pincer movement: biomedical approaches can be seen as "bottom-up" attempts to restore healthy regulation, and the behavioral approaches to autism can be seen as "top-down" methods of restoring function. One targets causal factors, the other the behavioral consequences.
We now have a third major approach that fits somewhere in the middle. It is Neurofeedback, and it targets regulation directly. Whereas the behavioral methods do in time achieve adaptations at the brain level, they do so indirectly. And the biomedical approaches are largely judged on the basis of how they impinge on brain function. The action is again somewhat indirect. With Neurofeedback we are targeting regulation directly. Neurofeedback is basically a behavioral technique, but the brain is seen as the behaving entity rather than the child. So we have advanced from a pincer movement against autism to Chinese fingers-a three-armed attack.
Just as we try to hone the child's behavioral repertoire with behavior-shaping techniques, we can try to hone the brain's behavior at the EEG level. We watch the neuronal dance and we shape its behavior toward better function. So even though we know that the "real" problem has its origin in our physiology, we can still affect the functional impact by direct brain training. In this approach, we take advantage of the fact that we all have considerable functional plasticity available in our brains, and that holds true even for the autistic child.
Moreover, even if the "problem" in autism may have started out with a mercury insult, it then metastasizes (in the poetic sense of that word) and becomes an issue in many regulatory systems. So at some point, even if the mercury were to be removed from the body we would still contend with lingering functional deficits. The disregulation will have been encoded in the cerebral networks, among others, and these will just have to be retrained.
We have recently made some significant breakthroughs in restoring function in autistic children with Neurofeedback, and we are aware of similar progress being made in other clinics with a variety of Neurofeedback techniques. Also, university-based research has begun on Neurofeedback in application to the autistic spectrum. The intent here is not to dwell on these results-exciting as they are-in this article. Rather, we want to point out an emerging set of converging evidence in order to illuminate what is going on more at the conceptual level.
Increasingly we are hearing reports of good results in functional recovery being obtained with hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). As the data started piling up on this emerging technique, it was shown that benefits could even be derived with modest over-pressure of 1.3 atmospheres, rather than with the 2 atmospheres or more than are used with wound healing and recovery from brain injury. Most recently, we are hearing of gains being achieved even in regular pressurized air, rather than with the use of oxygen under pressure. This makes the technique categorically safe and accessible to the individual clinician. It is even accessible for home use.
There is a third technique that needs to be mentioned in this regard, and it is called "Hemoencephalography," or HEG. This refers to a biofeedback technique in which the brain is rewarded for enhanced oxygenation or for enhanced cortical temperature. In either of these implementations, this technique can be seen as activating the frontal lobe of the brain. And both show nice functional gains in most autistic children with a modest number of training sessions.
In fact, the functional gains shown by each of these techniques falls into the range of 1-3% improvement in symptom expression per session over the first twenty to forty sessions. The gains start out at the higher end of the range, and then end up at the lower end. These sessions can be spaced as little as a day apart, so we have here three options by means of which parents can get quick help for their child and indirectly also for the whole family.
We know of no other approaches for which gains can be so systematically projected as with these. So parents might very well want to put one of these techniques high on their priority list, even in the knowledge that the biomedical approaches should not be given short shrift-not even if the activation procedures are wildly successful. This presents a real dilemma for parents because many of the biomedical methods-such as the gluten-free and casein-free diets-are rather burdensome to pursue. But we see no alternative.
This also speaks to the broad gray area in which siblings (and the parents who read this) may not be overtly autistic, but with shared genetic endowment may still be functioning below the level of which their systems are capable. The autistic children in this sense are our species' canaries, the most genetically vulnerable cohort to certain environmental insults that none of us can evade and to which none of us is immune. Those who share common genetics with the autistic child might do well also to consider cleaning up their lifestyle as well as doing Neurofeedback.
The common element among all three approaches (HBOT, HEG, and EEG Neurofeedback) is that they serve to activate the brain in general, and the frontal lobe in particular. But then each of the techniques also has its particularities. Neurofeedback can be done in a manner that is highly targeted toward specific functional deficits, such as emotional connection to others, the capacity for communication, speech articulation, sensory excitability, motor function, etc. HEG can also be locally targeted, but it tends to be more oriented toward pre-frontal brain activation generally. Hyperbaric oxygen can best be understood in terms of activation of neural circuitry, but the temporarily heightened oxygen level in the tissues may also have some direct beneficial biological effects.
This is a matter of some controversy because one of the identified hazards in autism is oxidative stress, for which anti-oxidants need to be provided. What sense does it make to supply excess oxygen to such a system? It would probably not make sense at all in the steady state, but as a transient procedure it might very well be helpful. The transient flood of oxygen into the tissues may allow the engagement and activation of neural circuitry that then remains accessible and engaged even after normal oxygenation levels return.
So we can think of each of these approaches as providing the common element of an activation procedure, and then there are also aspects that differentiate between them. These techniques can also be combined, and this is a research goal for the future. A child in a hyperbaric chamber may present a Neurofeedback training opportunity beyond what is usually available. Or EEG Neurofeedback can be used to follow up on a "priming" session with HEG Neurofeedback. Alternatively the child might be asked to enhance the HEG signal while in the hyperbaric chamber in order to derive the maximum benefit.
On the other hand, it may turn out that we should enhance brain activation as much as possible without resort to the delivery of excess oxygen, and to limit the exposure to the latter only to the duration necessary to derive whatever specific benefits are in store. All this is speculation at this point.
One can also envision a hierarchy of approaches in which one moves gradually from the less demanding to the more demanding ones. One starts with HEG training to "prime the pump" and one moves on to EEG Neurofeedback. This HEG training can be administered trivially in the home on a daily basis, complemented by EEG Neurofeedback done under in a clinical setting at a rate of one to five sessions per week. The two techniques support and complement each other. Improved regulation ensues, and the whole physiology functions with more integrity because the brain is also involved in the regulation of visceral function.
Then, as the benefits of HEG plus EEG Neurofeedback begin to plateau, one adds in the hyperbaric oxygen to see if there is further incremental benefit. If so, then one moves on to combine hyperbaric with EEG training in situ for yet greater gains. The EEG or HEG training instrument can be taken right into the chamber without difficulty. Finally, the parents are instructed in home-use EEG Neurofeedback for long-term enhancement of brain function. Biochemical approaches are used in addition to achieve new milestones in functionality.
In sum, then, we are at the threshold of a very positive future for autistic children. The watchword always needs to be "progress, not perfection." We never know how far these techniques will take us with a particular child. But at every level of a child's function, we know that substantial gains are within our reach. Under the prevailing conditions alluded to above, the whole approach to the autism spectrum has a bewildering and almost over-whelming complexity at the moment. It cannot be otherwise. Even worse, as long as the government agencies are tethered to the assumption that mercury is not the issue, they cannot lead the charge toward an understanding of the remedies, as already suggested.
This has left autism recovery to various brilliant and inventive scientists, researchers, and practitioners out in the field. A substantial body of knowledge has already been accumulated over the last decade. It is not a criticism to point out that most such researchers are narrowly focused on their particular remedy. That being the case, an integrative perspective is still missing. One could even say that the treatment regime for the autism spectrum exhibits some autistic features! Hence parents are left with the unenviable role of sorting all this out and prioritizing remedies for their child. We have no choice. It is premature to be authoritative about what is to be done in a particular case and in what order, although initial attempts are being made now along those lines. So for the time being the decision-making of necessity falls largely to parents.
Ironically, it is the integrative perspective that is also missing within the autistic child. Neurofeedback intrinsically addresses itself to communication relationships within the neuronal networks, so it directly targets what may be the key functional deficit in autism at the brain level. Within the treatment community, Neurofeedback may similarly provide a missing perspective on the deficits of functional integration and provide the needed conceptual linkage between the biomedical and the behavioral remedies. Both at the level of the child and at the level of the treatment community, Neurofeedback may provide the answer to the observed "Integration Deficit Disorder." - Siegfried Othmer, PhD
Case Report: The Healing Power of Neurofeedback ," by psychologist Stephen Larsen.
The story relates to a child called Matt in the book, who was referred for neurofeedback at the age of eight with a diagnosis of autism. The following was related by Curtis Cripe, who worked with Matt at his Crossroads Institute in Cave Creek, Arizona.
"The first session consisted of working with [the midline] sites (which are located between the two hemispheres) to balance and normalize his cortical activity. After the first few sessions, I switched to working with multiple sites. within each session. After a certain number of sessions it was seen that Matt no longer exhibited the autistic behaviors. After another ten, it was evident that he was visibly maturing. By session twenty, Matt was placed in a mainstream classroom with peers and he was able to work within the parameters of that setting. By thirty sessions, his improving grades reflected his further maturation and development.
Today, after twelve months under this program's protocols, Matt's diagnosis of autism has been removed. He is in mainstream fourth grade, with his grades in the As and Bs. He has developed and maintained school friendships, and is included in school functions and extracurricular social functions. Matt will graduate with flying colors from our program after a total of fifty sessions." (p.152)
A Mother's Report on Autism:
A Parent's Report on Autism: Jake – 3 years old; 50 sessions and 4 months of Neurofeedback
To date, Jake has had 50 sessions of Neurofeedback over 4 months' time, and we are still planning on more. He rapidly progressed in his developmental skills, including bringing his speech to a 31-month level and his cognitive function to 33 months (he is currently 36 months old). His skills include riding a tricycle, which has become a favorite outside activity now. His imaginary play has grown by incredible strides, moving from cause-and-effect toys to playing with cars and blocks, as well as playing kitchen, grocery store, and even 'brain school' (neurofeedback). He uses Play Dough as the "sticky stuff," grabs headphones, and tells me he needs a movie! His retention has increased, which he can show us through the speech skills he has gained. He can now sit still through the reading of a book, which was something that he had never done before. We used to try just looking at pictures and ignoring the words, but he still couldn't do that. Now, he's interested in listening to someone read and can sit in a 'big' chair, without having to strap him in a high chair or booster. He has enough attention to sit and complete tasks, such as puzzles or stringing beads in patterns.
Socially, Jake has grown in his interaction with his 4-year-old sister, engaging in play and laughing at jokes between the two of them. He initiates hugs for bedtime, holds her hand, and plays prince and princess with her. He can play on his own, entertaining himself with age appropriate toys. With other children, Jake will say hello and goodbye, but his play is still more parallel in nature and not too much of engagement.
Behaviorally, we have watched Jake grow through different developmental stages. Prior to any early intervention, Jake was often frustrated due to his lack of communication and ability to do things for himself. He would often act out by throwing things or cry inconsolably. He'd cry until he fell asleep, often 30-45 minutes. As he became calmer and his skill levels increased, we watched the behavior change. He had more control. We then entered a stage of transitional tantrums, which only lasted about 1-2 weeks, but he'd cry as activities would end. Centers for Success changed some protocols and the calmness then took over, and the tantrums ended. We went on a vacation that included a 5-hour plane flight. Jake had no problems sitting in his airplane seat, happy and calm, for the entire trip (both on the way there and on the way home). We are currently in a new behavioral phase, which includes tantrums because Jake doesn't get his way. This is different from the transition tantrums. These are in direct result of not getting what he wants and are in complete protest. He's learning that he can communicate his wants to us, and protesting when we don't oblige.
Jake's diagnosis has changed from an "autistic disorder" to "PDD-NOS", (Pervasive Developmental Delay, "not otherwise specified") meaning there are signs of autism, but not enough for a Classic Autism or Asperger's diagnosis. Jake has made HUGE progress since his first examination 6 months ago and beginning Neurofeedback 4 months ago. Jake still has a way to go, but life today is so different than it was back then. It's more manageable from a parental standpoint and less frustrating from Jake's standpoint. We are continuing with all of the therapy because it's all working together. Neurofeedback has made it possible for Jake to be calm and attentive to learn the skills to catch up to his peers. He's also learning to efficiently use his brain, increasing his maximum potential, during this time of early intervention. The rate at which he's developing is incredible. Socially, Jake has grown in his relationship with his sister and I am hoping to report that this carries over into his relationship with other children. SO, until next time, this is "to be continued"...
Neurofeedback practitioner Jon Cowan reports:
Sense and Nonsense on Autism: Beyond Genetics
A few months back David Kirby (author of the book "Evidence of Harm") interviewed Katy Wright about her autistic child Christian, and more specifically the recovery that he was beginning to make with biomedical treatments that have been developed over the years by the MDs and Ph.D.s involved with the organization Defeat Autism Now (DAN). (http://www.autismmedia.org/media15.html )
