A “non-profit” company is selling a technological device supported by their own studies and when a few physicians cite concerns about utility and efficacy they are immediately accused of protecting their turf and acting out of financial motivation. God forbid we assume they are acting out of a genuine concern for their own patients and the patient population at large.

Replace “non-profit” with “drug company” and suddenly you’d see the same paranoids accusing physicians of trying to drum up business by using a poor test with high false positives based on bad data “sponsored by the drug company.”

Since ad hominem attacks is the way things are done around here: I think “buckeye surgeon” must be scared of losing out on all the surgical procedures he would have done if this wonderful device was not available. That’s the only reason he would be mocking such a wonderful scientific advancement. I bet he’s not even a real buckeye. Probably roots for Michigan.

Let’s face it. In most average size cities, there is hardly anyone qualified to diagnose autism accurately. One finds day care providers suggesting the autism possibility, teachers are suggesting it, and so on. Pretty soon your garbage man will be suggesting autism.

We do not need more false positives.

If one were to take the time to go to the website of the LENA Foundation, one would see that studies have been conducted to show the research behind the devise. Perhaps if one wanted to make an argument on the devise’s inability to detect autism, finding flaws in their research method may be a better choice.

The one downside: false positives. Well, that’s a problem that does go away once you see a professional.

As for “anxiety,” doctors really don’t seem all that concerned about it when they delay/forget to relay test results to patients. Being sick or possibly being sick is by definition anxiety inducing. Why is “anxiety” only a concern when its remedies cut into doctors’ pocket books?