Why is there no link or *mention* of Rimland, ARI, DAN!, etc on Wikipedia?

[Guest guest]

Sorry for cross-posting this across three different groups..

This just outrages me. The damn article looks like it was written by

the APA - and the $#%@ Wikipedia guidlines of " no original

research " (ALL research on autism these days that is going anywehre

is original) make chaning this almost impossible. There is NO

mention of Rimland, or ARI, or successfull biomedical interveison

(including studies that I believe have been done), or " recovery " .

Most distrubing to me, it says:

" Aside from antipsychotics,[91] there is scant reliable research

about the effectiveness or safety of drug treatments for adolescents

and adults with ASD.[92] .. Many alternative therapies and

interventions are available. Few are supported by scientific studies.

[27][94][95] Treatment approaches lack empirical support in quality-

of-life contexts, and many programs focus on success measures that

lack predictive validity and real-world relevance.[28] Scientific

evidence appears to matter less to service providers than program

marketing, training availability, and parent requests.[96] Many

treatments are probably harmless. Some are not: for example, in 2005,

botched chelation therapy killed a five-year-old autistic boy.[97] "

One, this gives the impression that ALL chelation is potentially

life-threatening. While technically true (WATER is life-threatening

if you drink enough of it!) it is highly misleading. There is NO

discussion that I could see of the role of metals (which is on

scientific grounds I think), or of oxytocin (which is also, multiple

studies have now been done - albeit small ones.

Possibly more disrurbing is the strange sentence " .. approaches

lack empirical support in quality-of-life contexts, and many programs

focus on success measures that lack predictive validity and real-

world relevance. [28] " I've put the link if anyone wants to look at

it and tear it to shreads.

What the *hell* does this mean about 'empirical QOL contenxts " and

'success measures that lack .. real-world relevance'? Real-world

relevance? If there was no real-world relevance, no one would be

doing this! It's the *clinical* outcomes in controlled studies

(which are important) that lack real-world evidecne (and perhaps also

real world validity, as there are so many other variables in the real

world) I don't even *know what 'empirical quality-of-life contexts'

is supposed to mean..

This article looks like it was written by the damn FDA or someone

in Pharma, and it just makes my blood boil - and I'm not even an ASD

parent! The discussion page is not much better - NO mention of ANY

of the " controversies " (which I supose are still controversial, at

least parts of them) regarding vaccines (exactly HOW do they damange

things, and what is/why is there a " tipping point " ), metals (same

thing - biochemical mechamisms of damange, and tipping points), DAN,

ARI, etc, etc.

There's also no general Wikipedia article on ARI.

I'm so mad I don't think I could even try to clean up the article

(nor do I know enough to do so) - I'd end up rewriting the damn thing

and it would be biased to the high heavens..

I think Owens was right to not believe everything on

Wikipedia - I'll stick to trust it on chemistry, biochemistry,

mathematics, and computers.. Everything else IMO is very suspect.

Below is a addition section I added ( " pounded out " really) I added

to the talk page. I'll check back in a one or two weeks and see if

anyone dares say anything (I'm sure someone will).

Jim

28. Burgess AF, Gutstein SE (2007). " Quality of life for people with

autism: raising the standard for evaluating successful outcomes " .

Child Adolesc Ment Health (2007) 12 (2): 80–6 (http://www.blackwell-

synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2006.00432.x)

== ARI, DAN!, those " alternative treatments " , oxytocin, scientific

references for these ==

<warning - extreme POV, but then, this is a talk page>

''Why'' is there no mention of any of these? There ARE scientific

references for the success of at least some of these treatments

(especially oxytocin). This article looks like it was partly written

by the APA and FDA. And why is there no mention or link to the

various 'recovery testimonials/videos' that are in various places, or

even to [[www.autism.com]]? Unless you want to maintain that ALL of

these are complete fakes, it deserves mention. And if they are

fakes, I want proof of that. There is an anemic little article on

Defeat Autism Now, no link from this one, and no mention of the key

players in DAN!, Bernard Rimland who started the ARI, the DAN! " think

tank " (I've only been looking into autism for two weeks now)

At least there is a (negative) mention of chelation therapy. Surely

there are scientific studies on metal content in the hair of autistic

children? Nothing on HBOT (hyperbaric oxygen therapy). Nothing on

the " chelation controversies " (4 or 8 hour dosing, when the half-life

of DMSA is 4 hours.. No mention *of* the chelation agents either..

No mention of dietary intervention (gluten/casein/soy-free - there

must be scientific evidence on this, at least empirical studies). No

mention of low-oxalate diets (there is a HUGE controversy there over

that versus the " Vitamin K2 protocol " ), no mention of oxalobacter

(eats oxalate in the gut).

And no mention of the major organizations besides ARI either - Autism

Society of America, AutismOne, Autism Speaks (and the recent flap

over , which I'm not completely familiar with). No

mention of McCarthy or her book.

Hardly any or no mention of the raging vaccine controversy, or the

role of metals and other environmental toxins in autism, or the

MMR vaccine (IIRC, introduced about the time autism rates started to

skyrocket.

I consider these ommisions shameful - but it is very hard to write

ANYTHING about this without either doing what might be considered

original research (almost ANYTHING on autism these days when it comes

to the ARI or " alternative treatments " is " original research " ) or POV

(almost anything is POV one way or the other - is it POSSIBLE to

write about the vaccine controversy without POV? Even if there is

convincing evidence one way or the other, if the " accepted status

quo " is the other way (and there very much IS one here - mercury and

other metals in vaccines is just fine), you are likely to be labeled

as being POV.

I'm starting to think that Cult of the Amateur might be right (and I

haven't even read it!) and am just going to do what I originally did

with Wikipedia - stick to it for info on 1) computers, 2) chemistry

and biochemistry, and 3) mathematics. These areas seem to be well

written.

I just hope no parent of an ASD child comes to wikipedia and sees the

despairing words that there are 'few treatments' (paraphrase). Or I

hope she goes elsewhere - like to and the tens if not

hundreds of ARI/DAN support groups there..

I might write an section on this, but it would most likely be

biased.. Right now, I'm just too mad at the non-inclusion of this

information to even think of trying to clean it up.. Anytime in the

next several months.. "

[Guest guest]

The idea of wikipedia being changable by anyone is a myth. Its a nice

myth.... feels like democracy of information, etc... right?

But its a lie.

I have changed/updated wikipedia entries regarding ASD and had them

changed back in less than a minute.

There are auto scripts that are monitoring changes on wikipedia.

Like most information wikipedia is just another propoganda tool.

Don't even bother with it...

Jim Witte wrote:

> Sorry for cross-posting this across three different groups..

>

> This just outrages me. The damn article looks like it was written by

> the APA - and the $#%@ Wikipedia guidlines of " no original

> research " (ALL research on autism these days that is going anywehre

> is original) make chaning this almost impossible. There is NO

> mention of Rimland, or ARI, or successfull biomedical interveison

> (including studies that I believe have been done), or " recovery " .

> Most distrubing to me, it says:

>

> " Aside from antipsychotics,[91] there is scant reliable research

> about the effectiveness or safety of drug treatments for adolescents

> and adults with ASD.[92] .. Many alternative therapies and

> interventions are available. Few are supported by scientific studies.

> [27][94][95] Treatment approaches lack empirical support in quality-

> of-life contexts, and many programs focus on success measures that

> lack predictive validity and real-world relevance.[28] Scientific

> evidence appears to matter less to service providers than program

> marketing, training availability, and parent requests.[96] Many

> treatments are probably harmless. Some are not: for example, in 2005,

> botched chelation therapy killed a five-year-old autistic boy.[97] "

>

> One, this gives the impression that ALL chelation is potentially

> life-threatening. While technically true (WATER is life-threatening

> if you drink enough of it!) it is highly misleading. There is NO

> discussion that I could see of the role of metals (which is on

> scientific grounds I think), or of oxytocin (which is also, multiple

> studies have now been done - albeit small ones.

>

> Possibly more disrurbing is the strange sentence " .. approaches

> lack empirical support in quality-of-life contexts, and many programs

> focus on success measures that lack predictive validity and real-

> world relevance. [28] " I've put the link if anyone wants to look at

> it and tear it to shreads.

>

> What the *hell* does this mean about 'empirical QOL contenxts " and

> 'success measures that lack .. real-world relevance'? Real-world

> relevance? If there was no real-world relevance, no one would be

> doing this! It's the *clinical* outcomes in controlled studies

> (which are important) that lack real-world evidecne (and perhaps also

> real world validity, as there are so many other variables in the real

> world) I don't even *know what 'empirical quality-of-life contexts'

> is supposed to mean..

>

> This article looks like it was written by the damn FDA or someone

> in Pharma, and it just makes my blood boil - and I'm not even an ASD

> parent! The discussion page is not much better - NO mention of ANY

> of the " controversies " (which I supose are still controversial, at

> least parts of them) regarding vaccines (exactly HOW do they damange

> things, and what is/why is there a " tipping point " ), metals (same

> thing - biochemical mechamisms of damange, and tipping points), DAN,

> ARI, etc, etc.

>

> There's also no general Wikipedia article on ARI.

>

> I'm so mad I don't think I could even try to clean up the article

> (nor do I know enough to do so) - I'd end up rewriting the damn thing

> and it would be biased to the high heavens..

>

> I think Owens was right to not believe everything on

> Wikipedia - I'll stick to trust it on chemistry, biochemistry,

> mathematics, and computers.. Everything else IMO is very suspect.

>

> Below is a addition section I added ( " pounded out " really) I added

> to the talk page. I'll check back in a one or two weeks and see if

> anyone dares say anything (I'm sure someone will).

>

> Jim

>

> 28. Burgess AF, Gutstein SE (2007). " Quality of life for people with

> autism: raising the standard for evaluating successful outcomes " .

> Child Adolesc Ment Health (2007) 12 (2): 80–6 (http://www.blackwell-

> synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2006.00432.x)

>

>

> == ARI, DAN!, those " alternative treatments " , oxytocin, scientific

> references for these ==

>

> <warning - extreme POV, but then, this is a talk page>

>

> ''Why'' is there no mention of any of these? There ARE scientific

> references for the success of at least some of these treatments

> (especially oxytocin). This article looks like it was partly written

> by the APA and FDA. And why is there no mention or link to the

> various 'recovery testimonials/videos' that are in various places, or

> even to [[www.autism.com]]? Unless you want to maintain that ALL of

> these are complete fakes, it deserves mention. And if they are

> fakes, I want proof of that. There is an anemic little article on

> Defeat Autism Now, no link from this one, and no mention of the key

> players in DAN!, Bernard Rimland who started the ARI, the DAN! " think

> tank " (I've only been looking into autism for two weeks now)

>

> At least there is a (negative) mention of chelation therapy. Surely

> there are scientific studies on metal content in the hair of autistic

> children? Nothing on HBOT (hyperbaric oxygen therapy). Nothing on

> the " chelation controversies " (4 or 8 hour dosing, when the half-life

> of DMSA is 4 hours.. No mention *of* the chelation agents either..

> No mention of dietary intervention (gluten/casein/soy-free - there

> must be scientific evidence on this, at least empirical studies). No

> mention of low-oxalate diets (there is a HUGE controversy there over

> that versus the " Vitamin K2 protocol " ), no mention of oxalobacter

> (eats oxalate in the gut).

>

> And no mention of the major organizations besides ARI either - Autism

> Society of America, AutismOne, Autism Speaks (and the recent flap

> over , which I'm not completely familiar with). No

> mention of McCarthy or her book.

>

> Hardly any or no mention of the raging vaccine controversy, or the

> role of metals and other environmental toxins in autism, or the

> MMR vaccine (IIRC, introduced about the time autism rates started to

> skyrocket.

>

> I consider these ommisions shameful - but it is very hard to write

> ANYTHING about this without either doing what might be considered

> original research (almost ANYTHING on autism these days when it comes

> to the ARI or " alternative treatments " is " original research " ) or POV

> (almost anything is POV one way or the other - is it POSSIBLE to

> write about the vaccine controversy without POV? Even if there is

> convincing evidence one way or the other, if the " accepted status

> quo " is the other way (and there very much IS one here - mercury and

> other metals in vaccines is just fine), you are likely to be labeled

> as being POV.

>

> I'm starting to think that Cult of the Amateur might be right (and I

> haven't even read it!) and am just going to do what I originally did

> with Wikipedia - stick to it for info on 1) computers, 2) chemistry

> and biochemistry, and 3) mathematics. These areas seem to be well

> written.

>

> I just hope no parent of an ASD child comes to wikipedia and sees the

> despairing words that there are 'few treatments' (paraphrase). Or I

> hope she goes elsewhere - like to and the tens if not

> hundreds of ARI/DAN support groups there..

>

> I might write an section on this, but it would most likely be

> biased.. Right now, I'm just too mad at the non-inclusion of this

> information to even think of trying to clean it up.. Anytime in the

> next several months.. "

>

>

>

> =======================================================

>

[Guest guest]

See the article in Nexus magazine:

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Wikipedia.html

The Truths and Lies of WikiWorld The free online encyclopaedia Wikipedia is

a democratically decided database that has been open to abuse, but the

advent of WikiScanner has uncovered a web of deceit and disinformation.

On 2/27/08, Reynolds <peter@...> wrote:

>

> The idea of wikipedia being changable by anyone is a myth. Its a nice

> myth.... feels like democracy of information, etc... right?

>

> But its a lie.

>

> I have changed/updated wikipedia entries regarding ASD and had them

> changed back in less than a minute.

>

> There are auto scripts that are monitoring changes on wikipedia.

>

> Like most information wikipedia is just another propoganda tool.

>

> Don't even bother with it...

>

>

>

>

>

> Jim Witte wrote:

> > Sorry for cross-posting this across three different groups..

> >

> > This just outrages me. The damn article looks like it was written by

> > the APA - and the $#%@ Wikipedia guidlines of " no original

> > research " (ALL research on autism these days that is going anywehre

> > is original) make chaning this almost impossible. There is NO

> > mention of Rimland, or ARI, or successfull biomedical interveison

> > (including studies that I believe have been done), or " recovery " .

> > Most distrubing to me, it says:

> >

> > " Aside from antipsychotics,[91] there is scant reliable research

> > about the effectiveness or safety of drug treatments for adolescents

> > and adults with ASD.[92] .. Many alternative therapies and

> > interventions are available. Few are supported by scientific studies.

> > [27][94][95] Treatment approaches lack empirical support in quality-

> > of-life contexts, and many programs focus on success measures that

> > lack predictive validity and real-world relevance.[28] Scientific

> > evidence appears to matter less to service providers than program

> > marketing, training availability, and parent requests.[96] Many

> > treatments are probably harmless. Some are not: for example, in 2005,

> > botched chelation therapy killed a five-year-old autistic boy.[97] "

> >

> > One, this gives the impression that ALL chelation is potentially

> > life-threatening. While technically true (WATER is life-threatening

> > if you drink enough of it!) it is highly misleading. There is NO

> > discussion that I could see of the role of metals (which is on

> > scientific grounds I think), or of oxytocin (which is also, multiple

> > studies have now been done - albeit small ones.

> >

> > Possibly more disrurbing is the strange sentence " .. approaches

> > lack empirical support in quality-of-life contexts, and many programs

> > focus on success measures that lack predictive validity and real-

> > world relevance. [28] " I've put the link if anyone wants to look at

> > it and tear it to shreads.

> >

> > What the *hell* does this mean about 'empirical QOL contenxts " and

> > 'success measures that lack .. real-world relevance'? Real-world

> > relevance? If there was no real-world relevance, no one would be

> > doing this! It's the *clinical* outcomes in controlled studies

> > (which are important) that lack real-world evidecne (and perhaps also

> > real world validity, as there are so many other variables in the real

> > world) I don't even *know what 'empirical quality-of-life contexts'

> > is supposed to mean..

> >

> > This article looks like it was written by the damn FDA or someone

> > in Pharma, and it just makes my blood boil - and I'm not even an ASD

> > parent! The discussion page is not much better - NO mention of ANY

> > of the " controversies " (which I supose are still controversial, at

> > least parts of them) regarding vaccines (exactly HOW do they damange

> > things, and what is/why is there a " tipping point " ), metals (same

> > thing - biochemical mechamisms of damange, and tipping points), DAN,

> > ARI, etc, etc.

> >

> > There's also no general Wikipedia article on ARI.

> >

> > I'm so mad I don't think I could even try to clean up the article

> > (nor do I know enough to do so) - I'd end up rewriting the damn thing

> > and it would be biased to the high heavens..

> >

> > I think Owens was right to not believe everything on

> > Wikipedia - I'll stick to trust it on chemistry, biochemistry,

> > mathematics, and computers.. Everything else IMO is very suspect.

> >

> > Below is a addition section I added ( " pounded out " really) I added

> > to the talk page. I'll check back in a one or two weeks and see if

> > anyone dares say anything (I'm sure someone will).

> >

> > Jim

> >

> > 28. Burgess AF, Gutstein SE (2007). " Quality of life for people with

> > autism: raising the standard for evaluating successful outcomes " .

> > Child Adolesc Ment Health (2007) 12 (2): 80–6 (http://www.blackwell-

> > synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2006.00432.x)

> >

> >

> > == ARI, DAN!, those " alternative treatments " , oxytocin, scientific

> > references for these ==

> >

> > <warning - extreme POV, but then, this is a talk page>

> >

> > ''Why'' is there no mention of any of these? There ARE scientific

> > references for the success of at least some of these treatments

> > (especially oxytocin). This article looks like it was partly written

> > by the APA and FDA. And why is there no mention or link to the

> > various 'recovery testimonials/videos' that are in various places, or

> > even to [[www.autism.com]]? Unless you want to maintain that ALL of

> > these are complete fakes, it deserves mention. And if they are

> > fakes, I want proof of that. There is an anemic little article on

> > Defeat Autism Now, no link from this one, and no mention of the key

> > players in DAN!, Bernard Rimland who started the ARI, the DAN! " think

> > tank " (I've only been looking into autism for two weeks now)

> >

> > At least there is a (negative) mention of chelation therapy. Surely

> > there are scientific studies on metal content in the hair of autistic

> > children? Nothing on HBOT (hyperbaric oxygen therapy). Nothing on

> > the " chelation controversies " (4 or 8 hour dosing, when the half-life

> > of DMSA is 4 hours.. No mention *of* the chelation agents either..

> > No mention of dietary intervention (gluten/casein/soy-free - there

> > must be scientific evidence on this, at least empirical studies). No

> > mention of low-oxalate diets (there is a HUGE controversy there over

> > that versus the " Vitamin K2 protocol " ), no mention of oxalobacter

> > (eats oxalate in the gut).

> >

> > And no mention of the major organizations besides ARI either - Autism

> > Society of America, AutismOne, Autism Speaks (and the recent flap

> > over , which I'm not completely familiar with). No

> > mention of McCarthy or her book.

> >

> > Hardly any or no mention of the raging vaccine controversy, or the

> > role of metals and other environmental toxins in autism, or the

> > MMR vaccine (IIRC, introduced about the time autism rates started to

> > skyrocket.

> >

> > I consider these ommisions shameful - but it is very hard to write

> > ANYTHING about this without either doing what might be considered

> > original research (almost ANYTHING on autism these days when it comes

> > to the ARI or " alternative treatments " is " original research " ) or POV

> > (almost anything is POV one way or the other - is it POSSIBLE to

> > write about the vaccine controversy without POV? Even if there is

> > convincing evidence one way or the other, if the " accepted status

> > quo " is the other way (and there very much IS one here - mercury and

> > other metals in vaccines is just fine), you are likely to be labeled

> > as being POV.

> >

> > I'm starting to think that Cult of the Amateur might be right (and I

> > haven't even read it!) and am just going to do what I originally did

> > with Wikipedia - stick to it for info on 1) computers, 2) chemistry

> > and biochemistry, and 3) mathematics. These areas seem to be well

> > written.

> >

> > I just hope no parent of an ASD child comes to wikipedia and sees the

> > despairing words that there are 'few treatments' (paraphrase). Or I

> > hope she goes elsewhere - like to and the tens if not

> > hundreds of ARI/DAN support groups there..

> >

> > I might write an section on this, but it would most likely be

> > biased.. Right now, I'm just too mad at the non-inclusion of this

> > information to even think of trying to clean it up.. Anytime in the

> > next several months.. "

> >

> >

> >

> > =======================================================

> >