Talk:Autism spectrum/Archive 1

Initial text
Whoever wrote this: Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.42.27.85 (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2002 (UTC)

MergeFrom Autism epidemic
There's an ongoing debate at Autism epidemic whether or not that article should be merged into this one&mdash;specifically into the "increase in diagnoses of autism" section. To me, that article and this article's section are describing the exact same phenomena, so they should be a single article. Any help from editors here is greatly appreciated. Feco 15:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Highly Flawed
This writeup is highly flawed, and should be heavily revised. It is full of autistic-community in-speak and jargon, not to mention psychobabble. --dylain 17:51, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I read this page hoping to better understand autism as a childhood developmental problem, but I found the article text to be confusing and speculative. Controversies in autism has fewer NPOV problems than this article. This page should have a neutrality warning. --Wronkiew 01:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This article needs a lot of work, including some NPOV help. Hopefully, we can get it up to the quality of Asperger's syndrome, a featured article. I don't know if it's bad enough for an NPOV tag. A cleanup or peer review tag might be needed, but the POV problems don't represent the type of systematic bias that would require us to dispute the article's neutrality as a whole. --Szyslak 11:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please elaborate on "However, studies have ruled out the speculation that the rise is attributable to an improvement in diagnostic methods." For instance, what studies, why were they able to conclude that, etc. Doesn't need to be long or involved, just a little more detailed. -- Olathe November 22, 2003


 * Done. Links to both the M.I.N.D. study that came to that conclusion, and to other articles and Journal abstracts expressing the contrary opinion that this issue is still open.  There appears to be no broad consensus on the answer to this question in the professional community, so I provide links for both arguments.  Jfinlayson 00:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now that I read this, it is a highly flawed article. I think that controversial issues should get separate articles, but here are some initial objections: --Leifern 00:57, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Although DSM-IV provides a definition of autism, it is widely accepted that autism is a neurological and not a psychiatric disorder. This is widely manifested in the fact that pediatric neurologists are most often consulted on the condition.
 * Describing the disorder in behavioral terms is therefore problematic, and any expert on the topic will concede that stereotypical descriptions of autistic people is highly misleading - there are autistic people who are hyperlexic and others who are non-verbal; those that are savants and those that are retarded; highly advanced fine motor skills and very primitive motor planning; hyposensitive or hypersensitive; etc. The various editions of DSM have radically changed the criteria for diagnosis every time; and according to the Yale institute, there is wide disagreement whether the disorder should be "clumped" or "splintered."
 * There is no blood test, MRI, or other objective test to establish autism, and this must be made clear.
 * The 3-4 in 10,000 is flatly false.
 * Weasel terms like "it is widely considered that autism is incurable" is wrong; and it is also wrong to say that neurological structure is irreparable after a certain age. There is plenty of evidence that the mind is very plastic, and "cure" is a subjective term.

A related disorder, Asperger's Syndrome, is a high-functioning form of autism, but this is not necessarily the case.

Huh? Either it is or it ain't. "...is considered a high-functioning..." perhaps? I don't want to change it without having an idea of which half of the sentence is awry. --Charles A. L. 19:08, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

They do not desire a cure, but rather to be given opportunities to use their unique skills and perceptions in useful ways. I disagree that all autistics don't desire a 'cure'. Crusadeonilliteracy 03:57, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The writer said "many," not all. I think an underlying issue is whether autism is a "disease" that can be "cured," as opposed to a "condition" or "personality trait," that can be remediated. Cecropia 04:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Suggest 44 possible wiki links and 13 possible backlinks for Autism.
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Autism article:

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"): Until recently the Irabina Special School for Autism Spectrum Disorders was in a Jasmine Road building. In Feedback'': I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to &mdash; LinkBot 11:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can link no cure: ...[2004]], autism is believed by some to be treatable, though no cure exists and some controversy surrounds both its categorizati...
 * Can link five hundred: ...dition that now appears to affect an estimated one in every five hundred children, causing disruption in families and unfulfilled li... (link to section)
 * Can link Johns Hopkins Hospital: ... for many children.  In 1943 Dr. Leo Kanner of the Johns Hopkins Hospital studied a group of 11 children and introduced the label ''e... (link to section)
 * Can link English language: ...nd introduced the label early infantile autism into the English language . At the same time a German scientist, Dr. Hans Asperger... (link to section)
 * Can link social skills: ...s by 2 years * Does not respond to name * Loses language or social skills ... (link to section)
 * Can link eye contact: ...age or social skills Some Other Indicators:  * Lacks eye contact ... (link to section)
 * Can link seeing things: ...the problem, people on the autism spectrum have difficulty seeing things from another person's perspective. Neurotypical (popularly ... (link to section)
 * Can link sign language: ...y literate and able to communicate in other ways -- images, sign language, and typing are far more natural to them. Some infants who ... (link to section)
 * Can link spoken language: ...tistics have a strong tonal sense, and can often understand spoken language better if it is sung to them.... (link to section)
 * Can link tone of voice: ..., but do not match those used by neurotypicals. Also, their tone of voice has a much more subtle inflection in reflecting their feeli... (link to section)
 * Can link natural language: ... to learn the autistic body language, and with autistic natural language not tending towards speech, autistic people often are force... (link to section)
 * Can link activities of daily living: ... generally applied to how well an individual can accomplish activities of daily living, rather than to IQ. The terms low- and high-functioning ar... (link to section)
 * Can link communication disorder: ...ng autistic at all, because they still think of autism as a communication disorder .... (link to section)
 * Can link social communication: ...ge 3 years: (1) social interaction, (2) language as used in social communication, or (3) symbolic or imaginative play[,]" ([[Autism#Asperger's and Kanner's syndrome|link to section])
 * Can link autistic spectrum: ...ouragement for relatives of family members diagnosed in the autistic spectrum to speak of their loved ones as having link to section)
 * Can link speech therapy: ...h Rett syndrome can be treated. Physical, occupational, and speech therapy can help with problems of coordination, movement, and link to section)
 * Can link National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: ...ion, movement, and speech. Scientists sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development have discovered that a mutation in the sequence of a single... (link to section)
 * Can link quality of life: ... treating these children much sooner, and improving the quality of life these children experience.... (link to section)
 * Can link Rockville, MD: ...wiki&gt; *&lt;/nowiki&gt;Rett syndrome. NIH Publication No. 01-4960. Rockville, MD : National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, ... (link to section)
 * Can link population of the United States: ...mprovement in diagnostic methods.  In the last decade, the population of the United States has increased by 13%. There has been an increase in non-aut... (link to section)
 * Can link Silicon Valley: ... Geek Syndrome]'' exploring the surge in apparent autism in Silicon Valley . This is only one example of the media's application of men... (link to section)
 * Can link mental disease: ...ley. This is only one example of the media's application of mental disease labels to what is actually variant normal behavior. Shyness... (link to section)
 * Can link non-profit: ...xtreme of the autistic spectrum. This is the opinion of the non-profit group Autism and Computing. They argue that the central... (link to section)
 * Can link easy way: ...ttention-tunnelling, monotropism. Computers would afford an easy way of joining attention tunnels with minimal mutual discomfort... (link to section)
 * Can link Cambridge, UK: ...n Baron-Cohen]]'s team at the Autism Research Centre in Cambridge, UK, measured testosterone levels in the amniotic fluid of moth... (link to section)
 * Can link amniotic fluid: ...tre]] in Cambridge, UK, measured testosterone levels in the amniotic fluid of mothers while pregnant. This is presumed to reflect leve... (link to section)
 * Can link Child Psychology: ...than girls. The results will be published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (2004).... (link to section)
 * Can link brain development: ...on-Cohen theorizes that high fetal testosterone levels push brain development towards an improved ability to see patterns and analyse sys... (link to section)
 * Can link The Lancet: ... * Research by Andrew Wakefield in the UK, published in The Lancet in February 1998 suggested a possible link between auti... (link to section)
 * Can link original research: ...he link, and some in fact showed a lack of such a link. The original research has come under criticism, largely due to a conflict of inte... (link to section)
 * Can link conflict of interest: ...riginal research has come under criticism, largely due to a conflict of interest on Wakefield's part. In February 2004 The Lancet described ... (link to section)
 * Can link brain stem: ...* Susan Bryson has proven autistics have a much smaller brain stem in 99% of autism cases; and that a small portion of the Tha... (link to section)
 * Can link psychological test: ...us in a short time like neurotypicals, as demonstrated in a psychological test .... (link to section)
 * Can link spoken word: ...cularly regarding improvements in ability to comprehend the spoken word -- with the gluten-free, casein-free diet &amp; mercury che... (link to section)
 * Can link heavy metal poisoning: ...] have often claimed Dr. Bernard Rimland's methods cure heavy metal poisoning, but not autism. Curing heavy metal poisoning when it is pr... (link to section)
 * Can link recovery is possible: ... experience of a person with autism and the degree to which recovery is possible . Many other people who have autism have written books on t... (link to section)
 * Can link information processing: ...e-operational stage of cognitive development, where much of information processing is at a wholistic-visual level and largely non verbal and m... (link to section)
 * Can link limited resource: ...ons for Autism]. In this model of mind, the fundamental and limited resource is mental attention. Mental events compete for and consume ... (link to section)
 * Can link Mental events: ..., the fundamental and limited resource is mental attention. Mental events compete for and consume attention. In a polytropic mind, ma... (link to section)
 * Can link white matter: ...to be modular. With the aid of (fMRI), it was seen that white matter which connects various areas of the brain like cables, have... (link to section)
 * Can link Online community: ... to autism. * WrongPlanet.net: Online community and resource for those with Asperger's Syndrome ... (link to section)
 * Can link Developmental Disorder: ...h autism) * Unraveling the Mystery of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorder : A Mother's Story of Research and Recovery, by Karyn Serou... (link to section)
 * Can link Simon & Schuster: ... of Research and Recovery, by Karyn Seroussi. Published by Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0684831643 (Apparent cure through early diagnosis, da... (link to section)
 * Can link case studies: ...hos" about subclinical autism, autistic traits, and various case studies of people with different degrees of autism.... (link to section)
 * In Education voucher, can backlink autism: ...ong" religion or ethnicity, those with disabilities such as autism or multiple sclerosis, and those with disciplinary problems...
 * In 1957, can backlink autism: ...r * April 5 - Ivan Corea, Sri Lankan autism campaigner...
 * In 2002, can backlink autism: ... 9]] - Linda Perham MP initiates her historic debate on autism in the Palace of Westminster in Autism Awareness Year i...
 * In Feral child, can backlink autism: ...red Genie and thought that she was 6 or 7 years old and had autism . When it was revealed that she was actually 13 going on 14,...
 * In Metallothionein, can backlink autism: ...n dysfunction is prevalent among individuals throughout the autism spectrum (classical autism, Asperger's, PDD-NOS, etc.) The...
 * In Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, can backlink autism: ...wbacks in the form of "Closed Shell Syndrome" or cyberbrain autism and "Cyberbrain Sclerosis". This technology is in many ways...
 * In Bayswater North, Victoria, can backlink Autism: ...ry Bell]].
 * In List of fictional diseases, can backlink autism: ...he Stand]] * Cyberbrain Closed Shell Syndrome - a type of autism caused by cyberbrain implants, [[Ghost in the Shell: Stan...
 * In The-dot, can backlink Autism: ...de ranging as whether or not there's a link between MMR and Autism ; whether incest is a matter of taste or morality; and who'd...
 * In Tim Harrod, can backlink Autism: ...obably the result of Asperger's syndrome- a milder form of Autism marked by obsession with minuscule topics and a difficulty ...
 * In Lorna Wing, can backlink Autism: ...ntal Disorders, 9, pp. 11-29. Wing, L. (1980). Childhood Autism and Social Class: a Question of Selection?, British Journ...
 * In Cure Autism Now, can backlink autism: ...is an organization dedicated to finding a possible cure for autism and funds a lot of research (such as genetic research) to t...
 * In Stanley Greenspan, can backlink Autism: ...se to the needs of the increasing population diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders, who were then being either served by be...

Montealer: why was the blurb about institutional damage being mistaken for autism symptoms (or the gravity level of such symptoms) being taken out? It's clearly part of the clinical picture for autistics who were never treated before adulthood - especially light cases of autism with heavy institutional damage.

Shouldn't there be some kind of page and link on the subject of institutional damage somewhere in the autism article??? Or at least a mention of the subject, which is obviously lacking now?

If entire sections are deleted without comments why, of course the article will never improve or catch up with new facts. Where would someone put a potential section of the article so it can be discussed?

Autistic Savants
Is it just me or does this section seem speculative to anyone else: "many autistic people are not savants, and savants make up 10% of the autistic population (but only 1% of the non-autistic population)." It seems to me that there is no scientific way to determine a "savant" and that it is really a bunch of pop-psychological nonsense. I would like to see someone provide a scientific source on this claim. Until then, I've removed the statement. --Dæmon 20:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Childhood Autism article
I'm in the process of merging the Childhood autism article with autism. There's really no need for a separate article on autism in childhood; that makes as much sense as separate articles for, say, childhood leukemia. I tried to redirect a couple of days ago, and someone reverted it in less than an hour. As far as I can tell, most of the content of the Childhood Autism article is either already stated in the main article or doesn't really fit in Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I've posted the content of Childhood Autism as a subset of this talk page, in case anyone thinks something in it belongs in the main article or can somehow be incorporated into it. As far as I see, there's really no place in Wikipedia for things like the annotated bibliography, but it might be useful on another wiki. The only things I've added to the main article are a few links and the image at the top. (This article seems a bit image-poor as is; I think having an image of an autistic person at the introduction is a good "orientation.") --Szyslak 11:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bernard Rimland
I think Dr. Rimland should probably be in a linked separate article. I have read some of his work and heard him speak locally. I would characterize him as a brilliant man who does useful work. However, he came to a point in his discussion in which he finished speaking about research and cases and shifted to his ideas about toxic origins of autism. The paradigm shift was palpable, and seemed to move from objective to very subjective. My own impression from my study and experience with autistic children and young adults, including my autistic child (and possibly to a lesser degree, myself) indicates that if toxic exposure or vaccines are a factor, they are only one factor and, in many cases, no factor at all. Cecropia 18:56, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Rimland makes a lot of claims regarding dental amalgam which is certainly a controversial material, but there is no medical study in existence saying mercury causes autism(it MAY however be present in concentrations different from the rest of the population, same as autistics wear more glasses but glasses don't cause autism or bad sight). And if mercury/metals did cause autism, removing mercury/metals CERTAINLY WON'T make the missing brain structures mentionned in scientific american magically appear at normal size and cause cure within a year after mercury removal.

Except for the Scientific American article about Thalidomide http://www.unc.edu/~cory/autism-info/orgautsa.html (the one with the two missing brain stem structures in all autistics and the psychological test about inability to disengage from stimulus), there is no proof of the toxic origin of autism. There is however the possibility that autistics accumulate more heavy metals than normals do, because they're already autistic, but without the toxic metals being the cause of autism. (i.e. Amy Holmes' test on hair of autistics and matched controls show a 19-to-1 difference; it seems autistics can't excrete mercury thru hair). This has been badly under-researched because it doesn't imply a cure for autism if we get rid of the heavy metal poisoning(despite Amy Holmes' own claims) - only a cure for metal poisoning, which should be stated as such because it is a worthy goal itself.

Three points are worth making about mercury:

1: A peer-reviewed video showing live SNAIL neurons killed by mercury can be found here: http://www.iaomt.org/ and mercury levels known to exist in the brain of autopsied alzheimer can do this exact kind of damage. This site has a high level of "showmanship" and unproven autism theories but the one key point of each video like "amalgam does release lots of mercury from amalgam despite dentist claims" is a point that can't be denied because the vapors are VISIBLE IN REAL TIME using the proper equipment.

[edited to explain "LD"]

2: "The effects of Mercury and Lead combined have also been reported. One study showed that when a lethal dose (LD1 - kills 1% of rats) of Mercury was combined with 1/20 LD1 of Lead (5% of what it takes to kill 1% of rats), the combination of the two resulted in a LD100 (killing 100% of the rats). This has not been investigated in human subjects but it is clearly reasonable to assume the possibility of similar effects in amalgam-bearing humans." http://www.kinesiology.nu/hdentistry/amalgams.html

must I point out that "safe" levels of mercury and "safe" levels of lead are what is claimed to be released by amalgams and sergenti-method root canals respectively, and that amalgam manufacturers MSDS sheets claim 4 amalgams is the max an adult with none of the counterindications should ever have? Ever heard a dentist quote the manufacturer's counterindication for more than 4 amalgam to you before putting a 5th in your mouth, or ask if you've ever been lead poisonned?

3: "$120 MILLION, 6 YEAR U.S. GOVERNMENT HEALTH SURVEY CONFIRMS AMALGAM DENTAL FILLINGS (50% MERCURY) ARE A POISON, AT MORE THAN 4 FILLINGS IN A PATIENT" http://www.vimy-dentistry.com/nhanesscreening.htm

The main point about vaccine mercury and amalgam is that it has NEVER given a proof of safety like other dental/medical products did, and that studies claiming it is highly toxic number in the hundreds and are spawned over 160 years and all continents. The original dental surgeon society banned amalgam in 1840 http://www.drwolfe.com/html/Mercury-Fillings.html (historics link) but the ADA prevailed because the material is cheaper. So enough about mercury/amalgam. What about the mercury-autism link?

This is an article by the new scientist http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993842 about the Amy Holmes study and second mercury-hair-autism study. Keep in mind that the extremely low mercury content of autistic hair does not strictly prove that mercury is not excreted correctly; it merely proves that it is probable and should be researched. It would also gives a diagnosis tool for autism if there was many replication studies who use the exact same tests. However with the phasing out of mercury from vaccines(seemingly delayed by the mysterious addition to the homeland security act of a lawsuit immunity article http://www.ewire.com/display.cfm/Wire_ID/1425 - this was too odd to not mention), replicating this study exactly will not be possible.

The 1985 study that seems to contradict Amy Holmes about mercury in autistic hair is here. It is a different study with different tests, and fails to see any mercury connection. Perhaps Amy Holmes was biased, perhaps both studies are biased, and maybe they are both right because they use different tests/methodology and something might be learned from the discrepancy. More research is needed... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=4009700

And going back to Dr. Rimland, his methods of curing metal poisoning will fail to cure autism because autistic without any mercury at all are still autistic - the two missing structures of the brain stem are still missing. It will however cure metal poisoning when it is present(which may be a medical trait associated with autism diagnosis or not; this is largely irrelevant because all truly proven metal poisonings cases should be treated in all of the population. If only there was a was to detect mercury levels in living humans... there isn't right now).

Dr. Rimland sould stop claiming a cure for autism so he might gain some credibility in the scientific communauty(some of his other work is very respectable)...

Aversives and ABA
[this is a reaction to horror stories, without knowledge of the actual text of the Lovaas ABA study or of the controversial background of Lovaas. It however has some interesting points]

I have to strongly protest the frightening material included in the discussion of ABA. What these people have encountered is, at best, quackery. Such extreme aversives have never been used in competent Lovaas-inspired ABA programs. ABA programs are, to date, the 'only' scientifically tested program shown to significantly remediate autism in severe cases.

The horror story cited is a mystery to me:


 * Our son was a very loving and trusting little boy. He was joyful, easy going, and only cried if he got a significant bump from falling. We felt very fortunate since our son was mildly autistic, has a little language, and especially because he was never violent or aggressive or anxiety-ridden. He loved meeting people and we referred to him as an "extrovert."

So how in the world did he get a diagnosis of autism? Autistic Disorder and Asperger's Syndrome are heavy-duty diagnoses that are not readily given. Did an MD (preferably an experienced psychiatrist or neurologist) make this diagnosis? What impelled the parents to seek or approve a course of treatment such as ABA, which is typically used in severe cases? More:


 * "We are now victims of a nationally-known and high visibility ABA program provider. The ABA trainers sent to our home appeared very competent. They had supervisory responsibilities. They trained others within their organization. But over the course of a year's treatment they deprived our son of needed developmental experiences. This treatment culminated when they destroyed his emotional and psychological health in a 25 minute intervention involving forced restraint and yelling while he cried and attempted to free himself. Our gentle son was very skillfully and purposefully pushed into unbearable and unmanageable anxiety.

If this happened, they were taken in by quacks. That is not ABA. The worst aversives typically used (especially in recent years as experience was gained) is verbal disapproval and withdrawal of privileges, and then for short periods. Forced restraint? Barring a child suddenly acting out in a way dangerous to himself or others, there is never restraint in an appropriate program. It seems to me that a criminal investigation would be warranted if these charges are true, not a fear of ABA.

Since we realized our younger daughter had a problem when she didn't speak at the age of two, in the days when ABA was in its therapeutic infancy, my wife and I have been actively engaged in the study and advocacy, up close and personal, of issues involving autistic and otherly-abled children. I have known quite a few people on the autistic spectrum (yes, it is a spectrum) from early childhood to adult.

Our child seemed normal, even advanced, until 18 months, when she regressed. She stopped her attempts to speak, she resisted being touched or held, she couldn't be distracted from her repetitive play unless you literally got in her face. She stimmed (hand-flapping, etc) and was a virtual textbook example of Kanner autism (supposedly the low-functioning kind). Her very first therapy, in a pre-school district-run special ed program, seemed pointless to the point of cruelty--(mind you, she was not restrained or hurt physically in any way). A teacher sat with her at a table. My kid stared into space. The teacher picked up her hand and said "Judy, take ball." The teacher put her hand on the ball, moved Judy's hand to a box and said "Judy, put in" and dropped the ball in the box. All this time, my child stared into space. At the end, she got a little food reward, or got time to play with a favored toy.

I didn't see the point of all this. The program had to end after just three weeks (summer break) but I had to admit "Judy" (not her real name) showed marked improvement. The next year we put her in a program at a beautiful learning center. The teachers were bright, young, enthusiastic, and nice. They refused to accept that there was an autism issue with Judy. My wife and I were invited to watch (from behind a one-way mirror) any time. And they never forced Judy to do anything. When she withdrew to a corner of the room during social play, they let her. If she cried when she was supposed to have speech therapy, they skipped it. Short story, in one year in the program she advanced maybe six months. I should say she probably advanced more than that but regressed toward the end of the program.

The next year we returned to the public school system, where we were fortunate to have a district whose special ed department had a high interest in disabled children in general and PDD/Asperger's/autism in particular. The head of special ed had been watching Judy and recommended her for ABA at the cooperative (county ed department) center. The program was operated and staffed according to ABA principles, with trained teachers and aides, and a staff psychologist.

Bottom line: Judy did not speak at the age of 4. At the age of 5 she had enough cognition to be given a special IQ test for children with learning disabilities and scored a 48. My wife came home in tears. But Judy progressed from ABA 1-1 to ABA group; then to an advanced group which emphasized educational skills more, than to a sheltered learning group in a local school district where she spent some time with mainstream children in specially chosen classes. Now (age 11--sixth grade) she is in junior high, all fully-mainstreamed classes with regular teachers and no aide (save two subjects--due to be mainstreamed in those too). Her last measured IQ on standard tests is 124. She just made honor roll. She is above grade level in everything.

Judy is still autistic. Her formal diagnosis is "autistic disorder," not the supposedly higher-functioning "Asperger's." She is not "cured". She will probably never be "cured," as that word is understood. But she is succeeding in learning to live in a world with other people. We enjoyed a special breakthrough just this past week. She was to give a book report in front of her class for 10 minutes. She made a board with pictures on it to illustrate her talk. She spoke with minor notes for the ten minutes and her teacher says the other kids loved it. If you happen to be the proud owner of an autistic kid, you know what an achievement that is.

[the author assumes autistic children cannot progress without treatment, so ABA 'worked' in cases without strong aversives. The orthodox ABA with milder or no punishment is scientifically proven to fail by Lovaas himself, so maybe ABA isn't what 'works' here]

The moral is: ABA works. It doesn't work for everyone. Some children progress only so far. Many children continue to progress, but not as successfully as Judy. And some children are not candidates at all. But you, the parent, have to do the heavy decision-making. If something seems not right to you, ask about it. If it still seems not right, pull your kid out of that program, pronto. Be especially suspicious of home-based programs, unless you have no other choice. It is worth it to put your child on a bus for up to two hours each way (we have) for a known competent center-based program, if you must, than to have a jerk "conveniently" in your home.

IOW, if you (heaven forbid) have a horrible disease, and you go to a faith heeler who tells you he uses "all the latest methods" and you're not cured, don't blame competent medicine because you didn't recognize a charlatan. Cecropia

So if ABA succeeds, it's because of the ABA method. And if it fails, it's because of the therapist. Hmmmm this assumes ABA works beforehand! It also assumes ABA without aversives claiming to be scientificly proven to work is not charlatanism (it goes directly against Lovaas' own ABA study).

We're not gonna be able to see the other person's NPOV if we stick to our own POV to the point of not reading the Lovaas' study and trusting it to align with our POV.

Montrealer 23:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your point. The ABA I've seen (and I've seen it used on several dozen young children) does NOT use strong aversives. So where is the argument it fails because of the lack of strong aversives? As to your statement "So if ABA succeeds, it's because of the ABA method. And if it fails, it's because of the therapist." I would agree with that statement IF we append: "...or ABA was not appropriate for the specific case, given that autistics seem to have such a large variation in potential functioning." -- Cecropia | Talk 03:29, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The most important point I made about when ABA does not use strong aversives(which is most of the time these days) was on the autism page yesterday - but the entire ABA controversy has been deleted end-to-end from the autism page.

_orthodox_ ABA without aversives has scientifically been proven to fail by Lovaas' own study, which was doing a study-within-the-study to find out if strong aversives were necessary to _orthodox_ ABA to work. People claiming scientific proof and practicing _orthodox_ ABA without aversives in order to please the authorities (like some courts in Canada) are using to a method scientifically proven to fail (ABA without aversives) under pretention of scientifically proven to work(orthodox ABA).

_orthodox_ ABA _with strong aversives_ has been proven to succeed in the same study, but uses strong aversives that are unusable today under today's law or ethics (hair pulling, electroshocks, etc). This is still used in some countries, and the reference I gave(a 2002 study with electroshocks) was deleted too. I had seeked milder references, but the word 'electroshocks' pops up everywhere. The best I can do is quote someone else than Lovaas because Lovaas used lots of other strong aversives in his study other than electroshocks; quoting the full list of aversives in the Lovaas study brings a stronger emotional reaction in readers than reading about electroshocks alone, and greater risk to be deleted completely again and again.

_non-orthodox_ ABA without strong aversives may work, but what makes it work isn't the ABA part that is scientifically proven. Therefore it is intellectually dishonest for most of today's ABA professionals to claim that what they do is scientifically proven to work. Not being scientifically proven does not mean it doesn't work; many of those methods work but shouldn't be labeled ABA to please autorities (some of Canada's courts come to mind - they made ABA mandatory). _non-orthodox_ ABA has many flavors and varieties, from full fledged courses to the one-hour-course ABA certificate you can get in Montreal. Most new ABA varieties have little or nothing to do with the original ABA, and their success rate varies.

The long explanations about every detail was maybe too long and the last few paragraphs were POV, but the first 3 points shouldn't be deleted from the autism page under _autism controversies_ - they are 100% based on Lovaas' own study and publications. If we're not able to put autism controversies under the title "autism controversies" of the autism page(which tries to be about autism more than about controversies), maybe the autism controversies part should have their own page and be linked.

The historic part about Lovaas' work of "reeducating gender disorders" such as homosexuality with electroshocks is real and fully verifiable, but I won't put it under autism controversies again. Maybe someone can put it under Lovaas historics or homosexual discrimination(two pages I'm not gonna edit).

The full (POV, but with all the completely verifiable scientific references about Lovaas) argument is at: http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_aba.html

And it's a shocker! (pun intended).

Montrealer 15:46, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I'm not able to respond more fully right now, but some of this is a mystery to me, in terms of current reality. I have seen the development of a pioneering ABA program in the cooperative extension of the public school system in New York and maybe the state oversight has made all the difference. Remediation of problem behavior was almost universal. By problem behavior I don't mean the behaviors that adult HFAs exhibit (mainly social issues) but the usual: lack of speech, stimming, echolalia, other repetitive behaviors, and so on. The point is there were no physical aversives whatever. The law here (in all school settings) prohbits physical punishment and unnecessary restraint. "Necessary" restraint is only ad hoc as needed to prevent imminent hard by the child to himself or others. The methods (which I and other willing parents were mildly trained in) was what I would characterize as "training a dog." Please don't go bananas over that comparison. I know we're not dogs. By the comparison I mean that the early training is repetitive instruction in blocks, ending with a reward, which may be playing with a favored toy or "points" toward a better prize later. Aversives are limited to disapproval or demerits, up to failure to get a privilege. Effective? As I said, almost universal improvement. In perhaps a third of cases moving on to a non-ABA supervised setting and partial to complete mainstreaming.


 * ''If you read carefully I have never claimed NEW ABA as practiced today to fail. I have only claimed that they knowingly claim scientific proof from the OLD ABA, for their new programs who have the OLD ABA active ingredient removed(the scientifically proven to work part removed). NEW ABA doesn't have any solid scientific proofs because its success is independant from the OLD ABA and the old active ingredient(strong aversives) - the method is so different that it would deserve another name if not for the respectability advantage of whoever names his new method 'ABA'. Despite lack of scientific proof of course it has been known to work in many cases! The ABA-proof claim however blinds and misleads governments, legislatures, and parents. And for lack of electroshocks today, didn't I list a year 2002 pubmed study on electroshocks used in autistics? It's still being done in some places. -Montrealer


 * But I have to ask, where are these horror stories you're describing being practiced? Shock therapy? Where? Sanctioned by whom?


 * ''Didn't I give a reference to a pubmed scientific study with electroshocks used on autistics instead of a tear-jerking list of horror stories as told by the POV volunteers? This is as NPOV as I think I can get. Any mention of what happened occured would bring the two opposite POV situation on every detail and solve nothing; I will therefore not disclose horror stories in wiki when all I needed to say is electroshocks are still being used in some places. And believe me they work too, just as the Lovaas study proved! -Montrealer


 * I have to believe from my perspective, that a lot of parents are being taken in by undertrained entrepreneurs who represent themselves as qualified professionals. In fact, I know of such a case where the parent would not allow her child into the public program, preferring a "professional" who came to her home. The results were really bad, but the methods not so bad as any being described here. There has to be some way to weed out the voodoo without making people fearful of competent programs.


 * ''That's a side-effect of bad science. If the NEW ABA had a scientific study done, and the active ingredients of the NEW ABA were all pointed out and weighted scientifically, it would be possible to have good NEW ABA everywhere and have standardized tests to know if someone used scientifically proven NEW ABA or not. But today we live with the outright lie that the various non-aversive ABA flavors are practicing what comes from scientific proof from Lovaas' study. The illusion that all NEW ABA flavors are the same or have the same active ingredients is also a persistent illusion; many of them are actually different methods who just took the ABA name out of superficial similarity and opportunism(both for quackery and methods that worked well even before being labeled ABA). -Montrealer


 * As to the material moved here, I believe it needs to be edited down for brevity, plain coherence and NPOV and then it could be restored when it's "ready for prime time." This could be done by putting it on its own subpage, with all interested editors working on it, and then restoring it when consensus is established. There are other ways too, but what do you think? -- Cecropia | Talk 06:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-

I think we should put everything controversial in the talk page of "autism controversies", and a very short stub in the "autism controversy" pages itself. The "autism" page would grow to unacceptable size if all or any controversies remained it it. What do you think we should call the new page?

As an hyperlexic asperger autistic myself, editing for the best brievety is beyond my ability. Weak theory of mind prevents me from seeing POV apparence where phrases are ambiguous and the other meaning counter-intuitive to me is POV. This usually prevents me from seeing POV apparence when pointed out, I have to rely on other people for that and take their word for it(hoping they're fair to both keep NPOV and edit POV). So I expect a lots of trimming in my material I will never understand and I know it's necessary - the voicing of concerns by an autistic is often plagued down by such communication problems regardless of the level of intelligence.

Each controversy in autism should have its own page, as a list of links to each from the autism page under the controversy. This will certainly please people who want basic information on autism rather than on treatments, therapists, quacks, or controversies.

And besides the current controversies in autism section claim cruelty for holding therapy(it is, believe me) and deaths caused from quack therapy. Shouldn't it give some references somewhere for cruelty and the death(s)? And wouldn't a full discussion of extreme disconfort experienced from human-type holding and the trend of inflicting non-autistic culture on autistics in full disregard of the symptoms be complex enough to get its own page, or be listed under quackery rather than autism? I think every autism controversies will eventually have to get their own page; keeping them under just "autism" would make "autism" not brief at all.

-Montrealer

(could someone explain why whenever I log in and edit here I am logged out when I click save page?)


 * hyperlexic asperger autistic


 * How self-indulgent. You're just making excuses for yourself. First of all, drop the psychobabble ("hyperlexic"). Second, "theory" "of" "mind" (which is bullshit) has nothing to do with NPOV in any way. Your NPOV suffers because you lack writing skills, not some theory of "mind".


 * the voicing of concerns by an autistic is often plagued down by such communication problems regardless of the level of intelligence


 * Gee, I understand it just fine.


 * By the way, any time I'm hanging around in the "autism community" and I see any words contaning "lex" or "prax", I feel like smashing my head through my CRT.


 * (For reference, I'm an 18-yr-old aspie.) --DylanL 16:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * "lexic" is hardly psychobabble. It'd probably be slightly more accurate to say "hyperlexical", but that's nitpicking. The concept of being "very word-oriented" is a perfectly-meaningful one.
 * Oh, and "theory of mind" isn't bullshit at all, and asserting so is bullshit itself. It's a classic term meaning "understanding of the motivations of others". Y'know, something we Aspies and Autists stereotypically have problems with? Thsgrn 03:48, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

User 195.167.169.36 Changes
Hi, anonymous user 195.167.169.36,

Thanks for making some interesting and useful changes to the Autism article. I hope you won't take it amiss if I suggest a few things: Just a couple on comments on the substance of your edits: As to the MMR issue, the frightening thing is that a number of parents are turning against vaccinations for fear of having an autistic child. On the evidence available so far, this could become a serious health issue for everyone. And on the issue of autism not being curable--I fully agree, but I'm not sure it is an issue of a "brain defect" in many cases, but rather a common personality trait taken to an extreme. We try to remediate people's problematic personality traits in many ways, but we usually don't expect a medical "cure" for shyness, or anger. Cecropia 13:11, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) When adding substantial material that some might consider an opinion (and so much of autism research is necessarily opinion) it's always useful, and reinforces your material, to make citations if possible, as well as some direct quotes.
 * 2) Please be careful on reformatting--you removed some dashes, and the words ran together. Use the SHOW PREVIEW function to see what your changes are going to look like before you SAVE PAGE.
 * And, since you like to write on substantive issues, you might want to consider signing up with a USERNAME: it is easier to follow your edits and also for you to participate in the community. Just my two cents. :)

While I understand that the "puzzle pieces" ribbon is supposed to be a sign that our autism is a part of us and cannot be "cured" or eradicated without destroying the individual, I wonder about its appropriateness on this page -- at least, without a bit of explanation. It's not widely used -- I've only seen it in a small group of autistics -- and very likely to be misunderstood unless one is in the know. As a matter of fact, when I first saw it, I assumed it had to do with curing autism -- as in "solving the puzzle of autism". My thoughts immediately flew to the autistics.org slogan "I am a person, not a puzzle". A few words of explanation would suffice.

Concerning Lovaas and the ABA: Lovaas is interviewed in Rolling Stone magazine for July 8, 1979 in a lengthy article on autism. The child in the CIBRA letter was slightly "developmentally delayed" which is considered by some doctors to be on the autistic spectrum a la Pervasive Developmental Disorder. The program has undoubtedly changed over the years. The "aversive NO" which sounds like a howitzer and is guaranteed to overwhelm an autistic child is, perhaps, a thing of the past, like the once-common aversive shocks.

However, I don't doubt the CIBRA stories for a minute. Just because a gentle, structured behaviorist program properly handled can train an autistic child to simulate social norms -- I worked with severely retarded autistics in exactly such a program -- doesn't mean that there aren't people who abuse the system and the children, either with the best "for their own good" intentions, or simply for pleasure.

--Bluejay Young 11:40, 10 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Responding to my own comment; I have just heard from Amanda Baggs of autistics.org, who knows the family in the CIBRA article. She confirms that the family are quite real, and that the abuse in the story really took place. She knows several other autistic people who went through the same or similar "training", including some who were indoctrinated by what she terms prominent people, I assume Lovaas himself among others.

--Bluejay Young 05:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

About the last statement in Adults with an autism spectrum disorder
''In the United States, the public schools' responsibility for providing services ends when the person with ASD reaches the age of 22. The family is then faced with the challenge of finding living arrangements and employment to match the particular needs of their adult child, as well as the programs and facilities that can provide support services to achieve these goals.''

I was just wondering if that is really a true statement. I don't mean to be a questioning snitch, I just want to know. JB82 00:10, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

That's partially true. The public school system no longer is responsible for the autistic person, but depending on their level of functioning, they are eligible for Social Security or SSI disability, planned living and so on. Extra services would depend on their state of residence, and, of course, they are still covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. -- Cecropia | Talk 00:19, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I want to thank the author of the changes to the "Communication Difficulties" section. It describes the differences between the languages of autistics and neuro-typical persons without making either seem normal or abnormal. In my experience, the statements about autistics being able to understand one another is true. I can generally understand the eye and hand expressions of my autistic friends even if I use a different sign to mean the same thing. --Bluejay Young 22:16, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

"Autie"?
Is this an appropriate label? Just removed it from a paragraph cause it seemed callous in usage, even if it wasn't perjorative. -iluvcapra


 * It came into widespread use by autistics after Donna Williams ("Nobody Nowhere") used it in several of her books, notably Like colour to the blind. I don't think of it as pejorative or callous nor does my partner, but we'd need to get a bigger polling sample. --Bluejay Young July 5, 2005 07:19 (UTC)

Applied Behaviour Analysis
This section seems to have multiple POVs, and be somewhat self-contradictory and contentious. Much copyediting is needed. -- Karada 21:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll tell the world. The sheer amount of information in that section is overwhelming. Something has got to be done to distill that down to essentials. --Bluejay Young 05:24, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the below -- the "controversies in autism section" is slanted, wholly unsourced, and entirely inappropriate even for a discussion of controversial matters. It's about as far from "netural" as you can get, and, as the following poster states, is little more than one person's rant against their misperception of current techniques for treating autism. It needs to be completely rewritten, and in the meantime I definitely think that it should be deleted (if such a thing is possible or appropriate for Wikipedia; I'm new here). Geoff.green 14:06, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've moved this section here for discussion. For one thing, it is not properly developed--it contains side notes and internal queries which are supposed to be resolved before an item is posted. Secondly, it is mistitled: it is not about Applied Behaviour Analysis. It does not describes current methods, nor does it do much but set up a straw man of what the writer argues ABA is, then knocks it down in the most POV fashion. It slanders parents, competent ABA practitioners and everyone else the writer perceives disagrees with him/her, all on the basis of a definition of ABA the writer himself puts forth. As a parent of a child with autism and a borderline autistic myself, there is so much disinformation in this article as to require, to put it mildly, a lot of editing and even more citation. Only one source is cited for this entire rant. The section is below:

I find it extremely useful to actually hear from somebody who has experienced Applied Behavior Analysis and can actually speak some truth, and this pertains to the paragraph above. I have worked with children with autism for the past four years and the main method used throughout the school that I taught at was Applied Behavior Analysis. So I have to say, every single one of my experiences working with Applied Behavior Analysis and autistic children have been positive with the progression of their behavior and their developing. The saying goes "Two each his own" and every child has his or her own way of learning, developing and processing however, I can bet that anybody who has worked with Applied Behavior Analysis and has seen an individual case where a child has been positively effected might reconsider their criticisms of this method.

Applied Behaviour Analysis
The cause and historics of one such treatment, Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), has been analysed in Michele Dawson's "The Misbehavior of Behaviourists" http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_aba.html A key feature of this site is the academic-level proof that ABA was constructed from the earlier model of "correcting" homosexuality with electroshocks as a means of making non-homosexuals comfortable. This proof comes from Lovaas' own works no less, including his orthodox-christian values as justification. Dawson goes on to show that strong aversives are the inherent effective ingredient of ABA; that the opportunity to use strong aversives is directly related to the job satisfaction of the professional who uses it on the autistic (not necessarily out of sadism; therapists like successes better than failures); that ABA doesn't only address the dysfunctional side of autism but also enforces social norms so that non-autistics feel better around autistics in the stated goal to remove/hide autism entirely. This position has been softened by ABA in discourse, but not in always in their actions).

Autistics who are capable of written or spoken communication have often argued that the strong aversives used to punish breaking of a social rule are unethical and barbaric, especially in cases of "soft" rules that don't relate to things illegal or are widely tolerated in non-autistics; for example, non-autistics are frequently given more lenience concerning the same rule(especially when very subtle nuance is missed by the autistic for reasons of cultural traits they cannot absorb). Arbitrary culture-centric rules are also frowned upon; some autistics have left a job rather than wear a tie, because of either they're not coordinated enough to put one on or because they find the physical inconfort intolerable. The tie situation has been seen as purely hypocritical in programmer-type jobs, since very few people (let alone end users) will actually be there to notice if the autistic is wearing a tie or not(and whether it is misaligned, etc). Some employees with Asperger syndrome have been known to specify in their work contract the right not to make eye contact with the employer(eye contact is a cue of honesty in western culture) or the right not to conform to a dress code - this has been known along with other oddball demands(reasonnable or not) that occasionally pop up in Silicon Valley. In some other cultures like asia the eye contact cultural requirement is shorter so it's easier on autistics; but the dress code may be almost totally mandatory and can lead to being fired when the boss changes to a more traditional individual.

Autistics who communicate have also expressed speculation that if ABA is so effective, perhaps it should be used to treat school bullies. Bullies have long been perceived as having a de-facto 'right' and 'duty' to torment the autistic (NOT the old idea that peer pressure can force children to behave in a neurotypical manner, but the idea that the bully needs to bully and show an image of not caring for the suffering of others to maintain his own 'tough' status to himself and his gang. The monetary gain in the practices of 'taxing' and later drug dealing withing a college also requires a 'tough' image which demands frequent proof of willingness and ability to beat people up when they displease the bully). Bullies don't like to be perceived as weak, and are be bullied themselves if they stopped their aggressive actions(by former victims forming gangs and ambitious bullies seeking superiority to the average bully). This concept is similar to ABA, training bullies to be more bullying(and more aligned with their gang) with strong aversives - the bullies have an early 'training' that will influence their adult life. The usual advice offered to autistics by adults, often intended to help the victim become harder to hurt (e.g., why didn't you strike first? Form your own gang! Fight back! Seek teacher help!) are as completely unadapted as the blaming of the autistic for the incidents (Why do you provoke them? Why did you obey such a silly suggestion from a bully? Why did you let them beat you and not do something about it? Why are you not looking me in the eye like a honest American when you speak of important things?) Authorities tend to categorize whoever has the highest number of incidents as being the source of the problem. Since school directors have so little time and so little reliable facts, they tend to work "statistically" and discard the occasional fact as not typical of the whole whenever large number of child point at a single innocent on a regular basis. The poor social performance of autistics in unprepared social situations prevents any elegant, concise, non cultural values shocking, mysterious symptom enlightening, articulate explaining in front of the director. Understanding by the director of the situation may occur if parents of the autistic are involved. But in some cases(especially large schools) the directors will realise it is much easier to tolerate the violence of some dozens of bullies on very few autistic daily than it is to protect all autistics in the school and have the bullies strike more randomly, resulting in 10% of angry parents where 1% of angry parents was present for the same total number bullies and bullying incidents(usually thought to be a mostly unsolvable problem and even a necessary learning experience in the traditional american view). In this respect some directors are acting out of accountant mentality seeking the greatest number of happy/quiet parents, while others have heavy prejudices regarding marginals in general or autistics in peculiar.

The problem most poorly understood by parents is incidents that are knowingly the fault of the autistic; the autistic will not avoid frequent punishment if he stop causing incidents willingly because of the flood of blame he gets from incidents where he's innocent. The autistic might react by developing a strong sense of ethics and honesty as a compensation for feelings of inferiority (very common - dysfunctional where white lies are the social rule), or if he doesn't he will completely lack 'training' in not willingly causing incidents.

As for whether high school punishment should be changed when dealing with autistics, this question remains controversial among autistics themselves except when punishment is judged too strong for anyone(such as physical punishment, illegal in some countries and encouraged in others). Punishment type however should be changed, since situations that would be punishment for a neurotypical might be delightful for an autistic, and vice versa. and a nice picnic as a reward might act as a punishment if it goes against the autistic's need for predictability of routine, if wind/double meaning overload/sunlight/eye contact inconfort forces the autistic to 'space out', or if the picnic is associated with a reward for say some great school success but there isn't a similar picnic for the next identical great school success (easily avoided by making rewards and punishment very predictable well in advance). Teachers should ask parents what works and what doesn't - and many teachers totally fail to do that, claiming it would be controversial for the school to act differently because one child is autistic! (especially true of situations where the punishment used on autistics is considered neutral or a reward by normal children; this also gives bullies an excuse which is tolerated or even encouraged by some teachers)

ABA also lacks the "why". The "bad choice equals punishment" equation does not address the why this is a social rule, how relatively important it is to other social rules it might interfer with, and how it works in the mind of others. "Scope" too, is missing from ABA; autistics often fail to generalize that behaviors learned in one situation to other situation like other children do, or fail to avoid overgeneralization. ABA assumes 'why' and 'scope' to be completely beyond the comprehension of the autistic. Sadly, this is true of deeply affected Kanner autistics who will never learn from a candy/electroshock if not given mere seconds after it is earned (very much like certain dog training programs). It is however not true for all autistics, particularly Asperger autistics or those who are simply a bit "developmentally delayed". ABA fails to take advantage of a partial 'theory of mind', of 'willingness to learn by example', of 'tendency to follow well-detailed predictable rules because predictability is felt as an inherent reward', of 'building upon the tendency to evolve a strong sense of ethics independant of punishment/reward', of 'state the social rules as they exist, not the white lie version which weakens theory of mind', or even 'This social rule is not so important enough, because following it would cause you severy sensory pain. But to look as normal as you can try this instead'. Using those new tactics relegates ABA to a small corner of the therapy, and whoever has success this way is not using the scientifically proven ABA method, as mandated by some Canada courts who made it mandatory for the state to give ABA. Not being strictly inside the 'scientifically proven ABA' is uncomfortable to some authorities who aren't sufficiently in touch with the facts or simply know doing the right thing risk not having a steady subvention; autistics have never been allowed true self-representation, and therapists tend to follow orders, peer pressure of other therapists, and whatever is most likely to renew their subventions, whatever the parent with a newly diagnosed child has read in the newspapers and now asks for, scientific studies as superficially described by current ABA superficial crash-courses (there are one-hour formations in Canada right now).

It is not surprising that autistic adults feel outraged by 'orthodox' ABA and that their cooperation can only be obtained by using punishment strong enough to make homosexuals give up all their subcultural traits and reject homosexuality! (as used historically inflicted on homosexual non-autistics by Lovaas himself). ABA itself makes no distinction of what should be enforced with strong aversives, what shouldn't be enforced with strong aversives, and what is a grey area. Therapists have historically drifted toward more and more punitions because they wanted results, or because it improves their job satisfaction(for reasons unspecified in the study on job satisfaction -- sadism may not be the motive, but the complete lack of industry watchdogs makes ABA very easy to abuse).

One example of ABA's perfectly valid, peer-reviewed science is listed in the PUBMED medical index; this is a study that asks which electroshock pattern is the most painful. This is a year 2002 article, and despite ABA's denial of punishment as necessary the research oriented toward finding maximum punishment possible is useful in areas like prevention of automutilation in Kanner autistics. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12365852

Ethical questions may rise in the use of electroshocks in this study, but no data has been faked and nothing has been misrepresented so it is technically sound - but is never presented to the public by ABA professionals anymore because of fear of reject of ABA without strong aversives.

The scientific proof of ABA working within its original use of strong aversives exists, but ABA is also scientifically proved to fail with milder or no aversives by Lovaas' own study and assertions. Today's ABA professionals have a choice of using strong aversives in order to remain within the limits of scientific proof(and getting immediate results in many cases), not use strong aversives but remain otherwise within ABA limits and therefore act in a way scientifically proven to fail, or introduce new active ingredients in ABA that do not need ABA in order to get good results(doing the right thing, but under the wrong method name because ABA has court sanction and respectability).

The general public is usually ignorant of these distinctions and the view presented to them is that there is one ABA(not many), it's scientifically proven and court mendated in some cases, it has been claimed to make half of autistics indistinguishable from normals in some scientific study by a man named Lovaas, and the vast majority of newspapers rarely if ever mentionned a controversy of any kind. No wonder the general public thinks ABA should be implemented!

People who think autistics should behave like neurotypicals and that punishment is a worthwhile method should reflect on this. The very 'humanity' they value so much would take as much punishment to take away, turning them into people socially undistinguishable from true autistics, than it takes to turn an autistic into someone socially undistinguishable from a neurotypical! The devastation felt by the hypothetical 'autistized' person would be equal to the devastation of autistics who have their true personalities shredded away day by day in an aversive ABA program. Given the importance of what is lost in a "sucessful" ABA process, it's no wonder ABA is only effective in direct proportion with the strength of the aversives. Many independantly-living autistics think human right violations occur within some of the flavors of ABA, and a few realise that without the punishment ABA is misrepresented as proven.

As for how far the punishment an unethical behavior of an autism institution can go (ABA or otherwise), read The Standford Prison Experiment. Consider that these autism treatments have been going on for decades without watchdogs. Many autistics are much easier to manipulate than neurotypical prisoners. Even the most capable autistics aren't allowed to be present in the decision-making process even as silent witness. Very ordinary random individuals use punishment without therapeutic goals for their personal enjoyment if allowed to, and the Standford study showed that no one was willing to stop them (one third of the "guards" in the experiment went way out of line). Consider what Standford reveals about what human nature becomes when left unchecked. Then think: should some of the independantly-living, self-supporting, mild-mannered high-functionning autistics be allowed to serve as watchdog? Would it help prevent SOME abuse? Why isn't this allowed?

[this next paragraph needs NPOVing]

Many autism organisations could be renamed as "society for the well being of autistic parents at the expense of the autistic, using methods typical of dictatorships up to the limit allowed by law, under pretense of helping and representing the autistics". The worst and the best examples are found in how an autism society deals with fully independent, communicating autistics, making them a valuable ressource, yes-man 'zombies', or blacklisting them from reunions altogether. [The author of this part of the article is such a blacklisted individual as is his closest friend. The token autistic spokesperson is forced to report on our activities to the heads of the autism society if he wants to keep his technician job outside the autism society because his boss is part of his autism society!]  This situation is not unique; it exists in at least three autism societies in the same area.

[hmmm... this isn't ABA. What should I name the new category?]

As for those traditional social skills courses, some high-functioning/aspergers are far more competent in understanding social interactions than autism academics are (as explicitely stated by many psychiatrists). That doesn't translate into better social skills, much like someone made blind can understand road signs perfectly but will never look at them when walking to the grocery store a few blocks away. That behavior seems as strange as autism for the same reason; the observer doesn't know where the disability is. Because of this incompetent social skill courses are little more than glorified baby sitting in some cases(repeating books autistic could easily have read and understood), and used as cheap babysitting by many parents when it's less expensive than regular babysitting...  very practical feedback by the few autistics who are of better academic competence in autism than a regular academic is being ignored by professionals and this is a problem. Good autism-specific social skill courses are rare(especially at the highest-functionning levels; low and high level courses must have similarities but can't be the same). If you find a good course please wikipedia that treasure!

One key autism institution controversy: "if prisonners, the blind, the insane, and the mentally retarded can have a few watchdogs - especially watchdogs chosen among themselves - to help prevent abuses, why can't autistics have them? And why all the snitching?"

This page appears to contain a large amount of content which either was copied or has been copied by websites that do not credit Wikipedia - I can't really tell which. To name a few:

http://www.tourettesyndrome.net/asd_nimh3.htm http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/autism.cfm http://counsellingresource.com/distress/autistic/autism-nimh-1.html

They all refer to a document called Autism Spectrum Disorders (Pervasive Developmental Disorders), which apparently was published by the NIH in 2004. Is it possible large portions of this document were copied into this page? Or was this popular document was constructed using this page?

Can anyone explain what's going on for sure? Deco 07:50, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Important
Ive been working lots on the autism page with some friends, not long ago we branched a topic reguarding its controversies to its own page, a page I personally am quite proud off. Well werve done it again, and this time werve included the aspergers page, all werve done is branch the stuff on comorbid conditions into a seperate shared page, here. Thank you all, and have a great day. memzy

Cause of autistics improving
This paragraph was added:


 * Prognosis statistics are usually vague and subjective (the diagnostic sub-categories help only to point out more light cases are diagnosed that before), but apparent improvement in the prognosis partly lies in the fact autistics are no longer institutionalized for life automatically with a prediction of being doomed; absence of heavy Institutional Damage rather than new miracle treatments might be the reason for the seemingly new phenomenon of autistics who improve - sometimes to the point of seeming normal in every way at work or in college.

Though this may be true in some cases, ABA (let's not use the hype term "miracle cure") has been shown to be effective in some cases (and I've personally seen this). The paragraph is too dismissive of treatment. At the very least, we need a citation to back up this view, and it needs a bit of NPOV. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ANWSER: ABA seems to work. But some autistics improve by leaps and bounds by themselves, and nobody much less them can explain it either. So how does ABA differentiate from the placebo or a non-treatment since spontaneous improvement is not impossible?

To get founding and costumers, hyped claim of being doomed without treatment immediately came from many ABA organisations, and wasn't corrected by other ABA organisations. That's because ABA is a super-rapid growth business right now and some total opportunists will stretch the truth. The hype phenomenon isn't a proof ABA doesn't work, by the way.

Of course today's ABA might work (there are so little standardisation, some of it might work great while some of it doesn't work at all). But for me to tolerate the wild claims about ABA for ALL OF ABA they would at least need to standardize it so Montreal's ABA is the same as New York's ABA (which isn't the case currently). Pockets of sheer incompetence frequently mix with islets of open-minded competence inside regional organisations, and the only commonality is that ABA is a punish and/or reward system where the consequence is quickly delivered after the action causing it.

A method with scientific claims needs to do better than that, stop relying for publicity on results produced once with elements no longer allowed by law or ethics and now non-reproductible because of lack of those elements (which is in part what the judge said when stopping the funding). ABA without wild claims or misused statistics deserves funding in my opinion, at least as much as the other treatments. It's better than no treatment attempts at all (see point 13 of the Auton decision).

I have no claim ABA doesn't work at all. Just deflating the hype so that parents don't get the wrong idea that autistics CAN'T IMPROVE AT ALL without some kind of treatment, leading to abandonment and lifetime institutionalisation. I've seen people quite capable of mounting two PCs a day and configuring them end up at institutions for the severely mentally retarded and it has shocked me to no end. ABA isn't the cause of this. The hype and stereotypes emanating from some ABA members is.

My true POV is the anti-institutional damage "crusade", and any of my other POV that prevents progression of this will be silenced as soon as I see it. I went thru 3 complete rewrites and some friendly advice before I posted to tone it down. I'm not a good judge of whether I succeeded or not. I let wikipedians be the judges.

I also let wikipedians be the judge of Michelle Dawson, who single-handedly resulted in the end of funding when what was needed was the end of the hype and "doomed" stereotype. I guess the hype couldn't be reduced without stopping the funding, but I'm still having mixed feelings.

I'll stop before it becomes a blog. Your turn. (-;

You: Ditto on previous. This page needs normalization.

Me: "normalization"? Is that in the FAQ somewhere?


 * At this point I'm beginning to wonder why we are using the term "improve" for autistics who begin behaving in a more neurotypical (alright, I'll find another word) fashion. --Bluejay Young 05:17, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Wow!! Autism Explained in 99% of Cases!!!!
I heavily modified this line: "Susan Bryson has proven autistics have a much smaller brain stem in 99% of autism cases"

Really? Proven? 99%? Where's the published claim? Where's the research document? The only evidence I can find for anything close to this claim is right here in this Wikipedia article and in [www.thedoctorslounge.net|this website] which is uncredited mirror of Wikipedia. It stands to reason that if 99% of autistics displayed such a striking anamoly, it would be part of the diagnostic. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What a load of #£%$!. I Agree. There is no proof what so ever and this article is terrible. It is totaly wrong and needs wipeing and starting again. I have aspergers syndrome (a form of autism) and im disgusted that it portrays autism it such a bad way.

Difference between ASD and PDD
The article states that Rett Syndrome and Childhood Disintegrative Disorder are part of ASD. However, according to http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/7/4/310 (Advances in Psychiatric Treatment (2001) 7: 310-318, Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of Asperger syndrome, Michael Fitzgerald and Aiden Corvin), although they are classified as PDD, "Neither Rett disorder nor childhood disintegrative disorder are part of the autistic spectrum, and they are unlikely to represent sources of diagnostic confusion."

That was my first impulse too. But I did a quick google search and foung that NIMH is distributing a brochure on ASDs that lists both Rett and CDD as "rare autism spectrum disorders." http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:kN8LZDLx4n8J:counsellingresource.com/distress/autistic/autism-nimh-1.html+is+rett+part+of+the+autistic+spectrum%3F&hl=en

Recommend removing the word neurotypical
I looked in Merriam-Webster and couldn't find it. It's nothing but a derogatory Autistic-Pride buzzword that regards regular Human behavior as "Typical" as compared to "Normal". It's an attempt to distinguish themselves as not having a disorder. - 68.95.165.105 18:40, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Neologisms are a fact of life. "Neurotypical" attempts to characterise typical or expected behavior as opposed to autistic or nontypical. Unless you think the scientific term "typical" is pejorative, there is nothing derogatory about this. However, my problem with "neurotypical" is that not a lot of people are familiar with the term yet and might be put off by it for that reason so I always say "non-autistic". --Bluejay Young 01:39, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the word should be removed. It's certainly jargon, if not necessarily pejorative. Why are non-autistic people "neurotypical"? Are people with schizophrenia or Down's Syndrome "neurotypical"? It makes no sense and is far too loaded for an article like this. - BeringStrait 15:54, Feb 28, 2005

This section doesn't sound exactly NPOV:

'''The body language of autistics is uniquely designed for other autistics, and therefore can be difficult for neurotypicals to understand. Facial expressions, movements, and gestures are appropriate for and easily understood by other autistics, but do not match those used by neurotypicals.'''

Who designed this body language to be easily understood by other autistics? Is there research to back this up? If this is indeed the case, there should be some theories that try to explain why this is the case, as it'd be a rather mysterious phenomenon.. Martijn Faassen 11:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed some wording in this section. The quote you pointed out is problematic because it implies that the autistic and non-autistic minds are "designed" in some way. Let's not get into theology here - let's simply say that some autistic people and non-autistic people communicate in different ways. These several paragraphs are making a value judgment - they imply in several places that there should be a burden on non-autistic people to learn to communicate with and understand autistic people. In two places, the paragraph claims that neurotypicals "refuse" to learn to communicate with autistic people. This is taken further, to say that neurotypicals should be blamed for depression and anxiety in autistics.
 * It would be good for non-autistic people to learn more about autism. But unfortunately, the paragraphs of the "communication difficulties" section tend towards wishful thinking. Those who have worked with children with developmental disorders will agree that many children with autism do not socialize with other children, including those with autism. The text of this article gives the impression that autistics are all able to communicate with each other. This impression is inaccurate. If this is what people believe, it should be cited. Rhobite 19:34, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that improved it. I still have my doubts with this one though: While waiting for neurotypicals to learn to communicate with them, autistics do whatever they can to get through to them. It doesn't seem to be beyond debate that autistics exhibit certain behavior (such as 'grabbing what they want') to get through to anyone, i.e. that this urge to communicate about it actually exists in the first place. While the "autistic person wants to communicate, but is incapable" is one theory, another theory is "autistic person is less aware of this being rude". The article shouldn't have sentences which imply one of these theories is correct just like that. The section still sounds somewhat ideologically motivated; it tries to explain rude behavior by offering a politically correct explanatory theory ("You'd be like that too if you tried to communicate, but you're too subtle, so nobody understands you!"). While I certainly believe this theory should have a place in the article, it shouldn't be left implicit. Martijn Faassen 23:54, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. This is a sensitive topic so I'm trying to be careful editing, but this passage seems like more wishful thinking. Rhobite 20:58, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

'aspies'
''Aspies with statistical skills have claimed that Andrew Wakefield was, and still is, severely incompetent in statistics and failed to recognize the extreme bias of his sample among other obvious flaws. Wakefield's nonscientific study and its continuing circulation in autism societies is sometimes depicted by the media as a "proof" no autism-vaccine connection exists and "it's 100% hype", a position that wasn't proven either (even if most cases are not MMR or vaccine related).''

I do not think 'aspies with statistical skills' should be quoted in an encyclopedia.. The nickname 'aspies' also doesn't sound very encyclopediac. Martijn Faassen 12:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also notice 'aspies' with neurological skill and neurobiological skills show up in the article. I think it's not NPOV to mark the origins of these theories. People with Asperger's syndrome will likely be better informed about the phenomenon than others, but that doesn't mean their scientific ideas are somehow more (or less) valid. Martijn Faassen 18:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course specific origins of theories should be marked. It's just that 'aspies with neurological skill' sounds simultaneously too in-crowd and specific and on the other hand is entirely vague. In this form it sounds like "Trekkies with fictional skill state that Dr. Bumblebee's criticism Star Trek as literature is wholly unfounded." Martijn Faassen 00:07, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Late diagnosis and confusion with other conditions
I am sorry the article seems at present to lack any discussion of late diagnosis (eg in adulthood) and of possible diagnostic confusion with other conditions. Laurel Bush 12:11, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Delusional language
The language of the article strikes me as generally that of collective licentiate delusion, as represented by a bible called DSM. It (the language) seems to embody the delusion that if a diagnosis is listed in the bible then a it represents necessarily a definitive natural phenomenon rather than a socio-medical construct or hypothesis. . I presume invention of the diagnosis is a result of case studies and I would like to see in the “History” section some detail about the cases that first attracted the diagnosis, and about how these cases were labelled prior to invention of  autism. Laurel Bush 16:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Autism epidemic
There is a new article on the recent rise in autism diagnoses at autism epidemic. Comment and contributions by knowledgeable editors from this page are welcomed and encouraged. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)