May 4, 2025
Dear Corinne Purtill,
We are writing in response to your article: “Key takeaways from our investigation into the science behind an alternative autism therapy.” In this article, you discuss the findings of The Los Angeles Times investigation into magnetic e-resonance therapy (MERT) as a treatment for autism. MERT is a variation of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), an FDA-approved treatment for conditions such as depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and nicotine addiction. However, MERT is not FDA-approved for treating autism, despite its growing popularity among some families of autistic children.
During a MERT procedure, magnetic fields are used to stimulate nerve cells in the brain by placing an electromagnetic coil against the individual’s head. This coil delivers magnetic pulses to the targeted region of the brain. Throughout the procedure, providers use electroencephalography (EEG) to measure the brain’s electrical activity. The data are then analyzed using proprietary software developed by Wave Neuroscience, the company behind this therapy. According to Wave Neuroscience’s website, the software is designed to identify areas of the brain that are not “functioning properly.”
In this article, you noted that The Los Angeles Times investigation of this MERT procedure specific to treatment for autism included discussions with psychiatrists and neuroscientists both with expertise in brain stimulation and autism. The Los Angeles Times also consulted with five autistic advocacy groups, including the Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) during the investigation. Experts and advocacy groups consistently stated that there is no conclusive evidence supporting MERT as an effective treatment for autism. To date, no large-scale studies have demonstrated significant differences between MERT and a placebo in addressing autism symptoms, and Wave Neuroscience has not published or disclosed any clinical trial results related to MERT and autism.
Proponents of MERT rely on anecdotes only to support their unfounded claims of effectiveness. In fact, numerous parents told The Los Angeles Times that they were drawn to MERT because of the providers’ claims, in which they stated autistic individuals had developed or improved speech and eye contact after using this therapy; however, no science-based evidence exists to support these claims. Additionally, some parents who have engaged in MERT for their autistic child have shared minimal changes, no changes, or actually noted anecdotal regressions in challenging behavior post MERT sessions. Proponents making claims about MERT’s effectiveness without any supporting evidence is a dangerous hallmark of pseudoscience.
Adopting a non-evidence-based treatment, like MERT, can be harmful since individuals’ time and money are often wasted. As stated in the article, parents are paying $10,000 or more for MERT and related expenses – an alarming amount of money for a treatment that relies solely on anecdotes rather than scientific research studies as evidence. Because no meaningful change has been documented, the use of these treatments can actually produce dangerous or adverse effects such as a worsening of symptoms. As such, non-evidence-based treatments waste time that families could have spent implementing effective and science-based treatments that produce meaningful outcomes.
Additionally, we appreciate your discussion of informing readers about which evidence to prioritize when evaluating therapies and treatments, with anecdotes and observations as the least scientific levels and randomized controlled trials being the strongest indicators of effective treatments. At the Association for Science in Autism Treatment (ASAT), we are dedicated to ensuring that individuals and families have the resources and supports to better understand what treatments are effective and supported by science and protect themselves from pseudoscience. Therapies like MERT can deter families from accessing evidence-based care and may even lead to regression in autistic individuals.
Thank you for spreading awareness about MERT and its lack of scientific evidence as a treatment for autism. This article will help educate families about the dangers of non-scientific treatments and potentially pave the way for families to gain access to treatments that can produce meaningful change and support.
Sincerely,
Angela Fuhrmann-Knowles, MA, BCBA
Reva Mathieu-Sher, Ed.D., BCBA
Association for Science in Autism Treatment
