Talk:Autism: Difference between revisions
imported>Nancy Sculerati MD |
imported>Subpagination Bot m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details)) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
G'day, | G'day, | ||
| Line 6: | Line 8: | ||
RE: Thomas Kelly's contribution to section on treatment: | RE: Thomas Kelly's contribution to section on treatment: | ||
:"Removal of heavy metals, like mercury, is one | :"Removal of heavy metals, like mercury, is one treatment that has been proposed as beneficial to autistic patients." | ||
I have heard of this but have not had a chance to run it down. Do we have a sources for this? [[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 13:26, 21 March, 2007 (EPT) | I have heard of this but have not had a chance to run it down. Do we have a sources for this? [[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 13:26, 21 March, 2007 (EPT) | ||
:http://www.drhirani.com/weblog2/stories/2005/01/10/autismBiomedicalApproachesToAutism.html I don't have time for more hunting it down. I heard about it originally by her, by mouth. I have not read the paper yet - I am too busy. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 22:49, 20 March 2007 (CDT) | :http://www.drhirani.com/weblog2/stories/2005/01/10/autismBiomedicalApproachesToAutism.html I don't have time for more hunting it down. I heard about it originally by her, by mouth. I have not read the paper yet - I am too busy. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 22:49, 20 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
::the "paper" is a journal article. (update: still waiting to | ::the "paper" is a journal article. (update: still waiting to hear which article this is) | ||
This is not an acceptable source, I think you should consider removing the statement Tom, until you or others, come up with something better. In the history of the disease, there have been a very long list of things advocated as "beneficial" for autistic patients, but in this article, these should only be included if there is reasonable evidence that such treatments are efficacious. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 23:12, 20 March 2007 (CDT) | This is not an acceptable source, I think you should consider removing the statement Tom, until you or others, come up with something better. In the history of the disease, there have been a very long list of things advocated as "beneficial" for autistic patients, but in this article, these should only be included if there is reasonable evidence that such treatments are efficacious. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 23:12, 20 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
| Line 43: | Line 45: | ||
When it comes to serious diseases, things that are devastating, the "list" of speculative treatments is truly very long and to include them gives credence to possibilities that are no more than speculations. If there is good evidence, that's different. Think about treatments for cancer, for example. Over the years, there have been ''thousands'' of treatments, and it would not be responsible to list every treatment with a refernce in the literature, especially if the lister could not actually read and fully evaluate the articles. There is every indication that the public uses the internet for medical information for personal use, and one very important aspect of citizendium is to be a balanced source of free information. In this tightly researched article, placing speculative treatments lends a disproportionate air of validity. Generally, we do not endorse "list of" sorts of articles, but narrative articles. This topic, I have not read the literature, may be very important and may well deserve an entire article: Mercury & Autism, or be an important part of an article called Proposed Treatments of Autism, but it needs to be developed. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 03:14, 21 March 2007 (CDT) | When it comes to serious diseases, things that are devastating, the "list" of speculative treatments is truly very long and to include them gives credence to possibilities that are no more than speculations. If there is good evidence, that's different. Think about treatments for cancer, for example. Over the years, there have been ''thousands'' of treatments, and it would not be responsible to list every treatment with a refernce in the literature, especially if the lister could not actually read and fully evaluate the articles. There is every indication that the public uses the internet for medical information for personal use, and one very important aspect of citizendium is to be a balanced source of free information. In this tightly researched article, placing speculative treatments lends a disproportionate air of validity. Generally, we do not endorse "list of" sorts of articles, but narrative articles. This topic, I have not read the literature, may be very important and may well deserve an entire article: Mercury & Autism, or be an important part of an article called Proposed Treatments of Autism, but it needs to be developed. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 03:14, 21 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
"Proposed treatments of . . . " would be the best choice. Otherwise there will be a massive article of arcane information on a related issue rather than what we're aiming for. The environmental trigger theories though, will get more attention I am sure. I'll see what I can dig up over there at PubMed. [[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 12:47, 23 March, 2007 (EPT) | |||
::An article from Discovery Magazine: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/apr/autism-it2019s-not-just-in-the-head [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 15:23, 29 March 2007 (CDT) | |||
::Taking a cue from Nancy's notes on Tom's Talk page, what if we were to focus the proposed Treatments and Interventions article to show how these claims are in fact often less than well established, even spurious and therefore harmful? Methodology and design are not well understood by the majority of people who think research is research and therefore good science. [[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 14:08, 30 March, 2007 (EPT) | |||
=Ideas for related Branch Articles= | |||
Advocacy groups--often promoting less than well researched interventions it must be admitted--not withstanding, the articles on treatment and issues, leislation and issues, etc. would be relevant from my perspective--at this time. | |||
Here is a possible sources for legislation and law that I got from Tom's Discovery link: | |||
Fact Sheet: Combating Autism Act of 2006 [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/12/20061219-3.html] | |||
An article on how policy is made and enacted and how it effects research and those affected by autism country by country seems pertinent. What do you think? [[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 14:03 30 March, 2007 (EPT) | |||
:Wikis are all about links to other articles - I like subpages in general. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 17:58, 5 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
=InfoBox= | |||
I have tried workarounds that have been sufficient for other articles but this particular Infobox is not responding. [[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 14:38 1 April, 2007 (EPT) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:31, 25 September 2007
G'day,
Have imported the Autism article from Wikipedia--it was a decent article at one time but has become a dumping ground for POVs and advocates. I am in a slash and burn mode, deleting large sections of unsourced and not infrequently inane prose. I need help with the data box on the right uppper hand corner if anyone here would like to give me a hand. Let me know what you think we should do with it. Thomas Simmons 13:32, 20 March, 2007 (EPT)
Sources
RE: Thomas Kelly's contribution to section on treatment:
- "Removal of heavy metals, like mercury, is one treatment that has been proposed as beneficial to autistic patients."
I have heard of this but have not had a chance to run it down. Do we have a sources for this? Thomas Simmons 13:26, 21 March, 2007 (EPT)
- http://www.drhirani.com/weblog2/stories/2005/01/10/autismBiomedicalApproachesToAutism.html I don't have time for more hunting it down. I heard about it originally by her, by mouth. I have not read the paper yet - I am too busy. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 22:49, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
- the "paper" is a journal article. (update: still waiting to hear which article this is)
This is not an acceptable source, I think you should consider removing the statement Tom, until you or others, come up with something better. In the history of the disease, there have been a very long list of things advocated as "beneficial" for autistic patients, but in this article, these should only be included if there is reasonable evidence that such treatments are efficacious. Nancy Sculerati MD 23:12, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
Other professors, including a very well known immunologist suggested that there may be a link between Hg and autism but nothing can be proven with double-blind studies, obviously, ...and I'm sure it's hard to prove, no matter how well researched. I don't really want to research nutritional articles and articles in French. If you are interested, I'll point you in the direction of some interesting chelating studies in journals. I thought that having qualifiers on the sentence would be enough, but I guess we aren't listing the list of proposed beneficial treatments? ... why not? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 23:56, 20 March 2007 (CDT)
a quick pub med search:
PMID: 17365626 [PubMed - in process]http://zb5lh7ed7a.search.serialssolutions.com/uschsl?sid=Entrez:PubMed&id=pmid:17365626
PMID: 17250511 [PubMed - in process] (against Hg and Autism link)http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1442-200X.2007.02303.x
PMID: 17187010 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 2006 Dec;27(6):833-8. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
PMID: 17000565 [PubMed - in process]Acta Paediatr Suppl. 2006 Oct;95(453):18-25.
PMID: 17000470 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Neurotox Res. 2006 Aug;10(1):57-64.
PMID: 16512356 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]Int Rev Neurobiol. 2005;71:317-41.
PMID: 16338635 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMID: 16264412 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMID: 16127438 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
-Tom Kelly (Talk) 00:12, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
- Probably genetic predisposition... probably some trigger, may it be in the uterus, post partum, or another time (auto-immune? virus triggered autoimmune?)... However, since there is so much talk of Hg and Autism, and there is talk about genetic predisposition of being less-able to detoxify metals, and porphyrin studies... it at least deserves a mention. Until proven, I'll continue to use qualifiers. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 00:30, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
When it comes to serious diseases, things that are devastating, the "list" of speculative treatments is truly very long and to include them gives credence to possibilities that are no more than speculations. If there is good evidence, that's different. Think about treatments for cancer, for example. Over the years, there have been thousands of treatments, and it would not be responsible to list every treatment with a refernce in the literature, especially if the lister could not actually read and fully evaluate the articles. There is every indication that the public uses the internet for medical information for personal use, and one very important aspect of citizendium is to be a balanced source of free information. In this tightly researched article, placing speculative treatments lends a disproportionate air of validity. Generally, we do not endorse "list of" sorts of articles, but narrative articles. This topic, I have not read the literature, may be very important and may well deserve an entire article: Mercury & Autism, or be an important part of an article called Proposed Treatments of Autism, but it needs to be developed. Nancy Sculerati MD 03:14, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
"Proposed treatments of . . . " would be the best choice. Otherwise there will be a massive article of arcane information on a related issue rather than what we're aiming for. The environmental trigger theories though, will get more attention I am sure. I'll see what I can dig up over there at PubMed. Thomas Simmons 12:47, 23 March, 2007 (EPT)
- An article from Discovery Magazine: http://discovermagazine.com/2007/apr/autism-it2019s-not-just-in-the-head -Tom Kelly (Talk) 15:23, 29 March 2007 (CDT)
- Taking a cue from Nancy's notes on Tom's Talk page, what if we were to focus the proposed Treatments and Interventions article to show how these claims are in fact often less than well established, even spurious and therefore harmful? Methodology and design are not well understood by the majority of people who think research is research and therefore good science. Thomas Simmons 14:08, 30 March, 2007 (EPT)
Advocacy groups--often promoting less than well researched interventions it must be admitted--not withstanding, the articles on treatment and issues, leislation and issues, etc. would be relevant from my perspective--at this time.
Here is a possible sources for legislation and law that I got from Tom's Discovery link: Fact Sheet: Combating Autism Act of 2006 [1]
An article on how policy is made and enacted and how it effects research and those affected by autism country by country seems pertinent. What do you think? Thomas Simmons 14:03 30 March, 2007 (EPT)
- Wikis are all about links to other articles - I like subpages in general. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 17:58, 5 May 2007 (CDT)
InfoBox
I have tried workarounds that have been sufficient for other articles but this particular Infobox is not responding. Thomas Simmons 14:38 1 April, 2007 (EPT)