Talk:Autism Research Institute

Tag

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

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

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

there seems to be surprisingly little critical coverage of the Institute on the web (or I'm missing something obvious). I've blogged a little about their recommendation of secretin [1] - and a lot of their research and treatment recommendations seem to range from daft to scary - but google seems to bring up v few critical results. It's hard to know how to make the article more balanced without OR. DAN and DAN doctors have been more widely criticised, and maybe some of that could be folded into this article? Jon m

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

Tag

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

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

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

there seems to be surprisingly little critical coverage of the Institute on the web (or I'm missing something obvious). I've blogged a little about their recommendation of secretin [2] - and a lot of their research and treatment recommendations seem to range from daft to scary - but google seems to bring up v few critical results. It's hard to know how to make the article more balanced without OR. DAN and DAN doctors have been more widely criticised, and maybe some of that could be folded into this article? Jon m

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

Concerns about criticisms

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just editing in the interest of accuracy.

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

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

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

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

Nchs 89 (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Nchs 89 (talk The revert on this page today adds back in some very out of date information. It seems like a slightly biased edit with an agenda toward negative attention against what appears to be an organization that has reformed its position on a number of subjects. These reverted links do not connect readers to source docs that name ARI. Quackwatch has also experienced some controversy in terms of legitimacy. It looks like this needs to be recast. This organization no longer sponsors INSAR as far as I can find and it no longer holds a conference - at least none is listed on its website. The revert earlier today added that information and other errors in and deleted valid link updates to peer-reviewed research, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nchs 89 (talk

Please sign your posts at the end of your comment. If you object to QuackWatch as a source for this article take it to the Reliable Sources Noticboard. See the FAQ first, it has been well supported on WP:FRINGE and alt med topics. The article needs to be based on secondary sources. For what ARI has said, past as well as current websites are sources. Substantive changes to the article need to be discussed here and consensus reached before they are reinserted after being reverted, see WP:BRD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The recent edits seem biased - I don't find anything written on this organization that suggests that they advocate using detoxification unless it is medically warranted - do you have a link that shows that they recommend chelation therapy as a treatment unless it is medically prescribed? I have been unsuccessful finding anything like that - in fact, their YouTube page seems to feature reputable speakers on autism co-morbidities. A recent talk featured this individual - at Mass General - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c4QgDM6Zig&list=PLpIoh-N2Q1jYMlKVMwHRwEu3oTb-pqR22. I also don't find evidence that they are supporting an anti-vaccine agenda - are there links that verify this? Neuroresearch (talk) 05:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The references have been fixed with archives and with titles that are accurate for what is on the page cited. The publisher has been added to the many primary refs. For a citation for chelation more recent than a decade ago try ARI Publication 40 2007. Your lack of success in finding this indicates you haven't read this talk page. The article needs to be sourced primarily with independent, third party reliable sources. Any and all biomedical information requires WP:MEDRS references. Per that guideline if any biomedical information is presented the mainstream academic consensus of the best current scientific medical information on the subject must be presented as WP:DUE. WP:FRINGE topics can be discussed using the best available sources per WP:PARITY. Putting titles on references that are not the titles of the item referenced is against policy. Removing the work of other editors repeatedly without waiting for consensus is a violation of policy. Performing such removal after starting a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard without waiting for resolution is a violation of policy. A substantial explanation of problems with the article will follow. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)