Grand Canyon Communication Strategies & Assistive Tech for ASD Research Paper

Please answer the question:
Research two controversial or non-research-based ways to help build communication skills among nonverbal students. Explain each method and why it is controversial and/or not evidence based.
Respond to student discussion. Do NOT mixed the student discussion with the question.
(JENN) To be considered evidence-based, treatment must be thoroughly investigated in multiple well-designed scientific studies and show measurable, sustained improvements in targeted areas. Teachers should be aware of non-evidence-based treatments (Autism Science Foundation, 2019).
Two non-evidence-based and controversial interventions include; sensory-motor therapies and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).
Sensory-motor therapies include auditory integration therapy, sensory integration therapy, facilitated communication, vision therapy, and rapid prompting method. There is little research to support whether this works for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD).
Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) includes diets, vitamin therapy, non-vaccination, secretin, and chelation. These methods can be considered risky and without evidence to show that the risk is worth it (Smith, n. d.).
Chelation: Chelation therapy involves administering chemicals designed to bind to heavy metals and eliminate them from the body. Chelating agents have a legitimate use in the treatment of poisoning from lead, mercury and other metals. There is no evidence that supports chelation as a safe treatment alternative because autism is not caused by metal poisoning. In 2005, a child with autism died from chelation therapy, when the chelating agent bonded with calcium in his body and caused his heart to stop. No paper published in the peer-reviewed literature has reported abnormal levels of mercury in individuals with an autism spectrum disorder. Moreover, symptoms of mercury poisoning are unlike symptoms of autism, making chelation an impractical way to improve symptoms (Smith, n. d.).
Vitamin Supplements: It is important to maintain a healthy and balanced diet. To achieve this goal, healthcare providers may recommend nutritional supplements to people with and without autism. Use of supplements can be problematic however when they are misused in an attempt to cure an individual of autism. There is no scientific evidence suggesting that vitamin supplements can cure autism. Using supplements without consulting a healthcare provider can be dangerous. Some supplements (e.g., vitamin A) can be toxic when taken in high doses for sustained periods; others may not contain what they claim (Smith, n. d.).
Jennifer
Autism Science Foundation (2019). Beware of Non-Evidence-Based
Treatments. Retrieved from:
https://autismsciencefoundation.org/what-is-autism/beware-of-
non-evidence-based-treatments/
Smith, T. (n.d.). Initiative for Dissemination of Evidence-based
Treatments for Childhood and Adolescent Mental Health Problems.
The Society for Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (SCCAP).
Retrieved from:
https://effectivechildtherapy.fiu.edu/files/pdf/division53_
smith_keynote.pdf
(LR) Non-verbal communication refers to the communication that takes place without the use of linguistic content. It tends to measure our verbal responses, especially when the two are contradictory, to either reinforce or contradict our verbal responses. (Junaid, 20180) Therefore, I think most professional’s or experts argue about what each might think to be an effective technique for teaching communication skills are. Further, if a communication method used does not have great successes it is considered non-research that is mainly based on one’s opinion preferably from what most individuals have observed. I also think much debate will continue due to each case study meeting the nonverbal communication needs. By the same token, there are some intervention that are not proven safe or effective as others for most ASD students. At any rate, the two non-research-based methods I chosen are facilitated communication and sign language. Surprisingly, despite decades of evidence that FC is ineffective and has caused great harm to families. The founders of FC, both in Australia and in the USA, have made a number of claims regarding the efficacy of FC and reasons they believe it cannot be evaluated using traditional scientific methods. (Ganz, 2014) Furthermore, there have been argument about the use of sign is because the motor skills required for manual signs may be less complex or difficult than those required for speaking. (Ganz, 2014) Although, I have found some communication methods might work for some and might not work as well for others. Therefore, what might have been anyone’s barriers or successes you might share about the two listed in my post either through research or your personal experience?
References
Ganz, J. B. (2014). Aided augmentative c