Talk:Autistic enterocolitis

Ridiculous Bias

The bias of this article is funny. Please clean it up. If everyone on earth believed what the biased writers of the article believed it still wouldn't make it fact. The elephant in the room is that many people ascribe to this doctor's theories and both sides of this controversy claim to have full scientific and dialectic logic supporting them. This disgusts me, can people withhold their emotional biases for once when talking about a scientific debate ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.250.164 (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Certianly. And as part of that I don't greatly care what many people "ascribe to".©Geni 02:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Opening remarks

Here for all to see is an example of the tragedy of autism. Here is an article claiming to be an encyclopedic entry on something called 'autistic enterocolitis' which has been written by somebody who does not even know what enterocolitis is. He wrote this as part of his wider campaign in Wikipedia to manufacture a narrative, drawn from anti-vaccine websites and fringe practitioners, intended to force into the public domain some kind of acceptance of ideas that have no backing whatsoever by more than a few dozen medically-qualifed persons in the whole world. It's a sad day for America that the historically poor attention given to developmental disorders has left the path open for such nakedly misleading material. 86.129.121.229 (talk · contribs).

86.129.121.229, I could not agree more. These articles are fuelled by the public obsession with controversial science, and the anti-vaccine material is particularly vicious. I do not know the author's credentials, and the article appeared quite balanced on a cursory overview. Clearly even people with a scientific background may be misled. I am glad you have made the necessary modifications. Your views on Talk:MMR vaccine and Talk:Chickenpox would be appreciated, as they touch closely on the issues discussed on this page. JFW | T@lk 18:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

In the above two contributions these are very strong views and serious allegations being made yet again like many others by a group of medical professionals targetting Ombudsman and are not justified by the material in the article and nor are they justified on the basis of the comment and information in this talk page. Here is a critique [[1]] I posted on just one of many examples of harassment, mockery and bullying that can be found on numerous pages, including this one against Ombudsman and of the abusive use of Wikipedia policies and procedures to stalk, harrass and hound him by those who dispute the factual information he endeavours to put on Wikipedia to provide balance. The Invisible Anon 10:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote attributed to Buie [2] sounded like Autism did not have a colitis association, which Buie would dispute. Rather, Buie doesn't think that the colitis fould is specific to Autism. In my experience with the Autistic children they have microscopic colitis. In some sense that is a surprise, since atypical colitis tends to be a disease of elderly older individuals. Kd4ttc 21:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

IBD

The IBD and autism was dropped because I did not see this referenced, and I do not see this as a mainstream opinion in Autistim practiotoners. Actually, it is not even clear that the colitis of Autims is even IBD. It is more a microscopic colitis, whch falls in the atypical colitis family. Kd4ttc 04:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The material is from Wakefield's description. The article is drawn largely from his publications referenced in the links. The article is about Wakefield's description of what he describes as a novel condition, and therefore should include a robust synopsis thereof. Ombudsman 04:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If it is about Wakefield's description, without reference to anything else, then it belongs in Wakefield's biography, not on a page describing a condition. Midgley 23:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There were already studies which replicated Wakefields' results - (PubMed "Detection and sequencing of measles virus from peripheral mononuclear cells from patients with inflammatory bowel disease and autism.", 2000; "Intra-monocyte pathogens delineate autism subgroups", 2001). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.186.220 (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips

Although Wakefield's initial study describing the syndrome has not corroborated by peer reviewed studies, corroboration has been reported by Melanie Phillips and others.[3] Her report, Wakefield's critics point out, was not accompanied by references to the alleged confirmatory studies.

Is there any reason for this section at all? As can be read from the Melanie Phillips article, she's a journalist with no training in epidemiology or even science. A tabloid opinion piece shouldn't be cited without making clear it is not remotely at the same level of credibility as peer reviewed studies. 86.140.105.241 05:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is getting pretty badly POV. A little background on me. I treat autistic kids. I am a gastroenterologist. Wakefield has presented his data and no one agrees that the colitis needs to be identified as an entity different in the autistic patients. Even the people that are especially interested in Autism and the gut don't agree with him. I know Wakefield. He is an ernest man and has been a careful reearcher. I always learn something new when we have a chance to chat. However, he is probably wrong. That isn't bad. Lots of people in science end up being wrong. Even if he is wrong he has helped bring the colitis in these kids to greater attention. If it hadn't been for Andy I wouldn't have known to look for colitis in these kids. NOW - the encyclopedia is a place where data that has been corroborated is the criteria for a medical or scientific article. A journalist does not make that point. Several articles by the same author doesn't cut it either. The reason this is getting POV is that the criteria for inclusion are pretty lax by some of the editors here. Now I'm not going to go out of my way to trash Andy, but as an encyclopedia article it needs to be more conservative. When someone else publishes something we can always change it then. I agree with leaving out the M Phillips bits. Kd4ttc 15:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The following paragraph came to my Kd4ttc talk page, prompted by a note to Ombudsman talk page about how his edits on this article were going. I felt his edits were POV and needed to be neutral in an encyclopedia.

I wrote: re:Autistic enterocolitis: Please adopt a less slanted approach to this topic. There are entries that are being made by you that do not meet a reasonable standard of verifiability. I like Andy Wakefield and have injoyed a number of conversations with him, and I treat autistic kids, so I am not an anti-Autism individual. However, as an encyclopedia the topics should not be backed up by comments by reporters. They certainly should not have descriptions of proposed research in the field. If this keeps up I will put it up for arbitration and deletion. Steve Kd4ttc 21:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

He wrote:

There are a number of problems with reliance solely upon peer reviewed research from the medical community. Perhaps you are already well aware that most research funding for medical studies comes from corporations, with little in the way of oversight from government agencies or watchdogs to ensure accountability. There is no tonic in sight for the rampant conflicts of interest that, increasingly, have plagued medical research in general and autism research in particular. As for Melanie Phillips, Dan Olmsted, David Kirby, et al, they play a particularly important role in the framing of public debate, which has otherwise largely sided with powerful pharmaceutical and medical industry interests. Brian Deer's denigration of all things Wakefield has been liberally referenced in several Wiki articles, seemingly for the same reason that he constantly makes slanted, snide personal attacks on Wakefield's integrity. The media has a great deal of influence upon public opinion and informed debate, and the ability of journalists to summarize and provide perspective on technical matters, which often far exceeds that of researchers, is of similar importance. Without such talents, the public (and readers of the Wiki) cannot become well informed. Given a choice between a perspective dominated by the insular, exclusive medical research monopoly and a robust, inclusive diversity of informed perspectives, which would you choose for the Wiki's readers? Ombudsman

And I wrote:

One of the goals of Wikipedia is to have a neutral point of view on these things. You do not, which is not really a problem. However, your writing is not a neutral point of view. Your belief that there is an "insular, exclusive medical research monopoly" seems a good expression of your POV. Whether the contrary perspectives are informed is arguable given the over 30 studies in the Cochrane collaboration. I would not have a panopoly of views of unknown sources thrown together in an encyclopedia entry. You also present a false dichotomy, that one must have one perspective or another. Claiming that one must choose between different two perspectives is evidence that your writing is not neutral in point of view. The thing to do here is to express who has opinions about this and why, including both perspectives. However, the perspecitves that are allowable are those that have at least been published. Wakefield makes that cut. Melanie Phillips does not. Brian Deer does not. I disagree with the idea that throwing a lot of bad ideas into wikipedia makes people better informed, especially when the poor data is not differentiated from the good data. What ought to be done is to describe why the term "Autistic enterocolytis" came into being, what supports the idea that it is real, what is evidence against it, and what the consensus of the scientific and medical community is. One does not need to try to convince others about it. The act of trying to convince makes the article POV and liable to deletion. Given an interest in verifiability on Wikipedia inclusion of a section on unverifiable claims is completely unsupportable. I am copying both of these paragraphs to the talk page on autistic enterocolitis. Further discussion needs to take place there. Comments were put on your talk page because certain comments relevent to yor edits did not seem to have come to your attention. Steve Kd4ttc 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to keep this discussion going, preferably in this talk page so those interested can keep track of the issue related to the article. Kd4ttc 23:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Cochrane study, as Phillips aptly notes, has been grossly misrepresented not only by the press, but by the spin it was given by the library itself. Like the dubious quality of some research published in several premier medical journals, the library has shot itself in the foot by misrepresenting its own meta-analysis. The insular nature of the medical industry is hardly a matter of dispute, as can easily be extrapolated from assessment of the fierce attacks upon even its own best and brightest who dare question orthodoxy. Alleging that a rhetorical question falsely presents a dichotomy comes off in the same attacking manner, as the question was framed specifically to edify you about how how attempts to discredit non-medical professionals can be perceived. Phillips' critiques also attempt to frame the discussion to provide essential context, and having asserted herself into the debate so visibly, she has been attacked sumarily. Providing content for the Wiki's readers representative of informed discussion does not infer a 'panoply' of redundant or ill-informed content should be tolerated, and framing the discussion in such a manner is ill-advised. This issue of corroboration really has more to do with suppression of research funding for needed studies than debate about appropriate applications of the Wiki's policies; more to the point are the issues surrounding the suggestion made by Wakefield, et al, (and subsequently retracted, under vicious political pressure, by ten of his co-authors), including the pointed and often unfair manner in which the relative lack of corroboration is portrayed. There is little doubt that GI disorders are uncommonly prevalent among those on the autistic spectrum, but that matter is generally ignored in the chorus of attacks citing a lack of corroboration. But since there has been so much harping upon the point, the debate over corroboration needs to be presented, and in a fair manner. A comparison between the prudent and thoughtful concerns about environmental trigers vis-a-vis the advice of the CDC and the medical establishment, to direct reserch funds elsewhere, underscores serious questions that have been raised about the insularity of the medical industry. The same can be said about the dubious retraction by Wakefield's co-authors, apparently due to nothing else besides immense political pressures (after six years, no less), unleashed against them for daring to question orthodoxy. Ombudsman 04:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You have clearly a lot of passion for this issue. However passion is not enough to qualify as encyclopedic content. I do not see the general suppression of the truth that you perceive. Your perception on suppression of research funding can not translate into putting the musings of various voices on the web as an authoritative source to be in an encyclopedia. If you have to have a soap box do it on a web page somewhere, but not as an encyclopedia entry. Kd4ttc 05:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Your argument against discussing the corroboration debate seems to be based upon circular reasoning, in that you assert the perspectives of non-medical professionals should be deleted simply because they are not authoritative, apparently because you sincerely seem to believe medical professionals have a far more legitimate claim to authority. Rather than bothering to defend such logical fallacies, including apparent expert worship, the most common response among the defenders of medical orthodoxy seen in the Wiki is the assumption of an offensive posture, rather than rational Socratic discourse. You assert that you can't even perceive that suppression exists, while at the same time deleting content that doesn't coincide with your beliefs, thus underscoring the means by which the medical field has demonstrated its profound insularity. Merck's own study clearly showed Vioxx was more dangerous than naproxen overall and caused significantly more heart attacks, blood clots and strokes, and immediately proceeded to suppress the facts uncovered by its own scientists. Speculation, about reasons why medical professionals overwhelming tend to discount mass vaccination criticisms, often veers toward the likelihood that the vast majority of physicians actually do practice in good faith, but are too abhorred by the notion that they might be party to the massive rise in vaccine injury afflictions. Like you, such doctors have their own reasons to disbelieve the extent of physiological damage that vaccines cause. The autism epidemic is only the most visible aspect of this iatrogenic nightmare, as many other severe complications thought to be triggered by vaccines have also risen in prevalence, ranging from asthma to peanut allergy fatalities. While it is doubtless that almost all physicians practice in good faith, their faith in the authority, wisdom and propriety of medical orthodoxy must be taken with a grain of salt.[4] [5] [6] While there may be a consensus among physicians who post to the Wiki to suppress content not in line with medical orthodoxy, that sentiment, clearly at odds with the Wiki's core mission, is merely an artifact of the medical field's insular culture. Ombudsman 00:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Citing Merck and Vioxx weakens your argument quite a lot, Ombudsman. You know why? Because - and this is important - they were CAUGHT. If you want to claim the same thing is happening with vaccines, you need to explain why nobody's been caught with vaccines the way Merck was caught with Vioxx. Michael Ralston 01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

See [[7]] for answer to this and further development of the "Don't Get Caught" issue.

Oh, but there are a few valiant and noble crusaders for justice but they are struck down by the evil establishment and are pure of heart and polio and measles and smallpox are really still ravaging the Western world but the media is complicit and doesn't report it and how in the heck can expert worship still be a red link we must all work together to construct a page posthaste InvictaHOG 03:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

1) Mockery 2) Bullying 3) Making it personal instead of sticking to the issues The Invisible Anon 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A circular reasoning complaint goes both ways if reverts and deletions are the measure. However, the circular reasoning complaint is incorrect. The problem you are experiencing is peer review. You are finding that others disagree with you. The standard you have to meet to put something into wikipedia is accuracy and verifiability. Using assertions from individual websites does not rise to verifiability. You are correct that it takes time for research to come to conclusion. For someone who is dealing with Autism in some way this is quite difficult. However, there have been a number of treatments for various diseases that turned out not to work. Early experience in animal models for one anti-viral for Hepatitis B looked good, but then the first research trials showed deaths from treatment and it was dropped. I just did an edit on the gastroesophageal reflux disease and had to change the status on Enteryx. The idea that the medical establishment suppresses new ideas is clearly wrong. The journals are full of new ideas. Most of the new ideas are wrong, but they are out there. There is huge incentive to come up with something groundbreaking. Look at the recent Nobel Prize in medicine. Warren and Marshall discovered H. pylori. Initially physicians were skeptical. Now the understanding of H. pylori is part of basic lectures in medical school. I was lucky to see myself giving some of the first lectures to second year medical students on H. pylori when teaching the GI section. The new ideas are fun. Andy Wakefield may have gotten entangled in the quest for finding a cause. If you talk to him he will tell you about the large number of Autistic patients you see. Since I have been working with the Pfeifer treatment center in Illinois I have seen how bad autism can be. However (there's that however) I don't put out the study results of those people since they are not yet replicated. The problem with Autistic Enterocolitis is that no other autism expert thinks that the colitis in autism is different from colitis in other patients. When papers come out about that then we put it in. right now readers deserve to know that no expert in Autism other than Wakefield think the colitis in Autism is a special type of colitis. Now, as to you name calling you need to stop. Please note that the term "expert worshiping" is currently not in wikipedia. I understand the concept, but it is not a field of separate study. This is also the case for "vaccine injury". As for myself, I am not deleting that which is against medical orthodoxy (whatever that is). I delete stuff which is not corroborated to the level appropriate to the article. So do this: advocate for your views on sites that are cutting edge. Describe the sorts of controversy that exists in the autism community and the anger that is out there in the Autism article, citing those sites as evidence of the anger and outrage. In autistic enterocolitis the article should be about that only, with the general autism issues moved to the autism article. Kd4ttc 15:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Dangerous Pharmaceuticals, Vaccines & Not Getting Caught

Following new section created from prior discussion as it is a different topic itself. Opening para incorporated from prior section [[8]]for continuity:-

Citing Merck and Vioxx weakens your argument quite a lot, Ombudsman. You know why? Because - and this is important - they were CAUGHT. If you want to claim the same thing is happening with vaccines, you need to explain why nobody's been caught with vaccines the way Merck was caught with Vioxx. Michael Ralston 01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Or why thioridazine etc. etc. etc. and other drugs have been used for 40 years + but no one was ever caught and if you take a look at [Alliance for Human Research Protection] why none of those other guys have been "caught". Incredible but true. And there are so many of them. How much corruption is there in medicine and the pharmaceutical world that goes undetected and how much is detected but goes on anyhow? Looks pretty extensive. Conspiracy theories? Who needs 'em.

Its Rule #1 - Don't Get Caught.

"A major 17-year follow up study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry [1] found a 2.84% (95% CI 2.06–3.90) increased risk of mortality in people with schizophrenia, and with each addition of a neuroleptic (antipsychotic) drug, the risk increased another 2.50%. Adjusted for age and gender, the relative risk of natural death between people with schizophrenia and others was 2.80 (95% CI 2.00–3.93)."

The sample size was 8,000: the number of people with schizophrenia was 99--of whom 39 died in the course of the 17 year study.

"Of the 99 people with schizophrenia, 20 were taking no neuroleptic drug at baseline, 31 one drug, 34 two drugs and 14 three or more drugs. The most commonly used neuroleptic was thioridazine (34%), followed by perphenazine (20%), chlorpromazine (19%), levomepromazine (14%), chlorprothixene (13%) and haloperidol (12%); use of other neuroleptics was less than 10%.

Among participants with schizophrenia, there was a strong inverse relationship between serum HDL cholesterol and the number of neuroleptic drugs p prescribed (correlation coefficient¼70.41, P50.001) that remained statistically significant after adjustment for age, gender, all lifestyle-related factors and coexistent somatic diseases."

There were only four "unnatural deaths" (suicides ?) among those with schizophrenia. Of the 31 on one neuroleptic drug, 11 (35%) died; of the 34 on two drugs, 15 (44%) died; of the 14 on three or more neuroleptics, 8 (57%) died, compared to 5 (20%) who did not take a neuroleptic. The authors conclusion: "the association with neuroleptic drugs was very clear."

The Invisible Anon 14:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Invisible Anon, the paper that you reference does indeed demonstrate that the medical community doesn't take the safety of its medications for granted and supports Michael Ralston's point! Furthermore, the drugs that are mentioned in the paper (e.g. thioridazine, etc.) are no longer in mainstream use. Andrew73 14:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty relaxed about your comments. You asked about getting caught. There are loads of examples. I just picked one out of the hat and it is a pretty good one too. No one was caught over thioridazine or any of the others mentioned. Thioridazine was in use for 40 years or thereabouts. As for all the drugs mentioned - study going back over 17 years? Seems a little cavalier. People working in geriatrics knew about the heart problems caused by thioridazine - it was an open secret. 4% per annum developed tardive diskynesia - a solely iatrogenic condition caused by these drugs. In 25 years all long term patients over that period would have it, if they did not kill them first. The Invisible Anon 16:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Getting caught" implies that health care providers are knowingly doing something bad/wrong (or perhaps "conspiring" according to some of the editors who are interested in this topic)...I'd have to completely disagree with this notion. In the end, health care providers are doing their best with limited, imperfect tools. Andrew73 20:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

..... that kill. The Invisible Anon 20:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

".... the medical profession has sold its soul in exchange for what can only be described as bribes from the manufacturers of drugs and medical devices. It is long past time for leading medical institutions and professional societies to adopt stronger ground rules to control the noxious influence of industry money on what doctors prescribe for their patients."

"Seducing the Medical Profession"THE NEW YORK TIMES, February 2, 2006, Editorial

The Invisible Anon 22:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

And why, precisely, did these drugs stop being used? Merck was "caught" - because they hid data proving they knew it was dangerous. I bet the data proving these other drugs dangerous came out after they began being used; is it a crime to make a mistake? Michael Ralston 03:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Killer drugs continue being used for 40 years and no one in any medical profeesion "notices". And all the vaccines are safe too, of course

The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. Cochrane Review

There is limited to no evidence of safety but plenty of the other kinds that goes unheeded;

"is it a crime to make a mistake"? Is it a mistake?

".... the UK still lacks a comprehensive strategy and development plan for a complete system of pharmacovigilance ..."

UK's Royal College of General Practitioners (4th May 2004 - MLX 308 - Consultation on "Report Of An Independent Review Of Access To The Yellow Card Scheme: MHRA Response To Recommendations ")

No matter what evidence is produced, the medical profession closes ranks and remains in denial. Can it really be just one big conspiracy theory? Are these just hundreds of thousands of wacko people claiming their kids are being killed or injured? Is that all there is to it? Nothing to worry about - carry on as usual? The Invisible Anon 05:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to say that something is a conspiracy, but it's hard to prove it. I believe that conspiracies exist, but I tend to assume that someone is innocent until they are proven guilty. Also, I trust the scientific community in general (in general!). The scientific method tends to work--since it relies on peer review and reproducing results, science tends to check itself. For this reason, I do not take what a newspaper article says for granted. The media has just as many conspiracies as medicine does.

Statesman 88 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

IBD and regressive autism

The link to support the idea that the kids get autism 12 months later points to a web page that was made by a reporter. The end of that page actually says the data did not support a link. First off, this is not anything published in a journal. Secondly it argues against the point. Thirdly, a web page by a reporter is a dubious source. Recommend it be dropped. Kd4ttc 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

What is the support for the Cochrane review being criticised by vaccine critics? If no good sources I plan on tempering or deleting the comment on the vaccine critics. Kd4ttc 01:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As no one has indicated who has criticised the Cochrane study I am deleting that comment as being unverified. Kd4ttc 02:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a reference in the criticism section that asserts case series are not valid to prove causality. Any way to shorten up that reference? It really just requires a sentence in the section. Kd4ttc 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted since the tone seemed pedantic in this article. Andrew73 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Dietary intervention section to be deleted

The Dietary intervention section does not belong here. It relates to treatment of Autism in general. If Wakefield has specificially said dietary intervention is important in the colitis in Autism then that deserves only a small reference back to the autsim article. If there is no reason to include the section it will be deleted. Kd4ttc 02:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, but dietary intervention is a direct treatment of the colitis - if it's there, anyway. I think it's got a place here in that regards. Michael Ralston 03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there! There is no consensus that autistic enterocolitis exists. There is no study showing the benefit of any of the autistic diets on autistic enterocolitis in particular. The section is just one of a general approach the the parent disease, which is why I want to move it there. Kd4ttc 04:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a classic POV clash. Applying NPOV the dietary intervention item should remain and if there is disagreement over the issue that can be dealt with by stating the opposing POVs. Inappropriate to remove this section it would seem all are going to be obliged to agree. If it is a claimed treatment for symptoms of a condition claimed to be autistic enterocolitis then it has a place here. If it is also has a place elsewhere, then a link can be added either way. The Invisible Anon 19:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is POV clash. Problem with having it in is that as a dietary intervention any changes to dietary advice would have to be maintained here and in the Autism article. Next, it is not clear that the colitis in Autistics is different from other types of colitis. Wakefield treats the kids with a mesalamine preparation as the main treatment. (Well, he had, let me eMail him and see what he says.) If autistic enterocolitis exists there are no studies that address diet as an intervention specific to autistic enterocolitis. Thus, putting diet advice here makes it look like the diet advice is specific to autistic enterocolitis, when such is not the case. And as mentioned above in the Whoa there paragraph (with no disagreement by Michael Ralston) there is still no CONSENSUS on even the existence of autistic enterocolitis. The POV clash complaint is premature until there is even support for there being a POV that diet is a treatment specific to autistic enterocolitis. Kd4ttc 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am, in fact, skeptical of the existance of a specifically autistic form of enterocolitis. I am not skeptical of the claim that autistic individuals can suffer enterocolitis. (indeed, I would be unsurprised to find autistic individuals have an increased rate, simply due to unusual eating patterns or habits caused by a combination of the communication difficulties and sensory abnormalities found in some of us.) My question is this: Is the treatment Wakefield advocates unique to the "autistic" form of enterocolitis, or is it a form of treatment generally considered applicable to all enterocolitis? If it is the former, I think it belongs in this article, with a clear indication that it is performed only by Wakefield and co, and that it's not a generally recognized treatment. If it is the latter, I think the first paragraph of the dietary intervention is probably worth keeping (with slight modifications) - and a link added to the article on the generic form of the treatment. Either way, I do feel that given this page has any value whatsoever (Something I would, admittedly, question), there should probably be at least a mention of dietary intervention. Michael Ralston 00:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you consider http://www.autismmedical.com/ and also view the video of the Carnegie Mellon Wakefield lectures accessible here [[9]] The Invisible Anon 01:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon is dancing again. The site pointed to does not speak of autistic enterocolitis as being different from dietary treatment of usual enterocolitis. I have an eMail in to Andy Wakefield to see if he has any new insights. He usually takes a day or two to get back to eMail. The latter of michaels suggestions then makes sense in his view. I still have trouble with even talking about treatment when the actual disorder is not yet confirmed by other groups as a meaningful distinction. I think that even having dietary treatment makes no real sense. If anything at all, it should just be treatment, say that there is nothing known about colitis in Autism needing treatment different from colitis in general, and point to the colitis article. When your treat autsitics with colitis they already are on the diet since they have autism. That gets to the point really that there is no data on safety or efficacy of diet on colitis in Autsim. Kd4ttc 05:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

In Reply to Kd4ttc

All of these are autistic enterocolitis cases:

http://www.autismmedical.com/case1/?selected_menu=6

This one is from your home town - Chicago. No surprises there then.

http://www.autismmedical.com/case3/?selected_menu=6

And some more:-

http://www.autismmedical.com/case4/?selected_menu=6

http://www.autismmedical.com/case5/?selected_menu=6

http://www.autismmedical.com/case6/?selected_menu=6

[Correction to strike cases 4 & 5 - not autistic enterocolitis]

OK, so you disagree with autistic enterocolitis as an objectively proven scientific fact. That is being dealt with elsewhere on this page. That is fine as it can be dealt with on the main page as two separate differing POVs. You will also say the term is not used in these descriptions. Are you then going to say that none of these cases have had their autistic and other GI problems assisted by diet? These are just sample case histories. How many more do you want? Got nothing like this in Chicago then? Are your Chicago kids recovering from autism on their diet? So even if you disagree that autistic enterocolitis exists, there are those who acknowledge it does and they provide evidence. They also provide evidence of the effect of diet on amelioration of symptoms and reversal of autism. So even if you disagree that this is autistic enterocolitis, that is a POV in the same way you say these people are presenting a POV.

I take it you have not taken a look at the Carnegie Mellon lectures yet?

It really does look like you should put the section on diet back. It is no good deleting it just because you do not agree. Also, as a practitioner in the field you are now very clearly on notice of the effect of diet and if you fail to take account of it and act on it to the detriment of your patients, then you need to take that up with your PI insurers and make sure you have adequate cover in place.

The Invisible Anon 08:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon: You miss the point of the whole Autistic enterocolitis article. It is well known among us that treat Autism patients that they have a lot of colitis. The issue is whether colitis in autistics is a colitis so different in diagnosis or treatment from colitis in other patients that it requires recognition as a separate entity. Putting me on notice is a goofy statement. The patients I see are referred to me through the Pfeifer treatment center and are already on the diet. Of course, if the diet worked to cure colitis in those kids I wouldn't be finding it on biopsies I do during colonoscopy, then, would I? Kd4ttc 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The following 3 points were raised above and have not been challenged. 1) changes to dietary advice would have to be maintained here and in the Autism article. 2) it is not clear that the colitis in Autistics is different from other types of colitis. 3) there are no studies that address diet as an intervention specific to autistic enterocolitis, while it is a treatment in Autism. Because those points remain true the dietary section does not belong here. Kd4ttc 22:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

None of this is any reason for not having a section in here about dietary treatment for autistic enterocolitis. The Invisible Anon 06:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon: Please monitor the talk page on Autism where I asked why the diet section was so weak. Kd4ttc 23:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph about case series and epidemiology

I shortened the paragraph about the limitations of case series studies (this is not meant as a POV issue but rather as a stylistic issue). A whole paragraph isn't needed for something that is a recognized limitation of this type of epidemiology approach. Andrew73 13:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the studying being intended to generate hypoteses. This was a case series that the authors reported because the data came to them. So I changed it to this being the key study that provided motivation for all the follow-up epidemiology work. Kd4ttc 14:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

About time the anon has data!

Yoooo Hoooo! We have data! This is the first time I have seen another investigator agree with calling this a specific entity. Actually, I have been hoping this would come up. The acceptance of IBD in the Autism patients has been low by most GI docs. Note, however, that in the reference from BMJ the two articles that supported the "not in doubt" statement were Wakefield's articles. I wouldn't say not in doubt, but at least now there is support for describing the beginning of acceptance in the medical community. see edits Kd4ttc 17:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me see. Numerous peer reviewed papers by gastroenterologists (not just Wakefield) all acknowledging autistic enterocolitis exists and one paper by a member of the least successful branch of medicine, psychiatry and another by Jick and Kaye who are yet again operating in a field outwith their clinical expertise it would seem. No contest really. Got any papers by gastroenterologists to support your POV? If not, either restore the text or we find a way of representing accurately the clearly differing views in peer reviewed papers. The Invisible Anon 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Numerous peer reviewed" may be stretching the truth a little bit. Which peer reviewed papers are you referring to? A PubMed search of "autistic enterocolitis" shows only 19 references, the majority of which are authored by Andrew Wakefield. A reference by Fombonne and Cook in Mol. Pscyh 2003;8:133 again raises the point that autistic enterocolitis is a controversial entity. Andrew73 19:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fombonne is the psychiatrist I was referring to. You seem to overlook that Wakefield is only a contributor to many of the papers and the other authors are not exactly geeks - eg. Royal Free London. You note these papers are in the majority and you also overlook the paper from the Department of Medicine, Guy’s, King’s, St Thomas’ Medical School, London which states:

"The presence of lymphoid nodular hyperplasia and colitis in autistic children, termed autistic "enterocolitis", with various gastrointestinal symptoms investigated a number of years after immunisation is not in doubt"

So unless you can come up with something useful, you need to reconcile the conflicting views of the majority of peer reviewed papers against your minority who are operating outside their fields. The Invisible Anon 19:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The "is not in doubt" quotation in the Gut article is only one reference...this does not constitute "a majority" of peer-reviewed references...perhaps you could cite additional references? Andrew73 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear anon: My yoooo hooo was not meant badly. I am actually thrilled to see a paper with a reference. I am alos glad you porvided the link and that it was so easy to download. It is a good paper. It is from a group without wakefield as an author. It still is just one paper. There still are not a bunch of peer reviewed papers, as you state. But one is enough for me to get it into wikipedia. It should be qualified, though. I am still not convinced that the colitis in the Autistics is different from colitis I see in other patients. But as studies come along, and I know they will, the matter will be determined. I am glad you are thinking now about going to original papers. The comment about writing out of field is odd. Wakefield is a gastroenterologist. What was meant by the out of field comment? Kd4ttc 22:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing taken badly. Glad to see you are entering into the spirit of Wikipedia.

Just so you do not have to take my word for it, Andrew73 confirmed for you a few lines above "A PubMed search of "autistic enterocolitis" shows ... 19 references ...". So, not just the one reference. And if you check you will see it is not quite accurate to say as Andrew73 does the majority of which are authored by Andrew Wakefield. I am sure you do not want to give anyone the impression he was the only author or that the lead and co-authors will sign their names to any piece of paper thrust in front of them? They are well qualified people from well known and respected establishments.

So, where are your peer reviewed papers?

• You cite the psychiatrist Fombonne's paper on gastroenterology. Pretty versatile for a psych turning his hand to that. Do you think he might be any good at checking our pipework one weekend?
• Then you cite Jick and Kaye, who 'pop up' all over.

I loved their paper telling the world that one of the SSRIs associated with a 3:1 suicide risk was just as safe as competition. I couldn't work out if they were trying to undermine the competitor products or trying to demonstrate that the drug was OK to continue prescribing. Then they list all the drug companies that pay them but say this or that paper was written in their spare time. Such enthusiam for their work. Water-skiing, watching the jets over the harbour with the kids or a paper on selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors for no pay - a tough one that.

And their 2001 epid paper on UK autism incidence. Confidence interval? Is it 10:10,000 or 40:10,000? Hell, I don't know - lets cover them all. And another example of outstanding devotion to duty. Hmm, Sunday lunch with my wife and kids and a round of golf with my buddies with a few beers in the bar later? No I'm a Boston man, I don't care I won't be paid to do it, I will research the UK GPRD data on autism and do some great adjustments and regression analysis. That is much more fun. Heck, who cares if it is UK data and who can be bothered to work out what GPRD stands for anyhows.

Too bad their paper did not get into the Cochrane review. Pretty unlikely but had to check - they had so many other beauties. But not too disappointing, the review included a Fombonne. And hey, even they found it impossible to interpret. But was it maybe just all those long medical words?

OK boys, its back to you. Ball in your court. Quit stalling. The Invisible Anon 01:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't take too much no notice of the light banter above. The "Yoooo Hoooo!" might have set the tone for it. This is a tough one for everyone, so I may sound like I'm playing but its pretty serious beneath it all. Let's see how it goes. The Invisible Anon 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, the 19 PubMed citations are overrepresented with Wakefield's research, even if it's not a true majority. The other references represent a few, isolated papers that do not constitute mainstream medical support for this entity. Andrew73 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon: You still haven't answered what you mean by the out of field comment. Kd4ttc 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if you take another look I believe you will should find that you have now been answered twice about people operating outside their fields. That is in the preceding two substantive exchanges. So how about a response? Regrettably it seems that concentrating on "out of field" seems a distraction from addressing the issues. And can the meaning be so unclear after now three sets of explanations, including the one in this paragraph? The Invisible Anon 08:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC) & 10:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

To summarise current position:-

• Andrew73 saying he is unhappy with 19 citations objecting because although several are authored by intelligent expert professionals who can think for themselves, one of the authors is called "Andrew Wakefield" and he is just a co-author and not the lead author;
• only two papers put up to dispute the proposition of the existence of autistic enterocolitis - the authors of both operating outside their normal fields - none being gastroenterologists, one a psychiatrist, not a clinician and the others noted for doing epidemiology in their spare time in Boston - just like a hobby:
• Kd4ttc agrees just the one paper is sufficient to cite autistic enterocolitis in Wikipedia;
  • No, that is not my position. Autistic enterocolitis ought to be in wikipedia. However, it should be listed as not accepted as real, and just recently have any groups outside of Wakefields felt it had any validity as a new type of colitis. Kd4ttc 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being misinterpreted. It is worthwhile mentioning autistic enterocolitis as a potentially distinct entity. However, it needs to be appropriately prefaced that this is a controversial and not a well-established entity (like Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis). The point of mentioning the PubMed citations is that autistic enterocolitis is only mentioned in a few isolated papers. Nineteen is a small number as far as PubMed is concerned, and most of these citations relate back to the original Wakefield Lancet article and are not new, original research. Furthermore, I haven't seen this condition discussed in a review article in a mainstream medical journal. Perhaps time will prove me wrong. Andrew73 13:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• and Andrew73 deletes the section on Wakefield's Carnegie Mellon University lectures which explain what autistic enterocolitis is [[10]]saying it is not relevant here [[11]]
• still waiting for responses from both to issues raised but instead get questions about what "out of field means"

Is this your final position on this, the deletion of the diet section and the deletion of the section on the Carnegie Mellon lectures? The Invisible Anon 13:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you mean by the out of field issues. This is holding up comments regarding other issues. You have spoken tangentially about the issue, but I still don't see what it comes from. I don't understand if you are saying only people in field can make valid observations or if only people out of field can, or if you are getting at something else. Kd4ttc 14:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like this is not going anywhere then because I do not understand what you do not understand. The Invisible Anon 17:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We can leave this one and deal with the other points. It only arises because I was being mocked (Yoooo Hoooo! We have data! [[12]]) and it turns out the preponderance of peer reviewed publication favours the term.

As far as I can see the Carnegie Mellon lectures should not be a big issue (although everything seems 'big' for this page) and the diet section as part of treatment should not have been deleted and should be restored. The Invisible Anon 22:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon: You provide inadequate explanations. I didn't understand your point. I asked what you meant. You wrote above "Hi, if you take another look I believe you will should find that you have now been answered twice about people operating outside their fields. That is in the preceding two substantive exchanges. So how about a response? Regrettably it seems that concentrating on "out of field" seems a distraction from addressing the issues. And can the meaning be so unclear after now three sets of explanations, including the one in this paragraph? The Invisible Anon 08:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC) & 10:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)". Now, in this quotation you assert that you have now explained a third time. There is no explanation in this quotation. I think you are presuming that I can read you mind. You have not given an explanation. Kd4ttc 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon: You were not mocked. You were cheered for providing a reference. Now, the reference did show that no inflammation developed after MMR innoculation, but it did talk about there being a concept of "Autistic enterocolitis". Kd4ttc 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. A mainstream acceptance of an idea will give at least hundreds to thousands of hits on a pub-med search of the term. A comparison with a rare disease such as Zollinger Ellison Syndrome might be a worthy comparison on whether a rare condition has a name accepted by mainstream sources. The term autistic enterocolitis has started to see some use but it is not yet clearly an entity seen to be other than colitis in patients with Autism. The proponderance of data argument is probably reasonable. When most reviews of autism recognize that colitis in Autism patients is a special, distinguishable type of colitis then it will be mainstream. Kd4ttc 23:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Aspro Name Change Proposal from "autistic enterocolitis" to "autistic enteritis hypothesis"

Whats in a name:

A possibly new phenomena noted by clinical observation needs to be given a name, if only for convenience sake. I would agree that at the moment autistic enteritis it is not yet in the realms of a scientifically accepted phenomena. Therefore, why don't we just stick the word 'hypothesis' onto the end of it? Then nobody could object to it not being a proper clinical label.

We would not be changing anything; just clarifying its taxonomical status.--Aspro 17:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable suggestion!

But it is being bantered about by the term Autistic enterocolitis in a lot of places. I think articles should be easy to find. I recommend not changing the name. Kd4ttc 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest "Autistic enterocolitis hypothesis", with a redirect from the current name. ("enteritis" instead of "enterocolitis" would also work) That seems to me to both make it findable and accurate. Michael Ralston 01:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Get another vote before you do it and I won't fight it. Steve Kd4ttc 03:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Vote To Retain This is a vote for the name to be retained as it is. The term "autistic enterocolitis" is one in use. It is also in use in numerous peer reviewed papers (as established on this talk page). Further, a term used to describe existing physical conditions can never be an 'hypothesis'. The proposal to change the name is to something that is not in use and not recognised. The page can make the point as to general acceptability, and it is an accepted term for some, albeit others disagree. It is instructive to note that the Cochrane review relied on only one paper to claim there was no evidence of a link between vaccination and PPD/Disintegrative Disorders and only on four papers in relation to autism. Here we have several times those figures using "autistic enterocolotis". I am amazed the proposition was even put forward. The Invisible Anon 06:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC) & added to 08:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• retain: The proposal would do little except put up obstacles to those who might otherwise find the article easily, and then there would have to be an explanation in the intro about the oddity of the article title. This proposal would result in something similar to the oddity that thought police redirects to thought crime, despite the fact that the former garners four times the goofle hits of the latter. While Wakefield may have committed a thought crime by questioning the wisdom of the MMR vaccine, the term he coined seems apt and scientifically valid as a diagnosis. As someone noted, microscopic colitis is typically found in the elderly, not toddlers, underscoring the probability that the unique pathology of the condition is specific to many cases of autism. Ombudsman 09:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I made the mocroscopic colitis comment. Ombudsman is incorrect that microscopic colitis is only in the elderly. It is a wider age range (unless you consider over 40 to be elderly ;-). However, it will be a different colitis if the cell types differ, if the response is different, or if the etiology is ever ascertained. Just finding it in a different population does not change the understanding of the disease. I think the folks suggesting the name change want to see the discussion stay amicable. It was nice to see others giving thoughtful input. Kd4ttc 20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

• Change: A redirect is hardly an "obstacle", seeing as how it means going to the current page would still allow one to reach the page it redirects to. Michael Ralston 03:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wakefield's presentation in Pittsburgh

I deleted this paragraph...it's more appropriate elsewhere in Wikipedia (perhaps in the Andrew Wakefield article, not necessarily in a article on a narrow topic like autistic enterocolitis. Andrew73 12:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Andrew it explains autistic enterocolitis. It is relevant here. Inadequate reasoning for deletion. You should not delete relevant material simply on the grounds in your POV it should be somewhere else. You did not mind the same information being here as a reference. You suddently objected when it was made easier to assimilate and was incorporated into the main text and it is not in keeping with your POV. Whereever anyone thinks it should be, it should certainly be here. The rest of the debate on this page makes that clear and this page is a very short one too. Suggest you restore the text without delay. This looks like a backwards step of justs reverting without discussion. The Invisible Anon 13:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I am for including relevant material...it just seemed that his lecture was on the MMR vaccine and autism. There wasn't any mention of autistic enterocolitis in the paragraph. Andrew73 13:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed that by making direct reference to autistic enterocolitis and if it is of any assistance deleted the reference to MMR vaccine. That part of the wording was inherited from the editor who originally inserted the reference. The association is not accepted, but the GI problems are becoming acknowledged. The Invisible Anon 14:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps an external link or reference to his lecture is more appropriate. The lecture doesn't seem to be notable enough to merit a whole paragraph in this article. Andrew73 19:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

One would have thought: such is the confusion, over just, what Dr Wakefield has claimed, said, and not said, etc., is evidence enough, that a paragraph about the lecture in Pittsburgh is very much needed, to bring peoples attention to the opportunity that they can hear it straight from the horses mouth as it were. It may be too esoteric for say a general practitioner or a SHO to get a grip of yet, but it would -one could argue- be of interest to many others. Such direct source material as this video should therefore be given a higher profile than just an external link.--Aspro 22:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A whole paragraph though still seems somewhat excessive. Should everyone of Wakefield's papers and lectures get a whole paragraph? A paragraph (or more) would be reasonable to describe e.g. Fitzgerald's Great Gatsby, but I don't think the same amount of attention needs to be given about a routine lecture a scientist would give. Andrew73 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A "whole paragraph" (and a very short one) is too much? For details of where people can find his own explanation direct from the man at the centre of one of the greatest medical controversies of modern time? Hmmm. Is that a point of view or is that a point of view? The Invisible Anon 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, for me, this is more of a stylistic issue, rather than a content issue. Perhaps the paragraph on Wakefield's lecture should be more of a subheading rather than its own heading. By what you describe, why not make it in bold font, ALL CAPS, so that all the readers can see it! Andrew73 23:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• I also think that we would be justified in pointing out that this is still at the stage of a hypothesis and we should put that as a suffix to the title until more evidence has been forthcoming. Who knows, this may end up being referred to as phospholipid disorder affecting the cell wall and the viral components present -due simply a result of that disorder (this would help to explain the neurological effects as well). But now I am speculating so I'll stop.--Aspro 21:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It is already known as "autistic enterocolitis" and the text already makes clear that there are those in medicine who do not agree with it.

Additionally, as a reminder, this dialogue started because Steve tried to make fun of me with "Yoooo Hoooo! We have data!" [[13]] but it backfired. It was shown (again in [[14]]) there are many more peer reviewed papers which accept there is autistic enterocolitis and by authors who are in a position to know other than Wakefield. In contrast only two papers were cited that oppose, and by authors whose specialities are far away from gastroenterology (psychiatry (other end of the anatomy) and a couple of weekend hobbyist epidemiologists). The Invisible Anon 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Anon: You have made a statement that seems to reflect easily hurt feelings. If you want to argue in Wikipedia you need to be less sensitive. As explained above, having data is a reason to change views, and I was excited to see the data. Note that as soon as you presented data showing another group was using the term I immediately changed my position from "Not a concept accepted by anyone" to "a term starting to gain acceptance". See, just show data and you will get results. Kd4ttc 23:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Steve, its a factual statement: "Steve tried to make fun of me with "Yoooo Hoooo! We have data!". Doesn't bother me that you tried to make fun of me and it backfired. Seems to bother you though. Commenting on its use suggests perhaps a tiny bit of oversensitivity on your part to criticism? Let's keep off the personal stuff shall we, as it can only lead to tears? The Invisible Anon 07:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Anon, it's a violation of the assumption of good faith. The fact in the statement is this: "Steve said 'Yoooo Hoooo! We have data!'" The assumption about motivation that "Tried to make fun of me" contains cannot possibly be proven. Michael Ralston 03:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Background ...

"Until the 1970s, autism was considered a very rare condition, but it is diagnosed much more often nowadays, whether due to increased diagnostic vigilance by doctors, changes of diagnostic categories, or an actual increase in incidence. Estimates of the percentage of late-onset autism cases range from 20% to 80%, with the lower percentage reported by sources including the British Medical Journal as not having changed in recent years.[15] Wakefield, however, contends that a regressive syndrome "may reflect a subset of children with developmental disorders with distinct etiological and clinical features."www.mercola.com/2000/oct/8/autism_enterocolitis.htm "

The beginning of that seems to be a very long way in the background, and better left in the main article on autism. The relevance of late onset with this article's subject is not made there, and it isn't clear to me whether there is any. (That means it isn't clear, not that I think there is none.) Midgley 23:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

The section that lists papers that agree with or back up Wakefield needs to be balanced by the full list of papers and articles that criticise his work, or the section needs deleting. I assume that the latter is easiest, but that the former is the most useful. For now I have tagged the section with a NPOV tag. aLii 13:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

These papers do not in fact agree with or back up Wakefield. They are just a ragbag of this and that. Wakefield's junk science has been replicated by nobody that he doesn't pay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.108.61 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly IS "autistic enterocolitis"?!

Without a description, you know, of symptoms, how shall we know? Is it undiagnosed gluten intolerance? (Quack: "This looks redenned.") Stop feeding children junk like bread. End of problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.2.236 (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Request to tag as pseudoscience

Considering pseudoscience is defined as something "claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status", that seems a fairly accurate description of "autistic enterocolitis". Any opinions? -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not pseudoscience, but it seems pretty close. The fact that outside groups cannot replicate Wakefield's findings should be very troubling to all (including Wakefield). I'm not familiar with the rankings of the journals that most of these studies appear in, but perhaps this could provide some indication of the quality of research. Or perhaps, one could examine the number of cites accumulated by these articles (using web of science and excluding researchers associated with Wakefield). Of course, one should strike from the list studies that have since been discredited. Felzenmat (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The article contains a lot of language which violates Wikipedia's standard of neutrality. For example use of words like 'supposed' link to autism, and words such as 'contends' and 'claims', whose use in a statement serve to discredit it. Combined with the strongly opinionated comments on the talk page, it looks like this entire article is a propaganda piece against the existence of a cluster of GI symptoms that occur with high frequency in ASD patients. It seems like a lot of the discussion should be tagged as agenda-driven and biased . 24.41.4.151 (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to revive this suggestion, given that it turns out the study was falsified, and that is the only real source. 216.55.112.130 (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Autistic Enterocolitis Questioned by Paper Retraction

"The status of a new inflammatory bowel condition identified in the retracted Lancet paper that linked the MMR vaccine and autism -- autistic enterocolitis -- appears to be in limbo.

The 1998 paper by Andrew Wakefield, MBBS, and colleagues was fully retracted by The Lancet in February, although the alleged and repeatedly disproven vaccine link was dropped in 2004 after 10 of the 13 study authors rejected the claim."

Rest of article:

• Autistic Enterocolitis Questioned by Paper Retraction

Brangifer (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Term vs. concept

Wikipedia articles are typically about things (concepts, phenomena, theories, hypotheses), not terms. As such, I have been eliminating unnecessary usage of the construction X "is a term used to describe" Y from Wikipedia articles. Since my attempt at this article was reverted, I feel like there may be some misunderstanding (either on User:MastCell's part or my own) about what this article actually covers. If this article is about the term, this would entail a nearly-exclusive discussion of usage, etymology, and/or semantics. However, not only do we not get said coverage, but the article content is instead about the content and context of Wakefield's hypothesis, not the term he coined. What am I missing here? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Autistic enterocolitis. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7012267.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301160555/http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov:80/node/5026 to http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/node/5026

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

NPOV introduction

I want to begin by saying I agree that there is no evidence of a link between MMR and autism or any other vaccine and autism. However I think the opening paragraph is too "front loaded" to be considered NPOV. It crams terms like "fraudulent" and "discredited" which I think would be better placed later in the article. The tone of this article sounds like how a frustrated professor would sound trying to explain this to a freshman and I think it would only turn off readers who don't already fully agree. I propose that the introduction be more neutral, though make it clear that there is no evidence for this conditions existence.Javerthugo (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

NPOV, please

"Autistic enterocolitis" isn't pseudoscience WP:NPOV https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20170126/fecal-transplant-shows-early-promise-against-autism#1 https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/amp/319117?__twitter_impression=true https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/276648/?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fhealth%2Farchive%2F2013%2F06%2Fin-autism-the-importance-of-the-gut%2F276648%2F&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwi1vsud1I_cAhWCa1AKHSD-DBo4ChAWCBowBw&client=internal-uds-cse&cx=011155507021793277500%3Aq1wrtf3mvmu&usg=AOvVaw1gsV_1v8fxjHXuIdbHc1hi&__twitter_impression=true PS.: I'm not claiming that "autistic enterocolitis" is caused by vaccines. Sidney Sol (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sidney Sol: None of those links use the term "autistic enterocolitis", however, some mention of intestinal problems with autism should be made if reliable sources can be found to support this (the links you listed don't look like they meet WP:MEDRS). Tornado chaser (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I did find this [16], so some mention of a possible connection between autism and intestinal symptoms may be appropriate if more good sources can be found, this still would not be "autistic enterocolitis", which refers to the specific vaccine-induced disorder proposed by Wakefield, but the article as currently written implies no association between autism and digestive issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)