|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Can you please cite your reference for calling it a minority view ? My understanding is that most researchers and professionals who have taken a close look at thisrealize it's true.
- Whether it is true or not–at first blush it is not an entirely unreasonable conjecture–the idea that thimerosal is a direct cause of autism remains a minority view among medical professionals. Just within the United States, the FDA, the CDC, and the AMA have all issued opinions that the current epidemiological evidence and published research do not support a link between thimerosal and autism. For every scientist who believes the data supports a link, I can find one who contests it; the vast majority of physicians continue to give vaccinations.
- 'Minority' doesn't necessarily mean 'incorrect'; it merely indicates that Rimland's view isn't held by the majority of scientists and medical professionals. We're representing the current state of knowledge and scientific opinion, not reevaluating it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Anonymous IP adding an "Opposition" section (horribly mis-spelled BTW): one blogger's opinion does not "many" make. Reverting. Intersofia 11:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
"Resistance by the medical community" section is far too sympathetic to Rimland's view. The MMR/DTP vaccine connection has not been dismissed because of a few "tainted" studies; the concensus is widespread and largely undeniable that vaccines do not correlate or cause autism. Claiming that "every scientist who believes in the link can be matched by one who doesn't" is incorrect. For a sample of studies that refute the connection (and there are many others), look here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/mu-mmr070406.php and here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/04/evidence_against_an_autism_epi.php and here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/04/kristjan_wager_returns_to_disc_1.php
RECENT NEWS (November 21, 2006)
From the Autism Research Institute:
We are sorry to report that Dr. Bernard Rimland passed away earlier today.
More information about Dr. Rimland will be posted on ARI's website (www.AutismResearchInstitute.com) in the next few days.
A graveside memorial service will be held tomorrow, Wednesday, November 22 at 2 pm on the Shalom lawn at Greenwood Memorial Park in San Diego. The public is welcome to attend.
In lieu of flowers, Dr. Rimland's family asks that donations be made to the Autism Research Institute (4182 Adams Avenue, San Diego, California 92116). Donations can also be made online on ARI's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC); removed from article
Citation needed for early infantile vs regressive autism diagnosed "Only much later"
The article says "From birth, however, something was drastically wrong with Mark.… Only much later was it determined Mark's condition fell into the category of early infantile autism, rather than regressive autism." This doesn't make sense, as regressive autism arises around 18–24 months, whereas typical (or early infantile) autism is present much earlier. If something was drastically wrong with Mark "from birth", why would anyone have thought it was regressive autism? The point needs clarification and a citation. Eubulides 16:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
David Greenberg's and Christopher Gillberg's study of twins
Here is a study that discredits Rimland more than Rimland discredited Bettelheim:
I know it's controversial, but the study is recent enough and apparently has survived peer review. I intend to edit the main page with this, unless there is an objection.Snud (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)