Talk:Autism Research Institute/Archive 1

Tag
This article is biased. All I did so far was flag it for neutrality, but I'm going to work on trying to make it more objective. I don't really know what I'm doing just yet, so I hope I do ok. Andi1235 17:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've put in a request on the Neutrality Project page for this article, as getting into a neutral POV state is a bit beyond me, and more experienced heads should probably step in, although I'd be happy to help. Andi1235 17:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I did my best -- I hope others make it better.Andi1235 17:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * there seems to be surprisingly little critical coverage of the Institute on the web (or I'm missing something obvious). I've blogged a little about their recommendation of secretin  - and a lot of their research and treatment recommendations seem to range from daft to scary - but google seems to bring up v few critical results.  It's hard to know how to make the article more balanced without OR.  DAN and DAN doctors have been more widely criticised, and maybe some of that could be folded into this article? Jon m

I think you have a good start but in light of recent revelations that Wakefield's MMR study was not just flawed and bad research, but deliberately faked (he had a financial interest in a competing vaccine) there should be a stronger warning that this organization's views is controversial and dangerous. Up here in Marin, we have had a dangerous outbreak of Whooping cough (pertussis) as a direct result of Wakefield-McCarthy et. al. frightening mothers into non-vaccinations. 7 deaths of infants so far. In one article they use the phrase "persecution" to describe the investigation into Wakefield. Not very scientific or professional. Also the founder has passed away and they still flog his idea that the DPT (Diptheria-Pertussis) vaccine was the cause of his son's autism.````` bettepage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.84.222 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about criticisms
The second and third paragraphs at the top of the page conflict directly with information further down in the article.

Specifically about chelation and vaccinations - ARI's stated positions - with working links - are verified farther down in the article (citations 14 & 15).

There is not a link cited that goes to a page/ref/etc where ARI states it "subscribes to the belief autism is caused by vaccines." LINK 5 goes to homepage at autism.com.

There is no link that shows that "ARI holds chelation as a treatment." This is a statement not backed up by any links to ARI shown here.

The conference was known by more than one name - DAN! and later and Autism Research Institute Conference.

"Pseudoscientific" is in reference to the above and should be reevaluated

Difulton (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC) Difulton


 * You sure the references weren't in the big block of text you deleted? —C.Fred (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There is not a link cited that goes to a page/ref/etc where ARI states it "subscribes to the belief autism is caused by vaccines." LINK 5 goes to homepage at autism.com. There is no link that shows that "ARI holds chelation as a treatment." This is a statement not backed up by any links to ARI shown here.

ARI's stated positions - with working links - are verified farther down in the article (citations 14 & 15).

Just editing in the interest of accuracy.

Difulton (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Difulton


 * I found the archived version of the page. While ARI never outright said that vaccines cause autism, they sure spent a lot of time on their vaccines FAQ talking about the mercury content of vaccines. So, just because ARI recanted their position doesn't mean they never held it; the material likely needs recast. —C.Fred (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Look what they said about chelation. ARI Publication 40 / April 2007 (at the end of the document) Treatment: The chelation treatments recommended by DAN! include DMSA, DMPS, and TTFD. ... ... More info: Anyone considering chelation therapy is urged to read the DAN! Consensus Report on Treating Mercury Toxicity in Children with Autism, available at www.autismresearchinstitute.com. This report provides much more detailed advice on pre-treatments, treatments, dosages, and safety. ... ...    They don't say exactly the same thing now ! Alinoé (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Here they say the same thing in French. Try to translate with google paragraphs 5 and 6 and 7. Pages in French are very instructive, also about vaccines. French documents have not yet been removed. But beware, if you use these documents, keep backups. Read here : "Skorupka is Described as a DAN! practitioner from Paris; Dr Amet is a neuroscientist, but not a registered medical practitioner. As readers of this blog Will Be aware DAN! (Defeat Autism Now!) Practitioners use non-standard biomedical treatments That-have little in the way of supporting evidence." ... In fact, Hamet is a french woman and also a Dan! practitioner since 2005. The two women continue to practice together today (by mail, skype) exactly what was recommended by the Autism Research Institute before, in association with a French laboratory specialized in chelation tests. That is why it would be good if the article on Autism Research Institute is a little closer to reality and not a simple copy of their official statements. Alinoé (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Nchs 89 (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Nchs 89 (talk The revert on this page today adds back in some very out of date information. It seems like a slightly biased edit with an agenda toward negative attention against what appears to be an organization that has reformed its position on a number of subjects. These reverted links do not connect readers to source docs that name ARI. Quackwatch has also experienced some controversy in terms of legitimacy. It looks like this needs to be recast. This organization no longer sponsors INSAR as far as I can find and it no longer holds a conference - at least none is listed on its website. The revert earlier today added that information and other errors in and deleted valid link updates to peer-reviewed research, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nchs 89 (talk
 * Please sign your posts at the end of your comment. If you object to QuackWatch as a source for this article take it to the Reliable Sources Noticboard. See the FAQ first, it has been well supported on WP:FRINGE and alt med topics. The article needs to be based on secondary sources. For what ARI has said, past as well as current websites are sources. Substantive changes to the article need to be discussed here and consensus reached before they are reinserted after being reverted, see WP:BRD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The paragraphs at the top of the page conflict with the information below and the links do not work. Editors are intentionally reverting to content that has broken links in it - it is discussed above in earlier threads. There is not a link that brings up any articles or sources that validate the statement that this group "subscribes to the belief autism is caused by vaccines." There is also not a link that shows that "ARI holds chelation as a treatment" for autism. The group no longer has a conference or works with INSAR. Why the sudden blanket "undo" to valid updates to the facts? Nchs 89 (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Reinserting from above The second and third paragraphs at the top of the page conflict directly with information further down in the article.

Specifically about chelation and vaccinations - ARI's stated positions - with working links - are verified farther down in the article (citations 14 & 15).

There is not a link cited that goes to a page/ref/etc where ARI states it "subscribes to the belief autism is caused by vaccines." LINK 5 goes to homepage at autism.com.

There is no link that shows that "ARI holds chelation as a treatment." This is a statement not backed up by any links to ARI shown here.

The conference was known by more than one name - DAN! and later and Autism Research Institute Conference.

"Pseudoscientific" is in reference to the above and should be reevaluated Nchs 89 (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The recent edits seem biased - I don't find anything written on this organization that suggests that they advocate using detoxification unless it is medically warranted - do you have a link that shows that they recommend chelation therapy as a treatment unless it is medically prescribed? I have been unsuccessful finding anything like that - in fact, their YouTube page seems to feature reputable speakers on autism co-morbidities. A recent talk featured this individual - at Mass General - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c4QgDM6Zig&list=PLpIoh-N2Q1jYMlKVMwHRwEu3oTb-pqR22. I also don't find evidence that they are supporting an anti-vaccine agenda - are there links that verify this? Neuroresearch (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The references have been fixed with archives and with titles that are accurate for what is on the page cited. The publisher has been added to the many primary refs. For a citation for chelation more recent than a decade ago try ARI Publication 40 2007. Your lack of success in finding this indicates you haven't read this talk page. The article needs to be sourced primarily with independent, third party reliable sources. Any and all biomedical information requires WP:MEDRS references. Per that guideline if any biomedical information is presented the mainstream academic consensus of the best current scientific medical information on the subject must be presented as WP:DUE. WP:FRINGE topics can be discussed using the best available sources per WP:PARITY. Putting titles on references that are not the titles of the item referenced is against policy. Removing the work of other editors repeatedly without waiting for consensus is a violation of policy. Performing such removal after starting a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard without waiting for resolution is a violation of policy. A substantial explanation of problems with the article will follow. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like the article should just be recast as basic information about a non-profit, including a history section that touches on its founder, using third-party references. Can we agree that is the right direction? Nchs 89 (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No. It should be recast in the light of what it does, as discussed in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Gross violations of WP:MEDRS, lack of WP:RS
The article currently has a great deal of biomedical information without proper sourcing. Any biomedical information on WP must present the current scientific medical knowledge with due prominence. Fringe theories must be presented as such and only given due weight the current medical consensus must be presented whenever fringe material is presented and due weight given to each. Assertions of what the ARI does need third party reliable sources. Anyone can make claims, WP needs RS that substantiates such claims. Examples include:

"they hold that autism can be treated through a combination of intensive behavior modification, such as Applied Behavior Analysis, and a wide variety of biomedical interventions, including the use of drugs, dietary supplements, and special diets."

Each of these treatments must have discussion using high quality MEDRS sources.Where they are fringe theories WP:PARITY applies.

"Rimland was the first to authoritatively challenge the prevailing theory of the time, the refrigerator mother theory (that autism was caused by unloving mothers), by providing evidence that autism is a biological disorder."

This needs a reliable third party source.

"He founded ARI to promote Applied Behavior Analysis as an intervention for autism."

Again MEDRS source that discusses ABA for autism and if it should be "promoted as an intervention" for it.

"Today, ARI continues to seek out autism treatments by:
 * Conducting and funding research on autism treatments.
 * Publishing independent reviews of scientific, peer-reviewed research on autism triggers and treatments.
 * Maintaining the largest database of anecdotal parent reporting in the world, with more than 40,000 entries from 60 countries."

Reliable third party sources needed to support "seek out autism treatments". MEDRS is needed to support conducting research. Third party source needed for funding. MEDRS needed to support "independent reviews". Reliable third party needed to support publication. MEDRS discussion of autism triggers and treatments needed. MEDRS source discussing anectdotal parent reporting and the value, size and integrity of this database.

"In an interview with About.com, ARI Director Steve Edelson said “if a practitioner claims to ‘cure’ autism, run in the other direction."

An about.com interview really? What is the relevance to treatments. I think there are better sources for Edelson's ideas about treatments and claims of likelihood of success.

"ARI is a major proponent of the biomedical approach for autism treatment"

Says who Edelson? One he is primary and second I have reason to question his reliability.

"compiling evidence from autism research experts and parents to share information about the most viable treatments for common autism symptoms."

MEDRS needed to evaluate if the treatments ARI is compiling are the most viable, if their selection of autism research experts meets academic community criteria and the appropriateness of sharing this particular information in the manner ARI does.

"The premise for integrative medical intervention is that certain neurological disorders, including autism, might be caused by environmental triggers that compromise the gastrointestinal, immunological, and neurological systems; gastrointestinal, in that those with autism tend toward constipation and/or diarrhea and often have abnormal cravings or abhorrence for certain kinds of food; immunological, in that many have poor regulation of the immune system; and decreased ability to fight infectious diseases, and some are prone to allergies; and neurological, in that hypo- or hypersensitive to sensory impressions is very common."

There is a source given half way through this sentence that neither gives this information or even comes close to MEDRS. This sounds like unsourced original research. It requires extensive MEDRS sourcing. This has to go immediately, it is clearly biomedical information, not sourced and quite probably not a representation of the current medical consensus.

"Proponents of integrative medical intervention claim that children with autism generally improve the health of all three systems with an adapted or "special" diet, or with the addition to their diet of certain dietary supplements, nutrients, and enzyme supplements."

No MEDRS. Here we have what the proponents claim, what is the scientific evaluation of these claims? This has to go immediately the current medical science needs to be presented as due (which is much greater than the unnamed, unsourced proponents).

"Based on this premise, what is often diagnosed as autism or PDD is seen as a physiological syndrome involving many parts of the body that could be treated as a physiological disorder."

Again no MEDRS. What does the medical community think of "what is often diagnosed" being "seen as" something other and treating sick people on this basis? This has to go immediately.

"believing ABA should complement other autism interventions."

We have the presentation of what ARI believes, what does the scientific evidence say? Where is the MEDRS? Is this belief considered valid? The paper cited later (Virués-Ortega, 2010) finds the current evidence is rife with problems and only suggests it is a promising avenue for further, better designed, research.

"Vaccines – ARI supports safe vaccination. Research on this topic is ongoing and ARI continue to track new developments in this field of study, among others. The organization continues to seek potential trigger factors for autism."

Where is the MEDRS that says what ARI supports is "safe vaccination"? What research where is the citation? What reliable source supports ARI's tracking of new developments? What do reliable third party sources say about such "tracking"? Seeking potential trigger factors for autism, if it's not MEDRS this seeking doesn't belong in WP. What do third party reliable sources say about ARI's seeking triggers for autism?

"Chelation – Chelation is not a “cure” for autism. If, in the opinion of a medical doctor, the patient has an unusual heavy-metal burden, chelation might be warranted, just as it would be for a patient who does not have autism. Additional research is needed to investigate the prevalence and underlying reasons for impaired excretion of environmental toxins, and to determine effective treatments."

'This has to go immediately Biomedical information with NO MEDRS. If a Dr's opinion is...chelation might be warranted. Gross violation. Additional research needed, according to what MEDRS? Where is there any support for "the prevalence...[of] impaired excretion of environmental toxins" Gross violation.

"Gluten-free, casein-free diets – ARI believes that this diet can be beneficial. While a study by the University of Rochester found 'eliminating gluten and casein from the diets of children with autism had no impact on their behavior, sleep or bowel patterns,' a study by the University of Sunderland in the U.K. found that gluten-free, casein-free “dietary intervention may positively affect developmental outcome for some children diagnosed with ASD"

A news story and a Preliminary Results paper, thin as toilet paper. How about the consensus statements published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (Buie et al. 2010) or the Cochrane review that could only find two small studies that met criteria and evaluated the evidence for these diets as poor (Milward et al. 2008)? These should be presented with the "belief" of ARI given it's due weight (which amounts to very little).

"Based on empirical evidence and research, ARI asserts that pharmaceutical treatments should be approached with caution, as many can exacerbate some symptoms while treating others."

This has to go immediately What empirical evidence, what research? This requires clear high quality MEDRS if we are to state in WP's voice that something is based on empirical evidence and research we had better cite some substantial evidence and research.

"ARI has awarded more than $1.5 million in research grants since 2009."

Says who? Where is the third party reliable source for this?

"Grant recipients include Harvard/Mass General, Cleveland Clinic, UCLA, Arizona State University, UC Davis, and Columbia University"

That's what the ARI website says, what do reliable sources say?

"ARI also funds Tissue Banks for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development at the University of Maryland"

More claims with no RS support.

"and the Digestive Function Laboratory Repository at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston;"

No source at all.

"a specimen bank for non-autistic individuals to provide proper comparison controls for researchers is in development"

WP is not a crystal ball when such a bank exists and is reported in third party reliable sources that's when it belongs on WP. Providing "proper comparison controls" is going to need MEDRS.

"ARI holds that autism can be treated through a combination of intensive behavior modification, such as Applied Behavior Analysis, and a wide variety of biomedical interventions, primarily the use of dietary supplements and special diets."

There is one source in the middle, the aforementioned Virués-Ortega 2010 'which does not support this for ABA (studies analyzed rife with problems, only conclusion these studies as analyzed showed some benefit, more better designed studies needed) that is not support for treating autism. The rest of the interventions need have evaluations by MEDRS presented. Virués-Ortega 2010 is published in a journal that is not peer reviewed that I can tell, likely such an attempt at meta analysis given the problems with the studies analyzed would not pass peer review.

"ARI ended the registry of DAN doctors in 2011"

Only a primary source, do reliable sources discuss the DAN! registry and conferences. What do reliable third party sources say about the new ARI conference? If they don't say anything, why is it encyclopedic?

IMFAR "the first and primary aim of the meeting is to promote exchange and dissemination of the latest scientific findings and to stimulate research progress in understanding the nature, cause and treatments of ASD."

First and primary - both huh? How about just "the aim" this is just one particularly clear example of the advert type language. And who besides ARI has something to say about the findings exchanged and disseminated (more puffery)? Does the scientific community consider it an active forum where the "latest" findings are presented? Does a reliable source say the meeting "stimulates research progress"? Have important developments in been presented there that have resounded in the scientific community? Besides it's INSAR's conference what does ARI do but "sponsor" it? What does such sponsorship entail? What do third party reliable sources say about this sponsorship?

"The meeting also promotes training for pre/post doctorates to advance research of ASD"

Unsourced, what kind of training, that who finds significant? Irrelevant this is what INSAR does at their conference not what ARI does.

"The INSAR publishes Autism Research:

The AAP publishes Pediatrics, this has what to do with ARI?

"Autistic Global Initiative (AGI) – AGI is an ARI program staffed by adults with autism who are committed to increasing quality infrastructure for adults with ASD"

The source for this is a webpage titled "Coming Soon!" When this actually exists and a third party reliable source considers it important enough to cover it then it belongs in WP, until then it doesn't.

"The Global Autism Alliance, a partnership created in response to a global need for networking, communicating, and collaborating among autism groups. This program is housed at ARI; Stephen M. Edelson, ARI director, is the president."

There is no evidence such a thing exists much less reportage from reliable sources about what it is.

"Almost all ARI operations and initiatives are funded by private donations."

More puffery, an encyclopedia would say "ARI receives most of it's funding from private donors" if a reliable source said so.

Primary sources are acceptable sources for what ARI says, for what they do we need independent reliable sources. For biomedical information we must follow WP:MEDRS and certainly not contain any original research. The subject matter of this article is WP:FRINGE and should be treated as such. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Note the above reference is for a different Edelson not the ARI director. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahem
and have been blocked indefinitely as checkuser verified sockpuppets of, who is also blocked for tendentious editing and sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

DAN! is the primary activity ARI is known for
DAN! is/was a project of ARI not Rimland independent of ARI the article should not imply otherwise. DAN! is what ARI is primarily notable for and should be discussed in the first section. Sources should be secondary and reliable. Once reverted changes should be discussed on talk before being redone. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps more updated information just needs to be added to the lead. The statements about what ARI currently 'holds' to are third-party references but the links don't connect readers to pages that document that this is what the organization currently, actively advocates for. Most of the links are several years old or don't directly document them saying "Don't vaccinate!" or "use chelation to cure autism!" - and the Gorski link is a blog - ?. But there's no doubt ARI was in the thick of it at one time - it's just not clear that they are now. Perhaps the word "hold" should be past tense - "held" connecting the philosophies about chelation, vaccines, etc. to the conference with which they were associated. With the conference gone, there don't appear to be references available documenting these are beliefs the organization still actively "holds" too. 73.35.136.13 (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * When reliable independent sources provide information about the "current" position of ARI more substantial changes can be made. Some content based on their website is appropriate as the Institute's website is a valid source for what the Institute says. However there are reliable sources that support the current content and the Institute's website does not contain any statement that they have changed their position nor any disavowal of their previous positions. Gorski is a reliable source per WP:DUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY if you disagree there is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Please take some time to read the discussion above (and respond if you have input), much of the content of this article is subject to immediate removal per WP:MEDRS. Questions about conflict of interest have been raised and should be addressed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Quote from source apparently missed by editor
This edit diff claimed, "Five pages in, nowhere does that article say anything about that" The following is directly from Tsouderos and Callahan 2009,

"Chelation is one of the highest-rated treatments on the Autism Research Institute's parent survey, and a Defeat Autism Now! consensus statement calls removing metals from the body "one of the most beneficial treatments for autism and related disorders."

The description of the database as self selected and self reported is factual and important when mentioning the database, the methods of assembling the database are described in the material about the database itself as well as indicated in the above quote describing the "database" as a "parent survey". - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Biomedical information must present current medical science prominently per WP:MEDRS
The following edit diff removed substantial current medical science on biomedical information presented in the article. WP:MEDRS states clearly, "Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." The current medical knowledge on vaccines and autism must be presented clearly and predominantly in this article as it contains information about vaccines and autism. All types of articles that present biomedical information regardless of how it is introduced must accurately reflect current medical knowledge.

As this article contains, "idea that vaccines cause autism, and that the illness can be treated through a combination of intensive behavior modification, such as applied behavior analysis, and a wide variety of unproven biomedical interventions, including the use of drugs, dietary supplements, and special diets." This article must reflect current medical knowledge on these treatments. The guideline MEDRS is widely supported and the guideline WP:FRINGE (also widely supported) clearly applies also.

This article cannot and should not be whitewashed nor present an array of biomedical information without presenting the current medical knowledge about all biomedical information in the article. Unless the material presenting the current medical knowledge on vaccines and autism, intensive behavior modification, applied behavior analysis, drugs, dietary supplements and special diets in relation to autism is restored I will revert this article to a prior version that did contain the appropriate information. The edit summary "Fix intro, remove POV "rebuttal" material. It's not our job to "prove" something or someone is wrong" is mistaken. It is the "job" of WP to present the current medical knowledge of any biomedical information in the encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Quakwatch position of ARI belongs in article
The following belongs in the article. It is an accepted RS commenting directly in summary fashion on the subject.

"Quackwatch includes the Autism Research Institute on its list of "Questionable Organizations"."

- - MrBill3 (talk) 23:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Removal of POV and OR
I just gutted this article wholesale and as I expected someone reverted me because "considerable discussion is needed", so let's have that discussion. This article was a mess of POV rebuttals to the subject's admittedly fringy activities and claims. We are not here to rebut what the subject is doing with our own original research. We are supposed to be neutral and this article was everything but. We say what the sources say about the subject, not what we feel is necessary to counter their looney views. This article seems to exist only as a commentary on the subject rather than an encyclopedic reference. So, let's talk. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

As above per WP:MEDRS any article containing biomedical information must present the current medical knowledge predominantly. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in MEDRS does it say that? Not being dense, I just can't find that specific claim. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The second sentence, "Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." (emphasis added) I don't see how that is not clear. Biomedical information includes treatments, theories of etiology etc. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can possibly interpret that as applying to this context. This article is about an institution that has certain claims, which are laid out in the article factually. They advocate X or they claim Y, fine. We say that. Now show me a reliable secondary source that says "the foundation said X and that's wrong", like in the case of David Gorski, whose article specifically mentioned the Institute. Beyond that, the neutrality policy requires that we be neutral, and I'm pretty sure the MEDRS folks did not intend to say "for every article that says X you must insert unrelated prose and sources that claim X is wrong and Y is right". We say what the sources say, about the subject, and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less. That's how we maintain neutrality. If you need a counterweight for this subject, you must provide material that directly references the subject, not their claims in an abstract way. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whenever medical treatments are discussed the current medical knowledge on those treatments must be presented. For biomedical information there is no ignoring the medical science on a subject just because it is presented as a claim of an advocate. If a treatment is presented in any article the best available information relating to that treatment must be presented. MEDRS is in fact quite clear and that is a significant reason for the guideline. Neutrality does not mean WP presents the ideas of the subject of an article but exclude any discussion of the ideas presented that does not specifically reference the subject. If an idea is presented the facts relating to that idea as reflected in the mainstream academic community are presented. See WP:NPOV § WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. I'll make mention of this at WP Project Medicine and the Fringe Theories NB so perhaps someone else can help explain these policies and guidelines. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes please, that would be best. I get the feeling here that you're telling me that it's OK to violate the NPOV and OR policies (probably the most important ones along with BLP) because we are dealing with a "fringe" topic. That means to me, unequivocally, that we should not be covering fringe topics at all. When I read an article about X I expect to see sources that speak about X (positively or negatively), not original research from Wikipedia that claims X is like, totally wrong. That takes us from being an encyclopedia to being a biased blog, and I can't go with that. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The ideas and treatments proposed, endorsed or advocated by ARI should have the mainstream scientific consensus on those ideas and treatments presented per due. As ARI advocates specific treatments discussion of the current medical knowledge about those treatments must be presented as due this is clearly spelled out in NPOV. For example ARI advocates chelation as treatment for autism and this is presented in the article, therefore the current medical knowledge relating to chelation as treatment for autism must also be presented in the article and given due prominence. NPOV is very clear. If an idea is presented information from the mainstream academic community about that idea must be presented. This is not OR it is due weight given to sources on content. Content is not exempt from discussion because it is the view, idea or position of the subject of the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Chelation therapy
The following,

"It also suggests chelation therapy, a treatment which is dangerous enough to have caused multiple deaths."

belongs in the article. Adams 2007 an official publication of ARI suggests chelation therapy. It is a fact (and important current medical knowledge) that chelation is dangerous and has caused deaths when used by doctors as a part of the DAN! protocol a program of ARI. Adams and Edelson 2009 also advocate chelation. Woznicki 2005 also indicates Rimland as president of ARI advocated for chelation therapy and details a death which resulted from it. Three sources, clearly dangerous and sometimes fatal treatment clearly advocated by ARI. The fact that chelation is not FDA approved for autism should be added. There is no valid reason to remove the above content and it should certainly be predominant. The article must state what the subject advocates and the current medical knowledge about it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That belongs in the chelation article, not in the article about the institute. Unless the source clearly identifies the subject of this article, it does not belong here, because it is commentary by Wikipedia editors, who are supposed to be neutral. If I removed something that directly referenced the Institute, please let me know and I'll put it back right away. What I removed were miles of references and wording designed to "prove" that the Institute is "wrong". They might very well be, but that's not for you or me to say, it must come for the sources we use. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * First, three sources specifically identify ARI as a proponent of chelation therapy. ARI official publication, ARI Pub 40 "Summary of biomedical treatments for autism" lists and discusses chelation therapy as a biomedical treatment for autism. Woznicki 2005 states, "Bernard Rimland, Ph.D., director of the Autism Research Institute in San Diego, asserted that chelation is an appropriate treatment for autistic children." These clearly and directly refer to ARI. Before removing content and asking for direct references to ARI read the sources given.
 * Second, the current medical knowledge on chelation therapy for autism belongs in any article which discusses chelation therapy for autism. Per MEDRS whenever biomedical information is presented current medical knowledge on that information must be presented prominently. An article must not present a fringe theory dangerous treatment without clearly indicating the appropriate biomedical information relating to that treatment. See also WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV § WP:DUE. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * three sources specifically identify ARI as a proponent of chelation therapy. I did not remove those, nor was that my intention, on the contrary. We want to specifically say what the subject says they do. Please be specific, did I somehow remove any material that identifies ARI as a proponent of the treatment? As far as I can tell it's still there. an article must not present a fringe theory dangerous treatment without clearly indicating the appropriate biomedical information relating to that treatment Please be so kind as to point me to some kind of clear policy, consensus or something that specifically says that, because that is very much in contradiction with WP:NPOV. Your interpretation of the MEDRS wording quite frankly does not convince me. However, if that is the case, by consensus, that we are supposed to go against NPOV, then I'll take this article to AFD because it means that it's impossible to treat it neutrally. In fact I think it barely meets WP:ORG, but we'll see. As I said, please, please show me something that specifically says "the subject's views must be rebutted". § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From MEDRS "Controversies or areas of uncertainty in medicine should be illustrated with reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints."
 * There is no contradiction of NPOV when presenting mainstream academic positions relating to the positions put forth by the subject of an article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also from MEDRS, "Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not using original research demand that we present any prevailing medical or scientific consensus..." Thus the prevailing medical consensus on the treatments and ideas in the article must be presented, seems very clear to me. Your assertion of not following NPOV are not clear and not in agreement with the widely held consensus. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * From FRINGE, "A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is." Seems pretty clear that the fringe ideas of ARI must be presented as fringe with the lack of acceptance clearly presented. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also from FRINGE, "In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical, scientific, and cultural prominence." So the claims of chelation, diet etc treatments for autism must have the established research on those claims presented with due prominence. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also from FRINGE, "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community." So the discounted ideas of ARI should have the level of acceptance in the academic community documented. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also from FRINGE, "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." So the ideas about chelation, diet, vaccines etc. and autism should be documented as rejected. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

In an article about ARI should the treatments they propose/advocate be evaluated
In an attempt to cut to the heart of the issue.

It is my position that if medical treatments are discussed as advocated by ARI in the article the current medical knowledge on these treatments should be presented prominently in the article.

If I might be so bold, it seems finds the discussion or discreditation of these advocated treatments as a violation of NPOV in an article on ARI. Suggesting the discussion of these treatments should not be in this article but only in the articles on those treatments. FRF has also suggested that including discussion of these treatments from sources that don't explicitly mention ARI is original research.

I contend that discussion of the mainstream academic view of these treatments is following NPOV, MEDRS and FRINGE. The ARI's proposal and advocacy for these treatments has introduced them as content of this article and current medical knowledge should be provided here. Likewise the vaccine autism etiology theory.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Thank you for trying to explain it to me, but I'm not going to get into it. The moment you use the term "discussion" you're already into OR territory, and that happens in all of these articles. Our treatment of fringe issues as a whole is quite frankly shameful. I realized that the moment I hit "save" in my reply at the MEDRS board. Because I've been there before, trying to balance out a biography about some crackpot book author. I'm "fringe pushing" and "whitewashing", etc. Not really interested. In any case, I don't believe for a moment that this organization meets the notability guidelines, even assuming that my edits would have been unchallenged. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are going to have to "get into it" to defend your edits. What is "shameful". How is this organisation not notable? You aren't explaining anything. Bhny (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see you have nominated it for deletion, which seems reasonable. Bhny (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To rephrase, if a medical treatment is presented in an article as a proposed treatment for autism the current medical knowledge about that treatment for autism should be factually presented as sourced from reliable sources that provide information about such a treatment for autism. No OR there, if an article says X proposes Y as a medical treatment WP should provide the current medical consensus on Y as a medical treatment. Likewise if an article says X believes Z is the cause of autism the article should present the medical consensus on the etiology of autism and if Z is widely discredited as a cause for autism that should be presented clearly. Absolutely in keeping with explicitly spelled out policy. See the AFD discussion for a list of books that mention, discuss or describe ARI. The DAN! registry and protocol is mentioned or discussed in multiple articles and by quite a number of doctors, parent orgs, news stories and blogs. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The current state of this article is appalling.
I was referred to this article via an AfD notice posted on Wikiproject Skepticism, and I'm shocked by how poorly this article is written. I am fully aware of the controversies surrounding what this organization does and the treatments it offers, and I'm just as appalled by them on a personal level as most of the other editors who have contributed to this article. However, this article sacrifices basic encyclopedic integrity in order to avoid giving any kind of weight to unreliable medical sources.

First and foremost, the lead paragraph of a Wikipedia article should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of a topic, and the guidelines for editing a lead paragraph on Wikipedia do recommend that it addresses any prominent criticisms associated with the topic. However, the current lead paragraph is overflowing with the countless controversies associated with the organization while lacking many of the basic significant facts. Out of an approximately 180 word lead paragraph, 133 of the 180 words(74%) discuss the controversies associated with the institute.

I think that the easiest way to solve some of these issues would be to move the bulk of the controversies and politics associated with the institute to a dedicated section for controversies. Additionally, the lede should probably be rewritten more as an overview of the organization and less as an overview of the controversies and views held by the organization.

I hope I'm not being too harsh stating the problems I see with this article, but my skeptic-editor-friends need to keep in mind that articles like these are supposed to be encyclopedic and tell the reader what the organization is, not just what controversies surround it. Karzelek (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Controversy sections are usually a bad idea- WP:CRITS. It is much better to integrate it throughout the article. From memory, most of the reliable references are critical and the organization is obscure, so there aren't many (any?) current reliable articles explaining what it does. I think their main thing was the DAN conference, but they stopped that a while ago. If anything, the article is too long. I would have supported a merge to Bernard Rimland. Bhny (talk) 13:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note - The "Defeat Autism Now!" name was dropped in 2011, and the list of DAN! doctors suspended, but the organization continued to host a conference under the name of "ARI conference". Muffinator (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * After the AfD discussion, it seems pretty apparent that this organization isn't really notable, and that most of the sources demonstrating its notability only apply to the treatments that the institute offers. Who wants to merge it with Bernard Rimland? Karzelek (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I oppose merge but agree that the article needs substantial work. The sources I provided in the deletion discussion provide pretty extensive material for improving this article. The DAN! program continued for years after Rimland's death and is mentioned in about 75% of the books I have found on autism. This article should contain a thorough description of the DAN! program, the relevant current medical knowledge regarding the treatments and theories of etiology presented by the DAN! program, the published evaluations of ARI and DAN! and the published discussion of the ongoing activities of ARI.
 * The current state of the article is a result of a likely COI editor substantially revising the article with primary sources and my following addition of non primary sources and cutting of non MEDRS compliant content. If I find the time I will try a rewrite based mostly on the three books I found that discuss ARI at length. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I sincerely hope you're not referring to me? § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not . I will shortly post a link to the article before I started trying to clean it up and a diff or two showing the extensive rewrite with primary sources. I have found your efforts on this article largely those of an uninvolved admin attempting to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I regret my prior mischaracterization in the deletion discussion. I over interpreted your actions. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate that very much. § FreeRangeFrog croak 04:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have added a substantial Further reading section with a number of books that could be used to improve the article. Substantial work would be involved as Waltz, Osteen, Lambert, Oller & Oller and Millan introduce biomedical information. They are RS for what ARI/DAN! purports/proposes but not MEDRS so content based on those sources would need balance per due to present the current academic consensus on these ideas. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Selected history of this article
Older version restored (by ) after "massive COI editing spree" Version before my first edit Version restored to (by ) "Restoring last version before sockpuppets, cpyvios etc. took hold" Version after my editing
 * 19:38, 9 May 2014
 * 20:32, 9 May 2014
 * 15:54, 10 May 2014
 * 05:24, 27 May 2014

Note that a substantial amount of what I did was fully format references to identify the sources. I also added third party commentary on information in the content including MEDRS on biomedical information. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Further reading section

 * "Further reading" included some dross. You need to explain why each of these books you propose is relevant to the artiucle and should thus be promoted by Wikipedia as a good source for further reading, please. Also do me wary of introducing any suggestion of validity re. autism biomed, which as you know lacks any credible scientific basis. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The Further reading section did indeed include some bs. I had used it as a placeholder for some references to use in improving the article. Please note my comment above, "Waltz, Osteen, Lambert, Oller & Oller and Millan introduce biomedical information. They are RS for what ARI/DAN! purports/proposes but not MEDRS so content based on those sources would need balance per due to present the current academic consensus on these ideas." I will move them here instead. I agree listing them as "Further reading" is not appropriate as it implies an endorsement. Each book I listed did however meet the guideline as they provide, "additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article." The last five should not be in further reading but only used as references for ARI's ideas. The article needs reworking to present ARI's promotion of a set of ideas and the scientific consensus on those ideas in an encyclopedic manner as well as the published reactions to said promotion and ideas. The first five present good information on ARI that is consistent with mainstream academic consensus.

The following are useful only as references for ARI's positions/promotions/ideas


 * I am going to restore the Further reading section with the first five books. If you feel they are not appropriate you may revert my restoration. Please move them here and I will provide an explanation for each (note there is some explanation of some of them in the deletion discussion.) If I get energetic I will add content based on them and use them as references instead, which is what I think is best in the end. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Is any one of those books about the ARI? At least from the titles they are all completely off topic. "Further Reading" means "Further reading about the ARI"Bhny (talk) 17:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * They each "may consult[ed] for additional and more detailed coverage of the subject of the article." Page numbers are provided for four of them, the other has extensive discussion in two chapters. As I have said I think these books should be used as references for improving the article (and then removed from Further reading). If you have strong objection to listing them in Further reading (I think this provides information for editors who would improve the article) I will convert them to named refs, add them to the reflist and remark them out. I am completely flexible with this. I would really like to see someone rewrite the article using these books. The current content could probably be referenced to these books but I think a rewrite would be better. Ping me if you want me to convert to remarked out refs. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Further Reading does not mean reading that will take the reader further down the rabbit hole. We should not be making up our own minds what books to promote, we should refer to reliable independent sources. IN terms of this organisation, the fact that it promotes nonstandard (read: bullshit) treatments means that we should probably not even think about further reading anyway - that is for subjects like autism itself, where further reading in good quality books by qualified experts in the field is entirely reasonable. Here, commentary by experts is needed as sources for the robust criticism the group have received. And, as stated above, I don't think any of these books are primarily about the subject of this article, which also contra-indicates their inclusion. If we stick to books about the actual subject we'll have hagiographies and debunkings, neither of which is helpful. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

No real complaints here. I am putting them here so they can be used to improve the sourcing of the article. As I have said, I think almost all the facts currently in the article can be sourced to these books, which would be an improvement in sourcing (non primary, third party, reliable publisher). BTW several of these books provide a good critical discussion of ARI, this second set do not promote the nonstandard approaches but explain what ARI pushes, how and when with some critical analysis. That seems to me to be the essence of an encyclopedia article on ARI. I just haven't found the time to do a rewrite. I have some access to these books but a trip to the library and the work to put it in encyclopedic format is more than I feel like devoting to this article right now. I think my editing history makes quite clear that I don't think nonstandard approaches with no acceptance in the medical community should be promoted. However this organization and its DAN! project are mentioned in 7 out of 10 books on autism and have been covered in the press and the blogs of some notable authors. I think presenting what they do/have done, when and the scientific consensus on these approaches and the promotion of them is a needed article.

If someone wants to trim this article (and maybe improve structure) I would be willing to upgrade the sources after that.

Books that discuss ARI and it's activities at some length with some detail:

Now I have the formatted refs to use to change out the primary sources this article would be better without links to. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)