Page semi-protected

Talk:Causes of autism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Needs to be renamed "Proposed causes of autism"

This really needs to be moved to Proposed causes of autism. The title is very misleading. People arrive here and automatically assume that these are all causes. Not everyone actually reads the real content. They see the headings and get the wrong impression. The title should alert them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not a problem with the title; that's a problem with the content. That is, the article is a dumping ground that should be cleaned up, but the title is correct. Adding "proposed" would just make the problem worse, introducing speculation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, much of the current content is speculation using RS, but not always MEDRS. Are you proposing we only include proven causes, which is what the current title implies? Say more. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I went through this article once and made sure everything in here was a secondary review. I can't speak to the state of the writing, since I was absent from Wikipedia for many months. The content should reflect the sources, and at one point, the sources all complied with WP:MEDRS-- at a quick glance, I don't see primary sources or non-MEDRS sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, User:SandyGeorgia, let's lay that aspect aside for the time being and focus on the discrepancy between the title and the content. The title suggests that these are all actual causes of autism, but they are only proposed causes. We need to harmonize this. If you consider the content to be properly sourced, then it's the title, not the content, which needs changing. That's a very simple solution. We have many articles of this type, and they are good encyclopedic content. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The title is fine, IMO; I don't see the problem you allege. Introducing "Proposed" will create a magnet for primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want the article to use primary sources for biomedical claims anymore than you do, which is why I made that one deletion, but apparently the preliminary nature of that reference was no problem for you ("A 2008 preliminary case-control study based on a parent survey" is an awfully weak and totally non-MEDRS source), so I'm choosing to ignore that issue for now.
The content is currently about proposed causes, and we do, as required, use the word "proposed" several times in the lead, because we must describe the content accurately. The problem is that the title implies that the content is about actual proven causes of autism, when most are only proposed causes. We could arrange the content into groups of "proposed" and "proven" causes. That would improve things, and then we wouldn't need to change the title.
My main concern now is the total and gross discrepancy between the content and the title. We can't allow such a situation, and I don't understand why you defend it, or is your point that you don't see any discrepancy? Please try to explain your position with other words so I can understand why we're not understanding each other. I don't understand your reasoning. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Old reviews now misleading or dis-proven

Is it possible to put a warning tag at the top of this article that warns of it's dated, incorrect, or misleading text? Terrible introduction! Just scanned the body, and it's better though.32cllou (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I understand that you believe, based on recent publications, that genetics are no longer a factor in autism, but they are. Please stop trying to eliminate genetics from autism articles. Yes, some of the reviews here are old, but that information is still accurate. Also, as far as I know, everything in this article is sourced to a secondary review; it would be helpful if you would discuss your edits before making them, as you don't yet seem to have a firm grasp on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable enough? (facial features) (lungs)

They got removed, just want to confirm. Ylevental (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

They are not secondary sources, that is for sure. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Work on facies for early detection of syndromes has been going on for many years. I'm surprised there isn't a better reference. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC).

Many scientific studies show a link between vaccines and autism

The statements in this wikipedia article "Causes of Autism" are basically false that deny there are scientific studies showing a link between vaccines and autism. Many scientific studies show a link between vaccines and autism and these are published in credible referred scientific journals, many are linked here:

30 Scientific Studies Showing the Link between Vaccines and Autism, published in Health Impact News. Many of the studies are recent and prominent and they are all published in scientific journals. They should be discussed in this article. Bioextra (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Some silly advoacy site - you must be joking! Please see WP:MEDRS for information on what are considered reliable health sources here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
The introduction to the list says "I have ONLY included autism related information, not research on other vaccine injuries of which there are many." yet Aluminum adjuvant linked to gulf war illness induces motor neuron death in mice is clearly not autism related. The research on Many of the other studies mention vaccination, or autism, but not both (sometimes neither). For example 23 is about ADHD , 24 is about incidence of Autism in California. (27 says that heavy metals are bad for you and the best test is a urine test.) The selection of the list also implies coproporphyrin level, mercury level, mercury exposure, thimersol and vaccination are all equivalent. This sort of sloppiness does not bode well for taking anything form the site seriously without significant further checking.
Further checking reveals that this is just a cut-and-paste of this Facebook page , which is in turn a cut-and-past from a blogger's notes.
The only source that stood out as possibly being both relevant and meeting WP:MEDRS was Helen V. Ratajczak (January–March 2011). "Theoretical aspects of autism: Causes—A review". Journal of Immunotoxicology. 8 (1): 68-79.  </ref> tough this is a low impact factor journal. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC).

Klinefelter syndrome and fragile X syndrome

According to German Wikipeda (with refs), Klinefelter syndrome is listed by some geneticists among the possible genetic causes of autism. This article does not mention Klinefelter's. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Fragile X syndrome is not mentioned, either, even though its own article mentions a strong correlation with autism and autism even identifies it as "the most common identified genetic cause of autism". What gives? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)