This is the
talk page of a
redirect that targets the page: • Autism Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Autism |
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:
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).
[1]
[2]
[3] 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
Wikipedia 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:
Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia can report the results as
scientific consensus indicates the intervention is ethical, effective, widely-used and widely accepted.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and can not be used to predict or promote promising interventions that lack evidence of efficacy. Without extensive testing, Wikipedia runs the risk of promoting theories and interventions that are either invalid (the
Refrigerator mother hypothesis), disproven (
secretin and
facilitated communication),
[4] or dangerous (
chelation therapy, which resulted in the death of a child in 2005).
[5] 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.
[6] 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 Wikipedia'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
Past discussions For further information, see the numerous past discussions on these topics in the archives of Talk:Autism:
External links
|
Autism spectrum is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2005. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to
provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Autism spectrum.
|
Other talk page banners | |||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 27 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aclark00 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Pmmuab77.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TGBTG2022 ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Spantalian76.
This bot, [ sigmabot III], has been deleting the conversations on this talk page for no apparent reason. Can anybody please explain why? These conversations are still relevant. Krystal Kalb ( talk) 01:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Why not just make it about autism spectrum disorder, which is the current classification under which all the now-discontinued diagnoses (from before the current DSM-5 and ICD-11) would now fall under? It doesn't make sense that this encyclopedia's main article about autism would specifically focus on this one functioning label. ASD would be a better focus. Or rather, separate the articles for ASD and Kanner syndrome; they're two different things. HaiFire3344 ( talk) 03:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Autism is way more than just stacking objects and developing slowly and there are many other types not just kanner syndrom. Eg. Aspergers syndrome Ehvgwyv ( talk) 17:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how best to deal with the fact that when the merge finally went ahead, 'Autism' emerged as the title used for the main autism article, rather than 'autism spectrum' (which is fine) - but all the discussion about all the work that still needs to be done on the entry is now tucked away at Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 4 and a bit at Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 3 - shouldn't there at least be prominent links to the most relevant Talk pages for this entry? And shouldn't the discussion about the old autism entry now be archived?
Thanks! Oolong ( talk) 07:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Autism spectrum which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)