Website Review
Reviewed by Alex Tan
Created in 2005 by Dan Olmsted, Age of Autism is a website used to promote the author's own notions of what contributes to the development of autism. On his website, Olmsted makes several controversial claims, most of which have little to no scientific basis, or fail to fairly take into account counterarguments. For example, Olmsted claims that autism is caused by mercury toxicity, contrary to scientific findings. However despite his lack of scientific evidence, this website and Olmsted's claims have continued to influence not only ordinary website readers but also Representative Carolyn Maloney of New York, who cited Olmsted's reports when drafting legislation calling for scientific studies investigating this link between autism and thimerosal-containing vaccines, though this claim had previously been scientifically debunked. The bill, proposing to re-investigate this supposed correlation, was then introduced to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2006, with Age of Autism articles being cited.
This website offers a plethora of information on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) but fails to take into account a great deal of scientific research conducted that refutes many of the claims made on the website. The language is clearly biased, with articles on autism speaking to readers as if the scientific community and healthcare system at large is attempting to hide the truth behind the development and cause of autism and that the website is uncovering the real facts.
When first reading through the initial thoughts and arguments on how mercury toxicity can lead to autism, I thought it would be unlikely anyone could think this is a credible source of information; however, upon learning that this website was used to promote the re-investigation in the link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, I was astounded. Age of Autism failed to offer any substantial scientific evidence supporting the link between vaccinations, mercury, and autism, yet readers were influenced enough that this website was cited in the bill to re-investigate. This just emphasizes how powerful words are, that certain language and verbiage used has the power to influence people's perspectives and opinions. So, all websites should be extremely careful when reporting information so as to refrain from blatant bias and propaganda.
The general public stumbles upon bad science websites like these far too often on the internet; these authors make statements and offer little scientific support, and if they do, they skew the interpretation so that it supports their overarching goals. As clearly seen by the lack of objective writing about autism, these website articles are clear proponents for blaming vaccinations as the cause of autism, and revolve all their articles on autism around this underlying claim.
I think people who are seeking validation in their beliefs will be easily persuaded by these articles as well as individuals who have not been informed on the topic at all or have no prior experience with the subject. These arguments may seem convincing to these people but less so to those who have greater background knowledge on the topic or are more familiar with gathering information from reputable, credible sources. This website uses very strong language when it comes to expressing their own claims and ideas as well as when addressing opposing views, so this can be persuasive to susceptible individuals.
This website offers a plethora of information on Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) but fails to take into account a great deal of scientific research conducted that refutes many of the claims made on the website. The language is clearly biased, with articles on autism speaking to readers as if the scientific community and healthcare system at large is attempting to hide the truth behind the development and cause of autism and that the website is uncovering the real facts.
When first reading through the initial thoughts and arguments on how mercury toxicity can lead to autism, I thought it would be unlikely anyone could think this is a credible source of information; however, upon learning that this website was used to promote the re-investigation in the link between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, I was astounded. Age of Autism failed to offer any substantial scientific evidence supporting the link between vaccinations, mercury, and autism, yet readers were influenced enough that this website was cited in the bill to re-investigate. This just emphasizes how powerful words are, that certain language and verbiage used has the power to influence people's perspectives and opinions. So, all websites should be extremely careful when reporting information so as to refrain from blatant bias and propaganda.
The general public stumbles upon bad science websites like these far too often on the internet; these authors make statements and offer little scientific support, and if they do, they skew the interpretation so that it supports their overarching goals. As clearly seen by the lack of objective writing about autism, these website articles are clear proponents for blaming vaccinations as the cause of autism, and revolve all their articles on autism around this underlying claim.
I think people who are seeking validation in their beliefs will be easily persuaded by these articles as well as individuals who have not been informed on the topic at all or have no prior experience with the subject. These arguments may seem convincing to these people but less so to those who have greater background knowledge on the topic or are more familiar with gathering information from reputable, credible sources. This website uses very strong language when it comes to expressing their own claims and ideas as well as when addressing opposing views, so this can be persuasive to susceptible individuals.