Here’s a quote from Dr. Paul Thomas from the book The Vaccine-Friendly Plan on the medical establishment’s unwillingness to acknowledge autism recovery in certain cases:
“Contrary to what I was led to believe from reading scientific journals, and from consulting with autism experts at leading centers, autism is not a hopeless situation that means a child has no future. There are many things you can do to help your child that will often (though not always) make a noticeable difference. Some children are able to recover to the point that they lose the diagnosis. I’m sorry to say that many of my colleagues, instead of being delighted about this and curious to understand what interventions worked most effectively, often insist that these children were not autistic in the first place! This denial of autism recovery absolutely baffles me. It suggests such a gross level of incompetence on the part of the doctors who made the diagnosis, and such circular thinking on the part of the doctors denying that the initial diagnosis was correct, that I worry about the future of my profession.”
In my opinion, this denial happens because acknowledging recovery would inherently be admitting that there is important knowledge in their field which lies beyond their institution and training. Admitting that autism recovery (in some cases) is possible would also lend a certain credulity to alternative health practices which have been endlessly ridiculed by modern medicine. Its takes a certain level of humility to admit that their education and knowledge is not the be-all-and-end-all of health. Doctors go through such a rigorous process to acquire their certificates that by the time they come out they often don’t have the will to acquire more knowledge in their field as they are so run-down and crippled with debt. If they do seek additional knowledge, it is often only within the confines of their own institutions and they don’t realize how curated the information they receiving really is.