Talk:Autism therapies/Archive 1

Gold Salts
It seems to me this is quite lengthy for a treatment that has only rarely been used.. perhaps we could cut down the details and quotes a little and move them to their own article (then add a "for more details see...")? I didn't want to do this without discussing it first, given that this section has obviously been written with a lot of care. Opinions? Sparkleyone 04:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea, but the content has repeatedly been removed from the new gold salts article itself, with similar justifications. Given that gold salts have been a backwater of medical treatment for decades, apparently replaced for the most part by allopathic drugs such as methotrexate, it seems rather ridiculous that strident efforts are being made to downplay the current intrigue by removing content from the article where it belongs, despite the fact that the heyday for the use of gold salts for other purposes may have reached its zenith nearly a century ago.  Trimming the reference in this article makes far more sense, given that a great deal of emphasis, upon a wide range of desperately needed interventions, have generated more interest, thus far, than gold salts.  Ombudsman 04:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The content is much more consise presented at gold salts, and I think at the moment is somewhat to short. That is different from being removed. --KimvdLinde 05:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

At first, the entire section was being removed, now there is an overly truncated 'effects on autism' section that has replaced the brief aside elsewhere in the article that previously was offered as a substitute. The current lead for the abbreviated section, where the name of a journalist, Dan Olmsted, comes first, needs a rewrite that addresses the science first. It is good to see additional editors involved, in order to keep the focus on reaching a compromise on content, rather than constant distractions caused by wholesale deletions. Ombudsman 08:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Could we please limit our discussions to the current version, and leave the history for what it it. The curent version at gold salts is somewhat truncated in my opinion, but the focus is diffeent there than here. --KimvdLinde 12:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, let me apologise for commenting on something that has obviously been widely discussed elsewhere. It's a tricky one this, because while I can see this section's place over at Gold salts I can also see it here, just not at the level of detail currently described. Please do not read too much into this, but I think it should be cut down here because whilst it may have potential as a treatment it is not currently being used on a regular basis as the others are, therefore should not be discussed as extensively. My other concern is that the section is dominated by quotes that the reader can clearly see for themselves if they go to the linked article. Anyway, this is my suggestion for the gold salt section in this article, obviously linked, properly edited and so forth.


 * ''Gold salts have been suggested as a treatment for individuals afflicted by autistic spectrum disorders, because mercury and gold interact in a way that could de-activate ongoing toxic effects of heavy metal poisoning, thought by some to be a major factor in the increase in autism rates in recent decades. Boyd Haley, a University of Kentucky professor and leading proponent of the mercury-autism theory, has suggested that it may reverse conditions attributed to mercury administration, as the gold molecules bond with the mercury molecules and in turn may detach the mercury from the enzyme it is attached to.


 * The salts are administered by way of injection. The treatment was given to the first child diagnosed with autism at the Campbell Clinic in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1947, and reports suggest that the child’s symptoms improved significantly. The treatment is not in widespread use, but research continues into the effects of gold salts in animals bred to be susceptible to thimerosol, a mercury-based compound that was used in many vaccinations until recently.


 * Sparkleyone 07:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (I have made you suggestion italic as to distingish it from ordinary comments.) The major problem with the piece as it is now (at the article), is that there is to much speculation, hypothesis etc, based on some anecdotal (yet important) information. So, I think it needs to reflect what we do know, and limits on the speculation. And the reporting should be factual. So, start with the anecdotal story, then move to the general idea (there is no need to discuss the whole mercury-vaccination-controversy), then current research and finally caution (Crucial to mention, you do not want tons of people demanding gold salt treatment because they have read something about it here!)....
 * ''Gold salts have come recently in focus as a potential treatment for authism when Dan Olmsted reported on an autistic patient who was treated for arthritis using gold salts. Together with the clearing up of the arthritis, the "extreme nervousness" and excitability that had afflicted him cleared up as well, according to his brother.
 * ''Boyd Haley, a University of Kentucky professor and leading proponent of the mercury-autism hypothesis, has suggested that gold salts may reverse conditions attributed to mercury administration in the form of thimerosal that was used as a preservative in vaccinations untill recently. Currently, Dr. Mady Hornig of Columbia University is testing gold salts on mice specially bred to be susceptible to thimerosal. However, Haley cautions " [p] lease note that I am not recommending using gold salts to treat autistics, but it would certainly be worth a project if carefully monitored by a physician in a good clinic".
 * Just my 0.02 euro cents --KimvdLinde 12:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Methotrexate
Methotrexate: allopathic; Gold salts not?

Methotrexate has been used for some time by conventional doctors to reduce immune activity in Rheumatoid arthritis

Gold salts have been used for some time by conventional doctors to reduce immune activity in Rheumatoid arthritis

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but the only differences here seem to be that nobody at all has yet suggested that Methotrexate might improve autism (has any autistic person had methotrexate I wonder?) whereas one case report suggests improvement in one patient after one gold salt. I think the definition of allopathic in regard of drugs may need a bit more work there. Midgley 13:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well by the reasoning suggested by some of the contributors, of course methotrexate should be effective in improving autism given the undoubted efficacy of gold salts. The only reason why it hasn't been used is that, of course, there's a medical-political conspiracy to suppress its benefits!  Andrew73 13:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, do you suggest to include methotrexate also as a potential treatment of authism? KimvdLinde
 * No, I was just being sarcastic! Andrew73 13:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind the fact that Wakefield treats his autistic enterocolitis patients with mercaptopurine. JFW | T@lk  22:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of information
Ombudsman removed well-sourced information (URL to an article by James R. Laidler) in favour of his unsourced POV. JFW | T@lk  14:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And again. JFW | T@lk  21:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

ABA
"Some claim Lovaas' ABA methods were the first scientifically validated therapy for autism"

WP:Weasel. Was there a claim of a previous sc. val. Rx? Are there claims beyond the rest of that para that ABA is sc. val.? Who claims it? Needs recasting. Midgley 13:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else think that a couple anecdotal "ABA horror stories" from parents are not appropriate sources for this article? Rhobite 14:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ABA horror stories are inappropriate. Incidences of malpractioners shouldn't be used to indict a scientifically validated therapy. Bbrazy

The fact that the diet was created and named for autisim needs further research. It's a diet for those with Celiac disease, and it's the only treatment for it. Autism is also directly related to celiac. Anytime, a gluten free diet is talked about regardless of what use, it needs full research. This was very incomplete information. Rocky79 03:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with biomedical intervention for autism
A recent Australian study categorized early interventions as behavioral, developmental, combined, and a few other categories I can't remember now. Biomedical interventions seem to be only a small part of what is available so to merge these doesn't seem warranted. One example of these categories is at:http://www.autism-help.org/early-intervention-aspergers-autism.htm Quihn 07:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I discovered Biomedical intervention for autism. That article basically has the same information as the Biomedical intervention section in this article. A merge would be to prefer.

The question then arrises if the biomedical section of this article should be moved to the other article, or if the additional information in the other article should be brought here and the other article then would be changed to a redirect?

Thoughts? --Rdos 06:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Latter I would say - if this article is to cover 'autism therapies' it needs to have the biomedical stuff here. Sparkleyone 08:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What I actually meant was that if you make Biomedical intervention for autism the main article on this subject, this article should be renamed to Behavioral intervention for autism or something similar. --Rdos 11:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the merge...there is much overlap between the two articles. Perhaps biomedical and behavioral intervention could both be incorporated into the same article. Andrew73 12:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The merge is critical there is too much redundency and on the other article there is too little information on drug therapy which this article has. I third the motion of merger.

Well i too i'm in favor of a merge--Pixel ;-) 19:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Categories and sub-headings need to be reorganised
I suggest that the autism therapies can be categorised as follows: behavioral; sensory; educational/developmental; biomedical/dietary; pharmaceutical. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sojmed (talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

No therapy ,not a disorder view
I reverted the above section because it is written very badly. There are no sources - who holds this view? - and it describes therapy as "racism". People with Autism are not a race. Please clean up the section before you put it back in. ... disco spinster talk  14:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there a case for removing section 4.1 Autism is not a disorder? It seems to be wholly inappropriate to this article. User:Sojmed 19 Oct 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree; there's little in that section about autism therapies, and the material seems more appropriate for Controversies in autism. Eubulides 02:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
I am marking the "Non-coercive approaches" section of this article as having questionable neutrality. The section tries to shoot down each of the non-coercive approaches by saying that they "have been criticized", that it "gives false hope to parents", or both. This section sounds critical of each non-coercive approach mentioned within it.

Personally, I am appalled by the first sentence of the "Non-coercive approaches" section:
 * "The autism rights movement has been criticized for promoting 'doing nothing' about autism."

What does this sentence have to do with non-coercive approaches?! Also, the sentence assumes that the reader knows the values of the autistic rights movement.

The "Non-coercive approaches" section should simply list and describe non-coercive approaches, and then state their pros and cons--without opinion or bias. Just let the facts speak for themselves, and this section will be much more encyclopedic. --Voidxor 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Non-coercive approaches" section of the article has been improved considerably. Unless I see any objections posted here, I will remove the neutrality tag in a week. Thanks to those who revised the wording. --Voidxor 03:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My objection is to the inclusion of "Non-coercive approaches" as a seperate header. What does it refer to? I can find no references to non-coercive approaches to autism on internet except in the context of criticism of ABA. User:Sojmed 13 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree; that section title should go. Some of its subsections are no more "non-coercive" than some of the therapies mentioned elsewhere. The simplest fix is to flatten the hierarchy. Some of the content of the section lead is worth keeping, though; the bit about social skills training. Eubulides 04:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I find the text about 'promoting the development' more worthwhile, while the piece on social skills seems randomly dropped into the lead, as if 'social skills intervention' encompasses all of the 'non-coercive' approach. It may be difficult to integrate into the article as it is now, the current (single) hierarchy with it's separation into behavioral and biomedical treatments does not lend itself for the inclusion of any other approach. --Fenke 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am beginning to wonder if the entire article tends to a POV, because it appears to reflect on treatments as if autism is something that can be viewed separately from the autistic person. --Fenke 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Biomed section suggestions
I think the biomed section should be more clear on the fact that no double-blind studies exist on any of the treatments currently listed. This is important with something like autism, because it's a developmental delay, not a developmental halt. Perhaps it should list Secretin, with a discussion of existing double-blind studies, and claims about recovery rates prior to those studies. The section is also missing the Ketogenic diet, L-carnosine, and Omega-3 supplementation (the latter 2 do have one unreplicated double-blind study each). Neurodivergent 23:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging
I think that the Biomed section could be reduced to a synopsis of the biomed article and any additional information here transferred there. As for merging the entire article, clearly this article on therapies covers much more material in different areas and the merge would mean placing a lot of peripheral material in the biomed article. So no, not a wholly constructive idea. Malangthon 02:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me hear your voice
I removed a big chunk of a paragraph from the page, that basically came across as a plug for Bridget Taylor to my eyes. I left in the Let me hear your voice 'cause I'm happy to include it (surprised there's not an article already), it was a good book and I believe one of the first discussing autism. Incidentally, the editor who added the paragraph wholesale really seems like a sockpuppet] for [[User:Squeaky2, apologies if I'm wrong. Anyway, I took out most of the rest of the paragraph, here's the gist and here's why: Previously, the research documenting the effectiveness of this approach had been little disseminated outside of academia and a handful of center based school programs.
 * needs a citation

The lead therapist of the children was Bridget Taylor, one of the country's most renowned ABA professionals.
 * This addition is questionable, and appears to be a way of avoiding the orphan tag on that page. I'd never heard of her before, and when I worked in ABA I'd never heard of her during my training.  The whole page seems like a vanity addition to me too.

Both children are considered to be indistinguishable from their peers.
 * I'd like to see a citation for this, at least a reference to a page number in LMHYV.

Thoughts? Am I over-reacting? WLU 01:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Newest EL
What do people think of this EL:
 * ABA Resources for Recovery from Autism/PDD/Hyperlexia - Information on behavioral intervention (ABA)

Though it does look like it has a ton of possible references, it's not a professional site. Looking at WP:EL, in the "Links normally to be avoided" section, #11 says no personal webpages, and though this is a fairly comprehensive site, it is still one guy's. WLU 16:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Gluten-free, casein-free diet
The GFCF diet section has a single citation, to a Defeat Autism Now conference, with 15 participants in one stream, and an unidentified number of matched partners participants in a second. I think the contents are a bit of a stretch considering the single citation, which isn't reported in a reliable source as far as I'm concerned. WLU 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that section had two citations, one to the DAN conference, the other to a refereed journal review. The latter suffices, so I removed the earlier and redid the text to match the latter. Eubulides 18:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are emerging studies supporting the findings of gastrointestinal illness in children with autism, in which case, diet is not as far-fetched as this article might lead one to believe. Some diet studies, besides the small Knivsberg study (which did find cognitive improvements - read the abstract), are also worth mentioning. I will include some of these with references. There's a fine line between skepticism and closed-mindedness, arrogance and curiosity - let's be fair. Most parents aren't as stupid as some doctors make them out to be. Speace 07:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Recent reviews by reliable sources (Christison & Ivany 2006, Angley et al. 2007) agree with the article's summary about the effectiveness of diet treatments. These sources are cited in the article. If there are other reliable reviews with different opinions, by all means let's see them. Please WP:MEDRS for what constitutes a reliable source in medical articles. Eubulides 22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Patterning
I think it is important to qualify the statement about patterning..."it was found in a study that"...or something to that effect...just stating that "The therapy is based on oversimplified theories and is not supported by carefully designed research studies" does not seem neutral, imho...Perhaps if it were to read "Research indicates that patterning is based on oversimplified theories and remains unsupported by carefully designed empirical studies" -- or something like that?Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * NPOV doesn't mean that Wikipedia must present all possible views; it means merely that Wikipedia must represent fairly and (as much as possible) without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources; see WP:NPOV. For patterning, we do have a reliable source (the American Academy of Pediatrics) for what's in the article; I don't know of any reliable source that disagrees, but if so we should include it and mention both sides. The text should be about autism therapies, not about the controversies about or researchers of autism therapies (that's for other articles); we should not preface every cited sentence with a phrase like "studies have shown". Eubulides (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't found a reliable source that disagrees either. The AAP are quite unequivocal their opposition, and have been since 1968. The IAHP article has more room to expand on the controversy, which is why I think this section should link to it. IMO, you should try to insert "outmoded" or equivalent, into the description (as used by the source). It is not just over-simplified; it is wrong, and has been known to be wrong for decades. Colin°Talk 17:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that -- what if we broke the article into 'Approved/Supported treatments, unsupported treatments, and outmoded treatmensts' or something to that effect? I'm not sure what 'Parent Mediated..' is -- when i first saw it, I assumed it was treatments in which Parents did the treating...which Patterning would fall into, as well as some of other the educational interventions, I think. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a good idea. It isn't always a black & white issue. There are many good medical therapies, protocols or conventions that actually have very little evidence to support them (I'm not talking about autism here; it's not my subject). Drawing a line forces a pro/anti mainstream battle for territory. The separation is similar to having a "Criticism" section in an article, which is discouraged (a quick search found this essay but I haven't read it, only remember seeing such advice a while back). The IAHP article has a Criticism section; I'm not proud of it :-). Colin°Talk 19:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Individual vs group differences
This change weakened the discussion of the Magiati et al. 2007 study by mentioning that there were significant differences among the individuals in the study. But that's true for every such study, even of ineffective therapies: some children do better, some don't, and some might even do worse. The change also created a sentence with two "however"s in it, which is hard to parse. I don't get the point of the change, so for now I'm reverting it; perhaps someone can explain why a change is needed here so that we can get the text improved. Eubulides (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I included that because the abstract mentioned the large difference in progress...indicating that it may not have been treatment differences, but rather that the IQ and language level differences may have as much to do with it as the 'treatment procedures' Here is a quote from the abstract: "However, there were large individual differences in progress, with intake IQ and language level best predicting overall progress."Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The body of the paper makes it clear that the Early Intensive Behavioural Interventions (EIBI) group started with a significantly higher IQ than the nursery group (which used an eclectic approach). The point about individual differences is that the most important predictors for improvement, for both groups, were IQ and verbal abilities at intake. This point doesn't affect the main conclusion of the study, which is that both groups had comparable outcomes. Eubulides (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ahh -- I couldn't get access to the main body, so only went by the abstract...thanksJosh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Insurance coverage of autism therapies
Where would be a good place to discuss medical insurance coverage of various autism therapies? Is there another article that discusses this topic? --Pesco (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest a new section called Economics, just before Autism therapies . The last paragraph of the lead is a summary of the sorts of things that should be in that section. Eubulides (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I agree with you that Autism therapies is odd. It makes good points, but it seems a bit out of place. Eubulides (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Economics section sounds good. I think I will also propose a similar section in the Applied behavior analysis article.  Of course, the scope of the economics section in this article would be greater because it would address various therapy types.  --Pesco (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Cannabis?
In my opinion this has no place in this article. The source is speculative at best and there is nothing of value that this one sentence brings to this article. There are millions of speculative, unresearched treatments and interventions that are thought to maybe, almost, perhaps help with autism. These don't need to be here and neither does this. I don't think it is nearly notable enough to be included in this article. I haven't looked for one but if there is a Wikipedia Page regarding medical applications of THC then include this there. Otherwise, leave it out of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.97.49 (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but doesn't the same point apply to several of the other therapies described in this article? The scientific evidence for hyperbaric oxygen therapy, prosthetics, and neurofeedback (to take three examples) is no stronger than that for cannabis, so if cannabis is removed shouldn't the other three be removed too? Another way to put it is: where should we draw the line and why? Eubulides (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports verifiability, not truth. If the therapy (more accurately a conjecture) is reported in a reliable source, then it's appropriate for the page depending on number of sources available and the degree of coverage it gets.  I'd say a single sentence is appropriate pending another source to shout it down or expand.  WLU (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit strayed from sources
This edit introduced some changes that introduced weasel words or strayed from sources: I made this change to attempt to address these problems. Eubulides (talk) 03:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It changed "there is no good evidence" to "the evidence … is not considered good by some researchers". The cited source (Rogers & Ozonoff 2005, ) does not suggest that there is any conflict on this issue by mainstream researchers; there is no reason to weaken the text by saying "some researchers".
 * It changed "have a questionable rationale and no empirical evidence" to "have rationale that has been questioned, and lack empirical evidence". The cited source (Baranek 2002, ) says "Some of the treatments reviewed (e.g., sensorimotor handling) provide a questionable rationale for their use with children with autism and have no empirical evidence to evaluate their efficacy with this population." This supports the original wording; no reason was given to weaken it.
 * It changed "; these treatments include prism lenses, physical exercise, auditory integration training, and sensory stimulation techniques such as "deep pressure"—firm touch pressure applied either manually or via an apparatus such as a hug machine or pressure garments" to ". These treatments include prism lenses, physical exercise, auditory integration training, and sensory stimulation techniques. Firm pressure (deep pressure touch stimulation) is used for calming as well as stimulation, and can be applied manually or mechanically using devices such as a hug machine or a pressure garment." This loses the point that firm pressure is one of the techniques for which few conclusions can be drawn due to methological problems with its studies. Also, it creates a red link.


 * This followup edit again strayed from the sources. The source says that autism "has three main characteristics: repetitive behaviours, problems verbalising and a lack of wanting to socialise". This is a reasonably accurate summary of autism's core deficits, which are symptoms, not internal mechanism. The edit misreads this to imply that the core symptoms are "neurological deficits"; this is inaccurate. I should mention that the source, the Jamaica Gleaner, is not that reliable by WP:MEDRS standards, although it does get this fact right. For now I reverted the edit. Material in Autism therapies should accurately summarize reliable sources as per WP:MEDRS. Eubulides (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits with spaces etc.
This set of edits had many good changes, but also some problems: I installed this edit to try to address the above issues. Eubulides (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It inserted spaces unnecessarily, which caused the diff listings to contain unnecessary changes. Let's stick with the style where sentences end with a single space after the period, for consistency. This doesn't affect what the article page looks like.
 * In the lead, the source talks about the child's needs, not about the individual's needs.
 * No need to wikilink to Autism spectrum when we earlier wikilink to autism spectrum disorder, an alias.
 * Cited source does not support the claim that intervention by age two to three years is crucial is "widespread".
 * It's overkill to spell out ASD as "autism spectrum" or "autism spectrum disorder" so often. It should be established as an acronym early, and then used consistently.
 * "Neurological impairments" is not a core symptom of autism.
 * The source that says that treatment approaches lack empirical support in quality-of-life contexts did not restrict this comment to alternative treatments.
 * "help... to facilitate" is redundant.
 * Stick with "American" style quotes rather than converting to 'British'.
 * The source says the epidemiological evidence is strong.
 * No source for "possible harm to research subjects".
 * Source does not say "when performed incorrectly"; in one of the cases it's not clear that it was performed incorrectly.
 * Bishop source is not about affective computing.
 * Pervasive Developmental Portal is duplicative of pervasive developmental disorders and is not well maintained.
 * The See also section is not that useful. There are dozens of autism therapy organizations and no particular reason to mention DAN here, above all the others. Orthomolecular psychiatry can be mentioned in the main text, which I've done.
 * The terminology is "consequents", not "consequences".
 * There's no source for the hippotherapy paragraph.
 * No source for the controversy and enterocolitis claim.

Recent edits promoting DAN!
This edit by User:Ombudsman dated 2008-09-21 added a See also section containing a wikilink to Defeat Autism Now! (DAN!). As mentioned in, there are dozens of autism research organizations and no particular reason to mention DAN! here, above all the others. In line with that discussion I removed the wikilink.

User:Ombudsman has reinserted it twice since, once with a log message "restore Defeat Autism Now!, the preferred alternative among parents of children afflicted by autism, majority of whom recognize vaccine injury treatment is needed", and once with a log message "restore DAN! link - the DAN! protocol is far more efficacious than ridiculously pov vaccine injury denialist therapies; e.g, central to best seller [[Mother Warriors]er]". Neither of these comments are supported by reliable sources.

Autism therapies and Autism therapies  already cover the therapeutic aspects of the DAN! protocol (chelation and special diets), and it is inappropriate here to add a blurb about this particular organization. This article is about autism therapies, not about research organizations, and this is not the right place to promote one, or even dozens, of such organizations.

Therefore, for now I have reverted the addition. I suggest that controversial changes like this one be discussed on the talk page first. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Vaccine injury denialism, cloaked in wordplay, is not an excuse for removing a link to the most well respected and efficacious treatment avenue available. It is an absurd notion that the autism therapies article should avoid reference to the most highly regarded and widely known treatment strategies for the core symptoms of neurological inflammation and autistic enterocolitis.  The subject is about therapies, and DAN! is hardly just an organizational umbrella, as the disinformation above posits, but is also the consensus approach arrived at with input from hundreds of leading treatment providers and used by tens of thousands of families for vaccine injury treatment.  As well, the article's egregiously biased slant toward inefficacious and poisonous psychotropic drug and coercive behavioral 'therapies' present serious pov violations. Ombudsman (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * DAN is a fringe group of alternative medicine doctors and other therapists who offer unproven and disproven methods to gullible and desperate parents. Promotion of fringe groups deserves very little coverage here. Period. -- Fyslee / talk 14:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's certainly not the case that DAN! represents "the consensus approach". Theories about vaccine injuries and autistic enterocolitis lack scientific support and can fairly be said to fall in the WP:FRINGE category. Eubulides (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New systematic review of ABI
PubMed reports the following source, but it isn't out yet on the publisher's website. It might be worth a look once it comes out.

Eubulides (talk) 06:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Prepilot study
I would like to mention this interesting prepilot study --Trèspacifique (talk) 14:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but I don't think it makes the cut here. It's not a scientific study, it's a very small sample size, it's not just about autism (it also studied ADHD), and it mixed several treatment methods so it's not clear that it has anything to say about any particular therapy. Since it's neither fish nor fowl, let's wait for it to be reviewed; it's not notable enough to override the advice in WP:MEDRS to prefer reviews to primary studies. Eubulides (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

and this study?  ...''Numerous studies have reported that supplemental nutrients such as omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, zinc, magnesium, and phytochemicals may provide moderate benefits to autism/ADHD patients. Avoidance of food allergens, food chemicals, and chelation therapy may also provide some relief to autism/ADHD patients''--Trèspacifique (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read that review. It is a companion paper to the prepilot study, and is essentially a long "previous-work" section from that study, separated out into a separate paper. The body of the review lists studies, one by one, with what they say, with no discussion except for the following two sentences from the review's conclusion: "Both autism and ADHD appear to involve a broad range of genetic, prenatal, social, developmental, nutritional, and environmental factors, and it is unlikely that only 1 single cause will be found for either disorder. Multiple treatment modalities are probably needed to treat patients with autism and/or ADHD and may include nutritional, environmental, pharmacologic, and psychosocial interventions." So I'm afraid that the abstract of the review is not an accurate summary of what the review actually says, which is not a good sign. The review is of ADHD as well as autism, and we have much better reviews focusing on autism, reviews which we should continue to use instead of this one. Eubulides (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Research section problems
Until a few hours ago the Research section contained this text:
 * Approximately twelve research studies are published each week on autism therapies. Three major barriers inhibit transfer of this information from the laboratory to the child:
 * Treatment providers do not routinely turn to treatments that have been validated scientifically.
 * A large minority of patients (actually parents of patients) resist therapies that have been scientifically validated.
 * Even scientifically validated therapies are not universally effective.

citing Bodfish 2004. I just now checked that source, and don't see it supporting the cited claims. Someone else removed the 2nd bullet, but the whole thrust of the source doesn't really agree with the 1st bullet either, and the 3rd bullet (which it does agree with) is not that great a summary of the source. The simplest fix for this mess is to remove the section in question, which I just now did. Perhaps something like it could be resurrected, but we need reliable sources for it. Eubulides (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for attending to that. I'd like to help with all this source-checking and stuff but my college is very small and has no access to PubMed, so I can't really help.  Plus I won't be going there for much longer.  Soap Talk/Contributions 16:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And thanks for volunteering to help when you can. Everyone has access to articles on PubMed Central (for example, Stahmer et al. 2005, ), so you can verify those sources. Admittedly these sources are currently in the minority, but the proportion of freely readable articles is increasing with time, so it should get better in the future. Eubulides (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Probiotics etc.
This set of edits introduced the following text: This text cites three sources: I looked a bit further at the first two sources to see whether they're worth citing elsewhere in Wikipedia. However, they're primary sources, and are reviewed by reliable secondary sources, and we should by citing those secondary sources instead. Briefly: Anyway, as far as this article goes, it's clear that this text is poorly sourced and has real WP:WEIGHT problems, so I removed it. Eubulides (talk) 06:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neverthless, some researchers have argued recently that the ASD sufferers have the high rate of reported gastrointestinal symptoms and the innate immune abnormalities is blamed for the linkage between GI and ASD . However, functional foods with probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics could be beneficial for theraputic purposes
 * Levy et al. 2007 is a primary source that is about the incidence about GI symptoms, not about therapies. Citing it here is original research, which we should not do.
 * Jyonouchi et al. 2005 is in the same category.
 * Bingham 2003 is an older and less-reliable source. It is not PubMed indexed, and is rarely cited.
 * Levy et al. 2007 is reviewed by Steyaert & De la Marche 2008, which says "Levy et al. confirmed the increased incidence of GI symptoms but found no association with dietary intake." in the context of a paragraph talking about the "equivocal association between ASD and GI symptoms". It's also mentioned in Theoharides et al. 2008 , who write, "Many autistic children present with abdominal pain and bowel symptoms and prompting the suggestion of some gastrointestinal (GI) pathology. However, a nested case-control study showed no association between autism and any GI diseases."
 * Jyonouchi et al. 2005 is mentioned in Persico & Bourgeron 2006, who cite it after the statement "Moreover, PKC-βII controls the differentiation of antigen-presenting dendritic cells, whose dysfunction could contribute to the altered immune responsiveness described in autism." Sounds kind of marginal, to be honest.

Independent confirmation
A recent edit removed the text "The study has not been independently confirmed.", with the log comment "Although probably true (this is the first such RCT), it was only published two days ago!" The text was summarizing the following phrase in the study's conclusion, "Further studies are needed by other investigators to confirm these findings; we are aware of several other planned or ongoing studies of hyperbaric treatment in children with autism" (Rossignol et al. 2009, ). It's important to emphasize to non-experts the fact that this promising study is just one result and that independent confirmation is important (as compared to several other sections in this article, in which we have lots of studies and reviews). If there was a problem with the old wording, perhaps a better way can be found to word it? Eubulides (talk) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to address the issue by rewording it as "The study has not been independently confirmed; further studies are planned or in progress." Eubulides (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic
I just removed a section asserting that chiropractic might be effective as a treatment for autism. The source given is not reliable, but if a significant number of people have tried chiropractic and written about it, we should have a section. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it is definitely promoted occasionally, but I barely even found any case reports and observational studies. Here is the new section, but no worries if anyone would prefer to bring it here for discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I haved out some WP:POV stuff from it Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The text didn't cover the intimate connection between chiropractic, opposition to vaccination, and autism, so I added some text along those lines and cited some sources. Eubulides (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you happy to accept this as a reliable source: http://www.chiro.org/research/ABSTRACTS/Autism.shtml Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, by the standards of WP:MEDRS that is not a reliable source for medical facts and figures. Chiropractors have long claimed that chiropractic is effective for autism, but these claims have no scientific merit. Eubulides (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

SSRIs
Recent study has found no benefit from SSRIs. Wondering if this should be added? http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/66/6/583 -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * SSRIs are a bit of a zoo, with a lot of studies and a number of reviews, with a lot of disagreement even in reviews. The current text could use some improving in that area. Here are some possible reviews that could be used as sources:
 * A similarly negative review (albeit more-general) can be found in Posey et al. 2008.
 * Eubulides (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Eubulides (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Eubulides (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * After reading the new study I agree that it's a big deal, regardless of anything we'd add from older reviews, and added some text about it. Thanks for the heads-up. Eubulides (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Autism cure movement
A recent edit introduced Autism cure movement near the top of the article. Unfortunately this unduly emphasizes an issue (the politics behind autism and whether it should be cured) that is only mildly relevant to this article and is not that notable. There is no article Autism cure movement in Wikipedia, and there are few reliable sources in this area; inserting this template here give the impression of Wikipedia editorial comment that not everyone wants to be cured, rather than being a faithful reflection of what reliable sources say about autism therapies. For this reason I have reverted the edit for now. It may well be appropriate to add some coverage of the autism cure movement here, but this needs to be supported by reliable sources and as per WP:WEIGHT it should not give more prominence to the topic than mainstream sources do. Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The navbox is a navigational tool that assists readers in traveling between many related articles. That is why navboxes are placed near the top of articles.  It makes no sense for a person using the navbox to hit a "dead end" when they reach this article: all articles mentioned in it should have the navbox.  Are you saying that adding this navbox to articles is detrimental to the articles?   That the navbox itself is ill-conceived?  Isn't that an issue to take up at the navbox space?  Whatever404 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the addition was detrimental to this article, on WP:WEIGHT grounds. To take an extreme case, obviously we should not add an largely irrelevant page like (say) Dog to that navbox, on the grounds that there are autism service dogs (which there are), and then insist on adding the navbox to the Dog article. The case here is not as obvious as it would be for Dog, but the point remains that putting the navbox here introduces undesirable Wikipedia editorial opinion into the article. With that in mind, perhaps it would be better to remove Causes of autism and Autism therapies from the navbox, as these topics are not really about the autism cure movement. Please feel free to bring this up at the navbox's talk page. Eubulides (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This article may be biased
This needs to be made clear at the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.173.23 (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more specific? Please quote the biased words. If you could also propose specific changes to the words, that would be helpful. Eubulides (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

DIR/Floortime
This comment was left on my talk page:
 * "Floortime/ DIR is deleted from Autism therapies, but that dosn't make sense since it is a therapy—a very known one actually. I would suggest adding it back as it is important to list it, just as any other Early intervention therapy. ATC . Talk 21:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)"

It was deleted a while back because that section had no reliable sources. Do you know of any reliable sources on that therapy? That would help. Eubulides (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources? As in, Stanley Greenspan and Serena Wieder's book? Amazon. This is where the therapy techniques are presented. Greenspan and Wieder have also published some articles in peer-reviewed journals considering the therapy's workings and efficacy, as well as have other psychologist;
 * The developmental individual-difference, relationship-based (DIR/Floortime) model approach to autism spectrum disorders.Citation Only Available Greenspan, Stanley I.; Wieder, Serena; In: Clinical manual for the treatment of autism. Hollander, Eric (Ed.); Anagnostou, Evdokia (Ed.); Arlington, VA, US: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc., 2007. pp. 179-209. [Chapter]
 * Brief report: Comparative ABA and DIR trials in twin brothers with autism.Full Text Available Hilton, Jane C.; Seal, Brenda C.; Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, Vol 37(6), Jul, 2007. pp. 1197-1201. [Journal Article]
 * Levels of infant-caregiver interactions and the DIR model: Implications for the development of signal affects, the regulation of mood and behavior, the formation of a sense of self, the creation of internal representation, and the construction of defenses and character structure.Citation Only Available Greenspan, Stanley I.; Journal of Infant, Child & Adolescent Psychotherapy, Vol 6(3), Fal, 2007. Special issue: Stanley Greenspan. pp. 174-210. [Journal Article]
 * Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health: The DIR Model.Citation Only Available Wieder, Serena; Greenspan, Stanley I.; In: Mental health in early intervention: Achieving unity in principles and practice. Foley, Gilbert M.; Hochman, Jane D.; Baltimore, MD, US: Paul H Brookes Publishing, 2006. pp. 175-189.  [Chapter]
 * And so forth. I don't have time to write this section now, but it seems bizarre that it should not exist. There are also examples of online sources, about.com, ABC News, and then the sites that talk about the therapy themselves, floortime.org and the International Council on Developmental and Learning Disorders.
 * The number of psychologists using or teaching this method of intervention demands that it be considered "notable." +Justin (Jldb) 11:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources. The most helpful ones would be reviews published in peer-reviewed journals, as per WP:MEDRS and it looks like one or two of those would qualify. I hope someone has the time to write up a brief description. Eubulides (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Son-Rise overweighted
have added quite a bit of material to the Son-Rise section, so that it's now considerably longer than sections for therapies that reliable sources give much greater weight to (such as PRT or TEACCH). The Son-Rise section was already too long as it was, and it should be trimmed down to one short paragraph. The extra detail can be moved to the Son-Rise article, if it isn't there already. Eubulides (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Exorcism, communion, etc.
A added this material:
 * 'There have been documented cases of exorcism used to attempt to treat autistic individuals, which have resulted in negative outcomes including bodily injury and death.

plus a new section titled "Spiritual management" containing this material:
 * 'Autism is currently a new disorder (spiritually speaking) and traditional religious doctrine does not mention autism as "autism". ¶ Most churches do lean towards providing support, although not always in traditional ways. Misunderstandings may also cloud support Others may attend special classes, or worship privately.'

The new "Spiritual management" has nothing to do with autism therapies: it's about religious practices such as communion. The material about exorcism is arguably about therapy, but the current wording is clearly original research, as neither of the cited sources comes to a conclusion that directly supports the claim in question. I attempted to the problem by rewriting the new section based on more-reliable sources, moving the exorcism material there. Eubulides (talk) 08:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I tried to present the fact that some autistic people and their families may be religious (in a non-extreme sense). One gets the sense, reading the articles on Autism, that all autistic people are atheists. Some research (googling 'autism+religion') revealed that this is not the case. Also it was not only "about religious practices such as communion." That was merely one example. Admittedly, this is an emerging topic, so reliable sources may be few. The current piece leaves the impression that only autistic extremists are religious. Please add something to reflect that this is not the case. --Auric (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We'd need a reliable source to make that point: we can't simply add it on our own. Do you have a reliable source? Please see WP:MEDRS for the sort of sources we're looking for, when talking about therapies. Eubulides (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is difficult since science and religion are not really on the same page (ask your doctor on your next visit what supplements you need to prevent demonic possession to see what I mean). I'll give it a shot though. Thanks.--Auric (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that cited a reliable source, but it mischaracterized what that primary study found. First, it wasn't a study of outcomes among autistic individuals: it studied only outcomes among mothers of autistic children. So it wasn't thinking of spirituality as an autism therapy. Second, an important result of this study is that religious activities were negatively correlated with outcomes; we can't fairly cite the study without mentioning that. Can you please fix these two problems? (We have to bear in mind of course that this is just one primary study and shouldn't be given much WP:WEIGHT.) Eubulides (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Investigative report blasts autism quackery
In a two-part series, the Chicago Tribune has laid bare how misguided practitioners are administering treatments that are unsubstantiated, expensive, and dangerous. The first part dissects and debunks claims made for intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), hyperbaric oxygen, chelation, phenylbutyrate, and various supplement programs:


 * Tsouderos T, Callahan P. Autism treatments: Risky alternative therapies have little basis in science. Chicago Tribune, Nov 22, 2009

The second part describes how proponents claim that certain studies support what they do, but the authors of these studies state that they are being misinterpreted:


 * Tsouderos T, Callahan P. Autism treatment: Science hijacked to support alternative therapies. Chicago Tribune, Nov 23, 2009

The articles were published despite legal threats from several of the parties they criticized.

Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic
I was cut off, even before I was finished: The opinions expressed in this section regarding the views of Chiropractic as a profession, rely primarily on a single article published in a MEDICAL journal. This alone would appear to have a biased POV, but then the author lists a cite from JMPT, where they specifically say that "the views of the profession are not clear". Even in the "pediatrics" article it says merely that a "vocal group maintains an anti-vaccination" stance. Vocal groups can be small minority groups, which may not represent a profession at large. In fact there have been famous pediatricians who came out against vaccination. Using this article in this way, is biasing the facts. In fact, most DC's today are not automatically against vaccination, but merely feel that there are too many, being forced on people too soon in life to be completely safe. This is likely the reason that the ACA, the majority association for the profession in the US, takes NO position on vaccination Moreover the statement about the overall efficacy of Chiropractic for problems other than back pain is untrue, does not belong here, and uses a PAY to view reference, which I was prohibited from using in other locations. Is that only OK for disputing the efficacy of Chiropractic? Д-р СДжП,ДС 18:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The Chiropractic section cites five sources, not one, so the previous comment seems to be based at least in part on incorrect information. The section's current text does not say that the chiropractic profession as a whole opposes vaccination, just that "a significant portion" opposes it; this claim of opposition is well-supported and is not controversial among reliable sources. The previous comment contains no specific proposal for improving the article's wording, so I'm not sure what role the POV tag is playing here. Eubulides (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The previous comment was revised after I replied, so here's a followup to the changes. The current article's text does not say or imply that the profession as a whole opposes vaccination, so I don't see what change needs to be made. Most writings by chiropractors on vaccination focus on its negative aspects, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third of them believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease (see Campbell et al. 2000, ), so it's not like opposition to vaccination is a tiny minority opposition. I'm not sure what the point about the "famous pediatricians who came out against vaccination" comment is: Wikipedia is not the place to argue against the widespread consensus that vaccination is beneficial for public health. The ACA has come out in support for exemptions to vaccination laws (see Campbell et al.), so it takes a somewhat antivaccination position. Chiropractors commonly promote the notion of vaccine overload, and this is a significant component of the opposition to vaccination in the U.S.: it's important enough that we have several peer-reviewed papers published on the topic, with no dispute among reliable sources that significant opposition exists among chiropractors. The claim about the effectiveness of chiropractic is supported by a reliable source, and it does belong here, as chiropractic is routinely advocated as a treatment for autism. Eubulides (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You claims that the statement about chiropractic is from a reliable source. I went to that source and it is a pay for the page subscription, which I was prohibited from using in another article. Are "autoreviewers" exempt from those rules too? If not, then how can this paragraph use such a source; one we can;t see, and call it "reliable"? 68.239.190.136 (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't know what an "autoreviewer" is, but the general Wikipedia guideline is that articles are allowed to cite non-free sources such as most books and scholarly journals, although there's a preference for free sources. For example, Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)  says "A Wikipedia article should cite the best and most-reliable sources regardless of whether they require a fee or a subscription. When all else is equal, it is better to cite a source whose full text is freely readable, so that your readers can follow the link to the source." The source I mentioned above, Campbell et al. 2000 should be freely readable; at least, the external link works for me (if it doesn't work for you, what happens when you try to follow the link?). Eubulides (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless Drsjpdc/68.239.190.136 has a proposed improvement, I don't see that the tag adds anything constructive. The statements are extremely well-sourced, mostly from chiropractic research and sources, and this has been discussed to death. BTW, please remember to sign in. You can save cookies for Wikipedia so you are automatically logged in all the time. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree and removed tag. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Other possible treatments?
What about hypnotherapy? Has that had any effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.23.25 (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

A bit of confusion
From User:Eubulides' talk page:

The articles: Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities and Autism therapies are too vague and complex how they're separated. The only scientifically-proven therapies are ABA, TEACCH, and PECS (as well as Speech and occupational therapy.) Also Son-Rise is also the least scientifically proven therapy. Why isn't there one article called Early childhood intervention for developmental and learning disabilities, explaining both scientifically-proven and non-scientifically proven approaches? ATC. Talk 23:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also this seems confusing too: List of alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities. List of Alternative therapies? Some of them have been mentioned in the other articles too. Why don't we just use one article and merge all the therapies together? ATC . Talk 01:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One article for everything sounds like a big project (and a big article). I'm not familiar with the list article and don't know why it's there. Eubulides (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay but do you think Son-Rise&mdash;very similar to Floortime/DIR&mdash;shouldn't be listed in the Autism therapies, as it not scientifically proven, and instead, be listed in the Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities. Additionally, the therapies mentioned in the list article, I will put in my sandbox until I can find ways to include it in the alternative therapies article. And I will put the list article up for proposed deletion, as it is unnecessary. I'm going to add this discussion on the alternative therapies article's talk page. ATC . Talk 02:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. Why was Floortime/DIR removed completely from this article? None of these therapies are "scientifically-proven" as stated above, but Floortime does have studies supporting its use and is reasonably widely-used. Should it not be in this article? +Justin (Jldb) 02:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It was removed as 'spam' which is nonsense.  DIR/Floortime is widely used & effective.  12:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.135.42 (talk)

Page loading efficiency and style
This page takes a long time to load, and part of this is due to the use of the standard Wikipedia citation templates such as cite journal. Recently developed faster & smaller templates (such as vcite journal) make the page smaller and faster to load. Let's use them here; they're already in use in Heritability of autism and have resulted in major savings both for time and for the size of the generated HTML. Eubulides (talk) 08:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rimland review re vitamin B6
Rimland review re vitamin B6 keeps getting deleted by an editor. So I'm posting this here for reference.


 * Rimland reviewed 18 autism studies conducted with vitamin B6, especially in combination with magnesium,[ref: Rimland B. The use of vitamin B6, magnesium, and DMG in the treatment of autistic children and adults. In: Shaw W, ed. Biological Treatments for Autism and PDD. Lenexa, KS: The Great Plains Laboratory, Inc.; 2002.] and concluded that all provided positive results with no significant adverse effects. While no cures of autism by vitamin B6 are known, many cases of remarkable improvementhave been documented.[ref: ]

There's no reason to delete this info. Yes, 'Cochrane Review' did a later review, and they didn't advance a recommendation. Which basically means they have nothing further to add - not really noteworthy. So this is no reason to delete the review that did find benefits. --Dyuku (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The Cochrane Reviews are recognized by WP:MEDRS as being the best source of medical information out there. It is both newer, and a superior quality of source.  Both of those sources are from 2002, making them eight years old.  Therefore, they are both poorer quality sources, and considerably older.  They should not be included, and these are in fact very good reasons to remove them.  .  This is particularly true when the findings are contradictory (the Cochrane Review in particular being essentially the opposite of the other two sources) and one of them is in an alt med journal which are notorious for letting partisan beliefs overcome evidence.  I will be removing again.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 14:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Between the Nye 2009 Chochrane review (which addresses B6/Mg directly) and the 2009 Rossignol review {which puts proposed treatments into a broader context), there is sufficient expression of current mainstream view to write this part of the article in a balanced way. It would clearly be undue to use a single trial or early review to make claims not supported by the current literature. You really don't need the 2002 Rimland review to alter or expand the conclusions in the works already cited. --RexxS (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note comments at WT:MED. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Congratz
Congratulations to all who contributed to this excellent article. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

New intervention study by Pediatrics journal
The Early Start Denver Model, a developmental behavioral therapy for autism, undergone the first, randomized, controlled trial of forty-eight autistic children with decrease in severity level. I think it is worth putting in the article. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/1/e17.full?sid=3a7d325a-1322-4e51-bffb-9dc784411d1f ATC. Talk 17:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it's a primary source, so it doesn't meet our WP:MEDRS guideline. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, we can wait until this study appears in a medical review article so that we can put the appropriate weight and context to it. Yobol (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) Er, Brangifer, that's not quite what WP:MEDRS says about primary sources. We should certainly be wary of claims made solely in primary sources and strive to avoid giving them undue weight, but they are not barred completely.  That said, that study is now more than two years old; I would hope that there would be reliable secondary sources that have placed this study in context and can guide us in assessing its quality and importance.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are exceptional circumstances where primary studies can be used, but I don't think this is one of them. That's my main point. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed unsupported statement regarding efficacy of sham acupuncture testing
here: [|here.] I considered adding a fact tag, but since I know there exists no support for it, I cut it. Ultra Venia (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edited section on Greenspan's floortime (DIR) approach
Hi, just thought I;d say that I have re-written the section on the Greenspan Floortime (DIR) approach in a more factual style, which provides a neutral overview, as beforehand it read a lot like an advert.

(Fruity5678 (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC))

Belongs over here I think...
Hi guys... the following text is over at [], but I suspect it belongs here - can it be built into this article? "A new class at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology is working on integrating patients with autism and robotic technology. Patients with autism tend to have machine like qualities, such as lack of emotions and inability to interpret facial expressions.   Doctors in these fields are not looking for a cure for autism; they are simply trying to help autistic people interact more successfully with other people.  Learning more about autism will help robot designers use the machine like/emotional thinking of autistic patients to strengthen responses for their robots. " Cheers, Fayedizard (talk) 16:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Miracle Mineral Supplement
This text was removed from the page: ''Miracle Mineral Supplement(MMS)is a very fast therapy for curing Autism. It is a mixture of Sodium Chlorite and Citric Acid and when taken regularly, kills the parasites and pathogens in the body.'' It was added by Omdude.

It should be noted that there is a page for this product already : Miracle Mineral Supplement. Read the page and discuss before reinserting.--Auric (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Vitamin D has helped
No mention of vitamin D despite Core symptoms of autism improved after vitamin D supplementation., Autism symptoms dramatically improved after treatment with Vitamin D and - Rod57 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Education, reviews
You have definitely added useful and important revisions to this article – the topic of education is crucial to understanding Autism. It might be beneficial to reorganize your subsections to have it such that it flows from methods to policies to disadvantages may be a more linear approach to the topic. Also, have you considered adding a section for advantages? Your contributions flow well and are easy to read and understand. For the more complex parts, it may help to add more links to other pages. Maybe for things such as priming? Great work! Efoxman42 (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that you did a great job in providing well-sourced information in an easy to read and well-organized format and adding very valuable information to know when discussing the topic of autism. I would suggest identifying who has done the studies on methods helpful for autistic children to improve the credibility of the research. Like Efoxman42, I think you could consider linking to the pages of the topics and strategies you mention in your Methods section. Overall, great contribution! Jwang19 (talk) 01:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is very polished and well organized in the regions you edited. One thing that could use some improvement is the inclusion of more images, specifically medical images, as treatment is highly scientific (as backed in the article itself). Also, consider adding more information to sections that lack data, such as the "research" section or the "Alternative medicine" section, as these serve to make the article seem less professional. Overall, you did a great job at outlining and explaining in-depth the different treatments of autism. Kateraz (talk) 02:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Overall you did a great job in terms of topic coverage and clearly put a lot of work into your contribution! I think the main issues moving forward are going to be increasing empirical studies to support your claims, having in-text citations, having clearer subheaders, and increasing the quantity of pictures. Vnguyen518 (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Autism therapies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080228025018/https://www.marineconnection.org/docs/DAT%20Paper%202007.pdf to http://www.marineconnection.org/docs/DAT%20Paper%202007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150707074651/http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=183 to http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=183
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025195309/http://www.racgp.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/AustralianFamilyPhys/2007issues/afp200709/200709angley.pdf to http://www.racgp.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/AustralianFamilyPhys/2007issues/afp200709/200709angley.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150715175954/http://www.aacp.com/pdf%2F2104%2F2104ACP_Review2.pdf to https://www.aacp.com/pdf%2F2104%2F2104ACP_Review2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929084159/http://ww1.cpa-apc.org:8080/Publications/Archives/CJP/2003/september/bryson.asp to http://ww1.cpa-apc.org:8080/Publications/Archives/CJP/2003/september/bryson.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130319100738/http://autism.asu.edu:80/Docs/2013/Summary_of_Treatments_for_Autism-2013.pdf to http://autism.asu.edu/Docs/2013/Summary_of_Treatments_for_Autism-2013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Autism therapies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071201164323/http://www.racgp.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/AustralianFamilyPhys/2007issues/afp200710/200710angley.pdf to http://www.racgp.org.au/Content/NavigationMenu/Publications/AustralianFamilyPhys/2007issues/afp200710/200710angley.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.aacp.com/pdf/2104/2104ACP_Review2.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/20/health/20autism.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0%2C%2C2143123%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://autism.asu.edu/Docs/2013/Summary_of_Treatments_for_Autism-2013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autism therapies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080229034840/http://chspr.ubc.ca/files/publications/1999/bco99-01J_cranio.pdf to http://chspr.ubc.ca/files/publications/1999/bco99-01J_cranio.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that PLAY Project be merged into Autism_therapies. The Autism therapies article already contains a subsection "The PLAY Project" that contains largely redundant text with the "PLAY Project" article. I think that the content in the PLAY Project article can therefore easily be explained in the context of Autism therapies, and the Autism therapies article is of a reasonable size that the merging of PLAY Project will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. WantsToWriteALot (talk) 08:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Move suggestion: Autism interventions
Several items listed on the page seem to better be described as 'interventions' rather than 'therapies'. Perhaps it would make sense to rename the page to 'Autism interventions' to better capture some of the more sociological interventions (e.g. environmental enrichment). T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 06:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Csanchez99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angb2015. Peer reviewers: Anjdarji, MadeleineMarieC, Dmwhite98, Delaney555, Cfarmer4, Nikkigb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cjames2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)