Jump to content

Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 19

More autism reported

I reverted additions today sourced to the laypress, so we could discuss how to handle the press accounts of more autism reported due to better screening. Sample here and here, and this is the CDC account. Do we have any secondary reviews approximating that number, or any reviewed commentary on the CDC account, so we don't hve to rely on the laypress? Should we decide to mention the CDC's primary data, we need to take care that the sources say it's an increase in reporting due to better screening, etc ... The New York Times sounds a different note, so we've got to resolve how to present this ... worried that we don't seem to have a MEDRS-compliant peer-reviewed source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is still unresolved, since we're not using secondary sources to report the new CDC data. In this example, we see that Volkmar seems unconvinced, and there is a lot of "noise" in the data. I hope we'll get a secondary review article on this topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Gender Airbrushed Out?

Am I mistaken or has any mention of gender been airbrushed out of this article? For example, I see no statistics given on the breakdown of cases by gender. Is this on purpose?Godofredo29 (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

As a woman, I carefully take out my airbrush and make sure I obliterate all mention of my gender from Wikipedia. Of course it's not on purpose: if someone has a gender breakdown from a recent WP:MEDRS-compliant review, please present the source. I'll check what sources I have access to when I have time, but if it's not in the text, that likely means there wasn't such data in the latest secondary sources used at the time the text was written, and a more recent review would be a better source of this information. I suggest it might be updated if/when we get a secondary on the 1 in 88 business (mentioned in the section above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Strike that, gender breakdown is stated, right where it belongs, in the "Epidemiology" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 April 2012

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in March 2012 estimates that 1 in 88 children have Autism. 72.240.95.202 (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


It's already in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sentence needs rewording

In the lead section it says, "The diagnostic criteria state that symptoms must become apparent before a child is three years old." It may need rewording. ATC . Talk 16:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How about: "Prior to being diagnosed, symptoms must become apparent before a child is three years old." ? ATC . Talk 16:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's really an improvement. It sounds a bit "off" to me, maybe because there's a "prior" and a "before" in the same sentence. I didn't think the original was that bad. How about "The diagnostic criteria require that symptoms become apparent before a child is three years old." Watermelon mang (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Vaccines

I've again removed the addition of "some believe" from "some believe the vaccine hypotheses are biologically implausible and lack convincing scientific evidence." The source states that:

Twenty epidemiologic studies have shown that neither thimerosal nor MMR vaccine causes autism. These studies have been performed in several countries by many different investigators who have employed a multitude of epidemiologic and statistical methods. The large size of the studied populations has afforded a level of statistical power sufficient to detect even rare associations. These studies, in concert with the biological implausibility that vaccines overwhelm a child's immune system, have effectively dismissed the notion that vaccines cause autism. Further studies on the cause or causes of autism should focus on more-promising leads.

So it's difficult to argue that there is any doubt expressed here. To change this sentence you would need to find a reliable source that disagrees, which I imagine would be impossible. Watermelon mang (talk) 01:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

good catch. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Change in epidemiology of autism

According to PubMed published in 2012 (see here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22284791), autism now affects 60 per 10,000 people (which is 6 per 1,000 people.) The lead states 1-2 per 1,000. It may need some updating, with the source provided. ATC . Talk 22:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I would add it but I don't know how to source scientific journals that well on Wiki. ATC . Talk 22:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Luckily I looked at the Wiki page for citing sources for scientific journals and figured it out! ;p ATC . Talk 00:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Reverts to edits

I am confused as to why User:SandyGeorgia reverted my edits. PubMed is a scientific journal, which according to Wiki's sourcing policies, is reliable and most of the article uses a scientific journal. CDC is not a scientific journal and I do not understand why the source needs to be used in the article. ATC . Talk 23:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, the sentence that says "The number of people diagnosed with autism has increased dramatically since the 1980s" is inaccurate. All the sources in the article say autism was rare in the 1980s but increased in the late 1990s and early 2000s. ATC . Talk 23:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Finally, the sources for the vaccines in the lead should not be tagged after the sentence about prevalence but after where it discusses the vaccines and the PubMed source is no longer linked and is all messy now when you click the citation tag. ATC . Talk 23:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

RBS-R check needed

If anyone has the source, I'm worried about the text describing the Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised. It is supposedly sourced to PMID 17048092 but the abstract does not look like the text. Can someone check the source ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Repetitive behavior

Autistic individuals display many forms of repetitive or restricted behavior, which the Repetitive Behavior Scale-Revised (RBS-R) categorizes as follows. (sourced to PMID 17048092)

  • Stereotypy is repetitive movement, such as hand flapping, making sounds, head rolling, or body rocking.
  • Compulsive behavior is intended and appears to follow rules, such as arranging objects in stacks or lines.
  • Sameness is resistance to change; for example, insisting that the furniture not be moved or refusing to be interrupted.
  • Ritualistic behavior involves an unvarying pattern of daily activities, such as an unchanging menu or a dressing ritual. This is closely associated with sameness and an independent validation has suggested combining the two factors. PMID 17048092
  • Restricted behavior is limited in focus, interest, or activity, such as preoccupation with a single television program, toy, or game.
  • Self-injury includes movements that injure or can injure the person, such as eye poking, skin picking, hand biting, and head banging.[1] A 2007 study reported that self-injury at some point affected about 30% of children with ASD.[2]

On the final sentence, why are we reporting here a 2007 study instead of a review? Overall, I'm concerned this text has grown over time, and may not reflect the source. We may need a new source on the RBS-R? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The source says:
The factors were labeled "Ritualistic/Sameness Behavior," "Stereotypic Behavior," "Self-injurious Behavior," "Compulsive Behavior," and "Restricted Interests."

Nonetheless, they do not list what those labels mean as mentioned in the Wiki article. I believe, however, their is more than one source used in the article. Should I take a look at the other sources as well? ATC . Talk 22:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an CiteULike Autism research paper sharing library, which includes both DIO and PubMed IDs for papers when available. And each article can also have tags regarding the content of the article. This may help find the sources you require dolfrog (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

external link, but the content is in flash

Hi all! I have come across a website that offers visitors how an autistic person feels and sees, through the eyes of Carly Fleischmann who was diagnosed with autism, oral-motor apraxia and cognitive delay as a child.

The intend of the site was to create both visual and audio experience, and programming in Flash allows visitors to take different perspectives (up/down/left/right) of the autistic person. However, this somehow conflicts with wikipedia's guideline on contents that should normally be avoided. It is however not 'normal' for such a resource to come by easily any day.

Yobol and I have discussed and we thought it would be a good idea to seek your valuable opinions if we should (dis)allow the external linking to this rich-media resource.

Hope to hear from you! Thank you for your time.

URL in question: http://www.carlyscafe.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyhan (talk • contribs) 02:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

First off, it is pretty cool. That said, it is trying to sell me something, and it requires flash, so no, I don't think it is appropriate. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

MAR - Maternal Antibody Related Autism

By far, the single largest verified cause of autism is maternal antibodies to fetal brain, but this is not in the article. Parents of autistics will read Wikipedia to try to get information, and it's very important they get this information, whereas information on genetic causes does not have clinical value as the genetic causes mostly do not repeat.

Let's go over the evidence:

1. Maternal antibodies to fetal brain were verified in over 10% of mothers of autistic children by more than one researcher. These antibodies are either not found or almost never found in the mothers of non-autistic children. The p values are very high for this.

A lot of this work has been done by UC Davis MIND Institute. The Primary Researchers include Dr. David Amaral, who is a very prominent scientist, who was President of INSAR, the International Society on Autism Research. He's also published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, and verified the MAR hypothesis with experimentation on macaques which shows if you give injections of the antibodies to the mothers when pregnant, the offspring have abnormalities in behavior.

2. UC Davis is developing an antibody test for mothers or future mothers to take, in corroboration with Pediatric Bioscience. If the University did not believe in this test, would this be happening? These are not some fly by night flakes, these are top people being reviewed by other top people who are putting money on the table.

3. There are many peer-reviewed papers, as I mentioned above in prestigious journals, which verify this.

Parents need to know about this. If they know, and they have one autistic child, they can get the test and hold off on another pregnancy until a treatment for the antibodies is available. Thus, this is not just information this is very helpful to their lives. Keeping the information out is not just a violation of Wikipedia rules, it's like letting people drive off a cliff because of some disagreement over the semantics of a warning sign.

Please someone include MAR autism and a quick explanation of it in the article. Though the entire mechanism of the damage done has not been published, and probably not known, it's even more nailed down than most of the stuff that is in the article now. Maternal antibodies to fetus or some fetal tissues has been recognized as a disease mechanism for a long time, whereas synapse formation research, (hugely important and with vast implications, as is a lot of this autism research as it uncovers the mechanisms of normal brains) is still new.

So, please don't keep it out of the article. You can really help someone's life by including it, no doubt many parents read Wikipedia every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.131.84 (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If this is a widely accepted hypothesis it should be easy to find many good MEDRS secondary sources. Are there any? Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The more recent claims from UC Davis now relate to Fragile X, they seem to be trying to promote their own labs and their own theories. Which has happened in other areas related to autism, carrying out lots of your own research to improve specific claims having a scientific validity, with little or no independent corroboration. dolfrog (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the assumption that autism researchers spend much time verifying each other's results is wrong. I don't see it. Neither do I see papers contradicting the research of others. It seems like it's rare that anyone spends time doing that, they go for new results instead. Therefore, secondary sources can be years behind the current state of knowledge in this fast moving field. MAR theory can be included with caveats, I know no one wants to keep valuable medical information away from parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.131.84 (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Secondary sources are the way to go. There is no rush. I wish not to keep anything from anyone, I also would not like for us to give undue weight to a theory that does not have wide acceptance as of yet (unless of course it can be demonstrated that it has such acceptance). Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No one has refuted it that I am aware of. No one at all. I think UC Davis and Kennedy Krieger have similar findings in this regard. You say "there is no rush", but what is happening right now, unless the theory is totally wrong, is that mothers of autistic chldren are reviewing the chance they will have a second autistic child and deciding the risk is acceptable to them, when in fact they have the antibodies and will have another autistic kid. IF you would simply allow the Wikipedia rules to be followed, instead of violating them, some of these women would find out about their antibodies and hold off on getting pregnant until a treatment to suppress those antibodies is available, (or use surrogates maybe). No rush to you maybe. What is your connection to autism anyway? Are you a parent of an autistic child? Sibling? My guess is you simply don't care because it does not effect you and you have no empathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.131.84 (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Find us a secondary source. We are in no position to evaluate primary sources. And yes, there is no rush, this is not a news site, it is an encyclopedia. What if the theory is completely wrong? I am not violating policy. I figure you are the same IP that comes here about once every month or so, so this has all been explained to you. Maybe you should register an account so we can all be sure that we are talking to the same person who has a bad case of WP:IDHT. If you are not the same person I apologize). Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

So 75.61.131.84 another unsigned contributor, what are you say here. Are you saying that it is wrong to have children who are different and have disabilities. Where do you draw line in your form of disability discrimination, in your efforts to promote may be your own theories. Are you trying to make all humans the same, on a program of disability cleansing. i could be wrong but that is how your last unsigned contribution came accross dolfrog (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck -- don't apologize, your are right about me. But you are not right about the rules of Wikipedia. If primary sources are forbidden, please give me a link to that rule and quote it here. Because when I've followed the links that SandyGeorgia gave in the past, they never said "no primary sources", in fact,the links led to rules under which primary sources can be used, and I quoted them under a Talk topic of "What do the rules actually say" and you and others IIRC, kept on insisting the rules said "no primary sources" when the rules for their use were right in front of you. Will it help if I track them down and quote them again? I can. Primary sources are not forbidden, and the folks who misrepresent them (bad faith at the least) and worse yet delete legal edits, are those in violation, not those who point out the misstatements or put in legal edits. Please, go read the rules for primary sources in medical articles and get back to me. Unless they have changed they are still allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.131.84 (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add this. Accusing people of violating AGF is a personal attack, DO NOT DO IT AGAIN. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a review article in the neurology journal of the American Medical Association. Is that good enough to include this now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.131.84 (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Present it here, and see what sort of consensus we can come to. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's on Pubmed, but you've got to have access to the articles as a subscriber, a university account typically, to look at all of it. I can get it by going to the local college, but if anyone already has access I think they should look at it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.131.84 (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I am a university prof (psychology) and I have access to like a zillion journals. Do you have the reference? I could look at it. (A long weekend is coming up in Canada though, don't expect me to read it right away at the expense of the beer drinking.....) Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)\

I think the journal name is "Archives of Neurology" and the author is Judy Vandewater, and it's the most current issue.

Here are two recent review articles:
PMID 20160651. Paula Goines and Judy Van de Water (2010). The immune system's role in the biology of autism. Current Opinion in Neurology, Vol. 29, pp. 111-117.
PMID 21906670. Charity Onore, Milo Carega, and Paul Ashwood (2012). The role of immune dysfunction in the pathophysiology of autism. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, Vol 26, pp. 383-392.
Both articles briefly describe human and animal studies that suggest maternal antibodies against the fetal brain may later lead to behaviors associated with autism. CatPath (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you CatPath. About 15% of all mothers of autistic children have antibodies to fetal brain not present in mothers of typically developing children. Pediatric Biosciences' web page says maybe 18%. If this research holds up, and I am aware of NO refutation of it, Maternal Antibodies will be the most common cause of autism, almost certainly, And since all those cases will become preventable with widespread prenatal testing, this has the biggest clinical/public health implications as well.

The most important thing is for mothers who have one autistic child to get tested before getting pregnant again. There is roughly a 1 in 6 chance a mother of an autistic child has the antibodies. Not good odds at all for such a serious condition. They expect to have the test out by the end of 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.90 (talk) 02:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Picture Caption

Has anyone else noticed in the picture where the boy has arranged his toys by size that there is a small duck at the start. Someone needs to change the description on the picture as I can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cacra (talk • contribs) 15:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

preparing for DSM V May 2013

Although research and decisions have yet to be finalised, there appear to be substantial changes in how Autism is classsified and diagnosed under DSM5. This article as it stands may have to be renamed "History of autism" for more information have a look at some recent research papers regarding DSM5 dolfrog (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 July 2012

Autism Books: 120 Best Autism Books For Children By Age

Seohop (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
An editor with one post ever, mentioning a website. Could be a spammer. Dream Focus 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

People with autism attracted to water

The article states that people with autism are naturally attracted to water and provides reference [23]. I am not aware of any scientific evidence supporting this claim. I request that an expert either deletes this statement or adds appropriate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.235.127 (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Many news sources state that they train law enforcement to know that when looking for a lost person with autism, they are naturally attracted to water. Google news and new archive search shows ample mention of this, as does Highbeam [1] and not just for that one missing guy they found near a river. Dream Focus 20:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Vaccines and autism

This article dismisses the vaccine hypotheses as "biologically implausible" and "lacking scientific evidence." This is a heavily biased statement as there is still no consensus in the scientific community. A 2011 article by CBS Investigates (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20049118-10391695.html) states that "For all those who've declared the autism-vaccine debate over - a new scientific review begs to differ. It considers a host of peer-reviewed, published theories that show possible connections between vaccines and autism. " Laurelinril12 (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)laurelinril12

WP:MEDRS sources please, and frankly yes, the science is in. There is no debate, no matter what anti vax crusader Ms. Atkisson thinks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is an accurate statement. Researchers in mitochondrial disease seem to believe there is a subset of autistics whose root problem is mitochondrial disease combined with some kind of immune activation, ie, in this case a vaccine. I don't think it's believed to be a large percentage of all autistics, in fact, I was at a conference where Dr. Robert Naviaux of UCSD said about 5% of autistics have known mitochondrial disease. This is still much higher than the percent of non-autistics, which I think he said was 1 in 300. The important thing for parents to know is, unless your kid has some known mitochondrial problem, it's a lot better to get vaccinated than not. Remember besides the risk of death, a lot of the disease you get vaccinated for will cause serious brain damage even if you live. Whooping Cough and Meningitis. And a bunch of stuff may cause birth defects if a Mom gets infected, and sure the Mom gets a vaccine well before a second child but it does not always "take". Probably "no link" and "biologically implausible" are not phrases most front line researchers will use. Lots of stuff can mess up your brain, particularly a developing brain, it's the most complex thing on earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.86.10 (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Should have checked before posting. The CDC has a web page on autism and mitochondrial disease and regressive encephalopathy. They point out that the disease you avoid by vaccines (like flu) is likely to be worse for your kid than the vaccine itself, even from the mitohondrial disease standpoint alone. The important thing is to tell parents this is a rare condition, even in autism patients. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.86.10 (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We go by sources, the sources are quite clear, vaccines do not cause autism. The Gerber and Offit paper referenced actually uses the phrase 'biologically implausible' BTW. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Do those papers say "biologically implausible" in regards to a combination of mitochondrial disease and fever or immune activation being a cause, or in response to one of the many other theories? I am not saying this is proven by any means, but I saw Dr. David Amaral, former President of INSAR, stating there was some chance of vaccines causing autism in some rare circumstances. This does not mean not to get vaccinated, you have to play the odds. It's like seatbelts, you COULD get trapped in the car by your seatbelt and get burned up after a crash, but for every time that happens, the seatbelt saved 100 people, or maybe more like 1,000 in modern cars with better post crash anti fire technologies. I think the great majority of people can absorb the fact that this is a very complex subject. Also be aware, before the discovery of this mitochondrial disease/immune activation/neurological "crash" syndrome, many researchers would have said no connection. But even the CDC web page is not dismissing this syndrome, in fact seems to endorse that it exists, basically says what Dr. Robert Naviaux said at the DAN conference in Long Beach in 2010. We don't want to put out bad information but a pedantic refusal to acknowledge new research is not goo either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.86.10 (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep moving the goalposts eh? Before no researchers used the phrase biologically implausible, then I showed you where they did, then you want specific cases from your pet theory. Look, unless you have something to contribute here you are wasting everyone's time. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

You are getting me mixed up with the other poster. And I'm not playing football with you, just trying to point out using old sources is not really a good idea. Please look at the CDC website on this. I will go try to find the link, but basically, it admits the possibility of vaccines "causing" autism in some cases. Really of course the cause would be the underlying mitochondrial disease, but the point is, when the CDC says something seems to be possible, relying on an old source that says "biologically implausible" is not really logical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.86.208 (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC) Not to go on and on, but I think you are just not getting it. For a time, the theory of vaccines causing some severe brain problem was that some kids were more vulnerable to mercury. Then there was some very vague idea of "immune system overload" whatever that meant. And then I think autoimmunity induced by some similariy between the vaccine antigens and the body's own tissues. Some or all of those theories were referred to as "biologically implausible" by the authors of the review articles you cited. And I am not disputing that statement. I am trying to tell you that a fairly new theory of vaccines causing sudden and dramatic brain damage is this combination of mitochondrial disease and immune activation, and it's not my "pet theory", I don't even know if it's true, but CDC and some top reearchers are not expressing anything like the resistance to it that that old quotes claim. You are misusing the old quotes I think. Hopefully this link will work : http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/mitochondrial-faq.html Well, basically the CDC says there is no proof that vaccines cause autism, but that more research is needed to determine if they could in rare cases of children with mitochondrial disease. But that is a big change from the language still in this article.

There is no evidence to support such a hypothesis that it does cause autism, even in the case of mitochondrial disease. There is a lot of evidence it does not cause autism. The "hypothesis" that autism is related to vaccines in the setting of mitochondrial disorder was largely driven by a court ruling in the Hannah Poling case in 2008; as far as I can tell, this particular avenue of discussion is driven mainly by antivaccine forces trying to publicize this particular case to bolster the case against vaccines, rather than a drive by the scientific community to suggest this is a highly active or desirable area of research. This is all, of course, completely off topic to the purpose of the talk page, which is to suggest improvements to the article using reliable sources. If you have specific suggestions, please bring them forward, but we should not be making idle speculation or discussion about the topic, as it goes against our talk page guidelines. Yobol (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
As for the potential between an association with autism and mitochontrial dysfunction, this source (PubMed) looks like it could be cited to at least get the word mitochondria into the article, no? Biosthmors (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I would prefer a study not done by authors with a conflict of interest - one of the authors apparently is an expert witness for children with mitochondrial disorders in vaccine lawsuits. This may be just a bias I have due to the discredited work of other scientists turned vaccine expert witness, however. Certainly if multiple independent authors have looked into it, we can mention a speculative association (with the caveat that correlation does not necessarily mean causation). Certainly nothing in the above article discusses vaccines, however. Yobol (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
For anyone interested in the potential association between mitochondria and autism, here are some potential sources: doi:10.1002/ddrr.112, doi:10.1016/j.bbabio.2010.04.018, doi:10.1007/s12035-011-8192-2, [2], and doi:10.1289/ehp.1104553. For example, in doi:10.1289/ehp.1104553 (free) it states "Although the role of mitochondrial function in the autistic phenotype is not fully understood, approximately 8% of ASD cases experience mitochondrial dysfunction, compared with 0.05% of the general population [reviewed by Haas (2010)]." And FWIW, the COI author's paper has been cited more than some of those other reviews. Biosthmors (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Although I am one person who thinks some editors are too restrictive, the CDC actually does not say vaccines cause any cases of autism. They do say mitochondrial disease and certain conditions can cause regressive encephalopathy, and that there needs to be more research to determine if vaccines can cause this as well. But since it's not stated that vaccines can cause autism, that should not be stated in the article. However, with 8% of autistic kids having mitochondrial disease, it should probably be given some mention, just like maternal antibody related autism. A lot of parents will read this and it will be valuable to them potentially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.86.208 (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Too much jargon?

My son was diagnosed as autistic over 3 years back.

Since then I've read many hundreds of research paper abstracts and spent hundreds of hours on Wikipedia to understand the terms and concepts in those papers.

And yet, I see dozens of sentences in this article which I can not understand, mostly because they use unnecessary jargon in an attempt to sound high falutin.

I can give many examples but I wanted instead to put this out as a general criticism for the reaction of other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.134.41 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My kid was diagnosed 8 years ago, and I have done a lot of reading, but I have background in Psychology, so it might be hard for me to spot. It really would be helpful if you could point out some potential problem sentences. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


I have only a high school education, and frankly see no problem with any esoteric terminology in the article. I would say that mr 75.61.134.41's comment about "an attempt to sound high falutin" speaks volumes to the validity of his assertions. OR, perhaps, as it was an anonymous comment, the user is merely trolling. I can think of few pages better to do it on. Could easily be the twisted humor of someone actually on the spectrum. Snertking (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I take it as a suggestion. This article that was widely copied by various websites proves his statement: [3] It's something that we obviously need to improve upon on Wiki-P. He (she?) is not the only one that believes so. Thanks for that. Lighthead þ 22:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
That article talks about cancer info, not this article. We need concrete proposals. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The proposal is that we need to be readable. Whether cancer, autism, or English literature. There's nothing specific we can do. We just need to be aware of a general problem that Wikipedia has. There's obviously a problem with that on psychological articles as well if the IP holder couldn't understand because of the jargon. We just need to be alert and go by this: Wikipedia:MOS#Contested vocabulary. If people want information in plain English (layman's terms), they're not gonna get it because of whatever bias that editors here have. Side note: I have seen this a lot more in the last week, actually. It's very annoying, because I feel for people like him or her. Lighthead þ 02:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Without examples, this comment is unhelpful. Colin°Talk 15:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Overwhelming and Embarrassing Change of Heart I reread the article; I actually hadn't read it in a long time, and when I did, I didn't go over it with a fine toothed comb like I just did. It's actually a pretty good article. And yeah, I have to admit that when there's jargon, there's usually a link to explain to that term. I only found one that didn't have a link (I added it). Most likely, the IP user is very unfamiliar with Wikipedia and didn't take the time (or didn't find it worth his or her time) to review the linked material. Great article. Thanks for the furious shaking and slapping, Colin. Lighthead þ 04:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Environmental vs. Genetic should be clarified

I think the article should clarify that "environmental" includes the prenatal environment and also include the findings that heritability of autism is far less than previously thought. And there should be some emphasis on the likelihood that in many cases, the "environmental" factors which cause autism cna not be easily avoided. Some prenatal infection or maternal immune activation, and other factors which have effect WAY before vaccination or posnatal diet, chemical exposure, and so forth. The idea is not to scare people but get a more accurate article, the "90% genetic" stuff seems to be far out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.90 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you please cite your sources for this assertion? Pretty much everything I have read from reputable sources as of late on the topic (ie: in the last 2 years) seems to be showing more and more consensus that heritability, not environment, is the primary cause, and that environment plays LESS of a role (if any) than previously thought. Snertking (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Your request seems reasonable, please dont' be too offended if I don't comply, the reason is the people who monopolize the article simply won't let in anything they don't agree with, so it's pointless. A study out of Stanford estimated about 50% heritable 50% environmental. Fraternal twin concordance for autism is WAY higher than siblings which should not be the case for "90% heritable" the article states. Huge gene association studies have found autism genes but do not seem to account for enough percentage of cases to get anywhere near "90%". The fact that siblings of autistics are 25 times more likely to be autistic actually supports the maternal antibody related autism "theory" -- only a theor now in the sense that evolution is a "theory", since it's been tested in more than one animal now, -- rather than genetic causes because the gene associations studies on autism in families dont' give you such high numbers, at least according to all I've read, where Fragile X is the most common genetic cause with only 1% of all cases. Environmental factors are huge, but the problem with saying that is that layman don't understand huw broad the term "environmental" is in this context. The article misleads people badly and I could gather the articles to prove that but those who dominate tthe editing won't let it in the article, so what is the point? I guess they will let it in after every ppregnant woman in the first world is getting prenatal testing for those causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.168 (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There is now a review article on this. Dev Neurobiol. 2012 Aug 22. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22052. [Epub ahead of print] Maternal and fetal anti-brain antibodies in development and disease. Fox E, Amaral D, Van de Water J.

This should be included in the article. Maternal Antidoby Releated Autism seems to be the single biggest type. Although ALL genetic causes are far greater, any single one is far less common. It is very important for people who have already had one autistic child to know mothers can have these antibodies so they can get tested and know if they are likely to have another one. Really life changing information, and now it's in a review article so there is no reason to keep it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.86.10 (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC) So, now I've got a review paper, but no one wil change the article ? After all the resistance I got to putting this subject in the article, based on "No Primary Sources:" when Wikipedia rules did not say that, this silence is very loud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.139.168 (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Honorific for Dr. Temple Grandin

There is a line that begins "Noted autistic Temple Grandin described...", and I was surprised to see that the word "person" was left out and her title "Dr." was left out of her name. I feel this sentence is disrespectful towards her and would much rather see it read "Dr. Temple Grandin, who has autism herself, described...", or something similar. This would give her the respect she deserves, both as a human being and a holder of a doctorate degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladian22 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we use honourifics typically. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
True! See: WP:CREDENTIAL. However, if you want to rephrase autistic into who has autism herself, please do so! Lova Falk talk 10:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to, but I can't because this article is semi-protected. The directions for Wikipedia semi-protected articles state that I should request any changes I think should be made on the article's talk page, so that's what I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladian22 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I had thought that Grandin was one of those who dislikes person-first terminology, as many autistics do, but can't seem to find where I read that. I may be confusing her with someone else. ☮Soap☮ 23:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Even when we mention Grandin, it is not important what she personally likes or dislikes. Instead we should go by the wikipedia guidelines. Lova Falk talk 13:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Unknowledgeable Editors

The bad situation of editors who ae not up to date if getting worse.

The relatively new long lead to this TALK section includes one paragraph about cause of autism which contains the statement

"No ultimate cause has been found for autism. All indications are that it is a primarily genetic condition with a complex etiology that has to date eluded discovery. With thousands of articles published every year on autism, it is very easy to find at least one article supporting nearly any theory. Accordingly, we must limit the page to only the most well-supported theories, as demonstrated in the most recent, reliable, high-impact factor sources as a proxy for what is most accepted within the community"

"No ultimate cause has been found for autism" -- No, several causes have been found. Fragile X, Down's syndrome, a bunch of rare genetic conditions, maternal antibodies to fetal brain, a bunch of teratogens and teratogenic conditions.

The editors who keep out causes because they don't account for all cases are on the wrong side of the science. .\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.220 (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding "unusual behaviors" to complete the characterization list per the Lancet source

From the Lancet source name=Levy already used multiply in the article - "Autism spectrum disorders are characterised by severe deficits in socialisation, communication, and repetitive or unusual behaviours". I added "unusual behaviors" to complete the lede first sentence. (There may be a subtle objection distinguishing "autism spectrum disorders" from "autism", but this distinction does not appear to be made elsewhwere when this source is used in this article.) ParkSehJik (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And I have removed your excess citations on the autism rights movement. [4] This is a broad overview article, you added citations to text that was already cited and the daughter article sociological and cultural aspects of autism is already linked and well cited. On "unusual behaviors", I think you've left the sentence muddled, but will let others decide. Also, please be aware that we sometimes don't use exact wording for avoidance of copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Better wording would be good, but leaving out the entire diagnostic category, "unusual behaviors", leaves out too much. ParkSehJik (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
But what you've written is incorrect:

Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, by restricted and repetitive behavior, or by unusual behaviors.

The placement of the commas makes this sentence say that "Autism is characterized by unusual behaviors". That is not what the source says, and that is not what the diagnostic criteria are. There's a punctuation problem and an and/or problem. Our lead is now incorrect. In the future, will you please shorten your section headings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
You are corect on my logic error. The Lancet definition logically implies "comm and soc and unusual" is sufficient, without "repetitive and restricted" or even "repetitive" being necessary, but that is not what DSM says. I will revert my logic error (unless you already did), but that leaves open the "or unusual behavior" from Lancet, whcih is the most up to date source. Lancet's 2009 def with "or unusual" adds to what is in the lede. What was in the lede I found was sourced in the corresponding article body statement "It is distinguished not by a single symptom, but by a characteristic triad of symptoms: impairments in social interaction; impairments in communication; and restricted interests and repetitive behavior. Other aspects, such as atypical eating, are also common but are not essential for diagnosis", which is sourced by the 1999 "The Screening and Diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorders" saying "three core-defining features: impairments in socialization, impairments in verbal and nonverbal communication, and restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviors", which in turn rests entirely on the 1994 DSM, which is now almost 20 years old, and which itself relies on even older studies. I keep finding going back to 20 year old DSM as the only real source in various related articles, and the problems with DSM V, which is supposed to correct DSM IV's outdatedness, combined with statements about DSM V, troubling as I indicated at MEDRS.

Diffs for 2009 Lancet based, v 1994 DSM based, def for lede first sentence. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DSM criteria are a stronger source than one author in a Lancet article. DSM does not say "unusual behaviors". Which, by the way, would raise a whole lot of different issues - it is not unusual for a child to show unusual behavior... Lova Falk talk 09:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Which is why "unusual behaviors" is better explained in the text than in the lead. (Park, please confine personal anecdote to user talk pages ... trying to read small print doesn't make it any easier, either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks, [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
@Lova Falk, autism is not just a condition of children (although adults with autism tend to be ignored by comparison, and treated in strange ways, e.g., with antidepresants, per my anecdotal observations, not sourced). The sources used for the definition in this article all rely on 1994 DSM IV, 20 years old. The Lancet article is 15 years more current. ParkSehJik (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia - I do not see "unusual behaviors" adequately explained in the article body. Do you know where Lancet got its definition, or where there is a definitive secondary source listing all of the "unusual behaviors", and whether or not Lancet might have made a logic error similar to the one you pointed out that I made, in that they meant to add that there are sometimes unusual behaviors, but these together with the communication and social conditions are not sufficient without restricted and repetitive behavior? ParkSehJik (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
If you find a high quality secondary more recent review with contradictory information, then we can discuss it. I am satisfied with our current content, and am not going to engage in seeing this page used for ever-spreading speculation or anecdote. Changes to the article, and discussion here, should be based on sources. If you have them, bring them forward and we'll discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed AS and mental retardation for discussion

I have removed this text[6] to talk for discussion:

One of the criteria for Asperger's syndrome is that there is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development; [7] which means that no one with Asperger's syndrome can have mental retardation.

Several problems:

  1. This is an FA, and if we decide we want to include this text, we can cite it to any number of high-quality secondary reviews-- no need to use behavnet.
  2. This is an FA, meaning raw URLs will lead to WP:FAR; even if we did want to use that source, please don't add raw URLs.
  3. There are prose issues-- even if we decide to use this text, the prose needs refinement.
  4. But more significantly, why are we adding this text here? This article is about classic autism, not autism spectrum, so the content is off-topic here anyway, and already addressed in the AS article. It's also only creating something that will have to be updated in May 2013.

My suggestion is that this text isn't even needed in this article. If others disagree, then at least it needs to be correctly sourced and rewritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

History of "disorder of neural development"

Re "disorder of neural development" - does anyone know off he top of their head where to locate any of the original empirical studies by which this assertion first made it into DSM and elsewhere? I can do it with some work, but if anyone already knows, it would save much time. ParkSehJik (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We aren't citing that to the DSM; we are citing it (among many others) to this. If you want to know what research went into that wording, I would suggest you read through all of the sources cited in all of the freely available sources cited in the article. You can backtrack that way. Alternately, you might save yourself and all of us time by explaining why you might challenge the wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I have been doing that. In doing so, I am finding that many of what appear to be independent sources, when tracked back, ultimately rely on DSM, often the 1994 edition. I could try reading forward from the original publications, which is even more work, but the nature and quality of this artice indicates that it was largely written by, or overseen by, MD's and Phd's with expertise, and I was hoping someone had already done the research. ParkSehJik (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Your assertion about the authorship of this article is most curious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Addition to Autism Page: MRI studies and results

I rarely see statistics work on wikipedia. I am unsure if this is because there is a need to simplify information for readers or if there is a general lack of it. I wanted to add some great information I came across during some research I was doing on Autistic Neuroanatomy.

"A recent study in the American Academy of Children and Adolescent Psychiatry found results about specific brain areas of autistic children and their density. ASD girls were found to have enlargement in intracranial areas. Their gray (cerebral, frontal, and temporal) and white (cerebellar) matter volumes were higher than the control group. Cerebral and frontal gray matter as well as frontal, and cerebellar white matter volumes were higher than the control group. There was a gender difference found in that ASD girls in cerebral white (M= 28.99, SD= 4.75) and cerebral (M= 728.60, SD= 44.86), frontal (M= 272.42 SD= 18.85), and temporal (M= 161.58, SD= 12.93) gray matter. Compared to boys cerebral white (M= 23.42, SD= 5.58), and cerebral (M= 765.15, SD= 58.10), frontal (M=282.98, SD= 23.64), and temporal (M= 164.60, SD= 18.16) gray matter. Mann-Whitney results for girls were .012, .014, .007, and .008 respectively. Boys Mann-Whitney results, also respectively, were >.0005, .014, .016, .054 (in this last instance Randomization test was .017)"

  • Bloss, C.S., & Courchesne, E. (2007). MRI neuroanatomy in young girls with autism: A preliminary study. American Academy of Children and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 515-523. doi: 10.1097/chi.0b013e318030e28b</ref>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsnook3 (talk • contribs) 23:31, December 12, 2012

See WP:MEDRS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS-- we would rarely add anything beginning with "a recent study", certainly not one labeled a "preliminary study", and we typically cite text to secondary reviews of primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Many causes for autism are not controversial and should be in the article.

There are many known causes for autism, and they really should be in the article.

Also, if you look at www.sfari.org you see about 300 genes are being looked at as causes of autism or cognitive disability. That should be included to show there are many causes, so no one is thinking their autistic kid has the same condition as someone else's.

"Many genetic abnormalities cause autism. About 300 gene abnormalities closely linked to autism are being currently investigated as causes. These genes often effect differnt aspects of brain development" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.134.16 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Two things:
  1. This is a broad overview article, which relies on summary style and daughter articles, such as causes of autism. Not everything can be covered here; what is mentioned in the most recent, highest quality secondary reviews is typically included.
  2. If you have a high quality, recent secondary review that discusses "causes" that are not included, please provide the source and text.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have a high quality secondary review source, it's www.sfari.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.134.117 (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If a secondary review compliant with WP:MEDRS is available, please post a DOI or a PMID, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Persistent case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Between 10 and 18 % of autism cases seem to be related to maternal antibodies to fetal brain.

Since autism related to maternal antibodies to fetal brain can be prevented by screening, it's very important for people who are at high risk of having an autistic child to know about this cause.

Although the Wikipedia rules do not require sources to be secondary reviews for inclusion in medical/biological articles, there are in fact secondary reviews endorsing the maternal antibody related (MAR)theory of autism, so even under this arbitrary condition, inclusion is allowed.

It's really important that parents of one or more autistic child be made aware of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.134.117 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been brought up before, and probably more than once. The responses to a virtually identical question are now archived, so here's a link to one of the relevant sections - there may be several others but Talk:Autism/Archive 13#MAR - Maternal Antibody Related Autism seems to cover it. I have to say, there seems little point in pursuing this further, unless you've discovered sources/evidence that would satisfy the requirements of WP:MEDRS. Haploidavey (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do, and I've read the rules and extensively pointed out that primary sources are not forbidden in medical articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.134.117 (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We've had this conversation multiple times, nothing has changed, with IPs from the same geolocation. Done, someone should archive this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy,o Can my good faith request to add important content to the article be dealt with as though we had no "history" between us? Let me go over the reasons for an edit:

1. There are secondary sources endorsing the maternal antibody releated autism findings. Published in peer reviewed journals, I've cited them already, but they were "archived". There are probably about half a dozen review papers endorsing this.

2. The University of California is developing a test for commercial distribution in collaboration with Pediatric Bioscience. THey believe in this enough to make it a joint venture.

3. One of the main researchers is Past President of INSAR.

4. I am aware of no refutation or contrary findings by anyone.

It seems like this edit is being rejected because of my history of pointing out that some editors have misrepresented the rules in the past about primary sources being forbidden.

But now that issue is not relevant, there are numerous secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.129.155 (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't archive comments which are made in good faith and relevant to the discussion.

I had added a new talk section on maternal antibody releated autism pointing out there are many solid reasons to include it as a cause.

The claim was made that it's redundant but the fact is, there are many new secondary sources, review articles, which endorse this as a cause of autism.

I also pointed out, though it's not new info as the review papers are, that one of the lead researchers who has published these findings is past president of INSAR, the main professinoal society of scientists and doctors involved in autism research, and that the University of California has endorsed the theory, by going into partnership with a private company, Pediatric Bioscience, to develop and market an antibody test for sale.

Someone removed that section. My previous comments on this which INCLUDED REVIEW PAPERS IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALSm, were also archived without action or comment.

I feel that my suggestinos are rejected because I posted commnents pointing out that editors were misrepresenting the rules on primary vs. secondary sources. Whatever the merits of that, I call on editors to act in good faith to critique this issue.

It's really important people, especially people with one autistic child, are made aware of the fact that there is a high chance the mother has antibodies to fetal brain and that if they get tested they can avoid having another child with autism.

So, this is imporant, it's endorsed by secondary sources, it's endorsed by the UC system, ir'; endorsed by one of the top scientists in the field, who was himself "peer reviewed" when elected President of INSAR, and so forth.

I think it's been suppressed out of spite towards me. If so that is NOT "good faith". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.129.155 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF indicates that we don't "think something is suppressed out of spite"; if you have a secondary review source, please list its DOI or PMID. If you persist in a discussion that has been had numerous times, with no change, please review WP:DR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure who you are speaking for. Well, I will go search PubMed for the review papers which support MAR autism. But UI would like to suggest people actually editing or undoing edits should have more knowledge of the subject. None of this is controversial in the science community as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.129.155 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Wikipedia is basically just a summary of the scholarly consensus on a topic. We derive that scholarly consensus from recent review articles. (In the scientific literature, review articles are scientific papers that provide a synthesis of research on a topic at that moment in time. They're not the same as peer-reviewed articles.)
The kind of source needed in this case is an expert overview of the current thinking on the etiology of autism that includes a discussion of the maternal autoantibodies theory. Bringing such a journal article or textbook chapter to this talk page will demonstrate that experts consider the theory relevant enough for mention in an overview article such as Autism - or at least in Causes of autism; and such a source will give us an idea of the emphasis or weight we should give to the theory if we mention it. No one here will engage in discussion based on sources weaker than this. The relevant Wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with all of this. And just to add, I have looked at full-text of the review article I believe proposed by the IP as a source [8], and it does not in any way shape or form support that "there is a high chance the mother has antibodies to fetal brain and that if they get tested they can avoid having another child with autism". In fact the authors are quite clear to say that "What cannot be demonstrated in the human subjects is whether these antibodies cause autism", and then refer to some animal studies following which the authors say "if this model continues to be replicated, it will provide a substrate for evaluating potential interventions and preventative measures." The conclusion of the article is "Maternal antibodies to fetal brain have been identified as one exposure during fetal life that may put a child at risk for autism spectrum disorder. Future studies will focus on identifying which fetal brain antigens the maternal antibodies identify. This may provide insight into the normal role for these proteins in fetal brain development and how interaction with the maternal antibodies may alter the course of brain and behavioral development." The repeated use of the conditional "may", "if" and the direct statement of the need for "future studies", confirm that the IP's conclusions both about this journal article and the views of the University of California researchers are incorrect. Slp1 (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We should all be aware that our IP friend has posted this message [9]. Just letting you all know. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that long ago; it's of no consequence (except as an indication that IP did not read instructions there either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
For the record, this post at Arbitration/Requests, pointed to by Dbrodbeck above, was deleted as disruption.[10] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I will respond to the meaningful comments made first.

First, thanks to the editor who actually researched the review papers, but you are missing some information:

Although the main researchers into MAR autism are not saying the maternal antibodies CAUSE autism, they are saying, in other papers perhaps, that they don't find ANY "typically developing" children, (in longitudinal studies including hundreds of them) whose mother's have certain antibody patterns.

So, not having identified the precise harm caused by these antibodies, if any, they are not willing to say "these antibodies cause autism", BUT, and this is the MAIN POINT::::: They ARE willing to say, and are saying, and the University of California is saying with it's joint venture, that the presence of these antibodies in a mother is so highly correlated with autism in the child that it's worth making the test into a commerical product.

So, the point is not if the antibodies cause autism directly, though this seems highly likely from the animal studies, the point is prospective mothers need to be tested. " That is where my sense of urgency comes in. If the inclusion of these findings were in ANY way forbidden I would not keep pushing, but the truth is, the claims made about primary findings being forbidden is FALSE. I've actually gone to the trouble of quoting the relevant sections of the rules, and no one ever refutes my posts in this regard, they just keep referring back to the same rules I have proven do not apply.

A few editors have abandoned the false claims that primary sources are always forbidden n favor of the claim that there is a "consensus" against using them.

But imnplicit in that claim is the claim that the rules of Wikipedia can be changed by half a dozen editors who are hung up on controlling an article. If that is so, why have the rules at all?

The article CAN truthfully report that the University of California is involved in a partnership to develop and market the test and refer to the Pediatric Bioscience web page describing the test. That would be all that is needed to get the sophisticated reader on track to getting prenatal testing.

My aims are solid, my methods are straighforward, in good faith, and actualy VERY helpful to having a more informative and more valuable article. Please, those who want to keep this out, look at yourselves and ask if you can say the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.129.155 (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM and if you have a secondary source that meets WP:MEDRS, please provide it. UC Davis is commercially "involved" here, meaning they have an interest in promoting a product (see multiple previous discussions in archives). They are not an adequate source on this, and that has been covered in archives, with you, multiple times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Re "the article can ... report that UC is involved in a partnership to develop and market the test ... ", MIND Institute is probably where you would want to add such text. As long as it doesn't make unproven medical claims about the test, text that it is developing and marketing a test would not be inappropriate there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. IP, as I said, you are going way beyond the sources. Your deductions about the data and their implications are not allowed per our policies no original research. And you have a misunderstanding about the purpose of WP: this is not here to get the word out anything, most especially with very preliminary information about a test (that is not accepted by autism research community and in fact is not even yet available![11]. Please promote the test elsewhere. Slp1 (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Slp1, do you have the full text of the source you mentioned above? Is there anything in there that is worthy of, say, two or three sentences on this "Maternal antibody related autism" concept that can be added to the Causes of autism article? One of my concerns is that the paper is from UC Davis (ie, affiliated with the commerical product), and any text on that would be UNDUE here in an overview, but perhaps you can say a word or two at the Causes article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have a full text copy which I can send to anybody who sends me an email. The article seems pretty solid to me; there is no talk of commercial products and as mentioned above, is quite circumspect in its findings and conclusions. I think it would be a fine source for saying something about maternal antibodies being investigated as a possible cause. The term "Maternal antibody related autism" isn't used anywhere in the article at all, so that is out as possibility. In fact it seems to be used hardly anywhere in any source, reliable or not. Slp1 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, ha ... in that case, it doesn't sound very helpful. Perhaps Dbrodbeck would want it for the Causes article, but I thought it would shed light on IP70+range's assertions about "Maternal antibody related" autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary of past discussions with IP 76, IP 75 and other 70 ip range

This is a sampling of past discussions coming from this Bay Area ip advocating that we add information about a commercial test from the MIND Institute, UC Davis, to detect maternal antibodies related to autism; there are far too many IPs and discussions to list here, but others can be found by perusing the list of IPs in the 70s range who have contributed to this talk page (there are scores if not hundreds).

All of the discussions come down to the same: it is a yet unproven commercial test, no reliable secondary sources compliant with MEDRS have been offered, primary and commercial sources related to the product are frequently offered, sources are misrepresented nothing changes from one discussion to the next, and yet this discussion has occurred over and over since at least 2009.

Adding to the disruption, in spite of us requesting it over and over, the IP does not sign posts, will not provide a secondary review source, and repeats the same argument month after month.

Above is only a sampling. If anyone has links to other relevant discussions, please add them-- it was too much for me to look up all of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Much the same things happens over at Causes of autism as well. Same pattern, same IP ranges. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed ANI here; if you have other evidence please add it here or there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Admin Drmies is suggesting there that WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX give us leeway to revert any further forum/soapbox posts here from the IP70+range poster. [12] In the future, unless IP70+range supplies a secondary review source, with a concrete suggestion for DUE weight text that is supported by the source, we might take that suggestion and merely remove any further posts. Should we need to implement something like this, we will need to keep an informative FAQ at hand. Please follow the ANI discussion; Drmies has also suggested that if reverting the IDIDNTHEARTHAT doesn't work, semi-protection of the talk page might be warranted in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Drmies; I'd feel better hearing first from other editors before semi-protection; we've got a good collaborative bunch in here, and I'm just one of the crew. If you don't mind, we could ping one of you if there is no disagreement. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I hope that simply reverting this kind of post from this IP range in future will deal with this. As Sandy has pointed out, three months is a drop in the ocean to this IP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
I am fine either way, as long as this BS stops, or is stopped I should say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright--let's try the rollback method (if you beat SineBot to it--this irritator won't sign), a variance of WP:DENY. On the off-chance that some newcomer has already responded to the IP, deletion is still warranted in my opinion. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed AS and mental retardation for discussion

I have removed this text[13] to talk for discussion:

One of the criteria for Asperger's syndrome is that there is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development; [14] which means that no one with Asperger's syndrome can have mental retardation.

Several problems:

  1. This is an FA, and if we decide we want to include this text, we can cite it to any number of high-quality secondary reviews-- no need to use behavnet.
  2. This is an FA, meaning raw URLs will lead to WP:FAR; even if we did want to use that source, please don't add raw URLs.
  3. There are prose issues-- even if we decide to use this text, the prose needs refinement.
  4. But more significantly, why are we adding this text here? This article is about classic autism, not autism spectrum, so the content is off-topic here anyway, and already addressed in the AS article. It's also only creating something that will have to be updated in May 2013.

My suggestion is that this text isn't even needed in this article. If others disagree, then at least it needs to be correctly sourced and rewritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia! Finally I have the time & energy to answer you. About the question if this should be included or not: I feel, that if the sentence "For PDD-NOS the association with mental retardation is much weaker." is included, also a sentence about Asperger should be there. For instance, "In comparison, for PDD-NOS the association with mental retardation is much weaker, and by definition, the diagnosis of Asperger's excludes mental retardation." As a source we can use the DSM-IV. Lova Falk talk 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, prose is good, but could we not source it better? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
What source you think would be better than DSM-IV? <ref>{{cite book | title=DSM-IV-TR Diagnostical and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth edition text revision | publisher=American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC | year=2000 | pages=80}}</ref> Lova Falk talk 20:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Is WHO/ICD-10 the same? Also, DSM-IV is about to change, so why don't we cite it to a journal review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of the ICD-10 here, but it does have the same requirement that there is no general delay or retardation in in cognitive development. Journal reviews stating that the diagnosis of Asperger's excludes mental retardation base this information on the text in DSM-IV. (I mean, there are no review articles discussing the question if Asperger's does or does not have comorbid mental retardation, because it is excluded in DSM-IV and therefore not a matter of discussion.) And yes, DSM-IV will disappear but with it, Asperger will also disappear, so as long as we have Asperger in our articles, we can have DSm-IV as a source. Lova Falk talk 20:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Allrighty then, unless someone else disagrees, go for it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done Lova Falk talk 10:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Tactile sensitivity

Is it worth discussing tactile sensitivity, and/or other sensory phenomena? Or would it more properly belong on Autism spectrum? Rich Farmbrough, 07:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC).

I would say both, and not only tactile sensitivity. Over/undersensitivity for sound, temperature, smell, food structure, pain, etc are not at all uncommon in autism/autism spectrum. But I don't have any sources at hand. Lova Falk talk 16:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

ASD diagnosed after age 18

I have read the comments on talk regarding ASD and Aspergers. While I am not a professional, I am the mother of a child who has been diagnosed with ASD/Aspergers after age 18. Is there a study of how many young adults diagnosed with ASD/Aspergers, how it effects them, their ability to function in society (both on a pier based situation and in obtaining employment)/communication skills/and resources available to the child and their parents? Also, how it effects their mental health. I can find information on the "causes/symptoms" but not anything on the above mentioned. These are important considerations to be addressed for the older vs younger persons diagnosed with ASD/Aspergers because it does effect their quality of life and abilities to provide for themselves in the future. This should also be included in the DSM. 184.170.86.100 (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC) A. Hedrick

Edit request on 25 January 2013


Autism is a disorder!!! NOT A DISEASE!!!

Please reclassify this.

101.103.53.236 (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The article already uses the word disorder and not disease. RudolfRed (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

FAQ

I have updated Talk:Autism/FAQ (linked at the top of this page) to reflect the discussions over the last three to four years of maternal antibody related autism and commercial products in development to test for maternal antibodies. Please review my text, it may need adjustment ... in the future, IP70+range posts on the topic can be reverted or rolled back unless a secondary MEDRS-compliant review surfaces. (San Francisco Bay Area IP70+range sometimes post outside of the 70s, and it is a frequently changing IP address.) Same at Talk:Causes of autism. New readers can be referred to Question 8 on the FAQ at the top of this page. We should be good to archive the rest of this talk page now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. I've archived to Talk:Autism/Archive_13. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
On this: It is only a matter of time, in my opinion, before the maternal fetal antibody theory is addressed in an authoritative overview of etiology theories. When that happens, it will probably be appropriate to address it in Causes of autism. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole -- can you please give a link to the rules on citations in medical articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.130.19 (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering your IP range and geolocation match those mentioned in the FAQ I think you know, but, on the off chance it is not you WP:MEDRS. We use secondary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Scientifically reviewed studies for treatment of Autism

Scientifically reviewed studies for treatment of Autism:

:I put this in the External links section. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 19:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Why? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
??? I was confused. As far as I remember, this link was put in the See also section, and I moved it into the External links section, however, I did that in Autism therapies and not in this article. Lova Falk talk 13:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Environmental causes

There is a recent study published indicating a very high increased risk of autism in the children of mothers who took valproic acide during pregnancy, for epilepsy.

There is also indication that chlorpyrifos, a pesticide still used in the US, greatly effects brain development and is strongly suspected of causing autism in some children and measurable abnormalities in brain development in others.

I don't know how commonly valproic acid is given now to women of child bearing age but it seems to be one environmental factor that is not much disputed, being in dozens of papers as a teratogen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.130.19 (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources? In that case, you could propose an edit here on the talk page. Lova Falk talk 15:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
We need secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

neurons

There are two descriptors with which ALL and every neuronal system are born, Autism & Schizofrenia, and it doesn´t matter if you are human, cat, dog, cow or dolphin (or for that matter a whales). At birth, there is solely a basic neuronal set and that neuronal set does NOT include social interaction, facial recognition, identity recongnition by and through sound nor any specific other recognition through any of the other sensor complexes.

A neuron, has: input, output, pathway delay, feedback, thresholds, ion concentrations, lamination (for long neurons) and EM (plate capacitor & mutual induction caused by traveling waves within those fibers which are close enough to each other) and neurotransmittor hormone jump points.

Autism, has NOTHING to do with social interaction, nor is it characterized by a lack of social interaction & communication. However, it is true that ONE of the EASIESTS to use diagnostics tools, IS, comparative social exchanges within the context of interaction (play) and verbal & physical utterances. (Dumb, but if a child is frustrated and it does NOT throw a rubber ducky, then it´s social context IS lacking. Assuming a level of social internal control solely expected of adults is not a very good diagnostic level of understanding, and could definitely indicate that the level of understanding of the adult, in context, is severely lacking [the adult has autism or aspergers (or merely frustrated) and is mirroring that onto the child].

Take the picture of the child with autism (altered state of one or more neuronal complex from a norm which by and through definition of a neuron growth IS defacto, allready autistic & schizofrenic). Placing the toys inline, is that a sign of slowness in complex visualization (the norm pretty much being a jumble), or is it a sign of expression OF complex visualiztion?

This article needs severe cleanup, it´s an adult mirroring principle of the complications of adults, including social rejection & frustration, societal incapacities in dealing with complications, more so than a definite pointer to what autism really is. Definitely a jumble of housetales, pure observational perspectives with respect to oneself, without capacitation to place the observational viewpoint (scientific principle) elsewhere. That later, a discapacitation to place the observational viewpoint elsehwere, thereby displacing the three point vector (observer, afector, feedback afector), is definitely considered a severe autistic lack in humans, one which most likely more than 80% of all neurological systems defacto have, due the egocentricity of any neuronal system (survival driven). (any comment not purely attack based [debate based is fine], kindly direct that too rbok.spare@yahoo.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and {{WP:TALK]]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Neuron II.

You are born with a base set, that might or might not be nueronall complete AS a base set, which might or might NOT develop in a complete set, or SOLELY into a parcial SPECIFIC set, it being that all the neurons would defacto attempt to interact with all sensor complexes & feedback systems afectors & interactors, thereby and through causing other neuronal complexes to form which are not considered the primary neuronal complexes for those functions (IE: the visual centers attempting to interact with the motor control center, for example). (rbok.spare@yahoo.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.187.76 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Autism and Memory

Hey everyone. Maria Izabel are in a Cognitive Psychology course at Davidson College. As part of this class, we will be working on editing articles in wikipedia. We are hoping to add an article about autism and memory. Do you think it would be better to simply add a memory section to the already existing Autism article page? Or would it be better to create a new page linked out (like an orphan article) about Autism and Memory? Let us know. Thanks! Feb. 15, 2013 --Haschorr (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)haschorr

Hi Maria and Izabel, and thank you for asking! At the top of the article, to the right, there is a small bronze star, indicating that Autism is a WP:featured article. Only one out of thousand articles in Wikipedia have earned this qualification. Now, in order not to lose this qualification a good habit is to first suggest every change that is more than just a minor one on the talk page, and reach consensus. That might be a bit strenuous for you. So I would recommend you to create a new page called "Autism and memory". With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 15:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
PS You do know that we have an article Autism and working memory? If it is mainly working memory you would like to write about, it is not a good idea to create a new article. Lova Falk talk 07:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I think we will go ahead and create a new page, "Autism and Memory." We are aware that the page "Autism and Working Memory" exists, however some of our other classmates will be editing that page. Here are our ideas for the new page. We would love to know what you think and also how we should go about creating a new page specifically on "Autism and Memory."
I. Background on Autism & Memory
-Memory in High-functioning & Low-functioning
-Causes of memory functioning
-Consequences of memory functioning
II. Types of Memory
-Prospective Memory
-Episodic/Autobiographical Memory
-Semantic Memory
-Traumatic Memory
-Visual/Facial Memory
-Verbal/Non-Verbal Memory
-Functional "Everyday" Memory
-Short Term Memory
-Long Term Memory
III. Further Research on Autism & Memory
-Here are the articles we are planning on referencing for this page.
1. Altgassen, M., Koban, N., & Kliegel, M. (2012). Do adults with autism spectrum disorders compensate in naturalistic prospective memory tasks?. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 42, 2141-2151. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1466-3
2. Boucher, J., Mayes, A., & Bigham, S. (2012). Memory in autistic spectrum disorder. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 458-496. doi:10.1037/a0026869
3. Crane, L., Pring, L., Jukes, K., & Goddard, L. (2012). Patterns of autobiographical memory in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 42, 2100-2112. doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1459-2
4. Geurts, H. M., & Vissers, M. E. (2012). Elderly with autism: Executive functions and memory. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 42, 665-675. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1291-0
5. Jones, C. G., Happé, F., Pickles, A., Marsden, A. S., Tregay, J., Baird, G., & ... Charman, T. (2011). ‘Everyday memory’ impairments in autism spectrum disorders. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, 41, 455-464. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1067-y
6. Maras, K. L., Gaigg, S. B., & Bowler, D. M. (2012). Memory for emotionally arousing events over time in Autism Spectrum Disorder. Emotion, 12, 1118-1128. doi:10.1037/a0026679
7. McMorris, C. A., Brown, S. M., & Bebko, J. M. (2012). An examination of iconic memory in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal Of Autism And Developmental Disorders, doi:10.1007/s10803-012-1748-9
8. Poirier, M., Martin, J. S., Gaigg, S. B., & Bowler, D. M. (2011). Short-term memory in autism spectrum disorder. Journal Of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 247-252. doi:10.1037/a0022298
9. Southwick, J. S., Bigler, E. D., Froehlich, A., DuBray, M. B., Alexander, A. L., Lange, N., & Lainhart, J. E. (2011). Memory functioning in children and adolescents with autism. Neuropsychology, 25, 702-710. doi:10.1037/a0024935
10. Wojcik, D. Z., Moulin, C. A., & Souchay, C. (2013). Metamemory in children with autism: Exploring “feeling-of-knowing” in episodic and semantic memory. Neuropsychology, 27, 19-27. doi:10.1037/a0030526
Thanks for your help! --Haschorr (talk) 03:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Haschorr and --Maria Izabel (talk) 03:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)Maria Izabel
That's great. I can't wait to read your article when it's done. Just one thing: Make sure all of your assertions, interpretations and conclusions are supported by secondary sources (reviews, scholarly book chapters, etc.) By all means refer to primary sources, but only say what secondary sources say about them. Good luck. If you need help with anything at all, leave a question at the wiki medical project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Please be aware, there is NO Wikipedia rule stating only secondary sources are allowed. There are some editors who insist on saying this is so. Ask them for links to that rule. They will give you a link which states secondary sources are favored and primary sources may only be used with certain caveats. But then, when you use the primary source with the caveats, entirely properly, they tell you it's forbidden. A prohibition on primary sources is not good with autism where the pace of research is so fast that you cut out a huge portion of the knowledge by not citing primary sources. For example, this article, supposedly so good, does not contain some of the most useful information it could have because of the enforcement of this rule that does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.209.213 (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources trump primary sources. We don't get to evaluate primary sources, but when expert do, in secondary sources, we are in much better shape. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That is a pretty good statement of the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.209.213 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Add new The Lancet study from wikinews?

99.109.125.252 (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi 99.109.125.252! I hope you don't mind I removed the reflist and instead showed your link. It is too new - that is, not confirmed by other studies and described in a review. Lova Falk talk 09:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is some mass media coverage ...
108.195.139.168 (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The importance of this news, like most lay coverage of the "cause of autism" has been vastly overstated by the headlines. The NYT comment "Researchers say there seem to be hundreds of genes involved and the gene variations discovered in the new study confer only a small risk of psychiatric disease" is important. The statement that these disorders "share a genetic link" is way too simplistic and gives the impression everyone with these genetic changes have the disorder or that everyone with the disorder has these changes -- neither of which is remotely true. See NHS Choices commentary. Colin°Talk 09:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are some genetic causes of autism where genotype DOES determine phenotype, that is, in which everyone who has the gene or copy number variant IS autistic But those don't account for the majority of cases, at least among those that have been discovered to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.221 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Face recognition

Hello, this is Sarah Hamilton and Katie Stephan. We are a part of the Cognitive Psychology course at Davidson College. We plan to make a new page for Autism and Face Recognition that parts of the original autism page can link to. Here is our outline for the face recognition page so far:

Memory for faces (Huack 1998; Boucher 1992)

Huack 1998
Impaired face memory but not object memory
Correlated with verbal reasoning and social comprehension
May be causal of social delays
Boucher 1992
Evidence for better recognition of familiar faces
Impairments in recognizing unfamiliar faces
Possible explanations for deficits:
Discrimination difficulties, abnormalities of looking, inattention, visual memory impairment

Processing

Part-based vs. Holistic Processing (Joseph 2003; Spezio 2007; Farrah 1993; Langdell 1978)
Bottom-Up processing
Focus on features
Mouth
Strategies in older autistic children (Joseph 2003; Langdell 1978

Implications in Social Context

Joseph 1997
Decreased positive affect
Attended to faces only half as much a Down Syndrome children
Even in familiar situations (Mother directed attention)
Osterling 2003
Even 1 year-old decreased face attention

Mechanisms/Neuropsychology

Activity within Autistic brain
Fusiform face area in general (Kanwisher 1997; Puce 1995)
In autistic children there is activity outside the fusiform face area (Schultz 2000; Pierce 2001)

We welcome any questions or comments!

Sehamilton (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sarah and Katie, and welcome. It's hard for me to now which sources you intend to use, because the information is too short (are they articles? books?). However, I do hope they are mostly WP:secondary or tertiary sources? (Reviews instead of singular studies). Also, I would recommend at least adding a few newer sources. There ought to be rather recent review articles about autism and face recognition - I guess... With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 15:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) regarding sources for medical articles. The section "Searching for sources" gives advice for searching PubMed for reviews on the topic. There may also be recent academic textbooks that cover the topic (perhaps just a chapter). Also see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. The section "Citing medical sources" links to an online tool that makes it easy to generate citation templates given just the PubMed ID of the paper. A full citation makes it much easier for folk to identify the paper and access it. You should be looking for reviews or chapters in professional textbooks ideally from the last 5 years and almost certainly not before 2000 unless the work is still regarded as relevant today (i.e. cited in recent publications). Be very wary of using primary research papers as sources because there is a risk you will be relying too much on your own interpretation rather than that of others (which is called original research on Wikipedia and although desirable in academia, is not desirable on Wikipedia). Cheers, Colin°Talk 21:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, welcome. I, too, urge you to avoid including any interpretations that are not already found in secondary sources (such as reviews). All we are allowed to do here is report what independent experts have said. Cite individual studies by all means but only say about them what independent expert reviewers have said (and cite those reviewers too).
Can I also add a plea to be very careful with the distinction between correlation and causation? Unless a reviewer expressly says the underconnectivity and reduced size of the ffa is a result of reduced looking at faces, or expressly says the reduced ffa grey and white matter is the cause of some behaviour, please avoid doing so. Getting this right is important. If one reviewer asserts a probable causal relationship where another is only willing to acknowledge correlation, don't pick one and ignore the other on the issue.
Finally, notice how often the reviewers use "may", "probable", "possible" etc and try to convey that same degree of uncertainty. Good luck. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Suggested source:Weigelt, Sarah (March 2012). "Face identity recognition in autism spectrum disorders: A review of behavioral studies" (PDF). Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 36 (3): 1060–1084. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.12.008. PMID 22212588. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)Smallman12q (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


Thank you all for the feedback. Katie and I are reworking our outline and getting more review and book sources. We will post a revised outline by Friday this week. For those of you that wanted to see our sources more specifically, see below.
^ Osterling, Julie; Geraldine,Dawson; Munson, Jeffrey (2002). "Early recognition of 1-year-old infants with autism spectrum disorder versus mental retardation". Development and Psychopathology 14: 239-251. doi:10.1017/S0954579402002031. Retrieved 2/12/2013.
^ Pierce, Karen; Muller, R.A., Ambrose, J., Allen, G.,Chourchesne (2001). "Face processing occurs outside the fusiform 'face area' in autism: evidence from functional MRI". Brain 124: 2059-2073.
^ Puce, A (1995). "Face-sensitive regions in human extrastriate cortex studied by functional MRI". Journal of neurophysiology 74: 1192-. Retrieved 2/12/2013.
^ Klin, Ami (2000). "Abnormal ventral temporal cortical activity during face discrimination among individuals with autism and asperger syndrome". Archives of General Psychology 57: 331-. Retrieved 2/12/2013.
^ Spezio, Michael; Adolphs, Ralph; Hurley, Robert; Piven, Joseph (28 Sept 2006). "Abnormal use of facial information in high functioning autism". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 37: 929-939. doi:10.1007/s10803-006-0232-9.
^ Farah, Martha (1993). "Parts and wholes in face recognition". The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A 46: 225-245. Retrieved 2/12/2013.
^ Boucher, Jill; Lewis, Vicky (1992). "Unfamiliar face recognition in relatively able autistic children". Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines (Blackwell) 33: 843-859. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1992.tb01960.x. Retrieved 2/12/2013.
^ Joseph, Robert; Tager-Flusberg, Helen (1997). "An investigation of attention and affect in children with autism and down syndrome". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disroders 27: 385-396.
^ Joseph, Robert; Tanaka, James (2003). "Holistic and part-based face recognition in children with autism". Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 44: 529-542. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00142.
^ Kanwisher, N (1997). "The fusiform face area: A module in human extra striate cortex specialization for face perception". The journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 17: 4302-4311. Retrieved 2/12/2012.
^ Langdell, Tim (1978). "Recognition of Faces: An approach to the study of autism". Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines (Blackwell) 19: 255-265. Retrieved 2/12/2013.
Sehamilton (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Katie and Sarah. Thank you for your list. Actually not one of them is a secondary source! It seems that you have problems identifying secondary sources. It is not so difficult though. When an article says: "In this study, we..." you know it is a primary source. When the article is called review, or it says, for instance, "In this paper we review..." you know it is a secondary source. You also chose quite old material. However, neuropsychology has developed tremendously these last decades, and you should avoid using articles written in the 20th century. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 17:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources are NOT forbidden, just so you know. You can use them. As said in the Talk section above secondary sources trump primary, but if primary sources are not disputed they are usable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.150.209.213 (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


Hello again, Katie and I have been working on our project and have decided to post it within the face perception page rather than on the autism page. We will put a link to the face perception page on this page under the social development section at the end of the second paragraph. If you feel that there should be more links or the link is placed in the wrong place, link as you will or let me know. Thanks for all your help. best, Sehamilton (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding possible benefits of yoga and breathing techniques to the "management" section.

I stumbled upon a research article which indicated that yoga, breathing techniques and meditation are options worth pursuing for management of autism. I found the page - http://www.hindawi.com/journals/aurt/2012/835847/abs/ containing this info - Autism Research and Treatment Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 835847, 11 pages doi:10.1155/2012/835847 Title: Meditation as a Potential Therapy for Autism: A Review I intended to add these lines extracted from the abstract - "Evidence from clinical studies and neuroscience research suggest that an approach built on yogic principles and meditative tools is worth pursuing. Desired outcomes include relief of clinical symptoms of the disease, greater relaxation, and facilitated expression of feelings and skills, as well as improved family and social quality of life." I'm new to wiki and seek guidance for this. Thank you. Traintogain (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Traintogain, thanks for posting your suggestion here. Per WP:MEDRS we do like review articles rather than primary research articles. The problem is that the authors are actually reviewing meditation in general and purely speculating that this might help with autism. They don't cite any research looking at meditation and autism. The article is open-access so you can read it all, not just the abstract. Also we shouldn't copy other people's text directly (unless we want to quote it) and should rewrite in our own words keeping faithful to the source. I'm a bit concerned this journal is probably not the best we should use but others here know more about me wrt how to rate journals. Per WP:WEIGHT we need to consider whether it is widely held that meditation could help autism, and I suspect this idea is not common. So these reasons indicate we should not mention this speculation at present. If people actually do research on meditation and autism and actually do discover a therapeutic benefit, which is widely agreed on, then that would be worth including. Colin°Talk 08:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Autism and vaccinations

Hello, I'm trying to modify a paragraph in the "Causes" chapter. The idea is to change the tone from "The research community absolutely has consensus that there's no correlation between vaccinations and autism" to "The research community mainstream thought is there is no correlation but there are studies suggesting there might be some correlation, therefore the subject is currently opened to controversy".

I'm suggesting changing the paragraph:

"Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination. This has led to unsupported theories blaming vaccine "overload", a vaccine preservative, or the MMR vaccine for causing autism.[3] The latter theory was supported by a litigation-funded study that has since been shown to have been "an elaborate fraud".[4] Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[3] parental concern about a potential vaccine link with autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations, outbreaks of previously controlled childhood diseases in some countries, and the preventable deaths of several children.[5][6]"

to:

"The mainstream research community thought is that there is no connection between vaccinations and autism, however, there is still controversy on this subject (see [3],,[7] vaccine "overload", Thiomersal controversy, MMR vaccine). The initial theory that the MMR vaccine could cause autism was supported by a litigation-funded study that has since been shown to have been "an elaborate fraud".[4] However, a 2010 research study [8] finds there might be a connection between hepatitis B vaccination and autism. In 2012 the US government compensated 10 year-old Ryan Mojabi [9] and Jillian Moller's 15 month-old daughter Emily for vaccination-caused autism. In the US, the recommended vaccine schedule started including sensibly more vaccines after 1985-1995, and many more vaccines after 2000-2005 [15]. The autism incidence rate also shows a dramatic increase after ~1990 [16], but it is currently unknown if there is a connection between the two. Adding to the complexity of the problem, parental concern about a potential vaccine link with autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations, outbreaks of previously controlled childhood diseases in some countries, and the preventable deaths of several children [5].[6]"

The original paragraph has multiple problems: first sentence is plain illogical (parents become aware their child is autistic exactly after a vaccination but that's by pure coincidence, how comes?) and dis-considers the position of thousands of parents firmly convinced that their children became autistic because of particular vaccinations, it wrongly generalizes to conclude that if one article suggesting vaccination-autism correlation was a fraud then all articles with similar suggestions must be fraudulent too (MMR vaccine controversy was caused by a fraudulent article, but [10] is not fraudulent).

I'm curious on your feedback, but pls consider that my wiki time is very limited, especially if the editing process becomes excessively bureaucratic.

Thanks and regards, Doruuu (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  • See Q1 and Q2 of Talk:Autism/FAQ. For a little more detail;
  • (a) Parents often become aware of autistic traits in their children around the time of vaccinations simply because the time when such traits become obvious is around the time that children have such standard vaccinations; it's simply co-incidental. (b) That Hep B study was found to be widely flawed [17]; I am no medical expert, but that falls down on its (mis)use of statistics even before you get to that point. See also the sections in Causes of autism. (c) Yes, we do not consider the position of those "thousands" of parents, because there are many areas in which "thousands" of people believe something which is scientifically unlikely or impossible; this does not mean their beliefs should be presented as a valid alternative (WP:UNDUE) and certainly in this case Wikipedia would be seriously culpable if it gave any impression to parents that it would be advantageous for their children to not be vaccinated. Black Kite (talk) 11:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
(a) You're saying that cases where children suddenly turn autistic happen anyway (with vaccinations or not) - and such events that happen to be just after some vaccination can wrongly be related to autism. Makes sense if and only if cases of children suddenly turning autistic are widely known to happen. Can you prove that is the case? If not, I'd suggest remove that sentence from main article. If yes, congratulations for being an effective wiki editor, but that sentence still needs modification - the message should be "Cases of sudden autism change are known (citation), and those that happen right after vaccinations can often be wrongly interpreted as vaccination-triggered autism".
(b) Does [18] qualify as a reliable source? Author is unknown. Publisher is a web publication started and maintained by 2 people, none of them professionally trained with autism. And I read the article over and over, and still wonder where are the proofs that the original study "was flawed". The original author had access to some ~7000 cases - at an autism incidence of ~1/200 the autism group size (33) makes perfect sense.
(c) That's interesting - you assume your role is to become an active media opinion driver, rather than a neutral media informer. Don't assume readers are much less intelligent than you and they need your filtering. I thought wikipedia is about presenting naked facts. Are wikipedia in general or some/many main editors vested with interest in interpreting information?? Because then I know I'm in the wrong place. My only interest here is to present naked facts without passion or personal interpretation - regardless of who or what gets disturbed. Doruuu (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with what Black Kite has said. Wikipedia articles are based on what authoritative scholarly systematic reviews say on a topic. We can't decide how much weight to give individual studies - we have to wait for experts to evaluate them. In the case of the hep B study, it doesn't warrant a mention for the reason stated by Black Kite. As for court findings, we don't base efficacy or safety claims on those, just position statements from scholarly societies, scholarly reviews and similar. The relevant Wikipedia guideline is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
(a) So [19] is an "authoritative scholarly systematic review" in your judgement. It's not in mine. The reason stated by Black Kite is a poor quality article by any standard. It does not show any explicit problem with original article. Even if it did, it means there are contradictory opinions that should be both presented, without our interpretation. Doruuu (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
(b) Are you saying that court findings are not relevant for the issue? I'd say they are, regardless of any wikipedia editing rule potentially forbidding mentioning them. And we don't need to prove anything in that paragraph - if facts are under controversy we'd better just present all relevant points of view and abstain from any interpretation/filtering.
No, that blog commentary is not a reliable source. I'm saying the criticisms it contains, such as sample size, are the reasons why we avoid interpreting or even reporting primary sources. We wait for expert evaluation, and report that. Once that hep B study has been evaluated by an independent expert in a scholarly journal or university-level textbook or monograph, then, if it is noteworthy, we may report what the independent expert has to say about it. Until then we won't be reporting what the study authors have to say about it, or what you or I have to say about it.
Court findings mean nothing in terms of efficacy and safety of therapeutic interventions. There are many more forces at play in a compensation case than simply the scientific evidence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Doruuu, we don't edit WP articles in order to push a point of view. Rather, we should research the best possible literature on a topic and write the article based on that literature -- not on what we personally think. BTW, I suggest you buy one of Paul Offit's very accessible books on vaccines (he's written about the autism vaccine scare but also he's written about a real vaccine tragedy concerning polio). Colin°Talk 14:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you consider my suggestions are personal beliefs rather than documented facts presented in a neutral manner? I'm seeing that logical and non-personal arguments fail over and over, and I start to conclude there is something wrong with the system here. Thanks for suggestion. Doruuu (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
You say "I thought wikipedia is about presenting naked facts." Actually it isn't. One can string any old collection of "facts" together to make the argument one wants to present. It's called journalism. Yes your suggestions strongly appear to reflect your personal beliefs and aren't supported by the best quality literature and research on these issues. Your comments about "children suddenly turn autistic" show a deep ignorance of the subject and child development. Please see WP:WEIGHT. We don't write controversial articles by filling it with 50% of the crap spouted by anti-vacciationists and ambulance-chasing-lawyers, "balanced" with 50% of the measured careful writing of professionals. We read the best sources and may conclude that the crap doesn't get a look-in. If folk want to read what celebrity models and actors think about autism then they can buy the Daily Mail or use Google for their health research. Wikipedia tries to do better. Colin°Talk 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
About the "naked facts" statement: my message was that we should not personally interpret whatever we're presenting on wikipedia - just present the latest unambiguous facts in a honest try to completely describe the subject and let the readers draw conclusions. You take my statement out of context and twist it to fit your whatever purpose. You seem to suggest a dangerous "let me interpret things for the readers" attitude. Great, congratulations. "Children suddenly turning autistic ..." - what do you understand from my statement? Something like from one minute to the next???? "Sudden" in this context obviously means consistent behavior changes over weeks/months that persist afterwards. Did you even try to understand what I was questioning? I tried to present facts qualifying as "reliable", without any interpretation. What exactly do you call "crap"? It would be so easy for me to call your comments a mixture of negligent attitude, politically-motivated manipulation and a huge dose of stupidity. However, I don't do that, out of respect for what wikipedia was in the past. If you really want to be helpful how about taking every controversial statement, doing a cold analysis, and tell exactly is wrong, to-the-point. Spare blanket statements like "we read best sources", "wikipedia tries to do better", etc, I guess your next step is to give me advises on how to life a healthy life - thx but no thx. Do you expect references to "celebrity models", Daily Mail and "ambulance-chasing-lawyers" to help here, or you just like to insult people? If it's people like you that gate wiki edits then wikipedia has already became a political platform, or even worse - a self-guarded bastion of stupidity. It's ironical that it's shaping to be the very things it was created to fight against - misinformation&disinformation. Doruuu (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Science has rejected any connection between vaccinations and autism, please see the FAQ. The only people left spouting this nonsense are ambulance chasing lawyers and half informed half witted actors and celebrities, oh and conspiracy theorists. (These are not mutually exclusive categories). This issue is resolved and has been for a long time. It is time to move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't have enough energy to copy-paste my answers just because you answer before reading. Logical arguments obviously don't work here any more. Time to move out. Doruuu (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, Dbrodbeck, I don't believe anything is "resolved" in science or scholarship, and for sure not on Wikipedia articles. Doruuu is entitled to politely raise any questions here. We are at liberty to ignore Doruuu if WP:IDHT becomes an issue. (I don't think nearly enough ignoring goes on on Wikipedia.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
About us reporting naked facts and not interpreting what we present: it's just not possible to do that. The simple act of choosing to report a fact is interpreting it as worthy of reporting, the facts we surround it with impart context. That is why we wait for scholars to review facts before we report them: so that they provide the evaluation (worthiness) and relevance (context). We are a tertiary source, a source that relies on secondary sources to supply value and meaning to "raw facts" before we report them.
Logical argument does work here. But we have norms that govern what goes into the top Google result for most topics, and the arguments above reflect those norms well. You can change those norms, though, by force of argument on the relevant policy talk pages. Policies and guidelines are undergoing constant renewal. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Doruuu, "just present the facts - let the readers draw conclusions" is a fallacy. As others have said, any collection of facts can be loaded towards one conclusion or another. You are simply misinformed about autism and vaccination and should read better material on the subject. There isn't much point in discussing all the other details you raised because until you get yourself better informed about the subject, we won't make any progress. Colin°Talk 08:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Congratulations guys, you just managed to get one wiki user disgusted enough to avoid wikipedia. Keep on the aggressive and insulting language, and maybe more will consider wiki alternatives. I didn't know what can of worms I'm opening. Finding hysterical people guarding this page and being insulted for making a polite suggestion were the last things I expected. Anthonyhcole, better ignore/ban users than insult them.Doruuu (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Frank encephalopathy may follow vaccination in a very, very minute number of cases, and frank encephalopathy may in some cases be followed by permanent neurodevelopmental problems -including autism-like symptoms. Whether the frank encephalopathy that very, very rarely follows some vaccinations is the kind of encephalopathy that is sometimes followed by autism-like symptoms is yet to be determined, I think, by science. If this has been addressed in a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, then I think it needs to be very carefully addressed somewhere on the encyclopedia, though not necessarily in this article. Is it? I don't see it in Causes of autism. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is worth mentioning here. The cause there is the encephalopathy. Lots of other things cause that too and probably vaccination is not the most important cause of encephalopathy. Colin°Talk 08:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
By "here", do you mean Wikipedia, or this article? I raise this because it seems to be one of the few perennial points raised by vaccine→autism advocates, so covering the science on it (if there are WP:MEDRS-compliant sources addressing it) would be filling an important gap (and incidently save a lot of talk-page discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
See Genetics and the myth of vaccine encephalopathy, Explanation for Vaccine Encephalopathy and Diphtheria-Tetanus-Pertussis Vaccination and Dravet Syndrome. There's a pretty strong case that so-called vaccine-induced-encephalopathy is a lawer-invented syndrome and an artefact of the the US vaccine compensation laws. Anyone looking for a classic example of a "my baby suddenly became ill and was never the same again" disease could pick Dravet Syndrome as a textbook example. And one for which we now know has a clear genetic cause. Autism's cause isn't as simple but the same pattern applies. Colin°Talk 12:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was looking for. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I did not read all the foregoing, and I don't have a quote from a review to use, but if there is to be discussion of the rare cases of some severe encephalopathy in reaction to vaccine, there should be some balancing with the risks of not vaccinating. And ideally, that discussion should be not about the risk if no one gets vaccinated, I suspect all but the most ignorant parents understand that, but the risks to the child herself who is not vaccinated. There must be something online giving these odds. Rubella, some types of meningitis, whooping cough, add them all up and it's probably more than the 1 in 2,000 or less chance your kid will get severe encephalopathy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.221 (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be pointed out here, what Doruuu was apparently talking about, some kind of encephalopathy following vaccination is NOT thoroughly rejected by all scientists as Drodbeck claimed. I saw a video with the former President of INSAR, International Society for Autism Research, in which he stated basically they are not sure there aren't a small percentage of cases in which this happens. So, not to get personal but former President of INSAR vs. Drodbeck. ????

Also, the comment about Doruuu being too ignorant of the subject to be worth talking to is just plain wrong. Again, Past President of INSAR vs. some Wikipedia editor. I mean, since we are making so much over good sources.........

Doruuu is right, but maybe it's best not to put it in the article, so many people will misuse the information.

On the other hand, if you are the parent of one of those children, and observe this happen, and then are told you must be mistaken, you might not check out mitochondrial disease or some other cause and not take action to protect your kid in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.221 (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE. It is not just me who rejects the autism vaccination link. The argument from authority will get you nowhere. Please see the sources that Colin provided as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems like you are taking things very personal. I don't think it's just you that rejects a vaccine/autism link. Just so you know, I feel the stats tell us clearly a child is safer from brain disease after being vaccinated, even in the US where other people are likely vaccinated. But you are overstating and oversimplifying the case a bit I think. Some scientists think some children can react to vaccines with encephalopathy, that's all. Maybe including this would be undue weight and just confuse people. Likely it would. But it would be better to point out the epidemiological stats for this and show how rare this encephalopathy is rather than tell the guy he does not know what he's talking about when that statement does not really have solid support — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.132.221 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This (today) is my first attempt at editing / talking. I started because I am a PhD university scientist/professor, and the info on wikipedia is striking me as glossing over/ rejecting and studies that are questioning the preferred view on vaccinations, in a way that is getting scary. I have no vaccine injured kids, and know none personally. But I do know the research. the tipping point: there is back and forth about including that brain pathology can or cannot be caused by vaccination process (above) "some scientists think some children can react to vaccines with encephalopathy..." reality check-- even vaccine manufacturers know that research supports this as an occasional, rare but real adverse event/side effect. see package inserts. YES THIS IS KNOWN TO HAPPEN. to suppress this fact is just not appropriate, it would be censorship. The US government compensates for vaccine induced encephalopathy with very little proof because of the clear eveidence this happens. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html The question of autism might be controversial -- but when the vaccine safety issue extends to if there is a question if post-vaccination inflamation of the brain should maybe be stated as 'does not happen' and/or should not be mentioned: I am scared. This is not fact reporting, thus I am tossing my hat into the wiki ring. The pendelum has swung way too damn far by a fair bit. I will be fair and amlost timid, and will document everything. But there is some science missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr explorer (talk • contribs) 19:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

First off, welcome to wikipedia. You would need to find a high quality secondary review to meet WP:MEDRS in order to insert that info. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Johnson was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dominick was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference GerberOffit2009 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H. Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ. 2011;342:c7452:c7452. doi:10.1136/bmj.c7452. PMID 21209060.
  5. ^ a b Vaccines and autism:
  6. ^ a b McBrien J, Murphy J, Gill D, Cronin M, O'Donovan C, Cafferkey MT. Measles outbreak in Dublin, 2000. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J.. 2003;22(7):580–4. doi:10.1097/00006454-200307000-00002. PMID 12867830.
  7. ^ "Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 2010.
  8. ^ "Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 2010.
  9. ^ "United States Court of Federal Claims - Decision awarding damages, 2012" (PDF).
  10. ^ "Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autism_spectrum/Archive_13&oldid=1225770853"