Reading a San Francisco Chronicle story about how a mother cured her daughter's autism by removing MSG from her diet, I wanted to shout, "There is no science to back up the mother's claims!"
But the article's author, Stacy Finz, had scooped me. "There is no science to back up many of her claims," Finz wrote.
Knowing that, she wrote the story anyway–a story that will surely lead many other parents to try the same unproven diet. Why write it if there is no science to back this up, and when we know that many readers will slip past the caveats to seize the hope?
Finz actually answered that question:
While there is no science to back up many of her claims, Reid [Katherine Reid, the mother] said the most convincing evidence to her is the results she saw in her daughter. At age 7, Brooke is completely cured, Reid said. And from all outward appearances that seems to be true.
That's what we might call an unblinded, uncontrolled clinical trial with a sample size of one. Despite the obvious weakness in such an "experiment," Reid feels comfortable pronouncing Brook "completely cured." Whether she's right or wrong, as Brooke's mother, she's entitled to her opinion.
What's astonishing, however, is that Finz pronounces Brook cured, too. "From all outward appearances," she writes, "that seems to be true." Did Finz meet Brooke before the "experiment" began? Does she know how bad the child's symptoms were? Did she watch as the child improved with the diet? We don't know, but I'll guess the answer to those questions is no, or else Finz would have told us about all that reporting. How is Finz entitled to an opinion? And why does her personal opinion matter? That's precisely the kind of thing that will drive parents to try this, even without any evidence to back it up.
Further, Finz adds additional unwarranted credence to the story by identifying the girl's mother as a biochemist. Surely, some readers must think, a biochemist knows what she's talking about. The girl's mother might, or might not, know much about autism. Finz should have clarified that, rather than allow the mother to appear to have some expertise in this area.
Finz continues to say many of the right things. She quotes Robin Hansen, a professor of pediatrics at the University of California, Davis, who says there has been little research on diets with autism, "but what we do have doesn't show a marked difference."
Finz continues with Katherine Reid's story, before quoting yet another doctor, Sanford Newmark of the University of California, San Francisco, who says he would be willing to try an MSG-free diet, but quickly adds, again, that there are no studies to back it up.
And he adds a further caveat: "While it's not normal for kids with moderate autism to be cured by 7, it's not unheard of." In other words: Maybe the diet had nothing to do with Brooke's improvement.
Before Finz finishes, she quotes a third expert who warns that "changing an autistic child's diet could have serious consequences," because many children with autism are picky eaters to begin with. A restrictive diet "could be making life in that household impossible."
Finz's reporting gave her many reasons to think that the MSG-free diet had nothing to do with Brooke's improvement. And reason to think such a diet could be dangerous. But she didn't write that story.
She wrote that Brooke was cured. And she ended her story saying that Reid has seen 75 kids with autism and "74 drastically improved within five weeks"–even though there is no science to back it up.
Do we believe Reid, or do we believe the experts?
Sherlock Holmes chastised Watson for seeing, but not observing. Finz did a similar thing with her reporting. She heard what the researchers told her, but she didn't listen.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply