Talk:Frequency of autism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Balance and Science

I think one thing this article could benefit from is a more inclusive overview of possible factors in the autism-breakdown-by-country. Vaccines, assortative mating, nutritional deficiencies, and so forth are offered as possible causes/triggers for autism in the section exploring causes, but the first part seems extremely biased in favor of the vaccine theory to the exclusion of any other cause. It'd add a lot of value to this article if that section also talked about various countries' autism rates as their nutrition and tech industries, etc changed.

Secondly, as long as we're casting light on the (hypothetical but interesting) MMR-autism connection, it'd be good to put in some science as to how this might happen. Correlations are fine, but as the article covers, changes in methodology, changes in industry/geeks marrying geeks, etc, hampers any definite conclusion. If the MMR vaccine is going to be the star of this article, let's integrate some actual science as to why it should be.

Cheers, Kharhaz 17:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

I added the mergewith tag to this article... it seems like the content fits well with the "Increase in diagnoses of autism" section in autism. Feco 20:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: There are parts of the Autism article that need some work, but by and large it's an undisputed article. We have created a separate article on Controversies in autism that has been debated at some length, and this article serves the same purpose. If we merge it with "autism" we may be inadvertently poisoning the well. --Leifern 21:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
If this article would "poison" a related-topic article, doesn't that indicate major problems with this article? By merging, it will likely get the attention of a lot more editors who are interested in autism in general. A user coming to wiki from the outside world will type "autism" in the search box and get that article... certainly there is info in this article that should be there. It seems like this article is dangerously close to a POV fork, because it addresses the exact same topic (dramatic increase in autism diagnoses) as autism. Feco 21:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's a POV fork, and it should certainly be referenced properly in the main article. By "poisoning" I mean that it would cause a lot of stir in an article that is reasonably stable. This article does not duck any controversy. And it is entirely common to provide in-depth articles on particular issues related to a main article. --Leifern 22:12, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
You're right that when there is a general article on a subject and an article focusing on a particular aspect of that subject, it is not necessarily a POV fork. However, when a general article on a subject exists and a new article on a specific aspect of the subject is created by someone who:
  • Does not start with the material in the general article which pertains to that specific aspect, which has been developed with input from all sides, but instead with a first draft which represents only their own input; and
  • Fails to notify the editors at the talk page for the general article that a new article on this specific aspect exists
then it seems very likely indeed that the page was created as a deliberate POV fork. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a very rich topic and a buzzword that touches issues beyond Autism per se. Lectiodifficilior 07:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

oppose The article is not an NPOV fork, as it fills a gaping hole in the Wikipedia knowledge base. There is a wealth of material on the increasing prevalence of autism available elsewhere, because of its profound significance, thanks in part to the medical establisment itself, which has a fondness for addressing the well founded concerns of parents and stakeholders through epidemiological studies, while dismissing calls for clinical studies as the product of delusional conspiracy nuts. The topic inherently warrants a robust examination of autism epidemiology issues (enhanced quality of function). While Antaeus' passionate POV comments generally appear sincere, his extrapolations, often based on understandably limited information, sometimes distract from optimizing article quality. That said, his efforts serve a valuable role in ensuring that new material is salient and on topic (optimizing quality of form), even if his POV doesn't always enhance NPOV. Early on, editors active in autism related topics were asked for feedback, rather than twice removed from yesterday past contributors to the relatively stable autism article. Elsewhere, there have been a number of mostly anon editors whose tendency is to repeatedly delete or censor material, or worse, as in the character assassination of Andrew Wakefield. That article needs to be cleaned up and an examination inserted pertaining to the much more significant conflicts of interest and hypocrisy of his detractors. The suggestion to merge this article seems to be an honest miscalculation of its growing significance. Ombudsman 18:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I find Ombudsman's persistently abusive stance towards doctors, scientists, medical and scientific literature, and indeed anyone and anything indicating a lack of evidence of a vaccine-induced autism epidemic, to be intolerable. More so, when he almost never cites a source, and persistently deletes reference sources given by others. The purpose of the "autism epidemic" page is manifestly to create an alternative narrative in which autism is deemed by Wikipedia to be caused by vaccines - a proposition for which there is no evidence. He then creates a web of links to this page, and to others he has created saying much the same thing, for the purpose of, what I believe to be, the purpose of campaigning against vaccines (incidentally, a subject upon which he does not appear to be well-informed). If you look through his other pages, you will see for example not only that he doesn't link to the "autism" page, but that when others insert such a link, he deletes it. If you look at the Wakefield page, you will see his persistent efforts to deny the findings of the retracted Lancet paper, pretending that it was really about something else. In my view, this "autism epidemic" page should be scrapped, and the guys who know and care about autism should be supported in their efforts to get things right. 86.129.108.79

I don't know what the intent was of the original editor of this article, but all the problems you reference can be fixed. As for "input from all sides," it is very hard to find articles on this topic that have input from all side, since Geni simply deletes paragraphs and sections he disagrees with until others just simply give up. --Leifern 00:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

So you're no longer denying that it's a POV fork, you're just trying to claim that content forking should be allowed in your case. Funny enough, when I read your description of "simply deletes paragraphs and sections he disagrees with until others just simply give up" I had to read it twice to be sure you weren't talking about Ombudsman... -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
You think it can be fixed? Without a sledghammer NPOV job I have my doubts but feel free to supries me.Geni 01:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Geni, there is no way in the world I can convince you that anything is neutral unless you already believe in it. My efforts with respect to you are entirely to prevent you from doing damage. You are not persuaded by facts or logic. --Leifern 01:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see what the above has to with the subject of should the article be merged.Geni 01:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
It's just as relevant as your comment. --Leifern 02:00, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
my comment was to support this artilce being merged. Yours was a low grade personal attack.Geni 02:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
You wrote that it couldn't be fixed without a sledgehammer NPOV job (whatever that means). I pointed out that your criteria of what constitutes NPOV are, how should I put it, novel. --Leifern 10:30, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
A sledgehammer NPOV job is where you sacrifice the flow of the article and often the integrityy of the english language in order to to atchive NPOV. The article ends up as a mess but a NPOV mess.Geni 13:04, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • improper removal of MergeWith tag- an anon IP removed the relevant merge tags in both articles, leaving edit comments along the lines of merged. One graf was added to autism, so that's not really a merge. I re-added the tags while the "discussion" about merging continues. Feco 15:41, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
The tag was removed again without any comment, but an apparent, if not unanimous, consensus seems to have gone uncontested for almost two months, so perhaps the matter is closed? Ombudsman 01:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Oppose: As long as there is a mention and a link to this article from the main article, it should be okay. This is a very real issue in the medical world and deserves its own article. Coolgamer 16:27, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Previous discussion

I think this will be a really interesting article - kudos for starting it! I suspect that there will be others, like the anonymous poster, who will question the premise for the article by saying that it is still "uncertain" whether the incidence of autism is still increasing. We might want to deal with this upfront, by noting that there are objections to the premise.

I'll try to fill and edit here and there - --Leifern 10:34, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Ombudsman is here again with his attempt to use wikipedia to campaign against vaccines, as he has attempted in multiple entries now. In my view, he has high motivation, but poor understanding of these complex issues. In any event, I do not believe any consensus will emerge around his evident attempts to start new entries in order to make anti-vaccine attacks that he can't get away with under close scruitiny elsewhere. If there needs to be an "autism epidemic" entry, should there perhaps be "holocaust myth" and "Aids hoax" sections, for fringe groups to set out their vision of history? I have removed all references to "causes" of autism, since these are plainly best dealt with under "autism" by people with specialist knowledge. I truly fear for wikipedia, and more so for those affected by autism, if Ombudsman's campaign succeeds in packing pages here with unverified misleading snippets trawled from anti-vaccine websites. No doubt those website would, in turn, cite wikipedia as the source for their information, and this tragic campaign of smear and innuendo gathers force.

This particular article is about the rise in the incidence of autism, a phenomenon that is a great deal less controversial than the proposed causes for it. There is not "considerable debate" whether there is increased incidence of autism. There are those who wonder whether increased reporting might be a contributing factor, and if so, how big of one. But both the study in California and reports from school districts, pediatricians, etc., leave little doubt what's going on. As for the vaccination controversy, I take great offense at the comparison you're making, for reasons that should be obvious to any reasonable person. In any event, the article needs editing. I don't have a problem with anonymous editors making minor edits, but drastic changes like the one you're making will simply be reverted until you register. --Leifern 11:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I quite agree with Leifern that making major deletions from an article is (usually) unacceptable. Major remodelling of this article should be discussed here on the talk page. I would also encourage the anon to get a Wikipedia username to make communication easier.
Of course, the anon does have a point—the article originally heavily emphasized the controversial, unproven vaccine theories (that either the MMR vaccine or thimerosal preservative are responsible). I would say that it's getting better at this point, and remind all the participants in this discussion that this isn't an opportunity to re-fight all the edit wars at Thimerosal, Andrew Wakefield, Mark Geier, and so forth. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Anybody looking at this page can see that it has been contrived with the aim of giving an anti-vaccine slant on the autism issue, with the added aim of creating lots of links to other pages created by Ombudsman as part of the anti-vaccine campaign driven by the Thimerosal lawsuit, and to steer visitors away from the autism pages, where people with some knowledge of these things have taken great care to present a fair picture. I see there is no link to "autism" at the foot of this page. No suggestion that folks might like to look there for a debate about causes. Naturally, since there is no research at all which would lead any person of moderate intelligence to think that vaccines cause autism, the best way to pursue this campaign is through hearsays and smears, relying on persons such as Bernard Rimland, who has no medical qualifications but a giant commercial interest in the Secretin industry, Wakefield, who faces losing his license to practise medicine on charges of research fraud, and Barbara Lois Fisher, who has pursued an embittered campaign against all vaccines for decades. Then there's the Amish junk from a journalist who drove to Pennsylvania and asked at a gas station, without considering the slight possibility that, IF the Amish have less autism - and he would know? - then they might just be an itsy bit genetically conserved, compared to, say, the guys in Silicon Valley. That this kind of garbage is cited in an encyclopedia in an entry of profound importance to parents, who have been genuinely terrified by this campaign, just beggars belief.
I don't even know why we're responding to someone who doesn't have enough courage in his/her convictions to identify himself/herself, but let's get into this:
  • I agree that this article should be about the increased incidence of autism, not about vaccines; but the vaccine controversy should be mentioned
  • It is my experience that the so-called experts on autism know next to nothing about it, and are perfectly happy to admit it. Any medical text will concede that it's a "mysterious," "baffling," etc., condition
  • To dismiss the opinions of parents of autistic kids as being "unqualified" amounts to criminal negligence and medical malpractice - I'm not aware of a single parent advocacy group that dismisses the vaccine explanation, though they obviously embrace it to varying degrees
  • To dismiss the insight of highly intelligent autistic individuals about autism amounts to criminal negligence and medical malpractice as well. (Couldn't help saying that.) I don't think parents are dismissed. Studies have been done. Curves have been compared. There's just no link. -Jose
  • The purpose is not to terrify parents, it's to give them the means to give (or withhold) informed consent. Depriving them of that right is also criminal negligence and medical malpractice. --Leifern 14:27, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Clusters

Could we compress the cluster information a bit? There isn't a lot of information under the lowest subheadings, and they all seem to boil down to, "there's a cluster here, and there's no agreement on what caused it. X children out of Y in small-town Z were affected." I'd do it myself, but I'm unfortunately occupied in the real world this morning. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 12:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Latest edits

I'm not going to revert right away, but I think my version actually was better than the previous one. --Leifern 18:02, May 6, 2005 (UTC)


citations

How about some citiations? The article keeps claiming stats and the studyX said but it doesn't give a reference for the study or a source for the statsGeni 00:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


Hey, Ombusdman. You question the relevance of citations? How, precisely, do you figure that one? Thsgrn 04:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

NVIC

User:Geni insists on referring to NVIC as an "anti-vaccination" group, which is an opinion he is entitled to, but the group's mission is as follows:

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is dedicated to the prevention of vaccine injuries and deaths through public education. NVIC provides assistance to parents whose children have suffered vaccine reactions; promotes research to evaluate vaccine safety and effectiveness as well as to identify factors which place individuals at high risk for suffering vaccine reactions; and monitors vaccine research, development, policy-making and legislation. NVIC supports the right of citizens to exercise informed consent and make educated, independent vaccination decisions for themselves and their children.

One could hold them accountable for adhering to this mission, but it is entirely inappropriate for us to state as a fact that they are lying. --Leifern 23:13, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

A 2005 use of "anti-vaccination" in discussion. Not the only one.Talk:Anti-vaccinationMidgley 09:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Totally Disputed

Not that I expected anything better from User:Geni, but he's gone ahead and slapped a totally-disputed tag on the article without bothering to explain why on the Talk page, as the tag indeed calls for. I would have preferred a tag called "This article violates Geni's view of the world," but we can leave the tag as a testament to Geni's closed-minded prejudice. --Leifern 01:20, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

My reasons are in the edit summery and above. Total lack of citations. There are a lot of big bold claims there with nothing to back them up.Geni 01:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I suspect you'll see lots of citations now. Will you remove the tag once you see the citations? And don't forget that "some people think the earth is flat" is a true statement; even if the world isn't flat. --Leifern 02:04, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
evidence? Last I checked the guy running the flat earth socirety was dead and I'm not aware of anyone else takeing it seriously (and timecube is not flat earth). As to the citations I hope but we shall seeGeni 03:12, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. It seems you have two problems: you don't understand the difference I was illustrating, and you don't understand what an illustrative point is. No wonder you're making such a mess around here. (Oh, and incidentally, there is apparently such a thing as a Flat Earth Society). --Leifern 10:15, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
nein the Flat Earth Society appears to have died with Charles Johnson. I Think this makes a very good illustration of why it is important to cite your source.Geni 00:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Geni, the supposedly unreferenced facts are, for the most part, fairly well delineated in the external links, where stats can also be found. The article should be a fairly straightfoward look at the scope and possible causes of the epidemic, and does not need to be cluttered with copious citations and stemwinding obfuscation. Bernard Rimland's early warnings about vaccines, made in light of the fact MMR introductions preceded sharp spikes in diagnoses, were provided right in the external links. Please, Geni, be bold, but do your research before making bold edits. Rather than disputing the entire article, perhaps questions could be resolved in the usual manner on this discussion page? Ombudsman 22:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Those are not facts. For one thing, autism is not a disease but a difference, so it cannot be called an epidemic. Is it a disease not to be neurotypical? Another thing, not all autistics have recieved the MMR vaccine. People with autism have been around before the MMR vaccine was invented, so the only possible explanation is for autism to be genetic. Geni was clearly right to say that the neutrality and factual accuracy of the main article are totally disputed. The entire article, with the exception of the "A real epidemic or not?" section, is biased in the point of view of the person who will believe anything of the common belief popularized by pro-genocide groups such as CAN and NAAR. It does remind you of people thinking the earth is flat in a way. As I have stated, it clearly deserves the "totally disputed" it recieved. --65.43.171.211 21:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not vested in either position, but I am trying to understand the issues of 'splitting' - and how it can be used (or abused). I also am not interested in the autism/vaccine debate. BUT

I do have to point out one thing:
Someone here wrote, "People with autism have been around before the MMR vaccine was invented, so the only possible explanation is for autism to be genetic. "

I don't have a background in autism, but I do have a background in math and logic. And this is simply illogical. There are many possible explanations other than genetics. There are many variables. And the rate of increase may differ. I don't know if it has or not, but I am only pointing out the problems in logic here. Further, Ombudsman had a point that in areas where there is controversy, both sides should be discussed.Jgwlaw 09:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
citations don't clutter the article (they take up three chraracters) there is at least one article out there that has 3 citations in one sentance so don't worry about crowding the article. If the stuff is the external link you will have no problems provideing citations for it will you?Geni 00:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I have reinstated material deleted by Ombudsman. I can understand why he has done it: the very extensive referencing from the highest-grade scientific literature shows that, despite much anecdotal evidence, there is no professional consensus that there is an "autism epidemic", and therefore this uncertainty among people who spend every working day of their lives on this subject renders this wiki entry suspect in its entirity. Furthermore, the reference to the Canadian journal, which Ombudsman also deleted, reports the very important issue of changing diagnostic categories, caused by, first the introduction of autism into DSMIII in 1980, and then a dramatic change in 1994. I do not believe anybody who knows anything about autism would dispute the critical importance of the DSM changes. Why somebody would want to delete carefully referenced sources on a subject as serious as claims of an autism "epdiemic" beats me. However, if he keeps deleting important well-sourced material, I am sure others will put it back. 86.129.112.252

The Canadian reference has been moved to the reference section, where it belongs, and a citation to related material in the appropriate theory section has been added. Apologies for the oversight, made after other new citations were similarly moved to the reference section. Insertion of additional material theoretical in nature, though already covered in the appropriate theories section, may be warranted. Edits in an effort compromise have been made. The gist of the anon's assertion suggests the dx criteria theory is 'recognised', but that is only true among establishment medical professionals, including many of the establishment's spokesmen, who may be compromised as sources by conflicts of interest. The mildly revised introductory paragraphs are more than kind to the medical authorities who seem to have mistakenly downplayed the extremely serious consequences and implications of the vastly increasing prevalence of autism. Attempts to whitewash the true status of the situation equates to censorship. While the DSM changes may be 'critical', it is entirely unclear whether or not said changes have made a statistically significant difference. It is likely the guidelines have become less flexible over time, and less prone to anomaly. The rapidly expanding prevalence of autism and related disorders, PDD-NOS, Aspergers's, etc., show no signs of abating, even after over a decade since the last DSM revisions. Every effort is being made to accommodate establishment theories, but censorship on behalf of the establishment is not compatible with the mission of Wikipedia Ombudsman 22:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Claiming that the prevalence is expanding is disingenuous. The only source for that claim is the Department of Education data, which is EXTREMELY dubious; it's based on standards AS APPLIED by American schools, shows an increase in diagnoses within a birth cohort by age that directly corresponds with the yearly diagnosis increases, and STARTED when the diagnostic criteria were changed, and have not yet reached the levels (or even close to, really) shown by the few (geographically-limited, yes) population-based studies done with those criteria. (as they show approx 1 in 166, as opposed to the what, 1 in 500 claimed by the Dept of Education now?) Thsgrn
I'm afraid Ombuydsman you're simply talking garbage with all this shit about the establishment and what you know about the DSM. Even your hero Bernard Rimland would say the DSM changes have made a huge difference, although he would stress that nobody knows how much. The idea that all the child psyciatrists are involved in an "establishment" conspiracy with all the pediatricians, and all the epidemiologists, and all the vaccinologists, is just junk, and profoundly abusive of many thousands of specialists who have given their wqorking lives to this issue. It's incredible that you think that with your opinions, trawled from a few anti-vaccine websites, you can determine what is to be known on this subject. I'm afraid if you continue to remove properly referenced evidence to credible sources while offering nothing to substantiate your claims, I will revert the text to the way it was. If you want to engage constructively and offer some properly referenced evidence - with the references in the text, as you have previously been asked - then that will be satisfactory. 86.129.112.252

There is no proof that the MMR vaccine is connected to autism. Removing the "A real epidemic or not?" section is disputing the article more. Should everything not status quo be blamed on things not related to it? I think not, and I would not be surprise at all if CAN or NAAR is editing the article back to disputed. There is no neutrality or factual accuracy in the current version of the article. --65.43.171.211 13:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Japanese MMR

The redflagsdaily URL contradicts the claim you make. It provides a graph showing a dip at 1991, yes ... ...but there is no way to make a two-year block that doesn't ALSO have a dip. Given that they claim the study showed no dips due to being taken two years at a time, they must be lying. Thsgrn 04:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Simply put, filtering through use of two year blocks dampens the analysis, apparently in an effort to put a spin on the data. The dip is obvious when looking at year to year data, yet the authors chose to muddy the debate by looking at two year blocks. Ombudsman 18:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Simply put, the way redflagsdaily claims the numbers are would mean there was also an obvious dip in two-year blocks. Therefore, either the study was outright lying and published false data (in which case how did redflagsdaily get valid information?) or else redflagsdaily is wrong and/or lying themselves.[br]
One of these two situations seems much more plausible, and redflagsdaily is exceptionally POV to boot. Thsgrn 07:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Red Flags merely posted Wakefield's article assessing the Japanese data. Resorting to attacking the integrity of Red Flags Weekly merely serves to draw attention away from the hard data at issue. The matter at hand is the data, not misleading allegations about supposed lies, contradictions and suspicions about the publisher of Wakefield's article. Please stick to content, rather than impugning Red Flags. Ombudsman 18:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I could say the same thing about you. Did you look at their figure one? There is no way to take two-year blocks from that without displaying a dip. Therefore, that article is lying, either in claiming the study doesn't show a dip, or in what it presents in those figures. This is simple logic. Why can you not address this? Michael Ralston 18:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Um, it seems that is the argument of the study's authors, not Wakefield. If you would kindly pull the quotes of both to make your argument, that would be helpful. Flat out allegations of lies, without specifying who said exactly what, seems to be diversionary. Ombudsman 19:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
You grossly misunderstand. My problem is entirely with the article at redflagsdaily (by the way, couldn't you find a *slightly* more credible source?). It asserts, as does what I've been able to find of the study, that the study says there is NO decrease in autism rates after the removal of the MMR vaccine. It also shows a graph that directly contradicts this. Therefore, one of the two things in the article are false. Therefore, it is hardly a credible source for *anything*, even aside from the question of bias. Michael Ralston 00:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Wakefield points out the MMR was simply replaced for all intents and purposes by 'M-M-R' single jabs, spaced inadequately at only four weeks apart, so the dip clearly happened at a time of reduced uptake for either the MMR or M-M-R. It would be helpful if you would kindly please extract the specific 'lies' and statements you feel are contradictory. Thanks in advance. Ombudsman 18:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
"spaced inadequately at only four weeks apart" err evidence? I know that this going to be tricky becuase you are going to have to provide evidence for at least 3 levels of a house of cards with no card but that is what happens when you start makeing silly claims. So lets see this amazing evidence there there is a properly reseached and justfied distance at which the change should become significant. Or do we see a Post Hoc Ergo propter Hoc logical fallacy?Geni 19:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Commentary removed from article

ATTENTION: This article should have never existed in the first place. An epidemic is a widely spreaded and affecting disease, which autism is not. Autism is a neurological difference and should be accepted as such. The "mercury poisoning = autism" theory is pure quackery, as well as the "milk = autism", "plastic = autism", "fish = autism", and "living = autism" theories.

Nothing can be proven from the Danish epidemiological study, as it was funded by the National Alliance for Autism Research, total and complete quacks, except perhaps that having degrees in this and that does not necessarily prove intelligence. Anyone in their right minds would not listen to NAAR, even if they claimed they told the truth, á la Big Brother.

Mercury levels have as much to do with autism as batteries have to do with the phrase "all your base are belong to us". "Mercury poisoning" and "autism" should probably not even be used in the same sentence, as it is for "autism" and "epidemic", whose combination helped lead to the totally disputed article which was formerly here.

Saying the neutrality of the article was disputed is an understatement. The neutrality, factual accuracy, honesty, and pretty much everything else in the article was.

If you ask me, I think the article this once was should be put up for speedy deletion and the use of "autism epidemic" or any similar terms be blocked. This includes "autism epidemic ON WHEELS", which would probably be used so the curbies who created this should get past the block in the style of Willy on Wheels.

Please accept this as a speck of truth to attempt to add so to protect the sensitive, gullible minds people like CAN, Generation Rescue, and the aforementioned NAAR enjoy so muchly and even have themselves in some cases. Do not revert this, whatever you do, or else another mind filled with gullibility will believe the nonsense previously on this page before this edit. Thank you. 69.223.221.67 23:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions for cleaning up

OK, I've been eyeing this article for a while... and it could use improvement. Over half of it is seems to dwell on the vaccine theory (the first part involving the countries seems like it needs a rewrite). There doesn't seem to be an adequate explanation of any of the other theories presented on this page, and some of them appear to not be discussed at all... That includes brain trauma, viral/bacterial infection and brain testosterone theory.

Refrigerator mothers should probably be taken out - its explained in the main autism page, plus I do not believe it has nothing to do with the epidemic.

Sources need to cited at the bottom and footnoted...

Vaccine theory section - all the other sections need to be as long as this. Worse is that the whole Vaccine thing here is that it seems to be in contradiction with the main autism article, in which we've basically said that most current evidence does not support the theory.

""The current genetic research estimates that no more than 10% of all autistic cases are genetic in origin. Simply put, the remainder 90% of autistic cases is sporadic with a non-genetic etiology," according to Vijendra K. Singh, Ph.D., a professor of neuroimmunology at Utah State University."

Claims like these should cite sources.

Nutritional deficiencies section needs a proper cite for that lancet journal entry.


High technology enclaves have been noted repeatedly for having relatively high prevalence rates of autism spectrum disorders.

This really must have a source...

I should really emphasize that this should explain and expand on the points on the autism article... anyway hopefully that will give somebody some ideas...

P.S. Speculation about Bill Gates really shouldn't be here and at the least should be cited...

--Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Typo?

In the section on environmental theories, a researcher is identified as an 'eneticist'. It seems very likely that this is just a typo for 'geneticist', but I didn't want to change it as I suppose this word could mean something. Totoro 04:54, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Oregon

I agree that this article is a load of crap, but I think the issue needs to be addressed because so many believe it. I think the absence of Oregon is telling. Oregon has had the HIGHEST rate of reported autism increase in the country and is probably responsible for that "scary" graph at the top of the page.

However, it's well known that the Oregon school system defines autism much more broadly than the DSM-IV does, and the "diagnoses" are made by school officials. This, this autism "epidemic" is little more than a repeat of the ADHD "epidemic," when a known neurological difference turned into a fad diagnosis willy-nilly assigned to children. In the case of ADHD, anyone who was disruptive was said to have it. This even lead to children who were not hyperactive receiving ritalin--a stimulant which, on a non-hyperactive child, has an effect not unlike that of crystal meth. In the case of autism, probably any child with learning disabilities or introversion is being called autistic in some quarters. But, mostly, I think autism is being recognized where it was not before.

More proof of the quackery of this page--nowhere does it mention that in the last decade thousands of adults have been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome for the first time. They ALWAYS had it, but nobody knew what it was! Asperger's is an autism spectrum disorder by convention and is sometimes called "high-functioning autism". It is a learning disability (failure of implicit learning) but it's so minor that school systems didn't use to take note of it among the much more serious learning disabilities. Far from an epidemic, what we have is a change in awareness, parental hysteria not-withstanding.

Frankly, I think the autism-vaccine nonsense is no more than an attempt to look for someone to blame, and if you're looking for blame and calling yourself a victim, you are doing real damage to your child.

Those are some good points. I almost want to just AfD this article. Or rename it "percieved Autism epidemic",:). I agree with RN, just because somethings new is diagnosted more oftendue to increases testing and lowered standards, does not mean that there is an outbreak.Voice of All(MTG) 18:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
Just to add a voice of support :-) In a hear-say kind of way, my sister has lost count of the number of times she's been diagnosing a child and called the parents in, and one of them (usually the father) appears to have undiagnosed aspergers, or otherwise is broadly placed at that end of the autistic spectrum. (ie, they would probably have been diagnosed autistic if they had been growing up now). I'd be interested to know if there are any stats of prevalence sorted by cohort, into age groups, so that someone recently diagnosed, but who's been autistic for 30 years, isn't counted as a 'new' case. 14:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (Skittle)

Use of the term "Epidemic" is fine

This is very black and white; I wen't to the dictionary(Oxford) and saw this definition:

(3)"a wide prevalence of somthing usu. undesirable"

n. 1,2plague, pestilance, disease; outbreak, scourge.

So this clearly could be called an epidemic if there is a large outbreak.Voice of All(MTG) 06:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Forgive the hard language in advance, but as an Autist myself I'd just like to say: Fuck that. To call this an epidemic is to suggest that Autism is essentially undesirable, which I very much dispute as I see it as being a one-sided view of a semi-informed group. Robrecht 03:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag put back

Please see the comments above me, namely the ones by me and the oregon mention. There are a lot of issues with this article. With some effort though it would be possible to quell the pov issues, however Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:27, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong interpretation

This is likely wrong: "The current genetic research estimates that no more than 10% of all autistic cases are genetic in origin. Simply put, the remainder 90% of autistic cases is sporadic with a non-genetic etiology," according to Vijendra K. Singh, Ph.D., a professor of neuroimmunology at Utah State University.

What it probably means is that parents of autistic children are found to be in the autistic spectrum 10% of the time (which is pretty much what would be expected from known data about incidence in sibblings and twins.) This is not the same as saying that it is genetic 10% of the time. There are likely several genes involved in autism, and in most cases each parent contributes only partially.

Why vaccine theory makes no sense

If a child truly develops autism primarily as a result of being vaccinated, then the child is not really autistic. Sorry, but they'd really need to find a new name for that condition. The neourological differences of autistic individuals are such that it would be impossible for a vaccine to change the brain that way (i.e. change neuron size, add neurons, brain mass, and change location of different types of brain matter.) Really, think about it. Ironically, many of the proponents of the vaccine theory are the same people who accuse autism rights advocates of not being really autistic. --Jose

I disagree in that the diagnosis of "autism" and "pervasive development disorder" are subjective. They don't scan your brain in the first place, they diagnoze a behavior. This is the falacy of the diagnosis. We may find out that autism is similar to schitzophrenia was when it was first discovered. Since then it has fragmented into many different neurological disorders. Schitzophrenia just being one of them. Autism may actually just be a group of behaviorally similar disorders. Reboot

Quite unlikely. I think we need to collect ADHD, Tourette and autism in a new "autism spectrum" diagnosis. --Rdos 06:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Historical note: What was originally described was "The Schizophrenias". But yes, it seems likely that there will be further subdivision or even separation into different ... conditions ... with different aetiology, and likely different patterns of incidence and prevalance. Midgley 12:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's actually a lot more complicated than dividing autism into kinds of autism. Research in genetics is showing how complex of a condition we're dealing with. There's a vast spectrum that is not one-dimensional. There will probably never be a test that is able to distinguish precisely between the 'almost autistic' and the 'just a little autistic'. Neurodivergent 19:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Simply change title

This is a notable topic. There is an increase in diagnosis, and this article tries to document that. "Epidemic" is POV, however, and should be changed to something like:

  • Rise in cases of autism
  • Increase in diagnosis of autism

Or something. Then redirect "Autism epidemic" there.

Moved to Autism prevalence. Needs a rewrite though. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Autism prevalence is a nice, politically correct way to sugar coat the issue. Simply stating that the title is POV ignores the fact that the notion of NPOV, whilst worthy, is little more than a holy grail brimming with unobtainium. The condition labeled as autism may be treated by the medical establishment as strictly a cognitive disability, but the actual nature of the condition generally involves several serious co-morbid disorders ranging from heavy metal poisoning and bowel disease to heightened autoimmunity and sensory integration dysfunction. Thus, even assuming the cognitive condition is not necessarily a disorder itself, the extreme rise in the number of those diagnosed with disorders co-morbid to autism clearly represents an epidemic. Politically correct terminology is vital to diplomacy, and a darling of the thought police, but it hinders attainment of accuracy and honest discussion. Ombudsman 19:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Epidemic is POV. It's fine to address whether there's an epidemic or not, but making the title "Epidemic" shows bias.
Ombudsman If you don't support NPOV could you please leve this project. I think wikinfo may be closer to what you want.Geni 21:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Achieving NPOV is theoretically impossible, because every word inherently adds POV. The notion of neutrality has great value, however, as a guiding principle for editors, much like a moral compass. It is intellectually dishonest to deceptively re-label an article, one which tackles an issue head on, with a politically correct title that only serves to advance a competing POV. Ombudsman 21:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
And it's not intellectually dishonest to name it with a stance that advances a non-competing POV? Perfect NPOV is unobtainable, but POV can and should be reduced - and Prevalence does not assume it's not harmful, while Epidemic does assume it's harmful. Michael Ralston 12:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Autism Epidemic is the name that has been adopted in common usage to categorize the observation that there are more cases of Autism being recognized. It is a matter of debate why that is, (actual incidence or less missed diagnoses), but dropping in back to just prevalence would be addressed in the Autims article under epidemiology. This article is about the issue about the presence of the belief that autism is increasing and the issues surrounding that. Kd4ttc 15:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Environmental pollution section

The Environmental pollution theory section mentions nothing about pollution. That might be an interesting thing to document; as I recall, California DDS data does show more cases in large urban areas (which, of course, could be explained otherwise too.) There are also some sections, like "Nutritional deficiencies" which are autism theories, but don't necessarily have anything to do with prevalence, unless they document, for example, that nutrition has become gradually worse roughly coinciding with the increase in prevalence.

NPOV issues?

What are currently the NPOV issues with this article that warrant keeping the NPOV tag? Neurodivergent 18:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Try this one on for size: "Much of the vaccine-related scare in the US and UK has been promoted by trial lawyers hoping to sue vaccine companies.[49]". I'm not saying that data that is suggestive of this shouldn't be presented somehwere (though it is a logical fallacy ad hominem), but that this statement is suggestive at least in the way it is phrased Reboot

Debate on vaccinations

The vaccination/heavy metal debate is really raging in the autism community. While I'm very skeptical personally, I think more research here is warranted. Before I add anything to the article on this I want to do more research as I've been hearing more of this rather than reading. Combined with the debate is the apparent pulling of funding by the National Institutes for Health for any study that even investigates the vaccination link. Moreover, there seems to be a lot to suggest that thimerzol is not easily, evenly or completely filtered from vaccines. Meaning that if you get the wrong part of a batch, you may get a heavier concentration of mercury than the portion that was tested.

I recognize in myself that I'm pretty inherently biased against this theory, and I'd really like a hand researching it. Generally I contribute to the wikipedia when I have an interest in researching something, finding it a productive way to organize my information. I always try to write NPOV even if I have a strong POV and I like to have help where I do have a strong POV to prevent myself from doing biased research. Thus if someone is interested in working with me on this and filling out that section a little more with depth, I'd appreciate the help. Reboot 15:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion at the Talk:epidemiology page Kd4ttc 14:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Prevalence in Nigeria?

It is claimed that 1:500 in Nigeria would be affected by autism. However, the link goes to a subsription-only article. According to the wording in this article, the prevalence is an estimate and not the result of research.

To put it bluntly, is this claim substantiated in the article referenced, or is it simply idle speculation interpolated from the West? If it is idle speculation, it should be removed! --Rdos 17:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A search through pubmed revealed no articles dealing with autism/pdd in Nigeria. Several articles from the 70s and early 80s addressed Africa, but abstracts were not readily available. I'm not sure where the Nigerian information was published (ie is it original research) but it should be substantiated if possible or removal should be considered. InvictaHOG 19:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. The word "projected" there is significant. We could list every country in the world and "project" a prevalence if we wanted. Neurodivergent 15:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Higher amount of cases in Brick Township

There has a been a new statistic for 2006 prevailing that there are at least 1000 cases of Autism in Brick Township, either from newer residents ranging to older residents.

Can you cite this? It seems highly improbable - my googling indicated there were 75 "Candidate cases" in the cluster, and going from UNDER 75 to 1000 is ... a significant jump. (Also, sign your talk page edits with four tildes; and it helps to be registered, as well.) Michael Ralston 03:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)