Secretin as a treatment for autism: a review of the evidence.

Connell et al. (2004) hunted for proof that secretin helps kids with autism. They rounded up every placebo-controlled trial on the hormone. Thirteen studies met the bar.

The team compared secretin shots to salt-water shots. They looked at language, behavior, and core autism signs. The review used strict rules to judge each paper.

Twelve of the thirteen trials showed zero edge for secretin over placebo. No study found clear gains in talking, playing, or social skills.

Side effects were mild and equal between groups. The authors label secretin "not recommended."

Williams et al. (2002) is one of the twelve negative trials pooled in this review. That RCT gave 42 kids either secretin or saline and saw no change on any measure. The review simply widens the lens.

Höfer et al. (2017) and Saral et al. (2023) show families still try many unproven treatments. Their surveys report 28–95% and 88% CAM use, so the myth lives on even after the science says stop.

Senel (2010) found parents felt CAM helped more than it hurt. This seems to clash with E et al.’s cold “no benefit” verdict. The gap is method: parent opinion versus controlled data. Feelings can be positive while objective scores stay flat.

Parents still ask about secretin because internet groups praise it. You can now answer with one clear sentence: every good trial says it does nothing. Save families the cost and the needle stick. Shift the talk toward evidence-based language and social interventions that actually move the needle.