Talk:Autism spectrum

Picture

I am really uncomfortable with the picture in the leded, and have changed it (though freely consent that a much better one than mine may be available). This is an identifiable child, doing something we are told is a characteristic autistic behaviour. Is the child autistic? Maybe, but the child hasn't consented to be used as an exemplar of autism and is unlikely to be a notable individual or notable example of autistic spectrum disorders. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This has been the picture for a long time, and this has been discussed in the past. We are free to use it as well. The kid's Mom gave consent for us to use it actually if you look at the file itself. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Original image upload page gives this youtube link. Description on youtube is liberal about identity of the child and use of the video. I don't see any problem using this image. neo (talk)

I am still really uncomfortable about it. The WP:ORish caption, the identifiable child, both seem distinctly un-Wikipedian to me. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

All images are original research and we cannot get around that. If this were a requirement for images we would more or less have to delete them all. I support it continued inclusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Asperger image being used as replacement has been deleted before for failing to meet NFCC criteria, see Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_March_18#Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg. No one seemed to question it when it was re-uploaded but I'm just saying that it has been questioned in the past. —Soap— 02:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I support keeping the picture. We will continue to rely on "home made" pictures because (a) we are a "free content" project so commercial stock pictures can't be used and (b) WMF don't had a budget for hiring their own photographers. And anyway, it is a million times more informative and better quality than the Hans Asperger pic. Colin°^Talk 08:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I also support keeping the picture, per Colin. Lova Falk talk 08:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

General consensus among scientists that there are hundreds of causes for autism, article should state this clearly

I realize I put this out before but there is no real doubt among real scientists there are many causes, probably hundreds, and hundreds of genes involved. Not hundreds in any single individual, hundreds of genes in toto for all cases of autism. Of course, it's still true maternal antibodies are the most common cause by far, even at only around 15% or so. The article should include these completely non controversial non refuted statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.59.138 (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

CiteULike Autism research paper sharing group

Hopefully some may be able to use the information from the research papers included in the CiteULike Autism research paper library to update and correct this article. dolfrog (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dolfrog! Zad68 14:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

you may also find some of my online PubMed collections related to Autism useful, not all are listed on my user page

• Autism
• Autism (ASD) and MMR
• Autism (ASD) review articles
• Autism and Regression dolfrog (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes and we have recently had adding a box of links to high quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

So where is this box, hidden where only you can find it i presume dolfrog (talk) 00:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It is at the top of this talk page and looks like this

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect claim of link between autism and mental retardation

"Mental retardation. The percentage of autistic individuals who also meet criteria for mental retardation has been reported as anywhere from 25% to 70%, a wide variation illustrating the difficulty of assessing autistic intelligence.[165] In comparison, for PDD-NOS the association with mental retardation is much weaker,[166] and by definition, the diagnosis of Asperger's excludes mental retardation.[167]"

This section is outdated and incorrect in its claim. In has been shown that the vast majority of papers and studies that made a claimed link between the two, were found lacking in evidence (many entirely lacking in factual evidence) and often falling short of the requirements of the scientific method, and often relied on the use of testing methods that were based on communication abilities and not actual intelligent thinking abilities (in recent years reanalysis has shown about 97% of papers and studies claiming a link between autism and retardation, either did not have factual evidence or did not have the level of factual evidence required by scientific method). More advanced studies of autistic intelligence using tests that actually measure cognitive ability have shown that autism causes no mental impairment and that the level of mental retardation among autistics is the same as that of the general human population, and that the IQ distribution among autistics is generally the same as that of the general human population.74.74.120.130 (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)–

The statement is referenced. Do you have a reference for your claim? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Maternal Antibody Related (MAR) autism reports in the press

It's far past time the article contains reference to Maternal Antibody Related Autism.

Time magazine has an article on it, prompted by the latest paper, which identifies the antigens effected by the more common maternal antibodies. This paper is a major breakthrough, although not all the mechanisms of harm are proven yet, a lot is known on that side of it.

I realize there are legitimate objections to Time, and we can not use it as a science source, but the original peer reviewed papers are usable, and can be used per the medical article rules. Many of them are reviews, and those that are not are not being used to refute reviews, and so forth. All perfectly allowed.

Since about 1/4 of autism cases are linked to maternal antibodies, outside of all genetic causes, and maybe all epigenetic causes, this is the largest single cause. In fact, since only 7 major antigens have been identified, it seems some of the antibodies will be more common causes than any single genetic cause yet known. (23/7 is about equal to 3, no known gene abnormality is known to cause more than 2% of cases).

The past refusal to allow this information in the article was spurious and based on bad faith interpretations of the rules, but plausible arguments, at least plausible to those not really familiar with the research, could be made. Were made, in fact.

But now, there is really no excuse, and I hear only a deafening silence when bringing this up. There are simply too many papers, too many reviews, supporting it.

I suggest something like this under Causes:

About 23% of autism cases have been linked to maternal antibodies to fetal brain. It is strongly suspected these antibodies cross the placenta during pregnancy and cause damage to the developing brain. Repeated studies have detected abnormalities in the offspring of test animnals given the antibodies during pregnancy. Most of the mothers who produce these antibodies have a genetic variant which is associated with an increased likelihood of autoimmune disease. The antibodies have been identified and all are involved in normal brain development. Further research, to identify those at risk for this subtype of autism, and to develop preventive treatments, is being done. A commercial test for the antibodies is being developed by Pediatric Bioscience in California.

I have to go find the citations for all of that but there are many, it's not at all controversial, nothing has been disputed, much less refuted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.133.90 (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Note this IP editor was the subject of an ANI discussion found at WP:ANI_AUTISM_IP in which it was found the editor has been engaging in a long history of disruption of Wikipedia autism articles, specifically in promoting the "maternal antibodies" theory. As a result of that discussion, anyone who finds their edits disruptive may revert them without comment. Zad68 17:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Zad -- if I had been rehashing the same old points this would be an appropriate criticism. The fact is, I brought the subject up again and again because there was more and more evidence for it. Secondary sources for example, as more and more review papers were published. I asked for comment on the NEW sources. It is true, again and again, when I cited new sources, my edits were removed from Talk:Autism by someone, so the new sources were not seen by all editors, but I could not prevent that, and now someone removes the edits where I point this out repeatedly. The MAR theory of autism is now well publicized but still this article should contain it, for the same reasons I gave 4 years back, it has very important clinical and life decision implications. Not everyone will see the press reports on the subject, though hopefully they will have a competent doctor who is aware of the JAMA Pediatric review paper explaining it. That's right, JAMA Pediatrics, a "reliable secondary source", but of course my links to that got removed instantly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.221.130 (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)