What's more plausible? Did they cure low functioning autism in two years? Or did they simpily miscategorize the kids and the kids grew out of their diagnosis as they matured?
> Our phase 2 study for adults with autism found that the treatment group improved more than placebo on the primary outcome (autism symptoms) and on a secondary outcome (daily stool record),
I can't find full analysis but the primary autism-symptom outcome improved by 9% in treatment group and 4% in controls. I guess there is no statistical significance because that metric likely has high variance.
In abnormal stools there was 42% improvement in treatment vs 23% in control.
The combination of GI disorder and autism in these trials make blinding almost impossible. The patients will notice if the GI symptoms change. And the results seem to be that this fecal transplant has larger effect for the GI part anyway.
At the same time, gut microbiota is extremely complex to study.
So, this may be a plausible result. I cannot judge the plausibilities right away in the way you suggest it.
However they say they also have an adult trial running that seems to show similar effects, so there might be something more into it.
An environment in which one person can thrive, labour, and enjoy life could be boring or incomprehensible or unduly stressful to another. I know people who would be diagnosed "low-functioning" if assessed in an everyday environment, but "high-functioning" if assessed in a clinical environment, and I know people who might not be diagnosed at all in an everyday environment but would be diagnosed with several seconds of acronyms in a clinical environment; and I know people who've been able to fight to get themselves an everyday environment that works for them, and I know people with vast potential who have conceded that fight and are rotting in the social care system.
If you eliminate what "should not be a factor" from the diagnostic process, then you eliminate the high-functioning / low-functioning distinction entirely. But all models are wrong, and some models are useful: while I find this particular model distasteful, there are contexts where it is necessary to get people in an environment where they can thrive (which, for children, usually means getting their parents the support they need, and occasionally the education).
I see now it was the former.
Edit: Pre-empting the inevitable "how is this ableist?":
I don't mind the use of a reclaimed slur, I'm a big proponent of that, tbh. I use them all the time. What's ableist is the idea that spouses have to deal with their partners. The idea the autism must be a negative in a relationship removes agency from autistic people. My spouse is not my nurse, I am not someone they have to "deal with".
Mods, please see to this comment.