Talk:Controversies in autism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
People who come under the subject of this article (Controversies in autism) may be found at Category:Wikipedians on the autism spectrum.


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

Contents

[edit] Serious housecleaning

OK, folks, I realize I may have offended some of you, but this article needs to be kept short if anyone is going to read it and find it useful. I mercilessly cut and edited stuff that I found:

  • repetitive
  • too long
  • clearly partisan

I did try to keep discussion of the controversy itself, but limited the articles to descriptions of the controversy rather than a full-blown discourse on each one. I also reordered things so we started from the bottom up, rather than in what appears to be a random order.

I'll continue to do this kind of thing, because I really want this to be a useful article for anyone who is interested. If you strongly disagree with what I do, I'd like to propose that you:

  • Start a separate article. One should definitely be written about the rights of autistic people (Note: "autistic" is not a noun; it's an adjective), ABA and controversies related to it; history of treating autism; the low-functioning vs. high-functioning issue; and probably others. I have followed this advice myself in setting up a separate article on biomedical intervention.
  • Edit with a fair mind. It's simply not fair to hijack this article to rant on and on and on about only one thing.

As an editorial aside, I think it's offensive to parents of autistic children to assert that autism is not a disease or a disorder. Yes, at some point parents have to accept that their children will be different from NT kids, but these parents put their heart and soul into making lives easier for their kids.--Leifern 21:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't it make it easier on the kids to treat them as not being diseased or disordered? --Bluejay Young 06:32, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's offensive to autistics to assert that autism is purely detrimental, which calling it a "disease" or "disorder" inherently does.
Take your argument and substitute the word "homosexual" for "autistic" and tell me with a straight face that you think it's equally valid. Thsgrn 04:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


Did I miss your citations somewhere? Re: adj/noun- I am an autistic. I am an aspie. I am autistic. I am aspie. /o-'tis-tik/ adjective or noun ZagrebFraggle 14:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV dispute

This page is written with a clear POV in mind and needs help from someone who knows more than I. Tuf-Kat 01:02, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Whoa, I've never seen an article improve so much in such a short time. Just last night this article was a real mess; I added cleanup and NPOV tags and it literally shaped up overnight. Thanks to Leifern, Poccil and all the rest for your valuable contributions. --Szyslak 05:40, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I believe too much as been deleted under the "Autism Rights Movement". I understand the need for a neutral perspective, but I believe the descriptions of the autism rights movement could have been reworded to be more neutral without being removed completely. For example, "There is nothing like the threat of extinction to kickstart a minority into fighting for equality" from a previous version of the article could have been changed to "Some autistics feel the desire to cure autism means the extinction of their way of being." -- Q0 17:00, Oct 16, 2004
    • I am honestly not familiar enough with the autism rights movement to edit the initial entry fairly. I would urge you to edit the relevant section, using NPOV discretion. --Leifern 18:26, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whoever made this a separate topic, thank you!

I'm making a few small POV changes, as there's a distinct lack of neutrality here... nothing major though. Sparkleyone 09:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vaccinations

I removed sentences and two entire paragraphs that were argumentative against the alleged link between vaccination and autism. Perhaps there should be a separate entry on vaccination controversies.

But since this entry is about the controversy surrounding the theory (which shouldn't need to be put in quotes if that's what it is), it doesn't need to go into detail about the public health benefits of vaccinations.

Perhaps those who wish to eliminate vaccines entirely are "radical." I doubt that vaccinations have saved "countless" lives from death by rubella and mumps, or diphteria in developed countries. And I'd have to say that withholding information about dangers of vaccination is grounds for lawsuit if not criminal conviction.

I resisted the temptation to revert back to the so-called weasel text. Since this article is intended to describe a controversy, we can't conclude that the controversy doesn't exist, or is unfounded.

Hey, I'm not trying to be stubborn here. I really do appreciate the edits, and this is educating me as much as it is refreshing. I'm just trying to "be bold", as it were. Erm, anonymously, of course.

So far, studies fail to show correlation between vaccines and autism. That isn't the same as "overwhelming evidence" disproving the link. --Leifern 01:35, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I have heard that autistic behaviour generally (biologically) begins to show, relatively shortly afterwards the young age where babies are vaccinated, thus leading parents to wrongly assume that the vaccination itself has caused the autism.(Hope this is clear.)

I'd be inclined to believe this if there weren't reports of children immediately falling ill after vaccination, and within one to ten days later, they begin exhibiting autistic behavior. Saw a report on this on CBS News and will try to find sources. --Bluejay Young 06:32, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
Thing is, this is hearsay. If you develop it at age X, there's a chance you'll start showing symptoms of it at any given time. If it is right after a shot, there's the same chance as before it. Also, if it is is a slide, them being ill may "hide" the condition, then when they don't go back to acting "normal" (or cease developing the way the parents think they should) the transition may be seen as more abrupt than it is in reality.
It is also possible that vaccines act as a trigger for the disease, or make it onset faster. Though it is claimed it appears more often now than it did before, I would argue that modern behavior allows autistic children to choose to do what they wish rather than be forced to do what their parents do. Also, greater awareness leads to a greater number of people diagnosed.
Though I have heard such claims, I have strong doubts; it is more likely the parents seeking something to blame for their child's condition. Autism is only arguably a disease, so I'm not really even sure if it were proven to be linked to vaccination that it would be worth banning them, especially given the fact that vaccines save the lives of countless people and have eradicated at least one terrible disease.
It shouldn't be hard to find sources for such claims; the problem is whether they are worth anything or not. Given that several large studies have failed to find any correlation, it is most likely that vaccines do not trigger autism, regardless of reports such as this. Titanium Dragon 07:26, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

Removed argumentative sections entirely.

A recent study in California shows empirically that the actual incidence is increasing, and anyone who works in the field will confirm this. Even so, the current passage makes the point carefully that there may be increased reporting as well. And that doesn't take into account the clear increase of the incidence in other disorders such as ADHD, which are probably related.

ADHD is a perceived condition that may have more to do with cultural prejudice than neurological anomaly. Still controversial as to whether or not it even exists. Some teachers have gotten slapped down for suggesting that ADHD was merely a difference in learning style which was being pathologized. --Bluejay Young 06:32, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
I believe Discover magazine also had an article a while back that talked about how ADHD was massively overdiagnosed. It might not have been discover though but another magazine. In any event, I will try to find it, but it is largely irrelevant other than to point out that autism may be overdiagnosed (or, possibly, because of the changing definition of autism or growing awareness of it). Titanium Dragon 07:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Peter Breggin

The fact that autism is more common among boys than girls is neither here nor there. Nobody is claiming that genetics isn't a factor at all, only that environmental factors play a role, too. The idea is that some children have a genetic predisposition toward certain disorders that gets triggered by an environmental shock. This is hardly an outragous notion within medicine and genetics.

As the article itself points out, it may just be that autism is more diagnosed in males than females because of either misconceptions or females exhibiting fewer classical symptoms. Titanium Dragon 07:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Severe vs. neurological

Most developmental pediatricians - even some of the leading ones - are agnostic about the causes and dynamics of autism, treating the mind and nervous system as a "black box." This is consistent with the whole DSM-IV framework.

So instead of stating a premise one way or the other upfront, I think it's safe to characterize it as "severe."

[edit] Mercury

I am sorry to have to keep doing this, but I am taking out argumentative passages on the issue of vaccination, for two reasons:

1) This entry is meant to outline and present the controversy, not go into the specific detail on each side of the issue. If we're going to allow detailed arguments on one side of the issue in, we'd have to bring in arguments on the other side.

2) Again, the male vs. female argument is neither here nor there. There are all kinds of allergies, intolerances, etc., that are more prevalent among boys than girls, but that doesn't take away the point that these problems exist.

3) On a more personal note, I find it reckless that when some people say that "mercury in some forms isn't dangerous." Mercury is one of the most volatile and poisonous substances known - to casually introduce it into the bloodstream because it might be ok, is simply scary.

Oxygen is one of the most poisonous and volatile substances in nature, and we breathe it to live. Every element can kill you, given a sufficient amount (or not enough)
There is a difference. You need some amount of oxygen to live, but you can live a healthy life without getting anywhere near mercury. Also, mercury and other heavy metals are in their own class of toxic substances because they stay in the body and are excreted with great difficulty and time. If you ask any doctor or scientist what is best, they'll all say "no mercury."
I would also like to point out that the cases of autism are continuing to rise despite the elimination of thimerosal from childhood vaccines. Autism, by definition, is diagnosed before the age of 2 (or 3, depending on which child psychiatrist or neurologist you talk to), which means that the current rising incidence of autism cannot be explained by the use of thimerosal.
Well, the rising incidence is also a matter of dispute, and the vaccination issue is related to immunogens, not just thimesoral. My own personal opinion is that research in this area is very difficult to make sense of - just creating a reliable control group is complicated enough.
You're also forgetting the minor issue that many of these immunogens are naturally present; if a child gets measels, they're getting exposed to the same protien coat/dead virus as the shot. Unless it is foreign antibodies (which is possible, though we naturally produce similar) it probably can't be from the shots unless there is some correlation between certain childhood illnesses and autism as well. Titanium Dragon 07:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
All of us are descendants of people who survived a wide variety of diseases, including those we get immunized against. Opponents of vaccinations argue that a) antibodies are introduced too early in a child's life; b) too many are introduced at once; c) contraction of the illnesses is never or rarely directly into tissue or the bloodstream - we have the benefit of the immune system in our digestive and respiratory systems. --Leifern 16:29, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-vaccination advocates

It is unfair and inaccurate to characterize those who believe there's a link between autism and vaccinations as "anti-vaccination advocates." Some (probably a minority) are, but most simply think that children should be screened more carefully, and that the vaccination schedule is too aggressive.

I agree it is aggressive, and that it should be up to a "patient's choice", an informed consent that the parents and doctor need to come to grips with. Anti-vaccination or even the word "advocate" is too charged to really be used in a reference, but this topic is about a controversy. It's interesting to follow the way the debate has been going... at first, it was all about "is vaccination safe?" (the answer: not completely, something that all doctors assume and all patients aren't told). Now it's all about "How can risks be best communicated to patients?", a much better choice, in my opinion, as it emphasizes the role of the doctor as a counselor rather than a warden. I, for one, am personally horrified that more children have died due to preventable infectious disease in the UK in the past year than in the entirety of the 90's, but that's people for you. It's always a calculated risk to do anything to your body, whether it is getting a vaccine or eating potato chips.

Just because it's relevant, check out this link: http://www.discover.com/issues/jan-05/features/medicine/vaccine-autism-link-debunked/

"Screened". Ah but how, and for what? I suspect the suggestion of screening is sometimes a false one. Midgley 17:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-cure terminology and quotes

I think that the introductory paragraphs clearly state the controversy around whether autism is a disorder and what the limitations are of the diagnosis.

Parents therefore claim that they have recovered their kids, whether or not others agree that there is a real recovery, or whether a recovery is indeed necessary. No need to put it in quotes, or change the phrase to something about reducing autistic behaviors.

I think we have a tricky problem here in being both sensitive to parents who sincerely believe that autism is a disorder than can and should be cured; and the autistic-rights group, which rejects the entire premise that their personality traits are somehow flawed. I've tried to resolve this by only discussing recovery in sections that have as their premise that recovery is needed, while leaving issues on autistic people's rights alone. --Leifern 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I believe at the very least the statement that says, "Everyone agrees that autism is treatable through medical or educational intervention" should be changed, because not everybody agrees with that. Perhaps it should say something like, "Everyone with the pro-treatment perspective believes autism can be treated..." Q0 03:59, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Autism vs Aspergers; High Functioning vs Low Functioning

As far as specifics are concerned, I've taken out sections that were rambling and incoherent. I do agree that subdivisions of autism are a little misleading, but I don't buy the notion that "low functioning" and "high-functioning" are inappropriate. Clearly, someone who can talk, shake hands with people, read, and have a job is higher functioning than someone who is non-verbal, has severe tactile defensiveness, and needs constant care and supervision. It's hard to imagine another planet where these things are equally functioning. --Leifern 18:33, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


But is "higher" functioning an appropriate word for it? --Bluejay Young 08:09, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
The problem with those labels is that they are one-dimensional (addressed already here or in other articles.) Some autistics can be mute and yet be highly intelligent, as shown by their writing (e.g. Jasmine O'Neil, Amanda Baggs, and so on.) Some autistics can be very talkative and lack toilet-training, to take another example. -Jose
I thought at wikipedia all sides of the issue were to be addressed in a neutral perspective. You might not agree with those who claim high functioning and low functioning are innappropriate labels, but there are some who do, and when there is controversy over an issue it still needs to be addressed, since this is after all, an article about the controversies in autism. Also, the deleted text included information about the autism vs. asperger's controversy, and I think it is very easy to understand why people don't see a reason for a separate "asperger's" and "autism" label. Even if the high functioning vs. low functioning controversy information isn't put back on the article, the asperger's vs. autism controversy I think should stay. The following web links [1] [2] and [3] provide arguments about the asperger's vs. autism controversy. As for high functioning vs. low functioning: when I think of how my own internal processing of socialization and social cues, I beleive it could have been modified only slightly, to have me appear very different to neurotypicals and have me labeled low functioning instead of high functioning, so I can see the point of people who don't believe there is a high/low functioning disctinction. I found this opinion on the issue [4]. Q0 00:23, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Autism Rights Movement or Autistics Rights Movement

Does anyone have an opinion about which one would be the better title to use? It seems a little more accurate to say "autistics" instead of autism, because it is the people who are autistic whose rights are to be activated by the movement. On the other hand, we do use phrases like "gay rights movement" instead of "gay's rights movement", so saying "autism rights movement would be consistant with what other movements have used. Q0 21:49, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Whatever as long as you put an s for Movements. The goals an opinions are mostly scattered and there is no unified movement large enough to be "THE movement".
    • I've only identified one movement and I havn't seen any scattered goals or opinions. I am aware of a number of people who disagree but they don't seem to have any interest in activism, or are too busy, and have no publicity on the web for their positions, so I don't think they really count as being part of a "movement". I am very interested in knowing about the other movements and other goals. Q0 23:18, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I guess I should say I have not found anything on the web for their positions, not that they have no publicity. Q0 23:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzle Piece Ribbon

What does the PPR signify? That Autists have trouble understanding the puzzle pieces of society, and making them fit together? I am not sure if I have understood the meaning correctly.

No, it is a paradox. As I understand it, it has two meanings: "I am a person, not a puzzle", a retort to the CAN "solving the puzzle of autism" jazz; and it also means that society is composed of many different kinds of people, many colours, shapes, sizes, etc., and that autistics are part of that society and should be treated as such. Similar to the "American Quilt" image that Jesse Jackson used in his presidential campaign speeches.
I have never liked the puzzle piece ribbon for autistic liberation/rights, because I immediately recognized that the general public would take one look at that and think either "autism is a puzzle to be solved", or think what you thought. However, other than an ribbon consisting of beautiful coloured spinning wheels, a cheery array of numbers, or some other autistic delectation, I have no alternative suggestions. --Bluejay Young 08:05, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Someone wanted reasons why autistic adults found the puzzle ribbon offensive. I don't know exactly, but here are some ideas I came up with:

  • They are having a hard time figuring things out about us that autistic adults could just tell them.
  • This is probably the most likely reason: it represents them putting autistic adults under the microscope and trying to figure us out, instead of acknowledging that we are people and they can just ask us. You have to look at objects under microscopes because you cannot ask objects about their properties, so them trying to figure us out without bothering to ask us is like we are being treated like objects.
  • Even though some things autistic adults might have as hard of a time explaining as they have, we might be able to try to point them in the right direction to try to start to explain some things about autism, but they don't bother listening to us.
  • It is a symbol used by organizations that disclude autistics, so the puzzle becomes sybmolic of our disclusion.

Q0 05:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I found an alternative symbol to use instead of the puzzle piece ribbon, as follows: Oddizm's Mobius Rainbow: "Many autism spectrum adults object to being objectified by the puzzle ribbon. Furthermore, it is mainly associated with the issues of "normal" parents of autistic kids and so doesn't represent the reality of most adults on the autism spectrum. They want a different symbol and here is my offering." He is also selling cafepress items with this symbol. --Bluejay Young 06:32, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, oddizm is a "she" named Camille. DaveSeidel 18:12, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no dominant interpretation for the usage of the puzzle piece(s) symbol as it relates to the spectrum of conditions labeled as autism. Therefore, there is no correct or incorrect dichotomy and the matter is a question of artistic style and personal preference. It is a fallacious rhetorical device (straw man fallacy [5]) to arbitrarily assign to it a meaning and then supply argument against it. This renders controversies over the symbol's meaning superfluous and silly. schaferatsprynet 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)Schaferatsprynet

[edit] Michelle Dawson, a "self trained" autism researcher?

I noticed someone refered to Michelle Dawson as a "self-trained" autism researcher on the main article. I am curious what this significance is and why it was put in the article. Q0 02:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--- She does not have an official diploma relating to autism research, so someone corrected the article. She might have an "as complete as it gets" understanding of autism - more so than many academics - as pointed out by Dr. Laurent Mottron in the infamous letter but that's apparently the end of her expertise.

She does not have meaningful experience with diplomacy between researchers or the operational limits of organisations who give services to autistics (whether the organisation is good or just a snake pit). Her demands of everything being perfect all at once are unrealistic.

That being said, I agree ABA has "scientific proof" rooted in electroshocks and other extreme aversives, and overused it to get prioritary financement for ABA programs who are not covered under the "scientific proof" because they are so different from the original. Lovaas' own 1987(?) paper proves it.

There is no real scientific proof for (or against) ABA as it exists now because lack of double blind. Theorically Lovaas could cousciously or not have altered the results by how he choose people for both groups.

Once ABA (without extreme aversives) sheds the bogus scientific claims and becomes a hopeful new therapy on equal footings with other non-proven startups who don't make flamboyant claims, I'd gladly give it a try until something proven comes along. This was never about abolishing ABA.

However Michelle Dawson would have ABA banned altogether. She's having the firm POV that any kind of treatment is destructive of the autistic's personality, and that rights should be granted to ALL autistics without the responsabilities other human beings have to get those rights.

I am curious about this paragraph. Has Michelle Dawson stated any of this herself or is this your interpretation of her? Q0 08:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While discrimination against autistics exists and is rampant in many countries, her position is the very end of pro-autistic behavior extermism I could find after hours of internet research - being part of the very tip of extreme can be counterproductive regardless of right and wrong.

The end result of her recent court win in Canada is that some young autistics (whose parents believe the "use ABA or they're doomed" misused statistics) will end up institutionalized when it is known many of them will become functionnal by themselves over time! This is but one example of Michelle Dawson being counterproductive thru blind application of ideology without being pragmatic about what are the results of her acts.

I think it is *outrageous* to blame Michelle Dawson for the (anticipated, as-yet-theoretical) benighted actions of such parents! Shame, shame on whoever promulgates such contorted logic. It is the worst kind of "shooting the messenger". -- Phil Schwarz 07:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(I wish someone would do a biography on her, I'm too lazy for that)

This isn't the first time I've heard opinions like this about Michelle Dawson. Perhaps this should be included in the article? As for calling Dawson "self-trained" in the article, I still don't think it is necessary to specify that a professional in a field doesn't have a university degree, it is well established in the field of critical thinking that being an expert in a field doesn't require a university degree, and that having a university degree doesn't imply expertise. Although I guess it doesn't hurt to specify it in the article so I'll let it be. Q0 01:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I would like to clarify that I wasn't refering to the previous commenter's final paragraph when I made my original reply. Mostly I was refering to the "ABA or nothing" controversy that the commenter mentioned. If anyone wants proof of this, notice that my first reply was at 01:23, then the edit where I put the information about the "no ABA" vs. "ABA without barbaric adversives" controversy at 01:30 on the same day (seven minutes later). I ended up not mentioning Michelle Dawson's name in that description because it wasn't really necessary to do so. Q0 04:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Too Long?

When I saved a previous version of the article today I got a message saying: WARNING: This page is 34 kilobytes long. Please consider condensing the page and moving the detail to another article so it is not approaching or in excess of 32KB. Wikipedia reccomends condensing a page at 20 KB. Should the article be condensed? If so, how should it be? I wouldn't have a problem with giving each of the nine sections its own article. Another reccomendation is to divide it into the following sections:

  1. Usefulness of a diagnosis/intelligence tests
  2. Epidemiology/Genetics/Vaccines
  3. Prognosis/Treatment
  4. Autistics rights movements
  5. Famous Autistics

Q0 01:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Order of sections

Is there any reason for the sections of the article to be ordered the way they are? When I looked in this history I noticed that the autistics' rights movement was the first section to be written into the article, even though it is towards the end of the article now. If there are no objections, I will move that section to the beginning, since it was first. Q0 00:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is hard to know which controversy is more important to highlight, but I don't agree that the "autistics' rights" should go first. It is the most verbose, least clear section of the whole article, and it is entirely unclear to me what level of acceptance it has. --Leifern 21:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Autism watch

Not a credible source - point of view based entirely on personal experience, and as such has no more place as a reference than the thousands of accounts by parents who have a dissimilar experience from this guy. --Leifern 15:32, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] POV edits

It is alt med. (as defined by wikipedia to start with). It is only a small number and not all doctors think it is the failer of conventional medicne that has lead to autism becomeing a magnet for quack and chaletans.Geni 16:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, Geni, let's look at your version, and I'll prove to you just how horrifically POV it is.
Here's what you think is "neutral":
A small (define "small" - they're in the thousands) but growing number of parents and medical professionals claim (unless you can demonstrate that they're only imagining it, it's neutral to write that they "report" it) to have successfully treated autistic children by pursuing restrictive diets, detoxification therapies, and a range of alternative medical treatments (I proposed "medical treatments," it's a matter of opinion just how "alternative" they are), collectively known as biomedical intervention. These claims are hotly contested by many (define "many" - I think it's safe to say that many are skeptical, a few are hotly opposed to it) doctors, some of whom believe that the failure of conventional medicine to address parental concerms has led to autism becoming a magnet for quacks and charlatans [6] (the reference is nothing but a personal account and has no place here.)
In other words, your reversal is what causes the point of view. And if your argument is with one word of the edit "alternative," you may not reverse the whole paragraph. --Leifern 17:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


Mottron is a con artist. Like Montreal's apsies is in whole danger :) (the supposed aspies...). I like comp. i was tda, after meeting with his buddies, at douglas hospital i am turning schizo theey said and somethin is messed up with my ccyngulate gyrus with not PET scan to confirm anything. (Damn i got a hole in the brain...) LMAO Mottron you said ....Freud Follower !!!!! (See U Soon..) Wiki Rock.. I'll start a big topic soon lot of proof. (Tips : Go see a Neurologist a rather a Psychiatrist, they know the brain is just molecules, and they have no need to bs anyone because their job are not obsolete they job are not obsolete).

[edit] Article is trashed

This article used to be good, but is now trashed, apparently by an anonymous editor with an agenda. It's an article intended to describe a series of controversies, not resolve them. As it is, modifiers such as "most" are used without any substantiation as an appeal to authority on the issues; and the article is a complete jumble. I will rewrite when I have time, but for now these tags are needed. --Leifern 18:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think readers should list specific complaints right here in this page so Wikipedians have some kind of guidance in improving the article. Neurodivergent 20:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, for example, the statement that the "medical community" (a vaguely defined group of people) believe autism is "incurable" is patently false. If they don't know what it is, they can't possibly have an opinion on whether it is curable. Similarly, if it is true that "autism" isn't even one condition but many that have similar symptoms, it is ridiculous to question the same premise over and over. Also, the article needs structure; it rambles too much now. --Leifern 20:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do about that one. On the one hand it is true that autism being incurable is a very popular notion. You'll find it in most articles about autism on the web. I do believe it's true that autism can't really go away, but maybe that's not enterily true. On the other hand, there are parents who report their children have "recovered" -- after they learn to speak or start behaving in a way that cannot be distinguished from that of their peers (externally by a lay person.) So despite it being incurable according to the "medical community" there appear to be many cases of autistics who do "recover" or simply mature. (If you read "The Einstein Syndrome" you get the impression that some kids labeled autistic can not only recover but become university professors and the "life of the party" at the same time.) Much of it is a case of not giving "false hope" IMHO. But I digress. If the sentence is uncitable as it seems, I'd vote for just removing it and any dependent sentences. Neurodivergent 01:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree, but that is very far from being "trashed", that's just hyperbole. I'd suggest a series of bullets detailing the points Leifern considers questionable, and a line-by-line cleanup based on that. To my reading this article is anything but "trashed", it's a generally balanced summary of a difficult subject. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Feedback I'd give about this article and also about the Autism epidemic article is that they seem to rehash content that's either already in the autism article or should be there. For example, the section on Treatment choices should probably be renamed "Controversies about treatment" and it should only deal with significantly controversial treatments and why they are controversial; namely ABA, CFGF, Son-Rise (missing), Other Biomedical, Drugs, and perhaps "Non-intervention" and maybe one section to mention all other treatments that are mostly promoted by charlatans. Neurodivergent 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a matter of structure, and I'll try to work on it when I have more than a few minutes. We need to build up from the bottom, i.e., starting out by explaining that the nature and diagnosis of autism is in question. --Leifern 14:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
To elaborate, I think the section titles might be inviting people to add their favorite approaches or theories. In the Autism epidemic article the "Proposed causes" section might be inviting editors to add their favorite autism theory; the title should be undestood to mean "Proposed causes of prevalence increase". I already commented out 3 sections there that had nothing to do with prevalence increase. (The assortative mating theory there, btw, needs to be elaborated further to qualify.) Neurodivergent 19:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Re:"double blind" - I have to laugh when people ask for double-blind studies of behavioral therapy. It simply isn't possible. The people who administer the therapy obviously know what they're doing, so the best you can hope for is "single blind," that the patient doesn't know, but even that is difficult, for the same reasons. --Leifern 14:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why. I'm sure it's more expensive, but not impossible. And more importantly, should be done. The result evaluators don't have to be the same people who administer the therapy, and in fact, should not be. Clearly, the test and control groups should be completely randomly selected. (There have been suggestions that Lovaas chose high functioning kids.) One group could be placed in free play and the other in ABA. Parents should not know which approach is being used either. It would also be nice if the experiment is carried out by an organization with no vested interest in the results. Neurodivergent 19:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Another thing that occurs to me would be interesting is if the results not only compared functioning levels but also stress levels by some objective meassure, such as levels of cortisol. Neurodivergent 19:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geeks and Nerds

Am I the only one that finds this section a little rediculous? 1)This is hardly a controversy associated with autism, rather one associated with "geeks" and "nerds". 2) Geek/nerd are more colloquial stereotypes rather then accepted definitions for people - it would be the similar to saying "many smart people with lower perceived social skills may in reality be autistic". 3) How does one genetically test for geek/nerd status? It's a teasing comment/stereotype, not a verifiable set of "symptoms" or a "condition".Sparkleyone 09:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that 'nerd' is nothing but a social construct? That is, we've just picked one end of a behavioral spectrum and arbitrarily labeled it as 'nerd'. (Sorry, just being sarcastic). Neurodivergent 23:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
That was a nice eloquent way of saying what I was trying to get across, yes. I'm sure my point has been made. Sparkleyone 07:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, the geek article does mention this controversy already, and I believe it's considered problematic in that article as well. I recall the Asperger's article and perhaps the Autism community article mention this too. Neurodivergent 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

--Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 11:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Vaccinations

I've made a heap of edits to this article today, and I'm not just trying to be argumentative, but it does seem that a) the vaccine controvery is blatantly POV, b) an unnamed source was trying to insert information about it in many sections where it wasn't relevent (such as epidemiology, where it could be mentioned logically, but rates wasn't even mentioned in the ramble) c) the content of each section was being mixed up. I'm not blatantly trying to get into a revert war here, but I think the section about "Mercury in Medicine" report should go altogether too Sparkleyone 08:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'New cases'

As I've noted before, the 'new cases' wording is misleading. It suggests that's how many children are diagnosed each year in California. It's not. Unfortunately, the DDS data does not say how many children entered the system, and how many left. It only gives totals. All we can say is that the difference between those entering and those leaving is narrowing, but the number of those entering is still about 600-700 higher than those leaving every quarter. Clearly, the number of those leaving must be increasing. It's quite possible the number of those entering is increasing as well, although not as much. It could also be stable now (or decreasing if there's a reason for that.) Anyway, what I just said is probably 'original research' so I'm not sure how to address the 'new cases' wording, which is citable. Neurodivergent 17:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

We can, however, cite the DDS data directly from the DDS - which shows that the rate in the youngest age groups is still going up. I'm not sure why removing claims contradicted by their own citations and data is supposed to be "Censorship". Michael Ralston 22:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've checked the data myself, and there is, in fact, a slight decrease in the increase in the last few quarters. It's fine with me if the article mentions this, and it complies with 'easy verifiability'. Let's leave the 'new cases' wording out as it's contentious (and wrong as a matter of fact). Again, a decrease in the increase is to be expected. At some point the increase in cases should be similar to that of epilepsy, i.e. close to population growth levels. Except that a diagnosis of autism is more complex and involves subjectivity. Neurodivergent 02:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
There's also the issue that the youngest age group is not showing a decrease in the increase yet - which is the ONLY one we would except to be affected by the removal of Thimerosal etc, if that had anything whatsoever to do with Autism. It should, in fact, be near 0 if the autism=mercury thing is true. it's not. Michael Ralston 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If it is true that thimerosal is a contributing factor to autism, the result of a phasing out of thimerosal would be exactly what we're seeing: the number of new cases going down. Setting aside no original research rules, this would be easy to show through a simulation. I think the point is that recent trends lend some support for the thimerosal hypothesis, though they don't prove it. That will take years - and if the hypothesis is true, many more afflicted kids. --Leifern 03:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Leifern. Please pay attention. The rate of autism in the youngest children, according to the DDS, is *still going up*. The "new cases" that you refer to (which is a phrase extremely misleading) include everyone who gets help from the DDS - even those sixty or older. The decrease in the rate of increase (which means the rate is still increasing, don't forget, and is still increasing FASTER than population growth) is found in the older individuals, those who if they're going to need help have probably already gotten into the system. If removal of thimerosal had anything to do with it, the "decrease" would be found primarily in the youngest age groups - it's found LEAST there. I've been trying to explain this for a little while now. The removal of a cause decreases the frequency of ACTUAL new cases - those that "would be" in individuals who were never exposed to the cause. Given that Thimerosal has been essentially gone from the vaccines given to children since 2003 at the LATEST, the rate in that age group should have crashed - unless Thimerosal had little-to-nothing to do with it. The rate hasn't crashed. Unless you subscribe to the claim that *any* thimerosal causes autism at the same rate, then it doesn't make sense - and that claim doesn't make sense either because the "epidemic" would be COMPLETELY unexplained if it were true. Michael Ralston 01:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
This also seems to me to be the correct interpretation. There is another confounding factor as one would expect the age of diagnosis to steadily grow younger with increasing interest, usefulness of diagnosis, and provision of diagnostic testing, along with a reducing number of cases/chance of not being diagnosed until a later age, say 5. Midgley 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge sections into other articles

This article contains lots of redundant information. The therapy sections should be merged into Autism therapies, the discussions of causes into Causes of autism, discussions on prevalence & incidence should be in Autism (incidence) and yet other things are just duplicates of information in the autism and Aspergers articles. Some things, like autistic vs person with autism probably belongs in the main articles. --Rdos 07:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting approach. First the article gets trashed, and then its get nominated for deletion. Of course, several of the articles in question emerged as a result of this article. --Leifern 10:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Irrelevant. It does not matter if the sections first emerged here or not. They are clearly related to the parts of the autism and Aspergers articles that was moved to Causes of autism and Autism therapies. Additionally, all the crap about vaccines has been flooded into as many articles as possible. The action of removing it all is justified. Anything new can be put in the main articles instead. Besides, Leifern, your chronology is bad. I first nominated the article for deletion, then I attempted to fix the worst things in it, hoping some others would cooperate. If you and over anti-vaccine-pushers are not cooperative, I suppose the original deletion request was well founded. --Rdos 10:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Chronology is a recurrent theme... Midgley 23:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I like to think something more constructive than deletion could be done, but the article has serious problems; fundamentally it is making no distinction between autism and other conditions which superficially resemble it, including "geek" personality, which is a lifestyle, not a medical issue. Peter Grey 19:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think deletion is not the solution. I think improving it is more appropriate. The world of autism is not standing still, next week could easily bring a new controversy which would then have to fight for space on another page. There are undoubtedly controversies in autism, so why not have a page to discuss them? AmyNelson 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] References

There were a lot, and they do not look very distinctive. I tend to agree with the user who deleted a bunch of them. WP is not a colelction of links. I reverted Ombudsman's reversion, since he had made no discussion of the change back. The "new" policy that was in fact cited by the previous editor was WP:EL which seems a good one. Midgley 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

At least the links aren't as egregiously out of place as http://whale.to! Andrew73 19:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I examined the links before I removed them, converted those that were in-line into <ref> tags, and deleted the rest. Anything that's relevent (i.e. supports the material actually in the article) should be made into a footnote, everything else should go. - brenneman{L} 01:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extensive Grammatical Updates (2006/05/21)

I spent at least an hour cleaning up the grammar in this article and subsequently removed the request for cleanup. If anyone has any objections to the grammatical quality of the article, please correct the offending grammar or, if there are more requests than you care to clean up, replace the request for cleanup at the top of the page.

To increase the political correctness of the article, I reworded several phrases using person-first terminology. Though most people with autism often refer to themselves as 'autistics', it is common practice in modern psychiatry and medicine to use person-first terminology, which is less likely to offend anyone, regardless of whether or not he/she has autism. I have NOT changed, nor will I change, anything in the article that would diminish the fact that most people with autism do not use this terminology.

[edit] Intro

i have added a line (admittedly directly from the autism article) to the intro here, as the old intro was basically a whole lot of lines saying nothing about what autism is. I know there is no definition that will make everyone happy, but it really needed something in the intro describing it with some content, rather than fluffing around saying that it's a disorder that no-one can agree upon a definition for. Sparkleyone 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/Talk%7EControversies_in_autism_f3ae.html"