![]() | 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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Regarding this recent edit by Akilash ( talk · contribs), although the source is quoted accurately I am concerned that the incidence of autism within children conceived by IVF is compared with the general population rather than the age group (as noted in the report) that more represent those who conceive via IVF. It is noted that incidence of autism is higher where the mother is older. Should this source be used with this discrepancy uncommented? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM; we don't include primary studies, we use secondary review articles, and we don't give undue weight to recent primary studies, much less when they are unreviewed, unreplicated, and reported in the news media. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about this, so here comes a direct quote from the article: "...it is not the number of friends but the quality of the friendships that are predictive of satisfaction or loneliness for children with autism. For children with autism, friendships lacking intimacy, reciprocity and emotional enrichment led to more intense and frequent loneliness compared to non-autistic peers, despite the common belief that children with autism prefer to be alone." Lova Falk talk 09:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The prevailing drug company supported rightthink of psychological conditions as neurochemically reducible, congenital and genetic, has never been more than supposition and circuitous reasoning. Indeed, the epigenetics are coming to light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronAgassi ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an article about N-methyl-nicotinamide and Clostridium http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19011-gut-bacteria-may-contribute-to-autism.html
Can one add this after verifying?
-- Nevit ( talk) 20:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Be aware there is NO rule against including primary research sources if they are identified as such. The people who like to dominate this article repeatedly claim there is, but there is not (unless the rules have been changed very recently).
Carefully read the rules. There are limitations put on primary sources, (eg, one paper stating a new finding) but they are not at all forbidden.
Please people, stop mispresenting the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.132.104 ( talk) 19:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
"Noted autistic Temple Grandin described her inability to understand the social communication of neurotypicals, or people with normal neural development, as leaving her feeling "like an anthropologist on Mars".[19]"
The Temple Grandin refernce lacks clarity, particularly due to the highly variable level of difficulties that people on the spectrum experience (given that Autism is a spectrum condition, and not a soingular diagnosis). Propose instead that clarification focus on difficulties with the understanding of metaphors, tone of voice, body language, etc (please see www.autism.org for citational info). This is, of course, not denigrating Temple Grandin herself - rather clarifying that an individual case cannot be representative of ASD as a whole, her quoted example lacks specificity and also that Grandin herself qualifies as a potential case of overlap of diagnosis between "classic" Autism and Asperger's Syndrome due to temnporal understanding). Perhaps citing the "triad of impairments" would be more suitable?
"Unusual social development becomes apparent early in childhood" is a point of contention - recognition of Autistic Symptoms relies heavily on an individual's personal awareness. An NAS study, repeated in the UK Governments Adult Autism Strategy ("Fulfilling and Rewarding Lives" (2010)) cited that over 80% of UK General Practitioners (GPs, or local Doctors) stated that they have an inadequate knowledge of Autsim to recognise it in their patients. Perhaps a more appropriate wording would be along the lines of "Early in childhood, unusual social development can be a possible sign of the presence of an Autistic-Spectrum Disorder" (also: define "unsual" - potential cause of offence among the ASD community). On top of this point, it is worth mentioning that pathways to diagnosis for service users is globally regarded as rather poor (this ties in with established issues surrounding a lack of data for general Autism prevalence studies). Thus, this point runs the risk of being interpreted as saying that symptoms of ASD will be immediately apparent or that ASD diagnosis as a service is more prevalent than it is. It's predicted that many hundreds of thousands of adults in the UK alone are Autistic but have yet to be diagnosed (see again research by NAS).
"About a third to a half of individuals with autism do not develop enough natural speech to meet their daily communication needs". Again, this seems to be an issue caused by the change in understanding of what "Autism" constitutes. Asperger's Syndrome is generally considered to be the most common form of Autism, and is actually differentiated by other ASDs by its lack of delay in language development. Therefore, this statement needs reviewing in context of the definition of the word "autism" and the legal definition of "communication".
"Autistic individuals display many forms of repetitive or restricted behavior, which the Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R)[32] categorizes as follows."
Should be rephrased as "MAY" display. Due to the highly variable nature of ASDs, Special Interests (as repetitive/restrictive behaviour is known within the Autistic communicty) and their intensity vary from one individual to the next. To suggest that all individuals on the Spectrum have Special Interests is inaccurate.
"Unusual eating behavior occurs in about three-quarters of children with ASD" - Citation please. As a person on the spectrum, after talking with professionals, and through all research I have found no evidence that eating disorders are common within the Autistic Spectrum. Most difficulties with "eating behaviour" are more often linked with sensory difficulties such as over-sensitivities to food texture, taste or smell. This statement can be misconstrued as stating that most people with Autism suffer from eating disorders, rather than their eating habits being informed by sensory issues that do not qualify as specific eating disorders.
"Autism is one of the five pervasive developmental disorders (PDD)" - Contradicted by your articles on Autism, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, and other related articles (which state between 3 and 4 conditions) (Autism is listed as a "featured" article). Sort it out please, these contradictions are embarrassing and insulting.
"Of the five PDD forms, Asperger syndrome is closest to autism in signs and likely causes" - Autism is an umbrella term, not PDD. PDD is a separate diagnosis given when more typical symptoms of an ASD are not prevalent enough to warrant a specific diagnosis (as demonstrated by the full term, Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified). The phrasing of this term is misleading, as Asperger's Syndrome IS classed as "Autism" due to the status of Autism as a "spectrum" consisting of multiple diagnoses.
I am too tired/annoyed to continue, but within the first few paragraphs of this article these are the issues I have identified. Unfortunately, these errors appear to be mirrored across all autism-related articles on Wikipedia and as such I cannot recommend Wikipedia as an accurate source of information (indeed, my NHS consultant actually ridicules the standard of information that Wikipedia gives on ASD. On a personal note, a lawyer's attempt to submit an article regarding Autism to a Judge in a legal case was immediately dismissed on the basis that Wikipedia's reliability on Autism articles makes it immediately irrelevant as a source of information). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.162.189 ( talk) 01:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Bold textA previous long discussion on what is appropriate to include in this article has now been archived.
Very quickly, when I wanted to put in recent research findings by researchers at a respected medical school, I was told this was forbidden because they had not been the subject of a review article.
When I checked the rules, I found out this was simply not true.
There are different rules for latest findings, and as a matter of style, it's hard to know what to exclude, but the content I wanted to include, (findings by researchers at the University of California Davis Medical School that about 10% of autism cases are associated with maternal antibodies to fetal brain, and that the antibodies had never been found in control group mothers of typically developing children) did not violate the rules, and had the important aspect of possibly being something mothers with an autistic child can check to see if they will have another one, truly life changing information in other words.
The latest reseach is NOT banned from wikipedia articles. It MUST be identified as only one finding by one researcher or research group, not given "undue weight" and not used to refute other findings which are generally accepted.
However, you are allowed to use them, and the editors who constantly remove them are violating Wikipedia rules. And they KNOW it perfectly well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.132.104 ( talk) 19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have cleaned up, copyedited, and formatted the citation for the new text added on the autism/schizophrenia link, but I am unaware if this is a high-quality source; it is most unfortunate that Eubulides is not here to weigh in. The article cited is a review article, but the discussion in that article is cursory, and I'm not sure if this text enjoys broad consensus or has been subjected to other review. Comments? The text was also added at Schizophrenia, so I will add a link to this talk section from that talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is loaded with errors regarding Autism.
Primarily, Autism is no longer considered to be a separate diagnosis. The term "Autism" is used as an Umbrella diagnosis that includes Asperger's, HFA, PDD and Kanner's Syndrome ("Classic Autism"). As such, the term "Autism" should not be used in this way as it encompasses all ASDs. For clarity, someone with Asperger's Syndrome is Autistic, so is someone with PDD or HFA. The term "Autism" as a descriptive for a particular diagnosis has been replaced by "Kanner's Syndrome" or "Classic Autism." I would propose that searches on "Autism" redirect to "Autistic Spectrum Disorder", which would be more consistent with current medical understanding.
The article stated that there are 3 conditions on the spectrum - Autism, Asperger's and PDD-NOS. It made no mention of High-Functioning Autism (which has a separate clinical criteria for diagnosis from Autism, characterised by the inclusion of delay in Language Development). I have attempted to correct this (in fact, PDD-NOS is actually a diagnosis given when there is insufficient evidence for a conclusive diagnosis that an individual is on the Autistic Spectrum as their symptoms do not fit clinical understanding of Autism - so its place on the Spectrum is open to interpretation).
Discussions on prevalence in the article are hugely misleading. In the UK alone, the Government has admitted that it has no idea regarding prevalence and relies on a "rough guess" idea through the use of isolated, non-representative studies. This issue is a primary focus of the Autism Act (2009) and is predicted to be adressed in statutory guidance published before the end of 2010 that will commit all Local Authorities to undertake rigorous prevalence studies as well as increase the availability of diagnostic pathways for service users through the NHS. There is NO authoritative or quantifiable study on Autism Prevalence worldwide. In addition, increases in reported diagnoses are mainly due to increased awareness among healthcare practitioners rather than an increase in the amount of sufferers (there are many National Autistic Society studies on this).
These are just the most obvious inaccuracies.
In short, it is absolutely shocking and disgusting that this article has been granted "featured" status when it actually propogates misunderstanding and misinformation.
Sort this out, it's insulting to those of us on the Spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.162.189 ( talk) 22:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
--Yes. Read the Wikipedia Article on HFA (and other autism-related articles) for starters and how it is differentiated - Wikipedia's articles are contradicting each other. "Kanner's Syndrome" redirects here. This article ahould really be re-named as "Kanner's Syndrome" or "Classic Autism" and heavily edited, as Autism is now considered the name for all conditions on the spectrum (I have a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome, for example, and am classed as being a person with Autism by the UK Government and the NHS). The search term "autism" would be more properly redirected to "autistic spectrum disorder" (I'm not going to start arguing about the use of the word "Disorder" when the trend is leaning towards replacing it with "condition", at least within the NHS, but there you go). My main point is that a lot of the Autism-related articles on Wikipedia provide contradictory information, linked search terms are inaccurate, and actually a lot of this information can be easily found to be incorrect (or at least wrongly-termed) through very basic searches or reading on sites such as the National Autistic Society, the UK government's Adult Autism Strategy (2010), etc. Forgive me for not providing citations for my edits as I am new to this whole thing and not sure how to do all that, but please believe me that, as a person with Autism and after actually discussing this with professionals, and the fact that I even work for a Mental Health organisation that has specialist units on autism, I know what I am talking about. Some of the stuff on the autism-related articles on here is inaccurate, other stuff is just downright insulting. A citation does not in itself make a statement accurate (particularly in an area where common-accepted fact is ever-changing, as is the case with ASC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.162.189 ( talk) 23:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
--On a slightly related note, I think perhaps it is important to note than in UK law, Asperger's Syndrome is afforded "default" protection under the Disability Discrimination Act (2005) following the legal case of Hewitt v Motorola (2004). The outcome of that case decreed that the definition of "communication" in the DDA be expanded to include the subtleties of human non-verbal communication such as tone of voice, body language, etc - which are prerequisites for a diagnosis of Asperger's (a simple browser search will corroborate that). The issue of Autism Spectrum Disorders/Conditions being covered under existing UK Disability Legislation is currently a heavily-discussed issue (due to the fact that Autsim does not fit into traditional disability boundaries of Mental Health, Physical or Learning Disabilities) and is, again, one of the primary reasons for Autism being the subject of the UKs first disability-specific legislation. If you want more information on the Adult Autism Strategy, I believe the full title of the UK government paper is "Fulfilling and Rewarding Lives" (2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.162.189 ( talk) 23:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
--Apologies if I am coming across as overly blunt - it's just "my way". I don't mean to be perceived as overly agressive or critical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.162.189 ( talk) 00:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me or is this article and related articles biased in favour of neurotypicals; because it keeps going on about all the difficulties that autistic people have and not really giving them any credit. Just because an Autistic person can't speak, doesn't mean they're stupid, thick, retarded whatever just means they can't speak, simple. Amanda Baggs has autism, can't speak but is really intelligent and is even an autism rights activist. I do think this article should be cleansed of it's bias because a neutral point of view is not showing any bias towards a particlar group or persective, I think this article DOES show bias. Any arguments against that, fine by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antidanguy ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
This text should be removed because it is incorrect:
Although many alternative therapies and interventions are available, few are supported by scientific studies.[23][131] Treatment approaches have little empirical support in quality-of-life contexts, and many programs focus on success measures that lack predictive validity and real-world relevance.[24]
It should read as follows: Although many alternative therapies and interventions are available, few are supported by scientific studies.[23][131] However, mild hyperbaric oxygen therapy (1.3 ATA) has been shown to help in the areas of speach and focus in placebo-controlled, double-blind studies. [1] [2] [3]
ShillIHA ( talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Quote: "Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, which was fueled by a scientific study which has since been proven to have been falsified. Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.[7]"
I think this change would be less biased : "Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism. This theory was first presented in a scientific study which was recently retracted due to ethics concerns. Further studies have not been able to link vaccines to autism. Parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.[7] Seizure disorders are markedly increased in ASD and persons with seizure disorders may have reactions to vaccines[reference needed].
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.115.123 ( talk) 05:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Cazort - it's a bit of an overstatement to say "scientific consensus dismissing vaccine theory".
There is pretty good acceptance of the theory that vaccines can cause autism in kids with mitochondrial diseases. And the vaccine court even awarded one kid money based on that. It's not accepted that this is a big cause of autism, however, it's also not thought that this kid was the ONLY kid whose autism was caused by vaccines. In fact, it's widely believed that fever with mitochondrial disease can cause very serious brain problems, ie, autism in some, and so it's not much of a jump to say that vaccines, which also cause fever and immune reaction such as an infection, might also cause some cases.
Most studies we hear about indicate most cases of autism must not be caused by vaccines, but it's not accurate to say that vaccines have been rejected in all cases, or that it's a "biologically implausible" cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.143.252 ( talk) 01:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The "Causes" section is hopelessly bad. Just hopeless, throw out all but two or three sentences.
Virtually all researchers agree there are many causes for autism. And that some genetic syndromes do cause autism all by themselves.
There is this gang of people who won't let the articel become good, who actively prevent it. The fact is, literally dozens, perhaps hundreds, of studies reveal very heterogeneous biomarkers for autism, so that for example, some autistic kids have larger than average brains, some have smaller. Some have elevations of various molecules, some have reductions of the same molecules.
Some cases of autism are widely accepted to be caused by mitochondrial disease, most are not.
The causes section should go into some of the dozens of highly variable biomarkers to illustrate why nearly all researchers believe in many different causes. I was at a conference recently where a geneticist told me they are looking at 300 genes. Also, the question of heratibility should address, at least slightly, the findings of respected researchers that while identical twins have as much as 90% concordance, dizygotic twins have a much higher concordance rate than siblings, strongly implying "environmental" (maybe prenatal and having nothing at all to do with any man-made thing or condition)factor influence a significant minority of cases.
It's a VERY BAD article for anyone who's been following the science of the last several years, at least the past 3 years but probably much longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.143.252 ( talk) 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Suggested changes:
Autism is not a single condition, and does not have a single cause. The concordance rate for identical twins indicates a very high genetic component, but isolating single gene causes for the great majority of cases has so far been impossible.
The fact that persons diagnosed as autistic or having autistic spectrum disorder have great variability in biomarkers indicates many different causes, and the great majority of researchers agree many causes will eventually be found.
While genetic causes predominate, the concordance rate for fraternal twins is much higher than that for siblings, which indicates "environmental" causes for the disorder, although "environmental" in this context does not mean man-made, and it may be that the most important environment is that of the womb.
A small percentage of cases are due to defects in mitochondrial genes. In some cases, the beginning of autism in a child is an onset of autistic regression, the loss of skills a child already has, and can be tied to the presence of mitochondrial disease,and an infection with fever. Although this may only represent a small percentage of cases, it means that the vaccine hypothesis is not completely "biologically implausible".
However, there is widespread agreement in the medical community that the risk of not vaccinating children is much higher than vaccination, and in most cases, no statistically significant increase in autism risk can be related to vaccination"
This is just a sample, the point is, the article is completely misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.143.252 ( talk) 01:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
No, no more of this "secondary sources only" nonsense. The Wikipedia rules do NOT require that, only that primary sources are identified as such, not given undue weight, etc. NO REQUIREMENT TO USE ONLY SECONDARY SOURCES. IT DOES NOT EXIST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.131.31 ( talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
SOAP - I appreciate the quotes from the guidelines or rules for medical articles, but I don't think you can quite defend your statement that you say clarifies them, "you can never use a primary source to make a conclusion that is not found in any trusted "secondary source"".
If that statement, which I was never able to find in any Wikipedia rules, is true, please tell me where to find it. I was told this repeatedly, but it was never shown to be true. The fundamental problem with the autism articles is that a gang of people with very rigid beliefs, unfounded, about what the Wikipedia rules allow or disallow is not allowing recent research into any autism article. This is terrible, because you simply can not depend on reviews being done in a reasonable length of time. Right now, there is research at UC Davis showing an antibody pattern in some mothers of autistics which is never found in mothers of non-autistics. In other words, a very strong biomarker, which means if you have that antibody, you should not have kids.
Putting this information in Wikipedia might save a great deal of grief for the mothers to be who have this antibody pattern, but the autism article tyrants won't allow that, even if properly treated. Even if no secondary source refutes it, (which is not the rule anyway.
And then I am told there must be consensus for the edit, even though the consensus is not being based on any fundamental reference to the science. Please, just let people put in the new science if it's done in the proper way and is not against the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.248 ( talk) 11:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I get emotional about the secondary sources issue, but this was repeatedly mispresented to me as an iron clad rule, when it's not a rule at all. Also, about the causes section, I was at a conference where one of the top autism people shared the podium with a geneticist from a University of California medical school. and in a break the geneticist told me they are looking at 300 genes as possible causes. Although that comment is not allowed by the rules, and I would not put it in, the general agreement of many, many genetic causes is allowed, and it's the state of the science, not some flaky off beat idea this professor had.
It's good to simplify at times, but it's a terrible thing to oversimplify as the people who feel they control this article insist on doing. At least dozens, and probably hundreds of genes and epigenetic effects cause brain conditions which are classifed as autism. This should be stated clearly in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.131.31 ( talk) 18:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The existing text says "Working all the time makes Jack an interesting and stimulating person." | I propose "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." | Quote from Jones et al. PMID 20949507 "Working constantly, to the exclusion of recreation, makes Jack boring." |
(You can copy the code I used for the table from the Talk:Autism page.
I would like to make some very minor edits to this article. A few sentences don't flow very well. Information will not be changed, but it should make this article easier to read. FruitSalad4225 ( talk) 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out a couple errors.Mainly the facts about the prevalence of autism.According to http://www.autismspeaks.org/whatisit/index.php and many other sources,the prevalence is much higher than is stated in the article. 208.110.227.127 ( talk) 03:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Please somebody add link to "Is there a link between engineering and autism? " http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/1997_BCetal_Engineer.pdf Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.85.27.234 ( talk) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I fully read the lengthy purported source of the claim that Martin Luther once stated that a child should be suffocated. I think the wikipedia article would be more accurate if it stated that the context and accuracy of this statement are in doubt. The wiki article does indicate that it is relaying the hearsay of another, but fails to make clear that the source which is cited inline not only isn't directly quoting Luther, but rather is quoting another source purporting to quote Luther, and the cited essay does so in a discussion which questions whether Martin Luther really said or meant what he is purported to have said or meant. Dkm125 ( talk) 17:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The article saysIn 1540 came the notorious reported discussion about a strange 12-year-old boy at Dessau, who was said to do nothing but eat voraciously and to excrete. [18]
"Luther suggested that he be suffocated. Somebody asked, "For what reason?" He {Luther} replied, "Because I think he's simply a mass of flesh without a soul. Couldn't the devil have done this, inasmuch as he gives such shape to the body and mind even of those who have reason that in their obsession they hear, see, and feel nothing? The devil is himself their soul. The power of the devil is great when in this way he holds the minds of all men captive, but he doesn't dare give full vent to the power on account of the angels." (LW 54: 397, No. 5207)
Much caution is needed in studying this report. The editor adds a footnote about a later version, in which John Aurifaber
"elaborated on the original by stating that Luther had himself seen and touched the boy and that he advised the prince of Anhalt to have the boy drowned. What had at first been the private expression of an opinion here became a formal recommendation to a ruler." (Ibid.)
What exact wording do you propose, Dkm125? -- Anthony ( talk) 18:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)The Table Talk of Martin Luther contains the story of a 12-year-old boy who may have been severely autistic. [162 According to Luther's notetaker Mathesius, Luther thought the boy was a soulless mass of flesh possessed by the devil, and suggested that he be suffocated. [163
Please excuse my lack of clarity. The text by M. Miles appears to conclude generally that Martin Luther opposed the mistreatment of the disabled, and casts doubts specifically on the veracity and context of the reported suggestion that a child be smothered. Quoting from M. Miles:
"These strongly suggest that throughout his career as a religious and social reformer, Luther repeatedly made written and spoken comments in which children and adults with disabilities [or deafness] were understood to have full human value and were considered worthy members of the Church."
The discussion of the purported suffocation recommendation falls under the heading "Dubious hearsay on the strange boy at Dessau", and notes "much caution is needed in studying this report." To cite it as supporting the notion that Martin Luther advocated the suffocation of a child is, to borrow a word, dubious. The cited text actually appears to be part of an indirect refutation, or least contextual reevaluation, of the quote.
Miles concedes the possibility the comment may have been made, discussing it as a hypothetical:
Supposing then that Luther did discuss the case of the strange boy at Dessau, it is quite possible that he did make either a casual or a more purposeful suggestion that this 'being' should be suffocated, as a body in which no human person resided...
However he then describes the purported statement as "a dubious suggestion reported from a discussion over dinner centuries ago". Miles also writes
Clearly, some of Luther's written views on illness, disability and the devil's intervention are not the received wisdom in Europe now...On the other hand, there is evidence in Luther's writings, in his personal conduct as observed by contemporaries, and in the social changes for which he campaigned, that he was keenly concerned for both the spiritual and temporal welfare of pregnant mothers, new-born babies, infants and for human beings of all sorts and conditions.
In order to make the wikipedia entry more fully supported by the cited text, I think the wikipedia entry should read along the lines of:
"The Table Talk of Martin Luther, compiled by his notetaker Mathesius, contains the story of a 12-year-old boy who may have been severely autistic. [162] Luther reportedly thought the boy was a soulless mass of flesh possessed by the devil, and suggested that he be suffocated, although a later critic has cast doubt on the veracity of this report. [163]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkm125 ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the edit. It looks like there is a formatting glitch, with the edited text appearing twice. Perhaps you or another confirmed editor could fix formatting issue. Thanks for accepting my suggestion regarding the wording. Dkm125 ( talk) 00:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Two new government studies indicate about 1 in 100 children have autism disorders (2009 Oct) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/autism-rates-government-s_n_309290.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.234.100 ( talk) 01:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an important part of any discussion of autism today as it is exactly where the rubber meets the road for a large percentage of the population effected by autism. It needs to be a distinct part of the article and should not be neglected. Specifically, it would be a very good idea to include some of the research and models being proposed and used by R. L. Simpson and a number of others including S. R. de Boer, K. A. Quill, M. Garcia-Winner, Koegel & Koegel, etc. All of these authors have widely used textbooks in print that are used for education in autism related fields--including education. All of these authors address inclusion
I proposed a small edit to the "Management" section of the article that was immediately reversed citing the wikipedia requirement for reliable sources. However, the reference cited was a major work by a major publisher on exactly the topic discussed. It is hard not to see this as an arbitrary reversal or worse, one motivated by bias. Certainly the reasons given are not sufficient or correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reibwo ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
.
I replaced "...most alternative treatments, such as melatonin, have only mild adverse effects." with "...most alternative treatments are relatively benign." and was reverted by SandyGeorgia. The source says that, though adverse effects of melatonin are generally reported as mild, it is in fact associated with an increase in seizure frequency in susceptible children. Our article says it is only associated with mild adverse effects. That is, it misrepresents the source. The present formulation also implies there are mild adverse effects associated with most alternative treatments. The source does not say that, and it can't be inferred from the source, which mentions side effects for
but mentions no side effects for
Would anybody like to suggest a wording that accurately represents the source? Anthony ( talk) 15:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I have removed the sentence from the article for now, in case I'm right. Anthony ( talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have recreated the previously deleted {{ Portal-inline}} for use in this article. The problem with the current {{ Portal}} is this: the box is a floating object, so objects around it are placed on the left, causing the reflist to be narrowed. We could solve this by making the reflist float or by creating an empty floating object underneath the portal box, like this. But this makes the See also section even more ugly. So I made Portal-inline in the vain of e.g. {{ Wiktionary-inline}} ( WhatLinksHere), which is especially suitable for sections containing no normal/non-interwiki links. Looks good with me. Cheers, theFace 20:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know the complex citenews citing procedure this article uses? I didn't want to do the basic formatting (that I know of - the one that this Wiki article doesn't use), which would ruin the article. I added the information about ABA therapy and the claims of recovery. It is currently the "big heat" of discussion among parents and professionals and the claims of "recovery" (which studies say is "questionable" in terms of recovery.) It is listed in this scientific journal: [5]. I will use another source already used in the article (right after the comma - describing the "proven" efficacy and popularity that I added in the lead already.) For now, I put citation needed tag about the "recovery" claims. Thanks. ATC . Talk 03:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I came up with a better idea in the meantime. Instead of the citation needed tag, I'll source it with the basic formatting (with the URL showing in the reflist, as to not to do the basic citenews formatting that I know of) to the scientific journal until the citenews formatting can be done. ATC . Talk 04:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
Cite news}}
is for citing newspaper articles. This article mostly cites scientific journals so {{
Cite journal}}
is more appropriate and includes fields for PMID and DOI, etc. This article uses a variant of the citation templates that are almost identical in use but have "vcite" as the first word rather than "cite". They produce must more compact HTML and the citation output format is different. See
WP:MEDMOS#Citing medical sources.
Colin°
Talk
10:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)69.228.117.220 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has twice removed the following text, "Autism affects information processing in the brain by altering how nerve cells and their synapses connect and organize; how this occurs is not well understood." which is sourced to PMID 19819542. Specifically, the source says "Together, results of clinical, neuroimaging, neuropathological, and neurochemical studies show that autism spectrum disorders are disorders of neuronal-cortical organisation that cause deficits in information processing in the nervous system, ranging from synaptic and dendritic organisation to connectivity and brain structure. These changes probably alter developmental trajectory of social communication and seem to be affected by genetic and environmental factors." This review paper, from The Lancet in November 2009, is a fine source for the article text IMO. I have restored the text. Colin° Talk 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Anthony- in American English, your "autism is a disorder of cortical neuronal organization" would not be a good wording. "Organisation" which I noticed you spelled with an "s" the English way, would not be the precise word to describe say a defect at the synapses, which is one of the major areas of inquiry now. Maybe in England that statement would be regarded as including synapse defects, or many other problems in the neurons of the cortex, but not so much in the US. Also, attention has been given to the amygdala in a lot of research, so I am not sure you can say cortical neurons are the only thing implicated in all review articles. Finally, I don't think Wikipedia rules require only review articles as citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.183 ( talk) 00:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM) are charged with monitoring and producing statistics related to autism and ASD. These statistics are then used by the CDC 1 and the National Institutes of Health U.S., National Library of Medicine 2 and reporting science journals. Their full set of statistics should be restored to the article.
"In 2006, on average, approximately 1% or one child in every 110 in the 11 ADDM sites was classified as having an ASD (approximate range: 1:80--1:240 children [males: 1:70; females: 1:315])."
Statistics from Asia and Europe (worldwide) indicate 1% prevalence (with data table).
"Studies in Asia, Europe and North America have identified individuals with an ASD with an approximate prevalence of 0.6% to over 1%." 3
75.120.185.48 ( talk) 15:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Many people visit this link, I think it would be noteworthy to mention if any significant body has done some work in trying to overcome this disorder. I would like to add links to ARI (Autism Research Institute) a wiki page already exists this a link to it should be fine? 71.231.182.103 ( talk) 19:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I have just done a Google Scholar search for "the term autism." The first ten results that defined the use of the word "autism" are below. "Autism" can mean either
This ambiguity needs to be addressed in the lead.
Quotes
Sources
Anthony ( talk) 20:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
We cover all of that ? What is your proposed change ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)It is one of three recognized disorders in the autism spectrum (ASDs), the other two being Asperger syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive development and language, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (commonly abbreviated as PDD-NOS), which is diagnosed when the full set of criteria for autism or Asperger syndrome are not met.
It seems to me that we have four somewhat overlapping terms to deal with, and here's how they relate to each other:
Autism spectrum disorders | ||
---|---|---|
Autism | Asperger's syndrome | PDD-NOS |
That is, "Autism" is a type of Autism spectrum disorder, "Asperger's" is a type of Autism spectrum disorder, and PDD-NOS is a type of Autism spectrum disorder, but these three things do not (theoretically) overlap with each other.
The question then is what this article should be about. IMO it should be about the Autism-that-is-neither-Asperger's-nor-PDD-NOS, rather than the Autism-that-is-properly-called-"Autism spectrum disorders".
And its title should be plain "Autism", because there's really no other viable option. The three-disease category has a viable name that isn't potentially confusing ("Autism spectrum disorders"). The one-disease entity does not: It's Autism, or.... well, Autism.
So this article needs to define the term, and educate the reader about the distinctions, and send them over to the ASD article if they're looking for the three-disease conglomeration. After explaining the classification, the content here needs to focus as much as reasonable on the one-disease entity, not the three-disease category. Any content here that is really about three-disease ASD rather than one-disease Autism should be moved to the ASD article, where it belongs. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Also as stated further into the articles under "Classifcation - Other symptoms":
Sensory abnormalities are found in over 90% of those with autism, and are considered core features by some,[36] although there is no good evidence that sensory symptoms differentiate autism from other developmental disorders.[37]
I feel it is important to add in the lead section that a common symptom of autism is sensory integration deficits, using both sources.
ATC .
Talk
07:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
and begin the lead with
Autistic disorder (or early infantile autism or, sometimes, autism)...
and make Autism a disambiguation page along these lines. Please familiarise yourself with the thread immediately above before commenting. Anthony ( talk) 08:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
ATC . Talk 09:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Autistic disorder (or early infantile autism or, more commonly, autism)...
I don't know if "autism" is used in the literature to denote this syndrome more often than "autistic disorder" and "early infantile autism" are. I don't even know for sure that it is used more often in everyday parlance. So for now it may be more prudent to just say it is "sometimes" called "autism", without specifying or implying frequency. Anthony ( talk) 14:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Autistic disorder (or early infantile autism or, more commonly, autism)...
Above, SandyGeorgia implies she doesn't know of any autism experts presently editing. If that is the case, I'd like to approach some experts for their opinions. Can anyone suggest a name or two? I'm thinking Simon Baron-Cohen, Temple Grandin, some major contributors to DSM V's "neurodevelopmental disorders" category, James Russell. Anthony ( talk) 10:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The main guidelines on this matter are Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:Disambiguation and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The Disambiguation guideline encourages us to think about whether we have a Primary Topic for the term "autism". Autism is not like depression in that with that term there are several uses for the word that are really quite distinct. The Article title guideline encourages us to use the common name and MEDMOS prefers the medically correct name. We don't have any conflict here because "autism" is a medical term rather than a lay term. The issues with the proposed changes are:
PMID
20699105 ASD
PMID
20880122 ASD
PMID
20954799 AD
PMID
20655060 ASD
PMID
20176116 ASD
PMID
21055719 ASD
PMID
20950788 ASD
PMID
20433873 Social withdrawal
PMID
21072692 AD
PMID
21069446 ASD
PMID
20833154 AD
PMID
21061054 HFA
PMID
21062623 ASD
PMID
21055864 ASD
PMID
21048139 ASD
PMID
21055902 Not defined
PMID
20889652 ASD
PMID
20634369 ASD
PMID
21041596 ASD
PMID
20805019 ASD
Eugen Bleuler; trans. Joseph Zinkin (1911/1961). Dementia praecox: or the group of schizophrenias. International Universities Press: New York. ISBN 9780899202440.
Sorry this is so long. I don't think we need to change or rename the article or create a dab page. Colin° Talk 18:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding, by nearly everyone who is a major contributor to the page, about autism. Autism is a very vague term, and encompasses too much to make all this debate over words worthwhile at all. In other words, all of this is pretty much meaningless. People of very high intelligence are considered "autistic" like Temple Grandin, but also people who can barely speak, or don't speak at all, because cognitively they are not capable of it. In fact, rather than trying to define autism, or trying to decide the words used to head a topic, it would be infinitely more producutive to simply tell people about the different types and how they differ. The article does this to an extent but you need much more, with less wasted mental energy on the precise meanings of words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.183 ( talk) 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Copied from User_talk:Anthonyhcole#Changing_Autism_links
Hi Anthony. I'm a bit concerned about your mass edits to change wikilinks from autism to autism spectrum. As I noted in the discussion at #Ambiguity of the word autism, I don't think we can change people's words. If the source says autism then so must we. We mustn't second-guess the source and say "well, they mean this". Also, I don't think it is a good idea to have the word "autism" in an article link to autism spectrum. People will click on that link rightly thinking it goes to our article on Autism and will be confused when it goes elsewhere (see WP:EASTEREGG). For example, in MMR vaccine, Wakefields paper uses the words "autism" [9] and nine of the twelve children were classified as having autism, only one as having an autistic spectrum disorder. So I think discussion of MMR really must use the word autism, even if some people feel the issue is related to other autistic spectrum disorders too. That's just one example. So, in summary, I think it is safe to change autism to autism spectrum (or autism spectrum disorder) only if the source uses that term, and that easter-egg wikilinks are not appropriate in this case. Colin° Talk 10:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Anthony, I've had a chance to look at some of the links you gave above. Here's the first eight. Let me know if there are any of the rest that need looked at but I see a pattern emerging in my responses:
Generally if the source (or the people/organisations mentioned) use the term "autism" then so should we and we should link here. If the source uses "autism spectrum disorder" or similar, then we should use the term " autism spectrum disorder" and link there. The blindness example is complex and I don't think having "autistic-like features (or tendencies)" would necessarily classify someone as having an ASD. If both terms are used by a source then it is a judgement call but I wouldn't necessarily assume ASD is a safer option. For example, the MMR controversy is about autism and that's the term everyone uses when discussing it, even if two of the patients in the original paper had an ASD rather than classic autism. If the article text is just giving autism as an example of a disorder (like with behavior) then I don't think there is any need to widen it even if widening it would be technically correct (it doesn't make it more correct). Colin° Talk 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone verify that this text added here is in the cited source? PMID 10638459. If not, it should be removed as anecdote or cited to a review. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
"the vaccine hypotheses are biologically implausible and lack convincing scientific evidence" from the lead has been linked to a news report of the BMJ article and editorial asserting Wakefield was likely behaving fraudulently. Is this an appropriate source for the "biologically implausible" claim? If so, should we link to a news report, the BMJ editorial or Deer's article? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 12:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure whether the IP user who started a discussion of terminology meant to delete their own thread? Consequently I'm not sure whether it should be restored. Doniago ( talk) 15:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
All I ask of Wikipedia is an effort in objectivity. Millions of people go here for information. I urge you to explore all sides of an argument before stating them as supposed fact. This includes the research of the source itself (not just the content), who they are funded by and who they are connected to. There are numerous dissenting studies and opinions within the scientific community in regards to the relationship between autism and vaccinations. All I ask is that you acknowledge these sources instead of quoting the first pharmaceutical company backed study that you find. The CDC is no different, it is a tremendously flawed source with endless contradictions in it's presentation of "facts." I would be glad to enlighten you but I fear any truth that contradicts the establishment will seldom see the light of day. Contact me if you wish I would gladly start you in the right direction. You can email me at [email removed]. Although, it will take some time compiling the information into cohesive form. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.107.160 ( talk) 08:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Although the science community has pretty much universally rejected vaccines as a cause of the majority of cases of autism, it's not accurate to say there is no link. The US' vaccine court decided one child got autism from vaccines, and there may be many more, I was at a DAN conference in Long Beach CA recently where a researcher on mitochondrial DNA from UC San Diego stated that a much larger percentage of autistics than normal kids have mDNA problems, (believed to be the reason the kid got sick from vaccine) and that it's not known, and implicitly can not be assumed, that an absence of general mitochondrial disease, (hard to diagnose but kids will NOT appear physically healthy as most autistics do) in the body in general, means absense of all mDNA problems in particular organs, ie, the brain in this case. In other words, there may be some number, perhaps small, perhaps not all that small, of kids whose autism is due to mitochondrial disease. According to this lecture, there is often significant neurological deterioration after a fever, or, in the case of some, vaccines. So, what I am trying to say is, "no link between vaccines and autism" is a bit simplistic. Also, just my own theory, but if an immune activating event can cause damage to the brain in those kids with unknown mitochondrial disease, then it may be they get autism after vaccines, but, at the same time, the percentage of kids with autism who have been vaccinated is the same as those who were not, because even if you are not vaccinated, sooner or later you get fever and that leads to the brain problems. THat last part is just my theory, but I think it should be pointed out vaccines do not seem to cause much autism but claiming it causes none is an oversimplication. Better to say something that states the current state of belief but emphasizes vaccines extremely low risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.183 ( talk) 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
"As someone who has Autism, I would strongly urge editors of this page to consider using more Neurodiversity aware terminology. Many aspies are offended by the (sometimes insulting)terms used in Wikipedia articles on this subject. I am very concerned that Austism is in certian "mental illness" catogories, Autism may be known as a disorder in medical terms, but there is no reason to call it an illness. Surely Wikipedia contributors can edit the wording of this article in a way that is medically acurate but still respects people on the autistic spectrum? Thanks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariosto10 ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There are just a couple of instances in which the autism/vaccine connection has been referred to as a theory. I checked the document briefly and saw the following.
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, which was fueled by a scientific study which has since been proven to have been falsified.[69] Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.[10]
I believe it to be incidental, since the rest of the document is worded quite carefully regarding immunizations. I suggest an alteration to the document to the following.
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to the hypothesis that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, which was fueled by a [strike]scientific[/strike] study which has since been proven to have been falsified.[69] Although these [strike]theories[/strike] hypotheses lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.[10]
This would more accurately reflect the concepts put forth. 74.204.87.18 ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to the proposition that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism; this proposition was fueled by a study which has since been shown to have been falsified.[69] Although these proposals lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and disease outbreaks in some areas.[10]
-- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 13:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to the proposition that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism; the only apparent scientific support for this proposition was a study which has since been shown to have been falsified.[69] Although these proposals lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and disease outbreaks in some areas.[10]
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to the proposition that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism; journal-published support for this proposition was a study which has since been shown to have been falsified.[69] Although these proposals lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and disease outbreaks in some areas.[10]
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to the belief that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism; one study supported these beliefs. The study has since been shown to have been falsified.[69] Although these proposals lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and disease outbreaks in some areas.
(outdent) Hold on. The fraudulent Wakefield study was only looking at the measles component of the MMR vaccine causing an autism-like illness. It has nothing to do with preservatives (thiomersal isn't in MMR) or other vaccines. So the "vaccines or their preservatives cause autism" theory/hypothesis/idea/proprosal isn't completely based on a fraudulent paper, and arguably that paper had a bigger impact in the UK than in some other countries. I think we need to rewind the suggested text a few versions. Colin° Talk 16:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe Study Number Ten will suffice to reassure the one in four parents [8] who have come to fear vaccinating their babies that doing so will not raise the likelihood of the kids' developing autism. Then again, maybe no number of costly and carefully designed and executed studies will dislodge the fear of vaccines among parents that has taken root in the United States.
-- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to concern that the MMR vaccine or a preservative used in vaccines may cause autism. One 1998 report appeared to support the MMR vaccine hypothesis, but was later found to have been fraudulent. Although these
hypotheses theorieshypotheses lack any convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunization and disease outbreaks in some areas.
Notes to editors:
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. The term "pseudoscience" is inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[2] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.[2]
so I'm fairly confident "the MMR vaccine causes autism" and "thiomersal in vaccines causes autism" are hypotheses.A supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts; esp. in the sciences, a provisional supposition from which to draw conclusions that shall be in accordance with known facts, and which serves as a starting-point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved and the true theory arrived at.
(Outdent) Reswobslc, in that discussion, says the main problem with "hypothesis" is that it is an invalidating term, and in this discussion, Homo Logica is worried it will boost the idea. Tim Vickers sees hypothesis as a neutral and technical term colloquially equivalent to "Idea" and "Theory". I'm comfortable with my most recent version above. Colin, it's about the same word count as the existing version. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 00:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
On break now. Tim goes into it briefly there. The manner of progression for something scientific would be like this, and I'll use gravity as an example. It starts with an observation of something that is occurring. So, you see a ball drop from your hand to the ground. Next, you come up with a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon you observed. This hypothesis must be provable (in the mathematical sense), and describe the observed phenomenon. It need not be correct. Your hypothesis is that the less massive an object, the slower it will fall. After that, you would design an experiment to test this hypothesis. So, you drop 5 objects of varying masses, then observe and record the speed at which they drop. You would then analyze the data you gathered. You find that they all dropped at the same speed. This would cause you to form a new hypothesis. Your new hypothesis is that objects will drop at the same speed regardless of mass. So on and so forth. After doing this numerous times, you would arrive at a theory, gathered from all of your observations to describe the motion of objects in gravitational motion.
The key there, is that a hypothesis is formed from the observations to explain the causal relationship between any two things. In this situation, he did not observe a causal relationship from which he formed a hypothesis. He formed an idea that two things were related, then created evidence to support the notion.
I apologize if it seems like I'm getting off track, but my point from when I started the section, was that the word theory is being misused in this instance. The issue here isn't plausibility of the notion. It was not formed scientifically, yet it purports to be science. That is the definition of pseudoscience.
Colin, I would also appreciate it if you did not edit the section, until we've reached a consensus. -- Homo Logica ( talk) 00:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm upset that my edit, which corrected an obivous factual error, was reverted. I'm particularly upset that it was reverted for WP:POINTy reasons rather than because an editor found a problem with it. There are times when text should be debated before an edit is made but there are also times to be WP:BOLD and this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit.
Can I remind folk that this is an article on autism and we are discussing text in a section on the causes of autism. Wakefield's paper is no longer relevant to establishing the cause of autism and hasn't been for a very long time. It is notable from a legal, social and historical aspect. At some future time, this article will no longer mention vaccine theories in the Causes section and they will be noted in passing in the History section. For this reason, I don't think it is good to explicitly single out Wakefield's study per WP:WEIGHT. We don't single out any other study, let alone an old discredited one. So I don't prefer Anthony's suggestion above.
There are three vaccine theories (off the top of my head) for autism: thiomersal, MMR and vaccine overload. They have been subject to scientific test and found wanting. We now know one of them was concocted as a money making scheme rather than as an honest attempt at scientific endeavour. I can see Homo Logica's point that Wakefield's work wasn't "science". But Mendel's work was a little bit cooked and that hasn't brought down the science of genetics. Other scientists have taken the MMR theory seriously and applied science to it. That science has discredited the theory but there is still good science there and the theory didn't involve alien abduction or water memory or any unscientific explanation. I think we're getting hung up on Wakefield and forgetting the other theories: see WP:RECENTISM.
My suggestion is that the text "since been proven to have been falsified." be replaced with "since been shown to have been "an elaborate fraud".", citing the BMJ editorial that contains the quoted text. The word "proven" has strong legal/mathematical aspects and is too heavyweight for our purposes here. The word "falsified" isn't clear IMO. I think the BMJ quote is a nice one on many levels.
You guys can debate the theory/hypothesis/proposal/idea wording till the cows come home; I'm not that interested and neither are our readers IMO. I will say that hypothesis is an erudite word that the reader may stumble on. The best solution, when there is disagreement among editors, is to use the term that our best sources use.
Colin° Talk 09:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
withParents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, one of which was fueled by a scientific study which has since been proven to have been falsified. Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.
? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to concern that vaccination may cause autism. Although this idea lacks any convincing scientific evidence and is biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunization, and disease outbreaks in some areas.
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism. Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that certain vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, one of which was fueled by a scientific study that has since been shown to have been an "elaborate fraud". Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to concern that vaccination may cause autism. A significant study supporting this idea has since been determined to be "an elaborate fraud". Although this idea lacks any convincing scientific evidence and is biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunization, and disease outbreaks in some areas.
I've reverted this edit which replaced "theories" with "concerns" and "ideas". I had been somewhat uninterested in the debate over those terms, but I have two concerns. The first is that it is clear that the desire to use a weaker term is pushing a POV. The second, and most important, is that is not the language used by our best sources. If Offit (the most notable and well-published opponent of the anti-vaccinationists) is happy to use both "hypotheses" and "theories" in his papers on the issue, then so should we. We really need a reliably sourced reason to use the weaker terms. The three theories weren't just "concerns". They were subject to scientific scrutiny and process just as with any theory. Colin° Talk 21:20, 22 January 2011 (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 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
Regarding this recent edit by Akilash ( talk · contribs), although the source is quoted accurately I am concerned that the incidence of autism within children conceived by IVF is compared with the general population rather than the age group (as noted in the report) that more represent those who conceive via IVF. It is noted that incidence of autism is higher where the mother is older. Should this source be used with this discrepancy uncommented? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:MEDRS, WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM; we don't include primary studies, we use secondary review articles, and we don't give undue weight to recent primary studies, much less when they are unreviewed, unreplicated, and reported in the news media. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about this, so here comes a direct quote from the article: "...it is not the number of friends but the quality of the friendships that are predictive of satisfaction or loneliness for children with autism. For children with autism, friendships lacking intimacy, reciprocity and emotional enrichment led to more intense and frequent loneliness compared to non-autistic peers, despite the common belief that children with autism prefer to be alone." Lova Falk talk 09:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The prevailing drug company supported rightthink of psychological conditions as neurochemically reducible, congenital and genetic, has never been more than supposition and circuitous reasoning. Indeed, the epigenetics are coming to light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronAgassi ( talk • contribs) 04:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an article about N-methyl-nicotinamide and Clostridium http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19011-gut-bacteria-may-contribute-to-autism.html
Can one add this after verifying?
-- Nevit ( talk) 20:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Be aware there is NO rule against including primary research sources if they are identified as such. The people who like to dominate this article repeatedly claim there is, but there is not (unless the rules have been changed very recently).
Carefully read the rules. There are limitations put on primary sources, (eg, one paper stating a new finding) but they are not at all forbidden.
Please people, stop mispresenting the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.132.104 ( talk) 19:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
"Noted autistic Temple Grandin described her inability to understand the social communication of neurotypicals, or people with normal neural development, as leaving her feeling "like an anthropologist on Mars".[19]"
The Temple Grandin refernce lacks clarity, particularly due to the highly variable level of difficulties that people on the spectrum experience (given that Autism is a spectrum condition, and not a soingular diagnosis). Propose instead that clarification focus on difficulties with the understanding of metaphors, tone of voice, body language, etc (please see www.autism.org for citational info). This is, of course, not denigrating Temple Grandin herself - rather clarifying that an individual case cannot be representative of ASD as a whole, her quoted example lacks specificity and also that Grandin herself qualifies as a potential case of overlap of diagnosis between "classic" Autism and Asperger's Syndrome due to temnporal understanding). Perhaps citing the "triad of impairments" would be more suitable?
"Unusual social development becomes apparent early in childhood" is a point of contention - recognition of Autistic Symptoms relies heavily on an individual's personal awareness. An NAS study, repeated in the UK Governments Adult Autism Strategy ("Fulfilling and Rewarding Lives" (2010)) cited that over 80% of UK General Practitioners (GPs, or local Doctors) stated that they have an inadequate knowledge of Autsim to recognise it in their patients. Perhaps a more appropriate wording would be along the lines of "Early in childhood, unusual social development can be a possible sign of the presence of an Autistic-Spectrum Disorder" (also: define "unsual" - potential cause of offence among the ASD community). On top of this point, it is worth mentioning that pathways to diagnosis for service users is globally regarded as rather poor (this ties in with established issues surrounding a lack of data for general Autism prevalence studies). Thus, this point runs the risk of being interpreted as saying that symptoms of ASD will be immediately apparent or that ASD diagnosis as a service is more prevalent than it is. It's predicted that many hundreds of thousands of adults in the UK alone are Autistic but have yet to be diagnosed (see again research by NAS).
"About a third to a half of individuals with autism do not develop enough natural speech to meet their daily communication needs". Again, this seems to be an issue caused by the change in understanding of what "Autism" constitutes. Asperger's Syndrome is generally considered to be the most common form of Autism, and is actually differentiated by other ASDs by its lack of delay in language development. Therefore, this statement needs reviewing in context of the definition of the word "autism" and the legal definition of "communication".
"Autistic individuals display many forms of repetitive or restricted behavior, which the Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R)[32] categorizes as follows."
Should be rephrased as "MAY" display. Due to the highly variable nature of ASDs, Special Interests (as repetitive/restrictive behaviour is known within the Autistic communicty) and their intensity vary from one individual to the next. To suggest that all individuals on the Spectrum have Special Interests is inaccurate.
"Unusual eating behavior occurs in about three-quarters of children with ASD" - Citation please. As a person on the spectrum, after talking with professionals, and through all research I have found no evidence that eating disorders are common within the Autistic Spectrum. Most difficulties with "eating behaviour" are more often linked with sensory difficulties such as over-sensitivities to food texture, taste or smell. This statement can be misconstrued as stating that most people with Autism suffer from eating disorders, rather than their eating habits being informed by sensory issues that do not qualify as specific eating disorders.
"Autism is one of the five pervasive developmental disorders (PDD)" - Contradicted by your articles on Autism, Autistic Spectrum Disorder, and other related articles (which state between 3 and 4 conditions) (Autism is listed as a "featured" article). Sort it out please, these contradictions are embarrassing and insulting.
"Of the five PDD forms, Asperger syndrome is closest to autism in signs and likely causes" - Autism is an umbrella term, not PDD. PDD is a separate diagnosis given when more typical symptoms of an ASD are not prevalent enough to warrant a specific diagnosis (as demonstrated by the full term, Pervasive Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified). The phrasing of this term is misleading, as Asperger's Syndrome IS classed as "Autism" due to the status of Autism as a "spectrum" consisting of multiple diagnoses.
I am too tired/annoyed to continue, but within the first few paragraphs of this article these are the issues I have identified. Unfortunately, these errors appear to be mirrored across all autism-related articles on Wikipedia and as such I cannot recommend Wikipedia as an accurate source of information (indeed, my NHS consultant actually ridicules the standard of information that Wikipedia gives on ASD. On a personal note, a lawyer's attempt to submit an article regarding Autism to a Judge in a legal case was immediately dismissed on the basis that Wikipedia's reliability on Autism articles makes it immediately irrelevant as a source of information). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.162.189 ( talk) 01:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Bold textA previous long discussion on what is appropriate to include in this article has now been archived.
Very quickly, when I wanted to put in recent research findings by researchers at a respected medical school, I was told this was forbidden because they had not been the subject of a review article.
When I checked the rules, I found out this was simply not true.
There are different rules for latest findings, and as a matter of style, it's hard to know what to exclude, but the content I wanted to include, (findings by researchers at the University of California Davis Medical School that about 10% of autism cases are associated with maternal antibodies to fetal brain, and that the antibodies had never been found in control group mothers of typically developing children) did not violate the rules, and had the important aspect of possibly being something mothers with an autistic child can check to see if they will have another one, truly life changing information in other words.
The latest reseach is NOT banned from wikipedia articles. It MUST be identified as only one finding by one researcher or research group, not given "undue weight" and not used to refute other findings which are generally accepted.
However, you are allowed to use them, and the editors who constantly remove them are violating Wikipedia rules. And they KNOW it perfectly well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.132.104 ( talk) 19:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I have cleaned up, copyedited, and formatted the citation for the new text added on the autism/schizophrenia link, but I am unaware if this is a high-quality source; it is most unfortunate that Eubulides is not here to weigh in. The article cited is a review article, but the discussion in that article is cursory, and I'm not sure if this text enjoys broad consensus or has been subjected to other review. Comments? The text was also added at Schizophrenia, so I will add a link to this talk section from that talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is loaded with errors regarding Autism.
Primarily, Autism is no longer considered to be a separate diagnosis. The term "Autism" is used as an Umbrella diagnosis that includes Asperger's, HFA, PDD and Kanner's Syndrome ("Classic Autism"). As such, the term "Autism" should not be used in this way as it encompasses all ASDs. For clarity, someone with Asperger's Syndrome is Autistic, so is someone with PDD or HFA. The term "Autism" as a descriptive for a particular diagnosis has been replaced by "Kanner's Syndrome" or "Classic Autism." I would propose that searches on "Autism" redirect to "Autistic Spectrum Disorder", which would be more consistent with current medical understanding.
The article stated that there are 3 conditions on the spectrum - Autism, Asperger's and PDD-NOS. It made no mention of High-Functioning Autism (which has a separate clinical criteria for diagnosis from Autism, characterised by the inclusion of delay in Language Development). I have attempted to correct this (in fact, PDD-NOS is actually a diagnosis given when there is insufficient evidence for a conclusive diagnosis that an individual is on the Autistic Spectrum as their symptoms do not fit clinical understanding of Autism - so its place on the Spectrum is open to interpretation).
Discussions on prevalence in the article are hugely misleading. In the UK alone, the Government has admitted that it has no idea regarding prevalence and relies on a "rough guess" idea through the use of isolated, non-representative studies. This issue is a primary focus of the Autism Act (2009) and is predicted to be adressed in statutory guidance published before the end of 2010 that will commit all Local Authorities to undertake rigorous prevalence studies as well as increase the availability of diagnostic pathways for service users through the NHS. There is NO authoritative or quantifiable study on Autism Prevalence worldwide. In addition, increases in reported diagnoses are mainly due to increased awareness among healthcare practitioners rather than an increase in the amount of sufferers (there are many National Autistic Society studies on this).
These are just the most obvious inaccuracies.
In short, it is absolutely shocking and disgusting that this article has been granted "featured" status when it actually propogates misunderstanding and misinformation.
Sort this out, it's insulting to those of us on the Spectrum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.162.189 ( talk) 22:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
--Yes. Read the Wikipedia Article on HFA (and other autism-related articles) for starters and how it is differentiated - Wikipedia's articles are contradicting each other. "Kanner's Syndrome" redirects here. This article ahould really be re-named as "Kanner's Syndrome" or "Classic Autism" and heavily edited, as Autism is now considered the name for all conditions on the spectrum (I have a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome, for example, and am classed as being a person with Autism by the UK Government and the NHS). The search term "autism" would be more properly redirected to "autistic spectrum disorder" (I'm not going to start arguing about the use of the word "Disorder" when the trend is leaning towards replacing it with "condition", at least within the NHS, but there you go). My main point is that a lot of the Autism-related articles on Wikipedia provide contradictory information, linked search terms are inaccurate, and actually a lot of this information can be easily found to be incorrect (or at least wrongly-termed) through very basic searches or reading on sites such as the National Autistic Society, the UK government's Adult Autism Strategy (2010), etc. Forgive me for not providing citations for my edits as I am new to this whole thing and not sure how to do all that, but please believe me that, as a person with Autism and after actually discussing this with professionals, and the fact that I even work for a Mental Health organisation that has specialist units on autism, I know what I am talking about. Some of the stuff on the autism-related articles on here is inaccurate, other stuff is just downright insulting. A citation does not in itself make a statement accurate (particularly in an area where common-accepted fact is ever-changing, as is the case with ASC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.162.189 ( talk) 23:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
--On a slightly related note, I think perhaps it is important to note than in UK law, Asperger's Syndrome is afforded "default" protection under the Disability Discrimination Act (2005) following the legal case of Hewitt v Motorola (2004). The outcome of that case decreed that the definition of "communication" in the DDA be expanded to include the subtleties of human non-verbal communication such as tone of voice, body language, etc - which are prerequisites for a diagnosis of Asperger's (a simple browser search will corroborate that). The issue of Autism Spectrum Disorders/Conditions being covered under existing UK Disability Legislation is currently a heavily-discussed issue (due to the fact that Autsim does not fit into traditional disability boundaries of Mental Health, Physical or Learning Disabilities) and is, again, one of the primary reasons for Autism being the subject of the UKs first disability-specific legislation. If you want more information on the Adult Autism Strategy, I believe the full title of the UK government paper is "Fulfilling and Rewarding Lives" (2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.162.189 ( talk) 23:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
--Apologies if I am coming across as overly blunt - it's just "my way". I don't mean to be perceived as overly agressive or critical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.162.189 ( talk) 00:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it just me or is this article and related articles biased in favour of neurotypicals; because it keeps going on about all the difficulties that autistic people have and not really giving them any credit. Just because an Autistic person can't speak, doesn't mean they're stupid, thick, retarded whatever just means they can't speak, simple. Amanda Baggs has autism, can't speak but is really intelligent and is even an autism rights activist. I do think this article should be cleansed of it's bias because a neutral point of view is not showing any bias towards a particlar group or persective, I think this article DOES show bias. Any arguments against that, fine by me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antidanguy ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
This text should be removed because it is incorrect:
Although many alternative therapies and interventions are available, few are supported by scientific studies.[23][131] Treatment approaches have little empirical support in quality-of-life contexts, and many programs focus on success measures that lack predictive validity and real-world relevance.[24]
It should read as follows: Although many alternative therapies and interventions are available, few are supported by scientific studies.[23][131] However, mild hyperbaric oxygen therapy (1.3 ATA) has been shown to help in the areas of speach and focus in placebo-controlled, double-blind studies. [1] [2] [3]
ShillIHA ( talk) 18:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Quote: "Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, which was fueled by a scientific study which has since been proven to have been falsified. Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.[7]"
I think this change would be less biased : "Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism. This theory was first presented in a scientific study which was recently retracted due to ethics concerns. Further studies have not been able to link vaccines to autism. Parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.[7] Seizure disorders are markedly increased in ASD and persons with seizure disorders may have reactions to vaccines[reference needed].
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.115.123 ( talk) 05:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Cazort - it's a bit of an overstatement to say "scientific consensus dismissing vaccine theory".
There is pretty good acceptance of the theory that vaccines can cause autism in kids with mitochondrial diseases. And the vaccine court even awarded one kid money based on that. It's not accepted that this is a big cause of autism, however, it's also not thought that this kid was the ONLY kid whose autism was caused by vaccines. In fact, it's widely believed that fever with mitochondrial disease can cause very serious brain problems, ie, autism in some, and so it's not much of a jump to say that vaccines, which also cause fever and immune reaction such as an infection, might also cause some cases.
Most studies we hear about indicate most cases of autism must not be caused by vaccines, but it's not accurate to say that vaccines have been rejected in all cases, or that it's a "biologically implausible" cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.143.252 ( talk) 01:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The "Causes" section is hopelessly bad. Just hopeless, throw out all but two or three sentences.
Virtually all researchers agree there are many causes for autism. And that some genetic syndromes do cause autism all by themselves.
There is this gang of people who won't let the articel become good, who actively prevent it. The fact is, literally dozens, perhaps hundreds, of studies reveal very heterogeneous biomarkers for autism, so that for example, some autistic kids have larger than average brains, some have smaller. Some have elevations of various molecules, some have reductions of the same molecules.
Some cases of autism are widely accepted to be caused by mitochondrial disease, most are not.
The causes section should go into some of the dozens of highly variable biomarkers to illustrate why nearly all researchers believe in many different causes. I was at a conference recently where a geneticist told me they are looking at 300 genes. Also, the question of heratibility should address, at least slightly, the findings of respected researchers that while identical twins have as much as 90% concordance, dizygotic twins have a much higher concordance rate than siblings, strongly implying "environmental" (maybe prenatal and having nothing at all to do with any man-made thing or condition)factor influence a significant minority of cases.
It's a VERY BAD article for anyone who's been following the science of the last several years, at least the past 3 years but probably much longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.143.252 ( talk) 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Suggested changes:
Autism is not a single condition, and does not have a single cause. The concordance rate for identical twins indicates a very high genetic component, but isolating single gene causes for the great majority of cases has so far been impossible.
The fact that persons diagnosed as autistic or having autistic spectrum disorder have great variability in biomarkers indicates many different causes, and the great majority of researchers agree many causes will eventually be found.
While genetic causes predominate, the concordance rate for fraternal twins is much higher than that for siblings, which indicates "environmental" causes for the disorder, although "environmental" in this context does not mean man-made, and it may be that the most important environment is that of the womb.
A small percentage of cases are due to defects in mitochondrial genes. In some cases, the beginning of autism in a child is an onset of autistic regression, the loss of skills a child already has, and can be tied to the presence of mitochondrial disease,and an infection with fever. Although this may only represent a small percentage of cases, it means that the vaccine hypothesis is not completely "biologically implausible".
However, there is widespread agreement in the medical community that the risk of not vaccinating children is much higher than vaccination, and in most cases, no statistically significant increase in autism risk can be related to vaccination"
This is just a sample, the point is, the article is completely misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.143.252 ( talk) 01:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
No, no more of this "secondary sources only" nonsense. The Wikipedia rules do NOT require that, only that primary sources are identified as such, not given undue weight, etc. NO REQUIREMENT TO USE ONLY SECONDARY SOURCES. IT DOES NOT EXIST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.131.31 ( talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
SOAP - I appreciate the quotes from the guidelines or rules for medical articles, but I don't think you can quite defend your statement that you say clarifies them, "you can never use a primary source to make a conclusion that is not found in any trusted "secondary source"".
If that statement, which I was never able to find in any Wikipedia rules, is true, please tell me where to find it. I was told this repeatedly, but it was never shown to be true. The fundamental problem with the autism articles is that a gang of people with very rigid beliefs, unfounded, about what the Wikipedia rules allow or disallow is not allowing recent research into any autism article. This is terrible, because you simply can not depend on reviews being done in a reasonable length of time. Right now, there is research at UC Davis showing an antibody pattern in some mothers of autistics which is never found in mothers of non-autistics. In other words, a very strong biomarker, which means if you have that antibody, you should not have kids.
Putting this information in Wikipedia might save a great deal of grief for the mothers to be who have this antibody pattern, but the autism article tyrants won't allow that, even if properly treated. Even if no secondary source refutes it, (which is not the rule anyway.
And then I am told there must be consensus for the edit, even though the consensus is not being based on any fundamental reference to the science. Please, just let people put in the new science if it's done in the proper way and is not against the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.248 ( talk) 11:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I get emotional about the secondary sources issue, but this was repeatedly mispresented to me as an iron clad rule, when it's not a rule at all. Also, about the causes section, I was at a conference where one of the top autism people shared the podium with a geneticist from a University of California medical school. and in a break the geneticist told me they are looking at 300 genes as possible causes. Although that comment is not allowed by the rules, and I would not put it in, the general agreement of many, many genetic causes is allowed, and it's the state of the science, not some flaky off beat idea this professor had.
It's good to simplify at times, but it's a terrible thing to oversimplify as the people who feel they control this article insist on doing. At least dozens, and probably hundreds of genes and epigenetic effects cause brain conditions which are classifed as autism. This should be stated clearly in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.131.31 ( talk) 18:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
The existing text says "Working all the time makes Jack an interesting and stimulating person." | I propose "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy." | Quote from Jones et al. PMID 20949507 "Working constantly, to the exclusion of recreation, makes Jack boring." |
(You can copy the code I used for the table from the Talk:Autism page.
I would like to make some very minor edits to this article. A few sentences don't flow very well. Information will not be changed, but it should make this article easier to read. FruitSalad4225 ( talk) 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out a couple errors.Mainly the facts about the prevalence of autism.According to http://www.autismspeaks.org/whatisit/index.php and many other sources,the prevalence is much higher than is stated in the article. 208.110.227.127 ( talk) 03:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Please somebody add link to "Is there a link between engineering and autism? " http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/1997_BCetal_Engineer.pdf Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.85.27.234 ( talk) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I fully read the lengthy purported source of the claim that Martin Luther once stated that a child should be suffocated. I think the wikipedia article would be more accurate if it stated that the context and accuracy of this statement are in doubt. The wiki article does indicate that it is relaying the hearsay of another, but fails to make clear that the source which is cited inline not only isn't directly quoting Luther, but rather is quoting another source purporting to quote Luther, and the cited essay does so in a discussion which questions whether Martin Luther really said or meant what he is purported to have said or meant. Dkm125 ( talk) 17:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The article saysIn 1540 came the notorious reported discussion about a strange 12-year-old boy at Dessau, who was said to do nothing but eat voraciously and to excrete. [18]
"Luther suggested that he be suffocated. Somebody asked, "For what reason?" He {Luther} replied, "Because I think he's simply a mass of flesh without a soul. Couldn't the devil have done this, inasmuch as he gives such shape to the body and mind even of those who have reason that in their obsession they hear, see, and feel nothing? The devil is himself their soul. The power of the devil is great when in this way he holds the minds of all men captive, but he doesn't dare give full vent to the power on account of the angels." (LW 54: 397, No. 5207)
Much caution is needed in studying this report. The editor adds a footnote about a later version, in which John Aurifaber
"elaborated on the original by stating that Luther had himself seen and touched the boy and that he advised the prince of Anhalt to have the boy drowned. What had at first been the private expression of an opinion here became a formal recommendation to a ruler." (Ibid.)
What exact wording do you propose, Dkm125? -- Anthony ( talk) 18:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)The Table Talk of Martin Luther contains the story of a 12-year-old boy who may have been severely autistic. [162 According to Luther's notetaker Mathesius, Luther thought the boy was a soulless mass of flesh possessed by the devil, and suggested that he be suffocated. [163
Please excuse my lack of clarity. The text by M. Miles appears to conclude generally that Martin Luther opposed the mistreatment of the disabled, and casts doubts specifically on the veracity and context of the reported suggestion that a child be smothered. Quoting from M. Miles:
"These strongly suggest that throughout his career as a religious and social reformer, Luther repeatedly made written and spoken comments in which children and adults with disabilities [or deafness] were understood to have full human value and were considered worthy members of the Church."
The discussion of the purported suffocation recommendation falls under the heading "Dubious hearsay on the strange boy at Dessau", and notes "much caution is needed in studying this report." To cite it as supporting the notion that Martin Luther advocated the suffocation of a child is, to borrow a word, dubious. The cited text actually appears to be part of an indirect refutation, or least contextual reevaluation, of the quote.
Miles concedes the possibility the comment may have been made, discussing it as a hypothetical:
Supposing then that Luther did discuss the case of the strange boy at Dessau, it is quite possible that he did make either a casual or a more purposeful suggestion that this 'being' should be suffocated, as a body in which no human person resided...
However he then describes the purported statement as "a dubious suggestion reported from a discussion over dinner centuries ago". Miles also writes
Clearly, some of Luther's written views on illness, disability and the devil's intervention are not the received wisdom in Europe now...On the other hand, there is evidence in Luther's writings, in his personal conduct as observed by contemporaries, and in the social changes for which he campaigned, that he was keenly concerned for both the spiritual and temporal welfare of pregnant mothers, new-born babies, infants and for human beings of all sorts and conditions.
In order to make the wikipedia entry more fully supported by the cited text, I think the wikipedia entry should read along the lines of:
"The Table Talk of Martin Luther, compiled by his notetaker Mathesius, contains the story of a 12-year-old boy who may have been severely autistic. [162] Luther reportedly thought the boy was a soulless mass of flesh possessed by the devil, and suggested that he be suffocated, although a later critic has cast doubt on the veracity of this report. [163]
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkm125 ( talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the edit. It looks like there is a formatting glitch, with the edited text appearing twice. Perhaps you or another confirmed editor could fix formatting issue. Thanks for accepting my suggestion regarding the wording. Dkm125 ( talk) 00:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Two new government studies indicate about 1 in 100 children have autism disorders (2009 Oct) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/05/autism-rates-government-s_n_309290.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.249.234.100 ( talk) 01:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an important part of any discussion of autism today as it is exactly where the rubber meets the road for a large percentage of the population effected by autism. It needs to be a distinct part of the article and should not be neglected. Specifically, it would be a very good idea to include some of the research and models being proposed and used by R. L. Simpson and a number of others including S. R. de Boer, K. A. Quill, M. Garcia-Winner, Koegel & Koegel, etc. All of these authors have widely used textbooks in print that are used for education in autism related fields--including education. All of these authors address inclusion
I proposed a small edit to the "Management" section of the article that was immediately reversed citing the wikipedia requirement for reliable sources. However, the reference cited was a major work by a major publisher on exactly the topic discussed. It is hard not to see this as an arbitrary reversal or worse, one motivated by bias. Certainly the reasons given are not sufficient or correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reibwo ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
.
I replaced "...most alternative treatments, such as melatonin, have only mild adverse effects." with "...most alternative treatments are relatively benign." and was reverted by SandyGeorgia. The source says that, though adverse effects of melatonin are generally reported as mild, it is in fact associated with an increase in seizure frequency in susceptible children. Our article says it is only associated with mild adverse effects. That is, it misrepresents the source. The present formulation also implies there are mild adverse effects associated with most alternative treatments. The source does not say that, and it can't be inferred from the source, which mentions side effects for
but mentions no side effects for
Would anybody like to suggest a wording that accurately represents the source? Anthony ( talk) 15:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC) I have removed the sentence from the article for now, in case I'm right. Anthony ( talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have recreated the previously deleted {{ Portal-inline}} for use in this article. The problem with the current {{ Portal}} is this: the box is a floating object, so objects around it are placed on the left, causing the reflist to be narrowed. We could solve this by making the reflist float or by creating an empty floating object underneath the portal box, like this. But this makes the See also section even more ugly. So I made Portal-inline in the vain of e.g. {{ Wiktionary-inline}} ( WhatLinksHere), which is especially suitable for sections containing no normal/non-interwiki links. Looks good with me. Cheers, theFace 20:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know the complex citenews citing procedure this article uses? I didn't want to do the basic formatting (that I know of - the one that this Wiki article doesn't use), which would ruin the article. I added the information about ABA therapy and the claims of recovery. It is currently the "big heat" of discussion among parents and professionals and the claims of "recovery" (which studies say is "questionable" in terms of recovery.) It is listed in this scientific journal: [5]. I will use another source already used in the article (right after the comma - describing the "proven" efficacy and popularity that I added in the lead already.) For now, I put citation needed tag about the "recovery" claims. Thanks. ATC . Talk 03:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I came up with a better idea in the meantime. Instead of the citation needed tag, I'll source it with the basic formatting (with the URL showing in the reflist, as to not to do the basic citenews formatting that I know of) to the scientific journal until the citenews formatting can be done. ATC . Talk 04:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
{{
Cite news}}
is for citing newspaper articles. This article mostly cites scientific journals so {{
Cite journal}}
is more appropriate and includes fields for PMID and DOI, etc. This article uses a variant of the citation templates that are almost identical in use but have "vcite" as the first word rather than "cite". They produce must more compact HTML and the citation output format is different. See
WP:MEDMOS#Citing medical sources.
Colin°
Talk
10:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)69.228.117.220 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) has twice removed the following text, "Autism affects information processing in the brain by altering how nerve cells and their synapses connect and organize; how this occurs is not well understood." which is sourced to PMID 19819542. Specifically, the source says "Together, results of clinical, neuroimaging, neuropathological, and neurochemical studies show that autism spectrum disorders are disorders of neuronal-cortical organisation that cause deficits in information processing in the nervous system, ranging from synaptic and dendritic organisation to connectivity and brain structure. These changes probably alter developmental trajectory of social communication and seem to be affected by genetic and environmental factors." This review paper, from The Lancet in November 2009, is a fine source for the article text IMO. I have restored the text. Colin° Talk 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Anthony- in American English, your "autism is a disorder of cortical neuronal organization" would not be a good wording. "Organisation" which I noticed you spelled with an "s" the English way, would not be the precise word to describe say a defect at the synapses, which is one of the major areas of inquiry now. Maybe in England that statement would be regarded as including synapse defects, or many other problems in the neurons of the cortex, but not so much in the US. Also, attention has been given to the amygdala in a lot of research, so I am not sure you can say cortical neurons are the only thing implicated in all review articles. Finally, I don't think Wikipedia rules require only review articles as citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.183 ( talk) 00:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network (ADDM) are charged with monitoring and producing statistics related to autism and ASD. These statistics are then used by the CDC 1 and the National Institutes of Health U.S., National Library of Medicine 2 and reporting science journals. Their full set of statistics should be restored to the article.
"In 2006, on average, approximately 1% or one child in every 110 in the 11 ADDM sites was classified as having an ASD (approximate range: 1:80--1:240 children [males: 1:70; females: 1:315])."
Statistics from Asia and Europe (worldwide) indicate 1% prevalence (with data table).
"Studies in Asia, Europe and North America have identified individuals with an ASD with an approximate prevalence of 0.6% to over 1%." 3
75.120.185.48 ( talk) 15:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Many people visit this link, I think it would be noteworthy to mention if any significant body has done some work in trying to overcome this disorder. I would like to add links to ARI (Autism Research Institute) a wiki page already exists this a link to it should be fine? 71.231.182.103 ( talk) 19:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I have just done a Google Scholar search for "the term autism." The first ten results that defined the use of the word "autism" are below. "Autism" can mean either
This ambiguity needs to be addressed in the lead.
Quotes
Sources
Anthony ( talk) 20:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
We cover all of that ? What is your proposed change ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)It is one of three recognized disorders in the autism spectrum (ASDs), the other two being Asperger syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive development and language, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder-Not Otherwise Specified (commonly abbreviated as PDD-NOS), which is diagnosed when the full set of criteria for autism or Asperger syndrome are not met.
It seems to me that we have four somewhat overlapping terms to deal with, and here's how they relate to each other:
Autism spectrum disorders | ||
---|---|---|
Autism | Asperger's syndrome | PDD-NOS |
That is, "Autism" is a type of Autism spectrum disorder, "Asperger's" is a type of Autism spectrum disorder, and PDD-NOS is a type of Autism spectrum disorder, but these three things do not (theoretically) overlap with each other.
The question then is what this article should be about. IMO it should be about the Autism-that-is-neither-Asperger's-nor-PDD-NOS, rather than the Autism-that-is-properly-called-"Autism spectrum disorders".
And its title should be plain "Autism", because there's really no other viable option. The three-disease category has a viable name that isn't potentially confusing ("Autism spectrum disorders"). The one-disease entity does not: It's Autism, or.... well, Autism.
So this article needs to define the term, and educate the reader about the distinctions, and send them over to the ASD article if they're looking for the three-disease conglomeration. After explaining the classification, the content here needs to focus as much as reasonable on the one-disease entity, not the three-disease category. Any content here that is really about three-disease ASD rather than one-disease Autism should be moved to the ASD article, where it belongs. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Also as stated further into the articles under "Classifcation - Other symptoms":
Sensory abnormalities are found in over 90% of those with autism, and are considered core features by some,[36] although there is no good evidence that sensory symptoms differentiate autism from other developmental disorders.[37]
I feel it is important to add in the lead section that a common symptom of autism is sensory integration deficits, using both sources.
ATC .
Talk
07:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
and begin the lead with
Autistic disorder (or early infantile autism or, sometimes, autism)...
and make Autism a disambiguation page along these lines. Please familiarise yourself with the thread immediately above before commenting. Anthony ( talk) 08:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
ATC . Talk 09:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Autistic disorder (or early infantile autism or, more commonly, autism)...
I don't know if "autism" is used in the literature to denote this syndrome more often than "autistic disorder" and "early infantile autism" are. I don't even know for sure that it is used more often in everyday parlance. So for now it may be more prudent to just say it is "sometimes" called "autism", without specifying or implying frequency. Anthony ( talk) 14:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Autistic disorder (or early infantile autism or, more commonly, autism)...
Above, SandyGeorgia implies she doesn't know of any autism experts presently editing. If that is the case, I'd like to approach some experts for their opinions. Can anyone suggest a name or two? I'm thinking Simon Baron-Cohen, Temple Grandin, some major contributors to DSM V's "neurodevelopmental disorders" category, James Russell. Anthony ( talk) 10:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The main guidelines on this matter are Wikipedia:Article titles, Wikipedia:Disambiguation and to a lesser extent Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The Disambiguation guideline encourages us to think about whether we have a Primary Topic for the term "autism". Autism is not like depression in that with that term there are several uses for the word that are really quite distinct. The Article title guideline encourages us to use the common name and MEDMOS prefers the medically correct name. We don't have any conflict here because "autism" is a medical term rather than a lay term. The issues with the proposed changes are:
PMID
20699105 ASD
PMID
20880122 ASD
PMID
20954799 AD
PMID
20655060 ASD
PMID
20176116 ASD
PMID
21055719 ASD
PMID
20950788 ASD
PMID
20433873 Social withdrawal
PMID
21072692 AD
PMID
21069446 ASD
PMID
20833154 AD
PMID
21061054 HFA
PMID
21062623 ASD
PMID
21055864 ASD
PMID
21048139 ASD
PMID
21055902 Not defined
PMID
20889652 ASD
PMID
20634369 ASD
PMID
21041596 ASD
PMID
20805019 ASD
Eugen Bleuler; trans. Joseph Zinkin (1911/1961). Dementia praecox: or the group of schizophrenias. International Universities Press: New York. ISBN 9780899202440.
Sorry this is so long. I don't think we need to change or rename the article or create a dab page. Colin° Talk 18:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding, by nearly everyone who is a major contributor to the page, about autism. Autism is a very vague term, and encompasses too much to make all this debate over words worthwhile at all. In other words, all of this is pretty much meaningless. People of very high intelligence are considered "autistic" like Temple Grandin, but also people who can barely speak, or don't speak at all, because cognitively they are not capable of it. In fact, rather than trying to define autism, or trying to decide the words used to head a topic, it would be infinitely more producutive to simply tell people about the different types and how they differ. The article does this to an extent but you need much more, with less wasted mental energy on the precise meanings of words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.183 ( talk) 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Copied from User_talk:Anthonyhcole#Changing_Autism_links
Hi Anthony. I'm a bit concerned about your mass edits to change wikilinks from autism to autism spectrum. As I noted in the discussion at #Ambiguity of the word autism, I don't think we can change people's words. If the source says autism then so must we. We mustn't second-guess the source and say "well, they mean this". Also, I don't think it is a good idea to have the word "autism" in an article link to autism spectrum. People will click on that link rightly thinking it goes to our article on Autism and will be confused when it goes elsewhere (see WP:EASTEREGG). For example, in MMR vaccine, Wakefields paper uses the words "autism" [9] and nine of the twelve children were classified as having autism, only one as having an autistic spectrum disorder. So I think discussion of MMR really must use the word autism, even if some people feel the issue is related to other autistic spectrum disorders too. That's just one example. So, in summary, I think it is safe to change autism to autism spectrum (or autism spectrum disorder) only if the source uses that term, and that easter-egg wikilinks are not appropriate in this case. Colin° Talk 10:58, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Anthony, I've had a chance to look at some of the links you gave above. Here's the first eight. Let me know if there are any of the rest that need looked at but I see a pattern emerging in my responses:
Generally if the source (or the people/organisations mentioned) use the term "autism" then so should we and we should link here. If the source uses "autism spectrum disorder" or similar, then we should use the term " autism spectrum disorder" and link there. The blindness example is complex and I don't think having "autistic-like features (or tendencies)" would necessarily classify someone as having an ASD. If both terms are used by a source then it is a judgement call but I wouldn't necessarily assume ASD is a safer option. For example, the MMR controversy is about autism and that's the term everyone uses when discussing it, even if two of the patients in the original paper had an ASD rather than classic autism. If the article text is just giving autism as an example of a disorder (like with behavior) then I don't think there is any need to widen it even if widening it would be technically correct (it doesn't make it more correct). Colin° Talk 20:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone verify that this text added here is in the cited source? PMID 10638459. If not, it should be removed as anecdote or cited to a review. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
"the vaccine hypotheses are biologically implausible and lack convincing scientific evidence" from the lead has been linked to a news report of the BMJ article and editorial asserting Wakefield was likely behaving fraudulently. Is this an appropriate source for the "biologically implausible" claim? If so, should we link to a news report, the BMJ editorial or Deer's article? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 12:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure whether the IP user who started a discussion of terminology meant to delete their own thread? Consequently I'm not sure whether it should be restored. Doniago ( talk) 15:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
All I ask of Wikipedia is an effort in objectivity. Millions of people go here for information. I urge you to explore all sides of an argument before stating them as supposed fact. This includes the research of the source itself (not just the content), who they are funded by and who they are connected to. There are numerous dissenting studies and opinions within the scientific community in regards to the relationship between autism and vaccinations. All I ask is that you acknowledge these sources instead of quoting the first pharmaceutical company backed study that you find. The CDC is no different, it is a tremendously flawed source with endless contradictions in it's presentation of "facts." I would be glad to enlighten you but I fear any truth that contradicts the establishment will seldom see the light of day. Contact me if you wish I would gladly start you in the right direction. You can email me at [email removed]. Although, it will take some time compiling the information into cohesive form. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Gandhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.107.160 ( talk) 08:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Although the science community has pretty much universally rejected vaccines as a cause of the majority of cases of autism, it's not accurate to say there is no link. The US' vaccine court decided one child got autism from vaccines, and there may be many more, I was at a DAN conference in Long Beach CA recently where a researcher on mitochondrial DNA from UC San Diego stated that a much larger percentage of autistics than normal kids have mDNA problems, (believed to be the reason the kid got sick from vaccine) and that it's not known, and implicitly can not be assumed, that an absence of general mitochondrial disease, (hard to diagnose but kids will NOT appear physically healthy as most autistics do) in the body in general, means absense of all mDNA problems in particular organs, ie, the brain in this case. In other words, there may be some number, perhaps small, perhaps not all that small, of kids whose autism is due to mitochondrial disease. According to this lecture, there is often significant neurological deterioration after a fever, or, in the case of some, vaccines. So, what I am trying to say is, "no link between vaccines and autism" is a bit simplistic. Also, just my own theory, but if an immune activating event can cause damage to the brain in those kids with unknown mitochondrial disease, then it may be they get autism after vaccines, but, at the same time, the percentage of kids with autism who have been vaccinated is the same as those who were not, because even if you are not vaccinated, sooner or later you get fever and that leads to the brain problems. THat last part is just my theory, but I think it should be pointed out vaccines do not seem to cause much autism but claiming it causes none is an oversimplication. Better to say something that states the current state of belief but emphasizes vaccines extremely low risk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.183 ( talk) 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
"As someone who has Autism, I would strongly urge editors of this page to consider using more Neurodiversity aware terminology. Many aspies are offended by the (sometimes insulting)terms used in Wikipedia articles on this subject. I am very concerned that Austism is in certian "mental illness" catogories, Autism may be known as a disorder in medical terms, but there is no reason to call it an illness. Surely Wikipedia contributors can edit the wording of this article in a way that is medically acurate but still respects people on the autistic spectrum? Thanks." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariosto10 ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
There are just a couple of instances in which the autism/vaccine connection has been referred to as a theory. I checked the document briefly and saw the following.
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, which was fueled by a scientific study which has since been proven to have been falsified.[69] Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.[10]
I believe it to be incidental, since the rest of the document is worded quite carefully regarding immunizations. I suggest an alteration to the document to the following.
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to the hypothesis that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, which was fueled by a [strike]scientific[/strike] study which has since been proven to have been falsified.[69] Although these [strike]theories[/strike] hypotheses lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.[10]
This would more accurately reflect the concepts put forth. 74.204.87.18 ( talk) 01:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to the proposition that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism; this proposition was fueled by a study which has since been shown to have been falsified.[69] Although these proposals lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and disease outbreaks in some areas.[10]
-- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 13:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to the proposition that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism; the only apparent scientific support for this proposition was a study which has since been shown to have been falsified.[69] Although these proposals lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and disease outbreaks in some areas.[10]
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to the proposition that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism; journal-published support for this proposition was a study which has since been shown to have been falsified.[69] Although these proposals lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and disease outbreaks in some areas.[10]
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to the belief that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism; one study supported these beliefs. The study has since been shown to have been falsified.[69] Although these proposals lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and disease outbreaks in some areas.
(outdent) Hold on. The fraudulent Wakefield study was only looking at the measles component of the MMR vaccine causing an autism-like illness. It has nothing to do with preservatives (thiomersal isn't in MMR) or other vaccines. So the "vaccines or their preservatives cause autism" theory/hypothesis/idea/proprosal isn't completely based on a fraudulent paper, and arguably that paper had a bigger impact in the UK than in some other countries. I think we need to rewind the suggested text a few versions. Colin° Talk 16:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe Study Number Ten will suffice to reassure the one in four parents [8] who have come to fear vaccinating their babies that doing so will not raise the likelihood of the kids' developing autism. Then again, maybe no number of costly and carefully designed and executed studies will dislodge the fear of vaccines among parents that has taken root in the United States.
-- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 19:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to concern that the MMR vaccine or a preservative used in vaccines may cause autism. One 1998 report appeared to support the MMR vaccine hypothesis, but was later found to have been fraudulent. Although these
hypotheses theorieshypotheses lack any convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunization and disease outbreaks in some areas.
Notes to editors:
Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to a valid scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status.[1] Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories. The term "pseudoscience" is inherently pejorative, because it suggests that something is being inaccurately or deceptively portrayed as science.[2] Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience normally dispute the characterization.[2]
so I'm fairly confident "the MMR vaccine causes autism" and "thiomersal in vaccines causes autism" are hypotheses.A supposition or conjecture put forth to account for known facts; esp. in the sciences, a provisional supposition from which to draw conclusions that shall be in accordance with known facts, and which serves as a starting-point for further investigation by which it may be proved or disproved and the true theory arrived at.
(Outdent) Reswobslc, in that discussion, says the main problem with "hypothesis" is that it is an invalidating term, and in this discussion, Homo Logica is worried it will boost the idea. Tim Vickers sees hypothesis as a neutral and technical term colloquially equivalent to "Idea" and "Theory". I'm comfortable with my most recent version above. Colin, it's about the same word count as the existing version. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 00:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
On break now. Tim goes into it briefly there. The manner of progression for something scientific would be like this, and I'll use gravity as an example. It starts with an observation of something that is occurring. So, you see a ball drop from your hand to the ground. Next, you come up with a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon you observed. This hypothesis must be provable (in the mathematical sense), and describe the observed phenomenon. It need not be correct. Your hypothesis is that the less massive an object, the slower it will fall. After that, you would design an experiment to test this hypothesis. So, you drop 5 objects of varying masses, then observe and record the speed at which they drop. You would then analyze the data you gathered. You find that they all dropped at the same speed. This would cause you to form a new hypothesis. Your new hypothesis is that objects will drop at the same speed regardless of mass. So on and so forth. After doing this numerous times, you would arrive at a theory, gathered from all of your observations to describe the motion of objects in gravitational motion.
The key there, is that a hypothesis is formed from the observations to explain the causal relationship between any two things. In this situation, he did not observe a causal relationship from which he formed a hypothesis. He formed an idea that two things were related, then created evidence to support the notion.
I apologize if it seems like I'm getting off track, but my point from when I started the section, was that the word theory is being misused in this instance. The issue here isn't plausibility of the notion. It was not formed scientifically, yet it purports to be science. That is the definition of pseudoscience.
Colin, I would also appreciate it if you did not edit the section, until we've reached a consensus. -- Homo Logica ( talk) 00:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm upset that my edit, which corrected an obivous factual error, was reverted. I'm particularly upset that it was reverted for WP:POINTy reasons rather than because an editor found a problem with it. There are times when text should be debated before an edit is made but there are also times to be WP:BOLD and this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit.
Can I remind folk that this is an article on autism and we are discussing text in a section on the causes of autism. Wakefield's paper is no longer relevant to establishing the cause of autism and hasn't been for a very long time. It is notable from a legal, social and historical aspect. At some future time, this article will no longer mention vaccine theories in the Causes section and they will be noted in passing in the History section. For this reason, I don't think it is good to explicitly single out Wakefield's study per WP:WEIGHT. We don't single out any other study, let alone an old discredited one. So I don't prefer Anthony's suggestion above.
There are three vaccine theories (off the top of my head) for autism: thiomersal, MMR and vaccine overload. They have been subject to scientific test and found wanting. We now know one of them was concocted as a money making scheme rather than as an honest attempt at scientific endeavour. I can see Homo Logica's point that Wakefield's work wasn't "science". But Mendel's work was a little bit cooked and that hasn't brought down the science of genetics. Other scientists have taken the MMR theory seriously and applied science to it. That science has discredited the theory but there is still good science there and the theory didn't involve alien abduction or water memory or any unscientific explanation. I think we're getting hung up on Wakefield and forgetting the other theories: see WP:RECENTISM.
My suggestion is that the text "since been proven to have been falsified." be replaced with "since been shown to have been "an elaborate fraud".", citing the BMJ editorial that contains the quoted text. The word "proven" has strong legal/mathematical aspects and is too heavyweight for our purposes here. The word "falsified" isn't clear IMO. I think the BMJ quote is a nice one on many levels.
You guys can debate the theory/hypothesis/proposal/idea wording till the cows come home; I'm not that interested and neither are our readers IMO. I will say that hypothesis is an erudite word that the reader may stumble on. The best solution, when there is disagreement among editors, is to use the term that our best sources use.
Colin° Talk 09:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
withParents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, one of which was fueled by a scientific study which has since been proven to have been falsified. Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.
? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 09:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to concern that vaccination may cause autism. Although this idea lacks any convincing scientific evidence and is biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunization, and disease outbreaks in some areas.
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that vaccines or their preservatives cause autism. Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to theories that certain vaccines or their preservatives cause autism, one of which was fueled by a scientific study that has since been shown to have been an "elaborate fraud". Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations and higher likelihood of measles outbreaks in some areas.
Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination, and this has given rise to concern that vaccination may cause autism. A significant study supporting this idea has since been determined to be "an elaborate fraud". Although this idea lacks any convincing scientific evidence and is biologically implausible, parental concern about autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunization, and disease outbreaks in some areas.
I've reverted this edit which replaced "theories" with "concerns" and "ideas". I had been somewhat uninterested in the debate over those terms, but I have two concerns. The first is that it is clear that the desire to use a weaker term is pushing a POV. The second, and most important, is that is not the language used by our best sources. If Offit (the most notable and well-published opponent of the anti-vaccinationists) is happy to use both "hypotheses" and "theories" in his papers on the issue, then so should we. We really need a reliably sourced reason to use the weaker terms. The three theories weren't just "concerns". They were subject to scientific scrutiny and process just as with any theory. Colin° Talk 21:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)