Keep this article has an edit history dating to 2003, it reads sensibly, maybe an issue with some reverts in the history, but otherwise I can see no problem with this that cannot be sorted out by collective agreement on the articles talk page. Alfmelmac11:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that they make wild claims about hypersensitivity and hyposensitivity that they cannot backup with evidences. I cannot see anywhere published research that says sensitivity differences would be related to dysfunctions in integration of sensory information. This seems to be a wild guess only. There is no DSM entry either for SID --Rdos14:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Google is much of an indication, especially since the individual words are quite commmon. A search on sensory+integration+dysfunction on PublMed gives 4 hits and none of them give evidences for the theory presented in the article.--Rdos14:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching for the phrase, i.e. "sensory integration dysfunction". Even if it isn't in the DSM and not backed up by science it's at least a popular phrase that is much being thrown around. sensory+integration+autism gave 24 PubMed hits. Besides, for pseudoscience PubMed isn't the best source. Pilatus14:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it is pseudoscience, according to original research policy it should be deleted or at least the article should describe it as such. Another problem is the links, that goes to a company selling treatments for autism. Advertising isn't allowed on WP either --Rdos16:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to us to condemn the research as bogus, what matters is that it is popular bogus. Our job is not to judge but to report what the arguments on both sides are and who supports the theory and who doesn't. The linkspam must go, of course. Pilatus18:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP same person pushing the BS Neanderthal theory here that is original research. Pushing some kind of agenda - please stop! This is backed by many, many, many professionals and should never have been listed. Ryan NortonT | @ | C17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
