![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
It looks like most of this is already in the article. Not sure if anyone would like to add anything from this Dec 18, 2009 MMWR report? [1] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
New information to help support theory that measuring autism techniques have changed over time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8268302.stm
"The NHS Information Centre found one in every hundred adults living in England has autism, which is identical to the rate in children.
If the vaccine was to blame, autism rates among children should be higher because the MMR has only been available since the early 1990s, the centre says" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.122.57 ( talk) 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
recent edit added a Terminology and Abbreviations section, describing about twenty abbreviations such as "AAC – Augmentative and Alternative Communication; communication through nonverbal means". This section is not helpful. The Autism article rightly doesn't discuss AAC, or the other ; the few places where it does use terms that have abbreviations, such as PDD-NOS, it explains them as it runs across them; that's enough. Anyway, it appears that the section was copied whole cloth from http://autismaspergerssyndrome.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_autism_dictionary, which we can't do (see Wikipedia:Copyright violations), so I reverted it. Eubulides ( talk) 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention salience. It describes features which could be linked to salience but doesn't actually use the word. Is this because it's not a generally recognised term in this context, or is there some other reason? Nineteenthly ( talk) 12:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I updated the statistics on autism in the US. The Center for Disease control has confirmed that 1 in 110 US children has autism. They also found that the rate of autism has increased 57% within four years. I wasn't sure how to add sources , so I'll list them here:
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20091218/autism-jumps-57percent-in-just-4-years
I assume most people have seen this? Wondering if it should be added somewere. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-mmr-vaccine Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This page takes a long time to load, and part of this is due to the use of the standard Wikipedia citation templates such as {{ cite journal}}. Recently developed faster & smaller Vancouver system templates such as {{ vcite journal}} would make the page much faster to generate (roughly by a factor of two in my tests) as well as significantly smaller in terms of the HTML generated. Let's use them here; they're already in use in Heritability of autism, Epidemiology of autism, etc., and have resulted in major savings both for time and for the size of the generated HTML. Eubulides ( talk) 08:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This might be useful, if used cautiously - a prospective study of early signs of autism. [2] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 21:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
They appear to have some beneficial response to nasal administered oxytocin in a new study. [3]-- 68.35.3.66 ( talk) 15:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Your introductory sentence seems to privilege the atypical neural development in autism over other signs by beginning with "Autism is a disorder of neural development." It doesn't actually say "atypical neural development is the primary factor" or "the atypical behavioural development in autism is a product of atypical neural development," but by saying "autism is" this factor and it is "characterised by" these other factors, I believe it carries that implication. I believe this question is presently unanswered by the science: Is autism neurodevelopmental in origin or are the atypical brain structure and function a product of the disorder? Autism is equally a disorder of executive function characterised by atypical neural development and impaired affective contact and tolerance for change. Or, a disorder of affective contact, characterised by limited tolerance for change, impaired executive function and atypical neural development.
Is the first sentence implying what I think it is?
If so, should it?
Anthony (
talk)
09:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Eubulides. How would you feel about changing the phrase from "a disorder of neural development" - 7 results on Google Scholar - to "neurodevelopmental disorder" - 6,840 results on Google Scholar? Can you tell me what classification system "neurodevelopmental disorder" is a part off? DSM IV? Anthony ( talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC) By the way, Neurodevelopmental disorder (which I visited before coming here) says it is an impairment of the growth and development of the brain or central nervous system, and lists a number of disorders that share this (sign?), but doesn't mention the term's role in taxonomy. Anthony ( talk) 14:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. The present formulation is less scary. "Neurodevelopmental disorder" is the name of one of 5 "clusters" of mental disorders in DSM-V (I have just discovered). If what you are saying in the first sentence is "autism is one of that cluster of mental illnesses collectively known as the neurodevelopmental disorders", then it would be prudent to use the class name. If you are saying that disordered neural development is a feature of autism, along with impaired social interaction and communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior - that is, if you are referring to one of its features/signs then the sentence should read more like "Autism is a mental illness characterised by disordered neural development, impaired social interaction and communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior," not "privileging" one feature over the others. I realise I am being eccentric here. Everyone is taking it for granted that of course the etiology of autism will be located in the brain. I just think it's a little early for that. Anthony ( talk) 19:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose replacing the first sentence with
Anthony ( talk) 04:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Eubulides.
Anthony ( talk) 07:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Anthony ( talk) 09:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, where does this come from and what does it mean? "Recent reliable sources on autism avoid definitions like Autism is a psychiatric syndrome, because such definitions would tend to mislead non-experts." Anthony ( talk) 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
We agree. My worry is that readers will take "disorder of neural development" to mean "caused by retarded or aberrant brain development". We know that it means "neurodevelopmental in origin or to have neurodevelopmental consequences when they occur in infancy and childhood". I am concerned that "disorder of neural development" sounds so obviously like "disorder (caused by aberrant) neural development" that almost all readers will not follow the link to discover in the second paragraph of Neurodevelopmental disorder that the brain atrophy and hypertrophy, the under- and overactivity may be a a manifestation of the unknown primary cause; no more causal than the executive dysfunction or stereotypies. To share my concern here you need to assume the position that the odd brain is as causal as the odd social relations. Anthony ( talk) 09:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a credible review of academic and research opinion on the question of etiology? The lead and corresponding authors of the paper you cite are both brain imagers looking for autism's etiology in the brain. I can't access Bailey et al. 1996 but the other paper they cite in support of their assertion, Robert G. DeLong 1999 makes no mention at all of a consensus view, but is an interesting theory of neuropathological etiology. If neuroscientists agree abnormal brain development is the present best guess concerning etiology, then even universal consensus among neuroscientists is of low value and the assumption that cause lies in the brain must be guarded against. If there is consensus with a high degree of certainty across disciplines, then it has to be reported here with evidence.
But no matter what degree of consensus you find regarding best guess etiology, until the cause is actually found, it is reckless to call it a "disorder of neural development" or even "neurodevelopmental disorder" when you concede it will be misread by the typical reader as "disorder (caused by aberrant) neural development" while the actual meaning of the term is "caused by or causing abnormal brain development". In this article it should be called what it is: a "psychiatric syndrome" (despite your worries about the cuckoo's nest connotations), and if you use "neurodevelopmental" or its synonyms you must define it so as to avoid the erroneous meaning you say the typical reader will draw. Readers of peer-reviewed journals (should) know what this term means - "causing or caused by" - but you admit your readers will misconstrue it, and say it doesn't matter. Anthony ( talk) 06:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think our point of contention is: I believe syndromes classed as neurodevelopmental disorders may be either the product of an obvious pathology or trauma, or a case of seemingly healthy brains behaving oddly (such as autism). You believe that if a syndrome is classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder, then the aberrant behaviour and affect is the product of the aberrant neural development.
I derive my belief from two things. I read Disorders considered to be neurodevelopmental in origin or to have neurodevelopmental consequences when they occur in infancy and childhood as saying that, and when you mentioned that it is a classification, I remembered having read many years ago that it was going to form a category in psychiatric nosology. My memory of what I read back then is that it would include childhood psychiatric syndromes associated with obvious brain disease, as well as those whose mechanism is not known but which are associated with abnormal brain function. I can't now find anything describing the inclusion criteria (but I haven't looked that hard yet). That is my reason for harrying you. If it is as I remember it and as I read Neurodevelopmental disorder, then, on its own, classification of autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder says nothing about whether the brain morphology "underlies" the disorder, it simply says "this syndrome includes unusual brain function and (hence?) morphology". And I am assuming some scholars, theorists and researchers are viewing autism in that way, too.
I could be dreaming about that paper I read, and misreading Neurodevelopmental disorder. If so, I apologise for wasting your valuable time and attention. I'll come back when I've read the ref's in Causes and Mechanism. But what I was hoping for was a study testing the assertion that "a general consensus has been that some type of aberrant neural development underlies the disorder of autism." That is, evidence of the asserted consensus. I'd be interested to know what percentage of what professions believe that, and how strongly. I didn't see anything like that in a cursory scan of the footnotes to those ref's. Anthony ( talk) 10:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with Eubulides' style of argument; and every word of this important medical article should be supported by authoritative secondary sources. Anthony ( talk) 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it should say "We don't know what autism is, but 51% of (some kind of) researchers agree that 'Autism is a disorder of neural development that is characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior." If "diagnosis is based on behavior, not cause or mechanism...." while "Genetic screening for autism is generally still impractical...", then in what percentage of cases do diagnoses remain purely subjective? 90-95%? Or more? 70.166.123.49 ( talk) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be some mention of the geographical frequency of autism in the epidemiology or some similar section. So far, most of the figures mentioned in the linked article on Epidemiology of Autism, focuses on the effects of the MMR vaccine, most of the figures from other countries are unknown or inconsistent. Maybe there is some research or a component to it that depends upon geographical or racial factors to the epidemiology, some countries have ~1% prevalence rates while some have far below even those. Since most of the research cited is from the US, at least a mention of some other (non-US) countries might be helpful with the context. -- Theo10011 ( talk) 01:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks for all your help, I see your point. I'll keep an eye out for any relevant information until then.-- Theo10011 ( talk) 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a new journal that perhaps should be referenced on the page. Molecular Autism. I notice from the above discussions, that due to control freaks, the talk page may end up being more informative than the page itself. That is not uncommon on wikipedia. I prefer a more open philosophy, where the page contains all possible information people might want to consider persuing further. Kinda the ultimate home page rather than the ultimate authority on the topic. Leave to the reader to determine whether just one or two peer review articles are enough to establish a scientific fact or medical therapy. Of course, overstatement of the evidence must be avoided, and contrary evidence should be given its say. None of this is relevant to this new journal though. I just thought it needed saying. -- 68.35.3.66 ( talk) 22:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit methodically went through the article replacing many phrases like "autistic children" with phrases like "children with autism". The edit also made a few other changes, such as replacing "mental retardation" with "developmental disabilities" and "autistic disorder" with "autism"; in some cases the change broke some wikilinks entirely. These global changes aren't appropriate. First, people-first language is controversial in the autistic community, and my impression is that it is more often opposed than supported. Second, this article should use the terminology of the sources: if the sources talk about "mental retardation" the article shouldn't change that to "developmental disability", as they are not the same thing. In particular, the article should quote the titles of sources correctly (the change also affected these titles). I undid the change; further comments are welcome here. Eubulides ( talk) 00:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Their social deficit lies in the fact that they have difficulty identifying emotions and they possess behaviors that are socially inappropriate not that they are incapable of cooperative behavior or the ability to possess a theory of mind (Downs & Smith 2004).
Downs, A., & Smith, T. (2004). Emotional understanding, cooperation, and social behavior in high-functioning children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(6), 625-635. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyjsay ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
is it or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.247.51 ( talk) 11:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The article states in two places that "the vaccine hypotheses are biologically implausible and lack convincing scientific evidence," yet in Mechanism/Pathophysiology it states, "successful neurodevelopment depends on a balanced immune response. It is possible that aberrant immune activity during critical periods of neurodevelopment is part of the mechanism of some forms of ASD."
So which is it? Either tampering with the immune system is a "biologically implausible" or "possible" cause of autism.
I read the four citations under reference #7 and found them unconvincing, primarily because they are abstracts.
7.1 (Doja) is an abstract with no data and makes extremely general conclusions.
7.2 (Gerber) is available full-text, but is an overview of other studies. It offers no data, and all of the citations are abstracts.
7.3 (Gross) is highly opinionated, and all its citations are abstracts.
7.4 (Paul) is highly opinionated, and offers no data or citations.
In other words, the statement that vaccines do not cause autism is unsupported.
What's worse, the fulltext article 7.3 (Gross)
[4] makes a number of revealing admissions.
First, it references a study of 124,000 children where thimerosal was found to have "significant positive association with tics," and "increased risks of language delay." (From his citation #5: Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines
[5])
Gross goes on to admit that no toxicity guidelines existed for ethylmercury while it was being used. In particular, the risks of methylmercury were well known, and the dosages for ethyl- routinely exceeded those established for methyl-.
He then goes on to lament that "Had the discovery about thimerosal come at a different time, it might have gone unnoticed." This shocking sentence implies that the author is aware of problems with thimerosal, and would rather it be kept quiet!
Next, Gross highlights a case where MMR vaccine exacerbated an infant's underlying autism-like symptoms. Fortunately for Gross, "The condition shares symptoms with ASD, but is distinct." In other words, even though the patient now has exacerbated ASD symptoms from taking MMR, it's okay because it's not actually autism.
I apologize for the length, but this is your citation. If you were willing to take into account what people are saying about these studies, you could very quickly reach an opposite conclusion. Example, look up Dr. Poul Thorsen.
Scientific abstracts are little more than unsupported opinion. It's fine to include expert opinion, as long as you say, "Scientist X claims Y and Z."
What you have done is to label unsupported opinion as fact, and failed to include the dissenting view. OrangeCatholic ( talk) 09:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
They're not "misreadings." You call them misreadings because they conflict with his overall point. Did you read it, or am I the first? A proper scientific article asks a question, provides examples, and then follows them to a conclusion. Proper science is humble because the data may complicate or disprove the original question.
Gross' article reads like a political essay, in that he assumes a conclusion (vaccines are safe and should be taken by everyone), and then attempts to disprove a small number of counter-examples as a way of making the original conclusion seem like it was always true to begin with. Here are some of his counter-examples and the way he handled them:
As for dinosaurs, what if you had written that dinosaurs evolving from archosaurs was "biologically implausible and lacking in convincing scientific evidence"? You would look foolish, no? I'm old enough to remember when dinosaurs evolved from lizards, when the "bird" theory was a fringe belief. All scientific facts are likewise opinions. Whether they should be taken as "facts" depends on
In the case of vaccine safety, you've done neither. You have a lot of expert opinions that it's safe, but no data, and no treatment of the opposite side.
For example, to write that evolution is fact, you would need at least some data (such as access to the butterfly study showing them turning darker during London's industrial revolution). You should also perform a cursory analysis of the opposing side (creationism), which is rife with flaws. Stating that evolution is fact "because a bunch of scientists say so", while only providing their abstracts, is not sufficient because it's just an opinion without public data to back it up.
Get it? Science isn't supposed to be secret. If evolution is so easy to prove, then at least one study should be available to the public to see for ourselves. Consider the case of a young girl growing up in a creationist town, you wouldn't be convincing her of evolution by citing only abstracts. You need evidence.
>Wikipedia articles are allowed to cite sources that are not freely readable.
Well I disagree with this policy 100%. How can a "free and open" encyclopedia cite sources that can't be verified? It's extremely naive to assume that an abstract's conclusion was obtained via proper scientific method. Rigging studies to show the "proper" conclusion is widely practiced, especially when money is involved.
I would like to read a study that compares autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. I can't find one, and I don't see that you guys have found one either. Otherwise we could read it together and have a discussion. OrangeCatholic ( talk) 10:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
>the scientific consensus is that vaccines do not cause autism
Then say that! I'd be much more comfortable with that statement, which roughly translates to, "The opinion of the vast majority of vaccine scientists is that vaccines do not cause autism," than the current statement, which is, "The vaccine hypotheses are biologically implausible and lack convincing scientific evidence."
Here's what's wrong with the current statement:
1. Implausible? It's perfectly plausible, otherwise it wouldn't keep coming up. Mercury is a known toxin, particularly a neurotoxin. This is common knowledge. It's perfectly "plausible" for a child's neurological problems to be caused by injecting them with a neurotoxin, and Gross admitted as much in the case of Terry and Jon Poling. He even called it a "table injury," meaning it was part of a standard table of side effects.
It's also "plausible" that an infant's immune system can't handle 15 viral loads administered 32 times [6]. Here are some quotes from a 2007 Discover article that brings up the immune system repeatedly [7]:
2. Convincing scientific evidence? This gets back to the issue of abstracts. You can't say that there's scientific evidence to the contrary without providing such evidence. You can say scientists believe their own research, but without access to the research, who knows for sure? Scientists protect their own avenues of funding, and they can be arrogant. Einstein was famously opposed to quantum mechanics for reasons that I can only conclude were psychological (i.e. ego or religious) in nature. He must have known it was true, but played devil's advocate simply because it was over his head.
>We all lament this....But reviews and textbooks are what our medical articles are built on. No one is hiding anything here. We're working responsibly within necessary constraints.
I'm sure you're working responsibly, but the constraints are imo irresponsible. It's not enough to lament access to the data. Peer review was supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff, but in the internet age, peer review can just as easily promote the chaff and who's the wiser?
>Because of...editors' lack of accountability
Maybe true, but to me, the whole point of opening it up to the world is that many of us have college degrees and are perfectly capable of examining the methods used in a scientific study. Maybe it's time for some degree of accountability and non-anonymity. If Wikipedia took itself 100% seriously and was 100% apolitical, there's no reason for me to hide my identity or qualifications. I could be getting writing credits and academic acclaim by contributing to an encyclopedia. But you're right, I could be a 15-year-old high school kid, and that's the problem.
Anyway, the "abstracts" issue is getting beyond the scope of this talk page and I'll take it up elsewhere. In the meantime, I'll take your opinions on the "implausibility" that the immune system plays a role in autism. OrangeCatholic ( talk) 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1. Implausible? It's perfectly plausible, otherwise it wouldn't keep coming up. By those standards, the moon landing hoax, 7 day creation, astrology, holocaust denial and a lot of other things are also perfectly plausible. -- U5K0 ( talk) 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit (twice made, and twice reverted) made this change to the lead:
This insertion is incorrect. First, there's no need for in-text attribution when there is no controversy among reliable sources, which is the case here. Second, the cited sources do not say "overwhelmingly considered by the scientific community", or anything like it; they merely say that the hypotheses are biologically implausible and that they lack convincing scientific evidence. We Wikipedia editors shouldn't be inserting our own opinions about how overwhelming things are. Eubulides ( talk) 08:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's an interesting thought problem: If I purchased a study, and included quotes from it in this article under fair use, how would you guys know if I was lying? OrangeCatholic ( talk) 10:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised the page doesn't have a {{ FAQ}} like talk:Evolution. Rather than re-inventing the wheel each time someone brings up the vaccine-autism chestnut, it would be nice to demonstrate consensus through a page we could point to immediately. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Undent. Posting the FAQ. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Recent peer reviewed research at MIND Institute, UC Davis Medical School:
There is fairly recent research at UC Davis' MIND Institute, in the Autism Phenome Project, which indicates a particular pattern of maternal antibodies to fetal brain is found in a little over 10% of mothers of autistic children, and almost never in mothers of typically developing children.
As such, this antibody pattern is a very strong marker for autism and mothers of one autistic child need to be aware of it so, if they have the pattern, they can avoid becoming pregnant until the meaning of the pattern, and possible treatment, is known.
Disseminating this information could prevent a great many cases of autism and be a great boon to a lot of people.
After all the discussion about changing this article in the past, I am posting this here for discussion first.
The research paper is on PubMed and can be found by searching "Maternal antibodies" and "Autism". It is not a review article, as quoted below, Wikipedia rules allow peer reviewed papers as a source if properly identified as such and not given undue weight, and I suggest the finding be included in the article per those rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.215 ( talk) 05:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I should not have been so lazy as to post without getting the proper information here for discussion. The comment above refers to this study in particular, I am copying and pasting the entire abstract from www.pubmed.gov: Neurotoxicology. 2008 Mar;29(2):226-31. Epub 2007 Nov 6.
Autism: maternally derived antibodies specific for fetal brain proteins. Braunschweig D, Ashwood P, Krakowiak P, Hertz-Picciotto I, Hansen R, Croen LA, Pessah IN, Van de Water J.
Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Clinical Immunology, University of California at Davis, CA, USA.
I believe this research, which I am assured is being confirmed by the same researchers, should be included in this article. It could prevent a significant number of autism cases. Off the top of my head, something like : Relatively recent research has indicated that about 10% of autism cases are associated with a pattern of maternal antibodies to fetal brain not found in the mothers of typically developing children or children with developmental delays but not autistic. Researchers hope to develop a commercial test for this antibody pattern which will identify mothers at great risk of having an autistic child"
I am not sure if MIND should be mentioned by name, the test is not yet commercialized, but it's something the mothers of one autistic child really should be checked for. Even at only 10% of all autistics, and even considering that it would probably only be given to mothers of autistics, at least to start, it's still potentially a huge benefit, because it covers more people than most genetic causes that have been found.
By the way, I did not ask anyone at MIND about this, I am the father of a study participant, and my wife does not have the antibody pattern, but my reading indicates it's a big advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.31 ( talk) 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again you are claiming the rules on primary sources are different than they actually are. In fact, primary sources, such as research papers from peer reviewed science journals, are NOT forbidden, despite the claims you make that they are. They are NOT.
In fact, the rules specifically give conditions under which they may be cited, and the proposed wording I've used for this change is permitted under those rules.
You don't own this article, and frankly I am upset that you continue to assert veto power over what other people put in when those edits are not forbidden and are good writing.
Please explain to me how this proposed change is not allowed.
Also, please explain exactly how the finding that CHILDHOOD antibodies do not correlate with autism refutes the claim that MATERNAL ANTIBODIES DURING PREGNANCY do.
I submit to you that it's you who are in conflict with the rules because you revert other people's edits on spurious grounds on a continual basis.
Also, I just followed the link you gave and reread the abstract, and they specifically do NOT question the findings from the people at MIND, read your own link before commenting on it, please. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.61.141.31 (
talk)
01:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Remember when we did this before, and I proved to both of you that the links you give as justification for not using primary sources say no such thing? That in fact, by giving rules for using primary sources, they made it very clear such sources ARE allowed?
Both of you insist on misrepresenting the rules, it certainly can not be accidental. Normally I would not mind but this research, which seems to be borne out by time unless they are just plain lying about their findings, lead to a means by which mothers can avoid having autistic children, and it's simply too important that the information gets out to those who need it.
Basically, Eubulides feels he owns this article, and no one else gets to contribute, which is also of course in conflict with the rules.
So, your are both doubly wrong, and preventing potentially very helpful information from reaching the public, which, it's true, time may not bear out but that has also never been refuted in any peer reviewed journal articles I can find, and so meets the criteria for inclusion.
What's ironic to the point of being funny is that Eubulides states the article is simply too good to be messed up with what he regards as "bad" sources, when in fact it's a terrible article on many levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.31 ( talk) 03:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I am having trouble posting but will try:
1. No one has quoted me anything in the rules which says "no primary sources" That is because it does not exist.
2. Eubulides wants to keep control of the article, and so, using the rule that says primary sources are disfavored if a secondary source contradicts them, he bring a quote from a review article saying immune system findings have been contradictory. But E, the article seems to be referring to AUTISTICS, not MOTHERS OF AUTISTICS. It does not at all refute the paper I cited. So, it is not relevant to this discussion.
3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 06:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
3. In fact, as best I can find, there is nothing in the literature that contradicts anything in the paper from MIND. Eubulides has tried to cite two papers from other researchers which were both irrelevant because they are about the patients, not their mothers. Am I supposed to believe both his citations were honest mistakes? I do not. I think he wants to totally control this article, and he knows that he does not have the right to do that, so he comes up with spurious reasons for rejecting changes. He's trying, in very bad faith, to use the "contradicted by other researchers" rule for deleting primary sources, but it does not work, because the citations he gives do not say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 06:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
4. I will respond to the comments about the research from MIND being either verified or refuted by other researchers:
First, if anyone else has done either thing, they seem to not have published. Although one would think that would take place eventually, the assumption that it would be done any time soon is not logical. These studies are expensive and require relatively large sample sizes. Even to do just a small study for replication of results requires dozens of autistics and dozens of controls, and to do specialized testing involving fetal brain. You can wait years for replication, but Wikipedia rules do not at all require that, they only require not giving undue weight to one study or to recent results just because they are recent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 07:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Finally, I will tell you all why the article is truly terrible, since someone asked.
The article does not bring out the following points in a way which is comprehensible to a normal person:
1. Autism is a diagnosis, a condition, which can be caused by many different biological processes, and there is proven to be great heterogeneity in people diagnosed with autism. Just for example, it's very closely tied to Fragile X syndrome, but the vast majority of autistics do not have Fragile X. That by itself means there is more than one cause.
This point needs to be made in simple language, although technically the article does say there are many causes, it's so confounded with needless jargon that this is easily lost. Bad writing, really bad writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 07:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The point is, people are considered to be autistic when some cause or causes makes their behavior such that it fits the diagnostic criteria used by the medical profession to define autism.
Also, the fact that most autistics are mentally retarded should be emphasized more, and that autism is widely believed to be a brain condition ultimately. Certainly this is implied but again it's done poorly, when it should be the central and most clear part of the article. For example, the article says most autistics never live independently, without explaining this is due to retardation, so that a naive reader would be left wondering, "why, do they stack blocks all day and fail to feed themselves?" Again, very bad writing.
Genetics is also a part that should be rewritten. They keep looking for the causative genes but not finding them, and yet the article used Identical twin studies as proof of genetic cause. How about in utero effects? Should be balanced on that point.
Finally, it should be emphasized brain can malfunction countless ways, it's the most complex thing in universe and can screw up in the most complex ways. Very important point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 07:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Eubulides ( talk) 08:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Eubulides: All I can say is "there you go again" I looked at your links to support your claim, and for the third time, you've cited studies which are either not relevant, or do not refute the research on maternal antibodies which I wish to include in the article. The first most recent review article link does not have an abstract that tells me much and I do not have access to the full article, so I can not comment on what it says, but the others either are research on different subjects entirely, OR, in the case of the last citation, (Singer) they tend to support the general principle of maternal antibodies of molecular weight 36 and 39 kDa being tied to autism.
In other words, you repeatedly misrepresent the truth in order to find some reason to exclude valid material.
After three strikes, I say you are out and though I can't access the review article, since every other citation you've used to support your point did not do so, the odds are high that this one does not either.
I don't believe you are acting sincerely to make these repeated misrepresentations, you are just trying to find any excuse to keep out content you did not generate. That is the bottom line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 16:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry for the lengthy quotes, but unlike the text of the actual article, I thought the entire abstract should be included because so much of it had relevance to the discussion here.
I don't want to get in some kind of huge squabble with people who are acting in good faith, but, you may not know the history, I was told that only secondary sources are allowed for Wikipedia articles, and this is simply not true.
Also, studies which did not refute the primary source seemed to be used as refutation, with the intention that this would mean the primary source could not be used.
In other words, I did not feel like I was being dealt with in good faith.
Good faith would have been first of all, making an ACCURATE statement of the rules, and conceding that primary sources are allowed as long as used correctly, ie, identified as primary sources, not refuted, not given undue weight compared to other sources, not given undue weight because they are recent.
None of these rules excluded the primary source I wanted to use.
I say again, none of these rules were applicable to the source as I proposed to use it, so the objection became "how do we know this primary source is better than any other"? which is NOT the standard for inclusion, and, since autism has so many different causes, really a denial of one of the main points the article should be making.
Put another way, all of the valid causes of autism should be included in the article. Those that are merely theoretical or are in serious dispute probably should not.
Those that are based on findings that have not been refuted and are not actually disputed should be included with caveats as to them being relatively preliminary findings.
This is science by the way, especially science of brain diseases that are not narrowly defined.
To be more specific, the fact that a secondary source, a review article, mentions related issues, but does NOT specifically refute a primary source, is not reason for exclusion under the rules, and, once again, if as many top line researchers believe, there are many different causes for autism, keeping information about any single cause out can not be justified on an intellectual basis. You are not removing chaff, or probable chaff, you are just taking out meaningful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I should try further to clear this up. Many, probably most, researchers in this field believe there is more than one, and possibly dozens, of causes for what is labeled autism per the diagnostic manual. If they are right, then findings of one primary source, such as "deletion on chromosome 9 causes autism" is NOT refuted, it's really important to emphasize this, is NOT REFUTED, by another paper that says, "copy number variation on chromosome 7 causes autism".
I've given an example of genetic causes, but of course it could have been "Maternal antibodies to fetal brain molecules of both 37 and 73 kDa, are almost always associated with autism" per the article I wanted to include, and that statement would not at all be refuted by mention of any other cause. It also would not be refuted by the publication of a review article which gave it short shrift, or for that matter did not mention it at all.
To make a crude analogy, suppose we were talking about causes of obesity. Someone says it's genetic, someone says it's environmental, someone says it's related to other disease processes, and all are right.
What Eubulides is doing is excluding say for example, the people who say, "Obesity is related to other disease processes" because their research is relatively recent, when in fact a huge percentage of all the research on autism is under 5 years old, and a lot is under 2.
He's not keeping it out because it's been refuted or even disputed, or any of the other valid reasons. That is what upsets me. In other words, rather than being a correct reason per the rules, it's an arbitrary over-extension of the general rule favoring secondary sources to an iron-clad prohibition of primary sources.
And the article, under his watchful eye, suffers greatly for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 04:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we are down to the gist of this thing. The judgment call on whether or not a primary source is worth including taking all the points you've made, and all I have made, into consideration. This judgment call can not be made without reference to the underlying subject matter,and my point is, the subject matter actually demands inclusion of a great many findings which will actually tend to create confusion among the reader, because that IS the state of research, and, if the strong belief of many front line researchers is correct, will remain the state of research for some time.
Recent reearch, and it's true I am getting this partly from MIND but certainly not entirely form there, indicates great hetergeneity among autistics. Study after study, by finding different abnormalities, which would not seem to be causally related to each other, indicate this heterogeneity. In other words, there are certainly several causes for what is called autism by a clinician, and there may even be hundreds. HUNDREDS.
Excluding primary studies, when the pace of research is such that they are not immediately replicated or refuted, because other researchers are too busy with their own projects to do replication, or the studies are too expensive to redo, does not help the article, because you are throwing out solid information for the sake of brevity and clarity which does not exist in the real world.
IF, a big IF, the state of research was such that brevity and clariy were possible, then I would be wrong and your side would be right, but it's simply not where the research has taken us.
What really ought to happen with the article is, instead of throwing out all the primary sources people try to put in, it should be explained both that the causes of autism are subject to great controversy and emotion among lay people and parents of autistics, but that the science does not lead to any one cause either, except that genetics are suspected to be the main factor in most cases, but that "genetics" in this sense could mean epigenetics, (article is good on that point I think, though maybe could add to explanation of epigenetics) and that "genetics" certainly does not mean one gene, or even several genes, but can include all the genes that could impact on brain development and function, that is, one autistic may have defect in developing synapes, another may have defect in developing certain brain regions, another has defect in neural migration, etc, etc, etc.
Although I recognize that a laymen's article can not review all the possible ways the brain can malfunction, to knowck out solid research which could be in the article is wrong, not just from the standpoint of helping people who might otherwise have an autistic child, because they did not know of testing that could have been done, but it simply does not give a good account of the state of knowledge.
Some problems are very complex, and autism is certainly one of them. In fact, I don't pretend to know enough about medicine to say this with certainty, but it seems fairly likely if you count all the causes that are likely to be eventually discovered, it could be the most complext "disease" that exists or ever will exist. Finally though, I would like to get back to the MIND findings a little. I am not saying they will stand up to time, and I am sure many people feel strongly that some cause of autism is the cause, and that their treatment program has to be promulgated to the public, and avoiding this kind of preaching is a good thing for the article.
Also, don't misunderstand, even if that research is 100% borne out, I'm not saying it's the Holy Grail of autism, it's still only about 10%, so 90% of autistics are not impacted by it.
But, if it does bear out, it's something that can help a lot of people. I don't propose to build it up excessively, just to put it out there as one cause among many.
Sorry for going on so long and if I got too upset before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.11.175 ( talk) 14:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to reemphasize, the primary research paper on maternal antibodies has been duplicated by the same researchers, and, more important perhaps from the standpoint of objective credibility, other researchers up at MIND created "autistic" monkeys by using the same antibodies to fetal brain. This was done with controls such that it seems certain something in these mothers causes brain abnormalities, in other words, not "Speculation with minor confirmation", but an extensive testing of the hypothesis through an alternate method.
I think you put too much emphasis on the idea that there are a lot of researchers out there skeptical of other researcher's findings and willing and able to test them by duplicating their efforts. What I've heard from a lot of them, not just MIND, but many others, is a firm belief that there are many causes of autism, and with that belief, it does not make sense to replicate other studies, unless you are really suspicious they are wrong, or think you can advance their findings. It makes sense to keep on with what you think will be most productive for you.
And taking it further, if these researchers are right, and there are many different causes, then it may be many primary studies will never be refuted in any secondary review articles, and frankly, a state of great confusion will reign for decades. Though the article is for layman and they can not understand the many different possible mechanisms of brain malfunction, conveying the complexity of the current state of knowledge is entirely appropriate.
At the very least, I would suggest that the article be changed to say, something like, "autism can be caused in many different ways", and use as examples Fragile X, some of the rare genetic defects, and then, with full identification as a preliminary finding, maternal antibodies. By the by, not to debate the underlying science too deeply, but the article cites high identical twin concordance as proof of genetic cause 70 to 90% of cases, but actually, identical twins are in the same mother at the same time, so in utero effects can not generally be excluded as causes, and in fact, if you think about the failure to find causative genes, in utero effects become the next place to look. I don't have easy access to full text of research papers, but there have to be many people who have expressed or admitted this same point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.65 ( talk) 14:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Some good points are made in the previous comment, but this still doesn't address the central WP:WEIGHT concern about the Autism article's promoting this particular primary study as opposed to lots of other primary studies. There are hundreds of them.
Eubulides ( talk) 00:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
All of you are wrong, and to be very blunt about it, if I edit the article to include this reearch, as long as it's done correctly, you will be wrong to revert it, because your action, rather than mine, will be in violation of the rules. Now, I will address these points one by one: First, testosterone during pregnancy is not forbidden from being in this article. If someone put it in, in the proper way according to the rules, anyone who removed it would be wrong to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.186 ( talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
If "consensus" meant that the majority rules, and the majority is taken relatively randomly from editors who post in the discussion section, then you would be right, but those are not the rules, and really should not be, because of all the reasons given above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.44.215 ( talk) 21:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
No, there was no consensus my interpretation of rules was wrong, in fact, after much pulling of teeth, it was finally admitted my interpretation was right and then the argument was changed to "your primary source has been disputed", and when I proved that inaccurate, "only secondary sources should be used", not because it's a rule, just because certain people felt that was better policy. Please understand: It's very likely the findings at MIND are accurate, they've been partly replicated at Kennedy Krieger, and, if people who have autistic children are informed of this research, by reading Wikipedia for example, they could get the antibody test and possibly save themselves from having a second child with autism. This is a huge potential benefit to the people who are reading this article, or about 12% of them anyway. I keep pushing this because of the possibility you can save much human misery, without even violating Wikipedia rules, and what I've gotten in response to this is repeated misrepresentation of the rules and of the findings of studies which were used in an attempt to refute this one, which actually in one case, the study from a very prominent mental retardation institution, confirmed these findings. Please reconsider this. If the findings are accurate, and remember, the other study Eubulides quoted above tends to confirm them, you are keeping really valuable information away from people who desperately need it. It's not like the other theories he mentioned, or at least not all of them, in that those theories do not lead to a test which will probably tell a subset of parents of autistic children if they are going to have another one. It's the possibility of sparing innocent people terrible problems which has me so worked up about it. Since it's allowed, and it might do a lot of good to include it, will someone please tell me the overarching reason not to?
Everything I read about autism, including the page on Wikipedia, mentions "children" with autism all the time and virtually no mention of adults. Autism spectrum disorders don't magically disappear when the child grows up into an adult! TurboForce ( talk) 15:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything I read about autism spectrum disorders just mentions "children" at every opportunity. For the autism related pages on Wikipeida, can we please remove the constant mention of "children" and replace it with "people" with autism. This REALLY annoys me and it's about time the "children" bias was removed once and for all. People who read the pages about autism seem to think that autism "only" affects children. SORT IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!
TurboForce (
talk)
01:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
New and interesting aritcle out from the AJS about the spatial relationship between children with autism and diagnosis of autism - [10]. The gist appears to be that living near someone with autism increases your chances of being diagnosed, due to the greater awareness and exchange of information by parents. Sciencebasedmedicine has a post on it, gotta love a lay summary - [11]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
A report about the effects of Spironolactone on childen with autism. article was locked, couldn't add, putting it here instead. http://www.autismresourceconnection.com/documents/BTL-SpironolactoneandAutism_Version_7_JB.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.133.205 ( talk) 23:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
understood, impressed by the speed =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.133.205 ( talk) 00:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
"The two other autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are Asperger syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive development and language, and PDD-NOS, diagnosed when full criteria for the other two disorders are not met.[3]" This sentence is quite confusing. I would like to change it to:
"The two other autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are Asperger syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive development and language, and PDD-NOS, diagnosed when the full criteria for autism or Asperger syndrome are not met.[3]" Bj norge ( talk) 09:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Inconsistency between Graphic and Accompanying Text
The article makes a clear distinction between autism and ASD. However, under this section "Epidemiology" there is a graph with explanatory text that says: "Reports of autism cases per 1,000 children grew dramatically in the U.S. from 1996 to 2007. It is unknown how much, if any, growth came from changes in autism's prevalence."
This graph is meant to illustrate the text of the article which says, as the first clause in the first sentence: "Most recent reviews tend to estimate a prevalence of 1–2 per 1,000 for autism and close to 6 per 1,000 for ASD; ..."
Manifestly, the text accompanying the graph should substitute "ASD" for "autism" or just graph the increase in reported autism ending with the most recent figure of 1.2 per thousand. As it stands, the graph is both inaccurate with the facts supported by citations in the text of the article and misleading with these huge bars reaching six without referencing scale.
Misplaced comment moved from Wikipedia talk:Protection policy 123.222.215.125 ( talk) 01:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a developmental disorder and rightly linked here to questions of theory of mind. Terming it an emotional disorder in the context of an article about attachment disorders risks subscribing to discredited and sexist theories blaming "refrigerator mothers" for their child's autism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.255.241 ( talk) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
New publication from Nature about autism and genetics. I can't understand anything it says :( but I think it's free full text. [' http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09146.html]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
It looks like most of this is already in the article. Not sure if anyone would like to add anything from this Dec 18, 2009 MMWR report? [1] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
New information to help support theory that measuring autism techniques have changed over time:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8268302.stm
"The NHS Information Centre found one in every hundred adults living in England has autism, which is identical to the rate in children.
If the vaccine was to blame, autism rates among children should be higher because the MMR has only been available since the early 1990s, the centre says" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.166.122.57 ( talk) 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
recent edit added a Terminology and Abbreviations section, describing about twenty abbreviations such as "AAC – Augmentative and Alternative Communication; communication through nonverbal means". This section is not helpful. The Autism article rightly doesn't discuss AAC, or the other ; the few places where it does use terms that have abbreviations, such as PDD-NOS, it explains them as it runs across them; that's enough. Anyway, it appears that the section was copied whole cloth from http://autismaspergerssyndrome.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_autism_dictionary, which we can't do (see Wikipedia:Copyright violations), so I reverted it. Eubulides ( talk) 21:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention salience. It describes features which could be linked to salience but doesn't actually use the word. Is this because it's not a generally recognised term in this context, or is there some other reason? Nineteenthly ( talk) 12:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I updated the statistics on autism in the US. The Center for Disease control has confirmed that 1 in 110 US children has autism. They also found that the rate of autism has increased 57% within four years. I wasn't sure how to add sources , so I'll list them here:
http://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20091218/autism-jumps-57percent-in-just-4-years
I assume most people have seen this? Wondering if it should be added somewere. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-mmr-vaccine Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This page takes a long time to load, and part of this is due to the use of the standard Wikipedia citation templates such as {{ cite journal}}. Recently developed faster & smaller Vancouver system templates such as {{ vcite journal}} would make the page much faster to generate (roughly by a factor of two in my tests) as well as significantly smaller in terms of the HTML generated. Let's use them here; they're already in use in Heritability of autism, Epidemiology of autism, etc., and have resulted in major savings both for time and for the size of the generated HTML. Eubulides ( talk) 08:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This might be useful, if used cautiously - a prospective study of early signs of autism. [2] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 21:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
They appear to have some beneficial response to nasal administered oxytocin in a new study. [3]-- 68.35.3.66 ( talk) 15:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Your introductory sentence seems to privilege the atypical neural development in autism over other signs by beginning with "Autism is a disorder of neural development." It doesn't actually say "atypical neural development is the primary factor" or "the atypical behavioural development in autism is a product of atypical neural development," but by saying "autism is" this factor and it is "characterised by" these other factors, I believe it carries that implication. I believe this question is presently unanswered by the science: Is autism neurodevelopmental in origin or are the atypical brain structure and function a product of the disorder? Autism is equally a disorder of executive function characterised by atypical neural development and impaired affective contact and tolerance for change. Or, a disorder of affective contact, characterised by limited tolerance for change, impaired executive function and atypical neural development.
Is the first sentence implying what I think it is?
If so, should it?
Anthony (
talk)
09:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Eubulides. How would you feel about changing the phrase from "a disorder of neural development" - 7 results on Google Scholar - to "neurodevelopmental disorder" - 6,840 results on Google Scholar? Can you tell me what classification system "neurodevelopmental disorder" is a part off? DSM IV? Anthony ( talk) 13:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC) By the way, Neurodevelopmental disorder (which I visited before coming here) says it is an impairment of the growth and development of the brain or central nervous system, and lists a number of disorders that share this (sign?), but doesn't mention the term's role in taxonomy. Anthony ( talk) 14:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again. The present formulation is less scary. "Neurodevelopmental disorder" is the name of one of 5 "clusters" of mental disorders in DSM-V (I have just discovered). If what you are saying in the first sentence is "autism is one of that cluster of mental illnesses collectively known as the neurodevelopmental disorders", then it would be prudent to use the class name. If you are saying that disordered neural development is a feature of autism, along with impaired social interaction and communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior - that is, if you are referring to one of its features/signs then the sentence should read more like "Autism is a mental illness characterised by disordered neural development, impaired social interaction and communication, and restricted and repetitive behavior," not "privileging" one feature over the others. I realise I am being eccentric here. Everyone is taking it for granted that of course the etiology of autism will be located in the brain. I just think it's a little early for that. Anthony ( talk) 19:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I propose replacing the first sentence with
Anthony ( talk) 04:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Eubulides.
Anthony ( talk) 07:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Anthony ( talk) 09:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, where does this come from and what does it mean? "Recent reliable sources on autism avoid definitions like Autism is a psychiatric syndrome, because such definitions would tend to mislead non-experts." Anthony ( talk) 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
We agree. My worry is that readers will take "disorder of neural development" to mean "caused by retarded or aberrant brain development". We know that it means "neurodevelopmental in origin or to have neurodevelopmental consequences when they occur in infancy and childhood". I am concerned that "disorder of neural development" sounds so obviously like "disorder (caused by aberrant) neural development" that almost all readers will not follow the link to discover in the second paragraph of Neurodevelopmental disorder that the brain atrophy and hypertrophy, the under- and overactivity may be a a manifestation of the unknown primary cause; no more causal than the executive dysfunction or stereotypies. To share my concern here you need to assume the position that the odd brain is as causal as the odd social relations. Anthony ( talk) 09:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a credible review of academic and research opinion on the question of etiology? The lead and corresponding authors of the paper you cite are both brain imagers looking for autism's etiology in the brain. I can't access Bailey et al. 1996 but the other paper they cite in support of their assertion, Robert G. DeLong 1999 makes no mention at all of a consensus view, but is an interesting theory of neuropathological etiology. If neuroscientists agree abnormal brain development is the present best guess concerning etiology, then even universal consensus among neuroscientists is of low value and the assumption that cause lies in the brain must be guarded against. If there is consensus with a high degree of certainty across disciplines, then it has to be reported here with evidence.
But no matter what degree of consensus you find regarding best guess etiology, until the cause is actually found, it is reckless to call it a "disorder of neural development" or even "neurodevelopmental disorder" when you concede it will be misread by the typical reader as "disorder (caused by aberrant) neural development" while the actual meaning of the term is "caused by or causing abnormal brain development". In this article it should be called what it is: a "psychiatric syndrome" (despite your worries about the cuckoo's nest connotations), and if you use "neurodevelopmental" or its synonyms you must define it so as to avoid the erroneous meaning you say the typical reader will draw. Readers of peer-reviewed journals (should) know what this term means - "causing or caused by" - but you admit your readers will misconstrue it, and say it doesn't matter. Anthony ( talk) 06:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think our point of contention is: I believe syndromes classed as neurodevelopmental disorders may be either the product of an obvious pathology or trauma, or a case of seemingly healthy brains behaving oddly (such as autism). You believe that if a syndrome is classified as a neurodevelopmental disorder, then the aberrant behaviour and affect is the product of the aberrant neural development.
I derive my belief from two things. I read Disorders considered to be neurodevelopmental in origin or to have neurodevelopmental consequences when they occur in infancy and childhood as saying that, and when you mentioned that it is a classification, I remembered having read many years ago that it was going to form a category in psychiatric nosology. My memory of what I read back then is that it would include childhood psychiatric syndromes associated with obvious brain disease, as well as those whose mechanism is not known but which are associated with abnormal brain function. I can't now find anything describing the inclusion criteria (but I haven't looked that hard yet). That is my reason for harrying you. If it is as I remember it and as I read Neurodevelopmental disorder, then, on its own, classification of autism as a neurodevelopmental disorder says nothing about whether the brain morphology "underlies" the disorder, it simply says "this syndrome includes unusual brain function and (hence?) morphology". And I am assuming some scholars, theorists and researchers are viewing autism in that way, too.
I could be dreaming about that paper I read, and misreading Neurodevelopmental disorder. If so, I apologise for wasting your valuable time and attention. I'll come back when I've read the ref's in Causes and Mechanism. But what I was hoping for was a study testing the assertion that "a general consensus has been that some type of aberrant neural development underlies the disorder of autism." That is, evidence of the asserted consensus. I'd be interested to know what percentage of what professions believe that, and how strongly. I didn't see anything like that in a cursory scan of the footnotes to those ref's. Anthony ( talk) 10:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with Eubulides' style of argument; and every word of this important medical article should be supported by authoritative secondary sources. Anthony ( talk) 02:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it should say "We don't know what autism is, but 51% of (some kind of) researchers agree that 'Autism is a disorder of neural development that is characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, and by restricted and repetitive behavior." If "diagnosis is based on behavior, not cause or mechanism...." while "Genetic screening for autism is generally still impractical...", then in what percentage of cases do diagnoses remain purely subjective? 90-95%? Or more? 70.166.123.49 ( talk) 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be some mention of the geographical frequency of autism in the epidemiology or some similar section. So far, most of the figures mentioned in the linked article on Epidemiology of Autism, focuses on the effects of the MMR vaccine, most of the figures from other countries are unknown or inconsistent. Maybe there is some research or a component to it that depends upon geographical or racial factors to the epidemiology, some countries have ~1% prevalence rates while some have far below even those. Since most of the research cited is from the US, at least a mention of some other (non-US) countries might be helpful with the context. -- Theo10011 ( talk) 01:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok thanks for all your help, I see your point. I'll keep an eye out for any relevant information until then.-- Theo10011 ( talk) 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a new journal that perhaps should be referenced on the page. Molecular Autism. I notice from the above discussions, that due to control freaks, the talk page may end up being more informative than the page itself. That is not uncommon on wikipedia. I prefer a more open philosophy, where the page contains all possible information people might want to consider persuing further. Kinda the ultimate home page rather than the ultimate authority on the topic. Leave to the reader to determine whether just one or two peer review articles are enough to establish a scientific fact or medical therapy. Of course, overstatement of the evidence must be avoided, and contrary evidence should be given its say. None of this is relevant to this new journal though. I just thought it needed saying. -- 68.35.3.66 ( talk) 22:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit methodically went through the article replacing many phrases like "autistic children" with phrases like "children with autism". The edit also made a few other changes, such as replacing "mental retardation" with "developmental disabilities" and "autistic disorder" with "autism"; in some cases the change broke some wikilinks entirely. These global changes aren't appropriate. First, people-first language is controversial in the autistic community, and my impression is that it is more often opposed than supported. Second, this article should use the terminology of the sources: if the sources talk about "mental retardation" the article shouldn't change that to "developmental disability", as they are not the same thing. In particular, the article should quote the titles of sources correctly (the change also affected these titles). I undid the change; further comments are welcome here. Eubulides ( talk) 00:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Their social deficit lies in the fact that they have difficulty identifying emotions and they possess behaviors that are socially inappropriate not that they are incapable of cooperative behavior or the ability to possess a theory of mind (Downs & Smith 2004).
Downs, A., & Smith, T. (2004). Emotional understanding, cooperation, and social behavior in high-functioning children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(6), 625-635. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psyjsay ( talk • contribs) 05:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
is it or not —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.247.51 ( talk) 11:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The article states in two places that "the vaccine hypotheses are biologically implausible and lack convincing scientific evidence," yet in Mechanism/Pathophysiology it states, "successful neurodevelopment depends on a balanced immune response. It is possible that aberrant immune activity during critical periods of neurodevelopment is part of the mechanism of some forms of ASD."
So which is it? Either tampering with the immune system is a "biologically implausible" or "possible" cause of autism.
I read the four citations under reference #7 and found them unconvincing, primarily because they are abstracts.
7.1 (Doja) is an abstract with no data and makes extremely general conclusions.
7.2 (Gerber) is available full-text, but is an overview of other studies. It offers no data, and all of the citations are abstracts.
7.3 (Gross) is highly opinionated, and all its citations are abstracts.
7.4 (Paul) is highly opinionated, and offers no data or citations.
In other words, the statement that vaccines do not cause autism is unsupported.
What's worse, the fulltext article 7.3 (Gross)
[4] makes a number of revealing admissions.
First, it references a study of 124,000 children where thimerosal was found to have "significant positive association with tics," and "increased risks of language delay." (From his citation #5: Safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines
[5])
Gross goes on to admit that no toxicity guidelines existed for ethylmercury while it was being used. In particular, the risks of methylmercury were well known, and the dosages for ethyl- routinely exceeded those established for methyl-.
He then goes on to lament that "Had the discovery about thimerosal come at a different time, it might have gone unnoticed." This shocking sentence implies that the author is aware of problems with thimerosal, and would rather it be kept quiet!
Next, Gross highlights a case where MMR vaccine exacerbated an infant's underlying autism-like symptoms. Fortunately for Gross, "The condition shares symptoms with ASD, but is distinct." In other words, even though the patient now has exacerbated ASD symptoms from taking MMR, it's okay because it's not actually autism.
I apologize for the length, but this is your citation. If you were willing to take into account what people are saying about these studies, you could very quickly reach an opposite conclusion. Example, look up Dr. Poul Thorsen.
Scientific abstracts are little more than unsupported opinion. It's fine to include expert opinion, as long as you say, "Scientist X claims Y and Z."
What you have done is to label unsupported opinion as fact, and failed to include the dissenting view. OrangeCatholic ( talk) 09:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
They're not "misreadings." You call them misreadings because they conflict with his overall point. Did you read it, or am I the first? A proper scientific article asks a question, provides examples, and then follows them to a conclusion. Proper science is humble because the data may complicate or disprove the original question.
Gross' article reads like a political essay, in that he assumes a conclusion (vaccines are safe and should be taken by everyone), and then attempts to disprove a small number of counter-examples as a way of making the original conclusion seem like it was always true to begin with. Here are some of his counter-examples and the way he handled them:
As for dinosaurs, what if you had written that dinosaurs evolving from archosaurs was "biologically implausible and lacking in convincing scientific evidence"? You would look foolish, no? I'm old enough to remember when dinosaurs evolved from lizards, when the "bird" theory was a fringe belief. All scientific facts are likewise opinions. Whether they should be taken as "facts" depends on
In the case of vaccine safety, you've done neither. You have a lot of expert opinions that it's safe, but no data, and no treatment of the opposite side.
For example, to write that evolution is fact, you would need at least some data (such as access to the butterfly study showing them turning darker during London's industrial revolution). You should also perform a cursory analysis of the opposing side (creationism), which is rife with flaws. Stating that evolution is fact "because a bunch of scientists say so", while only providing their abstracts, is not sufficient because it's just an opinion without public data to back it up.
Get it? Science isn't supposed to be secret. If evolution is so easy to prove, then at least one study should be available to the public to see for ourselves. Consider the case of a young girl growing up in a creationist town, you wouldn't be convincing her of evolution by citing only abstracts. You need evidence.
>Wikipedia articles are allowed to cite sources that are not freely readable.
Well I disagree with this policy 100%. How can a "free and open" encyclopedia cite sources that can't be verified? It's extremely naive to assume that an abstract's conclusion was obtained via proper scientific method. Rigging studies to show the "proper" conclusion is widely practiced, especially when money is involved.
I would like to read a study that compares autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. I can't find one, and I don't see that you guys have found one either. Otherwise we could read it together and have a discussion. OrangeCatholic ( talk) 10:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
>the scientific consensus is that vaccines do not cause autism
Then say that! I'd be much more comfortable with that statement, which roughly translates to, "The opinion of the vast majority of vaccine scientists is that vaccines do not cause autism," than the current statement, which is, "The vaccine hypotheses are biologically implausible and lack convincing scientific evidence."
Here's what's wrong with the current statement:
1. Implausible? It's perfectly plausible, otherwise it wouldn't keep coming up. Mercury is a known toxin, particularly a neurotoxin. This is common knowledge. It's perfectly "plausible" for a child's neurological problems to be caused by injecting them with a neurotoxin, and Gross admitted as much in the case of Terry and Jon Poling. He even called it a "table injury," meaning it was part of a standard table of side effects.
It's also "plausible" that an infant's immune system can't handle 15 viral loads administered 32 times [6]. Here are some quotes from a 2007 Discover article that brings up the immune system repeatedly [7]:
2. Convincing scientific evidence? This gets back to the issue of abstracts. You can't say that there's scientific evidence to the contrary without providing such evidence. You can say scientists believe their own research, but without access to the research, who knows for sure? Scientists protect their own avenues of funding, and they can be arrogant. Einstein was famously opposed to quantum mechanics for reasons that I can only conclude were psychological (i.e. ego or religious) in nature. He must have known it was true, but played devil's advocate simply because it was over his head.
>We all lament this....But reviews and textbooks are what our medical articles are built on. No one is hiding anything here. We're working responsibly within necessary constraints.
I'm sure you're working responsibly, but the constraints are imo irresponsible. It's not enough to lament access to the data. Peer review was supposed to separate the wheat from the chaff, but in the internet age, peer review can just as easily promote the chaff and who's the wiser?
>Because of...editors' lack of accountability
Maybe true, but to me, the whole point of opening it up to the world is that many of us have college degrees and are perfectly capable of examining the methods used in a scientific study. Maybe it's time for some degree of accountability and non-anonymity. If Wikipedia took itself 100% seriously and was 100% apolitical, there's no reason for me to hide my identity or qualifications. I could be getting writing credits and academic acclaim by contributing to an encyclopedia. But you're right, I could be a 15-year-old high school kid, and that's the problem.
Anyway, the "abstracts" issue is getting beyond the scope of this talk page and I'll take it up elsewhere. In the meantime, I'll take your opinions on the "implausibility" that the immune system plays a role in autism. OrangeCatholic ( talk) 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1. Implausible? It's perfectly plausible, otherwise it wouldn't keep coming up. By those standards, the moon landing hoax, 7 day creation, astrology, holocaust denial and a lot of other things are also perfectly plausible. -- U5K0 ( talk) 21:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
A recent edit (twice made, and twice reverted) made this change to the lead:
This insertion is incorrect. First, there's no need for in-text attribution when there is no controversy among reliable sources, which is the case here. Second, the cited sources do not say "overwhelmingly considered by the scientific community", or anything like it; they merely say that the hypotheses are biologically implausible and that they lack convincing scientific evidence. We Wikipedia editors shouldn't be inserting our own opinions about how overwhelming things are. Eubulides ( talk) 08:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Here's an interesting thought problem: If I purchased a study, and included quotes from it in this article under fair use, how would you guys know if I was lying? OrangeCatholic ( talk) 10:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised the page doesn't have a {{ FAQ}} like talk:Evolution. Rather than re-inventing the wheel each time someone brings up the vaccine-autism chestnut, it would be nice to demonstrate consensus through a page we could point to immediately. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 12:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Undent. Posting the FAQ. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 01:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Recent peer reviewed research at MIND Institute, UC Davis Medical School:
There is fairly recent research at UC Davis' MIND Institute, in the Autism Phenome Project, which indicates a particular pattern of maternal antibodies to fetal brain is found in a little over 10% of mothers of autistic children, and almost never in mothers of typically developing children.
As such, this antibody pattern is a very strong marker for autism and mothers of one autistic child need to be aware of it so, if they have the pattern, they can avoid becoming pregnant until the meaning of the pattern, and possible treatment, is known.
Disseminating this information could prevent a great many cases of autism and be a great boon to a lot of people.
After all the discussion about changing this article in the past, I am posting this here for discussion first.
The research paper is on PubMed and can be found by searching "Maternal antibodies" and "Autism". It is not a review article, as quoted below, Wikipedia rules allow peer reviewed papers as a source if properly identified as such and not given undue weight, and I suggest the finding be included in the article per those rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.215 ( talk) 05:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I should not have been so lazy as to post without getting the proper information here for discussion. The comment above refers to this study in particular, I am copying and pasting the entire abstract from www.pubmed.gov: Neurotoxicology. 2008 Mar;29(2):226-31. Epub 2007 Nov 6.
Autism: maternally derived antibodies specific for fetal brain proteins. Braunschweig D, Ashwood P, Krakowiak P, Hertz-Picciotto I, Hansen R, Croen LA, Pessah IN, Van de Water J.
Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Clinical Immunology, University of California at Davis, CA, USA.
I believe this research, which I am assured is being confirmed by the same researchers, should be included in this article. It could prevent a significant number of autism cases. Off the top of my head, something like : Relatively recent research has indicated that about 10% of autism cases are associated with a pattern of maternal antibodies to fetal brain not found in the mothers of typically developing children or children with developmental delays but not autistic. Researchers hope to develop a commercial test for this antibody pattern which will identify mothers at great risk of having an autistic child"
I am not sure if MIND should be mentioned by name, the test is not yet commercialized, but it's something the mothers of one autistic child really should be checked for. Even at only 10% of all autistics, and even considering that it would probably only be given to mothers of autistics, at least to start, it's still potentially a huge benefit, because it covers more people than most genetic causes that have been found.
By the way, I did not ask anyone at MIND about this, I am the father of a study participant, and my wife does not have the antibody pattern, but my reading indicates it's a big advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.31 ( talk) 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Once again you are claiming the rules on primary sources are different than they actually are. In fact, primary sources, such as research papers from peer reviewed science journals, are NOT forbidden, despite the claims you make that they are. They are NOT.
In fact, the rules specifically give conditions under which they may be cited, and the proposed wording I've used for this change is permitted under those rules.
You don't own this article, and frankly I am upset that you continue to assert veto power over what other people put in when those edits are not forbidden and are good writing.
Please explain to me how this proposed change is not allowed.
Also, please explain exactly how the finding that CHILDHOOD antibodies do not correlate with autism refutes the claim that MATERNAL ANTIBODIES DURING PREGNANCY do.
I submit to you that it's you who are in conflict with the rules because you revert other people's edits on spurious grounds on a continual basis.
Also, I just followed the link you gave and reread the abstract, and they specifically do NOT question the findings from the people at MIND, read your own link before commenting on it, please. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.61.141.31 (
talk)
01:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Remember when we did this before, and I proved to both of you that the links you give as justification for not using primary sources say no such thing? That in fact, by giving rules for using primary sources, they made it very clear such sources ARE allowed?
Both of you insist on misrepresenting the rules, it certainly can not be accidental. Normally I would not mind but this research, which seems to be borne out by time unless they are just plain lying about their findings, lead to a means by which mothers can avoid having autistic children, and it's simply too important that the information gets out to those who need it.
Basically, Eubulides feels he owns this article, and no one else gets to contribute, which is also of course in conflict with the rules.
So, your are both doubly wrong, and preventing potentially very helpful information from reaching the public, which, it's true, time may not bear out but that has also never been refuted in any peer reviewed journal articles I can find, and so meets the criteria for inclusion.
What's ironic to the point of being funny is that Eubulides states the article is simply too good to be messed up with what he regards as "bad" sources, when in fact it's a terrible article on many levels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.31 ( talk) 03:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I am having trouble posting but will try:
1. No one has quoted me anything in the rules which says "no primary sources" That is because it does not exist.
2. Eubulides wants to keep control of the article, and so, using the rule that says primary sources are disfavored if a secondary source contradicts them, he bring a quote from a review article saying immune system findings have been contradictory. But E, the article seems to be referring to AUTISTICS, not MOTHERS OF AUTISTICS. It does not at all refute the paper I cited. So, it is not relevant to this discussion.
3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 06:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
3. In fact, as best I can find, there is nothing in the literature that contradicts anything in the paper from MIND. Eubulides has tried to cite two papers from other researchers which were both irrelevant because they are about the patients, not their mothers. Am I supposed to believe both his citations were honest mistakes? I do not. I think he wants to totally control this article, and he knows that he does not have the right to do that, so he comes up with spurious reasons for rejecting changes. He's trying, in very bad faith, to use the "contradicted by other researchers" rule for deleting primary sources, but it does not work, because the citations he gives do not say that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 06:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
4. I will respond to the comments about the research from MIND being either verified or refuted by other researchers:
First, if anyone else has done either thing, they seem to not have published. Although one would think that would take place eventually, the assumption that it would be done any time soon is not logical. These studies are expensive and require relatively large sample sizes. Even to do just a small study for replication of results requires dozens of autistics and dozens of controls, and to do specialized testing involving fetal brain. You can wait years for replication, but Wikipedia rules do not at all require that, they only require not giving undue weight to one study or to recent results just because they are recent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 07:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Finally, I will tell you all why the article is truly terrible, since someone asked.
The article does not bring out the following points in a way which is comprehensible to a normal person:
1. Autism is a diagnosis, a condition, which can be caused by many different biological processes, and there is proven to be great heterogeneity in people diagnosed with autism. Just for example, it's very closely tied to Fragile X syndrome, but the vast majority of autistics do not have Fragile X. That by itself means there is more than one cause.
This point needs to be made in simple language, although technically the article does say there are many causes, it's so confounded with needless jargon that this is easily lost. Bad writing, really bad writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 07:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The point is, people are considered to be autistic when some cause or causes makes their behavior such that it fits the diagnostic criteria used by the medical profession to define autism.
Also, the fact that most autistics are mentally retarded should be emphasized more, and that autism is widely believed to be a brain condition ultimately. Certainly this is implied but again it's done poorly, when it should be the central and most clear part of the article. For example, the article says most autistics never live independently, without explaining this is due to retardation, so that a naive reader would be left wondering, "why, do they stack blocks all day and fail to feed themselves?" Again, very bad writing.
Genetics is also a part that should be rewritten. They keep looking for the causative genes but not finding them, and yet the article used Identical twin studies as proof of genetic cause. How about in utero effects? Should be balanced on that point.
Finally, it should be emphasized brain can malfunction countless ways, it's the most complex thing in universe and can screw up in the most complex ways. Very important point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 07:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Eubulides ( talk) 08:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Eubulides: All I can say is "there you go again" I looked at your links to support your claim, and for the third time, you've cited studies which are either not relevant, or do not refute the research on maternal antibodies which I wish to include in the article. The first most recent review article link does not have an abstract that tells me much and I do not have access to the full article, so I can not comment on what it says, but the others either are research on different subjects entirely, OR, in the case of the last citation, (Singer) they tend to support the general principle of maternal antibodies of molecular weight 36 and 39 kDa being tied to autism.
In other words, you repeatedly misrepresent the truth in order to find some reason to exclude valid material.
After three strikes, I say you are out and though I can't access the review article, since every other citation you've used to support your point did not do so, the odds are high that this one does not either.
I don't believe you are acting sincerely to make these repeated misrepresentations, you are just trying to find any excuse to keep out content you did not generate. That is the bottom line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 16:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry for the lengthy quotes, but unlike the text of the actual article, I thought the entire abstract should be included because so much of it had relevance to the discussion here.
I don't want to get in some kind of huge squabble with people who are acting in good faith, but, you may not know the history, I was told that only secondary sources are allowed for Wikipedia articles, and this is simply not true.
Also, studies which did not refute the primary source seemed to be used as refutation, with the intention that this would mean the primary source could not be used.
In other words, I did not feel like I was being dealt with in good faith.
Good faith would have been first of all, making an ACCURATE statement of the rules, and conceding that primary sources are allowed as long as used correctly, ie, identified as primary sources, not refuted, not given undue weight compared to other sources, not given undue weight because they are recent.
None of these rules excluded the primary source I wanted to use.
I say again, none of these rules were applicable to the source as I proposed to use it, so the objection became "how do we know this primary source is better than any other"? which is NOT the standard for inclusion, and, since autism has so many different causes, really a denial of one of the main points the article should be making.
Put another way, all of the valid causes of autism should be included in the article. Those that are merely theoretical or are in serious dispute probably should not.
Those that are based on findings that have not been refuted and are not actually disputed should be included with caveats as to them being relatively preliminary findings.
This is science by the way, especially science of brain diseases that are not narrowly defined.
To be more specific, the fact that a secondary source, a review article, mentions related issues, but does NOT specifically refute a primary source, is not reason for exclusion under the rules, and, once again, if as many top line researchers believe, there are many different causes for autism, keeping information about any single cause out can not be justified on an intellectual basis. You are not removing chaff, or probable chaff, you are just taking out meaningful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 03:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I should try further to clear this up. Many, probably most, researchers in this field believe there is more than one, and possibly dozens, of causes for what is labeled autism per the diagnostic manual. If they are right, then findings of one primary source, such as "deletion on chromosome 9 causes autism" is NOT refuted, it's really important to emphasize this, is NOT REFUTED, by another paper that says, "copy number variation on chromosome 7 causes autism".
I've given an example of genetic causes, but of course it could have been "Maternal antibodies to fetal brain molecules of both 37 and 73 kDa, are almost always associated with autism" per the article I wanted to include, and that statement would not at all be refuted by mention of any other cause. It also would not be refuted by the publication of a review article which gave it short shrift, or for that matter did not mention it at all.
To make a crude analogy, suppose we were talking about causes of obesity. Someone says it's genetic, someone says it's environmental, someone says it's related to other disease processes, and all are right.
What Eubulides is doing is excluding say for example, the people who say, "Obesity is related to other disease processes" because their research is relatively recent, when in fact a huge percentage of all the research on autism is under 5 years old, and a lot is under 2.
He's not keeping it out because it's been refuted or even disputed, or any of the other valid reasons. That is what upsets me. In other words, rather than being a correct reason per the rules, it's an arbitrary over-extension of the general rule favoring secondary sources to an iron-clad prohibition of primary sources.
And the article, under his watchful eye, suffers greatly for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.120 ( talk) 04:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we are down to the gist of this thing. The judgment call on whether or not a primary source is worth including taking all the points you've made, and all I have made, into consideration. This judgment call can not be made without reference to the underlying subject matter,and my point is, the subject matter actually demands inclusion of a great many findings which will actually tend to create confusion among the reader, because that IS the state of research, and, if the strong belief of many front line researchers is correct, will remain the state of research for some time.
Recent reearch, and it's true I am getting this partly from MIND but certainly not entirely form there, indicates great hetergeneity among autistics. Study after study, by finding different abnormalities, which would not seem to be causally related to each other, indicate this heterogeneity. In other words, there are certainly several causes for what is called autism by a clinician, and there may even be hundreds. HUNDREDS.
Excluding primary studies, when the pace of research is such that they are not immediately replicated or refuted, because other researchers are too busy with their own projects to do replication, or the studies are too expensive to redo, does not help the article, because you are throwing out solid information for the sake of brevity and clarity which does not exist in the real world.
IF, a big IF, the state of research was such that brevity and clariy were possible, then I would be wrong and your side would be right, but it's simply not where the research has taken us.
What really ought to happen with the article is, instead of throwing out all the primary sources people try to put in, it should be explained both that the causes of autism are subject to great controversy and emotion among lay people and parents of autistics, but that the science does not lead to any one cause either, except that genetics are suspected to be the main factor in most cases, but that "genetics" in this sense could mean epigenetics, (article is good on that point I think, though maybe could add to explanation of epigenetics) and that "genetics" certainly does not mean one gene, or even several genes, but can include all the genes that could impact on brain development and function, that is, one autistic may have defect in developing synapes, another may have defect in developing certain brain regions, another has defect in neural migration, etc, etc, etc.
Although I recognize that a laymen's article can not review all the possible ways the brain can malfunction, to knowck out solid research which could be in the article is wrong, not just from the standpoint of helping people who might otherwise have an autistic child, because they did not know of testing that could have been done, but it simply does not give a good account of the state of knowledge.
Some problems are very complex, and autism is certainly one of them. In fact, I don't pretend to know enough about medicine to say this with certainty, but it seems fairly likely if you count all the causes that are likely to be eventually discovered, it could be the most complext "disease" that exists or ever will exist. Finally though, I would like to get back to the MIND findings a little. I am not saying they will stand up to time, and I am sure many people feel strongly that some cause of autism is the cause, and that their treatment program has to be promulgated to the public, and avoiding this kind of preaching is a good thing for the article.
Also, don't misunderstand, even if that research is 100% borne out, I'm not saying it's the Holy Grail of autism, it's still only about 10%, so 90% of autistics are not impacted by it.
But, if it does bear out, it's something that can help a lot of people. I don't propose to build it up excessively, just to put it out there as one cause among many.
Sorry for going on so long and if I got too upset before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.11.175 ( talk) 14:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to reemphasize, the primary research paper on maternal antibodies has been duplicated by the same researchers, and, more important perhaps from the standpoint of objective credibility, other researchers up at MIND created "autistic" monkeys by using the same antibodies to fetal brain. This was done with controls such that it seems certain something in these mothers causes brain abnormalities, in other words, not "Speculation with minor confirmation", but an extensive testing of the hypothesis through an alternate method.
I think you put too much emphasis on the idea that there are a lot of researchers out there skeptical of other researcher's findings and willing and able to test them by duplicating their efforts. What I've heard from a lot of them, not just MIND, but many others, is a firm belief that there are many causes of autism, and with that belief, it does not make sense to replicate other studies, unless you are really suspicious they are wrong, or think you can advance their findings. It makes sense to keep on with what you think will be most productive for you.
And taking it further, if these researchers are right, and there are many different causes, then it may be many primary studies will never be refuted in any secondary review articles, and frankly, a state of great confusion will reign for decades. Though the article is for layman and they can not understand the many different possible mechanisms of brain malfunction, conveying the complexity of the current state of knowledge is entirely appropriate.
At the very least, I would suggest that the article be changed to say, something like, "autism can be caused in many different ways", and use as examples Fragile X, some of the rare genetic defects, and then, with full identification as a preliminary finding, maternal antibodies. By the by, not to debate the underlying science too deeply, but the article cites high identical twin concordance as proof of genetic cause 70 to 90% of cases, but actually, identical twins are in the same mother at the same time, so in utero effects can not generally be excluded as causes, and in fact, if you think about the failure to find causative genes, in utero effects become the next place to look. I don't have easy access to full text of research papers, but there have to be many people who have expressed or admitted this same point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.65 ( talk) 14:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Some good points are made in the previous comment, but this still doesn't address the central WP:WEIGHT concern about the Autism article's promoting this particular primary study as opposed to lots of other primary studies. There are hundreds of them.
Eubulides ( talk) 00:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
All of you are wrong, and to be very blunt about it, if I edit the article to include this reearch, as long as it's done correctly, you will be wrong to revert it, because your action, rather than mine, will be in violation of the rules. Now, I will address these points one by one: First, testosterone during pregnancy is not forbidden from being in this article. If someone put it in, in the proper way according to the rules, anyone who removed it would be wrong to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.186 ( talk) 21:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
If "consensus" meant that the majority rules, and the majority is taken relatively randomly from editors who post in the discussion section, then you would be right, but those are not the rules, and really should not be, because of all the reasons given above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.44.215 ( talk) 21:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
No, there was no consensus my interpretation of rules was wrong, in fact, after much pulling of teeth, it was finally admitted my interpretation was right and then the argument was changed to "your primary source has been disputed", and when I proved that inaccurate, "only secondary sources should be used", not because it's a rule, just because certain people felt that was better policy. Please understand: It's very likely the findings at MIND are accurate, they've been partly replicated at Kennedy Krieger, and, if people who have autistic children are informed of this research, by reading Wikipedia for example, they could get the antibody test and possibly save themselves from having a second child with autism. This is a huge potential benefit to the people who are reading this article, or about 12% of them anyway. I keep pushing this because of the possibility you can save much human misery, without even violating Wikipedia rules, and what I've gotten in response to this is repeated misrepresentation of the rules and of the findings of studies which were used in an attempt to refute this one, which actually in one case, the study from a very prominent mental retardation institution, confirmed these findings. Please reconsider this. If the findings are accurate, and remember, the other study Eubulides quoted above tends to confirm them, you are keeping really valuable information away from people who desperately need it. It's not like the other theories he mentioned, or at least not all of them, in that those theories do not lead to a test which will probably tell a subset of parents of autistic children if they are going to have another one. It's the possibility of sparing innocent people terrible problems which has me so worked up about it. Since it's allowed, and it might do a lot of good to include it, will someone please tell me the overarching reason not to?
Everything I read about autism, including the page on Wikipedia, mentions "children" with autism all the time and virtually no mention of adults. Autism spectrum disorders don't magically disappear when the child grows up into an adult! TurboForce ( talk) 15:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Everything I read about autism spectrum disorders just mentions "children" at every opportunity. For the autism related pages on Wikipeida, can we please remove the constant mention of "children" and replace it with "people" with autism. This REALLY annoys me and it's about time the "children" bias was removed once and for all. People who read the pages about autism seem to think that autism "only" affects children. SORT IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!
TurboForce (
talk)
01:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
New and interesting aritcle out from the AJS about the spatial relationship between children with autism and diagnosis of autism - [10]. The gist appears to be that living near someone with autism increases your chances of being diagnosed, due to the greater awareness and exchange of information by parents. Sciencebasedmedicine has a post on it, gotta love a lay summary - [11]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
A report about the effects of Spironolactone on childen with autism. article was locked, couldn't add, putting it here instead. http://www.autismresourceconnection.com/documents/BTL-SpironolactoneandAutism_Version_7_JB.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.133.205 ( talk) 23:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
understood, impressed by the speed =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.21.133.205 ( talk) 00:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
"The two other autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are Asperger syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive development and language, and PDD-NOS, diagnosed when full criteria for the other two disorders are not met.[3]" This sentence is quite confusing. I would like to change it to:
"The two other autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are Asperger syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive development and language, and PDD-NOS, diagnosed when the full criteria for autism or Asperger syndrome are not met.[3]" Bj norge ( talk) 09:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Inconsistency between Graphic and Accompanying Text
The article makes a clear distinction between autism and ASD. However, under this section "Epidemiology" there is a graph with explanatory text that says: "Reports of autism cases per 1,000 children grew dramatically in the U.S. from 1996 to 2007. It is unknown how much, if any, growth came from changes in autism's prevalence."
This graph is meant to illustrate the text of the article which says, as the first clause in the first sentence: "Most recent reviews tend to estimate a prevalence of 1–2 per 1,000 for autism and close to 6 per 1,000 for ASD; ..."
Manifestly, the text accompanying the graph should substitute "ASD" for "autism" or just graph the increase in reported autism ending with the most recent figure of 1.2 per thousand. As it stands, the graph is both inaccurate with the facts supported by citations in the text of the article and misleading with these huge bars reaching six without referencing scale.
Misplaced comment moved from Wikipedia talk:Protection policy 123.222.215.125 ( talk) 01:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It is a developmental disorder and rightly linked here to questions of theory of mind. Terming it an emotional disorder in the context of an article about attachment disorders risks subscribing to discredited and sexist theories blaming "refrigerator mothers" for their child's autism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.255.241 ( talk) 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
New publication from Nature about autism and genetics. I can't understand anything it says :( but I think it's free full text. [' http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature09146.html]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)