Talk:Autism
Contents |
[edit] Counteraction's addition
I've removed the material added by Counteraction (diff link) while I'm researching it. So far it seems that we have a live antivaccionist, though. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Dug up so far: a comment on the 2009 Hertz-Picciotto study by Stephen Novella. --ZooGuard (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC) (Just for the record: it caused one of ScienceBlogs's storms-in-a-teacup between Greg Laden and Orac: [1] [2])--ZooGuard (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Try this paper which specifically mentions the Singh paper with the words
“”Similarly, the report of elevated levels of antibodies in children with autism (16) has also been negated by more recent work (15).
|
- How about
- The auto-immune hypothesis of autism states that autism is a disease caused by a production of abnormal antibodies that cross-react with Myelin Basic Protein. Dr. Vijendra Singh, an immunologist, has done research in autistic children and found an an unusual MMR antibody in 75 of 125 (60%) autistic sera but not in control sera.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12145534</ref> Over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies. In another study, Singh et al compared levels of antibodies between normal and autistic children, and found elevated levels of measles antibodies, but not mumps or rubella.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12849883</ref> Immunoblotting of measles vaccine virus revealed an antibody that was directed against a protein of approximately 74 kd molecular weight. The antibody to this antigen was found in 83% of autistic children but not in normal children or siblings of autistic children. On the basis of this evidence, Dr. Vijendra Singh believes that autism may be the result of an abnormal immune response against the measles subset of the MMR vaccine, that leads to auto-antibodies. Singh does not believe that the Thimerosal found in some vaccines plays a causative role in the development of autism.<ref>http://www.taap.info/Singh.IOM%20presentation.doc</ref> However, as with all the "links" discovered between vaccines and autism this has been refuted by later research. <ref>http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC2528717
- Jack Hughes (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- If this is a draft text: Weak. It basically re-tells the same story (beloved by the anti-vaccine movement and other cranks - just look at what Google serves on searching for the name of the author.) and adds a single-sentence rebuttal. Given the short length of the article, it also gives it a lot of (undue) prominence. Unless we are going to have a long list of commentary of such studies.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, to me, a single sentence rebuttal is all that is needed. However, on reflection, I can see your point. Your link to the Wakefield article does the job much better. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- If this is a draft text: Weak. It basically re-tells the same story (beloved by the anti-vaccine movement and other cranks - just look at what Google serves on searching for the name of the author.) and adds a single-sentence rebuttal. Given the short length of the article, it also gives it a lot of (undue) prominence. Unless we are going to have a long list of commentary of such studies.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] On a personal note...
...I am quite intrigued with those findings regarding the genetical deletion, because both I and my sister aswell as a common cousin paternally have been diagnosed with an Autism-spectrum disorder or schizophrenia, and my nephew exhibits potentially symptomatic behaviour.Sumpfkraut (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Individuals speculated to be on the spectrum
Is there a reason for this? This sort of armchair psychology is pretty useless and usually wrong. Plus Ayn Rand was a well-known speed addict, which probably explains a lot more of her behavior than being autistic (see what I mean?) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Then fix it! ТyTalk. 21:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion is not fixing, cleaning up is. ħuman
07:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Having a speed addiction hardly serves as an explanation for being a genius. Autism on the other hand, does. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be nice to have footnotes for each of these? ħuman
05:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be nice to have footnotes for each of these? ħuman
- Having a speed addiction hardly serves as an explanation for being a genius. Autism on the other hand, does. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Deletion is not fixing, cleaning up is. ħuman
Reading a footnote is like having to go downstairs to answer the door while making love. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can anybody here deny that ChrisChan has autism? I thought not.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I have often read that Albert Enistein had autsim. Based on his social life, I agree.
[edit] Autism and scepticism
Cut from article, pending review and citations.
It is however possible that autism are indeed increasing through Darwinian selection, since the only cognitive difference between normal infants and autistic infants is that the latter are more sceptical than the former (the disability is merely because innate scpticism makes it more difficult to learn dupeness-based interaction), and autism "rides" on selection for genes for scepticism, caused by the fact that society contains motifs for deception today, giving innate scepticism a positive survival value... ... but the genetic causes of "less severe" causes may simply be missed because non-coding DNA is poorly studied.
Einstein and Newton was clearly autistic, while Darwin appears to be a border case. There is a clear overrepresentation of autistic traits in scientific pioneers compared to the population in general. This may be due to the fact that innate scepticism is a protection against indoctrination and thus good for scientific thought.
Thoughts? Interesting idea but I don't buy it entirely. ADK...I'll unify your sceptre! 17:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't buy it at all. The idea that autistic individuals have better survival & reproduction chances than "normal" people is flawed to say the least, & rests on some very dubious logic about scepticism. & Retrospective diagnosis of people who died a long time ago is equally dubious & best avoided unless it's a well known theory or there is some very compelling evidence. I say leave this stuff out. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, descriptions of Dirac damn well scream autism, but Einstein and Newton are definitely a stretch when it comes to retrospective diagnosis. It's a fun pop-psychology distraction to see who had what disorder in the past, but I would never take such things seriously. ADK...I'll reward your plague! 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- If its cited, include it as "this person says". but otherwise? if it's just someone's "guess", dump it.
GodotThe Peyote God awaits 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- If its cited, include it as "this person says". but otherwise? if it's just someone's "guess", dump it.
- Well, descriptions of Dirac damn well scream autism, but Einstein and Newton are definitely a stretch when it comes to retrospective diagnosis. It's a fun pop-psychology distraction to see who had what disorder in the past, but I would never take such things seriously. ADK...I'll reward your plague! 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Woo
Neurodiversity is an interesting subject, thoughRandonGeneration (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- As in rather sillyRandonGeneration (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Most of it is not woo, though.
Acer Blue 00:45, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- As for the actual woo though?RandonGeneration (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to talk about the actual woo, then. I assume you're referring to the overbroad claims of some neurodiversity advocates with regard to things like Parkinson's and BPD?
Liquid Blue 00:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Precisely.RandonGeneration (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, there I agree, but I am a rather firm believer in neurodiversity where it can be cleanly demonstrated that atypical neurodevelopment does not represent an intrinsic "something went wrong" label. High-functioning autism is probably one of those areas, and maybe even LGBT if you consider the neurology of homosexuality and transsexualism.
Acer Blue 01:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- "High functioning autism" isn't autism. It's a spectrum disorder using Rainman to sell confusion to parents of Aspies. ħuman
02:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- "High functioning autism" isn't autism. It's a spectrum disorder using Rainman to sell confusion to parents of Aspies. ħuman
- Yes, I say that neurodiversity is a completely legitimate concept, even if it does have some proponents that take it too far. Onion <talk> 01:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think we should start a wiki-project to remove the word "woo" wherever possible. It is over-used. Highly over-used. ħuman
02:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think we should start a wiki-project to remove the word "woo" wherever possible. It is over-used. Highly over-used. ħuman
- Well, there I agree, but I am a rather firm believer in neurodiversity where it can be cleanly demonstrated that atypical neurodevelopment does not represent an intrinsic "something went wrong" label. High-functioning autism is probably one of those areas, and maybe even LGBT if you consider the neurology of homosexuality and transsexualism.
- Precisely.RandonGeneration (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to talk about the actual woo, then. I assume you're referring to the overbroad claims of some neurodiversity advocates with regard to things like Parkinson's and BPD?
- No. I like woo. It sounds funny. As for neurodiversity, exactly as onion and blue said - some people have taken it well outside the realms of reality.RandonGeneration (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- As for the actual woo though?RandonGeneration (talk) 00:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Most of it is not woo, though.
"Woo" sounds like baby talk. It sounds stupid. It has it's place, but as a constant header in every damn article, it is lame. We need a better word. ħuman
04:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have any ideas then?RandonGeneration (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- For goodness sake, Human, "woo" is perfectly fine, even in "every damned article". It doesn't sound childish, it sounds like what it is, "woo". --
Godot 22:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think "woo" adds to our snarky brand. It's not harmful, really, though I agree seeing "Woo" as a header in so many articles is a little repetitive.
Liquid Blue 01:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh! i do see your point in Titles and Headers in articles. Autism Woo, Vitiman D woo, Trans fat Woo, Spider woo, Ninga woo, does get repetitive. But using woo within the paragraph like "is one of the many associations with woomeisters" or "having various woo aspects" is more reasonable.
Godot 02:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. ħuman
04:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Exactly. ħuman
- Oh! i do see your point in Titles and Headers in articles. Autism Woo, Vitiman D woo, Trans fat Woo, Spider woo, Ninga woo, does get repetitive. But using woo within the paragraph like "is one of the many associations with woomeisters" or "having various woo aspects" is more reasonable.
- I think "woo" adds to our snarky brand. It's not harmful, really, though I agree seeing "Woo" as a header in so many articles is a little repetitive.
- For goodness sake, Human, "woo" is perfectly fine, even in "every damned article". It doesn't sound childish, it sounds like what it is, "woo". --
- Do you have any ideas then?RandonGeneration (talk) 22:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Surely you're not suggesting that Asperger's is pseudoscience? If so, that's a statement of gross ignorance as any neurologist will tell you and it's also extremely insensitive to the many people with Asperger's syndrome, such as myself, many of whom, unlike me are not misanthropic jerks but have serious problems dealing with others nevertheless and are perfectly nice people! It's also grossly offensive to the parents of children with Asperger's (such as the fabulous Jacqi Jackson) who are extremely loving and hardworking and will tell you with absolute certainty that their child has a problem. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Autism/Asperger's is NOT a disorder
I'm Autistic, which is why I can't tolerate religion. It's for Allistics, really. They say Autistics are rigid, but it's always the Allistics who perpetuate these standards for EVERYTHING. I want a more relativistic, subjective, arbitrary view of the world. I want FREEDOM, where everyone can be who they want to be. I want a world for us all -- folks like Lizard Man, with all of the body mods, folks who are Otherkin, folks who are Neurodiverse, folks who are extremely Gothic, and gay, and transgendered, and Androgynous, and those who are so-called "freaks," and blue people, green people, all races, all forms of being and expression. I want a world of freedom and happiness for all. And yet it would appear that most of the Atheists and secularists support Autism being regarded as a disorder as well, even with Neurodiversity and the Autism Rights Movement campaigning against us being regarded as disordered. This is a civil rights movement which isn't given much attention or thought. It's as though the ND movement is considered nonsense or woo or something, but you don't understand -- We really do want to be Autistic, and the real mental issues we experience are from always being regarded as disordered when we're not. If there really were an afterlife, I would want to be Autistic there as well, and I'd want to see all manner of diversity there. Psychiatry is good for sick individuals, but Autistics are not disordered. I get so sick and depressed over all of this "disorder" crap. I have a mental disorder, and it's known as Major Depression. I don't want to feel sick and depressed. I want to stop being labelled as disordered for being myself, which is Autistic. I've always loved being Autistic. Perhaps I can be cured of my depression if Autism is no longer considered a disorder. I don't have a lot of confidence in myself, due to how I've been treated throughout my life. And I'm not asking to be treated with "compassion" for my "disorder" -- I'm asking to NOT be regarded as disordered AT ALL. I'm just different. But every difference is considered to be a disorder. It hurts, a lot. Do there always have to be ridiculous standards all the time? It's like Psychiatry has become the replacement for Religion, and folks like myself are being seriously harmed. If you've gotten the ultimate Absolute, which is God, taken out of the equation, do we have to be oppressed by a replacement system as well? Bumpy Toad (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- Autism is very clearly a disorder for some people. There are those who have genuine problems in life because of it, not just because they function poorly in society, but because they can't form lasting romantic or amicable reationships. There's a lot of bad hype surrounding autism, and the one-size-fits-all approach to autism many people take is wrong, but it's understandable that it's labeled as a disorder and it's not a personal attack on you. You may be happy to know the DSM-V defines autism more strictly, requiring consistent problems with functioning in daily life for a diagnosis--which is a reasonable standard for a disorder, really. If psychiatrists stick to this standard, it means that people without major problems won't be treated as autistic. This is perhaps not as good as destigmatizing the autism label, but it's a decent substitute. Kimberly (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
But see, I am Autistic, really. I've always been labelled as such, and I receive SSI Disability insurance. There's a lot I can't do for myself, so my Mom assists me. But that's because I have a different set of strengths and the human brain can't multitask at everything. I love living with my Mom and I'm happy with my life and myself and my relationships with others who are also eccentric like me. Could other Autistics' relationship problems be due to not meeting the right folks? I have a fiancee, and he's Autistic as well. He's also from Pakistan, so we have different cultures which means we don't have to feel as though we need to fit in. It's a great life, and I'm just different. I don't want to be considered disordered, and I have a huge complex about being regarded as such, which makes me severely depressed, even in spite of having a great life. And perhaps I shouldn't feel depressed because one's mind can create nonexistent problems and it's just needless drama, but I'm just so sick of hearing about Autism as a disorder, rather than just a difference. If there is racial diversity, biodiversity, sexual diversity, all kinds of diversity, then why not Neurodiversity? Bumpy Toad (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect your autism is not *why* you can't tollerate religion. I have several autistic acquaintances who find comfort in religion. Basically, you are applying your sterotypes to what "we" want for you, when it's not really what we want for you or anyone, cause "we" are not a "we". And as Kimberly said, what is or is not a disorder largely has to do with how that person functions in the world. you are able to work on a computer. At my eye doctor (who specializes in harder to work with children) many of the autistic kids will never have a life outside of the small world they can survive in. That includes computers, or language at all. you are a functioning autistic, so on the spectrum, you are nearly like those you seem to dispise, who would have you denied your freedom! the fact is, you are not speaking for all or many autistics. especiallly those who cannot yet even speak.
Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect your autism is not *why* you can't tollerate religion. I have several autistic acquaintances who find comfort in religion. Basically, you are applying your sterotypes to what "we" want for you, when it's not really what we want for you or anyone, cause "we" are not a "we". And as Kimberly said, what is or is not a disorder largely has to do with how that person functions in the world. you are able to work on a computer. At my eye doctor (who specializes in harder to work with children) many of the autistic kids will never have a life outside of the small world they can survive in. That includes computers, or language at all. you are a functioning autistic, so on the spectrum, you are nearly like those you seem to dispise, who would have you denied your freedom! the fact is, you are not speaking for all or many autistics. especiallly those who cannot yet even speak.
- If you partially rely on others in your daily life, isn't it fair to say you have a disorder? In your case, it's a functional impairment. That doesn't mean you're not a good person, or don't have anything to contribute--it's not like you have to be fully able or else you're entirely worthless. There are certainly cases in which autism shouldn't be considered a disorder (haughty as it is, I count myself among them), but I think in your case it's actually a good fit. Kimberly (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is quite simply a load of shit. I have Autism and I have studied it. The idea that it's not a disorder is insane and blatantly ableist. It's no different than saying that people with no legs don't have a disability and that they shouldn't be treated. The idea that Autism is not a disorder that you "want to have Autism" is just denialist. You don't want to have Autism because of the problems it causes, and so you make up a defense mechanism where you convince yourself that you actually want to be Autistic and it's not a disorder. The entire "Autism culture" movement, denialism that Autism is a disorder, smacks of 19th century scientific racism. If people actually viewed Autism as not being a disorder the way you want them to, you would be hated for being racist. Believing that Autistic people are a superior breed of humanity because they're sometimes better at math or because they run the computer networks that the world is based on is no different than the belief that White people are more evolved than Black people. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 22:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to be taking it to the other extreme. Sure, many people with autism are functionally impaired and benefit from treatment, but for others it's not a problem at all, and they are harmed by the stigma the label bears. Of course it's ridiculous to say that all autistics are the Master Race, but it's just as ridiculous to say that all autistics are inferior. Kimberly (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Denying that Autism is a disorder is openly wanting to condemn everyone who has it to suffer with it by denying them treatment. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 22:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This section would have greatly benefited from being ignored...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The Autism Rights Movement or neurodiversity movement was actually never about denying that autism is a disorder or disability. In fact, it's a sub-branch of the disability rights movement. Instead, what it's actually about is simply emphasising the social model of disability over the medical model. In other words, it's wanting society to make accommodations and services available for autistic people to make their lives easier (similar to how the make disabled parking bays available for people in wheelchairs) rather than trying to cure or eliminate it. 152.106.99.20 (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
[edit] New info?
I'm not really wiki-savvy enough to figure out how to include this [[4]] while at work, not sure when I'll have the time to sit down and familiarize myself with it. If it comes to it I can eventually, but it seems like a pretty major bit of info to the topic. Trick (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Genetics
There is a line about more severe autism being genetic while less severe autism is a shift is aptitudes. Actually from what I've heard there is a stronger genetic basis to high functioning autism while severe autism is ruled as having more environmental influence.
[edit] I just added an interesting study on a possible cause of autism.
It is about facial features and it was published in an issue of molecular autism. 147.215.1.189 (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Included is the actual article. It states that Autism and the facial feature change are related, could be caused by the same genetic action, not that one causes the other. It was thought to be used as another part of the diagnostic package. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- (EC) How are facial features a 'cause' of autism? It's interesting if autism is accompanied by certain facial features, but it doesn't in itself explain anything about autistic behaviour. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- BoN sees causation one way, we see it the other. To test, we obviously need to give people special plastic surgery and see if they develop autism. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, it's a symptom, not a cause. Gotcha. 147.215.1.189 (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- BoN sees causation one way, we see it the other. To test, we obviously need to give people special plastic surgery and see if they develop autism. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 14:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Well, I did another possible cause.
It involves the shape and structure of lung paths. -Usigned: 147.215.1.189 (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Same issue, it's an indicator of Autism and not a cause. The abstract paragraph in PubMed was pretty clear. From the abstract: "We propose that the presence of doublets might be an objective, reliable, and valid biologic marker of autism/ASD." Please read the content of your links. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Alright then, undo as needed. 147.215.1.189 (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- It would be nice if the mistakes were not made in the first place by you reading and understanding the material. Not that everyone is perfect, especially before coffee, but the content of these abstracts are not written as badly as some. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Alright then, undo as needed. 147.215.1.189 (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)