I was in Borders again yesterday, and looked at the latest Popular Science. There was an article on what it called the "deadly five" brain conditions, putting autism in alongside Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, depression, and stroke.
For autism, it briefly mentioned two possible causes. One suggested that during gestation, the mother's antibodies attack the fetal brain. Another suggested that certain parts of the brain develop too fast during early childhood. Do you buy it or do you think it's crap?
Something else interesting was a picture that at first glance looked like a set of EEG pickups. When I read the caption, it turned out to be an imaging device, with 96 sensors in a skullcap form factor, and also faster and more accurate than an MRI. I wonder if that means less expensive to use. (I kind of figured somebody would come up with that sooner or later.)
I wasn't offended or anything. I'm just passing this information along to you so you might look at a copy of the magazine and form your own opinion. I'll still buy Popular Science if I see an article in it that I like. That wasn't even the article that caught my attention. I originally picked it up to read a space tourism article that was also in that issue.
I just paid $10 for an online subscription and cannot find any references page. Is it possible to have a science magazine that does not reference original peer-reviewed studies? Since you look at this mag regularly, could you direct me to the correct place? Searches for "bibliography," "references," and "sources" all failed to locate the correct page. There are no references at the end of the article. How very odd.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/currentissue/index.html
You probably won't see the article online, at least for a while, as they'll want to sell it in paper form. This is just one of many magazines I might look at when I feel like spending time in a bookstore. Sorry, but I don't have any information regarding online subscriptions.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/currentissue/index.html
You probably won't see the article online, at least for a while, as they'll want to sell it in paper form. This is just one of many magazines I might look at when I feel like spending time in a bookstore. Sorry, but I don't have any information regarding online subscriptions.
Yes, the entire issue is online. I paid their $10 and have access to the entire issue, as well as the next 11 issues, online. I read the article, really more of a conglomeration of blurbs, but can find NO references. Where did their information come from? I want to look at scientific source material. Is there a particular page where they cite references?
You should probably try to contact Popular Science and ask them. You might even write to the editor and recommend (publicly, if they choose to print your letter) that they include references for everything.
If I go back to that store in the next few days, I'll look again and see if I can find references, but if they're not in the online version, they're probably not in the printed version. Agreed, any article like that should include references to back itself up.
"The Deadly Five
From autism to Parkinson's, the scariest brain diseases yield clues to how the brain works—and how to make it work better. By Eric Hagerman "
I'm sorry, Mr. Hagerman, but I've had several transient ischaemic attacks; my mother-in-law and several friends have had brain haemorrhages (some, sadly, fatal) and two friends have died from brain tumours. Autism doesn't even begin to reach the criteria for disease, let alone scary.
Suggestion for your next articles:
"The Deadly Five
From freckles to melanoma, the scariest skin diseases........."
"The Deadly Five
From hicoughs to asbestosis, the scariest lung diseases........."
"The Deadly Five
From hangnail to leprosy, the scariest limb diseases........."
I was reading that popular science magazine just yesterday and I totally missed the whole headline of the article. I just read "...something about deadly brain diseases", which usually interests me, but yesterday didn't. I'll have to go look at it again. Local libraries with magazine subscriptions rock!
It seems odd that autism could be called a 'deadly brain disease', since as far as I've heard, it isn't known to reduce life span. Chronic is a term that makes sense, but deadly is just putting a spin on it.
when was the last time i've heard of autism actually killing someone? maybe i haven't because i'm probably missing something here. to compare autism to deadly diseases is just making people more afraid of autistics and setting rights back so far. and also, it's a mockery to all autistics when you say that we have a "brain disease that will kill us".
This business of calling it deadly and putting it in with diseases that actually kill, and also either leaving out references or making them very hard to find, has me wondering if somebody commissioned that article.
It would probably do some good to find out about the author's other writings and see if there's a pattern or agenda to it.