Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 21:36, 23 December 2012 (→Summary of past discussions with IP 76, IP 75 and other 70 ip range: prep for archvie). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autism spectrum redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Spoken Misplaced Pages

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Marshall R. Childs (November 4, 2005). "Lessons from Asperger's syndrome". Daily Yomiuri. Adriana Gamondes (June 24, 2010). "Part II: The Tipping Point: Questions about Autism, History, Race and Melanin". Age of Autism. Banaji, Mahzarin R (December 2010). "Presidential Column: Misplaced Pages is the Encyclopedia that Anybody Can Edit. But Have You?". Association for Psychological Science.

	Autism spectrum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 31, 2004 Peer review Reviewed August 3, 2005 Peer review Reviewed August 10, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted December 17, 2006 Featured article review Demoted July 24, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 30, 2007 Peer review Reviewed August 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Medicine: Genetics / Neurology High‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This redirect is supported by the Medical genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This redirect is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Misplaced Pages's best articles related to Medicine. Neuroscience High‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Psychology High‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology High This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Disability Autism spectrum is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection Template:WP1.0

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions have been raised in the scientific and popular literature, and are summarized here for ease of reference. The main points of this FAQ can be summarized as: Many common ideas about autism have been researched and either confirmed or refuted. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view requires that minority views not be given undue emphasis. Therefore it is against Misplaced Pages policy for views without scientific support, such as the belief that autism is caused by vaccination, to be presented as a controversy in a science article like autism. Q1: Why doesn't this article discuss the association between vaccination and autism? A1: This association has been researched, and is mentioned in the page - specifically with some variant of the statement "there is no convincing evidence that vaccination causes autism and an association between the two is considered biologically implausible". Despite strong feelings by parents and advocates, to the point of leaving children unvaccinated against serious, sometimes deadly diseases, there is simply no scientific evidence to demonstrate a link between the two. Among the organizations that have reviewed the evidence between vaccination and autism are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (United States), Institute of Medicine (United States), National Institutes of Health (United States), American Medical Association, the Cochrane Collaboration (British/international), British Medical Association (Britain), National Health Service (United Kingdom), Health Canada (Canada) and the World Health Organization (international). The scientific community took this issue seriously, investigated the hypothesis, designed and published many studies involving millions of children, and they all converged on a lack of association between autism and vaccination. Given the large number of children involved, the statistical power of these studies was such that any association, even an extremely weak one, would have been revealed. Continuing to press the issue causes unnecessary anguish for parents and places their children, and other children at risk of deadly diseases (that disproportionately harm the unvaccinated). Q2: Why doesn't this article discuss the association between thiomersal, aluminum, squalene, toxins in vaccines? A2: Thiomersal has also been investigated and no association is found between the two. Vaccines are heavily reviewed for safety beforehand, and since they are given to millions of people each year, even rare complications or problems should become readily apparent. The amount of these additives in each vaccine is minuscule, and not associated with significant side effects in the doses given. Though many parents have advocated for and claimed harm from these additives, without a plausible reason to expect harm, or demonstrated association between autism and vaccination, following these avenues wastes scarce research resources that could be better put to use investigating more promising avenues of research or determining treatments or quality-of-life improving interventions for the good of parents and children. Specifically regarding "toxins", these substances are often unnamed and only vaguely alluded to - a practice that results in moving the goalposts. Once it is demonstrated that an ingredient is not in fact harmful, advocates will insist that their real concern is with another ingredient. This cycle perpetuates indefinitely, since the assumption is generally a priori that vaccines are harmful, and no possible level of evidence is sufficient to convince the advocate otherwise. Q3: Why doesn't this article discuss X treatment for autism? A3: For one thing, X may be discussed in the autism therapies section. Though Misplaced Pages is not paper and each article can theoretically expand indefinitely, in practice articles have restrictions in length due to reader fatigue. Accordingly, the main interventions for autism are dealt with in summary style while minor or unproven interventions are left to the sub-article. Q4: My child was helped by Y; I would like to include a section discussing Y, so other parents can similarly help their children. A4: Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox; despite how important or effective an intervention may seem to be, ultimately it must be verified in reliable, secondary sources that meet the guidelines for medical articles. Personal testimonials, in addition to generally being considered unreliable in scientific research, are primary sources and can only be synthesized through inappropriate original research. If the intervention is genuinely helpful for large numbers of people, it is worth discussing it with a researcher, so it can be studied, researched, published and replicated. When that happens, Misplaced Pages can report the results as scientific consensus indicates the intervention is ethical, effective, widely-used and widely accepted. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball and can not be used to predict or promote promising interventions that lack evidence of efficacy. Without extensive testing, Misplaced Pages runs the risk of promoting theories and interventions that are either invalid (the Refrigerator mother hypothesis), disproven (secretin and facilitated communication), or dangerous (chelation therapy, which resulted in the death of a child in 2005). Q5: Why doesn't this article discuss Z cause of autism? Particularly since there is this study discussing it! A5: No ultimate cause has been found for autism. All indications are that it is a primarily genetic condition with a complex etiology that has to date eluded discovery. With thousands of articles published every year on autism, it is very easy to find at least one article supporting nearly any theory. Accordingly, we must limit the page to only the most well-supported theories, as demonstrated in the most recent, reliable, high-impact factor sources as a proxy for what is most accepted within the community. Q6: Why does/doesn't the article use the disease-based/person-first terminology? It is disrespectful because it presents people-with-autism as flawed. A6: This aspect of autism is controversial within the autistic community. Many consider autism to be a type of neurological difference rather than a deficit. Accordingly, there is no one preferred terminology. This article uses the terms found in the specific references. Q7: Why doesn't the article emphasize the savant-like abilities of autistic children in math/memory/pattern recognition/etc.? This shows that autistic children aren't just disabled. A7: Savant syndrome is still pretty rare, and nonrepresentative of most of those on the autistic spectrum. Research has indicated that most autistic children actually have average math skills. Q8: Why doesn't the article mention maternal antibody related autism or commercial products in development to test for maternal antibodies? A8: There are no secondary independent third-party reviews compliant with Misplaced Pages's medical sourcing policies to indicate maternal antibodies are a proven or significant cause of autism, and commercial products in testing and development phase are unproven. See sample discussions here, and conditions under which maternal antibody-related posts to this talk page may be rolled back or otherwise reverted by any editor. References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2008). "Outbreak of measles--San Diego, California, January-February 2008" (Full free text). MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 57 (8): 203–206. PMID 18305451. Parker, A. A.; Staggs, W.; Dayan, G. H.; Ortega-Sánchez, I. R.; Rota, P. A.; Lowe, L.; Boardman, P.; Teclaw, R.; Graves, C.; Lebaron, C. W. (2006). "Implications of a 2005 Measles Outbreak in Indiana for Sustained Elimination of Measles in the United States". New England Journal of Medicine. 355 (5): 447–455. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa060775. PMID 16885548. Glanz, J. M.; McClure, D. L.; Magid, D. J.; Daley, M. F.; France, E. K.; Salmon, D. A.; Hambidge, S. J. (2009). "Parental Refusal of Pertussis Vaccination is Associated with an Increased Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children". Pediatrics. 123 (6): 1446–1451. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2150. PMID 19482753. Williams, K.; Wray, J. A.; Wheeler, D. M. (2012). Williams, Katrina (ed.). "Intravenous secretin for autism spectrum disorders (ASD)". The Cochrane Library. 4: CD003495. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003495.pub3. PMID 22513913. Brown, M. J.; Willis, T.; Omalu, B.; Leiker, R. (2006). "Deaths Resulting from Hypocalcemia After Administration of Edetate Disodium: 2003-2005" (Full free text). Pediatrics. 118 (2): e534. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-0858. PMID 16882789. Chiang, H. -M.; Lin, Y. -H. (2007). "Mathematical ability of students with Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism: A review of literature" (Full free text). Autism. 11 (6): 547–56. doi:10.1177/1362361307083259. PMID 17947290. Past discussions For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Autism: Splinter skills math (discussed at Talk:Asperger syndrome) External links Sciencebasedmedicine.org discussion of vaccines and autism. Quackwatch misconceptions about vaccination.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autism spectrum redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Adding "unusual behaviors" to complete the characterization list per the Lancet source

From the Lancet source name=Levy already used multiply in the article - "Autism spectrum disorders are characterised by severe deficits in socialisation, communication, and repetitive or unusual behaviours". I added "unusual behaviors" to complete the lede first sentence. (There may be a subtle objection distinguishing "autism spectrum disorders" from "autism", but this distinction does not appear to be made elsewhwere when this source is used in this article.) ParkSehJik (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

And I have removed your excess citations on the autism rights movement. This is a broad overview article, you added citations to text that was already cited and the daughter article sociological and cultural aspects of autism is already linked and well cited. On "unusual behaviors", I think you've left the sentence muddled, but will let others decide. Also, please be aware that we sometimes don't use exact wording for avoidance of copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Better wording would be good, but leaving out the entire diagnostic category, "unusual behaviors", leaves out too much. ParkSehJik (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

But what you've written is incorrect:

Autism is a disorder of neural development characterized by impaired social interaction and communication, by restricted and repetitive behavior, or by unusual behaviors.

The placement of the commas makes this sentence say that "Autism is characterized by unusual behaviors". That is not what the source says, and that is not what the diagnostic criteria are. There's a punctuation problem and an and/or problem. Our lead is now incorrect. In the future, will you please shorten your section headings? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You are corect on my logic error. The Lancet definition logically implies "comm and soc and unusual" is sufficient, without "repetitive and restricted" or even "repetitive" being necessary, but that is not what DSM says. I will revert my logic error (unless you already did), but that leaves open the "or unusual behavior" from Lancet, whcih is the most up to date source. Lancet's 2009 def with "or unusual" adds to what is in the lede. What was in the lede I found was sourced in the corresponding article body statement "It is distinguished not by a single symptom, but by a characteristic triad of symptoms: impairments in social interaction; impairments in communication; and restricted interests and repetitive behavior. Other aspects, such as atypical eating, are also common but are not essential for diagnosis", which is sourced by the 1999 "The Screening and Diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorders" saying "three core-defining features: impairments in socialization, impairments in verbal and nonverbal communication, and restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviors", which in turn rests entirely on the 1994 DSM, which is now almost 20 years old, and which itself relies on even older studies. I keep finding going back to 20 year old DSM as the only real source in various related articles, and the problems with DSM V, which is supposed to correct DSM IV's outdatedness, combined with statements about DSM V, troubling as I indicated at MEDRS.

Diffs for 2009 Lancet based, v 1994 DSM based, def for lede first sentence. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DSM criteria are a stronger source than one author in a Lancet article. DSM does not say "unusual behaviors". Which, by the way, would raise a whole lot of different issues - it is not unusual for a child to show unusual behavior... Lova Falk talk 09:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is why "unusual behaviors" is better explained in the text than in the lead. (Park, please confine personal anecdote to user talk pages ... trying to read small print doesn't make it any easier, either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

@Lova Falk, autism is not just a condition of children (although adults with autism tend to be ignored by comparison, and treated in strange ways, e.g., with antidepresants, per my anecdotal observations, not sourced). The sources used for the definition in this article all rely on 1994 DSM IV, 20 years old. The Lancet article is 15 years more current. ParkSehJik (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia - I do not see "unusual behaviors" adequately explained in the article body. Do you know where Lancet got its definition, or where there is a definitive secondary source listing all of the "unusual behaviors", and whether or not Lancet might have made a logic error similar to the one you pointed out that I made, in that they meant to add that there are sometimes unusual behaviors, but these together with the communication and social conditions are not sufficient without restricted and repetitive behavior? ParkSehJik (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If you find a high quality secondary more recent review with contradictory information, then we can discuss it. I am satisfied with our current content, and am not going to engage in seeing this page used for ever-spreading speculation or anecdote. Changes to the article, and discussion here, should be based on sources. If you have them, bring them forward and we'll discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed AS and mental retardation for discussion

I have removed this text to talk for discussion:

One of the criteria for Asperger's syndrome is that there is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development; which means that no one with Asperger's syndrome can have mental retardation.

Several problems:

1. This is an FA, and if we decide we want to include this text, we can cite it to any number of high-quality secondary reviews-- no need to use behavnet.
2. This is an FA, meaning raw URLs will lead to WP:FAR; even if we did want to use that source, please don't add raw URLs.
3. There are prose issues-- even if we decide to use this text, the prose needs refinement.
4. But more significantly, why are we adding this text here? This article is about classic autism, not autism spectrum, so the content is off-topic here anyway, and already addressed in the AS article. It's also only creating something that will have to be updated in May 2013.

My suggestion is that this text isn't even needed in this article. If others disagree, then at least it needs to be correctly sourced and rewritten. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

History of "disorder of neural development"

Re "disorder of neural development" - does anyone know off he top of their head where to locate any of the original empirical studies by which this assertion first made it into DSM and elsewhere? I can do it with some work, but if anyone already knows, it would save much time. ParkSehJik (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We aren't citing that to the DSM; we are citing it (among many others) to this. If you want to know what research went into that wording, I would suggest you read through all of the sources cited in all of the freely available sources cited in the article. You can backtrack that way. Alternately, you might save yourself and all of us time by explaining why you might challenge the wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have been doing that. In doing so, I am finding that many of what appear to be independent sources, when tracked back, ultimately rely on DSM, often the 1994 edition. I could try reading forward from the original publications, which is even more work, but the nature and quality of this artice indicates that it was largely written by, or overseen by, MD's and Phd's with expertise, and I was hoping someone had already done the research. ParkSehJik (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion about the authorship of this article is most curious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Addition to Autism Page: MRI studies and results

I rarely see statistics work on wikipedia. I am unsure if this is because there is a need to simplify information for readers or if there is a general lack of it. I wanted to add some great information I came across during some research I was doing on Autistic Neuroanatomy.

"A recent study in the American Academy of Children and Adolescent Psychiatry found results about specific brain areas of autistic children and their density. ASD girls were found to have enlargement in intracranial areas. Their gray (cerebral, frontal, and temporal) and white (cerebellar) matter volumes were higher than the control group. Cerebral and frontal gray matter as well as frontal, and cerebellar white matter volumes were higher than the control group. There was a gender difference found in that ASD girls in cerebral white (M= 28.99, SD= 4.75) and cerebral (M= 728.60, SD= 44.86), frontal (M= 272.42 SD= 18.85), and temporal (M= 161.58, SD= 12.93) gray matter. Compared to boys cerebral white (M= 23.42, SD= 5.58), and cerebral (M= 765.15, SD= 58.10), frontal (M=282.98, SD= 23.64), and temporal (M= 164.60, SD= 18.16) gray matter. Mann-Whitney results for girls were .012, .014, .007, and .008 respectively. Boys Mann-Whitney results, also respectively, were >.0005, .014, .016, .054 (in this last instance Randomization test was .017)"

• Bloss, C.S., & Courchesne, E. (2007). MRI neuroanatomy in young girls with autism: A preliminary study. American Academy of Children and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 515-523. doi: 10.1097/chi.0b013e318030e28b</ref>

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsnook3 (talk • contribs) 23:31, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS-- we would rarely add anything beginning with "a recent study", certainly not one labeled a "preliminary study", and we typically cite text to secondary reviews of primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Many causes for autism are not controversial and should be in the article.

There are many known causes for autism, and they really should be in the article.

Also, if you look at www.sfari.org you see about 300 genes are being looked at as causes of autism or cognitive disability. That should be included to show there are many causes, so no one is thinking their autistic kid has the same condition as someone else's.

"Many genetic abnormalities cause autism. About 300 gene abnormalities closely linked to autism are being currently investigated as causes. These genes often effect differnt aspects of brain development" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.134.16 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Two things:

1. This is a broad overview article, which relies on summary style and daughter articles, such as causes of autism. Not everything can be covered here; what is mentioned in the most recent, highest quality secondary reviews is typically included.
2. If you have a high quality, recent secondary review that discusses "causes" that are not included, please provide the source and text.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have a high quality secondary review source, it's www.sfari.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.134.117 (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If a secondary review compliant with WP:MEDRS is available, please post a DOI or a PMID, for example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please don't archive comments which are made in good faith and relevant to the discussion.

I had added a new talk section on maternal antibody releated autism pointing out there are many solid reasons to include it as a cause.

The claim was made that it's redundant but the fact is, there are many new secondary sources, review articles, which endorse this as a cause of autism.

I also pointed out, though it's not new info as the review papers are, that one of the lead researchers who has published these findings is past president of INSAR, the main professinoal society of scientists and doctors involved in autism research, and that the University of California has endorsed the theory, by going into partnership with a private company, Pediatric Bioscience, to develop and market an antibody test for sale.

Someone removed that section. My previous comments on this which INCLUDED REVIEW PAPERS IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALSm, were also archived without action or comment.

I feel that my suggestinos are rejected because I posted commnents pointing out that editors were misrepresenting the rules on primary vs. secondary sources. Whatever the merits of that, I call on editors to act in good faith to critique this issue.

It's really important people, especially people with one autistic child, are made aware of the fact that there is a high chance the mother has antibodies to fetal brain and that if they get tested they can avoid having another child with autism.

So, this is imporant, it's endorsed by secondary sources, it's endorsed by the UC system, ir'; endorsed by one of the top scientists in the field, who was himself "peer reviewed" when elected President of INSAR, and so forth.

I think it's been suppressed out of spite towards me. If so that is NOT "good faith". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.129.155 (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:AGF indicates that we don't "think something is suppressed out of spite"; if you have a secondary review source, please list its DOI or PMID. If you persist in a discussion that has been had numerous times, with no change, please review WP:DR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure who you are speaking for. Well, I will go search PubMed for the review papers which support MAR autism. But UI would like to suggest people actually editing or undoing edits should have more knowledge of the subject. None of this is controversial in the science community as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.129.155 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Misplaced Pages is basically just a summary of the scholarly consensus on a topic. We derive that scholarly consensus from recent review articles. (In the scientific literature, review articles are scientific papers that provide a synthesis of research on a topic at that moment in time. They're not the same as peer-reviewed articles.)

The kind of source needed in this case is an expert overview of the current thinking on the etiology of autism that includes a discussion of the maternal autoantibodies theory. Bringing such a journal article or textbook chapter to this talk page will demonstrate that experts consider the theory relevant enough for mention in an overview article such as Autism - or at least in Causes of autism; and such a source will give us an idea of the emphasis or weight we should give to the theory if we mention it. No one here will engage in discussion based on sources weaker than this. The relevant Misplaced Pages guideline is Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of this. And just to add, I have looked at full-text of the review article I believe proposed by the IP as a source , and it does not in any way shape or form support that "there is a high chance the mother has antibodies to fetal brain and that if they get tested they can avoid having another child with autism". In fact the authors are quite clear to say that "What cannot be demonstrated in the human subjects is whether these antibodies cause autism", and then refer to some animal studies following which the authors say "if this model continues to be replicated, it will provide a substrate for evaluating potential interventions and preventative measures." The conclusion of the article is "Maternal antibodies to fetal brain have been identified as one exposure during fetal life that may put a child at risk for autism spectrum disorder. Future studies will focus on identifying which fetal brain antigens the maternal antibodies identify. This may provide insight into the normal role for these proteins in fetal brain development and how interaction with the maternal antibodies may alter the course of brain and behavioral development." The repeated use of the conditional "may", "if" and the direct statement of the need for "future studies", confirm that the IP's conclusions both about this journal article and the views of the University of California researchers are incorrect. Slp1 (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

We should all be aware that our IP friend has posted this message . Just letting you all know. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that long ago; it's of no consequence (except as an indication that IP did not read instructions there either). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this post at Arbitration/Requests, pointed to by Dbrodbeck above, was deleted as disruption. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I will respond to the meaningful comments made first.

First, thanks to the editor who actually researched the review papers, but you are missing some information:

Although the main researchers into MAR autism are not saying the maternal antibodies CAUSE autism, they are saying, in other papers perhaps, that they don't find ANY "typically developing" children, (in longitudinal studies including hundreds of them) whose mother's have certain antibody patterns.

So, not having identified the precise harm caused by these antibodies, if any, they are not willing to say "these antibodies cause autism", BUT, and this is the MAIN POINT::::: They ARE willing to say, and are saying, and the University of California is saying with it's joint venture, that the presence of these antibodies in a mother is so highly correlated with autism in the child that it's worth making the test into a commerical product.

So, the point is not if the antibodies cause autism directly, though this seems highly likely from the animal studies, the point is prospective mothers need to be tested. " That is where my sense of urgency comes in. If the inclusion of these findings were in ANY way forbidden I would not keep pushing, but the truth is, the claims made about primary findings being forbidden is FALSE. I've actually gone to the trouble of quoting the relevant sections of the rules, and no one ever refutes my posts in this regard, they just keep referring back to the same rules I have proven do not apply.

A few editors have abandoned the false claims that primary sources are always forbidden n favor of the claim that there is a "consensus" against using them.

But imnplicit in that claim is the claim that the rules of Misplaced Pages can be changed by half a dozen editors who are hung up on controlling an article. If that is so, why have the rules at all?

The article CAN truthfully report that the University of California is involved in a partnership to develop and market the test and refer to the Pediatric Bioscience web page describing the test. That would be all that is needed to get the sophisticated reader on track to getting prenatal testing.

My aims are solid, my methods are straighforward, in good faith, and actualy VERY helpful to having a more informative and more valuable article. Please, those who want to keep this out, look at yourselves and ask if you can say the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.129.155 (talk) 00:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please see WP:NOTAFORUM and if you have a secondary source that meets WP:MEDRS, please provide it. UC Davis is commercially "involved" here, meaning they have an interest in promoting a product (see multiple previous discussions in archives). They are not an adequate source on this, and that has been covered in archives, with you, multiple times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Re "the article can ... report that UC is involved in a partnership to develop and market the test ... ", MIND Institute is probably where you would want to add such text. As long as it doesn't make unproven medical claims about the test, text that it is developing and marketing a test would not be inappropriate there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr. or Ms. IP, as I said, you are going way beyond the sources. Your deductions about the data and their implications are not allowed per our policies no original research. And you have a misunderstanding about the purpose of WP: this is not here to get the word out anything, most especially with very preliminary information about a test (that is not accepted by autism research community and in fact is not even yet available!. Please promote the test elsewhere. Slp1 (talk) 14:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Slp1, do you have the full text of the source you mentioned above? Is there anything in there that is worthy of, say, two or three sentences on this "Maternal antibody related autism" concept that can be added to the Causes of autism article? One of my concerns is that the paper is from UC Davis (ie, affiliated with the commerical product), and any text on that would be UNDUE here in an overview, but perhaps you can say a word or two at the Causes article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have a full text copy which I can send to anybody who sends me an email. The article seems pretty solid to me; there is no talk of commercial products and as mentioned above, is quite circumspect in its findings and conclusions. I think it would be a fine source for saying something about maternal antibodies being investigated as a possible cause. The term "Maternal antibody related autism" isn't used anywhere in the article at all, so that is out as possibility. In fact it seems to be used hardly anywhere in any source, reliable or not. Slp1 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ha ... in that case, it doesn't sound very helpful. Perhaps Dbrodbeck would want it for the Causes article, but I thought it would shed light on IP70+range's assertions about "Maternal antibody related" autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary of past discussions with IP 76, IP 75 and other 70 ip range

This is a sampling of past discussions coming from this Bay Area ip advocating that we add information about a commercial test from the MIND Institute, UC Davis, to detect maternal antibodies related to autism; there are far too many IPs and discussions to list here, but others can be found by perusing the list of IPs in the 70s range who have contributed to this talk page (there are scores if not hundreds).

• 76.232.9.94 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) December 2009 Talk:Autism/Archive 9#Cutting edge research
• 75.61.137.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) February 2010 Talk:Autism/Archive 10#MIND Institute research
• 70.126.115.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) September 2010 Talk:Autism/Archive 11#Bias about Causes
• 76.234.122.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) October 2011 Talk:Autism/Archive 12#Maternal antibodies to fetal brain.2C commercial test coming soon.
• 76.232.9.242 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) October 2011 Talk:Autism/Archive 12#Suggested additions to article
• 76.232.11.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) November 2011 Talk:Autism/Archive 12#Pre pregnancy test for autism.
• 76.232.9.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 76.232.10.171 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and others, April 2012 Talk:Autism/Archive 12#What do the rules on editing medical articles actually say.3F
• 75.61.131.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) May 2012 Talk:Autism/Archive 13#MAR - Maternal Antibody Related Autism

All of the discussions come down to the same: it is a yet unproven commercial test, no reliable secondary sources compliant with MEDRS have been offered, primary and commercial sources related to the product are frequently offered, sources are misrepresented nothing changes from one discussion to the next, and yet this discussion has occurred over and over since at least 2009.

Adding to the disruption, in spite of us requesting it over and over, the IP does not sign posts, will not provide a secondary review source, and repeats the same argument month after month.

Above is only a sampling. If anyone has links to other relevant discussions, please add them-- it was too much for me to look up all of them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Much the same things happens over at Causes of autism as well. Same pattern, same IP ranges. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed ANI here; if you have other evidence please add it here or there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Admin Drmies is suggesting there that WP:FORUM and WP:SOAPBOX give us leeway to revert any further forum/soapbox posts here from the IP70+range poster. In the future, unless IP70+range supplies a secondary review source, with a concrete suggestion for DUE weight text that is supported by the source, we might take that suggestion and merely remove any further posts. Should we need to implement something like this, we will need to keep an informative FAQ at hand. Please follow the ANI discussion; Drmies has also suggested that if reverting the IDIDNTHEARTHAT doesn't work, semi-protection of the talk page might be warranted in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you Sandy. In the meantime, another admin agreed with semi-protection, for three months. Sandy, say the word and I (or EdJohnston, since it's my bedtime soon) will be glad to semi-protect: this is taking up too many of our valuable resources (that is, you). Drmies (talk) 05:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you, Drmies; I'd feel better hearing first from other editors before semi-protection; we've got a good collaborative bunch in here, and I'm just one of the crew. If you don't mind, we could ping one of you if there is no disagreement. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• I hope that simply reverting this kind of post from this IP range in future will deal with this. As Sandy has pointed out, three months is a drop in the ocean to this IP. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I am fine either way, as long as this BS stops, or is stopped I should say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Alright--let's try the rollback method (if you beat SineBot to it--this irritator won't sign), a variance of WP:DENY. On the off-chance that some newcomer has already responded to the IP, deletion is still warranted in my opinion. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• OK-- Talk:Causes of autism will need attention also. Here is a link to the ANI, and I will be adding all of this to the page FAQ so that the page can be archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Redirect-Class medicine pages
• High-importance medicine articles
• Redirect-Class medical genetics pages
• Mid-importance medical genetics articles
• Medical genetics task force articles
• Redirect-Class neurology pages
• Mid-importance neurology articles
• Neurology task force articles
• Medicine portal selected articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• NA-Class neuroscience pages
• High-importance neuroscience articles
• NA-Class psychology pages
• High-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• Redirect-Class Disability pages
• WikiProject Disability articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics