Talk:Autism/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi there, I'd like to get in charge of translating this purpose that interests me that much. To keep our use efficient, i'm just trying to brief. By the way, I'm not aware of the process to figure out my project. Anyway, I'm up to. Regards ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambi 13 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I haven't understood what you just said. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe he was offering to make a French page correlating to this one. He didn't want to make the entire thing, just key parts. -- Homo Logica (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The article asserts: "It is distinguished not by a single symptom, but by a characteristic triad of symptoms: impairments in social interaction; impairments in communication; and restricted interests and repetitive behavior." According to my count, this is a quartet, not a triad. Lestrade (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

1) impairments in social interaction; 2) impairments in communication; 3) restricted interests and repetitive behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

"Restricted interests" is one category. "Repetitive behavior" is an other, separate, category. A person can have one without the other. Can you visualize a person having restrictive interests without having repetitive behavior, or vice versa?Lestrade (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

It is my understanding that the sources group them as an either/or third category for diagnosis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Tant pis. That certainly is a mysterious disjunction and mutual exclusion. It asserts that if a person has restricted interests, he cannot, under any circumstances, have repetitive behavior, and vice versa. A hard nut to crack, eh wot?Lestrade (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Lestrade

I believe she meant 'inclusive or', not 'exclusive or'. By the way you dont have to put your name after your sig, the sig itself contains the name. —Soap— 16:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not they are together or separate that is not the problem. Plus, according to the DSM-IV 5 website, which is to be updated in 2012, Social communication will be together and the repetitive and restricted interests will also be together, narrowing down to two symptoms. ATC ^{. Talk} 03:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a way we could reword in the lead (as already mentioned in the body) and write that most autistic children also have a

The article says "Sensory abnormalities are found in over 90% of those with autism, and are considered core features by some, although there is no good evidence that sensory symptoms differentiate autism from other developmental disorders." As it is not a distinguishing feature, is it appropriate for the lead? I don't know. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

After the lead says "Restricted and repetitive behavior." I'm thinking with the source in the article (regarding sensory abnormalities), I could write: "An inability to process different

sensory stimuli is sometimes noted a core symptom as well." ATC ^{. Talk}

22:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm leery of including just one of the "non-diagnostic-criterion" features in the lead. Autism is also sometimes said to be associated with pain threshold anomalies,

executive function impairment, theory of mind deficit, and other features, some of which are claimed to be "core". --Anthonyhcole (talk

) 01:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Theory of Mind falls underneath social (social is described in the lead); executive functioning is mentioned in the lead when it says "Asperger's syndrome, which lacks delays in cognitive skills and communication"; the anomolies (which I looked up and it means "unusual", i.e., the boy in the picture repetitively lines up things in the kitchen); pain as in the toxicants is the debate of "neurobiological" which should be in the body of the article and sourced; echolalia (falls underneath repetitive behavior/communication); but then their is sensory integration that can not be inferred by the lead section. ATC ^{. Talk} 18:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The cognitive delay that distinguishes autistic disorder from other autism spectrum disorders is

executive function (they are distinct psychological constructs). EF, like sensory integration deficit, is thought to be common to all of the spectrum disorders. Do other editors have opinions on whether they should be mentioned in the lead (or in the body, in the case of EF)? --Anthonyhcole (talk

) 02:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, but it seems completely bizarre that no where in this article does it mention the role of educational psychology and psychologists in the treatment and management of those with autism. IMHO, this is an enourmous oversight!--Hontogaichiban (talk) 03:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite a secondary or tertiary source (see

WP:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk

) 07:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

_Tekaphor (TALK) 03:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The authors appear to be associated with the "International Child Development Resource Center", which don't seem to have a great reputation. This is likely a Mark Geier level of research, and should be handled very cautiously. Yobol (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick additional note about the intestinal issues. Food issues leading to poor diet could also be a contributor. And such a situation would apply to both Autistics and neurotypicals. Aspie Lover (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is published in a peer-reviewed journal which provides its own check on standards, and by NPOV should be accepted as a verifiable source. That's not to say that other, balancing sources shouldn't also be included, however.

talk

) 07:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it may have a pass in

WP:RS. Aspie Lover (talk

) 22:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It is an inappropriate photo. Appropriate photos displaying aspects of autism do exist so I am going to remove the current one.--Darcana (talk) 02:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It illustrates an aspect of autism, which is all an individual photograph can do. The caption points out the repetitive nature of the behaviour. Most aspects of autism are quite commonly seen occasionally in normal people. And most aspects can't be illustrated with a photo. The replacement image was already used further down the article, and isn't actually readable, which is an essential requirement of the main photo. The photo has been debated before (see archives). If you can find a better photo displaying an aspect of autism, then suggest it here. The big problem facing WP is we lack free photos. Colin°^Talk 07:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a fine photo, it illustrates an aspect of autism, and it has withstood the test of time, and if I am not mistaken it was here when autism became a FA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking about adding a photo of an autistic child avoiding eye contact and staring out into space for the Social development section. Can you send me the Wiki link for the acceptable picture policies to avoid copyright infringement? That may even be better for the lead section's picture instead – although the lead section does depict one of the three key diagnostic symptoms of autism. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I looked on Google images and Yahoo images, some of which may include both copyrighted and non-copyrighted pictures with no luck. Never mind then. This is the best picture for the article, legally speaking. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit late, it seems, but use of any copyrightable material is governed by

Creative Commons-Attribution-Shark alike. I believe that Google allows for filtering by license (assuming that the photo is tagged in a machine-readable form), and Flickr is good about stating the usage terms for each image clearly and visibly; Commons:Category:Autism is surprisingly sparse, but the subcategories might be worth perusing. - 2/0 (cont.

) 22:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I found one at Flickr here: [1]. This is the best pic I could find of a boy avoiding eye contact and it happens to be a pic of a mother and son doing The Son-Rise Program (similar to Dr. Greenspan's Floortime approach.) The problem with the photo, though, is that their is a "C" in the mid of the pic and it is copyrighted. Since this is uploaded from Flickr, would this meet acceptable free-use Wiki policies or would you have to contact the uploader and ask for permission? Thanks. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I found this one too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/7383661@N08/2765266623/. That's all I could find. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you scroll down a little and look on the right hand side of the page, there is a section titled License. Both of those photos state All rights reserved, unfortunately. We should probably avoid putting a specific program so prominently at this article, anyway. A shame, as that first picture especially is pretty good. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is very important to make clear in the article that autism is a medical condition which should only be diagnosed by a medical doctor. One of the major problems parents face is misdiagnosis or incomplete diagnosis by those unqualified to make such diagnoses, in particular teachers and other professionals often voice opinions that various children have one degree or another of autism when they cannot make such a diagnosis.--Hontogaichiban (talk) 03:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That may vary, country by country, state or province etc, so making a general statement may be tough. If you can find a source for this then perhaps we can discuss it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

To discuss adding it in the article, first it must be from a

LOOVAS model of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) has 'robotized' their child is because most teachers and people implementing it with the child are not doing it right." Now that may be true, but it is way too general. Take care. ATC ^{. Talk}

21:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Some doctors diagnose it as Autistic Disorder and it even has it's own pie chart saying "AD" 75.33.126.216 (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The article tries to make this point in the first sentence under the title: "This article is about the classic autistic disorder; some writers use the word autism when referring to the range of disorders on the autism spectrum or to the various pervasive developmental disorders." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}} can you add acitation to the study ^[1] After the word 'anecdotal' in the section on causes? This study describes the range of environmental concerns that have been highlighted by those with personal invlovement in ASD. This is hjust a request for citation, not to change the text, many thanks. 144.173.5.197 (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

By the title of that paper it is about lay people's beliefs, not actual causes. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck is correct -- the study is solely about the prevalence of belief in lay people and does nothing to address whether or not that's actually what's going on. If you'd like any further help, contact me on my user talk page. You might instead want to put a {{help me}} template up on your own user talk, or put the {{edit semi-protected}} template back up on this page and either way someone will be along to help you. :) Banaticus (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The article says there is a very high genetic component to autism. I am not sure this is in line with current research. It seems like the evidence for genetic cause, high identical twin concordance, could also be accounted for by prenatal or sometimes immediately postnatal effects. Is there any objection to changing this if proper authority can be cited? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.120.198 (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Heritability of autism article covers this topic in greater detail (though that article isn't very well written compared to this). Two of the sources used by this article are available free online (this and this -- click the Next button on the page of the 2nd one to read through the article). They noted that there are big differences between identical vs non-identical twins, which highlight the genetic vs environmental (pre or post natal) component. There are also a number of known genetic conditions that are strongly associated with ASDs. But genetics isn't the sole cause and the topic still has more questions than answers. If you are aware of a more recent literature review on this subject, then that might be worth examining. Colin°^Talk 19:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence of the Characteristics section states: “Autism's individual symptoms occur in the general population and appear not to associate highly, without a sharp line separating pathologically severe from common traits.[22]” I found it unclear.

Turning to the cited source for more info, it stated: “The diagnostic triad of symptoms that defines autism--impaired communication, impaired social interaction, and restricted and repetitive interests and activities--has been found to be present in the general population with no clear demarcation between pathological severity and being a common trait. In addition, the three basic symptoms of autism appear not to associate highly, thus leaving undetermined the validity of studying autism in its currently defined triad of symptoms. It is proposed that a close working relationship between neurobiologists and clinicians is necessary in order to identify etiologically based diagnostic schemas that would complement, rather than replace, the clinical diagnosis.”

I lack expertise on this topic, but based on the citated source, would suggest rewriting the last sentence in Characteristics thus: “However, autism's three identifying symptoms occur in the general population without a strong pattern of appearing together, and no sharp demarcation line separates severe disturbance by these traits from their normal common occurrence; therefore, their use as the sole diagnostic tool has been questioned.[22]”

Would this be correct? If not, would a knowledgeable person please re-write the statement more accurately? Reverence Still (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I like your verbiage better...we sometimes have to take a complex reliable source and make the language a bit more readable. Go ahead and make the edit. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please add to the article the fact that autism is defines by US law - specifically the Disabilities Education Act http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/SD-Autism.asp

There are 3 required symptoms that "must be present" by law, for a diagnoses of autism and a number of optional symptoms that may or may not be present. 71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The 3 year cutoff point is also an optional? legal requirement.71.174.128.244 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of data showing dramatic rate declines in new autism cases starting in 2004 - see 4th chart down in this - cases by birth year

Best place would probably be in "epidemiology section"

http://www.thoughtfulhouse.org/tech-labs/disabilities/autism.php71.174.128.244 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

wording could be something like, "Autism rates by birth year peaked in 2002, had a slight drop in 2003 and fell sharply thereafter" followed by a link to the above site, another site containing that chart.

As I said at talk:causes of autism, that's not a reliable source, and their interpretation is even less meaningful.

_complex

19:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The graph doesnt say that. Youre comparing teenagers against toddlers, of course the teenagers are more likely to have been diagnosed since theyve been around a lot longer. —Soap— 00:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have had some notions that the Autism spectrum falls squarely in the middle of the Scientology debate with the professional helping communities. My interest here is in looking for a Wikipedia-Induced Cure. If anybody wants to extrapolate from this, I am not available much myself and personal contacts are unavailable to me also. My thoughts are that there is a programmed system of quick human re-orientation with everyone rapidly reaching the level of the highest-functioning Asperger's patient and the demise of stigma, in short.Julzes (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

...wha? Anyone understand what is being written? Yobol (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be reworded, currently I have no idea what this is about. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Anything to improve function and reduce stigma around psychiatric syndromes would be helpful but the rules of Wikipedia don't permit general discussion about topics. See

WP:NOT. Personally, I believe there should be a discussion forum attached to every article. But that's not how it is, so to further this, you'll need to find an appropriate forum somewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk

) 02:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a rule change for Wikipedia granting forum-worthy status for subjects where the resolution of a problem may be effected here somehow. Anyway, this is not exactly my subject, and I just happened to look it up and feel a need to comment. Anybody who comes here with time for the rule change discussion who agrees, good luck.Julzes (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, if that was a clarification, I'm even more confused as to what you're asking. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, unless someone functioning pretty well with Asperger's or an advocate for the clearly expressed notion comes along to argue for a forum, there is no question I have much time for now. I have to look into the semi-referencing given above you to assess Wikipedia's place when/if I have the time. I guess that if it works and these posts clearly helped (and I don't find time for more myself directly), I'd like 1/28 of a Nobel in Medicine.Julzes (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

--58.105.18.135 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)If the mind is stretched far enough, another predominately male disorder with similar numbers affected, that has almost the opposite symptoms to Autism can be identified. That being Transsexualism, is this the flip side of a developmental language based syndrome?58.105.18.135 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules

WP:NOT don't permit general discussion about the article topic on talk pages. They're just for discussing specific edits or sources. (But I vaguely recall reading something similar to your proposal. Maybe try a search at PubMed Google Scholar or Google Books) --Anthonyhcole (talk

) 18:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Using the term "Autistic Disorder" throughout rather than "Autism" would improve this article (and overcome the issue identified in the small-print right at the top). Also, it would be good to include a clear portrayal of the relationship between the DSM and the ICD definitions (see Autism Spectrum Disorder in DSM-IV and ICD-10 for example).

There could be a clear link to the page on Autism Spectrum (which still needs some work).

Bbuckl3y (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with changing the very ambiguous term "autism" to the name of the syndrome being denoted: usually autistic disorder but sometimes it may be denoting all or one of the

ASDs, you'll need to check the sources as you go. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk

) 09:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

One issue, developmental models include Son-Rise, Floortime (Greenspan approach/DIR) and Relationship Development Intervention (RDI), none of which are scientifically proven methods. ATC ^{. Talk} 04:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is "Developmental models" worth mentioning in this sentence? ATC ^{. Talk} 02:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

"A differential diagnosis for ASD at this stage might also consider mental retardation, hearing impairment, and a specific language impairment[116] such as Landau–Kleffner syndrome"

I am new to wiki so I'm not sure how to edit properly, but I wanted to draw attention to this. Landau-Kleffner is NOT a form of specific language impairment. SLI is its own term used for people whose primary difficulty is with language with no other possible diagnosis (e.g. works by Tallal et al. on SLI) . LK is a diagnosis in itself and so someone with it would be excluded from being IDed as having SLI. I suggest

"A differential diagnosis for ASD at this stage might also consider mental retardation, hearing impairment, Landau–Kleffner syndrome, or specific language impairment[116]"

-Speech pathologist who works with kids with SLI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.42.115 (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It currently reads:

Environmental factors that have been claimed to contribute to or exacerbate autism, or may be important in future research, include certain foods, infectious disease, heavy metals, solvents, diesel exhaust, PCBs, phthalates and phenols used in plastic products, pesticides, brominated flame retardants, alcohol, smoking, illicit drugs, vaccines,[11] and prenatal stress,[69] although no links have been found, and some have been completely dis-proven.

Note the bolded section. The things that have been disproven should be struck from that list of potential factors. -Deathsythe (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If nobody else is interested in inserting more specific information regarding autoimmune research and ASD, I would like editing privileges to put some objective and cited information into this article.Bloomingdedalus (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Please review

WP:MEDRS; this article relies on high quality secondary review sources. Primary studies, or studies that have not been mentioned in secondary reviews, are not useful to an encyclopedic featured article. SandyGeorgia(Talk

) 15:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me to that standards page. I am still disappointed that there is not more information regarding autoimmune research on ASD considering some primary sources indicating abnormal autoimmune serum in ASD I have run across and wish to know more about. I will do some more research and see if there is anything highly authoritative other than primary research which should be on this page. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Blooming, we try to be an encyclopedia, especially with respect to medical articles. If we place information about every new piece of research out there, the article will be gigantic, and more often than not, will have to be revised. There was another article on an another disease, where editors allowed a lot of COI editors add a bunch of primary research. Many of us were very concerned because the primary research came from one center. Earlier this year, several other centers repeated the studies, and found that it was completely untrue. In other words, we allowed research into the article that hadn't been confirmed elsewhere, and we had to delete and revise. Moreover, Wikipedia is powerful, often the number 1 hit on google for a disease. That means if we add the studies you suggest, then we're sending out a message to people who may not find out it is very early and it may lead no where. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I asked about this a little too soon. I understand that, though some people from John Hopkins, University of Utah, and UC Davis have made some comments regarding autoimmunity potentially being related to MBP autoantibodies, I finally followed some of the research cited within the article that discredits the MMR vaccine as being a source of Autism and found contradicting accounts of research regarding Autoimmunity and Autism.

Here's some secondary sources from Davis (http://www.utdallas.edu/~mxa049000/lessons/research/literature/Autism/autism%20and%20imm%20sys/antibodies%20and%20autism%20Ann%20NYAS.pdf), John Hopkins: (http://magazine.jhsph.edu/2009/fall/news_briefs/autism_one_more_step_on_a_long_road/), One from Davis disagreeing with the other from Davis (http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/cceh/pubs/maternal.pdf), The University of Texas (http://www.utdallas.edu/~mxa049000/lessons/research/literature/Autism/autism%20and%20imm%20sys/immune%20sys%20&%20autism%20rev%2009.pdf), The Immunizations Safety Comittee saying they don't think MMR is to blame but not discounting completely autoimmunity in ASD (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030909237X).

Anyway, I need to review these more thoroughly and likely should have done so before I started asking on this page about it which is why I redacted some of my comments. I'm just very interested in both immunology and neurochem which is why this particular serum abnormality intersecting both topics caught my eye and I was disappointed that there was not more information on the wiki page for it directing me to other sources concerning it. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to review

WP:MEDRS, because I think you misunderstand what is meant. For example, an interview with a researcher means nothing to an encyclopedia. And I just read two of the articles. There's nothing there. One dismisses the link. The other said a big "maybe" and I say "correlation is not causation." Don't fall into a trap of trying to make a case here. There needs to be a vast body of work on the matter, and if there was, it would be easy for you. When you have to find "iffy" articles, it's not going to help your case. I just don't think this direction has panned out in research. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions}

06:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll get back to you later. I've lost my immunology book at the moment and want to review some details as I've been concentrated on neurochem. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 18:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with interpreting Heritability as "genetic" in a slew of articles on autism.

Some examples are:

The heritability of autism is the proportion of autism that can be explained by genetic variation; if the heritability of a condition is high, then the condition is considered to be primarily genetic.

and

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. (from Causes of autism article)

As I see it, heritability is both genetic and environmental with cases existing of traits that are close to 100% heritable but not necessarily genetic. Also I'm not saying it's only environmental or that genes don't matter but it's absolutely incorrect to say "genetics explains over 90% of whether a child will develop autism,". CartoonDiablo (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The article appears to say that only 3% to 25% recover. However, in factuality, Dr. Lovaas' (see

Applied Behavior Analysis) study at the UCLA Autism Project in 1989 begs to differ: [2]. Also, it is known that people are looking at old studies. It is not "rare" to recover completely; nearly half of children being diagnosed—if worked early in childhood—can recover. ATC ^{. Talk}

20:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Could we update the article, as it is not valid in terms of "recovery" rate? ATC ^{. Talk} 20:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the 3-25% figure refers to "unselected" groups of children. Not everyone with autistic children is willing to put them through intensive therapy and therefore a lot of them receive little or no treatment. I would like to see the full text of the Lovaas paper though, since it may be claiming nothing more than that the children made it through first grade in a mainstreamed classroom (impressive, yes, but just because they make it past 1st grade doesn't mean they've "recovered" and will live normal adult lives). —Soap— 21:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is the full study: [3]. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we add it or no? ATC ^{. Talk} 21:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no objection to adding a summary of the study in the Autism article and/or on another article such as

Applied Behavior Analysis. But I would avoid using the word "recover"(y) even though Lovaas does. Note that there were only 19 children in the study, and none of them were tracked beyond the first grade. Unless there is a follow up study available showing what these people are like as adults I don't think it's within our reach to say they have recovered from autism. I should also mention I'm not any kind of authority here and it might be best to wait for other people's opinions. —Soap—

22:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi to you both. I think you might want to consult

WP:MEDRS, which will help with guidance on this matter. For medical articles we use recent high quality review articles that gather and assess the best available evidence, not individual studies. In this case the 3-25% figure comes from a 2008 review, whereas the study you are proposing is a small N treatment study coming from the late 1980s. It just doesn't make the RS guidelines, I'm sorry to say, and it isn't appropriate to use this particular source here. Sorry. Slp1 (talk

) 23:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, an old single study does not trump a recent review. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The study reveals autism recovery among 43% with ABA therapy, which was taken in 2009. ATC ^{. Talk} 00:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is not in a scientific journal (at least not Pubmed), as Dr. D. Granpeesheh (who conducted the study with her center) had conducted many studies featured in

Pubmed. ATC ^{. Talk}

00:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The first one is a scientific journal. What it is not is a

WP:MEDRS. Eventually it will probably be published in a peer review journal which will be step 1; step 2 will be when other independent scholars review that study as part of a review article. --Slp1 (talk

) 00:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Slp1-- until/unless this is reported in a secondary review, it should not be added to Wikipedia, per

WP:MEDRS. Particularly considering the small sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 02:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's sad and perhaps morally criminal, but their attitudes towards how articles should be cited is obviously more important than someone having an autistic child. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.141.252 (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

How is "Recovery" defined in this sense? Im a bit confused on things like, is it recovery of social systems, physical oddities or some of the personal fascinations (like the can stacking picture?) Considering the groups most likely to come here, I think it would be very useful to have an unambiguous description of just what the recovery entails, and what it does not. If it currently defies prediction that would be useful too. Really anything to help get information as clear as possible. I do not have any of this information, and feel free to point out if i'm missing something. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change this existing paragraph: "Although many alternative therapies and interventions are available, few are supported by scientific studies. Treatment approaches have little empirical support in quality-of-life contexts, and many programs focus on success measures that lack predictive validity and real-world relevance. Scientific evidence appears to matter less to service providers than program marketing, training availability, and parent requests. Some alternative treatments may place the child at risk."

to instead read: "Although many alternative therapies and interventions are available, only a few are supported by scientific studies. Many treatment approaches have little empirical support in quality-of-life contexts, and many programs focus on success measures that lack predictive validity and real-world relevance. One notable exception to this phenomenon is pediatric massage, which multiple scientific studies have found to successfully reduce inattentiveness, touch aversion and withdrawal, while improving sleep and social relatedness. Scientific evidence appears to matter less to many other service providers than program marketing, training availability, and parent requests. Some alternative treatments may place the child at risk.”

Here are the sources: 1. Field, T., Lasko, D., Mundy, P., Henteleff, T., Talpins, S., & Dowling, M. (1986). Autistic children's attentiveness and responsitivity improved after touch therapy. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 329-334.

2. Escalona, A., Field, T., Singer-Strunck, R., Cullen, C., & Hartshorn, K. (2001). Brief report: improvements in the behavior of children with autism following massage therapy. Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders, 31, 513-516.

3. Hartshorn,K., Olds, L., Field, T., Delage, J., Cullen, C. and Escalona, A. (2001) Creative movement therapy benefits children with autism. Early Child and Development and Care,166,1-5. AmyEliz (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Per

secondary sources, not primary articles. These sources are not appropriate. Yobol (talk

) 03:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking Not done for now: so that you can attempt to find the secondary sources that Yobol mention. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I noticed this article describes the autism spectrum as having just three disorders - Autistic Disorder, Asperger's Disorder and PDD-NOS. I believe Rhett's Disorder and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder are left out.

PsychOKC (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

See the Classification section or the Autism spectrum and Pervasive developmental disorder articles. It seems there is some inconsistency among sources as to whether these two are included or not. I think we've gone with the dominant classification. Colin°^Talk 07:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

_{Marking as answered Jnorton7558 (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)}

A new study just reported in my local paper, and accepted by the Archives of General Psychiatry has reportedly found environmental factors, (this includes the prenatal environment and indeed that may be the most important environment of all) much more important than genetics in causing autism.

This study is not a huge surprise to me, I don't know if the numbers given are accurate, but previous work, I believe at Kennedy Krieger, showed a much higher concordance rate for fraternal twins than plain siblings, which shoiuld not be the case if genetic factors predominated. In fact, the new study reportedly confirmed the very high concordance rate for fraternal twins of the previous work.

When I suggested the previous work should be included in this article, I was told only secondary sources, ie, reviews in journals, were allowed in Wikipedia. This of course was untrue, and in fact it was even more untrue at the time as the guidelines have been changed somewhat since then.

The bottom line is, people kept out an article which was completey permissible and not to be given undue weight, which is EXTREMELY important to understanding that at the least, an almost purely genetic basis was not settled science. That is all I really asked for.

Is there still anyone who wants to keep these new findings out, even if they are not given undue weight, not used to refute secondary sources, and so forth? In short, is there someone who will change my perfectly legal edits if I change the article to reflect this information which again, is not brand new, but confirmatory of other findings, not just the high fraternal twin concordanc rate from Kennedy Krieger, (a very respected researh institution as far as I know) but findings of maternal antibodies to fetal brain found in about 12% of mothers of autistics but never in mothers of normal kids, and other immune system and environmental factor associations which have long suggested "90% genetic" is too high?

Someone going to tell me it's forbidden when it clearly is not?

Someone going to tell me it's just one study, when it's clearly not?

I said at the time I was shot down that it was bad this is a featured article, because it's completely out of touch with the current knowledge about the subject. And even worse that the people who should be helping the article do the most to downgrade it.

I suggest an edit including the new information and citations to other studies showing genetics are not universally regarded as the cause. Nothing extreme just balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.239 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Please find a secondary source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There are some instances when it is appropriate to use primary sources. This isn't one of them. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any rule against me doing the edit, is there? No objection of unreliability is being made, I am not using it to refute a secondary source. No violations of Wikipedia rules I can see. If there are any please let me know. It's appropriate to use a primary source in this case with all the proper caveats as the article is simplistic and badly inaccurate as written. Also it's important to recognize the main finding in the study, high fraternal twin concordance, is not unique to this study, so this is not a single source against the world. As I said the other paper was from Kennedy Krieger if I remember right. Can look it up on Pubmed I guess. Keeping junk out of the article is good, but keeping out new research just because it's new is terrible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.239 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:RECENTISM. There is a clear consensus against use of newly published research material that has not been assessed through an independent secondary source, so it would be inappropriate to add at this time. Yobol (talk

) 20:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:MEDRS; a primary source should not be included until it's covered by a secondary review. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 20:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Yobol and SandyG Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a link to the study and one to where it has been reported? Shot info (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The study is here:

• Genetic Heritability and Shared Environmental Factors Among Twin Pairs With Autism. Hallmayer J, Cleveland S, Torres A, Phillips J, Cohen B, et al. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2011 Jul 4.
  doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.76

Colin°^Talk 11:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Having now read (skimmed) the study, I would say that:

1. The IP posting above has somewhat overstated (exaggerated) the case, which remains one primary study, suggesting that genetic factors have been emphasized over epigenetic factors, but
2. Our article understates the possibility that-- just as in the case of TS-- epigenetic factors affect the underlying genetic vulnerability in neurodevelopmental disorders like autism and TS, and
3. Perhaps we can find some wording to that effect in a recent secondary study? This kind of wording is all over the TS literature, so there is surely something somewhere in the autism literature that we can use to reflect that epigenetic factors are thought to influence an underlying genetic vulnerability.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

For example (and there may be others), we cite this article, which delves substantially into epigenetic factors, and has wording like:

• "Environmental risk factors may also play a role, perhaps via complex gene-environment interactions, but no specific exposures with significant population effects are known."
• "Taken together, twin studies and family studies clearly establish that a genetic susceptibility to autism exists. Because MZ concordance is less than 100% and the degree of impairment and range of symptoms vary markedly among concordant pairs, environmental factors are most likely etiologically significant as well (5, 89). Should gene environment interaction account for some of the genetic component of autism risk, quantitative estimates of heritability can be substantially overestimated (59)."

which covers some of the issues we may be understating here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yobol: If there is a clear consensus against primary sources, it should not be hard to get the Wikipedia rules which do not forbid them changed. Why not get to work on that, it's obviously very important to you. Sandy: I am not sure if you are against changing the wording of the article or not. If we did change it, the new study, (again, this is not at all out in left field, it's one of many findings suggesting environmental factors are quite significant) is a good source by itself. I appreciate the link to the review article but it's five years old. That's pretty old in autism, you can find about 50 new research papers on autism every week in PubMed. Not all papers are important but my guess would be going back five years in review articles leaves out more than half what is now known. I would suggest, "autism was once thought highly heritable but new studies dispute that" which is an accurate statement and does not endorse new research over old, just points out this is not a settled question.

In fact, the article, by making it sound like a settled question is much more misleading than my suggested edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.250 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy - please quote me the section of WPMEDRS which says "no primary sources". It does not exist, does it? Every other time you've pointed me to that it's never said it. Was it changed in the past week? Because it did not say it last week.

You people, and it's alwasy the same half a dozen people, constantly keep important research out of the article. I don't know why, some kind of weird rigidity, feeling of control, desire to shoot other people down, who knows really, but it's not productive, and it completey screws up the article. It's kind of sad and pitiful and would be good fodder for jokes at your expense, except you are keeping people from getting information which might be really important to them, thus causing a lot of human misery. Which you are completely blind to. Please, can any one of you discipline himself to at least admit the proposed edit is not against any Wikipedia rule? Are you capable of that much honesty at least? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.238.250 (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please can you keep your comments focused on the article and on the application of WP guidelines and policy. If you post further messages attacking editors here, they will be deleted. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

Wrt primary research, it is quite simple. Have a read of

original research. Colin°^Talk

07:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

IP, your reading comprehension is off-- I took the trouble to find a five-year-old article that we happen to already quote and that includes some of the type of wording your want incorporated, and there are surely more secondary sources, recent, that have similar wording. Go find them, and stop trying to add primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Colin - this contention that using primary sources is "original research" is kind of weird to me. Do you have anything at all to supprot that? If that is the case, then all primary sources would be forbidden wouldn't they? Of course they are not, they are allowable is used properly

Sandy - I appreciate your citing the other Wiki rules, one of which seems to be that the opinions of other editors do not make for scientfic consensus. That's very helpful. I've ordered a big book from Oxford University Press on Autism, it's just come out. It's a review book for the most part although two of the authors, Amaral and Geschwind, are among the most prominent researchers into environmental and genetic causes respectively. Geschwind is one author ot the study recently in Nature finding different gene expression patters in autistic brains. Anyway, with ALL agreeing that review sources are best, there should be little disagreement about putting findings stated in the book into the article, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.239 (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• I just added information from the new studies to the article, using a secondary source. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

However, you reference yahoo, which is hardly a

WP:MEDRS source. Hence my revert. Dbrodbeck (talk

) 11:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck - again, the paper is citable AS a primary source, so whether Yahoo was appropriate as a source or not, a revert was not, because the edit was allowed. I ask you to look inside yourselves, all the editors who try their best to control articles, and ask if your motivations are good. Are you doing out of a desire to do the best for the article, or is it becasue you don't wany others to get credit, you want to say no, you have no authority at work, in your marriage, etcetera? I really want people to look at themselves. I am not attacking you all, just asking you look at it, because the content can be debated, but certainly there is repeated effort to claim edits are against the rules when they are not by many of the same people, over and over and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.239 (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, so who are you attacking then? Tone this crap down now. Stop attacking other editors. I for one have had enough of this disruptive editing. When it is you against everyone pretty much everyone else it might be time to take a step back and realize that you might be in the wrong. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sandy - let's go over this one more time. Where does ANY Wikipedia rule say primary sources are disallowed? Show it to me and I will shut up. Because your posts kept on claiming that, even after I pointed out the citations you used to back it up did not do so. Again, unless something has changed in the past couple of weeks, nothing you've cited says that even today. I realize we are not supposed to get personal, but being repeatedly told something was against the rules, trying to earnestly study the links you gave to support that, and finding it was not true - what would you feel after that?

As I asked at the beginning, will editors, especially the "just say no" editors who try to quash everything they can, please back up their actions with the rules? Is that too much to ask? You folks are the ones who cite them to support your actions, at the least, give us rules that actually apply to what you want to do.

In a recent program on public TV, the President of the International Society for Autism Research, David Amaral, stated he believed there were many different causes for autism. This should be in the article, as he is an authoritative source, (it's not just him by any means, it's dozens of others).

And, as his own researh is on maternal antibodies and he and his collaborators have found about 12% of mothers of autistics have antibodies not found in any mothers of normally developing children, that could be in the article as well.

Finally, the recent study showing much less heritability than previously thought should be included not as a definite refutation of the claims of 90% heritability, but to show this is not a settled question. That study by the way is coauthored by Lisa Croen. The study need not be endorsed as fact, just to show this is still the subject of debate. In fact as I said before, having a claim of very high heritability at this point in time is far more misleading than the propose edit.

Very minor, very conservative changes which are against NO rules, and convey a better picture of the current state of knowledge.

I really think the maternal antibody finding is most important as it might really help people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.239 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

First, please sign your comments by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. Second, this is really becoming disruptive: I have already pointed you to secondary sources that have the kind of wording you are after, and there are surely more. Must I do your work for you? There is NO need whatsoever here to be relying on an unreviewed, primary source. If you want to add text, please locate any of the secondary review sources that discuss the matter and propose the text here on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict). Really, it's that simple. The reversions do not represent claims to article

WP:MEDRS; please, read the guidelines again. Summaries and appraisals of primary source materials in Press releases or other non-expert reports and opinions can't be taken as reliable sources. for this kind of material. Haploidavey (talk

) 14:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The study has now been published, it's on PubMed, so it's not a "summary or appraisal of primary source material in a press release or other non-expert report or opinion" it is the primary source. Please, can anyone quote me the section in WPMEDRS which says "no primary sources"? I really can't find it, seriously, I mean no offense, just quote it to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.239 (talk) 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And Sandy, no offense, but I don't want you to do ANY work for me at all. Just leave alone legitimate edits which violate no rules. Also, though it may have been an olive branch, or you considered it one, to quote a study which was already cited in a way which supported my point in general, this stubborn insistence on "no primary sources" which you seemingly can't support with anything in the rules, is still unacceptable as it would exclude massive amounts of new information and because it's not precisely the same finding. Look there is no need to be this rigid, especially about rules which don't exist. Make sure the primary sources are not overemphasized, but don't exclude them completely. Again, about 50 new papers in PubMed every week. Fifty new papers a week. Wait for secondary sources and you fall maybe 5,000 papers behind? Something like that? Is it worth it, to keep out every primary source, when the cost is being that far behind the current knowledge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.8.239 (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:IDHT. Discussion is closed, let's not waste any further time on this. Yobol (talk

) 23:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI - this study fronm Stanford, although bigger than others, is not just one primary source, there are others, there was a previous study with similar findings. Also, the maternal antibodies - confirmed by more than one primary source, (UC Davis and Kennedy Krieger, AND, the UC system, the State of California, and Pediatric Bioscience have formed a partnership to produce the test and make it commercially available. Some of the top people are involved in this, and the institutuions involved do not intend to throw their money on the ground it's time to include it, it has major public health imnplications, over 10% of parents with an autistic child have this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.242 (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's that significant (and not just a money-maker), there will be a secondary review article by now. Please find one; an accumulation of primary sources is still ... primary sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I included a reference to a study from our group, showing that common variants for autism have been identified. SandyGeorgia undid the edit citing recentism. I think the paper is an important one, and it has since been replicated. There are a number of recent primary sources in the current version. The ones re. the mirror neuron system, are a lot more controversial, particularly in the light of recent work from Christian Keysers' group (e.g. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21310395).

Ooops, forgot to sign Joconnol (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed this. The edit in question is:

Common genetic variants have been identified that confirm susceptibility to autism spectrum disorders,^[4] but to date account for less than 20% of heritability. ^[5]

As the cited report appears to be addressing autism spectrum disorders rather than autistic disorder, the correct target for this content is probably

Wikipedia's medical sources policy. We rely on textbooks, professional guidelines and (ideally) reviews published in scholarly journals to determine the relevance of medical content. I don't have time to look at the mirror neuron content just now but if it presents controversial claims as fact or cites only primary sources (sometimes the review that puts the primary source into context is cited further down in the text) then it should be removed. :It's great to see you contributing to Wikipedia, by the way. If you have any other observations or criticisms of this or any other articles, they are very welcome. If you disagree with the above, require further clarification, or need help with editing please don't hesitate to say. This article is visited by 6,000 interested readers per day [6] which probably makes it one of the most important internet resources on the topic, so should be as reliable, relevant, concise but comprehensive, and readable as possible and all help is very much appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk

) 02:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

"It's great to see you're contributihng to Wikipedia" -- good grief!!!!!! Joconnol, there is not a chance in hell these people will allow you to put anything in, trust me on this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.242 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 22 October 2011‎

I would very much like to see someone who has published in this field editing the article. But this article, about one syndrome, is not the right target for research addressing the group of syndromes, the autism spectrum. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The Intense World Theory – a unifying theory of the neurobiology of autism http://www.frontiersin.org/human_neuroscience/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00224/full

It is very interesting reserach and people should know it's there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kojot350 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it's an interesting theory, and thank you for posting the link (personally, I find it persuasive; but that's neither here nor there). As this is a recently published, original piece of work, and (as far as I can tell) seems to draw some novel conclusions, it almost certainly counts as a

Policy on sourcing Medical articles is pretty strict, and requires that all article material be established as notable, significant, accurate and (in the case of research) methodologically sound by independent experts in the field. I'm not saying that hasn't happened in this case; just that if it has, I've not found it. Haploidavey (talk

) 13:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The "brainstem" theory has been around for a while, dating at least as far back as Patricia Rodier's 1996 essay, and that seems to form the core of the hypothesis. It was unusual in claiming that people with autism actually are physically different than others, though the differences are very subtle. —Soap— 14:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this published article might be of use to the History section. It suggests that celtic and other folk tales describing changelings which may be early narrative descriptions of autism. Leask J, Leask A, Silove N. Evidence for autism in folklore? Arch Dis Child. 2005 March; 90(3): 271. Full text here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1720294/pdf/v090p00271.pdf

OpheliaMoriarty (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's the correctly formatted citation:

• Leask J, Leask A, Silove N (2005). "Evidence for autism in folklore?". Arch. Dis. Child. 90 (3): 271.
  PMID 15723914. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link
  )

As part of the discussion of whether to add it, I would like to see what Wing says about it, to make sure that source is correctly represented. I can't find the Wing History of autism article indexed at PubMed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've got it on my desktop. If you email me I'll email it to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Will do that now, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sent. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, my PDF search function doesn't seem to work on that article, but if I'm reading it correctly, Wing has one and only one sentence on these legends of changelings in the 12-page article:

• "Some versions of the myths of changeling children, left in place of real human babies who had been stolen by fairies, sound remarkably like children with autism."

Is that really strong enough for us to add something to this article? I'm unsure, particularly since Wing concludes later in the article, after more serious scholarship, that "We have come a long way from the era of myths and legends ... ". Her article would be helpful if someone decides to write

WP:UNDUE in a broad, overview article. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 02:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's too speculative for this already long overview, but I would like to see History of autism, should anyone care to create it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

My request is simply to add a sentence to the Repetitive Behaviors section that indicates that"

Some repetitive behaviors like compulsions, restricted interests and even sterotypies, are highly prevalent in typically-developing children, especially during the preschool years. Elaborate bedtime rituals, lining up objects, and focus in minute details in toys and clothes are common and normal behavior. Even in typical children some of these behaviors may be associated with significant distress and interfere with certain aspects of daily function, but are generally temporary. Reference: Evans, D.W., Leckman, J., Reznick, S., Henshaw, D., King, R., & Pauls, D. (1997). Ritual, habit and perfectionism: the development of compulsive-like behavior in normal young children. Child Development, vol 68, pp. 58-68. Dwevans (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)David Evans Dwevans (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

First, correcting the citation (editors proposing text additions here would be well advised to follow the citation style established on the article):

• Evans DW, Leckman JF, Carter A, et al.. Ritual, habit, and perfectionism: the prevalence and development of compulsive-like behavior in normal young children. Child Dev. 1997;68(1):58–68.
  PMID 9084125
  .

Next, the proposed text above looks like a likely copyvio, since it includes hard returns (something that happens when text is copy-pasted). Could the editor requesting the addition please supply the exact wording from teh source so we can compare to be sure it's not a copyvio?

Finally, while the source does meet

WP:MEDRS and it is always encouraging to see information from Leckman, King and Pauls and even Alice Carter (well respected), the article is old (1997), and it's not clear to me that this adds anything to a broad overview article on autism. It says typical children also show some of the symptoms shown by children with autism-- that is true of every condition-- the conditions are considered "disorders" because those behaviors go beyond what is seen in "normally developing" children. If we can resolve the copyvio question, and if we can locate similar wording in a more recent review, I'm still unsure if we should be adding this text-- what do others think? SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 18:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: Further discussion seems to be necessary to piece out the issues. —Soap— 19:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is substantially biased, misses key scientific references while citing older, single-author accounts as they were consensus, and uses "gulty by asscoiation" logical fallacies to neglect growing consensus that Hg (also in thiomersal) is not only highly neurotoxic (well established and ignored), but is also a plausible cause of ASD.

Factual errors:

(1) Neglect of recent work showing environmental factors necessary to explain massive increase in ASD. The reader is left with the false impression that genetics are the main cause of ASD. It should be clearly stated that many studies show that environmental factors are required 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.

(2) False claims of lack of support for ASD-thiomersal link. "Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination. This has led to unsupported theories blaming vaccine "overload", a vaccine preservative, or the MMR vaccine for causing autism.[8]"

There is substantial support for a link between thiomersal in vaccines and autism. 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.

(3) "Guilty by association" logical fallacies. "The latter theory was supported by a litigation-funded study that has since been shown to have been "an elaborate fraud".[70]"

This is a "guilty by association" logical fallacy (please read the wiki article on this topic). There are also sponsored research fraud claiming no relation between ASD and vaccines, e.g. Poul Thorsen and co-workers. Please at least mention this as well for proper balance if the author thinks "guilty by association" logical fallacies are state-of-the-art for wiki articles.

(4) Claims that theories lack scientific evidence and are not plausible "Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8]"

Mercury is the central, plausible cause of ASD according to the anti-vaccine reesrachers. This is neglected. Mercury in thimoseral 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.

These facts, that thiomersal is toxic due to mercury and that mercury causes ASD, are completely neglected. --130.225.66.178 (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a remarkably similar post to that made at Causes of autism. Have a read of the sources this article uses and they will explain why such links are biologically implausible. This is just a bunch of "Medical Hypotheses" articles coupled with "mercury is a poison". These are not the sort of sources we can use. Colin°^Talk 12:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Colin - It is plausible that thiomersal is neurotoxic because Hg is neurotoxic. Calling this obvious link implausible must be a mistake on your part. At the same time, use of "guilty by association" by name-calling specific journals, and then expanding this to a range of recent papers in many journals, seems to reflect ideological bias on your part that should be awarded at Wikipedia.

--- I recommend that other wikipedia-users repair this article after review of the recent literature 2008-2011. One of many causes of the recent change in consensus is due to the so-far largest study of 278,624 children from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, but also the Finnish and Swedish narcolepsy studies 2010-2011 are massive and consistent.

Heather A. Young, David A. Geier, Mark R. Geier:, Journal of the Neurological Sciences 271 (2008) 110–118: Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: An assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink

From the abstract: "Consistent significantly increased rate ratios were observed for autism, autism spectrum disorders, tics, attention deficit disorder, and emotional disturbances with Hg exposure from TCVs. By contrast, none of the control outcomes had significantly increased rate ratios with Hg exposure from TCVs."

The complete neglect of the growing bulk of substantiated indications of a thiomersal-ASD link reflects poorly on the authors of this article as well as on Wikipedia. I recommend that this be improved asap, before it looks too much like Comical Ali.

--Kpje (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Medical Hypotheses is not such a journal and cannot be used as a source for medical facts. As for papers written by Mark Geier... Sorry, you need to convince reliable trustworthy physicians (you know, the ones that still have a licence to practice) and get them to write about these "dangers" in a reliable publication, and then Wikipedia can use their material as a source. Colin°^Talk 14:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

--- I basically added the Geier reference to test if the "guilty by association" approach also applies to Geier since no scientific paper has countered Geier's research. Ad hominem attacks ("shoot the messenger") is not a valid argument against any research.

These points reflect poorly on the article: (1) No mentioning of thiomersal containing Hg, and Hg being a highly neurotoxic substance. Why is this obvious link absent? (2) Use of guilty by association by citing specifically cases of fraud in one camp, but not the other (Thorsen e.g.). Why? (3) False claims that their is no plausible mechanism. Hg neurtoxicity on the developing CNS is extremely well-established. (4) No mentioning of the environemtal background necessary to explain the ASD turning point in 1987-1988 (see references above).

Please relate to these issues when revising the article. --Kpje (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The scientific community has moved past the

thiomersal controversy, though some anti-vaccine activists still hang on to it. We don't give weight to discredited theories here. Yobol (talk

) 14:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

--Kpje (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe most of this has been answered above (see

WP:RECENTISM-- the problem is highlighted in your section heading, "recent research"-- typically not reviewed in secondary reviews). Also, long posts citing sources that we can't easily access aren't helpful. It is very easy to avoid all the text and just type PMID followed by the PMID number, so we can all see what kind of study we're looking at. If you want answers, pls do that-- it will help. We don't cite primary sources in Wikipedia except in exceptional circumstances: we do cite secondary high-quality reviews, particularly in a Featured Article. Please give PMIDs-- they are easier to type than the full citation information. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 16:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For example, you mention this source:

• PMID 20433873

• Curtis JT, Hood AN, Chen Y, Cobb GP, Wallace DR. Chronic metals ingestion by prairie voles produces sex-specific deficits in social behavior: an animal model of autism. Behav. Brain Res.. 2010;213(1):42–9.
  PMID 20433873
  .

most clearly not meeting MEDRS. Please don't take time and space on this talk page unless you can cite sources that meet

WP:MEDRS and cite them in a way that the rest of us can access them. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 16:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Kpje, find one point in the article you believe needs correcting. Copy it here. Follow that with the text you propose replacing it with. Follow that with PMID 12345678 replacing 12345678 with the PubMed ID for your source. Find the PubMed ID for your source on the source's page at PubMed. The source should be a

WP:MEDRS. Others have raised the same issue before, but no one has brought an appropriate source that would justify the changes you propose. --Anthonyhcole (talk

) 17:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

--- Thanks for the advice. If only recent reviews are acceptable, then this review from 2010 presents a more scientifically balanced view of the controversial pathogenesis of ASD, completely down-toned in the "causes" section of this wiki article. Please read the "heavy metals" section of this review which is already well cited. Salvatore A. Currenti, Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, Volume 30, 2, 161-171, DOI: 10.1007/s10571-009-9453-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19774457

Other well-cited and completely ignored reviews with more realistic balance of environmental and genetic etiology include: Deth R, Muratore C, Benzecry J, Power-Charnitsky VA, Waly M.: How environmental and genetic factors combine to cause autism: A redox/methylation hypothesis. Neurotoxicology. 2008 Jan;29(1):190-201. Epub 2007 Oct 13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18031821 19774457 18031821 The section I object to is the "causes" section, in particular this heavily biased part: "Parents may first become aware of autistic symptoms in their child around the time of a routine vaccination. This has led to unsupported theories blaming vaccine "overload", a vaccine preservative, or the MMR vaccine for causing autism.[8] The latter theory was supported by a litigation-funded study that has since been shown to have been "an elaborate fraud".[70] Although these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible,[8] parental concern about a potential vaccine link with autism has led to lower rates of childhood immunizations, outbreaks of previously controlled childhood diseases in some countries, and the preventable deaths of several children.[10][71]"

(1) The first sentence is speculative motive-analysis. (2) The word "unsupported" is not in accordance with facts; there are thousands of observations judging from law suits alone. There is also scientific support, as described above. (3) It is fair to say that the vaccine controversy has shifted substantially in favor of no correlation: Thorsen's work found no correlation between thiomersal and ASD, and this has been the consensus, but it is not a paradigm. Furthermore, citing frauds on one side (guilty by association) should probably be avoided or at least accompanied by fraud by Thorsen e.g. of the other camp, as he is one of the key researchers in that context. (4) The theories rest on thimoseral possibly having a trigger effect or accumulative effect on the developing CNS, it is plausible because of the neurotoxicity of Hg. Calling it "implausible" that a Hg-substance causes neurological disorder is highly problematic. (5) Effects of absence of vaccines: Please read the cited papers, e.g. by Gregory A. Poland, M.D., and Robert M. Jacobson, M.D. "The Age-Old Struggle against the Antivaccinationists". This is emotional and has nothing to do with science and does not live up to the standards that I was adviced about (vide supra).

I suggest: "The etiology of autism is regarded to be a mix of genetic vulnerability and environmental exposures needed to explain the turning point in 1987-1988.(cite: McDonald, M. E.; Paul, J. F. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 2112-2118. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es902057k). Among environmental factors that are discussed to trigger autism, heavy metals, especially mercury, which is highly neurtoxic, but also e.g. lead, have been recently reviewed. (Cite: Salvatore A. Currenti, Cellular and Molecular Neurobiology, Volume 30, 2, 161-171, DOI: 10.1007/s10571-009-9453-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19774457 Deth R, Muratore C, Benzecry J, Power-Charnitsky VA, Waly M.: How environmental and genetic factors combine to cause autism: A redox/methylation hypothesis. Neurotoxicology. 2008 Jan;29(1):190-201. Epub 2007 Oct 13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18031821)

For balancing the fraud anecdotes: "The debate has been heated, in particular in regards to the impact of vaccines on the etiology of autism, with fraud occuring in both camps." See e.g. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/us-crime-research-funds-idUSTRE73C8JJ20110413

Personally I am against such fraud anecdotes as they diverge attention from science, but on the other hand, they may underline the controversial nature of the discussions on ASD etiology.

--Kpje (talk) 10:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

---

If there are thousands of 'observations' from lawsuits, it does not matter, lawsuits hardly meet

WP:MEDRS. You know, if you look in the archives I imagine most of this has been discussed, again, and again. Dbrodbeck (talk

) 11:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• PMID 19774457
• PMID 18031821
  (hypothesis)

If anyone has access to these, perhaps they can comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The first one is a list of hypotheses of what could cause autism, they do not come to any conclusion regarding heavy metals, suggesting more research is necessary. More worrisome, the authors favorably cite the Bernard et al. "paper" published by

thiomersal controversy. In any event, since it doesn't come to any conclusion except to say more research is called for, I don't think it deserves any weight here. The second is purely a hypothesis generating paper, and so doesn't really deserve weight either. Yobol (talk

) 15:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Yobol-- this looks like a non-starter to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks Yobol, I agree with SG Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

--- My final comments: I humbly recommend all Wikipedians who are not up to date on this subject to read the above discussion and the recent, well-cited and much debated reviews that I mention. Please notice the procedure of down-playing recent, well-cited reviews that are more up-to-date and favor of a more balanced, realistic view of the interplay between genetic and environment, with a proper focus on the many studies implying heavy metals in ASD.

The above discussion disturbingly indicates that the protectors of the current version of the article are not conveying a balanced view. I do not know why, but I will humbly leave it to other Wikipedians to find out what is really going on here. This cannot be due to "accidental" neglect of literature. While being conservative in the revision of established articles, this topic is on the frontier of science and should be updated regularly - the current neglect of significant, well-cited new reviews stressing the vast number of indications of heavy metals in ASD is deeply troublesome.

--Kpje (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC) ---

We don't do 'balanced views' we don't give equal

WP:NPOV works. (You might want to read those links there). You really ought to learn how things work around here. Dbrodbeck (talk

) 12:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The Hidden Toll of Traffic Jams "Scientists Increasingly Link

See

99.181.135.155 (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Per

WP:MEDRS, we use secondary review articles for medical claims. The WSJ article would not be appropriate, and the primary journal article would also not be appropriate. When this research is cited in a medical review, we can then include it. Yobol (talk

) 05:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the Wikipedia rules you cite do not forbid the use of primary sources. This "rule" is something which certain over-aggressive editors have claimed, but it's not true, and best I can determine never has been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.122.111 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It's very important that mothers of autistic children be informed that the largest single proven link to autism to date, that is, the phenomenon that seems to be unique to autism and proven in the largest percentage of cases of autism, is the mothers of autistic children having antibodies to human fetal brain in certain patterns.

Although not yet proven to be a cause, research has indicated no mothers of typically developing children have these patterns, so the presence of these antibodies indicates a woman is extremely likely to have an autistic child if she gets pregnant.

A test for the antibodies is being developed now by Pediatric Bioscience, in partnership with the University of California at Davis, where much of the research work was done. Pediatric Biosciences estimates the test will be commercially available in about a year, by the end of 2012.

About 12% of mothers of autistic children have this pattern, so it's a common condition among women who have already had one autistic child.

The word needs to be spread, yet, even though it's peer reviewed, and has never been disputed, and solid enough that both the University of California, and the State of California, and a private company are all willing to spend money to develop it, whenever I put it in the autism articles someone removes it on spurious grounds.

The fact is, besides helping people a great deal, the finding of 12% of cases of autism being linked to this cause also makes it the largest single probable cause of autism.

That's right, the biggest single cause, and yet it's kept out of the article again and again, because when I put it in it's deleted.

I hope the people who do this will look in their consciences to see if they really want to deny those reading Wikipedia this vital information. It's not like this information can be misused in a potentially harmful way, like failure to vaccinate certainly can be, or chelation or other invasive procedures could be. Mostly, the effect on a responsible person would be to delay pregnancy until she gets the test, and maybe save herself a lot of heartache thereby. Having one autistic child is tough, I think having two would be too much for all but the strongest people. And, the presence of the antibodies does not mean a woman could never have another child. Treatments for the condition are being considered and researched, and may be available in the relatively near future.

So please people, with this being the biggest single likely cause of autism, it belongs in the article even if it was not going to help people. Please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.122.111 (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There are many topics not really covered here, and some of them are extremely important, have actual public health implications.

1. Maternial Antibodies to Fetal Brain. Work done primarily at UC Davis MIND Institute indicates one particular pattern of antibody is associated only with autism, that is, so far no mothers of typically developing children have this antibody.

Since over 10% of mothers of autistic children have this pattern, it is very important for these mothers to discover they have this pattern before concieving another child.

The State of Cailfornia, the UC System, and a private company, Pediatric Bioscience, are now in partnerhship to produce and distribute the antibody test. The Pediatric Bioscience web page projects release in late 2012.

It's really, really important mothers of autistics know about this test so they can take it.

Please let this information into the article. The ressearch behind this is endorsed by one of the resaeachers, Dr. David Amaral, who is a Past President of the International Society for Autism Research and a very renowned neurologist, this is nothing flaky at all.

This is a public health issue, and it's all allowed by the rules, and is not in any serious conflict with a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.242 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

This is discussed at Causes_of_autism#Infectious_processes. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If you search "autism" the first article to come up is this one. Not everyone will see the other article. The fact is, with a commercial test around the corner, 1/6 of mothers of one autistic child would find out they have the antibody patterns and could forego having another pregnancy until there is a treatment for the antibody. If you keep this out you are doing a terrible thing to some people who might otherwise have been helped. There has been NO refutation of this research finding, one of the main researchers is Past President of the International Society for Autism Research, INSAR, and he's done studies injecting the antibodies into pregnant macaques and the babies turn out abnormal. It's not flaky at all, and in fact, since this article mentions causes, it's really missing a lot by not putting that cause in, because it accounts for more cases than any other single known cause (even if "90% genetic" is true that does not tell which genes, and there may be a great many). I hear no objections so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.242 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see

WP:MEDRS-- find a secondary review, it can be added. Please sign your entries by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 01:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sandy -- did YOU read the WP:MEDRS? It actually mentions the fact a lot of people will read Wikipedia to inform themselves on a medical condition as a reason those rules exist, at least that is the implication. I will go get the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.122.111 (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And of course, WPMEDRS does not say "only secondary sources". As I've pointed out around 20 times already, and you know perfectly well.

When the test is being given to every pregnant woman in the country, can I PLEASE put it in the article then? Just wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.11.190 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A study in the journal Nature of autistic vs. typically developing brains has implicated epigenetic effects as perhaps the missing link between high estimates of heritability of autism on one hand, and yet failure to find the autism genes in huge association studies on the other.

And it has other implications as well, such as a finding of an inflammatory process in some cases which is thought to be due to environmental causes.

It does not seem to be mentioned in the article. I was talking to one of the top autism researchers in the world who described it as a "landmark study", in his opinion.

At this point perhaps the implications are all theoretical and none but maybe the most advanced researchers can "do" anything with it, but to have a complete article it ought to be mentioned, along with another point made in this regard, that the study was of post mortem brains and there is a need for more brain donation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.122.111 (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The following comment is from the recently published Nature blog post "Brain cell genomes show their individuality"

"One of the conclusions of studies like this - and the Bruder et al study a few years ago on somatic copy number mosaicism - is that twin studies are not an accurate measure of the geneticness of any given disorder or trait. Nature recently published a set of features on autism for example which repeated the well known claim that twin studies show that autism has an environmental component. They don't. What they show is that there is a component that isn't inherited. That component could be environmental but as this result and others show it could also be genetic. Indeed some studies have suggested that as much as 90% of autism may be genetic and yet, many years ago, Nature had a feature quoting Susan Folstein as claiming that roughly 10% of people with autism showed evidence for mosaicism, which wouldn't be picked up in a twin study despite being genetic. Its possible therefore that autism may be much more strongly genetic that hinted at by twin studies."

-Michael Chisnall (November 16, 2011 04:30 AM)

Slartibartfastibast (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I may be responsible for a bit of confusion myself. Forget "genetic" the article I think says 90% "heritable" which I guess you are agreeing may be too much? that would still call for a change, wouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.134.110 (talk) 03:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Um. What? Slartibartfastibast (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe I said this correctly. If I understand the article to which the quote above refers, "mutation" occurs after conception. Well, if it's after conception, it might be genetic, but it's not inherited. I also think the comment does not recognize that differences in gene expression can be inherited OR environmentally induced.

As far as the Wikipedia rules I keep getting beat over the head with go, a blog comment would not really be allowed, though for myself my objection is it goes into mosaicism and does not address the known epigenetic effects

So, if this effect of post conception mutation is large in a significant percent of autistics, then still the "90% heritablility" is too high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.11.190 (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The UC Davis Medical School and Pediatic Bioscience have teamed up to develop a test for women likely to give birth to an autistic child.

The test is expected to become commercially available in early 2013. According to the Pediatric Bioscience website, it will test for 8 antibodies found to be highly associated with autism in the mothers of autistic children.

Although the test is not yet commercially available, Pediatric Bioscience is encouraging contact from women who are interested.

The website states about 20% of all autism cases seem to be related to maternal antibodies. This is a much larger number than proven from any single genetic cause.

Since it can be given before pregnancy, and the chance of the mother of an autistic child having at least some of the antibodies is very high, it can be used proactively rather than only reactively, ie, a woman could delay beginning a family until after a treatment for the antibodies is available, or avoid having more children until that time.

This is extremely valuable information. It belongs in the main article, for the medical value it has to a large number of readers.

Pediatric Bioscience can be easily found online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.11.190 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

There is one thing very important missing from this article. There is no clear statement, in terms that can be understood by laymen, that most experts believe there are many causes for autism.

Most researchers now emphasize the "heterogeneity" of autism. Many dozens, perhaps hundreds of genes are implicated.

Several "environmental" factors, many prenatal, are implicated.

I suggest an edit to say "there are many causes for autism", so there is no doubt about this in the reader's minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.11.190 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks pretty clear to me:

It has long been presumed that there is a common cause at the genetic, cognitive, and neural levels for autism's characteristic triad of symptoms.^[2] However, there is increasing suspicion that autism is instead a complex disorder whose core aspects have distinct causes that often co-occur.^[2][3]

I think that wording is more lay-friendly than "hetrogeneity". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want readability for the laymen, I think "most researchers believe there are many causes for autism" is a lot better than "it has long been presumed that there is a common cause at the genetic, cognitive, and neural levsl for autism's characteristic triad (does a person who does not know what "heterogeneity" means know what "triad" means?)of symptoms, However this is a .....

I just can't see that as more readable. Leave out "heterogeneity" as too technical, "many causes" is something anyone readin Wikipedia can understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.11.190 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I am taking issue with the sweeping statement this article makes that not many autistic children grow to live independently as adults, as that leaves out the massive numbers of those with high-functioning autism and asperger's who TYPICALLY are able to live on their own. I don't have the resources to provide stats on this but maybe someone can pick up where I've left off, the wording in the beginning of this article is needlessly scaring people. Not everybody with autism is unable to function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.131.9 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The autism classifications and terminology can be confusing, are controversial and are in flux. This article (as noted at the very top and in the body) discusses classic autism, which is a more severe diagnosis than Asperger's for example. See Autism spectrum. Colin°^Talk 10:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, quite confusing. The hat note says that the article is about classic autism, id est, the more severe form (as you have mentioned), however, the article often speaks as if the topic is autism in general, id est, the whole autistic spectrum. I'm guessing people have been confused by the article title being simply "Autism" thinking what is meant is the whole spectrum. Hat notes, like many ads on websites, are frequently not read unless some abnormality in the article (against their expectations) prompts them to read them. Many people with AS or HFA will say they have autism, but they do not mean the more severe classic autism. Perhaps instead of redirecting "Classic autism" to this article named "Autism," we should instead have classic autism under the title of "Classic autism" and redirect "Autism" to "Autism spectrum." It may become more confusing since there is much talk that DSM-5 will reclassify Asperger Syndrome as just autism. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Asperger syndrome" is definitely going out in the next DSM-5 edit, as it is a style of autism and not a separate condition. There's enough controversy about what Kanner and Asperger were seeing/documenting to fill up another few articles. The real trouble is that what people think of as "severe autism" and "high-functioning" are often misnomers. A "high functioning" person can have "severely autistic" traits, and vice versa. A lot of "severe autism" can simply be traits that make onlookers uncomfortable. And it can vary from day to day, or even hour to hour. Because most of the formal studies have been with autistic children, the idea that a classical (Kanner's) autistic can't grow up to live a useful, productive life may also be incorrect. There is still a lot of objectification of autistics going on. --Bluejay Young (talk) 10:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The last time this was brought up the consensus among the three or four editors involved in the discussion was that most readers will think of Kanner's syndrome (Rainman) when they hear "autism", and that people with higher function would be offended by having their condition called autism. In my experience, it's common for any syndrome on the spectrum to be called autism in normal conversation, but the other two or three editors disagreed. I think you were involved in that, Colin. Perhaps it's a regional thing. I really don't know. I'm in Australia, and I often hear the various syndromes on the spectrum referred to as "autism."

I think I found that most scientific papers use the term "autism" to refer to the spectrum. If this conversation goes anywhere I'll fish out the old discussion from the archives. -Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

"Kanner's syndrome" also redirects here.

Yes, most journal articles, when they use the term 'autism,' are generally referring to the spectrum unless they have explicitly & specifically narrowed the term's usage (for the remainder of the article) in the initial paragraphs.

I don't think the terms "severe autism" or "high-functioning" autism is the issue here, with this article, but rather a more specific variety of autism on the spectrum in which the general term "Autism" isn't specific enough as a topic title. It seems, IMHO, that "Autism" should redirect to the "Autism spectrum" article while the contents of this current article should be moved to a more specific title. If their (the user's) intent was to find this article, then they should be able to find it by wiki link at the "Autism spectrum" article, if they are uninformed about autism in general to not know the difference, it would be best they got the "Autism spectrum" article because that article should inform them enough that there is more to autism than Rainman and the "little kids rolled up in a ball, rocking in the corner" (as one person put it), and — again — if they are looking for a specific variety of autism, they would be able to find wiki links to the more specific article from there. The term "Autism" is just too broad to fence in the more specific topic of this current article. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't just make up names and redirects here on whim-- we have naming conventions. The articles are named correctly now (as they were the last time this came up)-- if you see specific places in the text that confuse you or potential readers about which is being discussed, please list them specifically so they can be discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

At NO point what-so-ever did I ever say to make up names, nor did I ever what-so-ever imply to do so, nor any variety of such concept. My point is that the term "autism" is used in a broader sense (both in general usage as well as in medical usage) than what this article's topic is stated to be centered around (note the article's hat note) hence I am suggesting that the article is not currently correctly named (compare to a reference such as DSM). — al-Shimoni (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, that's offensive and patronising. Nothing will be renamed without consensus.

al-Shimoni, in the 2010 discussion SandyGeorgia referred to I did a Google Scholar search for "the term autism", listed the first ten peer-reviewed articles that defined their use of the term "autism" and found that different authors used it to mean

• autistic disorder (AD, the DSM IV syndrome)
• AD, Asperger syndrome (AS), and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD/NOS)
• AD, AS, PDD/NOS, and childhood disintegrative disorder
• AD, AS, PDD/NOS, and high functioning autism

I also did a PubMed search for articles with "autism" but not "spectrum" in their title, and found that most were discussing other autistic syndromes or ASD.

And I looked at the first 20 articles that wikilink the word "autism" to this page and found that most were discussing one of the other autistic syndromes or ASD.

I think I've demonstrated that the term is used in a broader sense in the academic literature and in Wikipedia articles.

I was persuaded in that discussion, though, that in common parlance "autism" usually means Kanner's syndrome/classic autism/autistic disorder. Two editors confidently asserted that this is the case, and one pointed me to this NPR report where Michael John Carley, executive director of the Global and Regional Asperger Syndrome Partnership in New York and author of Asperger's From the Inside Out says "I personally am probably going to have a very hard time calling myself autistic."--Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Reiterating, we have naming conventions, this article is about autism (not autism spectrum, which is another article, or AS, or any other condition), and again, "if you see specific places in the text that confuse you or potential readers about which is being discussed, please list them specifically so they can be discussed". Without examples, we can't fix the perceived problems, and the discussion amounts to semantic circles. And we need to be clear that a POV is what generated this discussion ("I am taking issue with the sweeping statement this article makes that not many autistic children grow to live independently as adults, as that leaves out the massive numbers of those with high-functioning autism and asperger's who TYPICALLY are able to live on their own"), when the scope of this article is already perfectly clear, it is not about Asperger's or HFA or the autism spectrum, the hatnote is clear, the other articles are clearly defined, and the example given is not grounded in reliable sources. So, an example of confusion that is grounded in policy and sources, please before we start shuffling around articles whose names are just fine, so we can determine if there is, in fact, any problem with article names, or problems with text as written, or just a POV unfounded in sources that another editor wants to introduce-- something we frequently encounter here.

On the other hand, if it is determined that users are unable to sort the difference between classic autism (this article) and autism spectrum, then our naming conventions would lead to moving this article to autistic disorder, which seems unlikely to resolve the issues frequently raised by those who embrace statements about "high-functioning autism", which is not even a DSM condition. If the confusion is determined to be significant, I wouldn't oppose renaming this article to "autistic disorder" to agree with the DSM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with everything SandyGeorgia just posted. Sums up my thoughts pretty much perfectly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There are people with "autism" diagnoses who function at an equal or higher level than some with an asperger's diagnosis, the difference between the two is not indisputably only about severity of impairment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emaheevul07 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

U

There was an article in BMJ a few months back titled something like "Autism neither a scientifically valid not a medically useful diagnosis" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.223.140 (talk) 00:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I heard that people with autism have a high capacity of intelligence. for example, someone with autism is able to absorb an amount of information but get easily distracted or are in their world, is that true? (Ric5575 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)talk ric5575).

Although the article does not address your specific question directly (from when I last read it fully), much of the answer is in the article. A short answer to close this thread (because this is a not a forum) is that it varies from person-to-person for people on the

WP:Not a forum). — al-Shimoni (talk

) 00:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add http://www.youtube.com/user/Skillslivechannel to your external link section. It contains two very important resources: 1) a comprehensive guide to autism, and 2) a video library of over 50 videos and growing on the topic of autism. The page also provides a basic summary. Jballa1927 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jballa1927 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, not a reliable link, per

WP:EL--Jac16888 ^Talk

23:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

First, I appreciate the work that has gone into this article and find it very well done. What I would like to see, however, is a less dismissive approach both to the Wakefield research and the corroborative research. This is an area of contention that is not easily dismissed simply by the finding that it did not represent normative science of the time. I find Wakefield's explanation of the events surrounding the research to be rather persuasive. It is not enough simply to say that authorities condemned the conclusions or labeled them as unethical. Please listen to the recent interview with Wakefield on mercola.com and address the rebuttals he offers, particularly those concerning corroborative results, the pharmaceutical industry's involvement, and the question of adequate study of the risks of combining antigens in one vaccine. Thanks.Richard L. Rose (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Richard L. Rose

The problem is that it doesn't matter if editors of WP are persuaded by Wakefield's explanations and "findings" or not. What matters is only what reliable sources say about autism. I suggest that rather than read/watch the rubbish is published on mercola.com, you buy one of Paul Offit's recent books. He explains the "vaccine overload" issue well (see this paper for an academic but reasonably accessible explanation). You may be surprised to find that his books don't shy from documenting when vaccination really has caused harm (sometimes on a large scale, sadly) -- he wrote a book solely about one such disaster with polio. Colin°^Talk 09:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Early Start Denver Model, a developmental behavioral therapy for autism, undergone the first, randomized, controlled trial of forty-eight autistic children with decrease in severity level. I think it is worth putting in the article. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/1/e17.full?sid=3a7d325a-1322-4e51-bffb-9dc784411d1f. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The entire page on Autism seems to have been turned into a hyperlink to a racist 9/11 conspiracy site.

122.149.105.226 (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a problem, but it is being addressed. [7] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys - there's a section on the use of AAC for autism at Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Autism - might be the sort of thing this article references? I'll put a couple of bits of content in this article, but I'm wary of messing with such a well developed article...Fayedizard (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

PECS is certainly used quite a bit for sure. Where would we put it and what would we put in? Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that - I've just found Autism_therapies - I'll make a note to check over the AAC stuff in there and then maybe come back to the main article - thanks for the reply! :) Fayedizard (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

PECS is definitely worth noting especially since it is effective in combination with EIBI/ABA. Also I think adding The Early Start Denver Model to the autism therapies and main article would be a good idea. ESDM is a developmental behavioral therapy for autism, which undergone the first, randomized, controlled trial of forty-eight autistic children with decrease in severity level. See here: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/1/e17.full?sid=3a7d325a-1322-4e51-bffb-9dc784411d1f. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to find secondary sources to include this information. Yobol (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Are these good: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948568 or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21834171 ?? ATC ^{. Talk} 03:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The first is a primary source (a single randomised control trial), so not something we could use in this overview article - though it might have some limited use at Autism therapies. The second is a review so, depending on the expertise of the authors and the quality of the journal (editors at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine may offer advice on that), it may be appropriate for inclusion in an overview article - but possibly not this one. That review addresses children with autism spectrum disorders. This article addresses autistic disorder, a psychiatric syndrome affecting a relatively small percentage of people on the autism spectrum. If the authors of that review, or another, address autistic disorder specifically, their conclusions with regard to that may be appropriate here, depending on the strength of the evidence and clinical significance of the effect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of controversy about causes and treatments for autism among editors. Some editors have very strong points of view and advocate strongly for them

Other editors rountinely dismiss these points of view and delete any edits which state them, often claiming they are in violation of Wikipedia rules, most frequently because, they say, Wikipedia only allows secondary sources in medical articles, ie, reviews of the state of research, rather than papers by the original researchers.

This claim s made often in the past, even though the rules did not support it at all, and in fact, by giving rules under which primary sources could be used, completely refuted it.

A few months back the rules were changed, but, even under the new rules, the oft repeated claim that medical articles can only use secondary sources is simply not true.

I have cut and pasted the relevant section of the rules so that all will know what it says. Basically, it puts restrictions on the use of primary sources, but does not prohibit them. The claim that it does is false, and made by people who know it is false. You know who you are, or at least, you will if you actually read the rules.

Here is the most relevant section:

A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made. A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations. A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate textbooks, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are tertiary sources. All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors or by reliable secondary sources, as defined above

End quote

So, the rules for citing primary sources are given above:

1. Edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly.

2. Description should follow closely to the interpretation of the data given by the authors or other reliable secondary sources.

3. Primary sources should not be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors

I realize the field of autism is full of theories of etiology and treatment that are passionately held and inevitably this leads to fights over content, but the actual rules of Wikipedia allow these conflicts to be discussed, and going to far to suppress content you do not agree with is also a violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.234.122.111 (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

There has been a great deal of controversy about causes and treatments for autism among editors. I doubt that the causes of autism among editors are any different than the causes of autism in the general population. This is an overview of autism, and a

WP:RECENTISM and other policies and guidelines as to whether certain primary sources should be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 14:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's very important people know that Pediactic Biosciences and the UC Davis Medical School MIND Institute are working on a test for maternal antibodies to fetal brain which seem to cause about 12% of autism. If a woman has one autistic child, it's extremely important she get the test for the antibodies before getting pregnant again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.11.190 (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

"Working on a test" isn't encyclopedic-- it's news (which

Wikipedia is not), and I'm sure the news media will report it. If that test is developed, and gains medical endorsement, then it will be included in a medical review and will be encyclopedic, rather than commercial and newsy, content. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 15:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The primary sources on which the test is based, published peer reviewed articles in science journals, ARE includable as long as none of the rules for primary sources are violated. The half a dozen people who repeatedly misrepresent the rules, even after I quoted them at length, do not own this article or Wikipedia. I am sorry but citing the rules when they don't say what you say they do, is bad faith. We are supposed to presume good faith, but there is a big difference between presuming something and continuinte to preten it's true when there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.101 (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you have a problem with editors' behaviour, feel free to take it to ANI and see how that goes. Remember to let all involved editors know if you bring this up at ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Instead of saying "call the cops if you don't like it" could you please tell me how I misinterpreted the rules which are used as the excuse of reversing so many valid edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.10.171 (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You questioned behaviour, I gave you a remedy. For how you have misinterpreted the policies, see SandyGeorgia's posts on this thread. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I quoted the rules. Since SandyGeorgia repeatedly referred me to those rules with claims they banned primary sources when they do not, up to SG to show me where I am wrong. If featured articles have a clear prohibition on primary sources, please refer to that rule. The article is really weak, and it's sad it's supposed to be among the best, there are so many things missing from it because some editors won't let new research in, as a matter of THEIR rules not Wikipedia rules. Really sad when people could get important medical info but it's only damaged lives, certainly not as important as your editorial feifdoms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.10.171 (talk • contribs) 01:25, March 19, 2012‎

Dear IP 76.

For more than two years, you've been making the same posts from several dozen IP addresses, getting the same responses, and making similar (incorrect) claims about the responses you've been given. If you don't intend to represent responses made to you correctly, or to engage talk page discussions of policy, guidelines and reliable sources, or to register an account, it would be considerate if you would at least begin to sign your posts. As you've been told before, that is done by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after you finish typing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm tired of it too, but nonetheless, the rules say medical articles can contain primary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.10.171 (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Alas you still have not learned how to sign your posts, or to contribute to a talk page constructively. You know, when everyone tells you that you are incorrect, there is a possible explanation, not that everyone else is wrong, that you are in fact wrong. Please move on, this is tiresome at a level, umm, at a level that I cannot think of a metaphor for... (Hey look, I signed my post!) -> Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, the reason I persist on this is that Maternal Antibody Related autism, which according to research at UC Davis Med School seems to account for a greater percentage of cases than any other single identified cause,over 15% versus maybe 2% for any one genetic cause. Recent postings at www.sfari.org indicate they are now looking at from 400 to 1,000 genes. Since often the genetic problems are due to CNVs, copy number variations, and there is no screening for CNVs in advance, the hope of genetic research having clinical implications in the near future is very low. But many of the very high risk maternal antibody patterns are known, and can be tested for, right now. Women who have had one autistic child really, really, really need to be informed of this so that before they get pregnant again they can get tested. If the research holds up, and NO ONE HAS REFUTED IT IN ANY JOURNAL PAPER SO FAR, then about 1 in 6 mothers of a autistic child has the antibodies, and any subsequent child is very likely to be autistic. I mean like maybe 99% chance, very very high. Allowing this info in the article will really help people. According to Pediatric Biosciences website, at least last time I looked, they hoped to have a commercially available test in a year or so. Again, besides helping people, God Forbid that should be a consideration, as the largest single cause of autism (so, you could say there is more than one antibody just as there is more than one gene, but most of the antibodies are identified, so it's not really a good comparision with hundreds of unknown genes) it's very worthy of the article on that basis alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.11.27 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that there is no commercially available test yet. How does that help anyone? Watermelon mang (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Also not to beat this to death, but the "90% heritable" statement still in the article is very doubtful. Studies of fraternal twin concordance threw this into serious doubt years ago, and similar studies refuting it were published about a year back. So, the lead claim in this supposedly top notch "featured article" is very likely wrong. Way too high a fraternal twin concordance compared to sibling concordance. I'm not talking about vaccines or mercury or pesticides, in fact it's probably in utero stuff, but still NOT HERITABLE. The article is not keeping up with research in so many areas, it's really sad that it's supposed to be among the best here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.11.27 (talk) 00:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)