ABA is the most widely funded and widely available autism intervention in much of the English-speaking world. It is also the intervention most strongly opposed by autistic adults — including many who experienced it as children.

The case for: structured, measurable, often improves specific skills (communication, daily living). Modern "naturalistic" forms emphasise play and child-led learning. Insurance often covers ABA where it covers nothing else.

The case against: ABA originated in the same lab and era as gay conversion therapy, and historically used aversives including electric shocks. Even contemporary ABA is largely behaviour-shaping toward neurotypical norms — teaching autistic children to suppress stimming, force eye contact, and mask. A growing body of research links childhood ABA exposure to elevated PTSD symptoms in autistic adults. Most autistic-led organisations oppose it.

The nuance: "ABA" covers a huge range, from genuinely abusive 40-hour-a-week compliance programs to play-based work that's barely distinguishable from good developmental therapy. The practitioner and the goals matter more than the label.

Verdict

Approach with caution. If considering it, listen to autistic adults first. Therapies aimed at the child's flourishing — not their compliance — are the bar.

"High-functioning" and "low-functioning" were once standard. They've largely fallen out of use among autistic communities and increasingly among clinicians, for good reasons.

The problem: "high-functioning" is used to dismiss real support needs ("but you don't seem autistic"), while "low-functioning" is used to deny autonomy and underestimate intelligence. Both flatten an enormously varied profile into a single axis. Many autistic people are simultaneously "high-functioning" at one thing (a specialist subject) and "low-functioning" at another (managing a phone call) on the same day.

The replacement: talk about specific support needs in specific domains. "Needs significant support with communication." "Independent in daily living, struggles with executive function." More accurate, more useful, more humane.

Verdict

Outdated framing. The newer language is clearer for everyone, including the people being described.

The rise of TikTok and accessible information has produced a wave of adults who recognise themselves in autism or ADHD descriptions and identify as such — often without formal assessment.

The case for: formal assessment is expensive, slow (multi-year NHS waits in the UK), and historically biased against women, people of colour, and adults. Many self-diagnosed people have read more about the condition than the GPs gatekeeping access to it. Self-knowledge has clear mental health benefits.

The case against: conditions present in subtle ways that experienced clinicians catch and laypeople miss. Self-diagnosis can lead people to embrace identity-shaped explanations for problems that have other causes. There is genuine concern about social-media-driven over-identification.

The pragmatic position adopted by most autistic-led organisations: self-identification is valid and welcomed in community spaces. Formal assessment is still worth pursuing where possible, particularly for accessing medication (in the case of ADHD) or workplace and educational accommodations.

Verdict

A reasonable starting point, especially for adults. Pursue formal assessment if you can access it; don't let the wait stop you learning about yourself.

Should we be looking for a cure for autism? The question splits the autism world deeply.

The cure-oriented view (typically held by some parents of higher-support-needs children and some research-funding bodies) holds that autism causes real suffering — non-verbal individuals, severe self-injury, lifelong dependence — and seeking biomedical intervention is a moral imperative.

The acceptance-oriented view (held by most autistic-led organisations) holds that autism is integral to identity, not separable from the person; that much "autism suffering" is actually the result of a disabling environment; that funding should go to support, accessibility, and quality of life rather than prevention or cure; and that the language of "cure" is uncomfortably close to eugenics.

The middle ground that many people land on: accept autism as identity while still working hard on the parts that genuinely cause suffering — sensory pain, communication barriers, co-occurring conditions, lack of support. You can love an autistic person exactly as they are and want them to have an easier time.

Verdict

A genuine values disagreement, not a factual one. Listening to autistic adults — including those with high support needs — should be central.

Gluten-free, casein-free (GFCF) diets, omega-3 megadoses, vitamin and mineral protocols, and various probiotic regimens are widely promoted as autism and ADHD treatments. Some have a kernel of evidence; many do not.

What the evidence shows: well-conducted reviews of GFCF diets in autism have found no consistent benefit beyond placebo. Iron supplementation can help where iron is genuinely low (ADHD is associated with low ferritin in some people). Omega-3 has small, real, but modest effects on ADHD symptoms. Most heavily promoted "autism diets" and supplement stacks have weak evidence at best.

The harms: restrictive diets imposed on autistic children — many of whom already have a narrow range of safe foods — can cause genuine nutritional deficiencies and worsen the relationship with food. Money spent on unproven supplements is money not spent on therapy, support, or just rest.

The reasonable line: normal nutrition matters; correct identified deficiencies; don't waste money on protocols sold by people who profit from selling them. Talk to a registered dietitian, not a wellness influencer.

Verdict

Mostly unsupported. Address real deficiencies; ignore the rest.