Talk:Causes of autism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Time magazine article

Yobal In your deletion of the time magazine article on Poling you said she did not have autism.

The Time magazine article quotes HER VERY OWN DOCTOR who thinks otherwise

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1721109,00.html

Dr. John Shoffner, the Atlanta-based neurologist who identified Hannah Poling's mitochondrial disorder, is "genuinely puzzled" by the court's judgment. Shoffner, who has been studying and treating these disorders for 20 years, says it's impossible to say whether Hannah's mitochondrial disorder was, in fact, a pre-existing condition that set the stage for her autism (as the government contends) or if it developed along with her autism.71.174.128.244 (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

She has autism-like features related to encephalopathy in the setting of mitochondrial disorders, not classic "autism", nor did the government concede that vaccines actually caused her condition. That information does not belong in this article. Yobol (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Her doctor states she has autism and "expert authorities" working for the government identified a link between her autistic symptoms and vaccines. Seems pretty plain to me.

From Time magazine

What's unique about Hannah's case is that for the first time federal authorities have conceded a connection between her autistic symptoms and the vaccines she received, though the connection is by no means simple. A panel of medical evaluators at the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that Hannah had been injured by vaccines — and recommended that her family be compensated for the injuries. The panel said that Hannah had an underlying cellular disorder that was aggravated by the vaccines, causing brain damage with features of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).71.174.128.244 (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

[1] ""The government has made absolutely no statement indicating that vaccines are a cause of autism," said Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in a conference call with reporters." Yobol (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"federal authorities have conceded a connection between her autistic symptoms and the vaccines she received, " seems pretty plain to me. How about you?71.174.128.244 (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See the quote above by the director of the CDC. Yobol (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You've never seen two different government officials state opposite positions before? You must not get around much. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No official was quoted in the Time article, that was their interpretation of events. The official position of the government seems clear to me, coming from the mouth of the director of the CDC. Yobol (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you look up the court records you will probably find them listed under "expert witness". Which part of "the government conceded based on the position of its OWN researchers" do you find hard to understand?71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to ignore the position of the government as stated by the director of the CDC, then this is going nowhere. Yobol (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The position of the government OWN experts whose opinions decided the court case seem a tad more relevant. Can we agree that the doctor who treated Poling stated that she had autism? or do you find Time magazine unreliable? 71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is the article about the cause of autism. The government (through the director of the CDC) says that this case doesn't mean vaccines cause autism. End of story. Yobol (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Again: Can we agree that the doctor who treated Poling stated that she had autism? or do you find Time magazine unreliable? 71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. It wasn't a cause of it one way or another. Please go back to your vaccine denialist crowd and give each other a group hug. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous IP. This is WP:NOTAFORUM. If you have something that is supported by sources, please bring it. You haven't shown anything but original research and unreliable sources. The case is closed. The story is ended. Now stop the tendentious commentary. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. You will be blocked if you continue. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to argue one go around with anyone who seems somewhat reasonable. We've circled so often, I'm dizzy. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the posts it doesn't look like you took much of a part in the "go around". Why do you feel dizzy? Also my question as to whether Poling's doctor stated that she had autism was for Yobal. I'd like to see if he will answer it or just avoid it. Feel free to answer it as well. Failure to acknowledge what is staring you in the face is a sign of bias. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A recent study reported by prs newswire

A finding that mercury is toxic to brain cells seems normal. Poisons are like that. Chuckle!

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-verifies-mercury-in-flu-shots-is-toxic-118432874.html

The newest study about Thimerosal, from the University of Brazil, warns that while vaccines are essential to the well-being of children around the world, the use of Thimerosal should be reconsidered. The author, Dr. José Dórea, reviews the published science which demonstrates that infant exposure to the amount of Thimerosal in vaccines is toxic to human brain cells.

A number of recent studies have further suggested that the mercury used in everyday medical products, such as flu shots and amalgam, or "silver" dental fillings, contributes to causing a wide variety of illnesses, including autism and other developmental diseases in children and Alzheimer's disease in adults.71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You are barking up the wrong tree here. Wikipedia accepts reliable sources/medical concsensus, period. Press releases from single-issue organizations are not reliable sources here. I've said this before. I'm not saying it again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that prs newswire is a single issue news service. Also per your argument a single subject peer review journal can't be used as a reference. Good luck removing references to medical journals, law journals, political journals etc etc etc. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Genetic? Environmental? or Both?

http://gordonresearch.com/articles_autism/mercury_vaccines_medicine.pdf

This link is to an article which cites a mice study on mercury poisoning, which states that "mercury can cause behavioral abnormalities in newborn mice, characteristic of autism" but only in mice strains that are genetically susceptible. See reference 2 referencing the work of Horning M.; Chian D,; Lipkin WI.

I personally can't see a problem with a theory that states that a small percentage of the population has minimal genetic tolerance for mercury poisoning, and as a result falls ill to a dose of mercury which the general population is able to tolerate. It is a generally accepted fact that no matter what the poison, some people will have a low tolerance and some will have a high tolerance. Anyone stating that this is not true for mercury poisoning is just fooling himself. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source for health information. Claims regarding causes of disorders in Wikipedia rely only on scholarly reviews in high quality, independent, peer-reviewed scientific journals. In this sense, Wikipedia is a steadfastly conservative community. We cannot be otherwise. Anything less than extreme conservatism on sources for medical claims would allow all sorts of dangerous nonsense in here. It's an immutable structural characteristic of the project. The thiomersal/mercury theories about autism will be treated as credible here when they are treated as credible in such journals.

We can't take your arguments, no matter how sound you believe them to be. The right place for your arguments is in journalism or, if you want them published here, the authoritative scientific literature . --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please advise why you believe the work of Horning M.; Chian D,; Lipkin WI. is not reliable?71.174.128.244 (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW: that study is referenced by NIH - see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15184908 71.174.128.244 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia medical articles are built on expert systematic reviews of a topic; not primary sources. If a conclusion regarding a series of primary studies has been drawn in a scholarly review published in a high quality, independent, peer-reviewed scientific journal, we may report that conclusion. This is tremendously conservative, I know. But that's how it has to be. It's a limitation imposed by the fact that any anonymous editor can edit. (This reduces editing, essentially, to parroting what the established scientific consensus is, and occasionally reporting when the establishment challenges itself in the form of an authoritative systematic review.) Not ideal. But long experience has shown that if you loosen this constraint a bit, all sorts of nonsense peppers the articles and, especially regarding medical matters, this can be literally seriously dangerous to readers.

The policy on reliable sources and the guideline on reliable sources for biomed articles cover this; and the policy governing original research (especially the section on synthesis) also applies here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Brazil study referenced above is a "REVIEW" such as you describe above "The author, Dr. José Dórea, reviews the published science which demonstrates that infant exposure to the amount of Thimerosal in vaccines is toxic to human brain cells." Any more objections?71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a direct quote from the Dorea paper where they say thiomersal causes autism. (You've read the paper, right?) Yobol (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The report is most likely in a Brazilian publication which I don't have access to. BTW: You and Anthonyhcole should start cleaning up the article and deleting all references to PRIMARY studies - see cite 51 and many many others. Failure to do so would indicate that you two are "Two Faced". BTW: Did or did not Poling's doctor state that she had autism? The reason you gave when deleting a reference to that case was that she did not have autism, and if she didn't have autism please advise why you know so much more about her medical condition then her doctor does.71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So you don't even know what publication it's in, haven't read the paper, but you want to use a press release from a biased organization based on this paper as a reliable source for medical information? Are you kidding me? Yobol (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I use news reports summarizing research findings all the time, so do you, and so do wiki articles. However I am still curious where you got the notion that Poling does not have autism when her doctor states that she does. Care to enlighten me? and are you going to help out with deleting all those references to primary research studies that your fellow editors seem to thing are forbidden by wiki policies?71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yer again responding to your insinuation that prs newswire is biased. Where did you get that idea?71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you seriously not understand the difference between a legitimate news article and a press release? Yobol (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you seriously not understand that the prsnewswire story us a legitimate news article?71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks 71. This is the Brazil article you cite:

Dórea JG. Integrating Experimental (In Vitro and In Vivo) Neurotoxicity Studies of Low-dose Thimerosal Relevant to Vaccines. Neurochemical Ressearch. 2011 Feb 25. [Epub ahead of print] PMID 21350943.

The abstract concludes "Thimerosal at concentrations relevant for infants' exposure (in vaccines) is toxic to cultured human-brain cells and to laboratory animals." That's pretty spectacular. It doesn't mention autism, though. I can't access the whole article just now but should be able to in a day or so. Can anyone with access to the article say whether it makes any claims about autism?

Tthe Time article says "Shoffner (the girl's doctor), who has been studying and treating these disorders for 20 years, says it's impossible to say whether Hannah's mitochondrial disorder was, in fact, a pre-existing condition that set the stage for her autism (as the government contends) or if it developed along with her autism." Since the earlier mentions are to "autism-like symptoms" and "features of autism spectrum disorder" I'd like to see the exact words of Schoffner (rather than the journalist's interpretation) before concluding that he diagnosed her with autism. He, too, may have been referring to autism-like features. I gather he's a specialist in mitochondrial disease.

By the way, responding to snark with snark gets you nowhere. You are making sensible arguments. Rely on those and we'll all be out of here a lot sooner. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The ruling in that case was that mercury/thimerosal adversely impacted mitochondria causing autism. Since there is no definitive answer on what causes autism, by default those that have the "autism like symptoms" have autism. The severity of autism varies and per wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome "Asperger syndrome or Asperger's syndrome or Asperger disorder is an autism spectrum disorder". To somewhat clarify my point - These days you can deermine who has smallpox by a biological check for the smallpox virus. Before the discovery of what caused smallpox, those who has "smallpox symptoms" were determined to have smallpox. Until a definite cause for autism is determined, those that have autism like symptoms, "by default" have autism. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of a causality between autism and thiomersal, and the review basis almost exclusively on in vitro experiments and animal studies, which makes any definitive conclusions about human exposure impossible to make (as the authors clearly note). Yobol (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yobol. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "autism-like" and "features". If the girl has sufficient symptoms to meet the diagnostic criteria for one of the ASDs, OK. The parents say she does but they have a financial interest in the outcome. I don't know whether any competent independent physician has diagnosed her with one of the ASDs, from what you've shown me.

I don't think the ruling in that case made any association with thimerosal and the child's outcome. I'm pretty sure the conclusion was the large battery of vaccinations may have affected the immune system which may have precipitated the mitochondrial disorder, or worked with the existing disorder to produce some autism-like symptoms. That's from memory, though. Correct me if I'm wrong by pointing me to a reliable source that supports your version. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You would be seriously hard pressed to find a reliable source that states Poling did not have autism. Until a cause of autism is determines anyone with "autism like symptoms" is considered to have autism. Asperger syndrome is also considered autism, just a less severe version. Her parents, her doctor, the US Court system, Time magazine and even the sometimes less then reliable wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court "In 2008 the federal government agreed to award damages to the family of Hannah Poling, a girl who developed autistic-like symptoms after receiving a series of vaccines in a single day." all say she had autism. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The idea that everyone who has symptoms like autism must therefore carry the diagnosis of autism is absurd. Yobol (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Per US law, if you have all 3 required symptoms then you have autism. http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/SD-Autism.asp

Definition: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA 300.7 ©(1)(i)] defines Autism as “A developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and non-verbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. Other characteristics often associated with Autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movement, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routine, and unusual responses to sensory experiences. The term Autism does not apply if a child’s educational performance is adversely affected primarily because the child has an emotional disturbance.

If you have these 3 symptoms then you have autism - The student's physical disability in the area of Autism is characterized by these 3 criteria (all 3 must be documented) qualitative impairment in social interactions; and qualitative impairment in communication; and restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities.

Optional symptoms - Also, the student's physical disability in the area of Autism may interfere with: functional communication (verbal and nonverbal); and/or social interactions and relationships; and/or behavior; and/or cognitive processing; and/or motor skills; and/or self help/daily living skills.

Hannah Polings symptoms include the 3 required symptoms. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0802904 "Months later, with delays in neurologic and psychological development, Hannah was diagnosed with encephalopathy caused by a mitochondrial enzyme deficit. Hannah's signs included problems with language, communication, and behavior — all features of autism spectrum disorder." Per The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act she had all 3 of the requires symptoms and she therefore had autism.

Isn't it nice to know that US law defines what autism is, so we don't have to argue about whether having autism like symptoms means you have autism? If you have all 3 of the required symptoms then you have autism.71.174.128.244 (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Another court case - Bad CDC study never released - replaced with whitewashed version

http://www.sharpermindcenters.com/articles/lawsuit_filed_for_mercury_in_vac.htm

Andy Waters, the lead attorney in the cases, announced that his firm is now in possession of a previously unreleased confidential report authored by Centers for Disease Control scientists which studied autism as a potential neurological injury caused by mercury in children's vaccines.

A different version of the report was made public and has been cited by the recent Institute of Medicine study as inconclusive on the issue of whether the mercury-based vaccine preservative known as thimerosal has contributed to cause a nationwide epidemic of regressive autism and other neurological disorders in small children.

The confidential version of the study, however, clearly demonstrated that an exposure to more than 62.5 micrograms of mercury within the first three months of life significantly increased a child's risk of developing autism. Specifically, the study found a 2.48 times increased risk of autism - that is to say, children with the exposure were more than twice as likely to develop autism as children not exposed.

In the United States, courts of law have generally held that a relative increased risk of 2.0 or higher is sufficient to substantiate that a given exposure causes disease. As but one example, in the case of Cook v. United States, 545 F.Supp.306, at 308 (Northern District - California 1982) the Court stated that, "in a vaccine case, a relative risk greater than 2.0 establishes that there is a greater than 50% chance that the injury was caused by the vaccine.”

71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:MEDRS again. These aren't even close to reliable sources. Yobol (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I do so and this is what it sais "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim."71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

So, after reading WP:MEDRS, you came to the conclusion that a press release from a law firm regarding super secret confidential files that is self-published on an advocacy website meets the strict criteria of MEDRS? Really? Yobol (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

No. I've come to the conclusion that a PRIMARY research study can be used to debunk or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. If available the unwhitewashed CDC study would be ONE of MANY such studies.71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yobol is right. Nothing you have presented so far will get into Wikipedia because of the weakness of the sources. If that claim about a secret CDC report were published in the New York Times or Washington Post, depending on what it actually said, you might get it into Vaccine controversy, but not a press release from the plaintiffs' attorneys. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Studies showing vaccine autism link

This web site has excerpts on a number of studies showing a link between vaccines and autism

BTW: Aluminum compounds used as preservatives are also implicated in addition to mercury based preservatives. Replacing mercury compounds with aluminum compounds may have be the equivalent of shooting yourself with a .38 instead of a .45.

Excerpts from a few of the studies are listed -

http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Vaccines-Mercury-Aluminium-and-Autism-Studies

A Case Control Study of Mercury Burden In Children With Autistic Spectrum Disorders

This study shows a strong association between increased urinary mercury concentrations following three days of treatment with DMSA and the presence of an autistic spectrum disorder. The statistically significant association persists when vaccinated cases are compared with matched vaccinated controls.

Source: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 8 Number 3 Fall 2003

Neurodevelopmental Disorders After Thimerosal Containing Vaccines

an analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System database showed statistical increases in the incidence rate of autism, mental retardation and speech disorders after thimerosal containing DTaP vaccines in comparison with thimerosal-free DTaP vaccines.

Source: The Genetic Centers of America, http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/NeurodevelopmentalDisordersAfterThimerosal-ContainingVaccines-A%20Brief%20Communication.pdf

Even Tiny Injections of Thimerosal Can Cause Autism It is thought that the cerebellum is a sensitive organ against thimerosal. As a result of the present findings, in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.

Source: Induction of metallothionein in mouse cerebellum and cerebrum with low-dose thimerosal injection, Cell Biology and Toxicology, 0742-2091 (Print) 1573-6822 (Online), 9 April 2009.

Hepatitis B Vaccination of Male Newborns Causes Autism! Boys Vaccinated At Birth With Hep B Have 3 Times Greater Risk of Being Autistic!

CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD; risk was greatest for non-white boys.

Source: Annals of Epidemiology, vol.19, no. 9, September 2009: 651-680. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.244 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:NOTAFORUM. Thank you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought you guys wanted studies published in reliable sources. The above material references RELIABLE publications that can be checked to see if those studies exist and if they say what was quoted in that website. Annals of Epidemiology, Cell Biology and Toxicology, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons sound about right with The Genetic Centers of America a bit less so.71.174.128.244 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste much time on you, because I have a real life doing real things other than debunking myths. Your first links fail, because they are not reliable sources and are biased. Here's just a random article that shows you are pushing a POV that has no support whatsoever: Hensley E, Briars L (2010). "Closer look at autism and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine". J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 50 (6): 736–41. doi:10.1331/JAPhA.2010.10004. PMID 21071320. There are literally a hundred more. The thing is, correlation does not mean causation. And since you can't even prove correlation, you're impossibly far from even showing the weakest level of causation. Your two articles prove nothing at all. NOTHING. The cell biology article was on mice, with huge amounts of thimerosal given. Do you even read these articles? I guess not. The Annals of Epidemiology article is a purely epidemiological study that has not been repeated nor confirmed by other studies. IN addition, correlation means nothing. Causation means everything. And repeatability is critical. Call me when this information is confirmed. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, you're giving weight against the vast number of real studies that don't support your POV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You've been told. Read the policies we've been pointing you to. I've been patient with you but I'm wearying of that. It is possible to make changes to Wikipedia articles but you're not going to get anywhere by just splattering this page with mouse studies and conspiracy theories. Do a little reading. WP:MEDRS, WP:IRS, WP:OR, WP:PST at the very least. We all had to do it. You want to make a change here? Become competent. Presently you're not and you're not even bothering to make an effort.

If you continue to waste people's time by making blatantly off-policy edits to this or other articles, despite having had the appropriate policies pointed out to you on numerous occasions now, you stand a good chance of being blocked from editing this project. So, if you really want to make a difference, do some reading. Understand the policies of this website and work within them. I warn you though, it is highly probable that the point of view you are promoting with regard to vaccines and mercury will not make it into the encyclopedia, given the present state of the evidence in the scientific literature, and WP's policies on sourcing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you people seriously stating that studies published in the Annals of Epidemiology, Cell Biology and Toxicology, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons cannot be used in a wiki article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.244 (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is not a proper peer-reviewed academic source, despite its title. The other sources simply do not support your claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If you had bothered reading the policies we've been pointing you to you wouldn't be asking this question. Go away. READ. Become conversant with our policies. (There are thousands, possibly tens of thousands) of peer reviewed articles published every month. Most of them will never be appropriate sources for Wikipedia medical articles, because they haven't been reviewed, contextualised, and evaluated by an independent subject expert in an authoritative journal.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear are you saying that the studies referenced do not support my claim or that the studies do not exist? Because findings don't get much clearer then this "CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with hepatitis B vaccine had a 3-fold greater risk of ASD""71.174.128.244 (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link for you http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170

Universal hepatitis B vaccination was recommended for U.S. newborns in 1991; however, safety findings are mixed. The association between hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and parental report of autism diagnosis was determined. This cross-sectional study used weighted probability samples obtained from National Health Interview Survey 1997-2002 data sets. Vaccination status was determined from the vaccination record. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds for autism diagnosis associated with neonatal hepatitis B vaccination among boys age 3-17 years, born before 1999, adjusted for race, maternal education, and two-parent household. Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. That's pretty unequivocal. Do you know if there has been any commentary on the article in the scientific literature? I.e., what do the authors' peers think of it?--Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Google scholar has 0 citations to this primary article. (Nevermind the inherent reservations due to lack of independent confirmation, correlation not causation, etc. as already eloquently pointed out before). Yobol (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you still believe that Poling does not have autism?71.174.128.244 (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, she doesn't have classic autism - she has a mitochondrial disorder. Yobol (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you know that people are going to court for vaccine caused "autism" and winning. They just don't call it autism when they file. They file for "brain damage" instead and they win. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20016356-10391695.html "Our examination of federal vaccine court decisions over the years reflects this. Children who end up with autistic symptoms or autism have won vaccine injury claims over the years-as long as they highlighted general, widely-accepted brain damage; not autism specifically. But when autism or autistic symptoms are alleged as the primary brain damage, the cases are lost."71.174.128.244 (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Another study

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51731401/Integrating-Experimental-Neurotoxicity-Studies-of-Low-dose-Thimerosal-Relevant-to-Vaccines

n vitro and animal studies have shown consistently that low dose of Thimerosal (or ethylmercury) is active against brain cells. Animal studies with Thimerosal at concentrations used in vaccines have demonstrated toxicity compatible with low-dose Hg exposure. Thus,from observed changes in animal behaviour it is reasonable to expect biological consequences in terms of neurodevelopment in susceptible infants71.174.128.244 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE

It should be noted that any attempts to add information that would implicate vaccines as a cause of autism will have to comply with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, with note that every single major medical organization in the world, including the WHO, CDC, AMA, American Academy of Pediatrics, European Medicines Agency, etc. etc. have come to the conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism (and this has basically been the case since the 2004 Institute of Medicine report on the subject). Discussion of adding material that would suggest vaccine is in fact a cause for autism would require demonstrating there is a "significant minority" of the medical/scientific community who believes such (per our policies) - which would have to take the form of WP:MEDRS compliant sources in high impact journals. Short of that, the medical community has moved on from this question, and it is not our job to re-examine it here. Yobol (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this study the CDC study which was whitewashed to reduce the incidence of mercury autism to 1.6 from 2.6? A factor of 2 is what is usually required to win in Court. Notice the drop from above 2 to below that number in the whitewash. Was it the study for which author Poul Thorsen is being prosecuted for fraud or is it another study? Please post a link so I know what study you are talking about.

http://pr-usa.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=693716&Itemid=29%3C/ref

Poul Thorsen, the principal coordinator of multiple studies funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) used to deny a vaccine/autism link was indicted on April 13th on 13 counts of fraud and 9 counts of money-laundering. The charges relate to funding for work he conducted for the CDC, which claimed to disprove associations between the mercury-based vaccine preservative, thimerosal, and increased rates of autism.

http://www.ageofautism.com/2011/04/danish-study-cdc-doctor-who-debunked-autism-vaccines-link-indicted-on-fraud.html

Breaking News Dane Indicted Today A Danish man was indicted Wednesday on charges of wire fraud and money laundering for allegedly concocting a scheme to steal more than $1 million in autism research money from the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Usually when you steal research money, instead of spending it on research, you "make something up".71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

None of these sources meet criteria as a reliable source, nor are they particularly relevant to this article, as already discussed above. Yobol (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Kindly provide a reference to the study you cited above. I wish to be sure that it is not the "whitewashed" CDC study or any "made up" studies by Mr. Thorsen.71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

References for the position for various medical bodies are in the article. (Click on the super-scripted numbers next to the name of each medical body to be taken to the reference section and the position statement of each body). Yobol (talk) 02:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You referenced an unspecified study above. Kindly provide enough information to identify that study. A link would be nice.IF you want the to read the source of the story you need to speak Danish. AFAIK it broke on the Copenhagen Times.71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a link to The Huffington Post also reporting that Mr. Thorsen absconded with $2 million in autism study money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/central-figure-in-cdc-vac_b_494303.html

A central figure behind the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) claims disputing the link between vaccines and autism and other neurological disorders has disappeared after officials discovered massive fraud involving the theft of millions in taxpayer dollars. Danish police are investigating Dr. Poul Thorsen, who has vanished along with almost $2 million that he had supposedly spent on research.71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where I reference any specific study, please elaborate. HuffPo blogs are also not reliable sources, and, again, even if Thorsen is guilty of embezzlement, it does not taint the science of the articles he may have been involved with. You need to stop grasping for straws, guilt by association doesn't fly here. Yobol (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You said above "and this has basically been the case since the 2004 Institute of Medicine report on the subject" Anyway forget that I asked, it looks like the report was in part based on Thorsen's "work". http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/03/poul-thorsens-mutating-resume.html "But based on five studies, three of which included Aarhus – and one of which Thorsen co-authored -- the U.S. Institute of Medicine concluded in 2004 that “the evidence now favors rejection of a relationship between thimerosal and autism." The University of Aarhus employed Thorsen and he more then likely did "work" (wink wink) on 3 of the 5 studies.71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Except for all of the other that far outweigh this article, IF you had one, tiny, bit of proof of anything. Unless you can PROVE with reliable sources that while stealing money, he fixed the data, you really have nothing. Squat. Nada. Zilch. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

IOM report. Sorry, guilt by association doesn't work. Embezzlement isn't scientific fraud (unlike Andrew Wakefield, who I'm sure you're upset about, right?). Yobol (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, if we're going to use the IP's logic, then the fact that Andrew Wakefield, who INVENTED the association between autism and vaccines, whose article was withdrawn by Lancet because it was fraudulent, who has been accused of actual fraudulent publications, who apparently had the article published so that he could make money from plaintiff's attorneys seeking judgements against vaccine manufactures, and who was trying to get his own vaccine on the market, we have absolutely nothing to show a link between autism and vaccines, vaccine ingredients, aluminum, and/or thimerosal (which isn't in vaccines any more). The anonymous IP has been pwned. Again. Really, please do hug your fellow vaccine deniers. You gave it a good shot, but you really have brought nothing to the discussion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think he invented the association. As to his misconduct he tried to make a buck, at least one CDC big shot who pushed the "no link" position ended up running the vaccine operations of one of the major drug firms.71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And if you bring up Jenny McCarthy. Then we need to do something. Age of Autism is about as reliable as Jenny. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm personally waiting for them to start deleting all primary research links and material from the article as a show of good faith. One of them said no primary research links and material are allowed in the article. Failure to do so shows a "special" standard for some. In the street that kind of conduct is referred to as something quite unflattering which I don't believe wiki policies allow me to detail.71.174.128.244 (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you mean for this comment to follow mine below? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's late and I'm tired. Mistakes happen!71.174.128.244 (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Edits?

Wow. This is still going. Hi guys. Is anyone proposing a policy-compliant edit to the article? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I know I said medical articles are based on reviews, but it's a bit more nuanced than that. For instance, if a review cites a primary source and puts it in context, it's sometimes okay for us to cite the primary source in that context. I don't know if that applies here, because I don't know which content you're referring to. You are welcome to challenge something based on a primary study and see what kind of defense, if any, is put up. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I was bluntly informed that NO primary research studies were allowed in the article. The article is chock full of such studies.71.174.128.244 (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It's nuanced. As a rule of thumb, articles are based on secondary sources. But there are exceptions. You need to read the appropriate policies and guidelines. I just culled a couple of primary sources results from Pain because they were recent, unreplicated but (mainly) because they were making a point (about the validity of an old established theory - one debunking, one supporting) not made in any recent authoritative review. [8] However, I left a number of other claims in the article supported by primary sources, because they were in no way controversial.[9] But if someone challenged that, I'd have no problem culling those claims too, until an independent authoritative review could be found that supported them. It's hard enough editing relatively bland medical articles here. If you want to make changes to controversial articles, you must become very familiar with the main policies. Learning as you go like this uses up a lot of other people's time, and when those people's views conflict strongly with yours, well, this happens.

Find a quiet spot and read the policies. Then have a read through the archives of this and other article talk pages. Get a feel for how things are done here. Sleep. This article will be here tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I was told to review WP:MEDRS. I do so and this is what it sais "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim. The studies I listed above do EXACTLY THAT. Additionally I have found a review study asserting that mercury in vaccines can cause autism http://www.detoxmetals.com/content/AUTISM%20AND%20Hg/autism_reprint.pdf. I have also found a reference study from Brazil that supports the vaccines causes autism position. I did not have ANY problems finding them because such studies are common. I also found a video of Julie Gerberding, the head of the CDC, stating that vaccines can trigger a mitochondial reaction resulting in autism like symptoms. Until such time as the cause of autism is found, if you have autism like symptoms you have autism. See about a third of the way through the video on this link http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2008/03/julie-gerberding-admits-on-cnn-that.html71.174.128.244 (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, a video in a blog. You really have learnt nothing about what's accepted as quality, reliable sources here, have you? HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking you include a link to the video in the article. I'm just pointing out that the director of the CDC stated, when interviewed, that vaccines can trigger autism for those with mitochondrial disorders. My words- To put it simply - absent the vaccine to trigger the disorder, there would be no autism. If nothing EVER triggers that disorder no autism would EVER appear. This seems plain to me. Anyway see a bit over 3 minutes into the video for her statement.71.174.128.244 (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The quote is: "some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have the characteristics of autism" It's muddled language but she seems to be saying the child has some symptoms characteristic of autism. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

And if those "some symptoms" triggered by vaccine(s), include all 3 of the required symptoms which by US law define autism then the vaccine caused autism. The 3 symptoms are language, communications and behavioral. Autism is defined by US law, and if you have those 3 symptoms then you have autism. Period end of Conversation! I have to say that for a long term editor on this subject, Yodal seems ignorant of the fact that autism is defined by law, that Poling had the 3 symptoms required for autism and that per US law, yes indeed, she did have autism and that autism was caused by the vaccines she took.71.174.128.244 (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that says she meets the diagnostic criteria for Asperger's syndrome, autistic disorder, PDD-NOS or childhood disintegrative disorder? I follow your logic, by the way, and agree with it (on this point), but that doesn't mean we can apply that logic to a Wikipedia article. That would be WP:SYN or WP:OR. We have to wait until a reliable source says she has an ASD. You wouldn't believe the amount of common sense I could apply to about 30 articles here. But I work within the guidelines, and wait patiently for scientific consensus to start making sense. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Please make a claim here that you'd like to insert into the article and nominate the source/s that support it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How about "one study shows a 3 fold increase in reported autism cases for boys vaccinated for Hepetis B compared to boys not vaccinated. - based on "Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period." The link to the study is below. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

PMID 21058170. How many subjects were involved in the study? Did the authors attach any caveats to their conclusions? What has been this paper's reception in the academic community? Has there been follow-up correspondence in the journal it was published in? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a pdf of the paper. http://www.vaccinesafetyfirst.com/pdf/Hep%20b%20&%20neonatesGallagher.pdf The total group size totaled just shy of 80,000 kids. I have no clue as to what you mean by a caveat. The large group size would indicate little chance of error due to a statistical fluke in a small group.71.174.128.244 (talk) 07:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that's what I mean. So, thirty three of the 7673 boys with a record of hep B vaccination were later diagnosed with autism (4.3 per 1000); and nine of the 1267 boys vaccinated in the first month of life were later diagnosed with autism (7.1 per 1000). This latter number is high. After univariate logistic regression using sample weights, it represents 2.82-fold greater odds for an autism diagnosis than in the group of all vaccinated boys. But the study also found an ASD ratio of 5.43:1, boys to girls, which is low on girls or high on boys compared with recent distribution studies.

Caveats:

• In light of this paradox [boy:girl ratio] and small sample size, larger epidemiological studies stratified by gender are merited.
• [Autism] diagnosis was not medically confirmed.
• Further, there may be unmeasured confounders associated with missing vaccination data or possible cohort effects...
• Incomplete and missing data may introduce bias in the analysis and is a notable limitation of the current study.
• this study is subject to bias from unmeasured or uncontrolled confounding factors.
• the results of the study indicate that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 incurred a threefold greater risk for autism diagnosis.
• Our findings do not suggest that the risks of autism outweigh the benefits of vaccination; however, future research into hepatitis B vaccination scheduling is warranted.

I would definitely wait for a review before putting this result in the article because the authors point out their findings are novel, it is a small sample size, it must be replicated with a larger sample by an independent group before any meaningful conclusions can be drawn, and, finally, the risk of vaccination "indicated" by this study does not outweigh the benefit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: boy girls ratio. Autism effects more boys then girls by a factor of about 5. That is about what the study reported. I ran across a study on the toxicity of mercury on mice, and it was stated in that study that mercury is more toxic to males, If I recall correctly the study stated that mercury interacts badly with testosterone. On a small sample size, at one toxicity level, all males died while all females lived. Any cause found for autism would have to effect males worse then females. Mercury fills that requirement.

RE: Autism not diagnosed is also boilerplate. They would be laughed at if the said all cases of autism in a sample size of 80,000 were medically confirmed and the confirmation logged into the data they had mined. In that large a sample size that is unlikely to happen.

RE: The benefits outweigh risks is boilerplate. The question is will a group face fewer risks with mercury free vaccines. That issue was decided a decade ago for children and the answer was, yes they would.

RE: unmeasured or uncontrolled confounding factors language is boilerplate and is practically a requirement for all studies except the most tightly controlled. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The authors themselves discuss in some detail the problem anomalous boy:girl ratio, and recommend a larger study to clarify it. None of the items you call boilerplate are boilerplate. There are many large scale studies of autism where the diagnosis is confirmed by qualified assessors. "The benefits outweigh risks is boilerplate" What nonsense. Incomplete and missing data is described in detail in the article and is notable not boilerplate. This is a small preliminary study that indicates there may be a connection between mercury in vaccines and ASD. You can't report its findings here or combine it with other primary sources to draw a stronger conclusion and put it in the article. Sorry. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE: The confounding factors language is in fact boilerplate and should be included in all except the most rigorously controlled studies. It's absence in a data mining study would be what would raise a red flag.

I am not asking for the boy girl ratio question to be included in the article. I am asking for the factor of 3 study result to be included. That result is pretty firm.71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A small, poorly cited primary study (whose results, BTW, appear to fly in the face of scientific consensus) clearly fails WP:MEDRS. Agree with Anthonyhcole that this is an inappropriate source for this article. Yobol (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The study size is in the same ballpark as the early whitewashed CDC study in which, per documents released under the Freedom of Information Act, an addition 30 some odd thousand kids were added to the study resulting a a drop in the ratio from 2.4 to 1.6. A ratio of 2 being required for the vaccine court. And it is not that much different in size from the Danish studies(partially done by a certain absconder who ran off with $2 million in CDC research funds) which were part of later CDC releases.71.174.128.244 (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Per wiki policy WP:MEDRS. "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim. Does or does not this primary source make a claim "contradicting the conclusions" of reliable secondary sources (Personally I find a person who absconds with $2 million somewhat less then reliable). 71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I concede the confounding factors language is boilerplate. But not the rest. The rest is explained in detail in the article. The real problem with this is its statistical power: I can't take 9 out of 1267 as meaning much at all. It "indicates" an effect of vaccination, for what that's worth. But it's not firm. It's extremely flaky. To mean anything it'll have to be replicated in a much larger study by another team, and then assessed by someone with independent academic clout. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The conclusion of the study states that they found a 3 fold difference in autism rates for boys. That difference is not considered a statistical anomaly in a study of thousands of people. It may be is a study of a dozen or so but not in thousands or the tens of thousands. As for the word "indicates" that sort of language is standard in studies. Nobody want's to stick his head out when bucking mainstream thought, and they hedge.71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy

Is this story part of Jenny Mccarty referenced above, because I for one would love to see a study comparing autism rates in unvaccinated versus vaccinated kids. Anectodal evidence like there are practically no autism cases among the Amish is nice but doesn't seem to be allowed in wikipedia. BTW: In his favor Mr. Wakefield is not running off with 2 million in CDC autism research funds.

http://www.health-reports.com/autism.html

Dr. Andrew Wakefield is being discredited to prevent an historic study from being published that for the first time looks at vaccinated versus unvaccinated primates and compares health outcomes, with potentially devastating consequences for vaccine makers and public health officials.

The retraction from The Lancet was a response to a ruling from England's General Medical Council, a kangaroo court where public health officials in the pocket of vaccine makers served as judge and jury. Dr. Wakefield strenuously denies all the findings of the GMC and plans a vigorous appeal.

Dr. Wakefield is the co-author, along with eight other distinguished scientists from institutions like the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Kentucky, and the University of Washington, of a set of studies that explore the topic of vaccinated versus unvaccinated neurological outcomes using monkeys.

The first phase of this monkey study was published three months ago in the prestigious medical journal Neurotoxicology, and focused on the first two weeks of life when the vaccinated monkeys received a single vaccine for Hepatitis B, mimicking the U.S. vaccine schedule. The results were disturbing. Vaccinated monkeys, unlike their unvaccinated peers, suffered the loss of many reflexes that are critical for survival.

Dr. Wakefield and his scientific colleagues are on the brink of publishing their entire study, which followed the monkeys through the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule over a multi-year period. It is our understanding that the difference in outcome for the vaccinated monkeys versus the unvaccinated controls is both stark and devastating.71.174.128.244 (talk) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've been pointed to this, yet: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. The above post mostly contravenes this policy. I could explain how or why it contravenes that policy, but then there's a chance you won't read the policy, and just take on board what I say. So, please, when you've given yourself a bit of a break, read that policy too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We've jumped the shark. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I admit to going a bit overboard. BUT as I said a number of times, a LOT of people would like to see a comparison of autism rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated children. Including a comparisons of children with only a few vaccinations and those with many would add meat to such a study71.174.128.244 (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, find an objective, high quality, peer reviewed, double blind study, accepted in the mainstream medical and scientific community, and bring it here. And it needs to be about children, not monkeys. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

HiLo, I'm assuming you read above. We've asked. All we get is propaganda, at best. And Neurotoxicology is not prestigious, especially with an impact factor of 2.4. I wonder if the Anonymous IP noticed that all of his co-authors jumped ship? I doubt it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How about this one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170 [copyright violation redacted]71.174.128.244 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

What about it? Are you proposing an edit? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeh! I think an edit would be nice. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That study was a few years ago now. What follow-up has there been? Confirmation? Something else? This is life and death stuff. We must have the very best information. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with HiLo. Has this study been replicated by another team? Has it been contextualised by an authoritative review? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed this in the thread above. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Pages are based on reliable, secondary sources - review articles, not primary studies. It's too easy to cherry-pick primary sources to support points that are not confirmed in subsequent studies. See WP:PSTS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Official link for another study

Now providing a more official link to another of the studies I ran across. The official link states the exact same thing as the less official link.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Induction%20of%20metallothionein%20in%20mouse%20cerebellum%20and%20cerebrum%20with%20low-dose%20thimerosal%20injection%2C

Induction of metallothionein in mouse cerebellum and cerebrum with low-dose thimerosal injection.

It is thought that the cerebellum is a sensitive organ against thimerosal. As a result of the present findings, in combination with the brain pathology observed in patients diagnosed with autism, the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.71.174.128.244 (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So? Are you proposing an edit based on this? If so, what exactly? There is no way this can be used to support any content regarding a link between mercury and autism. It's a mouse study. Does the article even mention autism?

Look. What you're doing here is throwing disparate primary studies around, arguing the case for a link between (among other things) mercury and autism. This is in violation of that policy I linked you to above, WP:TALK. If you attempt to add content to an article based on this process you'll be violating WP:SYNTHESIS, which you've also been urged to read, above. Can you please just do what talk pages are for: propose an edit - the exact edit, as you'd like it to appear in the article - and provide supporting sources for the proposed edit? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Above OrangeMarlin stated that "Causation means everything". This study talks about "causation"- to quote the study is not synthesis. The study states "the present study helps to support the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.". The author is describing a "plausable cause" for how mercury may be associated with autism. What synthesis is being made. The author of one study reports 3 fold increase in autism. This author of the other study points the finger at thimerosal/mercury as the cause.

Based on this study I would like to add another edit to the effect that "low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism." That is a direct quote from the study. It is not synthesis and since it is a direct quote I certainly am not putting words in the authors mouth. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Single, unreplicated studies are never enough in science and medicine. Has someone else looked at he same evidence and analysed it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not a single unreplicated study. A review study I provided a link to cites two other studies which link mercury induced mitochondrial damage as the root cause of at least some autism. This is the same root cause cited by government experts in the Poling court case. http://www.detoxmetals.com/content/AUTISM%20AND%20Hg/autism_reprint.pdf "It was also shown in vitro that low concentrations of thimerosal, which can occur after vaccination, induce membrane and DNA damage and initiate apoptosis (programed cell death) in human neurons (38). Humphrey and co workers (39) have shown recently that this apoptosis (programed cell death)is mediated by mitochondria in an in vitro study."71.174.128.244 (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Now let me ask you a question. Did everyone who added a study in the article go through what you are putting me though? Because if they did how come widespread allegations of bad methodology in the primary CDC "no link" reports get ignored? 71.174.128.244 (talk) 07:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits you are proposing are characterising vaccination as causing autism. This contradicts the established scientific consensus (I think you'll agree with that). Extraordinary claims like that demand a very high standard of proof, regardless of the topic.

Your paragraph above, beginning "Its not a single unreplicated study" is classic WP:SYNTHESIS. Bundling studies together and drawing conclusions is just what good systematic reviews do, which is why we rely on them. When an anonymous Wikipedia editor does it, it is WP:SYN and utterly forbidden. A good systematic review gathers up all the relevant literature and presents a neutral description of the topic. Wikipedia editors tend to cherry-pick papers, blogs, youtube clips, etc, that support the point of view they bring to the topic. If you want to include those conclusions, find an authoritative review that says them, don't DIY. Please read WP:SYN and the other policies you've been pointed to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your failure to answer my question as to whether all current citations went through this gauntlet is also classic. - I said it is not a single unreplicated study because similar conclusions have been reached in others. Two studies with similar conclusions - "mercury can cause autism" were cited here http://www.detoxmetals.com/content/AUTISM%20AND%20Hg/autism_reprint.pdf and were well enough received to be cited here as well http://www.autismboulder.org/pdf/ScienceSummary.pdf with a recomendation to the Colorado Senate that action to remove mercury from vaccines was warranted. I'm sure that if you go through the whole review article you will find even more primary studies that say the same. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 08:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Have a look through the archives at the top of this page. You'll find that anyone who attempts to insert controversial claims into this, or any Wikipedia medical article, is expected to support their edit with the highest possible quality evidence. Now, what proposed edit is this discussion about? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here we go again

First edit: "low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism." That is a direct quote from a study.

Second edit ""one study shows a 3 fold increase in reported autism cases for boys vaccinated for Hepetis B compared to boys not vaccinated." which is slightly condensed version of a quote in another study. I have no objection to using the exact study language instead.71.174.128.244 (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've addressed the second edit at the bottom of the above section Edits?. Perhaps we could discuss that before moving on to the first edit. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the first edit, you're citing a mouse study, the statement is as true and useful as "low dose exposure to Iggy Pop music may be associated with autism." If you want to insert a claim about an association between autism and mercury, it'll have to be a very high quality source and a very specific claim. But you know all this. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

My statement was that since boys develop autism more then girls by about a factor 5, any cause of autism will have to effect boys more strongly then girls. That is plain logic. Mercury, because it is in fact more toxic to males then females fulfills that requirement. That is fact. Regardless of what the boy girl ratio is, it is irrelevant in a comparison of vaccinated boys to unvaccinated boys and the conclusion of the study in question which is LIMITED to boys. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Logic is original research and disallowed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That has got to be the most inane comment I have ever come across, especially since I wasn't attempting to add that material to the article. I assume Occam's razor isn't allowed to shave as well?71.174.128.244 (talk) 23:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No it is not, not by editors. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. You can't make the connection, it must be made by a reliable source. If you're not adding information to the article, then wikipedia is not a web forum and you should stop trying to debate. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

History

The article doesn't mention any of the early (now discrded) social/environmental theories of the causes of Autism such as Bettelheim's "Regrigerator mother" theory. Since these theories were quite wellknown in their day and did a lot of damage, I think it would a good idea to mention them so that people who might still believe in them can see that they are now no longer believed.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Refrigerator mother appears to be here. Are there other theories you think are notable for inclusion that is not already discussed? Yobol (talk) 12:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah you are right I guess that about covers it. I think I would have structured the article differently though, so that it gives more of a chronological overview of the reserach history - showing which theories are current and which aren't instead of treating all theories, even the completely discredited ones as if they were on par.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

They really called it "refrigerator mother?" Wow. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI reading material

Clear consensus that IP71 has no support

Just discovered this article and would like to share some background to the manufactroversy. Notable fiend of the infectious disease promotion movement is Orac. Luckily, all of the questions raised have been thoroughly answered by him. Not meant as RS for use in the article but for editors to update their perspective.

• Regarding Poul Thorsen: if the alleged act did take place it was after the article was written, he was not the primary name on the article, even if everything is true and the study is withdrawn (Wakefield anybody!) it still does not negate the thousands of other studies disproving a link (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/the_annals_of_im_not_anti-vaccine_part_7.php and http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/tpoul_thorsen_vaccine_safety.php and http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/poul_thorsen_vaccines_fraud.php)
• Regarding a "vaxed versus unvaxed" study: it is highly unethical, and apparently such a study exists. With a surprising conclusion! (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/for_the_anti-vaccinationists_out_there_t.php)
• Confusing correlation with causation (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/deaths_from_vaccines_in_japan.php)
• On Trine Tsouderos and Paul Offit (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/03/join_trine_tsouderos_for_a_web_chat_with.php)

In short, before continuing this silly manufactroversy first browse these sites [10][11][12] for indepth analysis of the arguments involved. After doing that it will be inevitable to conclude, as with all other forms of denialism, no controversy exists and the science is done. ----- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 16:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I assume your link that states that a study of vaccinated v unvaccinated is unethical or would be unethical, is because it would deprive some children of the benefits of vaccines. After less then a second of thought I came to the realization that the unvaccinated group could be composed of those who object to vaccine on religious grounds and who will never gets vaccinated anyway, with the result of no moral hazard on the part of the researchers. Too bad your source couldn't come up with the same idea. BTW are you aware that the Amish, who don't vaccinate their children have autism rates in the ballpark of 1 in 10,000? Either the Amish are doing something right or everyone else is doing something wrong.71.174.128.244 (talk) 16:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Thorsen: Posit a situation where you pay a mechanic to fix your car up front. After doing some work he skips town with the money you paid him up front for your latest repair. After this incident would your confidence level in his past work increase, decrease or stay the same? I believe it is safe to say that the VAST majority of people would pick "decrease" in this situation.71.174.128.244 (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Confusion between causation and correlation. A study was done on a group of people who took a loaded gun, bullet in the chamber, safety off, stuck it in their mouths and pulled the trigger, and compared them to a group that did not take the above action. It was found that the first group was shortly thereafter found with a hole in their skull. The second group did not have such a hole. I think a study of vaccinated (loaded gun) V unvaccinated (no gun) would clear up quite a bit of foggy thinking. How about you?71.174.128.244 (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Amish do have autism: possibly genetical [13][14][15][16]

Regarding your causation and correlation answer, it is at best uninformed, at worst obtuse. Question, people with autism have slept/drank water/breathed oxygen/watched TV/pick your favourite, why are none of them causing autism? You claim correlation=causation.----- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 16:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

So sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger will not get you a hole in the head under your stated conditions of --- slept/drank water/breathed oxygen/watched TV/pick your favorite. PLEASE! You are killing me here. Reduced to its lowest common denominator the mercury autism question is - Does shooting up kids with a known toxic agent harm those kids who have little or no genetic tolerance for that toxin? A pretty darn similar question to Does shooting a gun off in your mouth result in a hole in the head.71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

As you point out, some Amish do in fact have autism, just at rates that are magnitudes lower then in the general population. From stories I ran across "less then 10 Amish children" TOTAL have been diagnosed with autism. One as your links point out was vaccinated, one other was vaccinated before adoption, leaving less the 8 remaining. Some Amish do in fact vaccinate their children, other do not do so for religious reasons. It is not unreasonable to say that all those Amish autistic children (now less then 8) were likely vaccinated.71.174.128.244 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thimerosal and vaccines have been tested as causes of autism. They did not pass. Vaccines and autism are unrelated. That's the scientific consensus, and that's about it. The vaccine-autism theory is a fringe theory and should only be pointed out as a discredited hypothesis. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please! Studies are coming out all the time showing a connection. I just posted links to 3 such studies on this talk page, and it wasn't at all difficult to find them. I can probably looks at the studies cited in those 3 and come up with another 10-20 studies supporting a link. The director of the CDC said that vaccines can trigger autistic symptoms. Autism is defined by its symptoms. You have the 3 required symptoms triggered and you are diagnosed with autism.71.174.128.244 (talk) 22:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Until your points are made by someone else, it can't be included per WP:OR. The only meaningful studies for our purposes are secondary sources - review articles. The best sources are those published in high-impact journals, as well as statements by major scientific bodies, like this one, and this one, and this one, and this one. Lots of things can cause immune deficiency, only HIV causes AIDS. Wikipedia reports the scientific consensus, not discredited hypotheses. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your objections are contrary to wiki guidelines. First per wiki policy primary research studies can in fact be used to "debunk" conventional wisdom and second one of the 3 studies I posted links to is in fact a review study. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

LOGIC states that, if your objection is that I need to post a link to a review study, and I have in fact posted a review to a review study, that you haven't been following this thread. see http://www.detoxmetals.com/content/AUTISM%20AND%20Hg/autism_reprint.pdf

LOGIC also states that if WP:MEDRS states that "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim." then primary sources can in fact be used to "debunk" or contradict conventional wisdom. Although I hate to call the concept that "shooting up little kids with a known poison will have no harmful side effects" WISDOM!

LOGIG does seem to come in useful for a wiki editor after all. Don 't you agree?71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

71, you have had policies pointed out to you on a number of occasions, and, virtually every editor here has pointed out the flaws in what you want to include. This is a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please give it a rest. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Try reading WP:MWRS and see if the passage I quoted is contained in that wiki policy. Could be you didn't hear it.

and findings made by someone else:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51731401/Integrating-Experimental-Neurotoxicity-Studies-of-Low-dose-Thimerosal-Relevant-to-Vaccines n vitro and animal studies have shown consistently that low dose of Thimerosal (or ethylmercury) is active against brain cells. Animal studies with Thimerosal at concentrations used in vaccines have demonstrated toxicity compatible with low-dose Hg exposure. Thus,from observed changes in animal behaviour it is reasonable to expect biological consequences in terms of neurodevelopment in susceptible infants

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170 - Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period.

http://www.detoxmetals.com/content/AUTISM%20AND%20Hg/autism_reprint.pdf - repetitive mercury exposure ... through thimerosal containing vaccinations in genetically susceptible individuals is one possible pothogenetic factor in autism.

pathogenetic - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pathogenetic - 1: of or relating to pathogenesis 2: : pathogenic

pathogenic - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pathogenic - 1: pathogenetic 2: causing or capable of causing disease

pathogenisis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathogenesis - the mechanism by which the disease is caused. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I, and virtually everyone else here, am/are quite familiar with policy. I have no idea what WP:MWRS is. Perhaps you meant WP:MEDRS. The scientific consensus, and the consensus on this page, are against your position. I suggest we move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

My bad! Does or does not MEDRS state that primary sources can be used to "debunk" or contradict conventional wisdom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.244 (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Direct quote from MEDRS: "Individual primary sources should not be cited or juxtaposed so as to "debunk" or contradict the conclusions of reliable secondary sources, unless the primary source itself directly makes such a claim." 71.174.128.244 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is extremely obvious that the consensus is against IP 71, there is no support for his/her position, and we're all wasting our time by encouraging further discussion. The relevant policies have been pointed to, and the only reaction is tendentious editing to a discredited POV. So let's end this, shun this editor, and revert changes to the main page on sight. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Autism rates drop after mercury removed from vaccines

Per HiLo48

Mercury was removed from childhood vaccines around 2002, and autism is usually "officially" diagnosed about 1.5 years after onset. One would expect that if mercury was the cause of autism then rates would drop around 2004 and after.

GUESS WHAT? The did! http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/tech-labs/disabilities/autism.php see 4th chart down - prevalence by birth year. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source, that's a partisan website published by an agency committed to promoting a fringe POV that has no mainstream support. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The chart in question "prevalence by birth year" cites the CDC as a source of data. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not shunning him. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also the matter of fact that children born in recent years are less likely to have been examined by a psychiatrist. In a perfect world, everyone would get examined at 18 months, or at least everyone who shows symptoms, but that's not always how it works out. In other words, there should always be a "decline" near the end of any graph of autism diagnoses arranged by birth year unless the autism prevalence rate is rising very rapidly. I believe the fifth graph makes this clearer. For example, in 2000, only 8 of every 10000 three year olds had been diagnosed as autistic. In 2009, 23 out of 10000 had ... almost three times as many. But those people who were born in 1997 had a lot more chances to get into a psychiatrist between then and now, and so their overall autism rate is thus greater than that of the more recently born.

To put it another way, the rate of autism among 12-year-olds born in 1998 is about 16 per 10000, but the autism rate for twelve year olds born in 2008 is zero. No one would seriously take data like that and claim that autism is cured, but that is the very same type of data that's being worked into the graph described above and described as legitimate. —Soap— 00:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Per the CDC the median age for diagnosis is 4.5-5.5 years. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html The chart in question stops in 2006, and was created in 2011, so even for the latest birth year showing (2006) the 50% diagnosis mark is either close or there. Double it and let me know if the rate for 2006 is less then the rate in 2001.71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, I see that this whole shunning thing isn't working out so well. LOL. The Anonymous IP is misinterpreting epidemiological data. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We should just keep our eyes on the long term goal of creating a great encyclopaedia. Ignore those weird distractions on the fringe. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Section closed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've been replying to him on the rationale that even if he never gives up, there may be other people reading the page who are genuinely unsure what to think and may be open to more information that isn't clearly stated in the article. I'll just say on the off chance that anyone who's reading this does want more information, they're free to bring it up again and ask questions. —Soap— 02:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I forgot I suggested WP:SHUN, all in all, I am not that bright... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I know Dbrodbeck, but we still like you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Shooting holes in bad arguments shares much with shooting fish in a barrel - easy, yet extremely satisfying.

Commenting on Soap's statement - yes, things are always subject to debate. In the face of new evidence. The main problem with 71's points was that there was no evidence the IP was actually reading the policies being pointed out to them, and that never leads anywhere but edit wars and pointless discussions. Before you can argue reasonably, you have to ensure you have the same ground rules. For instance, when AIDS denialist keeps lobbing softballs, it doesn't matter how hard you hit it if you're playing cricket. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 03:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Root study for autism/mercury link fraud is BIG news

Please do not delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.128.244 (talk) 00:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not? See WP:WEIGHT. Numerous other studies have shown no link. Here's one: Thompson WW, Price C, Goodson B; et al. (2007). "Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years". N. Engl. J. Med. 357 (13): 1281–92. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa071434. PMID 17898097. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). I can give you more, but I suspect that you have an agenda that remains outside of logic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A vaccine company lost in US Court where it was ruled a vaccine aggravated a mitochondria disorder causing or worsening autism. see Hannah Polling's case. Your statement that there is no link is plainly in error. If it wasn't the vaccine company would not have conceded the case.71.174.128.244 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1721109,00.html

What's unique about Hannah's case is that for the first time federal authorities have conceded a connection between her autistic symptoms and the vaccines she received, though the connection is by no means simple. A panel of medical evaluators at the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that Hannah had been injured by vaccines — and recommended that her family be compensated for the injuries. The panel said that Hannah had an underlying cellular disorder that was aggravated by the vaccines, causing brain damage with features of autism spectrum disorder (ASD).71.174.128.244 (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Typical. So, the government is 4999 and 1 in cases. It was an extremely rare disorder. Again, please read WP:WEIGHT. My statement, on the other hand, is completely and utterly accurate and supported by real science, not lies and rhetoric. Bring some science, and we'll enjoy reading it. If not, then please, quit edit-warring. It's boring, because you will just get blocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Time magazine there were 5,000 case. HOWEVER - The Poling was the FIRST ONE where a decision was reached. Per the article cited the remaining 4999 cases have yet to be heard. The score is one case heard and one case decided in favor of vaccines cause autism. That is a win of 1 to zip and a far cry from a score of 1 win to 4999 losses as you implied. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Poling has never been diagnosed with autism, so discussion about her case doesn't belong here. Yobol (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Her doctor states otherwise - see new section below71.174.128.244 (talk)

(edit conflict) 1) The Poling case dealt with the US gov't, not a vaccine company 2) the US government did not concede the vaccines were the cause of Poling's condition 3) the Poling case dealt with mitochondrial disorders, which are extremely rare 4) even if Thorsen is guilty of embezzling money, it wouldn't taint the actual science produced (unlike, say Andrew Wakefield's fraud, which I'm sure you're equally, if not more, angry over) 5) even if that one or two studies were tainted, there are numerous other studies which show there is no link between vaccines and autism 6) press releases are not reliable sources...etc, etc. Yobol (talk) 00:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that the incidence of autism in Amish children, who do not take vaccines, is about 1 in 100,000. The incidence in the general population is now somewhere worse then 1 in 100. BTW: Mercury is considered a POISON that effects motor and nerve functions. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Any further tangents taken will be removed per WP:TALK. Yobol (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Just remove it. This editor has some goal, which isn't based on evidence, but on emotion. I wonder if he noticed that the United Mitochondria disorder association stated that there is no evidence that thiomersal has anything to do with mitochondrial disorders. This is boring. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the Poling case, but at the DAN conference in October 2010 in Long Beach, guest speakers from the mitochondrial disease institute at UC San Diego said mitochondrial disease may be much more common than previously believed. Also, as far as threatning to block people, I don't know what came before but the comments on here read like abuse of the poster who is just trying to advocate one side of this. I am not at all sure the vaccination question is resolved. There are researchers at respected medical schools who are looking into this question even still and in their filings with their IRBs say they EXPECT, I emphasize, EXPECT, to find differences in some autistic's immune responses compared to normals. I don't see the need for threats or disparaging comments in this discussion and they are to me more clear violations of Wikipedia's rules than what the other poster put out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.239 (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Study shows autism severity correlates with ability to excrete mercury in hair

This study raises the question, if autistic kids have a WAY reduced ability to excrete mercury in their hair, do they also have impaired ability to excrete in other ways as well, leading to toxic mercury buildup and mercury poisoning.

http://www.ravenintellections.com/gre/aluminum-increases-thimerosal-toxicity.htm

Reduced levels of mercury in first baby haircuts of autistic children Holmes AS, Blaxill MF, Haley BE. Int J Toxicol. 2003 Jul-Aug;22(4):277-85.

Hair mercury levels in the autistic group were 0.47 ppm versus 3.63 ppm in controls, a significant difference. The mothers in the autistic group had significantly higher levels of mercury exposure through Rho D immunoglobulin injections and amalgam fillings than control mothers. Within the autistic group, hair mercury levels varied significantly across mildly, moderately, and severely autistic children, with mean group levels of 0.79, 0.46, and 0.21 ppm, respectively. Hair mercury levels among controls were significantly correlated with the number of the mothers' amalgam fillings and their fish consumption as well as exposure to mercury through childhood vaccines, correlations that were absent in the autistic group. Hair excretion patterns among autistic infants were significantly reduced relative to control. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reached the limits of my patience. Since I've been prohibited from telling you what I think of you, I'll just keep it to myself. Apparently, you refuse to read anything we've posted. That's fine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda sorry I can't say what I think about you as well. But I live with it.

Anyway - In a related "REVIEW" study casting light on the above study - There are references contained within it to studies showing that a mothers exposure to mercury during pregnancy, reduces the baby's ability to excrete mercury after being born leading to mercury poisoning, brains damage, impaired motor functions, You know! "Autism"! Again: Notice that this is a REVIEW study which someone not to be named insisted on having despite the fact that the article is full of references to primary studies.

http://www.detoxmetals.com/content/AUTISM%20AND%20Hg/autism_reprint.pdf

From the body "autistics have 20% lower plasma levels ... which, among others, adversely effect their ability to detoxify and excrete metals like mercury. (this is from page 441 of the October 2005 issue of Neuroendocrinology Letters Vol 26 No. 5)

From the conclusion "repetitive mercury exposure during pregnancy, and after birth ... is one potential pathogenetic factor in autism." The study concludes with "it is mandatory to avoid further use of mercury in medical products".71.174.128.244 (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

With special reference to the Poling case and mitochondria - more from the body of the above "REVIEW" article: It was also shown in vitro that low concentrations of thimerosal, which can occur after vaccination, induce membrane and DNA damage and initiate apoptosis (programed cell death) in human neurons (38). Humphrey and co workers (39) have shown recently that this apoptosis (programed cell death)is mediated by mitochondria in an in vitro study.71.174.128.244 (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It is really sad that someone removed the Boyd Haley study because it is very important. I think very bad people are inappropriately using this rule about Review articles supper seeding research articles as a basis for removal information they disagree with. This is not settled science as demonstrated by the scientists who are warning today of a chemical link to autism http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/07/scientists-warn-of-chemical-autism-link/#comments. TommyTruth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC).

And your point is what? And what is "super seeding"? A new agricultural method to increase corn harvests? And who are the bad people? Review articles from reliable sources like medical journals are fine. Anyways, not sure what you're trying to say, maybe if you were somewhat clearer in your writing. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I misspelled superseded. Some one removed the Boyd Haley article that I put up there some time ago. I presume they justified it because it is being replaced with review articles. But there is an array of medical data some indicating Hg is linked to Autism. Just because someone publishes a review article doesn't mean that it is settled science. There is a great need for a summary of papers that support the mainstream as well as those that represent conflicting findings. I'm sorry I wrote bad people. At first I was going to write Wikipedia Nazis but I realize that was too strong. Calling these folks bad is wrong too. TommyTruth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC).

In fact, there is absolutely no reliable evidence that mercury causes autism. And no, we don't have to provide conflicting findings if they're not reliable. We can state there are fringe theories, but that's like a sentence at best. The science is settled, unless someone brings real research.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So who makes you qualified to say that his study was not reliable. Are you qualified. Can you point to any research that contradicts it? If you do, where is it. What is your basis to say it is not reliable. There is no such thing as settled science. Only people who don't understand how science works believe that. And since you don't you should not be making these kinds of decisions. It is not only arrogant, it is irresponsible and immoral. TommyTruth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC).

Please read WP:MEDRS. We do not make these decisions, science does, and it is rather heavily weighted against your POV, which you keep pushing. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My POV is balance. I put up literature review information that supports Hg and autism and information that does not. The Wikipedia Nazis selectively removed the evidence that does not support to support their POV but not the other evidence....And I guess they didn't read the papers. There is a scientific consensus that vaccines do not cause autism. However, there is some evidence that there is a relationship between HG/other chemicals and autism.... like the Haley study. Vaccines had ethyl Hg but fillings have metal Hg, and fish have methyl. All have different chemistries and all have different toxicities. --TommyTruth (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You know all this do you? You're some kind of expert are you? I doubt it. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, is anyone else here an expert. So I don't trust myself, you, OrangeMarlin or anybody else to decide which study is worth reporting and which is not. Only bona fide subject experts are qualified to do that, and they do that in reviews. That's why we wait for reviews, and do what they tell us. Doesn't that seem like a good idea to you? Rather than having morons and dreamers (I include myself in that number) deciding what's worth saying about causes and treatments, we do as we're told by smarter, much better informed recognised subject experts. What can you possibly have against that policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd urge you to do a simple google scholar search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&pwst=1&q=mercury+autism&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1333&bih=754&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws ... look at the relationship between exposure to Hg and Autism (i'm not talking about vaccination). What review articles are you pointing to that say that this evidence does not exist? And I'm not an autism expert but someone who has been personally touched by this issues. I have training and experience with reviewing the scientific literature, accurately summarizing it, and publishing it in support of new research. I don't know the truth in this area ..... thats why I come to wikipedia to find. When information is missing I take the time and do the research to add it. It is really disappointing to see people without reading the literature decide what stays and what goes based on their POV. If more folks like you have your way, Wikipedia will become worthless.... thanks for your hard work! --TommyTruth (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We can't work from anything but review articles by recognised experts published in authoritative journals; because it would be in breach of this policy WP:V and this guideline WP:MEDRS. So, even if we wanted to, we couldn't include the material you want, until it is reviewed. That's how Wikipedia is set up. I haven't read the literature you're pointing to because I'm not interested, and I don't read anything I'm not interested in. If it was an authoritative review, I'd definitely go to the trouble for you. But I'm not going to do that for anything less than a review, because it's not going to help with article building until it's reviewed. I appreciate the trouble you've gone to, but you need to appreciate that we just parrot what the authoritative reviews say, here. There is no room at all for us to exercise judgment about the value of individual studies. It's boring but protects the public from me imposing my eccentric enthusiasms on them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with review articles is that there are some for and against: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=mercury+autism+%22review%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C18&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 . And

Primary sources can be used as long as they only describe the conclusions. Since there are no firm rules, it would be stupid not to also include contextual information so that it is meaningful. You should not remove concise summaries (1 to 3 sentences) without discussion .... I don't see how they have replaced this with statements from review articles. They have just chosen to leave the information that they agree with and removed that which they don't. I don't have time to babysit. Go ahead, destroy a great resource with your stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyTruth (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this before, haven't we Tommy? Tommy, I'm pretty fed up with your attitude. I've got things I like to do here. And you're keeping me from it with your refusal to read or inability to understand the policies and guidelines that govern our behaviour, and your implication that ... what, exactly? I'm a shill for big mercury? Is that it? What do you actually think I'm doing here? Working for the lizards? It's not like that, Tommy. The explanation is much less exciting. You don't understand why we're not allowing you to insert your information, because you haven't read or fully understood the policies we've been begging you to read for months now. I'm shunning you. Have a good life. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was offensive. I'm really frustrated but that is no excuse. --TommyTruth (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please go read the policies we have mentioned to you, then perhaps you will see where everyone but you is coming from. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Prenatal Environment, 3RR and 'Medical Hypotheses' journal

Two IPs (perhaps the same user) have added, 3 times, a citation to an article from Medical Hypotheses. I have reverted twice, but do not want to get into 3RR territory. Anyway, I have left edit summaries noting that this journal does not meet WP:MEDRS. Thoughts? Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Medical Hypotheses is a horrible journal with a horrible reputation and I wouldn't call it a WP:RS, much less a WP:MEDRS. The other addition was a primary study that was being used to debunk a review, which is expressly prohibited by MEDRS and so therefore reverted. Yobol (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed for discussion

The "imprinted brain" theory of autism is a related but not identical theory. It is based on the kinship theory of genomic imprinting which argues that in diploid organisms, such as humans, the maternal and paternal set of genes may have antagonistic reproductive interests. An extreme genomic imprinting in favor of paternal genes is argued to cause autism while an extreme genomic imprinting in favor of maternal genes is argued to cause schizoaffective disorders with schizotypal personality disorder being a less severe form that is analogous to Aspberger syndrome. Thus, while people with autism seem to be blind to the intentions of others, people with schizophrenia read too much into situations and see hidden intentions everywhere, causing delusions and paranoia. There are other contrasts such as single-mindedness versus ambivalence. The theory argues that since it is uncertain if a woman's other and future children have and will have the same father, as well as the father generally having lower parental investment, it may be in the father's reproductive interest for a child to maximize usage of the mother's resources while it may be in the mother's interest to limit this in order to have resources for her other and future children. Thus, a genomic imprinting with slight maternal bias would be associated with factors such as decreased suckling, decreased growth, more tractable behavior, and an empathizing and less self-centered personality causing less demands on the mother. A more extreme maternally biased imprinting would predispose to psychosis. The opposite would occur for paternally biased imprinting and autism. Empirical evidence is argued to support these patterns. Also, according to this theory there could be a mismatch and more severe problems when extreme genomic imprinting occurs in the opposite sex, which would explain why female autism (and male psychosis) is often particularly severe, which is a problem for the "extreme male brain" theory which predicts the opposite.

Removed to talk for discussion. First, see WP:MEDRS; a New York Times article discussing a "novel theory" based on "two scientists work" does not meet MEDRS. Further, it's unclear which of this text is cited to what, and whether any of it is based on secondary peer reviewed sources, so discussion and clarification is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition an article in Nature as well as a review was cited. Fulfill all criteria for notability and reliable sources. Miradre (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

• Badcock, C.; Crespi, B. (2008). "Battle of the sexes may set the brain". Nature. 454 (7208): 1054–1055. doi:10.1038/4541054a. PMID 18756240.
• Benedict Carey, In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents’ Genes Are in Competition, The New York Times, November 11, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/health/research/11brain.html
• Crespi, B. (2008). "Genomic imprinting in the development and evolution of psychotic spectrum conditions". Biological Reviews. doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2008.00050.x. Miradre (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, you have restored a claim based on a source that did not mention autism and thus was OR.[17] Miradre (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that the material has been removed again without further discussion here. See the arguments given above. I therefore propose restoring the material. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 07:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This theory has had sufficient exposure in my opinion, to warrant inclusion in this article, and a fuller treatment in its own article. Can you make it a bit shorter and a bit more accessible to the general reader for this article, Miradre? And perhaps use the above as a starting point for a stand-alone article? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Good ideas! A separate article would be better since the theory is also about schizoaffective disorders and not only autism. Would also allow a less compact style which may improve readability. I also agree that a shorter, more accessible summary here would be better. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 08:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

According to surveys like this, [18] which is very recent, there are no definitive findings or theories at present. There seem to be only tentative or speculative primary sources that have not been assimilated by the academic community: in other words there is an absence of proper review articles. That would make writing a wikipedia article on the subject almost impossible. If one of the experts in the field like Simon Baron-Cohen has commented, that might change matters. It might be worth looking for academic reviews of Badcock's 2009 book. "The Imprinted Brain - How Genes Set the Balance Between Autism and Psychosis". I found one here,[19] but it confirms that the theory is in an early and untested stage. Here is another, [20] (from PsycCRITIQUES, Vol 55(24), 2010, doi:10.1037/a0020160) where again the ideas are described as interesting but speculative. Mathsci (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The first is a student journal. As such not a particularly reliable source. Neither does it find the theory to be wrong. Certainly does not invalidate the many other peer-reviewed papers supporting the theory, including literature review papers. I noted one literature review paper above. Likewise, book reviews does not overrule peer-reviewed papers and peer-reviewed literature reviews. Again they do not state that the theory is disproven. No one has said that the theory is proven. But I agree with Anthonyhcole that it has gained enough attention for an article of its own. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 10:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

All theories of autism etiology are flaky and speculative, including this one and all Baron-Cohen's various efforts. In my opinion, there is enough coverage of this one to warrant a stand-alone article summarising it, as well as a short mention here commensurate with its relative youth and lack of stature. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to be using independent secondary reviews to establish WP:weight. Has this been discussed by independent experts in the field of autsim as a notable theory to be discussed? If not, then we should avoid discussion of it. If so, we give it as much weight as experts in the field give it, as documented in secondary independent reviews. Yobol (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

See sources above such as articles in Nature, the NYT, and literature reviews. A Google scholar search gives more than 50 hits: [21] Certainly better sources than almost all of the theories mentioned in this article which often only cites a single dubious source. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 16:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I am writing a draft for an article on the theory. It is still by no mean finished but for example the empirical evidence supporting the theory may be interesting to examine: User:Miradre/sandbox3#Supporting_evidence Miradre (Talk E-mail) 17:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Article created at Imprinted brain theory. Mathsci is proposing it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imprinted brain theory. Miradre (Talk E-mail) 08:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

questionable statements

This article has many questionable statements.

First, heritability of autism being 90% is far from universally accepted. Research into non-genetic causes, such as maternal antibodies to fetal brain, in utero maternal immune activation, autoantibodies to brain in some autistics, make 90% far too high. The usual basis for claiming very high heritability is identical twin concordance, but identical twins were in the same mother at the same time, so they are very likely to be effected by similar in utero effects, assuming the concordance is all due to genetics is not logical. Furthermore, concordance for fraternal twins is MUCH higher than for siblings, which should not be the case if only genetics are the cause.

Heritability of 90% is far from universally accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.137.185 (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

A new study from UCSF and Stanford reported in yesterday's paper has found more environmental than genetic cause for autism over all. This should be included in this article. This study was no surprise to me, note I was talking about 90% heritability being too high here back in February, but really it's been known for a couple of years that 90% was too high. The editors who make this article so bad, who ironically are the most active, kept out all this stuff. They are being proved wrong. Does anyone want to keep defending this stuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.239 (talk) 12:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I just want to follow policy, something you ought to consider. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

---

The first four lines of this article do not live up to the scientific state-of-the-art of 2011.

(1) "Heritability contributes about 90% of the risk of a child developing autism". This claim is based on one study, is not consensus, and at odds with many studies showing that environmental factors are necessary to explain the massive rise in ASD cases, which had a changing point in 1988-1989. See e.g. the recent status report by McDonald, M. E.; Paul, J. F. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 2112-2118. For an overview of the topic of incidence and environmental background, see e.g. Bernard, S.; Enayati, A.; Redwood, L.; Roger, H.; Binstock, T. Med. Hyp. 2001, 56, 462-471.

One of the key candidates is mercury (Hg, incidentally found also in thimoseral) which is well known to be highly neurotoxic. (i) Counter, S. A.; Buchanan, L. H. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2004, 198, 209-230. (ii) Clarkson, T. W.; Magos, L. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 2006, 36, 609-662. (iii) WHO. Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects, Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 50 2003, Geneva.

Several studies published 2008-2011, after the wiki-referenced papers, link Hg to ASD. See e.g.: (i) Geier, D. A.; King, P. G.; Sykes, L. K.; Geier, M. R. Indian J. Med. Res. 2008, 128, 383-411.) (ii) Leslie, K. E.; Koger, S. M. J. Dev. Phys. Disabil. 2011, 23, 313–324. Impaired social behavior has been found in animals subject to Cd and Hg in drinking water: (iii) Curtis, J. T.; Hood, A. N.; Chen, Y.; Cobb, G. P.; Wallace, D. R. Behav. Brain Res. 2010, 213, 42-49.

During pregnancy, Hg(0) vapor penetrates the placenta barrier and damages fetal organs including the brain, as observed in rats. (Yoshida, M.; Satoh, M.; Shimada, A.; Yamamoto, E.; Yasutake, A.; Tohyama, C. Toxicol. 2002, 175, 215-222.)

(2) Regarding the statement in the first four lines of the article: "numerous clinical studies have shown no scientific evidence supporting any link between vaccinations and autism". This is true, but the opposite is also true, and therefore modulation of this sentence is required. See e.g. (i) Blaxill, M. F.; Redwood, Bernard, S. Med. Hyp. 2004, 62, 788-794. (ii) Lewandowski, T. A.; Simeonov, L. I.; Kochubovski, M. V.; Simeonova, B. G. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C 2010, 65-84. (iii) Schultz, S. T. Acta Neurobiol. Exp. 2010, 70, 187-195.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpje (talk • contribs) 14:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

---

I suggest the following addition after the first four lines, to reflect objectivity currently absent:

However, a later, large study from 2008 of 278,624 subjects from the Vaccine Safety Datalink born 1990–1996 showed consistent and significant correlations between incidences of autism spectrum disorders, tics, attention deficit disorder, and emotional disturbances with thimerosal-containg vaccines, and no such correlation in controls.

This is the largest study done, and recent compared to other, old, and one-sided references.

---

--Kpje (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The statement about 90% in the Genetics section is an assertion made by early twin studies, as the statement in the article specifies. The section goes on to explain that that cited assertion may not be accurate. Whether the assertion is currently correct does not matter since the sentence is explaining what the early twin studies had believed. This would be similar to having a statement such as "Many sheltered children who have only ever watched 'The Wizard of Oz' believed flying monkeys existed." Flying monkeys do not exist, but this would be a statement of what these sheltered children would have believed, thus a legitimate statement.

Because of this, I'll remove the "dubious" tag next to the statement in the Genetics section. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Heritability is not the same as genetic

I take issue with this statement:

Early studies of twins estimated heritability to be over 90%, in other words, that genetics explains over 90% of whether a child will develop autism.

Heritability is based on both genetics and environment. CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The very first sentence of heritability defines it as "the proportion of phenotypic variation in a population that is due to genetic variation between individuals", and that's how the term is normally used within science, so there's nothing wrong with that statement. brtkrbzhnv 15:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Heritability screenshot.png Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes and here we have a screenshot from a video. Exactly how is this supposed to improve the article? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a screenshot from a very recent lecture about the genetic causes of autism. This talk page is for "Causes of Autism" and the section title is "Heritability is not the same as genetics." I don't understand where you're question is coming from. What could be more relevant (or legitimate)? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

How about a link to a WP:MEDRS source that does not clutter up the talk page? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe put it in one of those collapse box things you overzealous editors love to use? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no need for WP:SARCASM. I am not overzealous, I am trying to follow policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Neanderthal Admixture Hypothesis

Per WP:TPG this page is for discussion of how to improve the article. Until there are sources discussing autism directly, this is off-topic and should stay collapsed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My only request is that you read before you delete: The Journal of Evolutionary Psychology just published a paper that supports the hypothesis that the confirmed neanderthal admixture event(s) provided cognitive variations that were subsequently selected for, sometimes causing a locus of deleterious recombinations in the genomes of children with parents who selected one another for those characteristics: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09207238.pdf "People on the autism spectrum are conceptualized here as ecologically competent individuals that could have been adept at learning and implementing hunting and gathering skills in the ancestral environment." "The autism continuum could represent a remnant of genetic introgression that took place before humans were the lone species in our genus. Perhaps some of the genes for autism evolved not in our direct ancestral line but in a solitary subspecies which later merged genetically with our line of descent through gene flow." "This article emphasizes that individuals on the autism spectrum may have only been partially solitary, that natural selection may have only favored subclinical autistic traits and that the most severe cases of autism may be due to assortative mating. " "A portion of this complexity and uncertainty arises from the relatively large number of distinct susceptibility genes that have been identified, many of which can be completely absent even in pronounced autism (Freitag, 2007). This genetic heterogeneity may be responsible for the clinical heterogeneity..." "1. isolated pockets of humans can remain reproductively insulated for long enough to evolve discrepant ecological strategies; 2. such populations can quickly (less than 40,000 years in the South American and Asian pygmies; Cavalli-Sforza, 1986) develop features that vary markedly from the norm; 3. these traits can involve multiple genes at different loci; and 4. interbreeding can result in either continuous or polymorphic variation in subsequent generations. It is interesting to note that, as these indigenous people become assimilated into other gene pools, the genes for short stature will persist and may affect phenotypic variability in sporadic and unpredictable ways for a long time to come." "Like other polygenic, continuous traits, the mutations responsible for autism could have been maintained by “environmental heterogeneity,” a form of balancing selection. In other words, the genes responsible for autism may have remained in our gene pool because as social-environmental conditions fluctuated in the past, discrepant genetic polymorphisms, or “multiple alternate alleles,” were favored." Here are some peer reviewed sources that imply a link between the genes garnered via neanderthal admixture and the genes that code for ASDs: Brain development after birth differs between Neanderthals and modern humans (2010, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology) B] "The development of cognitive abilities during individual growth is linked to the maturation of the underlying neural circuitry: in humans, major internal brain reorganization has been documented until adolescence, and even subtle alterations of pre- and perinatal brain development have been linked to changes of the neural wiring pattern that affect behavior and cognition [9]. The uniquely modern human pattern of early brain development is particularly interesting in the light of the recent breakthroughs in the Neanderthal genome project [10], which identified genes relevant to cognition that are derived in living humans. We speculate that a shift away from the ancestral pattern of brain development occurring in early Homo sapiens underlies brain reorganization and that the associated cognitive differences made this growth pattern a target for positive selection in modern humans." A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome "Mutations in CADPS2 have been implicated in autism (67), as have mutations in AUTS2 (68)." Autism, the Integrations of ‘Difference’ and the Origins of Modern Human Behaviour (McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research) The fact that the male side of the admixture(s) was/were strictly neanderthal would mean that we share none of their mtDNA. This explains the lack of mtDNA abnormality and the existence of mitochondrial dysfunction in people with ASDs: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2350/12/50 "the frequent observation of concomitant mitochondrial dysfunction and ASD could be due to nuclear factors influencing mitochondrion functions or to a more complex interplay between the nucleus and the mitochondrion/mtDNA." The neanderthal haplotype described in this 2011 paper is x-linked: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/01/25/molbev.msr024.full.pdf+html The abstract finishes by saying: "It indicates a very early admixture between expanding African migrants and Neandertals prior to or very early on the route of the out-of-Africa expansion that led to the successful colonization of the planet." [On a side note: This could also explain the unique, cyclical pattern of brutal invasion, cultural assimilation, and intermarriage that is so common in the written history of human civilization. Evidence of mostly patrilineal migrations among early AMHs is just coming out: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/24/1100723108 "Ancient DNA reveals male diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean route" (May 2, 2011)] More evidence is cited in this wrongplanet thread: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3696657.html#3696657 Slartibartfastibast (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC) I haven't had a chance to read through everything, but a few comments from the outset: 1) any claims need to be made explicitly by the source to include; in other words, the source must directly make the claim that Neanderthal admixture leads to autism - we can't piece together several articles that make different parts of that claim to make a new claim none of the sources make themselves individually (see WP:SYNTH); 2) any claims made about the causes of autism should be compliant with our guideline on making medical claims - preferably reviews in medical literature, rather than primary (original) articles. I'll look through the material in a few days, but I get the sense we will be having a problem with #1. Yobol (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC) not if you title the section "Archaic Hominid Admixture Hypothesis" Slartibartfastibast (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Someone who believes people with severe autism (or even mild) would make good hunter-gatherer's cannot know much about either autism or hunting-gathering.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Someone who makes a comment like that is either incapable of comprehending the evidence given, or simply didn't take the time to read it. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC) There is absolutely no evidence in the Reser article, only very liberal amounts of speculation. Even as Evolutionary Psychology goes this is poorly argued.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Your scrollbar, use it. There's more evidence immediately below the quotes from the speculative article. There's a great deal more evidence at the wrongplanet thread. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC) That is not evidence it is also speculation - and a completely wrongheaded understanding of what it means when geneticists say that x gene is "implicated in autism" or that it is found in the neanderthal genome. We have one source that autisim might eb an evolutionary adaptation - another source saying for the neanderthal link. There is no reliable source making the Neanderthal - autism link - it is merely SYNTHesis. While the "lone forager hypothesis" is published in a reliable source I don't think the hypothesis has achieved sufficient attention in reliable sources to merit inclusion here. When reliable secondary sources start mentioning it then we can think about adding it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC) That is not a rebuttal it is also silly - and a completely wrongheaded understanding of what is meant by "a remnant of genetic introgression that took place before humans were the lone species in our genus" or "supports the hypothesis." We have one source that directly speculates about an admixture from a relative of homo sapiens - another source saying that we received neanderthal DNA (that regulates cognitive development and immune function) from a sex-asymmetrical, highly bottlenecked admixture. I think the "Archaic Hominid Admixture Hypothesis" might have enough supporting evidence at this point to warrant placement on a page that at one point contained a section that tried to push MMR vaccines as a possible culprit [correction: I meant the "Autism" page, not this one]. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC) What decides whether to include is not the amount of evidence but the amount of attention in reliable sources. The MMR hypothesis generated lots of attention - that is why we have to include that one and describe its current state. The Archaic Homonid Admixture Hypothesis seems to not even have been published in that form, and certainly hasn't generated any significant attention yet. It may yet, then we discuss it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC) Fair enough. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 21:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC) I copied the genes from page 111 of the supplemental pdf for the neanderthal draft sequence to a gene list on autworks: http://tools.autworks.hms.harvard.edu/gene_sets/7035 You can view and manipulate its disease network here: http://tools.autworks.hms.harvard.edu/gene_sets/7035/networks This is a network of relationships between neanderthal genes and 699 genes linked to autism (blue = neanderthal, orange = autism-linked): Mirror: http://i.imgur.com/N5ObG.png It shows 173 genes with 358 interactions (using the lenient settings in the screenshot) The cluster in the bottom left is of genes that code for olfactory receptors. Neanderthals seem to have had smell-related genes that were important. This is the reverse (blue = autism-linked, orange = neanderthal): Mirror: http://i.imgur.com/kBXYM.png It shows 264 genes with 624 interactions (using the lenient settings in the screenshot) PITX3 "is involved in lens formation during eye development." SRD5A2 "catalyzes the conversion of the male sex hormone testosterone into the more potent androgen, dihydrotestosterone." CADPS2 is already implicated in autism. GABRA2 "is the major inhibitory neurotransmitter in the mammalian brain" BDNF "acts on certain neurons of the central nervous system and the peripheral nervous system, helping to support the survival of existing neurons, and encourage the growth and differentiation of new neurons and synapses." ROBO1 "was implicated in communication disorder based on a Finnish pedigree with severe dyslexia. Analyses revealed a translocation had occurred disrupting ROBO1. Study of the phonological memory component of the language acquisition system suggests that ROBO1 polymorphisms are associated with functioning in this system." MY01D codes for the tails of spermatozoa. STK3 "presumably allows cells to resist unfavorable environmental conditions." SND1 "plays an important role in miRNA function" OTX1 "may play a role in brain and sensory organ development" is a "dyslexia susceptibility locus candidate gene" and "is important in neuronal cell development and differentiation" Slartibartfastibast (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC) With some different settings: Mirror: http://i.imgur.com/GhbQ7.png EHBP1 Has a role in insulin regulation: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15247266 The HOXD family seems to have something to do with limb development. FOXP1 "expression patterns in human fetal brain are strikingly similar to those in the songbird, including localization to subcortical structures that function in sensorimotor integration and the control of skilled, coordinated movement" AUTS2 is directly implicated in autism. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC) Figure S34: http://i.imgur.com/S4wgx.png "Selective sweep screen region of top S score. This region of chromosome 7 contains the gene AUTS2. The red line shows the log-ratio of the number of observed Neandertal derived alleles versus the number of expected Neandertal derived alleles, within a 100 kilobase window. Above the panel, in blue is the position of each human polymorphic site. Green indicates polymorphic position where the Neandertal carries derived alleles. The region identified by the selective sweep screen is shown highlighted in pink." From page 121 of the supplemental pdf of the neanderthal draft sequence: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2010/05/05/328.5979.710.DC1/Green_SOM.pdf Slartibartfastibast (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Autism is mentioned at 5:35 in this video from the Max Planck Institute's official YouTube account: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1Nrm-M-m14#t=335s To the fellow who added the "Wikipedia is not a place to discuss your ideas" It's not my idea. I found this in the journal of evolutionary psychology: "The autism continuum could represent a remnant of genetic introgression that took place before humans were the lone species in our genus. Perhaps some of the genes for autism evolved not in our direct ancestral line but in a solitary subspecies which later merged genetically with our line of descent through gene flow." - http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/EP09207238.pdf Slartibartfastibast (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Please read WP:OR and remember, this is not a forum, and finally, don't remove others' talk page comments. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Apologies. I was under the impression I had only removed the strange minimizing bracket that someone had placed here under the false assumption that I was discussing my own ideas. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Also, WP:OR applies to articles. This is a talk page, where I have presented another scientist's opinion published in a peer-reviewed journal, as well as stuff that could be considered supporting evidence.Slartibartfastibast (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Talkpages are for discussing improvemnts to the article, not general forums for discussion. That is why Dbrodbeck assumed you were suggesting to insert the suggestion of neanderthal admixture related to autism in mo0dern populations which is in obvious violation of WP:OR, and therefore cannot be inserted in any form untill published in reliable sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC) The paper from the JEP isn't reliable? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC) THE JEP paper does not even mention the word neanderthal at all - so it can not be used to suggest anything about neanderthal admixture. Furthermore it is basically pure speculation, and a primary source and it would have to be mentioned by other writers in order to qualify for inclusion under WP:UNDUE.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC) From this Guardian article: "Paul Norman, a co-author on the paper, put it like this: 'There's enormous genetic variation in people's immune systems and that can control how different people fight different diseases. This could go some way to explaining why some people are better at fighting some infections than others, but we think it also goes some way to explaining why some people are susceptible to autoimmune diseases...'" "The vast majority of autoimmune diseases have been shown by genome-wide association studies to be associated with particular HLA alleles and we find a couple of those in Denisovans," Norman added. "So it looks to me like modern humans have acquired these alleles, but we weren't kind of prepared for them, we hadn't grown up with them, and in some circumstances, they can start to attack us as well as the viruses and other pathogens." The paper they cite: The Shaping of Modern Human Immune Systems by Multiregional Admixture with Archaic Humans. Mirror. Slartibartfastibast (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC) How many times do I have to explain to you that this has to be mentioned in a secondary source? We have no idea how this relates AT ALL to autism in the eyes of the experts. This is a rather clear case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is becoming quite disruptive. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Disruptive? How so? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Talk pages are for discussion of how to improve the article, not about a general discussion on the topic. Until secondary sources tie this particular theory to autism, it has no place on this talk page. I will collapse this section as inappropriate for the talk page, which can be reversed once appropriate secondary sources are found. Yobol (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep this list updated:

Legitimate source(s) that propose hominid admixture is behind autism:

• Journal of Evolutionary Psychology
• Hominins and the Emergence of the Modern Human Brain (Jan 2012)

Autism, a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impaired social interaction for which a clinical definition is ongoing. is referenced in studies of fossil hominin brain structure and function, either as an analogy for developmental differences between closely related species or as a potentially atavistic indication of actual primitive phenotypes. For example, an autistic child lacking language created naturalistic artwork much like that from the Upper Paleolithic, on the basis of which it was suggested that fAMHS could have also lacked fully modern cognition (Humphrey. 1998). Slartibartfastibast (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-legitimate source(s) that propose hominid admixture is behind autism:

• Autism-news.org
• Doctorslounge.com
• Healthguideinfo.com
• "Congratulations, It's Asperger Syndrome" (chapter 7)

Sources that mention neanderthal genes implicated in autism (via mutation or otherwise):

• Discover Magazine Blogs - Gene Expression

"There are some interesting tantalizing clues littered about; some genes implicated in autism seem to exhibit Neandertal vs. modern human differences (with the Neandertals carrying the autism-implicated variants)." Note: Razib Khan’s degrees are in biochemistry and biology.

• A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome

"Mutations in CADPS2 have been implicated in autism (67), as have mutations in AUTS2 (68)."

• io9 - It’s Official: Some Of You Are Human-Neandertal Hybrid Babies

"Below, you can see some of the genes that differ between Homo sapiens and Neandertal - several are connected with cognition (such as the genes associated with autism, schizophrenia and Down syndrome). "

Slartibartfastibast (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a recent paper that presents evidence that Neanderthals may be "the ancestral source for bipolar vulnerability genes (susceptibility alleles)":

• Evolutionary origin of bipolar disorder-revised: EOBD-R

Slartibartfastibast (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

MEdical Hypotheses is not a reliable source per WP:MEDRS. The paper also clearly does not claim to present evidence but to present an hypothesis that can be falsified by evidence.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We need more than guesswork and speculation. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The causes of Autism are unknown. Hence, this entire article consists of speculation (or fact-based syntheses that terminate in speculation). Why isn't the journal "Progress in Brain Research" a reputable source? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

New Study from UCSF/Stanford shows much less role for genetics in Autism

A new study from USCF and Stanford shows much less role for genetics in autism than previously thought. This study should be included in "Causes of Autism" and "Autism" both. Does anyone object to it? The basic conclusion of the study is environmental factors, rather than genetic, are more important on average in causing autism. The main basis for this study was fraternal twin concordance which is much higher than sibling concordance, which should not be the case if autism is mostly genetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.239 (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the study: "Genetic Heritability and Shared Environmental Factors Among Twin Pairs With Autism" Slartibartfastibast (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that environment plays a significant role: "A large proportion of the variance in liability can be explained by shared environmental factors (55%; 95% CI, 9%-81% for autism and 58%; 95% CI, 30%-80% for ASD) in addition to moderate genetic heritability (37%; 95% CI, 8%-84% for autism and 38%; 95% CI, 14%-67% for ASD)." Slartibartfastibast (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed over at Talk:Autism and that is an article that I figure more people watch, so let us continue the discussion there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be fine not to discuss this issue here, if this article did not claim "90% heritability" but it does, so discussion on this page is warranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.122.111 (talk) 13:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hygiene Hypothesis

Should this article be linked to the article on Hygiene Hypothesis? I am guessing this would fall under the postnatal category.

Wyvern t (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Opiate Theory Section Contradition

In the Opiate Theory section, it begins with: "A recent theory which has gained some recent traction [...]", but the section ends with "It is important to note, however, that this theory has yet to be scientifically validated, and at this point remains largely speculative." This section thus appears to be self-contradictory (unless "traction" refers to 'people on the street' — which I have not yet seen). "[...] which has gained some recent traction [...]" has already been marked with a cite-needed tag, but considering the self-contradiction, can we accelerate the removal of this phrase? At the very least, we can remove the word "recent" in this phrase because it is mostly redundant with the beginning of the sentence: "A recent theory [...]" — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

It was poorly written, unsourced and contradictory, and now, it is deleted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I hate just outright deleting other peoples' work, so I just added the "improve" and CN templates and moved it down the list. It may be worthy of restoring (the topic, not the writing) if there is some kind of reliable reference material to cite.Wyvern t (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, without a WP:MEDRS citation I don't see how we can keep it.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for removing it. This isn't my area of expertise, so I took the strongest action I felt appropriate.--Wyvern t (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I wrote it. Poor wording on my part. I've taken some of the ambiguities out and re-added the section. The "traction" comment did indeed refer to discussions within the autism community, and not peer-reviewed research. The last line is the important one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.184.64 (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it untill it can be sourced with reliable sources that conform to WP:MEDRS.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The material keeps getting re added. I have asked the IP to bring it here for discussion, to no avail. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

IP has been reported to 3RR noticeboard. I have never done that before, so I hope I did it properly... Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm right here. And, I re-wrote the section. And made it MEDRS-compliant. And, you still removed it. As someone else has pointed out to you already, it's up to the reader to weigh the validity of theory, not you. If you have a disagreement with it, I suggest you start a different page and vent there, rather that continually reject a valid theory no matter how many times it's been submitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.214.16 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

We still need a consensus to add the section. Per WP:BRD it should be removed and discussed before it is added. No it is not up to the reader to assess it, it is up to experts to do that. I have not been venting, I suggest you learn how things work here, and read some policy. If you are that same IP that was blocked for edit warring, if you keep this up, it will happen again, and the block will likely be longer. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, Opioid Theory/Opioid Excess Theory is not equivalent to Leaky Gut. Leaky Gut infers a problem with increased permiability in the digestive tract, allowing substances that would not otherwise enter the bloodstream to do so. Opioid Excess Theory applies to children with autism regardless of digestive issues. If anything, the Leaky Gut section should be edited somewhat to reflect that fact. Again, please read the articles tagged in the Opioid Theory section, which should make the differences very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.214.16 (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and the edit summary about supposed 'POV bias' is uncalled for, as we are simply following policy. I await other editors' opinions. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have briefly reviewed the sources and I feel satisfied that they comply with MEDRS and that the proposed addition adequately summarises their viewpoint - namely that while there are some studies that find supportive evidence more and better studies ae required. I think it is clear from these sources that the theory exists and is notable enough to include with a secion in the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I only have access to the abstracts right now. However, they are both reviews for sure. One of them mentions the opiate theory for sure. If we have reviews talking about more evidence needed I think that needs to be a touch clearer in any proposed addition, rather than what is currently proposed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Well lets just remember that we have the "rain theory" included as well so we're clearly not iming only at plausible theories.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Point taken.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Somebody mind briefly explaining why a "consensus" is required, for a section having to do with theory? ...a theory with a consensus ceaases to be a theory.

A consensus on the talkpage that inclusion is warranted - not a consensus in favour of the validity of the theory.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be the only one in disagreement with its inclusion. The theory has been around for years, and certainly meets the criteria for presentation here given the acceptance of other far less probable theories, as Dbrodbeck points out.

Long story short, there are a grand total of two sentences in the section, both of which have MEDRS-compliant references. If you find one or the other sentence lacking in some fashion, propose an edit, not the withdrawl of the entire section. If you wish, I'll be happy to augment it to your satisfaction, with even more references, or provide you a list of professionals in the field which can directly validate it as being an ongoing area of clinical research. I should know; my entire family participated in a research study at SAARC in Phoenix/Scottsdale about a year and a half ago that required a week-long series of genetic tests, urinalysis, interviews, and behavioral assesments galore. Cheek swabs for everyone, including my wife and I.

Alternately, if you want to argue Opiate Theory's inclusion based on plausibility versus consensus, then I suggest you remove the sections on Vaccines/Mercury/Thimerosal first. After all, this is something that's been shown conclusively in no less than 44 separate studies spanning over a decade is enough by the American Academy of Pediatrics show absolutely no link between the two. At that point, you might as well be arguing that the earth is flat.

Please do not just revert until we have a wording worked out. Please self revert on the reversion you just did. You have already been blocked once for edit warring. Please read WP:3RR. Wait until we have a wording, and a consensus. Oh, and please sign your posts. Finally, you might consider registering an account if you are using two different IPs. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Heterosis

From the Oxford Handbook of School Psychology:

"As stated previously, such a change could, according to Mingroni (2004), have a disproportionate effect on rare alleles, in that "even a small demographic change could have a very large effect on the phenotype under certain conditions" (p. 74). "On the basis of the assumptions underlying heterosis as a tenable cause for secular changes in many human traits, Mingroni's prediction that children who are more heterozygous than their parents should evidence higher intergenerational IQs" (Kehle et al, 2004. p.864), but would also evidence higher incidences of myopia, asthma, autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety, mood disorders, and aggression, along with all other heritable physical and psychological traits that are expressions of dominant alleles. "Whereas children who are less heterozygous than their parents should evidence a mean intergenerational decline in IQ, and supposedly other heritable traits with recessive alleles" (Kehle et al, 2004, p. 864).

As Mingroni (2004) has argued, there is no compelling environmental explanation for any one of these changes in several highly heritable physical and psychological traits, other than the occurrence of broad-based genetic change afforded through heterosis. "In scientific investigation, incorrect assumptions that go unquestioned are often a greater impediment to progress than frankly admitted ignorance" (Mingroni, p. 70"

This hypothesis has appeared in published papers as well as the above textbook, which is apparently a "state-of-the-art, authoritative resource for practitioners, researchers, and parents." Can I safely assume that this means it's not fringe? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Unified theory for sporadic and inherited Autism

Found this while looking at other stuff. I don't know if this information or source is already in the article so I'm putting it here for people who care about the autism article to either add if helpful or delete from Talk if it has already been addressed. It's an article that mentions a published study.

Article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070724113757.htm

"New Model For Autism Suggests Women Carry The Disorder And Explains Age As A Risk Factor"

Study mentioned:
"The full citation of the paper published in the July 31, 2007 print edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is:

"A unified theory for sporadic and inherited autism," by Xiaoyue Zhao, Anthony Leotta, Vlad Kustanovich, Clara Lajonchere, Daniel H. Geschwind, Kiely Law, Paul Law, Shanping Qiu, Catherine Lord, Jonathan Sebat, Kenny Ye and Michael Wigler.

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation and utilized databases from the Autistic Resource Exchange (AGRE) Consortium, the University of Michigan, and the Interactive Autism Network (IAN). IAN is an on-line national autism registry and database launched in April by the Kennedy Krieger Institute."

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

POSSIBLE link between autism and ultrasound.

In the clinic where my wife works, pregnant women are now being routinely cautioned that ultrasounds of the foetus are suspected of contributing to a number of neurodevelopmental disorders including autism. Routine ultrasounds that are strictly unnecessary are being discouraged. It is well-established that the high-frequency focussed soundwaves of an therapeutic ultrasound cause significant localised internal heating. It is now suspected that even the much lower "volume" of a diagnostic ultrasound can cause significant heating, albeit much much lower, but still very localised. If that localised heating happens in the foetal brain, it can cause damage. And being low-level, the mother will be totally unaware of any temperature rise. Certainly not proven or disproven, but enough of a suspicion exists for it to be taken seriously. 101.161.177.192 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To consider including this, we would need reliable sources, in this case meeting WP:MEDRS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we must have quality sources. The worst part of that first post is the words "...are suspected of..." Suspected by whom? We probably have a medical clinic being ultra-cautious. Possibly very wise in a world keen on litigation. But that clinic's caution is evidence of nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My wife is not privy to the reasons behind the clinic's executive decisions, nor to the information that led to them. But it seems to me that to some extent HiLo48 has got the argument the wrong way around. The clinic did not spontaneously and in vacuo decide on this policy. Rather, some sort of evidence came first, on which basis the decision was made. But having said that, yes, it would be nice to look at exactly what this evidence was. 121.218.34.108 (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

In May of this year (2012), John Elder Robison weighed in on this topic from IMFAR 2012 with http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/my-life-aspergers/201205/ultrasound-and-autism-connection. An interesting new (to me at least) causative possibility. Let's hope an MEDRS-compliant source publishes something of merit on this topic in the very near future. JimScott (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

On www.ultrasound-autism.org you will find a discussion of the evidence as well as links to scientific papers and articles. Theories are that the developing brain is damaged by heat unexpectedly generated or by the actual vibration. Brain cells form in one area and migrate into position. Introducing vibration seems a risky act. As to heat, the babies of mothers who have a significant fever during gestation are 3 times more likely to be autistic. While scans with calibrated devices that follow exposure guidelines may be safe, surveys show the devices to be frequently out of calibration and operators to be ignorant of safety issues. Photo studios make ultrasound photos and videos for parents. Used scanners are sold on eBay. The potential for random overexposure is high. Research moves slow and the financial ramifications are enormous - but if prenatal ultrasound is the main cause, the epidemic can be stopped immediately.ParrishH (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Please present a WP:MEDRS source if you would like this included. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Genetics

This article systematically downplays genetics as causation.

Why? see: Heritability of autism

see: Epidemiology of autism on co-morbidity,

quote:

Several metabolic defects, such as phenylketonuria, are associated with autistic symptoms. Minor physical anomalies are significantly increased in the autistic population.

endquote

If ultrasound were causing autism, think what else it would be causing since its introduction ... and its strong correlation with uterine and cervical cancer is where ? Abdominal skin cancer in post-parous mothers? Diseases in the operators of the devices? Perhaps we should focus on micro-wave ovens and the increased reports of autism since the introduction of hula hoops.

142.167.191.229 (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_autism#Genetics Perhaps you missed that bit. Plus, the stuff on ultrasound is not in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The mechanism by which ultrasound is accused to contribute to autism is because of its focused "microheating". So unlike say X-rays, it acts more on a tissue rather than a cellular or even sub-cellular level. So would you still therefore expect it to contribute to cancers? And being focussed and therefore very short-range you would not expect to see it causing diseases in operators.

None of this is "proof", of course, but then the statement above is not a disproof either 121.218.34.108 (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

We deal with sources, not speculation. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Most common likely single cause of autism is maternal antibodies to fetal brain

Roughly 15% of the mothers of autistics have antibodies to fetal brain in patterns not found in typicallly developing children.

This information should be in the article. It's very valuable for mothers of one autistic child, as they could be tested for the antibody before beginning another pregnancy.

Pediatric Bioscience is working on developing and commercially marketing a test.

All this info shouild be in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.129.155 (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

See same discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else wanted to know what "unsigned is talking about", two articles from a quick Google:

· http://blog.autismspeaks.org/2010/04/19/dan-van-de-water/

· http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/viewpoint/2012/maternal-anti-brain-antibodies-may-play-a-role-in-autism

JimScott (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Those are not secondary reviews that meet WP:MEDRS; one is an advocacy organization blog, and the other is news and opinion. This discussion has already been had at Talk:Autism (see here) and will no longer be entertained here unless reliable secondary reviews are provided. Further posts that do not provide a secondary review article that meets WP:MEDRS and is independent from the source, or that repeat discussion that has been held for almost four years, will be deleted per this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Throw it down the memory hole if you must Sandy, but in fact Wikipedia rules do not prohibit primary sources. As far as sources go, this work has been published in the Proceeding of the National Acadamy of Science, so while those two links above might not meet Wikipedia standards, the work itself was good enough for the editors of PNAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.130.19 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not very good at this but I am going to cut and paste several paper titles from listingsin Pubmed.gov where the findings where the maternal antibodies were correlated with autism. As far as I know, there are NO papers refuting these findings. Although I cna not read all papers found, if they had found to the contrary it would say so in the abstract typically.

Since primary sources ARE allowed when not contradicted by secondary sources these are all allowed. Since the article contains mention of several theories with far less evidence (one or two papers instead of around a dozen) there is no reason to keep this out.

Biol Psychiatry. 2008 Oct 1;64(7):583-8. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.05.006. Epub 2008 Jun 20. Maternal mid-pregnancy autoantibodies to fetal brain protein: the early markers for autism study.

J Neuroimmunol. 2008 Feb;194(1-2):165-72. Epub 2008 Feb 21. Antibodies against fetal brain in sera of mothers with autistic children.

xicology. 2008 Mar;29(2):226-31. Epub 2007 Nov 6. Autism: maternally derived antibodies specific for fetal brain proteins. Braunschweig D, Ashwood P, Krakowiak P, Hertz-Picciotto I, Hansen R, Croen LA, Pessah IN, Van de Water J. Source Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Clinical Immunology, University of California at Davis, CA, USA. Brain Behav Immun. 2007 Mar;21(3):351-7. Epub 2006 Oct 6. Maternal antibrain antibodies in autism. Zimmerman AW, Connors SL, Matteson KJ, Lee LC, Singer HS, Castaneda JA, Pearce DA. Source Department of Neurology and Developmental Medicine, Kennedy Krieger Institute, 707 North Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA. Ann Neurol. 2003 Apr;53(4):533-7. Maternal neuronal antibodies associated with autism and a language disorder. Dalton P, Deacon R, Blamire A, Pike M, McKinlay I, Stein J, Styles P, Vincent A. Source Neurosciences Group, Department of Clinical Neurology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1990 Nov;29(6):873-7. Detection of maternal antibodies in infantile autism. Warren RP, Cole P, Odell JD, Pingree CB, Warren WL, White E, Yonk J, Singh VK. Source Developmental Center for Handicapped Persons, Utah State University, Logan 84322. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.130.19 (talk • contribs)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism/FAQ and stop spamming. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Professor Brodbeck: I have brought in for discussion, in an article entitled "Causes of Autisnm" which already contatins theories for causes of autism for which far less peer reviewed research can be found in support, papers which have nverr been cited before directly, or if they were are not in the current "Talk" session, and which meet the criteria for sources, as long as the caveats for primary sources are followed. How is that "spamming"? I really don't understand that. Because there are so MANY papers in support? I would like to point out, the papers are from peer reviewed journals with fiarly high impact factors by researchers at Oxford, Johns Hopkins, and UC Davis MIND Institute, and coauthored in some case by the Past President of INSAR, International Society for Autism Research which is by far the largest organization of scientists doing autism research. Certainly this theory should be included in an article which already includes many theories for which there is only one source cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.132.77 (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please go read this, again, and stop your disruptive editing. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=529496007#Persistent_dynamic_IP_at_Talk:Autism Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

This article includes many theories, presented as theories, with only one primary citation. Go check the links, some are reviews, many are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.132.77 (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Here is the abstract of a review paper on this subject with the citation:

Dev Neurobiol. 2012 Oct;72(10):1327-34. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22052. Epub 2012 Sep 4.

Maternal and fetal antibrain antibodies in development and disease.

Fox E, Amaral D, Van de Water J.

Source

Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, California 95616, USA.

Abstract

Recent evidence has emerged indicating that the maternal immune response can have a substantial deleterious impact on prenatal development (Croen et al., [2008]: Biol Psychiatry 64:583-588). The maternal immune response is largely sequestered from the fetus. Maternal antibodies, specifically immunoglobulin G (IgG), are passed to the fetus to provide passive immunity throughout much of pregnancy. However, both protective and pathogenic autoantibodies have equal access to the fetus (Goines and Van de Water [2010]: Curr Opin Neurol 23:111-117). If the mother has an underlying autoimmune disease or has reactivity to fetal antigens, autoantibodies produced before or during pregnancy can target tissues in the developing fetus. One such tissue is the fetal brain. The blood brainbarrier (BBB) is developing during the fetal period allowing maternal antibodies to have direct access to the brain during gestation (Diamond et al. [2009]: Nat Rev Immunol; Braunschweig et al. [2011]; Neurotoxicology 29:226-231). It has been proposed that brain injury by circulating brain-specific maternal autoantibodies might underlie multiple congenital, developmental disorders (Lee et al. [2009]: Nat Med 15:91-96). In this review, we will discuss the current state of research in the area of maternal autoantibodies and the development of autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.132.77 (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

One more quote from a review paper in BMC Pediatrics 2012 July 2:::

"The presence of circulating auto-antibodies against fetal brain proteins in mothers is associated with higher risk of autism and suggests disruption of the blood-brain-barrier (BBB). "

So, that is a review paper endorsing this theory pretty clearly, in as definite a tone as you get with the many other causes suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.132.77 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT UPDATE ::

A presentation at the INSAR annual meeting in 2012 in Toronto indicates the four most important targets of maternal antibodies to fetal brain have been identified. I have cut and pasted a summary of the paper below:

Background: Previous observations of fetal-brain reactive maternal IgG antibodies in a subset of mothers of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and an association between presence of these antibodies and severe behavioral manifestations led us to undertake identification of the protein targets of these antibodies. Fetal exposure during gestation to brain-reactive maternal IgG may be the underlying cause of the behavioral symptoms noted in some ASD cases and unraveling the molecular interactions between these antibodies and their targets may open new avenues for treatment and prevention. Objectives: The focus of this project was to identify the molecular targets of ASD associated, fetal-brain reactive maternal IgG antibodies.

Methods: A protein extract derived from fetal Rhesus macaque brain (152 day gestation) was fractionated by molecular weight and individual fractions were probed with diluted plasma from mothers of children with ASD. Fractions containing antigenic proteins were subjected to duplicate 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis, with one gel being transferred to nitrocellulose and probed with diluted maternal plasma to pinpoint the antigen location, and the other used for spot picking and tandem MS/MS analysis. Verification of mass spectrometric results was carried out using commercially available purified or recombinant proteins, and further confirmed using blocking studies. Reactivity to the identified protein antigens was determined in a sample of 169 mothers of children with ASD and 149 mothers of typically developing children.

Results: Four proteins were identified and confirmed to be the primary antigenic targets of ASD-associated maternal IgG. The 37kDa antigen is an essential metabolic enzyme with well characterized functions in neurogenesis. The 39kDa antigen is an enzyme known to regulate post-synaptic targeting. Two proteins were identified as 73kDa antigens – one that is critical for neuronal growth cone collapse and another that functions as a chaperone for several heat-shock proteins. Confirmed reactivity to the 37kDa and both of the 73kDa proteins is observed exclusively among mothers of children with ASD with a prevalence of approximately 8%, yielding an odds ratio of 26 (95% CI: 1.5-438)

Conclusions: Maternal IgG reactivity to the protein antigens identified in this study constitutes the most significant biomarker of ASD risk identified to date. In our study sample, reactivity to the 37kDa and 73kDa proteins was observed in approximately 8% of mothers of children with ASD and absent in mothers of typically developing children yielding a highly significant association with ASD (p=0.0003). Furthermore, previous findings from our group and others indicate that such maternal antibodies are often present during pregnancy, supporting the hypothesis that they could play a causal role in precipitating the behavioral outcomes noted in some cases of ASD.

THis is copy and pasted directly from [22] which is a copyright violation as far as I can tell. Anyway, note 'Abstract Withdrawn' and the fact that this is not a peer reviewed journal article or secondary source, it is a withdrawn conference presentation. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure you are right about this. If the presentation was withdrawn, why is it on the INSAR web page? Wouldn't it be taken down from that?

As to the "secondary source" objection, are you claiming only secondary sources are allowe? '

Finally, what is your basis for claiming a copyright violation? And who is the victim, INSAR, or the original presentor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You cannot copy and paste stuff. both the website and the author own it I imagine. It actually says 'Abstract Withdrawn', I do not see how this could be any clearer. Conference presentations, especially ones that were not given, would hardly be good sources, you might want to read WP:WEIGHT. We have a review that we may be able to use, but this is not useful, not at all. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly it sounds like you don't know what this phrase "Abstract Withdrawn" means for sure. You assume it means someone was going to make a presentation and cancelled it in some way, but you don't know that.

It also sounds like you assume there is a "copyright violation" when there is no clear indication anyone sought or wanted copyright protection for this. Of course it can be paraphrased.

Finally, you don't answer the question about secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

'Abstract withdrawn' would mean what else then? Copying and pasting from a website to here is forbidden, see WP:COPYVIO. Also, read WP:UNDUE. You really ought to learn how this place works, you know after the 3 or so years you have been pushing this stuff you would think you would have read the odd policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Given that after all those years the IP still hasn't learned to sign their post which is something most editors understand after, like, 2 edits. I wouldn't bet a lot of money on their ability to read and understand the most basic guideline, let alone following it.--McSly (talk) 03:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the history and the ANI thread on this and I support simply rolling back the IP's postings without comment, as proposed at that thread. If it continues beyond our patience we can request a ban and possibly technical measures such as an edit filter to minimize the disruption. Zad68 03:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there any rational objection to the maternal antibody related autism theory being included?

Collapse per SOAP, NPA, and AGF violations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Within this section I've included the links to a few papers on certain maternal antibodies to fetal brain proteins being very highly linked to autism. Between 10 and 20 % of mothers of autistic children have the antibodies, they are practically unknown among mothers of typically developing controls. The p values for this are very high according to the published papers. The objection to this was the papers are primary sources not secondary sources. As I've pointed out again and again, primary sources are not allowed. I've also pointed out a leader in the research is a very respected scientist who was President of INSAR and it's been confirmed by more than two respected institutions, Kennedy Krieger in Baltimore and UCDavis MIND Institute in California, have lead the way I think it's fair to say but researchers at Imperial College and I think Washington U have also backed it up. There is nothing in any of these primary papers which refutes any secondary source as far as I know. None of the requested edit violates any Wikipedia rule, but if the edit is made it gets reverted. It seems like a power trip some editors are on. They either think the rules should be different, and are enforcing them as they wanted them to be, or just don't want anyone else to get to say anything. Can I please put the edits in so people with one autistic child will understand the high risk their next kid will be autistic if the mother has the antibodies? Or if no one cares about that, just let the edits be made because they are allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.220.215 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Go read this again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=529496007#Persistent_dynamic_IP_at_Talk:Autism and stop attacking other editors, as you did here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADbrodbeck&diff=549519676&oldid=549518927 Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Can you please answer the question? Again, the question is, is there any reason to not include the maternal antibody theory of autism? Let's break this down: 1. Does this info somehow not qualify under Wikipedia rules? Answer: No, it's allowed, primary sources are allowed but not all the papers are primary, some are reviews. 2. Is a primary source being used to rebut a secondary source? No, there is no secondary source disputing these findings. 3. Is the edit of some substantial value to the article? Yes. This requires some knowledge of the subject matter. If you look at genetic causes for example, the most common proven genetic causes of autism only account for about 2% of all cases (FMRP for example). This cause is suspected of accounting for over 10% of all cases. Please, if you are acting in good faith, give me a real objection to this. The links for it are already contained in the other post. Can you give any real valid reason for not including it? Did you SEE the rest of this article and some of the theories mentioned which have basically no body of literature in support? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.96 (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Go read that ANI thread about you again and stop trying to sell this stuff. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC) But I've got new references. The objection was lack of secondary sources, which for the umpteenth time, are NOT forbidden, but I've included links to secondary sources now. You don't really care about the rules, do you? It's all about control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Please provide a link to the paper you are talking about, do you mean the Fox et al (2012) paper? Also, please redact the bullshit about this being about control, I have had enough of this crap (by 'this crap' I mean these constant violations of WP:AGF not the theory, which might be just fine). Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC) A quote from page 1332 of the article in question "What cannot be demonstrated in the human subjects is whether these antibodies cause autism. To marshal support in favor of this hypothe- sis, it is necessary to move to experimental animal studies". It is early days in this, according to this one review. I would like to see what others think besides our IP. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC) No need to curse at me. It just seems to me there are many parts of this article you should remove if you are primarily concerned with following the rules you have made for yourself, which are not Wikipedia rules in any case. The quote you gave from Fox et al is not saying the theory is in doubt, just that t you can't experiment on humans to prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Please go read WP:AGF and stop violating it NOW. I have made no 'rules for myself'. I was talking about your bullshit accusations, you can take them and leave any time. If you have a problem with my behaviour take it to a noticeboard. I am following policy, you are a POV pusher. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I DID assume good faith, but you and several other editors proved that assumption was not warranted. Let's see if you are capable of good faith right now --- are primary sources allowed in a medical article? If you say no, then support that. If you say yes, then why are you telling people in other Talk sections to not use primary, and implying those are the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.245.46.174 (talk) 13:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Pyrethrin

The article currently states, "It has been suggested that exposure during pregnancy to pyrethrin, a common ingredient in antiflea and antitick pet shampoos, can cause autism in the child. One retrospective study suggesting an association has been conducted, but has not been published." If there is only one study that has been conducted and it has never been published, I don't think there is sufficient evidence to include this. It seems to violate WP:MEDRS. Also, there is a discrepancy between the statement that the study finds an "association", but the previous statement uses the term "cause". Association and cause are two very different concepts which seem to be conflated here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and removed that section, as well as others sourced to non MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As you please ...

As per your request I am here on the Talk page. I was merely expanding on a known side-effect of inclement weather resulting in increased time spent indoors in front of the "boob-toob", video games and other related electronic distractions and the resulting POSSIBLE link to SOME Autism reports in very young children? Your first objection, that the reference did not contain the actual word, Autism, was ... well, specious IMHO but in an attempt to assuage your buzz word checker, I reverted the deletion and included the Scientific American page that _is_ discussing Autism and _does_ contain the aforementioned link; ergo the connection was more clearly made. So, what seems to be the problem now? :-) JimScott (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please find a MEDRS compliant source. Your original source did not include the word autism, so it was of no use here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Argh! WIA. I assume from your acronym you would prefer the the American Academy of Pediatrics (Illinois) publication on the subject? What is the next step? Do you revert the reverted revert and then change the references? Or is that process up to me? Does the inclusion of the pediatric publication allow one to include the Scientific American article link (since it actually discusses the weather and possible connections thereto)? Once one enters the jargon jungle and acronym alleys it becomes difficult to determine the appropriate way to state the simple in convoluted manner. :-) JimScott (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

That link does not mention the word autism. As for Scientific American, please read WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow. An article discussing Autism mentions a possible link between communications issues (a well known feature of Autism) and early exposure to electronic media. That article specifically lists a source documenting same. That same source is widely used in a published article from American Academy of Pediatrics on the exact same topic. But the buzz word filter fails so this _possible_ connection between weather patterns and a _possible_ causative for Autism can never be listed on the pages of Wikipedia. But the BBC article about rain causing Autism via genetics can stay. Wow. And to think our biggest arguments used to be over POV. LoL. Back to your consoles, children. Nothing to see here. 8-) (those are my eyes rolling back in my head FYI) JimScott (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to disappoint you. The link you provided does not mention autism. I am just stating a fact, there is no need for the whining, and no need for calling anyone a child. Please read WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure he did that, I think you have misinterpreted his post. I would like to point out, the rules for exclusion have often been misstated by Mr. Rodbeck and others who simply seem to feel they should be different. I am not weighing in on this issue which I don't fully understand, some of the discussion seems to be missing, but a lot of content which is very informative and completely 'legal" is removed by the same cadre of people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.86.10 (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Back to your consoles children" seems pretty clear to me. Again, THERE IS NO MENTION OF AUTISM IN THE LINK HE ADDED. Oh and I have no idea who in the hell Mr. Rodbeck is. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted that phrase. To me, it sounds like "there's nothing to see here folks" of course said sarcastically. Not that YOU are the child, or anyone is, just that you are treating readers like children by denying them what he thinks is good information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.86.208 (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh so it is insulting in another way then, how lovely. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I have redacted a section heading here which unnecessarily singles out one editor; please read Wikipedia talk page guidelines and avoid personalizing discussions. Also, please use WP:MEDRS compliant sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

A significant aspect of Autism (communication issues) was discussed in a Scientific American article (MEDRS-compliant under Popular Press, paragraph 3) which included, as a supporting device, a reference to a study involving communication issues caused by excessive media exposure, published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (MEDRS-compliant under Biomedical Journals). Ergo one might be led to think that MEDRS requirements have been met. Dr. Brodbeck kept mentioning MEDRS but these two sources seem to fit MEDRS criteria. Thus we are left with the "it doesn't mention Autism" argument. The original article discusses a specific, possible trigger for a well-documented aspect of Autism: communication issues. The article then references a study that correlates a specific mechanism (excessive media exposure) and communication issues. In other words, we have a MEDRS-compliant source discussing Autism and citing the work of another MEDRS-compliant source in support of their conclusion. Why Dr. Brodbeck continues to object is not entirely clear to me. The primary source is about Autism. The connective element (excessive media exposure) is clearly identified in both sources. Is there a neutral party assignable to review and rule upon these kinds of issues, or is it just up to whichever combatant :p has the most accolades (ergo, editorial clout)? P.S. There are plenty of AGF and PDNBTN issues earlier in this discussion and I apologize for my exacerbating contributions. JimScott (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The article is not about autism. If you want a second opinion as to whether it can be used as a reliable source for this article on autism, you can raise that question at WP:RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Maternal trans fat consumption link?

Has anyone else heard about a link between trans fats consumption and autism babies? Seems to make sense on the basis of brain cell membrane formation etc. If this is true, then the current phasing out of trans fats in most countries (interestingly not in Japan which has the highest rate of new autism diagnoses) will correct the problem with no further regulatory action.

I can't find much published evidence on this, but I'm still looking, so I'd appreciate anyone's opinions. Stepford chemist (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)