Talk:Autism spectrum

See also: Wikipedia:Notice board for autism-related topics

DSM for autism

The DSM criteria needs to appear as bullets and needs to look formal. It undermines the fact that autism is a medical issue, not a psychology/social/insignificant issue. Please someone rewrite the diagnostic section, to reflect the professionalism of the diagnosis and treatment of autism. I will recuse myself from judging the importance of my suggestion, as I am in the health care field. Just like ADHD, 40% of autism is accurate diagnosis and this page is google's #1 return on the subject. The article has a very manipulative feel. The information is correct, but it seems as if all the "judgment calls" were made by admins who want to balance the two or three conflicting attitudes towards the subject, they themselves without a background on the subject, but also lacking a specialized education covering this subject.

• We can't just take the text of DSM-IV-TR and plunk it down on the Autism article; that would raise copyright issues. That being said, specific suggestions for improving the first paragraph of Autism#Diagnosis are welcome. It doesn't matter that you're in the health care field; on the contrary, your expertise will be welcome.
• Wherever possible, the information on this page is supported by reliable medical reviews as per WP:MEDRS. The area is controversial, even among medical reviewers, and specific suggestions for improving the information (preferably supported by high-quality citations) is welcome.

Eubulides (talk) 04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Correct; the text is specifically crafted to avoid the serious copyright issues with the DSM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The public has stole the ADHD and methylphenidate wikpedia pages from us, and ever since autism has been getting a lot of coverage+publicity, and our side has been losing ground. I know wikipedia's best admins are fighting the most hot topics like scientology (where I read at least one page within the scientology scope gets reverted every 7 minutes) but I don't want to see this page fall. I'm one of the abandoners of adhd/methylphenidate, and I want to be the first voice to set the stage that I truely think we have a chance at preserving this page to our professional standards and viewpoints. I'm calling for some neutral admins to monitor this page over the next 5-10 years, and not let it gradually slide. Also, please keep an open mind, as all the scientific studies are in our favor, but we're of limited time-resources. I will reply to any rebuttals or questions, below this paragraph. 198.70.210.88 (talk) 12:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Start here..

• Please refer to WP:NOTAFORUM, and discuss specific text you'd like to include. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the vote of confidence on the article's quality. It is important that Autism remain neutral and verifiable, and you're welcome to join the editors who are helping out with that. I should warn you that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox or a battleground for a profession, though. Eubulides (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Medical Privacy

Seems like the posting of un-retouched photos of kids, who are then said to display the symptoms of autism, comes very close to being a violation of their medical privacy. Did they give consent? Did parent's/guardians? C d h (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

According to the info on the image pages, the child's mother (User:Andwhatsnext) gave an OK, by uploading the photos herself. These photos are also published on Youtube, for what's that worth. Eubulides (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested link

I think this link may be useful, either as a source for something or in the external links section http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/04/01/autism.jeffs.story/index.html WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The CNN autism series might provide useful info for Sociological and cultural aspects of autism, but the main article is typically sourced to peer reviewed sources rather than the popular press. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is that a firm rule? When I begin editing "neglected" medical articles, I often find list upon list of links, I swear I'm not exaggerating when I say some of the links are to personal blogs. I think that WP:MEDMOS covers the issue. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS, highest quality sources. Peer-reviewed are preferable to the popular press, which often gets it wrong. The external link cleanup is a different matter, per WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Also here's an article about the opening of an Autism school in China. I'm not sure where this will fit: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/31/china.autism/index.html?iref=mpstoryview WhisperToMe (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Same; might find a home at Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article claiming one child's recovery from autism, and the disbelief of the doctors that the child ever had autism (although his diagnosis was apparently firm at the outset of the recovery.) http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/04/02/mccarthy.autsimtreatment/index.html 206.171.6.11 (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That source would support the claim that Jenny McCarthy thinks vaccines cause autism and that complementary and alternative medicine and applied behavior analysis and speech therapy helped (but did not cure) autism in her son's case. However, that's not much of a claim, compared to the more-general claims that are in Autism now. Jenny McCarthy is widely-enough publicized that perhaps her story could be put into Sociological and cultural aspects of autism; that could be brought up in Talk:Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. Eubulides (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis

This change introduced discussion of cannabis to treat autism. The cited source does not support much of the claims made in the newly-introduced discussion: for example, it doesn't talk about adult patients, nor does it talk about psychological impairments. Furthermore, Autism is a high-level article about all of autism, and there's not enough room in it to talk about all the dozens of treatment methods out there. A better place for the discussion of cannabis and autism is Autism therapies. I just now moved the discussion of cannabis to the new section Autism therapies #Cannabis, and supplied a source (Lorenz 1994, PMID 15159680) that's more-reliable than that advocacy website. Eubulides (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with autism

It is not a disorder. It is not a disease. It is simply a way of being not understood by the vast majority of the population, who are incredulous and cannot seem to handle those who are different. Like racism and sexism before, the general population sees fault with those deemed not normal. You cannot change the way we are. We simply do not respond or understand - as you may - to the perceived notions of body language and supposed normal ways of communication. Those deemed autistic are not less intelligent ot mentally deficient. They simply do not communicate as the general population does.

Autism: solving the puzzle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.53.8 (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not an expert or anything, but the word "disorder" means an irregularity. In other words, when somebody has a disorder, though the connotation of the word deems the person as having something wrong with them, it really just means they are not normal. How is normal determined? That I cannot directly explain, as there are too many factors. Mainly, the status of normal is determined per person, depending on each person's view of what is commonplace in society. As you said, racism was something like this. In Europe and America, blacks were seen as having something wrong with them. That was because African-Americans and others were considered different, and therefore they assumed that have a "disorder". However, if you had gone to Africa at that time, having black skin was in no way a disorder. In other words, as long as the majority of the population does not have autism and that the majority of the population believes that autism is different than the norm, autism remains a disorder. As I said before, I am not an expert by a mere passer-by, but I hope this explanation suffices. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 00:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead talks about some "believing that autism is a condition rather than a disorder", and the article ends with "others believe that autism is simply another way of being", so the viewpoint that there is nothing wrong with autism is represented in Autism now. Eubulides (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As a person with a mild case of high-functioning autism or what one calls Asperger's syndrome, autism can be a problem when one deals with social situations and how they learn at school. Autism isn't an "abnormal" thing but a minority of people have autism and it's better detected than it once was, as well more educational and behavioral treatments are available. Autism is nowadays perceived less than a disorder or disability, but a different kind of human brain one is born with and more people are being diagnosed or discovered with an ASD. To be dubed a "pandemic" is also questionable or a kind of media hype: autism has been common for all these decades or centuries, but only recently American society is more familiar with autism and ASD than previously when autism was seen as "nerdy" or "crazy" behavior...it's how society in the 21st century views autism in a different way. It's been well-documented autism is more common in males (80% of all cases are in men) but females (20%) can have it too; more diagnosed among upper-class whites and Asians but autism is found in all races and classes; and autism is often a genetically inherited trait in certain families, although more cases of autism/ASD is in families without any history of autism. The enigma of autism continues while more studies, analysis and awareness of autism is actually a good thing for improving the social status of persons with autism and ASD, because when more people are familiar with autism the better chances of autistic people to have fairly normal lives. + Mike D 26 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a ref that could be integrated

Chicago Tribune "Against the stream - California-based organization advocates alternative measures to deal with autism" April 8, 2008 [1] MaxPont (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "it" the article? This is a pretty good article right now, formerly featured etc. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The main points of the Chicago Tribune article are covered in Autism#Management in the paragraph beginning "Many alternative therapies and interventions are available.…" There is more detail in the subarticle Autism therapies. I don't offhand see anything new that the Chicago Tribune article brings: it's a less reliable source than the scientific journal reviews and studies that are currently cited in Autism and Autism therapies. Eubulides (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The more sources you add, the more credible. Chigaco Tribune is a well respected RS, and can add context to the narrow discussions in academic journals and show that this issue is discussed in the public debate outside the peer reviewed journals. MaxPont (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• Too many sources, and the reference list gets too long; we have already discarded many sources from Autism (for space reasons) that are better than that article from the Tribune.
• The Tribune is a good newspaper, but it's not as reliable a source for autism as the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Autism, Pediatrics, Annual Review of Public Health, and other sources cited by Autism. For example, the Tribune article says autism is "the fastest-growing developmental disorder in the nation", but this is incorrect: as Autism#Epidemiology points out, it is not known whether autism's true prevalence is increasing. That's the sort of error that one doesn't expect to find in (say) Autism, but which one finds all too often in newspapers, even newspapers as reliable as the Tribune.

Eubulides (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Link Suggestion

This page compiles articles and resources from across the web on Autism. The focus of the page is on children's education and Autism. There are resources for what rights an Autistic child has in school, preparing for kindegarten, and many more focused articles. The articles are from organizations such as Nemours, NICHD, Autism Society of America, among others. Parents looking for additional information on education and Autism will find this site very helpful. Take a look. If you agree, please add it to external links.

[* http://www.education.com/reference/topic/SpecialNeeds_Autism/ Autism Resources for Parents of School Aged Children]

64.81.61.63 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You can add it to the DMOZ link at the bottom of the article, where it will get wider play. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"See also" links

I noticed that a few of the sub-pages in this article are only linked-to from the within the paragraph prose. I thought it would be helpful to add this at the top of the History section:

See also: Sociological and cultural aspects of autism

A discussion is surrounding this in MEDMOS at the moment - I think some guidance on this could be included in there. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Templates for other types of "See also" links are in here: {{see}}. --Matt Lewis (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Gernsbacher et al. 2008 on joint attention

Not wanting to interfere with the very nice work that's been done here, but I came across this Gernsbacher et al. article and it seemed to fit right in. Jean Mercer (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot of text to get through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you mean this article; I'll fix the citation, and leave it to Eubulides to decide if it's got significant traction to be included here. I didn't come across mention in any of the main reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Retract that: I didn't formt the citation yet because it's not in PubMed and I can't find it in Google scholar, it looks like "recentism" or a primary source that should probably not be included until/unless a secondary source reviews and discusses the work. But I'll wait to see what others say. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on the new source. Here's a better citation to that same essay:

• Gernsbacher MA, Stevenson JL, Khandakar S, Goldsmith HH (2008). "Why does joint attention look atypical in autism?". Child Dev Perspect. 2 (1): 38–45. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00039.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It's the first essay in a 3-part series on a somewhat-controversial subject, published in a non-Pubmed-indexed journal launched last year by the Society for Research in Child Development. The journal apparently solicits series like these, in order to promote dialog about policy. The other two parts in the series are:

• Burack JA, Russo N (2008). "On why joint attention might look atypical in autism: a case for a strong policy statement but more nuanced empirical story". Child Dev Perspect. 2 (1): 46–8. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00040.x.
• Gernsbacher MA, Stevenson JL, Khandakar S, Goldsmith HH (2008). "Autistics' atypical joint attention: policy implications and empirical nuance". Child Dev Perspect. 2 (1): 49–52. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00041.x.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Given the form and forum it sounds like this material is more appropriate for Controversies in autism, so I moved (and rewrote) it from Autism to there. This change also relocated Autism's somewhat-scattered joint-attention matterial to Autism#Communication, which seems like the logical place for it. Eubulides (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this FA prose? And why is this article semi-protected?

I was scanning the article for sub-article wiki-links and this paragraph stood out:

"Many alternative therapies and interventions are available. Few are supported by scientific studies. Treatment approaches lack 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. Many treatments are probably harmless. Some are not: for example, in 2005, botched chelation therapy killed a five-year-old autistic boy."

Is this FA prose? To me, the whole weight of the paragraph seems all wrong. It's interesting that the second line is a single sentence - it doesn't read like it was the original prose. I always worry that FA's are more susceptible to these kind of changes sticking than more organic articles (assuming my guess is true). The whole paragraph reads too conversationally POV-sounding: "Many treatments are probably harmless. Some are not:" is decidedly staccato and pointed too. Can the citation after "parent requests" really back up the tone of the preceding statement? Bear in mind I'm not concerned with any over-riding 'truth' here - my concern is how adhering to a balanced prose style can help irradiate a biased tone wherever it comes from. I noticed that Main article: Autism therapies is very similar in tone too.

My principle interest is the Alzheimer's article - editors are grooming it for FA (an understandable goal for those who want the best), but my major worry is that the little symbol won't necessarily be good for it in the long run. Or should I say two little symbols - why is Autism semi-locked? I can't see anything to warrant it on the Talk page and it could be adversely effecting the article.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have only edited this page some, but it seems to me that the sentence is not that bad, the second one. It says that most are probably harmless ((so they may not work, but they have no bad effect) but some are not, such as the aforementioned case. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean the third one? - it wasn't actually a sentence I specifically called up. The compounding fourth sentence I have a tone issue with (the one ending in "parent requests"). And the beginning and ending sentences have 'tone' issues for me too. I'm not arguing with content (though it's not really weighted at all) - but I've an ear for tone, and it stood out as I found it rough. "Many treatments are probably harmless." - can we say that without a citation? It's not "encyclopedic prose" either - I think that is my point. If this wasn't an FA I may not have mentioned it - but my worry is that if it wasn't an FA I may also not have seen it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't offhand recall the citation directly on point for the "probably harmless" claim. It's a claim that is no doubt true (and I vaguely recall that it used to be sourced) but we can't include it without a source. For now, I removed that claim and filled in the resulting gap with a sourced example of harm, namely nutritional deficiencies from elimination diets. Those interested in the subject might also take a look at: Hediger ML, England LJ, Molloy CA, Yu KF, Manning-Courtney P, Mills JL (2007). "Reduced bone cortical thickness in boys with autism or autism spectrum disorder". J Autism Dev Disord. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0453-6. PMID 17879151. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Eubulides (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The article is locked because when it wasn't locked, almost all the edits from IP addresses were vandalism, and the resulting process harmed Wikipedia far more than it helped. Occasionally the lock expires, vandalism goes through the roof, and the lock gets reinstated.
• The source for the "parent requests" sentence says this: "It appears that program marketing, availability of training, provider preference, and external factors such as parent requests influence the use of specific practices more than whether the practice has any evidence of efficacy." (Stahmer et al. 2005, PMID 16467905)
• The prose is certainly not Shakespeare, and no doubt could be improved; any specific suggestions?

Eubulides (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alzheimer's used to get weird vandalism, but it's subsided of late. What kind is it? I suppose it must be over content if it gets protected. The source is quoted? (ie. "appears") - perhaps it should be a quote then? It can't be right as it is - it's a big statement. I actually have an autistic friend, and I know his mother well (who's retired). I'll see if I can get them involved (even if its just a read through and suggestions). --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The above quote ("It appears that program marketing…") is a direct quote from the cited source. Autism paraphrases the source in an attempt to be slightly briefer and clearer. As a general rule I dislike direct quotes in medical articles, as they typically make articles longer and are rarely worth the trouble. More pairs of eyeballs are welcome of course. Eubulides (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism - sorry, I'm a bit tired. Occasionally the lock expires? Can IP addresses and featured articles co-exist I wonder. --Matt Lewis (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the current lock on Autism expires July 2. More-controversial featured articles like Autism are often locked, I'm afraid. Eubulides (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I chose to semi-protect this article since there were no constructive contributions being made by IP editors, with the large number of IP edits being instead simple vandalism, often consisting of obscene and insulting comments about autistic people. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Prose suggestion

A suggestion:

"Many alternative therapies and interventions are available, though few are supported by scientific studies. Treatment approaches lack 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. Many treatments are probably harmless, while others are not. One treatment that has proven deadly is botched chelation therapy, which killed a five-year-old autistic boy, in 2005."

A light copyedit to smoothen out the prose; is that better? · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That suggestion was based on this older version, no? But we had to yank out the "probably harmless" bit due to lack of citations; perhaps you could revamp the suggestion to match the newer version? Anyway, I made this change to incorporate the suggested change to the first sentence; generally it's better to say "Although X, Y" rather than "X, though Y", as that gives the reader a better hint that a contrary clause is coming. Eubulides (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I based it on the original inquirer's version. Does this look good? I took out "elimination diet," (replaced with "some diets, particularly those that completely eliminate the intake one or more types of food") as I don't think that's a proper term; while more specific, it also sounds a bit awkward, so if I'm wrong, better so. · AndonicO ^Engage. 23:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a minute, I found a source backing the claim about most treatments being harmless: Angley et al. 2007 (PMID 17925903) say "most interventions are associated with only mild adverse effects" so that can go back in, with revised wording. The "particularly those" part wasn't supported by the source and that phrase is a bit wordy, so how about if we just name one popular diet and a harm from it, as that fits in better with the "For example"? Finally, replacing "killed" with "has proven deadly, causing the death of" added redundancy ("deadly"/"death") but no extra information; was there something wrong with the simpler, shorter "killed"? Anyway, I made this change to incorporate the ideas of this paragraph. Eubulides (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I thought "killed" seemed a bit more violent, but I guess there aren't many alternatives. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Killed" seems weird here, because the example doesn't quite fit.

Chelation therapy is not a dedicated autism treatment (it's normally used for treating heavy metal poisoning, and is known to be dangerous if calcium levels are not monitored (it effects the symbiotic magnesium/calcium balance). Occasionally it is tried on diseases like Alzheimer's - and probably anything where people believe heavy metals may be involved. My point is that if it is not controlled properly (ie 'botched') it can kill anyone. None of the elements - the treatment, the botching (especially) or the death - are specifically linked to autism above any other disease or impediment where chelation therapy is used - so it seems odd that it is so highlighted here. I think the preceding lines are the problem - they are too strong.

I'm making this edit:

"Although many alternative therapies and interventions are available, few are supported by scientific studies.[27][94][95] Treatment approaches often lack empirical support in quality-of-life contexts, and many programs focus on success measures that lack predictive validity and real-world relevance.[28] It has been suggested that many service providers place program marketing, training availability, and parent requests above scientific evidence.[96] Most treatments, such as supplementing with vitamin C or omega 3 have mild or no adverse effects,[97] but others can be problematic: a 2007 study found that autistic boys on casein-free diets have significantly thinner bones,[98] and chelation therapy can be fatal if not properly controlled.[99]"

It weights the two problematic examples with two benign ones, and evens the tone of the paragraph. --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not happy with the recent weasly wording "it has been suggested that", here. See WP:AWW, WP:WTA et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the following problems with that edit:

• It inserted an often, resulting in "Treatment approaches often lack empirical support in quality-of-life contexts". The source says "No studies to date have identified indicators predictive of QoL for children (or adults) with autism." and later "However, to date, there has been little empirical support of programmes for autism in terms of real-world, evidence-based, and QoL contexts. Rather, many autism programmes remain focused on utilising measures of success that lack predictive validity and salience to real-world contexts (e.g. IQ score, academic success)." In light of this, the often is too generous. I'll reword the phrase to "Treatment approaches have little empirical support in quality-of-life contexts"; this matches the source better.

As long as some qualifier is in there.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• It inserted the "It has been suggested that" weasel words you mentioned. The source says "It appears that program marketing, availability of training, provider preference, and external factors such as parent requests influence the use of specific practices more than whether the practice has any evidence of efficacy." I don't know of anyone seriously disputing the source's claim, nor is the source mincing its words here; let's just summarize the source rather than weaken its claims.

It needs another citation if "appears" is used. How do people currently know it is a summary of a source, rather that a irrefutable fact (which it could be - but are we sure ehough to put it like this)? Hope you don't mean Wikipedia definition of "weasel words", by the way! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, by "weasel words" I just meant trying to say something with unduly indirect circumlocutions in an attempt to soften the blow of what an article says. But I don't follow the rest of the comment. The source says "appears", and we say "appears"; what's inaccurate about that summary? Wikipedia is not about irrefutable facts (that would be too hard…), it is about reliable sources and verifiability. Commentary that I've seen about that source (e.g., McGrath 2006) doesn't dispute the conclusion in question. Why should that point need confirmation from another source? Eubulides (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• It gives "supplementing with vitamin c or omega 3" as examples of treatments with "mild or no adverse effects", but the cited source says "with only mild adverse effects" (not "with mild or no adverse effects"), and it does not give those two as examples of treatments with mild adverse effects. We shouldn't weaken the source's wording here. The source does give melatonin as an example, so we can use that instead.

It only uses the word "mild" for "Pyridoxine and magnesium" and "melatonin", but for "Omega 3" it said "Gastrointestinal side effects are reported with EFAs including: nausea, diarrhoea, increased belching, acid/reflux/heartburn/indigestion, abdominal bloating, and abdominal pain. Fishy aftertaste is commonly experienced and rare reports of skin rash have occurred.23" - which I took to mean the same as "mild". I added vitamin C (which has no notable side-effects) to weight two examples with two. But we can lose the botched chelation example.

I dunno; to put the devil's advocate hat on, it depends on how often and severe the nausea is; and even vitamin C has adverse effects if you take enough of it. Of course I agree that adverse effects of these treatments are mild in autism treatments, but this source doesn't say that they're mild, and we need a source that says it before we can put it in. The pyridoxine and magnesium section makes it clear that there is real concern about their long-term adverse effects, so we can't use that. Eubulides (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked for other reliable sources on this topic. Levy & Hyman 2005 (PMID 15977319) say this about Vitamin C: "Few side effects are described, except in high doses where there might be gastrointestinal upset (including diarrhea) or potential of kidney stones." This isn't close enough to "mild" for my comfort, as kidney stones can be quite painful. I looked for something where L&H say something similar about some other treatment, and the closest thing I found was "No known negative side effects of probiotic agents or a 'yeast-free' diet are reported." Perhaps mention probiotics for another positive example? Eubulides (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• It rewords "Although X, Y" to "X, but Y". I've learned from TimVickers that the former style is preferable in medical articles, as it gives the reader more of a clue in advance that X will be contradicted by Y.

Fine if it reads better.

• When talking about treatments it rewords "some can be harmful" to "others can be problematic". "Some" is better than "others" here, since it matches the "most" and qualifies the harmful treatments as being in the minority. "Problematic" is longer than "harmful" and seems a bit of an understatement when talking about a therapy that was fatal to the patient. Perhaps it'd be better to omit the phrase entirely; that's shorter, and readers can draw their own conclusions.

Thinking about it your are right about that - it really needs to be omitted - or we must find a better example which is more directly linked to austism and isn't just a botched event!

The event is relevant even if it was botched. A treatment that is dangerous because of botches that are too-probable counts as a dangerous treatment. Eubulides (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• The cited source shows that the botched chelation therapy was specifically being used to treat autism. The problem was not that the chelation was "not properly controlled" (which makes it sound like a bit too much agent was administered, or something like that). The problem was that (due to a mixup) the wrong chelation agent was administered, and in the quantity administered it was fatal. The source does not recommend monitoring calcium as a way to prevent such problems in the future; instead, it suggests that Na₂EDTA be removed from hospital formularies, to help avoid future mixups. To my mind "not properly controlled" is both wordier and less accurate than "botched" here.

It's a bad example and needs omitting (as suggested in the last point above).

Please see reply above. Eubulides (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I made this change to encompass the above comments. Eubulides (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above change is an improvement again, but the "it appears" line is based on the one reference - I still don't find "It appears" encyclopedic language in this context (though it doesn't sound as bad now the balance of the paragraph is improved, I admit), mainly because it is based on just one citation - wouldn't the word "appears" need more than one? I'll look for another to back it up. Balance is surely the key to Wikipedia (here between the language used and the amount of citations given).

By the way, this is what Wikipedia has on "weasel words": "Weasel words are deliberately misleading or ambiguous language used to avoid making a straightforward statement while giving the appearance that such has been made. This type of language is used to deceive, distract, or manipulate an audience."

Why would I want to do that? I hope no-one here is suggesting anything! It looks to me like people have rigid ideas about dealing with "CAM" - but Wikipdia is an encyclopaedia with pretty solid guidelines - if we get it right nobody has to make a value judgement either way (which is how I personally see the subject). I've merely spotted a paragraph that needs (and has now had) improvement - and have had the guts to give it a go. I'd appreciate some faith! --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly didn't intend any such implication, and I hope my above comments have addressed the points about "appears" and "weasel". Eubulides (talk) 23:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

New review

• "Advances in autism genetics: on the threshold of a new neurobiology" Brett S. Abrahams & Daniel H. Geschwind Nature Reviews in Genetics, May 2008 Volume 9 Number 5, p341 doi:10.1038/nrg2346

Could be useful. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No kidding! It's an extremely high-quality review, though not easy reading. I made this change to try to keep Autism up-to-date. Thanks for the heads-up. Eubulides (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hans Asperger

The picture with caption "Hans Asperger introduced the modern sense of the word autism in 1938." is inaccurate. Hans Asperger described what we now know as Asperger's Syndrome in 1944. Autism as the term is currently used was first described by Leo Kanner in 1943, with claims that his observations date back to 1938. While both Asperger and Kanner used the term "autism", their study groups were quite different and should be independently described.

-Sam gamerSRC@gmail.com

Asperger also published in 1944, but his first publication using the word autism in its modern sense was in 1938. See Autism#History for more details. The 1938 publication wasn't widely known (in English-languages sources, anyway) until fairly recently; it's the usual problem that Asperger's seminal work was all in German. I added a citation to the caption to help clarify this. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Eubulides (talk) 06:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Rock Autism Campaign

You know how VH1 Classic is having that Rock Autism Campaign to raise awareness about autism? Should we put a link to their site or something? A pyrate's life for me... (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so, as it's not notable enough for autism in general. I suggest putting it into World Autism Day and broading the scope of that new page to include Autism Awareness Month, which Rock Autism is part of. Eubulides (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll have to get on that. A pyrate's life for me... (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Incidence

(Caivanoa (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)) This is my first attempt at editing a page on Wikipedia, I have been working with autistic children for over ten years as a behavioral interventionist, as you can imagine we are updated on current statistics quite often. The stats given on the autism page of 1 in 166 children being diagnosed with autism, or as it is stated, "6 per 1000 for Autism Spectrum Disorder", is quite outdated. Those statistics are from 2003-2005. Recent statistics are most commonly averaging 1 in 150 children being diagnosed on the autism spectrum. There are many sites that are publishing these stats, but just to give you a few; OpEdNews at http:[[2]] This site reports that numbers of autistic children differ from state to state with the current averages being 1 in 150, yet some states like Massachusetts report having 1 in every 130 children being diagnosed. If you go directly to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at: [[3]] you will also find more current statistics of 1 in 150 children, and 1 in 94 of the 150, being boys. These are just simple suggestions, but it is important to keep up with current stats in such a controversial topic like autism, especially because the numbers of diagnosis seem to be growing by the minute. Thank you for your time, (Caivanoa (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC))

The press release you linked to seems to have the same data as in our article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning the situation. It is a tricky area. The CDC press release says "More recent studies from multiple countries using current diagnostic criteria conducted with different methods have indicated that there is a range of ASD prevalence between 1 in 500 children and 1 in 166 children." which indicates a range of between 2.0 and 6.0 per 1000. It also mentions two recent U.S. studies, a study reporting 6.7 per 1000 in 2000 and a study reporting 6.6 per 1000 in 2002. Our main source here (Newschaffer et al. 2007, PMID 17367287) says "Recent prevalence estimates for the ASDs collectively have been surprisingly consistent, in comparison with the heterogeneity of autistic disorder estimates, falling close to 60 per 10,000." which would be close to 6 per 1,000, the figure Autism reports. One has to remember that the underlying figures vary quite a bit, at least partly due to changes in the way ASD gets diagnosed; for example, a recent British study (Baird et al. 2006, PMID 16844490) reported a prevalence of 11.6 per 1,000. With that range (from 2.0 to 11.6 per 1,000) and with WP:MEDRS in mind, I'd like to see a more-recent reliable review on the subject (as opposed to reporting results from individual studies); in the meantime the "about six per 1,000" matches these new studies pretty closely, all things considered. Eubulides (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is way too vague as it is written - "most statistics agree" or anything like that - is not good enough. And you're right - there are so many different statistics on autism, ASD, Aspergers, that don't match - that a clearer scope needs to be given. ALSO - I don't necessarily see it here - but I HATE it when people give a statistic such as "1,000,000 people are diagnosed with autism a year" (I made that statistic up). Diagnosed WHERE? In other words, and especially with people in the US (and I'm from the US....so....) - there is a very ignorant trend to forget the fact that the internet is WORLDWIDE, and that when you give numbers, statistics, rates, etc., they should be specified - 1,000,000 in the US, for example - or 130,000 worldwide. Even if you do cite, it's still not clear and it's not correct. I'm not picking on anyone here - just venting.... Dmodlin71 (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel autism is actually overdiagnosed by worried parents, but also underdiagnosed as a whole in a larger general population. More and more adults are finding out they have ASD/autism later in life, while the majority of new cases we usually read or hear about are young children (esp. 2 to 5 year old boys, but some experts feel most girls aren't properly diagnosed). The incidence of autism should be an international phenomena, but it's the developed countries like Europe and North America with the right criteria and psychological tests available to detect or diagnose people to have ASD/autism. Now a few people involved in psychiatry and in the autistic community perceive our society is perfectionist and not fully tolerant on autism, therefore you get a "pandemic" or a fanatical push to find out who's autistic or not. Sure, we have media hypes about what's obesity, homosexuality, pedophiles, racists, terrorists, communists, ecological damage, abuse victims, satanic cults, UFO report flaps or other "witch hunts" or "scare tactics" for anyone who's viewed as such and such...autism may be grossly overemphasized as an "illness" or a "crisis" when in fact autism isn't the same issue like for one to have AIDS, cancer or schizophrenia (an actual mental illness). Think of it: autism isn't a brain disease but a different neurological state who needs more assistance in society except autistic people are most likely no different from the majority of people without autism. + Mike D 26 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

MMR remark

Hi, my first talk, so forgive if this has been addressed before.

"there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing no causal association between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism"

This is a very strong conclusion and I don't believe it's true, and I haven't seen any study reaching such a strong conclusion. As far as I'm aware, they make the weaker 'this evidence does not support a link' which is quite different.

The MMR studies all compare groups of MMR-vaccinated against those who received an alternative measles vaccine. So what the studies show is that the MMR does not contribute significantly differently to other measles shots. Unless there's studies giving the measles shots a clean bill of health, we cannot conclude that about MMR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.88.28 (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The cited source (Doja & Roberts 2006, PMID 17168158) supports that claim by saying in its abstract, "In particular, some have suggested an association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism. Our literature review found very few studies supporting this theory, with the overwhelming majority showing no causal association between the Measles-Mumps-Rubella vaccine and autism." This is not a single scientific study: it's a review of the scientific literature up to about 2 years ago. I don't know of any more-recent scientific study that would cast doubt on that review's conclusion; on the contrary, the recent scientific studies I know of (Fombonne et al. 2006, PMID 16818529; Richler et al. 2006, PMID 16729252; Uchiyama et al. 2007, PMID 16865547; Baird et al. 2008, PMID 18252754) all found no connection between MMR and autism, and a 2007 review (DeStefano 2007, PMID 17928818) says there is "compelling scientific evidence against a causal association". As for the idea that the MMR studies are all flawed, do you have a reliable source on that? Eubulides (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I wonder when people will learn the difference between "we haven't found any evidence yet" and "there is no evidence"? Even "a review of the scientific literature" is suspect: how much scientific literature is there? Which account am I going to trust most, the account of a parent who noticed nothing wrong with their child until after the child had an MMR--at which point the child's behavior changed drastically--or a vague statement of "the literature has been reviewed"? Science should be about direct observation wherever possible; when did it descend into one bunch of lazy people reading papers written by another bunch of lazy people? And this is not even getting into the thimerosal issue, since (IIRC) the MMR vaccine doesn't use the thimerosal preservative. But really. A mercury-based compound. How does that not cause problems? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.97.94 (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true, you cannot prove the null. That said, when no evidence has been found and people have looked it seems that closes the issue. Science does not work on observations of one kid, or from one parent, it uses controlled studies. Finally, calling scientists that read and write articles lazy pretty much makes it clear that you do not understand science. It is hardly an easy thing to do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, a quick search of pubmed lists 197 papers with the search terms MMR and autism. 42 of these are reviews. I could go through all the papers and list all the data but that would be "doing a literature review" and this has already been done. If you want to read some of the work that has been done i recommend using pubmed as a starting point. Not all text is available free to the general public (due to the methods by which scientific data is published and journals wanted to get paid) but lots of it is. You can read a summary of all papers findings for free at pubmed and if you are particular interested in getting the actual data it is fairly standard procedure in the academic (although not the industrial!) community to provide raw data on request. Just contact the corresponding author - whose contact details will be listed on the paper. I think you will find that in general scientific papers aspire to be honest and critical of their own work - whatever it shows.Bredon (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo in Infobox - Child Stacking Cans

I removed this photo - hope I don't offend someone - cute kid! BUT, I find the photo to be very irrelevant to the top of the main page. Also, as an adult on the autistic spectrum, I find it frustrating when encyclopedic or informational articles on autism always start with and/or concentrate on autism in childhood, because autism doesn't end in childhood - it is a life-long condition. Also, when adults with autism spectrum disorders do research on their condition(s) (and believe me, nobody researches more than autistics) it can become somewhat of an insult to come upon article after article focusing on children, and showing photos of children. It makes it seem, in a way, as if people with autism are, well, "generally children."

Well, not true - in fact, I'm 37, have a degree and an active social life, despite many obstacles and bumps along the way! I agree that childhood is a time of extreme importance in recognizing and learning to cope with the mystery of autism; however, we can't forget that, because autism is a relatively NEW diagnosis in the field of psychiatry, there are still many adults who are discovering and being diagnosed with a condition that they lived their whole life with - always wanting an explanation, and finally finding one. I met a lady who was diagnosed as being on the spectrum at the age of 50. I now believe my grandmother was as well, who died 20 years ago. It's a mysterious world we live in..............Dmodlin71 (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The photo is relevant and useful. First, a diagnosis of autism requires behaviors before three years old; that's why the first sentence in Autism has the word "child" in it. Second, the photo illustrates one of the characteristics of autism, namely restricted, ritualistic, and repetitive behavior. Your point about autism being a lifelong condition is well taken, and if we could find a better photo, one that illustrated autism in adulthood as well as in childhood, that would be better. But in the meantime we have to use what we have; the set of freely-available photos for autism is very limited, and for a general-purpose encyclopedia article like this it is better to have a relevant and useful photo, even if it's not ideal, than to have no photo at all. Eubulides (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the photo is relevant and should stay. We have what we have, and we have no useful, free adult images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course if you wished to take a photograph of yourself or, even better, an autism support group that you know of, that would be a great addition to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Preferably engaging in some kind of typical autistic behavior such as stimming. I suspect the main reason why there are no adult photos is because adults, even autistics, tend to get a little *embarrassed* about bringing public their stimming habits. Speaking as a self-stimmer and a person with Asperger's Syndrome, I can promise you will never see a photo of me on this page. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. The picture does show an aspect of autism. Here's a question though - why do we need a photo? What purpose does it serve? I could post a picture of my neighbor's little girl stacking bricks in their front yard - she doesn't have autism - but I could say "here is a girl stacking bricks. Many autistic children develop habits..." If this were an article about Tourette Syndrome, would/should there be a picture of someone blinking or showing some strange tic behavior? Probably not - sort of hard to capture on a photo. That's why you have to EXPLAIN it. In a related vein - if you were writing an article about manic depression - you wouldn't post a picture of someone tearing their hair out while crying over a sink..... or someone bug-eyed because they have insomnia and are experiencing anxiety. It's inappropriate, it doesn't serve any purpose other than drama, and it is a stereotype.

That was my basic objection to the photo. Autism has enough stereotypes and drama. And perhaps if you wanted to show an autistic trait, such as a child stacking or counting - a video would be more appropriate. Dmodlin71 (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

ONE more point - the purpose of providing images/photos/diagrams etc. in articles is mainly to illustrate a point to make it more clear. An article about Mt. Rainier couldn't be more complete without at least one picture of the volcano itself. An article about a medication will show a diagram of its molecular structure. The picture gives a clear picture, pun intended, of what is being described. You can describe a child a child stacking cans quite easily - no picture needed. Adding to articles with images like that only serves to make the article LOOK better - but in reality, it just makes the page take longer to load. Dmodlin71 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I can describe Nahuatl without using any images at all (after all, it's a language), but if you visit the Nahuatl article you'll see that it leads with an image of a Nahua woman speaking. Just as with Autism, the image is not strictly needed, but having an illustration helps readers (particularly non-experts) orient themselves to the subject of the article. I think Autism could use more images, not fewer. I'd be reluctant to remove this image, which is one of the best in the article. Eubulides (talk) 19:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, if we had a free available image of a ticcing behavior, we would be using it in Tourette syndrome, but we don't have such an image. In this case, there is no reason to delete an image with correct licensing that helps our readers visualize the behavior. I see no reason to remove it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the Nahuatl image and, to be honest, I don't get the point of that picture either! It's all about FIRST IMPRESSIONS though, when it comes to an image that is right at the top of the page when it's opened. And, to be honest, I had very little knowledge of Nahuatl when I went to that page, and if I had only glanced at the page, I would have guessed that it was an ancient, probably extinct language because of the archaic-looking image of the woman at the top.

In the same vein - this article is headed as "autism" along with a picture of a child, right when the page loads. The non-expert could glance and immediately gain the impression that autism is all about children. It's not. And I will also point out that there is no specific citation for the statement in the first paragraph "all starting before a child is three years old." There is an inline cite that leads to the WHO classification and diagnostic criteria page - for CHILDHOOD autism. [4]

The statement made is totally incorrect when applied to the generic diagnosis of AUTISM. On the same ICD page, the childhood autism criteria is followed by ATYPICAL AUTISM, which doesn't require a specific age of onset.

It does everyone a disservice when an article goes strictly "generic." And this article is WAYYY too long and has information that would be better suited for the page on autism spectrum disorders.

However, I'm not touching a thing - just arguing my point - and now I'm done. I've come to the conclusion that the entire article is a mess, and I won't be held liable for trying to make any further changes. Dmodlin71 (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe images are not your cup of tea—no image is perfect, after all, and they have have problems of one sort or another—but for many users an image helps greatly to orient them towards the subject.
• As Autism#Classification mentions, there is a bewildering number of terms that mean the same thing. What this article calls autism other sources call autism, autistic disorder, childhood autism, or infantile autism (and there are other names too, like classic autism or Kanner autism). The diagnosis for this condition (under whatever name one uses: as you mention the WHO ICD-10 says childhood autism, but DSM-IV says autistic disorder) requires onset prior to 3 years.

Eubulides (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Daniels et al. 2008

This change was reverted with the comment "If warranted, this would be covered in the Causes of autism article". The study in question (Daniels et al. 2008, PMID 18450879) is about epidemiology, not causes, so I think a better choice for it is Epidemiology of autism. It's just a primary study but it is a major one so (until we get reviews for it) I think it's worth mentioning there. I made this change to Epidemiology of autism to do that. Eubulides (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Anatomy of a meltdown

"Anatomy of a Meltdown" article, written by a 29-year-old with aspergers. He clearly describes what is behind typical tantrum-like behaviors-- the causes, how to deal with them and how to avoid them. http://www.annarosejewelry.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=8&chapter=0 Wikinvisages (talk) 11:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sales site and blog-ish, which means it's not really appropriate per WP:ELNO, and not a medically reliable source. Not a good choice as an external link. Perhaps suggest it over at the DMOZ. WLU (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Autism a Brain Development Disorder or a Neurological Disorder?

Dear SandyGeorgia,
On the autism article it states that it's a brain development disorder. I thought it was a neurological disorder. Wouldn't it be better to say that, it's a neurological disorder where the cells in your brain is mixed up. Unless did a peer view scientific article state that it's a brain development disorder. And I don't see the difference between neurodevelopmental disorder or neurology (neurological disorder). AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Annie, Eubulides has done most of the writing there, and he is scrupulous about sticking to sources; maybe you could raise the question at Talk:Autism ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the reason is that the article follows the classification used by the World Health Organization, see 2008 ICD-9-CM Diagnosis 299.0 and ICD-10. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A brain development disorder is one kind of neurological disorder; there are other kinds of neurological disorders. In a brain development disorder the problem occurs with the ways that neurons develop in the brain. In the more general case of neurological disorders, there is some problem with neurons, but the problem doesn't have to be in the brain (it could be neurons outside the brain), and the problem doesn't have to be in the ways that neurons develop (it can occur after neural development). The autism lead uses the more-specific term, since that conveys more information. Eubulides (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Eubuildes,

since you seem to be a genius in this field.
Although, Autism is a brain disorder, overtime through intense Early Intervention you can cure, but not medically.
I've been trying to prove this point for a while, but it seems not to go anywhere.
Can you help me understand more clearly about why I am not allowed to add that, since it has been handled in other articles.

Such as, Son-Rise with Raun Kaufman. I know I am only pointing out one person, but their has been other success stories, as well for children and adults.

Thanx for listing! AnnieTigerChucky (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Autism #Prognosis says "Children recover occasionally, sometimes after intensive treatment and sometimes not; it is not known how often this happens." (citing Rogers & Vismara 2008, PMID 18444052). Does this serve to make the point? That is, sometimes children become less autistic, and sometimes more (that point is made elsewhere; search for "regressive autism" in the article); we don't know why. There's no good evidence that any treatment is a cure, which is why both Prognosis and the lead say "There is no cure." Eubulides (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Junk Science?

If medicine had diagnosed autism as often in my younger years as it does now, I might have been (mis)diagnosed as autistic. It seems to have taken on an umbrella of diagnoses in an attempt to "classify" behaviors not fully understood by science. That isn't to say it's all a bunch of hooey, but it certainly seems to apply in more situations now than in the past, which leads me to believe being overdiagnosed by the medical community in an attempt to coax parents into believeing there is something wrong with their children and keep purchasing medicine and treatments for them. It is hard to believe it isn't being milked for all of its worth by the medical field. This article would benefit from a counterpoint like this, and there certainly is enough out there to warrant an edit as such.76.214.215.11 (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Autism #Diagnosis already makes a similar point, albeit in less incendiary terms. It says:

"Underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis are problems in marginal cases, and much of the recent increase in the number of reported ASD cases is likely due to changes in diagnostic practices. The increasing popularity of drug treatment options and the expansion of benefits has given providers incentives to diagnose ASD, resulting in some overdiagnosis of children with uncertain symptoms. Conversely, the cost of screening and diagnosis and the challenge of obtaining payment can inhibit or delay diagnosis." (citting Shattuck & Grosse 2007, PMID 17563895)

I don't know of any reliable source that goes so far as to claim that autism is "junk science" or "being milked for all of its worth by the medical field", but if you know of a reliable source please let us know. Best would be refereed journal articles as per WP:MEDRS. Eubulides (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he was using incendiary terms. Junk science sounds about right. 24.216.189.240 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Junk science" doesn't sound plausible to me, but I've been wrong before. Reliable sources, please? Eubulides (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Neurotypical

Could we avoid the use of this neologism. As far as I can tell it's only used within the autistic community. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, nor is it an autism support group. If you want to mount a campaign to change the English language to placate yourselves, do it somewhere else. 24.216.189.240 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Neurotypical is a new word, but it's in fairly common use in the scholarly literature. See, for example, Tommerdahl et al. 2008 (PMID 18435849), Cashin 2008 (PMID 18269411), Shafritz et al. 2008 (PMID 17916328), and Stieglitz et al. 2008 (PMID 17665296). I don't see why this article should depart from established terminology, even if the establishment was recent. Eubulides (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed from causes, sodium valproate

Removed from Causes section, I'm unsure of one source, ce needed, and this may belong better in Causes of autism:

Some medications taken during pregnancy are known to increase the risk of autism and AS disorders, including the common anti-convulsant drug sodium valproate (Epilim). A 2005 study found rates of autism among children exposed to sodium valproate before birth in the cohort studied were 8.9%. The normal incidence for autism in the general population is estimated at less than one percent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to it SandyGeorgia, as usual.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a reasonable primary study, but its results are already briefly discussed in Autism #Causes (in "All known teratogens (agents that cause birth defects) related to the risk of autism appear to act during the first eight weeks from conception….") and in more detail in Causes of autism #Teratogens (in "Teratogens are environmental agents that cause birth defects. Some agents that are known to cause other birth defects have also been found to be related to autism risk. These include exposure of the embryo to thalidomide, valproic acid, or misoprostol, or to rubella infection in the mother. These cases are rare; congenital rubella syndrome is the most convincing.") These quotes are sourced by reliable reviews which (as per WP:MEDRS) should be preferred to citing the primary study directly. Eubulides (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Five point scale

Someone knowledgeable should try and save the following one-line stub Five point scale. I don't know much about the subject but clearly the article as is is deletion-bound. Pichpich (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's about the scale by which people evaluate how strongly something applies to them as used in questionnaires, surveys and tests, then I don't see how this is specifically ASD related. A discussion of it in an article about psychological test could be usefull. Fenke (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

ADHD, Tourette's, etc.

I recently made this change to attempt to summarize the following text from Steyaert & De La Marche 2008 (PMID 18597114):

"The DSM-IV considers autism as a pre-emptive diagnosis and rules out the concurrent diagnosis of many co-morbid conditions, i.e. attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Nevertheless, the full criteria for ADHD (approximately 25%), Tourette’s syndrome (approximately 10%) and other conditions are often present and may lead to considerable additional behavioural impairment. It is now increasingly accepted to make these comorbid diagnoses. A broader knowledge of child psychiatric conditions is necessary for a good appreciation of co-morbidity. Structured interviews like the 3di or the DISC-IV are additional tools to assess co-morbid psychiatric disorders."

My summarizing text is a bit inartful, as it contains jargon like "preempted diagnoses" and weird wording like "other of these conditions". Further suggestions on improving the wording are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ah, now that you've provided the quote, I see the wording problem. One question, before we work on the wording: the TS literature regularly refers to autism as a secondary cause of tics; that is, tics can be part of autism, so how do we avoid a conflict here? If the autism folks are saying to go ahead and make the diagnosis, but the TS folks are saying tics are sometimes attributable to the autism, not a separate TS diagnosis, how do we sort that within the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• By "a conflict" do you mean the conflict between a diagnosis of ASD and a diagnosis of TS, or the conflict between what the Autism article says and what the Tourette syndrome article says? When someone presents with both the symptoms of ASD and the symptoms of TS, ASD "wins" and the person is diagnosed with ASD and not with TS. So what you're saying about tics being a part of autism, or autism being a secondary cause of tics, makes sense: if you have both sets of symptoms then you are diagnosed with ASD and you also have tics (I might quibble with the "cause" bit, but those are deeper waters). Tourette syndrome #Diagnosis already says "Hence, other medical conditions that include tics or tic-like movements—such as autism or other causes of tourettism—must be ruled out before conferring a Tourette's diagnosis." so it has this base covered.
• Hmm, by "conflict" were you thinking that Autism#Characteristics or Autism#Diagnosis should be addressing this issue? They are correct now, in the sense that if you have those symptoms, you have autism, regardless of whether you also have the symptoms of TS. But perhaps it would help to mention preempted diagnoses here?

Eubulides (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking generally about resolving it across articles, and making sure we don't have contradictions. My confusion is that I agree with/follow what you typed above, but the journal article seems to be saying something different, unless I'm misunderstanding or misreading. The journal article seems to be saying more to me: that both diagnoses exist equally and together (think in terms of both inherited, if we had the gene(s) identified and could conclusively prove it), rather than tics being part of autism. Am I misunderstanding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as I understand it the journal article is saying that "increasingly" clinicians are overriding the DSM-IV and diagnosing both conditions simultaneously. Hmm, I guess it is not saying how common that is. It is a tricky situation, no? Eubulides (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, now we're on the same page, but I'm not sure how to "fix it". I'll follow you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tantrums

This change added the following comment to the article:

"<!-- what is the corresponding rate of tantrums for other children the same age? it would be helpful in evaluating this paragraph -->{fact-check}"

Questions like these are best resolved on the talk page, so I'll move the question here. Autism #Social development currently says "tantrums significantly more common than in children with a history of language impairment". Here are some more details. The cited study (Dominick et al. 2007, PMID 16581226) found that 71% of the children with ASD had tantrums, compared to 23% of the children with language impairment; this has a significance of <0.001. The study's discussion section says "The prevalence of temper tantrums was significantly greater in the ASD group." The study's discussion section also says, "Tantrums occurred in 40% of the ASD children by 2 years of age, as is found among typically developing children. However, tantrums persisted much longer in children with ASD and onset of the behavior continued until age 11 in this sample."

The introduction says, by the way, "No studies have addressed the root of temper tantrums in autism, but clinical experience suggests that children are more likely to have temper tantrums when a change in their routine occurs or when they are denied a desired object or activity." I omitted this part as it's not scientifically supported. Eubulides (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pointing, commenting, and sharing

The same change replaced:

'they consistently fail to point to "comment" about or "share" an experience at age-appropriate times.'

with:

'they consistently fail to comment about or share a joint experience at age-appropriate times.'

But the cited source (Johnson et al. 2007, PMID 17967920) says:

'At 14 to 16 months of age, the typically developing child will begin to point simply to "comment" about or "share" an interesting object/event (which is called "protodeclarative pointing"). As he points, he will look alternatively between the object/event of interest and the parent. It is the shared social experience, not the tangible object/event, that the child seeks. Children with ASDs consistently fail to point to "comment" at age-appropriate times, and when they do, they are less likely to show positive affect and connectedness during the act.'

As can be seen from the source, the key notion here is that children with ASDs consistently fail to point, not that they fail to comment. I'll think about a better way to word that and make it clearer, but the wording change that was made isn't right. Eubulides (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed "point" to "initiate a pointing gesture" to try to make the (ahem) point more clearly. But I dunno, is it really any clearer? I thought the word "point" was quite clear, in the context; and it's shorter. Other opinions? Eubulides (talk) 05:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "they consistently fail to point at objects in order to comment on or share an experience". The word "joint" is redundant in "share a joint" and the phrase is too likely to be misread as drug taking! I think "at age-apropriate times" is confusing and probably not needed here. It is the general behaviour that is or isn't age appropriate, not each an every time they should have pointed. Rephrasing this would probably make the sentence even longer, and I think the reader will assume we are talking about pointing when pointing is expected for the age of the child. Colin°^Talk 11:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Done. Eubulides (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Diagnosis of adults

The last paragraph under Diagnosis states, "Adults may seek retrospective diagnoses..." At first I was reading this phrase to mean that adults who currently have a few autistic traits were trying to determine whether they had autism in their past. However the reference describes adults seeking a current diagnosis of autism. So I'm not clear why the word retrospective is included. Also the section as currently written appropriately focuses on diagnosis of children. Nevertheless can a brief description of how adults are diagnosed be included, as there appears to be interest in this topic? NighthawkJ (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. The source doesn't say "retrospective" or anything like that, so Autism #Diagnosis shouldn't say "retrospective" either. Since the definition of autism proper requires onset before age 3 years, some retrospection will be required, but we can't go beyond what the source says. I removed "retrospective". Unfortunately I don't know of any reliable source on the technical aspects of adult diagnosis, but if something turns up it would be appropriate to add a brief mention here. Eubulides (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Death to bad wording!

I'm actually talking about my own. This edit was my attempt to indicate that the bones of kids on caesin-free diets are thinner compared to peers; previously there was no comparison (i.e. just said 'thinner', but made me think 'thinner than what'?). I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it, but invite the illustrious contributors to this page to smite my poor wording at their leisure. Also a bit of person-first terminology. WLU (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I made this change to try to phrase it more concisely. As Sociological and cultural aspects of autism #Terminology suggests, the use of person-first terminology is somewhat controversial; since we can't make everybody happy in Autism I've tended to use whichever terminology is clearer and more concise. Eubulides (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Michael Savage

This change counts as original research, I'm afraid, and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The change starts with Savage's purposely-over-the-top remarks and then goes on to claim that some interpret autism as an unchecked behavior problem. That claim is no doubt true (just as it's no doubt true that some interpret autism as being caused by witchcraft), but Savage is not a reliable source for it. Also, the claim is not particularly notable (just as the witchcraft claim wouldn't be notable) for this section. Eubulides (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I made the edit you are referring to. The edit does not endorse the bigotry of Mr. Savage, but illuminates the (albeit shockingly ignorant) nature of some popular misconceptions about autism. I emphasized that Mr. Savage is a political commentator outside of the scientific community. I placed the claim in the history section specifically so that nobody would conflate Mr. Savage's opinion with a valid scientific outlook. I placed the claim towards the end of the article so as to not give it undue weight. Because the claims added to the article refer not to the true nature of autism but to its popular conception, those claims are verified by the links given and thus do not constitute original research. Thanks! Greg Comlish (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The citation to Savage's remarks support only a claim about what Savage said. They do not support a claim that there is a significant set of people who think that autism is "an unchecked behavior problem". Wikipedia is not supposed to rely on guesswork by uninformed commentators. I suggest that this sort of inflammatory material be moved to Controversies in autism, where it is far more appropriate; but even there, the wording must be done more carefully than it was done in this change, as it is original research to claim that Savage's comments represent anything other than an attempt to gain attention. Eubulides (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The citation supports the claims regarding what Michael Savage said, but also what Michael Savage believes and what his national audience sympathizes with. Savage's claims are emblematic of the worst popular ignorance towards autistics. I agree that Savage's remarks are inflammatory. The controversy these remarks are creating in the autistic community only makes them more topical. I agree that these remarks shouldn't be legitimized but people need to know about the biases against autistics. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is primarily about the disease, its manifestations, its pathology and its treatment. It is appropriate to summarise briefly how autistic people function within society and some of the controversy surrounding this disease, but quoting an uninformed and frankly bigoted "shock jock" is giving undue weight to a view that is absent from reliable sources on this topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I want to emphasize that Savage's bigotry is not legitimized in the quotes included in the article nor are Savage's words presented as an authoritative, or even valid viewpoint. I agree that Savage's views should never be presented as a scientific description of Autism. Savage's remarks were only used in the context of presenting a popular misconception about Autism. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I don't think that you agree with this buffoon! However, the problem is that the source does not establish that this is a popular misconception. We would need a survey on "Popular misconceptions of autism" to tell us how common such views actually are in the general public. Mr Savage can only speak for himself, his views are his own and are neither notable nor interesting. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we can deduce from Savage's status as a nationally broadcast commentator that he has a significant audience that is sympathetic with his viewpoints. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(bing!)That would be WP:OR for me and Savage may have a large audience but that doesn't mean his opinion counts in the significant circles that debate autism. Michael Savage (commentator) isn't a scientist, activist or otherwise notable figure in autism research or advocacy, right now he's a flash in the pan. His opinion is essentially irrelevant, and it's arguable if it fits in any page on autism (as yet). Definitely not this page. Unless this turns into a sustained interest in autism and the scientific and advocacy community reacts over a longer period, he starts some sort of anti-advocacy in the political arenas or some other sustained contribution, I do not see it as an appropriate mention. WLU (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that deduction is the original research. We can only guess what percentage of his comments are the same as the views of his audience. This might reflect their views, but it might not. We'd need a source that explicitly says this is a widely-held opinion to say this as a fact. This might seem obvious to you (and I also agree with you that such ideas are distressingly frequent) but I'm sure that you appreciate that in such a controversial subject we must be very careful indeed when interpreting sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, minor edits to the language can correct this. Greg Comlish (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The minor edits to the language did not correct this, and I don't see how they can correct it. The revised text still had the claim "Archaic attitudes towards autistics have not disappeared", which is clearly original research: Savage said nothing of the sort, and cannot be used to support this claim. I have moved the material (sans the "Archaic attitudes" bit) to Michael Savage (commentator) #Autism, which is clearly a more appropriate place for this topic. There are plenty of more-notable sources to talk about archaic attitudes, starting with Bruno Bettelheim; Michael Savage is nowhere near a reliable source in this area. Eubulides (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Savage didn't say "Archaic attitudes towards autistics have not disappeared". That statement was a paraphrase of the Autism Society of America, which I also cited, responding to Michael Savage. Greg Comlish (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• The claim "Archaic attitudes towards autistics have not disappeared" is followed by a citation to Savage, not by a citation to the Autism Society of America (ASA).

Please see the citation for the ASA Greg Comlish (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• First, this is a minor point, but one shouldn't have to refer to the talk page to see what citation supports what material. A citation should appear immediately after the material it supports; it shouldn't be separated from that material by a different citation.
• Second, more important, the ASA did not say that Savage's remarks mean that archaic attitudes still persist. It is well known that Savage deliberately makes provocative remarks, and does not necessarily believe his remarks. The ASA's press release says only that Savage's remarks were unsubstantiated and reflect old misconceptions; this is true regardless of whether Savage or anyone else believes his remarks. Eubulides (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Savage is not a reliable source for autism, and should not be cited here.

Savage is not being cited as a source for autism, he is only being used as an example of how lingering biases against austistics persist.Greg Comlish (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Savage is being cited as a source about attitudes about autism. But he is not a reliable source for attitudes about autism. He has no expertise in the field of attitudes about autism, and does not even claim any expertise. It is completely out of place here to cite him. Eubulides (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• The ASA source does not say anything about "attitudes", or "archaic", or "disappearing", so it is not a good source for the abovementioned claim.

The ASA specifically says that Savage remarks "reflect the misconceptions of over 50 years ago" and that the ASA "will continue to work with families, people with autism and the broader public to raise awareness of autism spectrum". This fully justifies the claim that archaic attitudes towards austistics persist. Greg Comlish (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not at all justify the claim that a significant problem of archaic attitudes persist. At best it would justify the claim that Savage has an archaic attitude. Even that is dubious, as Savage is a provocateur: his livelihood depends on his making outrageous claims, and it is not at all clear that he actually believes what he said about autism. It is original research to leap from Savage's remarks to the conclusion that archaic attitudes persist. Eubulides (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• The only thing that the ASA does say about misconceptions of 50 years ago (namely, "refrigerator mothers") is already covered, much better, in Autism #History.

No, they specifically cite Savage's remarks. Greg Comlish (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But, as mentioned above, Savage's remarks in themselves are not a reliable source about anything. It doesn't matter whether the remarks are quoted by Salon.com or by the ASA. What the ASA does say about old misconceptions is already covered, much better, in Autism #History.

• Autism #History already cites a much better source on "refrigerator mothers", namely Fombonne 2003.

I am adding to this material by giving a modern example and thereby making it more complete and topical. Greg Comlish (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Adding text does not necessarily add useful material. In this case, the added text is about a "controversy" that is very poorly sourced. If you want something topical, I suggest citing a more reliable source, such as Obama's recent remarks on autism, or McCain's recent remarks on autism. These politicians far more reliable than Savage, whose credibility is zero in all aspects of autism and attitudes about autism. Eubulides (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• To summarize, this change cites one completely unreliable source (Savage), and one weak source (the ASA's brief press release) on a topic (refrigerator mothers) for which we already have a much stronger citation (a peer-reviewed medical journal article).

Again, the sources cited are suitable to the claims presented which are relevant to the subject matter you already acknowledge is described in the very same section. This is entirely consistent with the established principle that "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made"Greg Comlish (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to emphasize the discredited theory of refrigerator mothers here. That topic is already given one sentence and a wikilink, which is more than enough for this section. It is total overkill to devote an entire extra paragraph to a discredited theory. It would make more sense to briefly talk about it in Refrigerator mother, but even there I'd be quite dubious: I don't think the ASA is a reliable source about Savage's attitudes toward autism. Eubulides (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I have moved the relevant material from Autism #History to Michael Savage #Autism, which is a much more appropriate location for it.

I have restored this material citing my arguments here. Greg Comlish (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest discussing further changes of this sort on the talk page first. Autism is a controversial subject already, even without Savage's comments, and it's helpful to discuss controversial changes to Autism before installing them.

I have been active on the talk page in discussing my views and responding to arguments of others. Greg Comlish (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The first we heard of this proposed change was when it was installed, without discussion, into the article here. So far we've had four editors weigh in on this subject, either on the talk page or by reverting your changes. One (you) has favored the change; three have opposed it (TimVickers, WLU, and myself). The consensus so far seems quite clear that the change represents original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Also, as I've argued, this change represents a WP:WEIGHT issue by placing too much emphasis on an obsolete and discredited theory. Please do not simply reinstate this change, which obviously does not have consensus. Eubulides (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides (talk) 00:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've cut this addition to the bare minimum that I regard as acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Following up in the new subsection #Stigma below. Eubulides (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Stigma

The combined effect of the abovementioned changes still has real problems.

• It's weak and confusing to cite Gray 1993 to support the claim that autism remains a stigmatized condition, after citing Wolff 2004 saying it's been destigmatized. After all, autism is less stigmatized now than it was 15 years ago. Of course there remains some stigma (one example being a tantrum in a restaurant observed by third parties who don't know that the child's autistic) but it's less than it was decades ago, and we shouldn't imply otherwise.
• The claim "some media commentators retain much more negative attitudes towards autism" is not supported by the citation to the ASA. The ASA (wisely) did not say anything about Savage's attitude. Also, to be pedantic, the ASA's press release mentioned only one media commentator.

I will try to come up with a more recent and reliable sources about stigmas and attitudes, and use them to improve this part of Autism #History. Eubulides (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I picked the Grey paper since it was cited as a source in this 2003 review. What about this paper instead? It gives a bit more of a balanced viewpoint. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking those down. Sorry, the "2003 review" link doesn't work for me; I get a page saying "Internal Server Error". Do you have a PMID or DOI for it? Chambres et al. 2008 (PMID 18297387) is a single experiment on 88 adults published in a high-quality peer-reviewed journal; obviously this is a much better source than the ASA press release or the dated 1993 source. A recent review would be even better but I didn't find one. How about it if we remove the recent addition and then replace the following text:

"The rise of parent organizations and the destigmatization of childhood ASD have deeply affected how we view ASD, its boundaries, and its treatments.(Wolff 2004, PMID 15365889)"

with this:

"Although the rise of parent organizations and the destigmatization of childhood ASD have deeply affected how we view ASD,(Wolff 2004, PMID 15365889) parents continue to feel social stigma in situations where their autistic children's behaviors are perceived negatively by others,(Chambres et al. 2008, PMID 18297387) and many primary care physicians and medical specialists still exhibit belief patterns express some beliefs consistent with outdated autism research.(Heidgerken et al. 2005, PMID 16119473)"

Eubulides (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for "...many primary care physicians and medical specialists express beliefs inconsistent with the findings of modern autism research." Otherwise great. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the "express beliefs", but changing it to "inconsistent with the findings of modern autism research" strays too far from the cited source, which says "While all three groups reflected accurate changes in the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria necessary for autism, results of the study indicated that when compared to experts in the field of autism, specialists and primary providers continue to exhibit some belief patterns consistent with outdated research." I see now that the source says "some", so I changed "exhibit belief patterns" to "express some beliefs" in the draft proposal above. Eubulides (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, looks fine to me. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Article seems to be biased...

The article seems to be written in such a way so that autism is portrayed as a defect, but apparently, people with autism, such as Amanda Baggs, say that they just think in a different way. Also, it doesn't list strengths such as perfect pitch, advanced visualization skills, ect. Also, in the prognosis section, it says that they are mentally retarded, which seems to be controversial according to this article at http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-03/ff_autism. Giving a regular IQ test to an autistic person is like giving a vision-dependent test to a blind person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superyuval10 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• The article already makes two of the points you mention.

• The lead says "an autistic culture has developed, with some seeking a cure and others believing that autism is a condition rather than a disorder."
• Other symptoms says "A small fraction of individuals with ASD show unusual abilities, ranging from splinter skills such as the memorization of trivia to the extraordinarily rare talents of prodigious autistic savants."

• Prognosis does not say autistic individuals are mentally retarded. It doesn't mention mental retardation at all.
• Perhaps you meant the Epidemiology section? It mentions mental retardation, but it does not say that autistic individuals are mentally retarded; it says that there is an association between the two conditions, which is quite a different thing. If the wording is confusing, perhaps you can suggest clearer wording?

Eubulides (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. What I don't like is that the lead asserts that Autism is a disorder in the very first sentence, but then it talks about how some people believe that it's a condition. I take it that the article is saying that there is only one right viewpoint of Autism, and the people who think it's a condition don't know what they are talking about.

About the strengths, they don't just occur in a very small portion of the autistic pop. According to http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-03/ff_autism?currentPage=2:

"On the matter of autistic intelligence, Kanner spoke of an array of mental skills, "islets of ability" — vocabulary, memory, and problem-solving that "bespeak good intelligence." Asperger, too, was struck by "a particular originality of thought and experience." Yet over the years, those islets attracted scientific interest only when they were amazing — savant-level capabilities in areas such as music, mathematics, and drawing. For the millions of people with autism who weren't savants, the general view was that their condition was tragic, their brainpower lacking."

It seems that no-one really cares unless the capabilities are savant-like.

Yes, I did mean epidemiology. But however, like I said, giving a regular IQ test to an autistic person is like giving a vision-dependent test to a blind person. In fact, IQ tests were created by Alfred Binet to measure educational achievement, not intelligence. He didn't come up with the term "IQ" either. If you are wondering if an alternative IQ test would work, then yes (taken from the bottom of p.4 of the http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-03/ff_autism?currentPage=4):

"Last summer, the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science published a study titled "The Level and Nature of Autistic Intelligence." The lead author was Michelle Dawson. The paper argues that autistic smarts have been underestimated because the tools for assessing intelligence depend on techniques ill-suited to autistics. The researchers administered two different intelligence tests to 51 children and adults diagnosed with autism and to 43 non-autistic children and adults.

The first test, known as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale, has helped solidify the notion of peaks of ability amid otherwise pervasive mental retardation among autistics. The other test is Raven's Progressive Matrices, which requires neither a race against the clock nor a proctor breathing down your neck. The Raven is considered as reliable as the Wechsler, but the Wechsler is far more commonly used. Perhaps that's because it requires less effort for the average test taker. Raven measures abstract reasoning — "effortful" operations like spotting patterns or solving geometric puzzles. In contrast, much of the Wechsler assesses crystallized skills like acquired vocabulary, making correct change, or knowing that milk goes in the fridge and cereal in the cupboard — learned information that most people intuit or recall almost automatically.

What the researchers found was that while non-autistic subjects scored just about the same — a little above average — on both tests, the autistic group scored much better on the Raven. Two individuals' scores swung from the mentally retarded range to the 94th percentile. More significantly, the subset of autistic children in the study scored roughly 30 percentile points higher on the Raven than they did on the more language-dependent Wechsler, pulling all but a couple of them out of the range for mental retardation.

A number of scientists shrugged off the results — of course autistics would do better on nonverbal tests. But Dawson and her coauthors saw something more. The "peaks of ability" on the Wechsler correlated strongly with the average scores on the Raven. The finding suggests the Wechsler scores give only a glimpse of the autistics' intelligence, whereas the Raven — the gold standard of fluid intelligence testing — reveals the true, or at least truer, level of general intelligence."

I'm quite surprised I don't see a mention of this study anywhere in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superyuval10 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Disorder" is the standard term used in medicine (e.g., see F84.0) and Wikipedia is supposed to emphasize the mainstream view. Autism can and does mention that there's a minority opinion it's a condition and not a disorder, but according to WP:DUE it needs to put the most weight on the mainstream view.
• If you follow the citation on savant skills, you'll see that estimates of their prevalence range from 0.5% to 10%. I don't think 10% is a "very small portion", nor does the article say that the portion is "very small", so I'm not sure what bias is being shown here.
• Your points about Dawson et al. 2007 (PMID 17680932) are well taken. Currently that paper is discussed in a subarticle of this one; see Conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders #Mental retardation. However, I agree that a brief mention of the topic would be appropriate here.
• I have just done some research on the subject and now find that a review on the topic was published on it earlier this year; here (PDF) is a preprint. Please give me a day or two to read and digest it. As WP:MEDRS suggests, we should prefer citing reliable reviews to citing the primary sources directly, when reviews are available. This review slipped my notice because it wasn't in Pubmed. I expect that the results of reading this review will change Autism, Epidemiology of autism, and Conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders in this topic. Thanks for bringing this topic up.

Eubulides (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, to follow up, I read that preprint and made this change to Autism. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No problemo! But I have a couple more criticisms:

Why does the sentence "A small fraction of individuals with ASD show unusual abilities, ranging from splinter skills such as the memorization of trivia to the extraordinarily rare talents of prodigious autistic savants." say that these abilities only occur in a small fraction when the percentage is from 0.5% to 10%? I don't think that 10% is a small fraction. I would like it if the phrase "A small fraction" were to be replaced w/ "0.5% to 10%". Would it also be appropriate to list the autistic savant studies w/ their associated percentages?

In the passage "On the matter of autistic intelligence, Kanner spoke of an array of mental skills, "islets of ability" — vocabulary, memory, and problem-solving that "bespeak good intelligence." Asperger, too, was struck by "a particular originality of thought and experience." Yet over the years, those islets attracted scientific interest only when they were amazing — savant-level capabilities in areas such as music, mathematics, and drawing. For the millions of people with autism who weren't savants, the general view was that their condition was tragic, their brainpower lacking." the context implies that the majority of autistics have these "islets of ability", but only some have savant capabilities. I mean, 0.5% to 10% isn't the majority, and could be considered some, right?

Also, in the book Autism: Explaining the Enigma By Uta Frith, on pp. 6-8, under the section "How Kanner and Asperger described Autism", it says that Kanner and Asperger saw "islets of ability" and a "particular originality of thought and experience" in all children on the ASD. If you don't want to buy the book, then go to http://books.google.com/books?id=1sIxN1qNNDMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=autism+explaining+the+enigma&sig=ACfU3U0JNLaX5gszv_JnhMRCaFESNafrYw#PPA6,M1, where pp. 6-8 can be viewed for free.

Thanks for reading my criticisms. superyuval10 (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• It doesn't cost much to give the 0.5% to 10% estimate, so I did that.
• Groundbreaking though Asperger's and Kanner's work was, we can't really rely on it for a discussion of what is known about autism today; we need recent reliable sources.

Eubulides (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Heard the............

...... bullshit about what Mike said about Autism. Added his website and the section in said site about his comments. My local radio station still airs his show, as do several others (I have a radio that has GREAT AM reception). He insinuated that "Big Pharma" cooked up this disease to drug and poison the kids, worse commentary. Click on the links provided in cites. 65.173.104.138 (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I picked this radio, originally for use in a emergency situation ( another 9-11, tornado) and to listen to Coast to Coast AM w/ minimal radio interference.65.173.104.138 (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not notable. Colin°^Talk 08:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It is very notable. See http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200807170005?f=h_top . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.104.138 (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't. Show me the New York Times, or The Guardian, or BBC News, or CNN... The website already contains a clarification/retraction/call-it-what-you-will. The guy gets paid to be controversial. Colin°^Talk 11:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Colin. Savage is a provocateur, which means that what he says on the radio isn't a reliable source about anything. It's not even a reliable source for what Savage himself thinks about autism, much less for what anyone else thinks about autism. This sort of material is suitable for Michael Savage, but not for Autism. Also please see #Michael Savage above. Eubulides (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Substandard Evidence and Studies

Wikipedia's article on Autism is poisoned with substandard evidence and dangerous studies-certain articles on Wikipedia say that few children with Autism live independent and that Autistic people lack relationship, employment opportunity, self determinations and other important aspects. These articles are extremely dangerous to people wanting information on Autism because the evidence is corrupt, outdated and very poisoned.

Please be careful about editing Wikipedia things 'cause some very dangerous editors are out there waiting to block whosoever they THINK has committed vandalism or sock puppet but in reality did not really do so!

mcmlxxxviii 10:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This section seems to be largely a duplicate of the next section, #Dangerous Article, so I'll respond there. Eubulides (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous Article

Wikipedia has biased articles on Autism that indicate an extremely dangerous and highly corrupt evidence source network! Too many prejudice studies towards Autism keep saying few individuals with Autism live independent, have opportunity for employment, few have any relationship ability, not mentioning the females with Autism are getting labeled for something else rather than the conditions that are really present.

Making matters worse, flawed studies/evidence are constantly thinking that people with Autism are usually intellect restricted but have either corrupt evidence/Autism studies or nothing at all.

Please be careful although, because Wikipedia has some very dangerous, prejudice editors who wanna block whoever they THINK is making vandalism or sock puppetry. Hurricane Hink fooled me into falsely admitting that nobody outside of me was using multiple names when in realities my sorority partners share the computer with me quite often.

I am Autistic myself and function as a total independent adult woman!

mcmlxxxviii 11:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Standingout, do you have specific wording changes in mind? It would be helpful for the proposed changes to cite reliable sources, preferly in peer-reviewed scientific journals; please see WP:MEDRS for advice on reliable sources in this area. Eubulides (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the account is blocked as one of multiple accounts related to User:Undercovergals. Fenke (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the block of the main Undercovergals account has now expired. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Autism and Rape

I am wondering where I should include information about Autism and rape. Their apethetic nature and insistance on sameness as well as their fixation on what they want will increase the chances that they will commit rape.--Tatjana Fleischer (talk) 10:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably nowhere, it sounds like homebrew speculation. Fenke (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It is speculation, yes, but alas it is fairly common speculation. I know of no reliable sources on the topic of autism and rape per se. There is some very limited data on violent crime in general and Asperger syndrome / high-functioning autism (which is a subset of the autism spectrum disorders). See, for example, Woodbury-Smith et al. 2006 (doi:10.1080/14789940600589464). There are several incidents reported in the popular press about offenders with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism; most of these individuals seem to also have other psychiatric disorders at the same time (e.g., major depression) (see Newman & Ghaziuddin 2008, PMID 18449633), which suggests that it may be other factors, not autism per se, that increase the risk for violent crime. Eubulides (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm not saying we shouldn't take this seriously, I would just like to point out that this person is likely a renamed Jquandar, a person who has written a story about autism and rape that is hard to take seriously. Also, compare Jquandar's user page on Encyclopedia Dramatica (Wikipedia won't let me link it). And maybe be connected to this page, a support group called "Protection Force for Young Females from Autism", which states that the author posts fake evidence linking autism to rape in order to watch enraged people's reactions. ---- Anonymous

Whatever. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Protection Force is for protection not any Lulz. Just because I have the same first name as a character in a story has nothing to do with me being the author. Jquandar is probably using Wikipedia and ED. How did you find out about the Protection Force?--Tatjana Fleischer (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)