Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Twice Exceptional Retained reflexes?

I noticed our optometrist is addressing some of these reflexes in our vision therapy (it seems to be a common element in VT). Certainly, there are some things DD is surprisingly unable to do, especially if they involve coordinating movement across both sides of her body. Some relief in knowing that the American Optometry Association clinical guidelines do include this aspect in vision therapy reccomendations.

I found searching "visual motor integration" avoided much of the snake oil produced by googling terms like "primitive reflexes".

A quick search of "primitive reflexes" turns up a number of journal-published studies indexed at the U.S. National Institute of Health. While more research is needed, there is plenty of evidence that scientists are noticing a trend and are specifically investigating the connection between learning differences and these reflexes:

Persisting primitive reflexes in medication-naïve girls with attention-deficit and hyperactivity disorder
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788695/

Adults with sensorimotor disorders: enhanced physiological and psychological development following specific sensorimotor training
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3788695/

Increased whole-body auditory startle reflex and autonomic reactivity in children with anxiety disorders
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2702449/

Motor Function in School-Aged Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in Korea
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4124178/#B18




It's a giant leap from anything that I've posted previously to the suggestion that I don't use "sound information" in making decisions. "Sound information" can come from multiple directions--including personal experience and the experiences of other (parents and professional OT, VT and others). Scientific evidence (of which a limited amount does exist on this topic) adds validity by documenting whether personal experiences apply more universally. Given the variability of research interests and funding, however, the amount of available scientific research is not my only criteria for decision-making. Nor is how widespread an intervention is known within the primary medical structure. The kids' pediatricians, for example, have been absolutely no help with any of my son's issues over the years. If we hadn't made decisions based on our own layman's research and personal experience, then my son would not have made the tremendous growth that he has made.

This article may be of interest:

http://www.oepf.org/Viewpoint-Correcting-Clinical-Facts-Abnormal-Primitive-Reflexes

Clb-- issues I see are:

1. Most real articles from the primary literature about primitive reflexes suggest that they exist in older children because of some sort of neurological issue. This does not prove that suppressing the reflexes will correct the neurological issue.
2. The few articles that do exist are written by a very small pool of individuals and are not accepted by mainstream scientists. However, even their claims are extrapolated far beyond what is shown in the actual research by clinicians who do not have training in this area.
3. As children age, some developmental issues will resolve. This makes it difficult to assess whether the improvement is due to therapy or increased maturity. Relying on word of mouth means that you may receive false information about the efficacy of costly and dangerous treatments. For example, research suggests that vision therapy is useless unless you are dealing with convergence insufficiency. Similarly, chelation therapy does not cure autism and avoiding vaccinations does not prevent autism. I actually wish that the moderators would delete threads where individuals strongly advocate for unproven treatments.

I agree completely.

As I noted, I understand the frustration people feel when facing medical uncertainty. However, as someone who understands the damage caused by pseudoscience, I get very upset when I see this kind of stuff being promoted and accepted so willingly. The ironic thing from my perspective is that, when I post on this topic, people get irritated or angry with me, even though I'm actually trying to help. I'm not trying to be mean. I know it hurts to hear someone question something you have so much faith in. The thing is, many pseudoscience practitioners use frustration with mainstream medicine to prey on people. They know that parents/adult patients are justifiably unhappy with the system, and they use the situation to their advantage. But they're nice about it. They smile and nod sympathetically and relate to scared people way better than most harried MDs do. But it's often an act designed to get your credit card.

I'm sure that some pseudoscience types actually believe this stuff. That's just as bad, due to stupefying levels of ignorance about science and medicine. One of the most frustrating things in this regard is that the woo is just so obvious to life scientists/clinical types, and yet we can feel completely impotent about getting the message out.

Put another way, I'm a grownup gifted kid who was lucky enough to get an education that lets me recognize this stuff...and I kind of thought that teaching kids to be able to think critically was the whole point of this forum.

The issue with your posts is not the discussion about scientific information. The problem is that you extend your argument into the realm of personal attack by accusing others of not also being critical thinkers. You aren't the only grownup gifted kid with an education on this forum.




I'm not "strongly advocating" anything. I posted an inquiry to find out about others' direct experiences with an intervention. I spoke only about my own decision making processes and experiences, and supported the idea that each family's decisions are very individualized. Rather than sharing your information and letting the conversation continue, you and Val hijacked the thread so that it has no room for thinking about a question from different directions and is no longer a comfortable space for people to share their direct experience. I wish moderators would be on the lookout for that type of behavior.

I think we can all consider this conversation concluded (I know I won't be replying again). Thanks to those who posted about their experiences. Thanks to Val and FlyingMouse for posting info about the questions about this among the scientific community (it's the tone and personal attacks that are unappreciated).

I appreciate the information posted here. The OT I spoke with about this would never in her wildest nightmares suggest chelation therapy. I believe she was trained in this whole retained reflex thing in school or somehow professionally, which leads me to think that this is a grayer area of confusion or controversy? Right now I am not so concerned with reflexes. My son clearly has weak core muscles and we're just working on some basic exercises so it's easier for him to sit at his desk and write.

I think it's very interesting if there is a link between retained reflexes and other disabilities like DCD or learning problems. But I wouldn't try any therapy that attempted to correct the retained reflexes unless there is solid research supporting it (unless it looked promising, was very cheap, and not potentially harmful). I felt the same way about VT. It was recommended by an OT but rejected by the opthamologists. I would have done it if we knew for sure that DS had convergence insufficiency, but there was disagreement about that. He had obvious convergence insufficiency after brain trauma, but it resolved on it's own as the 6th cranial nerve healed. A lot of the controversy surrounding VT seems to be about what actually defines convergence insufficiency. I wouldn't be surprised if some vision therapists diagnose just about everyone who walks through the door with convergence insufficiency, even if those people are actually in the normal range and their vision has nothing to do with their difficulties.

I haven't found any scientific information supporting the use of vision therapy for what is called retained reflexes. But I've found a lot that debunks it.

The paper that Flyingmouse linked to was written by a man who discovered a connection between learning disabilities and retained primitive reflexes. Here's what he and a colleague wrote two years ago:


The paper then debunks a long (but only partial!) list of tests and therapies based on primitive reflexes, like the one spaghetti mentioned, which is debunked in great detail on pages 140-141:



Here's another one promoted by a member here:


The Duck walk/Moro reflex connection is also debunked --- again, in detail (page 139). The authors write:


I'm sorry if anyone here feels personally attacked. I'm not attacking anyone on this list. But I am attacking pseudoscience. And that is a good thing.

Chiming in because I really appreciate when people with more expertise than I offer information.

I didn't read anything as personal but also am not particularly sensitive about such things.

There is so much information to sift through and it would be quite easy for a predator to take advantage of a vulnerable population (concerned, confused parents, for instance).

Not such a big deal if the proposed interventions are harmless and affordable, but people can and do go into debt in search of miracle cures and that is tragic.