Talk:Autistic enterocolitis

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

message: 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, 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)
replies: text: 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 [] 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)
thread_title:  Opening remarks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: IBD

message: 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)
thread_title: IBD and regressive autism

message: 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)
replies: text: I deleted since the tone seemed pedantic in this article.  Andrew73 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Paragraph about case series and epidemiology 

message: "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.  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)
thread_title:  Background ... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: 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)
thread_title:  What exactly IS "autistic enterocolitis"?! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request to tag as [[pseudoscience]] 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Autistic Enterocolitis Questioned by Paper Retraction 

message: 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? — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Term vs. concept

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV introduction 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I did find this , 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)
thread_title:  NPOV, please