Talk:Causes of autism/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Disease models

Some of the 'disease models' are not. For example, extreme male brain is consistent with neurodiversity and social construct. Also, Genetics is not necessarily a disease-oriented etiology theory. Neurodivergent 17:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to rearrange if you have a better model. I did duplicate the genetic link to the neurodiversity section just because there are alternative interpretations. I could agree that the "extreme maleness theory" could be a neurodiversity theory. What made me keep it in the disease section is the connection with neonatal testosterone which I find highly suspect and disease-oriented. --Rdos 19:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah, biological differences don't imply or prove pathology. Anyway, I'm not sure how best to arrange, but the 'social causes' section doesn't seem right. Maybe there are 3 types of explanations: (1) Physical disorder, (2) Purely psychological disorder, (3) Not a disorder at all. Neurodivergent 22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your types of explanations. Maybe the categories are too strict. What about primarily physical disorder, primarily psychological disorder or primarily a difference? This group does match my current groupings. I'll change the section names accordingly. --Rdos 06:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that none of the explanations are clearly in a single category. For example, trauma could amplify a genetic predisposition. The social construct theory, however, is definitely not a psychological explanation, and I believe it should be classified along with neurodiversity in a separate section. Neurodivergent 14:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the current state of the article is compelling. It clearly represents all sides. --Rdos 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I even added the 'blanket term' theory. I think it truly presents all significant theories to date. Neurodivergent 17:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Disorder" -- far from NPOV!!

The opening goes on and on using the word "disorder" which is highly controversial, lacking logical/evidential basis, and highly offensive to boot. I'd suggest some substantial rewrite to indicate the dubiousness of this word at this point. One might with more reasonableness suggest that neurotypicality is a disorder. Certainly causes a huge amount of harm with its prejudices and other quirks. --Idealiot

The word "disorder" is taken from standard sources and is the current consensus; e.g., see ICD-10 F84.0. The best place to cover prejudices and terminological disputes right now on Wikipedia is probably Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. This page is about etiology and not prejudices etc., so it's not a good place to dispute the standard terminology. Eubulides 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear .... "Current consensus" really means the illusion of consensus that is obtained from the narrowly-censored world of the primary literature (i.e. medical/scientific journals). Of course the med establishment thinks autism is a disorder, but it is no business of Wikipedia to convey without hint of otherwise, that they are correct. Wikipedians would be very foolish to presume that NPOV can be obtained by mere slavish adherence to the dogma-fashions of the med establishment. Whether autism is a disorder or not is absolutely fundamental to what it is, let alone what causes it. So a mention rightly belongs here. --Idealiot
The current page does mention the general issue, in "Social construct theory", as it's relevant there. Otherwise, though, since this page is about causes of autism, and a different page is about prejudices and so forth, it's better to focus the detailed coverage of the issue on the page that it's suited for. Eubulides 16:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic introgression

Unfortunately, I don't believe genetic introgression is citable in relation to autism. Did a quick google search and came up empty. Neurodivergent 16:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right. Look at the introgression section I added to Heritability of autism. It might me original research, but I rather like to think that it follows from the available data, so it shouldn't be anything else than a logical conclusion, and thus not OR. I suppose you can delete it here. It doesn't add much to the argument --Rdos 17:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I understand the threshold for OR is 'easy verifiability'. This doesn't qualify. I think I'll just delete it from both articles. Neurodivergent 17:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neurodiversity

The claim that "no theories based on the neurodiversity model have been proposed by scientists" might not be quite true. Check Baron-Cohen's paper on high functioning autism as a difference. Neurodivergent 17:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, a theory published 1993 was totally based on a neurodiversity (individual differences) concept of autism: http://cogprints.org/5207 - hence its publication in the journal Personality and Individual Differences.--Idealiot

[edit] title change

Over at the discussion page for the Asperger syndrome, I have proposed that the title "Causes of autism" be changed to something along the lines of "Asperger syndrome controversies". That title more accurately reflects the content of this article. In addition, it would make the AS article a bit more user friendly to have a similarly titled MAIN ARTICLE section: Here's how it is now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Causes_and_etiology

Discuss please! Ycaps123 19:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It cannot use Asperger's syndrome in the name. Most of the information has been collected from the autism article. I think this article should concentrate on the causes of both autism and AS. Even if it is controversial if autism and AS is the same thing, any differences can be pointed out explicitly. --Rdos 08:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
They aren't really pleased with the idea on the AS discussion board either. I guess that I'm outnumbered. Oh well, that's life I suppose... Ycaps123 09:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buggy references

The numbering doesn't link correctly - eg ref 23 in th text points to ref 26 in teh references section. (The title on that one should probably say "Little Canaries: California Stats" rather than just the "California Stats" that one might think pointed to an official State of Ca publication... but the site looks rather good, especially with its description of what the owner is and is doing with it.) Midgley 09:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to correct. Most of the information has been migrated from the autism, Aspergers and Autism epidemic articles. --Rdos 09:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
"While the etiology of autism is largely unknown" - lines like this should be 'common knowledge' enough not to require a citation, I sould suggest. 11th Aug 2006

[edit] Poverty as a cause

Why didn't any list poverty as a cause? I think there has been some sources, especially that the autistic rate is usually higher in the developing world.

No, in fact, early evidence suggested autism was more common among affluent families. Thinking today is that its prevalence does not depend on socio-economics. Autism has not been screened, for the most part, in the developing world in order to determine its prevalence. Neurodivergent 19:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by affluent families? You mean the middle class? I mean the autistic rate is higher in Africa and the Middle East than in the United States and Canada. So that study must've been inaccurate.

You must be thinking of a different condition. There are no epidemiological studies of autism from the Middle East and Africa, AFAIK. For social class comparisons, see [1][2][3][4]. Neurodivergent 14:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I wish I had it in front of me, but the Rolling Stone article "The Kids with the Faraway Eyes" back in '79 quoted Rimland and Lovaas both as saying that the list of parents of autistic children looked like a page from Who's Who. Typically it has been parents who were highly successful scientists, musicians, or academics who had Kanner-type autistic children. You might also want to read Paul Collins' Not Even Wrong -- it sets you straight not only on what autism can be like, but who an autistic person is. --Bluejay Young 04:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup: repetitive.

I was adjusting the INN for Thiomersal in accordance with WP policy. The degree of repetition, along with some internal inconsistency, caused me to add this tag. Midgley 16:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

The references are not done correctly in this article. See Asperger syndrome for an example of how to clean them up. Please update the referencing mechanism. Sandy 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Men Over 40 Increases Risk?

Just read this article:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1362734.ece

Anyone think we could merge this information and if so, where would it be best placed?--Saintlink 08:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Probably under the Heritability of Autism or something similar. Also, it would be important to note that the study, while having a very large sample size, was focused entirely on the ethnic group of Israeli Jews, and does not include details such as the prevalence of Autism among the fathers. Whether or not this study would apply to other ethnic groups still needs to be tested. - Hahnsoo


[edit] Derrick Lonsdale

Derrick Lonsdale has been removed from See also by an editor who has an issue with his work. I am not defending his research merely saying that he has done work that some consider to be of value and that has been cited in discussions. I have restablished the addition - if this talk page reaches a concensus that he goes, that's fine but unilateral removal is not correct. Even if his work is wrong, for NPOV purposes reference should be made to it to ensure all POV are embraced. See also The study, Lonsdale D and Shamberger R J (2000) "A clinical study of secretin in autism and pervasive developmental delay." Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, Vol 10 (4), pp 271-280, has been cited by the National Autistic Society.[5] TerriersFan 03:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to list people in See Also, why not list all well known persons ever associated with autism? Frankly, Lonsdale is not even well known. First time I hear of him, and believe me, that says quite a bit. BTW, there are many double-blind studies on secretin, most of them indicating its effectiveness is at most equal to placebo. Uncontrolled studies by Lonsdale are of little value in comparison. Neurodivergent 05:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Neurodivergent is more or less right about how see also links are dealt, particularly with regard to biographies. If the association with a particular article is strong enough to make such linking reasonable, and you want to avoid having your link addition reverted, it is generally easier to incorporate the link into the text of an article in a way that explains the association, rather than simply adding a see also link. Sometimes a good explanation is also needed on the talk page. As far as Lonsdale is concerned, there may well be reason to mention his contributions to understanding the causes of autism and to developing autism therapies. Ombudsman 17:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have removed the link . TerriersFan 17:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "TV may cause Autism"

I beleive the real reasoning here is lack of attention from parents, but I'll let the paper speak for itself. DOES TELEVISION CAUSE AUTISM? (cornell.edu) by Michael Waldman, Sean Nicholson, and Nodir Adilov, originally found at science.slashdot.org 207.145.133.34 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd wait a bit on this paper. Rumor on the internet is that it's a prank. Neurodivergent 19:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The first thing I thought of when I read the abstract was that it was a prank - the methodology alone seems to be pretty flawed (only correlations), and in all of my exposure to the subject, I've never heard anything about this. Seems like something that needs more research before posting. Unless more than one study or researcher produces a link, it's suspect. WLU 19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was about to come in here and say we need a section about television causing autism. --Macarion 20:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen it mentioned more than once in a couple of media, so I'm now in favour of putting it into the article. I'll give it a whirl if no-one else has.WLU 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a real paper: http://health.howstuffworks.com/tv-autism.htm --75.73.155.34 04:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The T.V. story presented on "Good Morning America" about the father who feels he spared his child from developing autism by catching it early, is prepared to blame early T.V. viewing by babies for scrambling developing brain signals in susceptible babies. This whole subject has interested me as a teacher. I grew up in a mountain town that was unable to get TV until a relay system was built probably 20 years after everyone else had it. There were no known cases of autism in the whole town. I don't know about now, because I don't live there now. But in addition to the Amish (who were cited as being Autism-free)it would be interesting to check on the data of mountain towns and isolated places that went without T.V. for many years.
In my own observation as a teacher, I have found it curious as to how many autistic children had mothers who were professionals. The only way I could explain this to my own satisfaction is that, being very bright, the mothers may not have done all the silly talking to themselves and to the baby that normal mothers do. But after seeing the story on TV about babyhood TV watching as being a contributing factor, a lot of things sort of fall into place.
For example, scientists tell us that brain cells in developing children die off if they are not stimulated. If a young baby or child watches TV while his mother studies or works he learns to relate to the TV and do what it expects of him. That is to watch passively. He becomes oriented to that role and his brain is organized accordingly. The brain cells that would have developed if stimulated socially become inactive or die off.
The other interesting item research has shown concerning the level of melatonin in afflicted children can also be affected by their viewing of TV. Our bodies produce melatonin naturally when our eyelids are dark. The TV, being bright, puts an unnatural amount of light on the eyes and long hours in front of it, even to the point of sleeping in front of it while busy mothers get their work done, could explain the lower levels of melatonin. Our melatonin levels affect our psychological health which may be the link that puts autistic children in jeparody for mental distresses.
I also believe there is a causative connection between autism and heredity. For example, if certain other factors had been in place (TV for one) I believe I would have been autistic. I was painfully shy as a child and would cry when the teacher called on me in class. My son likewise would turn his head, when spoken to, and would answer "from the back of his head". I believe that both of us had the susceptible genes. However, our TV burned up when he was little and I decided not to replace it, so he developed just fine and is a very productive adult. Neither was I raised on TV as stated previously and I was homecoming queen in college and have been able to hold leadership jobs including teaching. I just believe that, as a child, it could have gone either way for the both of us.
There is a lot of ridicule for the idea that TV could be causative in the problem. I am not an expert, but there is a danger that experts become so invested in a particular explanation they miss a more obvious cause that the observations of parents, teachers and common citizens might share and that should be taken into account. In this day of political correctness, truth may be passed over for the simple reason that it may make some mother somewhere feel guilty for being part of the cause and therefore, the cause is either ridiculed or discounted so that the public has only the options of expensive medicines and years of therapy instead of preventing the problem in the first place.
Once revenue gets involved and professionals make it their careers to make a living on a certain problem, truth is often mysteriously buried and ridiculed. Let's put the welfare of the children first and listen to everyone's input and do the research and let it lead to wherever it leads. Also, let's not underestimate the simple answers without due diligence.
Original research, not suitable for inclusion in the article. WLU 02:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
How do you explain the ultra Orthodox Jewish community who dont own TVs, but many children have autism? Its genetic, the Amish dont have the right gene's others may.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.206.164.223 (talk • contribs)

[edit] my crazy personal theory

i have my own personaltheory which i already posted on the "autism" page but i think it fits better here. anyway i think that autism may in some cases be the expression of brillience (intelectual) to such an extent that it obscures all else. an autistic person just doesnt care what other people think because they feal so intelectually superior. they dont care to interact with these "inferior" people and more importantly they feel no need to explain what they are thinking because they feel that no one else would have any chance at understanding it, and they are probably correct.

i think this is true because i think i might have some mild very mild symptoms of autism and thats in some ways, the way that i think. if i took those ideas to an extreme i would completely gnore everyone else because i just wouldnt care.

i dunno something to consider

As I also said on the talk:autism page, this is original research. Could a more experienced wikipedian correct me, are we allowed to remove stuff like this from talk pages? WLU 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
That is called extreme arrogance and bad people skills. I have been working with autistic children for many many years and have never encountered one who considers himself/herself superior. These are children, some as young as a few years old who would not understand the concept of superiority, thus proving that your theory is based on personal superiorly complexes. I personally feel that in a world where the disabled still have to battle prejudice on a day to day basis, articles like this one that harm the reputation of those incapable of disputing this fabrication for themselves, should be banned.

Laura Keren -ABA tutor 195.206.164.223 09:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.206.164.223 (talk • contribs)

It's not going on the page anyway, and plesae be civil. WLU 20:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

  • Frequency of Autism

Any thoughts on merging frequency of autism into this article? If there is no interest the tag should be removed. It seems there would a lot of work involved to merge the frequency article into this cause article. Alan.ca 18:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose The article is long enough to stand alone. It can be summarized back to the two articles via summary style. Sandy (Talk) 18:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced, non-notable

Removing to talk page - speculative, unsourced, weasle words:

Susan Bryson has claimed that some individuals with autism have evidence of trauma to the brain stem in early development, and that a small portion of the thalidomide victims have become autistic. The victims' limbs were normal unless thalidomide use continued later in the pregnancy. The brain stem anomaly's most striking feature is inability to focus attention away from a stimulus in a short time like neurotypicals, as demonstrated in a psychological test.

Some people claim the inability to shift attention quickly interferes with the ability to read nonverbal language where fast attention shifts are needed (such as eye language), suggesting that being nonverbal is not a primary feature of autism. Strong and shiftless focus is, however, a benefit in some areas like science, programming, and advanced mathematics. This is supported by the monotropism hypothesis.

Sandy (Talk) 14:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] uncited

The section on Extreme Male Brain Theory had this quote: "Hans Asperger himself said that his patients had "an extreme version of the male form of intelligence." While this may be accurate, it had not been cited though citation was requested. I rewrote this to reflect information in a citable source and provided the source. Malangthon 23:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skin whitening

Anyone else find the most recent addition by the anon a bit suspect? I haven't checked out the references, but given the lack of relationship between autism specifically and mercury it looks a bit original research-ish. Anyone got enough knowledge to refute or remove? WLU 01:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord. That should come out. Definitely an interesting original synthesis. Quite a tap dance to get around the fact that no reliable source in its right mind has linked skin whiteners to autism. MastCell Talk 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skin whitening creams

I've removed the following section:

The use of some skin whitening products are unusually popular amongst Asian women. [1] Skin whitening products, often contain neurotoxins, such as mercury and hydroquinone, as the active ingredient. [2] [3] [4]
The effects of mercury poisoning and hydroquinone poisoning have produced mental and physical disorders, such as autism, low verbal IQ, and low social intelligence, caused by the use of mercury-containing and hydroquinone-containing cosmetic products, including skin-whitening products. [5] [6] [7] [8]
Effects of skin whiteners can be evidenced by the strong autism rate in Japan, occurring approximately 2 out of 100 births. [9] Some research has suggested that exposure to mercury can cause autism in fetuses and children. [6] Studies have shown suggested that mercury causes Autism. [10] Therefore, the use of skin whiteners may cause this high autism rate. Studies that shown that topical Hg-based skin creams, such as skin whiteners and infant teething powders, can cause autism due to its mercury content. [6] [11]
Effects of skin whiteners can also be evidenced by studies that found relatively low verbal IQ scores of Japanese children, compared to their high spatial IQ. (Lynn, 2006, pp. 121-148) Since mercury lowers verbal IQ,[6] the comparatively low verbal IQ of Japanese people might be caused by skin whiteners. Also the high Autism Spectrum Quotient of Japanese people might also be caused by skin whitening products. [12]

See also: Race and intelligence (test data)
References
  1. ^ In a survey, 28% of Koreans and 50% of Philippians say that they use skin whitening products. Skin lightening in Asia? A bright future?, <http://www.synovate.com/knowledge/infact/issues/200406/> 
  2. ^ Counter, S. Allen (Dec 16, 2003), Whitening skin can be deadly, The Boston Globe, <http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2003/12/16/whitening_skin_can_be_deadly/> 
  3. ^ Heyward, Georgia (Feb 5, 2005), New York City Warns: Some Skin Creams Are Poisonous, The Epoch Times, <http://en.epochtimes.com/news/5-2-5/26302.html> 
  4. ^ Mercury in Cosmetic Skin Whitening Creams, <http://www.hgtech.com/Data/Other/Hg%20Cream.htm> 
  5. ^ Skin Lightening, <http://www.cosmeticscop.com/learn/article.asp?PAGETYPE=ART&REFER=SKIN&ID=25>  Article that links skin whitening products to mercury and hydroquinone
  6. ^ a b c d Countera, S. Allen; Leo H. Buchanan. "Mercury exposure in children: a review". 
  7. ^ Clarkson; Thomas, Magos, Laszlo. "The Toxicology of Mercury and Its Chemical Compounds". 
  8. ^ Mahaffey, Kathryn R., Dynamics of Mercury Pollution on Regional and Global Scales, <http://www.springerlink.com/content/w245027uu23r4381/> 
  9. ^ Honda H, Shimizu Y, Misumi K, Niimi M, Ohashi Y (1996). "Cumulative incidence and prevalence of childhood autism in children in Japan". The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 169 (2): 228-35. PMID 8871801. 
  10. ^ Nelson, Karin B.; Margaret L. Bauman. "Thimerosal and Autism?". doi:10.1542/peds.111.3.674. 
  11. ^ Zahir, Farhana. "Low dose mercury toxicity and human health". doi:10.1016/j.etap.2005.03.007. 
  12. ^ Wakabayashi A, Tojo Y, Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S (2004). "The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) Japanese version: evidence from high-functioning clinical group and normal adults" (in Japanese). Shinrigaku kenkyu : The Japanese journal of psychology 75 (1): 78-84. PMID 15724518. 

There are multiple problems here:

  • This section repeatedly lists hydroquinone as a "neurotoxin" and cause of autism, when in fact hydroquinone is fairly safe. None of the cited references, that I could find, made reference to the toxicity of hydroquinone, and one of the cited references (cosmeticsoup.com) specifically commented on the safety of hydroquinone. Cited sources don't support your claims.
  • It states that mercury poisoning "has caused autism." Um, no. That's pretty controversial; many scientists reject that conclusion. To say nothing of lumping in hydroquinone - again, cited sources don't back up the claims.
  • You draw a link between skin whiteners and the level of verbal IQ and autism in Japan. So far as I can tell, this is completely original research. I don't see the sources making that connection, but rather a Wikipedia editor advancing a hypothesis of his/her own. That violates the original synthesis policy.
  • Again, the statement "Studies that shown that topical Hg-based skin creams, such as skin whiteners and infant teething powders, can cause autism due to its mercury content" is both false and unsupported by the references in question.
  • Speculation about why verbal IQ scores in Japan are purportedly lower than elsewhere is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, particularly not one on causes of autism.

Bottom line is that there are multiple claims here which are inaccurate, or at the very least, unsupported by the cited references. It seems clear from these refs that mercury-containing skin whiteners can be a cause of acute and chronic mercury poisoning. What's missing is any reliable secondary source linking these creams to autism (after all, the title of this article is "Causes of autism". You're relying on an original synthesis (creams contain mercury, some have hypothesized that mercury causes autism, therefore creams cause autism) which is strictly forbidden by Wikipedia's policies. MastCell Talk 16:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is two articles that I found linking autism to skin whitening products:
Zahir, Farhana. "Low dose mercury toxicity and human health". doi:10.1016/j.etap.2005.03.007. 
Countera, S. Allen; Leo H. Buchanan. "Mercury exposure in children: a review". 
Quote from "Mercury exposure in children: a review": "inorganic Hg through the use of topical Hg-based skin creams and in infant teething powders" and "In recent years, there has been concern that ethylmercury exposure may induce neurodevelopmental disabilities, such as language delay, attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, but especially autism spectrum disorder (Geier and Geier, 2003). Ethylmercury (EtHg) is an organic Hg compound," —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.60.251 (talk • contribs)
How 'bout the Japan/IQ stuff? And you still need a secondary source that links autism and skin whiteners 'cause we can't do it ourselves. WLU 17:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, this is what I mean by misquoting sources. Your quote says that inorganic mercury is found in whiteners, while organic mercury (ethylmercury) has been (speculatively) linked to autism. Inorganic and organic mercury are different. The paper does not link inorganic mercury exposure from whiteners to autism. MastCell Talk 18:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)