Study: 75 % of Aspies will no longer considered autistics

Post Reply New Topic

Agreed. I knew from the start that this changing of the diagnostic criteria is only about artificially lowering the prevalence of autism and ASDs. It makes total sense that they would be doing it so that they don't have to give as many people funding. I bet the colleges and universities were complaining about having to give so many people accomodations, too. Under the new label of "communication disorder", they won't have to give people accomodations that people with learning disabilities or cognitive disorders would get.
Like everything else, it all comes down to money. Our world is being run by a bunch of greedy bastards.

19 years of research wasted is hyperbole.

There is a lot of solid work in brain imaging and genetics that is advancing knowledge of autism.

One solid understanding that has emerged from this research is that the heritability of autism is not Mendelian. It can't be accounted for by a single gene or a few common alleles. There is no doubt that it is heritable, but it is also the effect of many, many genetic variations of small effect working together. Such polygenic interactions are sensitive to environmental influences and this is somethig that is being heavily researched, but is still not well understood. Nevertheless knowledge is growing at a staggering rate as a result of current research.

The stuff in DSM is all very flimsy compared with the research into activity in the brain and DNA. The picture emerging from the research is very complicated but that is the way we are made. The genome has 3.2 billion bases of information and interacts with cellular machinery in extremely complex ways. Epigenetic mechanisms like methylation change the interaction of DNA and RNA and consequently alter the production of proteins. Behaviors of the kind loosely described by DSM emerge from an interplay of those underlying mechanisms and the experiences of the individual.

Despite the awesome, beautiful complexity of these systems, our understanding of them is growing at an accelerating rate. The research isn't wasted and the DSM definitions will eventually be replaced by descriptions based solidly in objective reality.

I still highly disagree here to be honest! We have yet to see the affects , but in general the new criteria is I ER all much better

I don't think this is an accurate perception. Governments are perfectly capable of denying people funds without this kind of change.

I don't think there is any evidence that the changes are lowering the prevalence of ASDs and there are good reasons for the idea of putting a broad range of presentations together under the umbrella term Autism Spectrum Disorder that have nothing to do with financial calculation. Despite the sort of talk I see here from people like Acedia, there is plenty of good clinical evidence for the idea of a spectrum with continuity between severely impacted, moderately impacted and lightly impacted individuals. The labels will be redrawn as research reveals some of the major patterns through which the underlying genes are expressed but the basic category makes sense at the moment.

The willingness of governments and citizens to pay for services is a different issue.

Agreed, and I'm kind of unsure as to why people think thaT those with the new social communication spdisorder are not going to be getting services??? It makes no sense I it is after all still a dsm condition

We can know exactly each gene does, but if the definitions of what is a disorder keep changing, what practical use is it? What use was 19 years of research about treatments for a condition that that is gone or never existed(I am assuming Aspergers is not coming back).

I would be more optimistic if I believe future descriptions will be based on science. It will be partially based on science as well as money and personal bias. The genetics are heavily based on computer modeling. Computer modeling is god these days. Computer modeling is only as good as the humans who program and write the algorithms for them.

The focus on WP general discussion is on adults, but the impact of DSM changes will be mostly on children being newly assessed for autism, and I think that in this population, it is a good idea to tighten the criteria, so that autism is not a catchall diagnosis for developmental or behavioral problems that are too mild, too isolated, or can be accounted for more accurately by other conditions.

This thread is about the big picture but personally this is confusing. Aspergers is gone officially, but is still here colloquially. Most people here seemingly once fought the change but now are happy with it . But many if not a majority keeps on using it anyway. I would assume it is because Aspies???/Autistics???/people who have autism??? like routine. We are over a year into this now I thought the confusion would have at least shown indications of slowing down by now. What about 5 years from now, 10 years. I can't see the DSM changing their mind and reverting. Eventually I can't see Aspergers being anything more the senile is now. A term a few die hards still use but generally considered out of date. With no new official diagnosis Aspergers will become a house without a foundation. Having an Asperigin/Aspie "identity" is great, but if the group you want to identify with don't want to identify that way anymore what good is it?. But then again I could be wrong.

I hope it works out in the long run, but for now the DSM 5 did hurt me and is continuing to hurt me.

I agree. Autism is a wide category. If you can give a more specific diagnosis, then you should--because that specific diagnosis is better defined, has a narrower range of treatments that work better. Diagnosing something as autism when it is only autism-like can be problematic for the person.

Like, for example:
Stereotypic movement disorder or Tourette's, misdiagnosed as autism: This person has no language or social problems; his major symptom is repetitive movement either voluntary or involuntary. Calling him autistic would get him therapy that he didn't need.

Social anxiety, misdiagnosed as autism: This person doesn't have any underlying problem with learning communication; it's the anxiety disorder that is keeping them from learning how to interact. A misdiagnosis of autism might convince them that they cannot learn, making the problem worse!

Speech/language disorder, misdiagnosed as autism: This person has a specific learning disability in the area of language, or a motor problem that makes it hard to speak. They need speech therapy--but other than the language problems, they are neurotypical, and that means that the social connections that they can use to learn speech are there, intact, and intuitive. They may even make connections non-verbally long before they learn to speak.

Sensory processing disorder, misdiagnosed as autism: Unusually sensitive to their environment, this person may have meltdowns and definitely experiences overload, but their ability to communicate and their processing of non-sensory information is in the normal range, and they don't need any of the social and cognitive supports an autistic person would need. Rather, they need OT or sensory-integration therapy to help them deal with the confusing muddle of sensory information they are bombarded with.

When a person has the full constellation of problems we call "autism", then that's the diagnosis they should get; but if it's more specific, then there are some more specific labels that can be used, and are more useful than "autism".

I'm glad that 75% of Aspies will no longer be ''Autistic''. I will most likely fall into that category because I am mild. I've always felt uncomfortable with considering myself as Autistic or telling people that I have Autism, because for a lot of people who don't know much about ASDs, most seem to think Autism is a ''severe'' condition where the person is prone to visible meltdowns at bright lights and loud sounds, wears diapers, is extremely good at maths and science, and needs everything told to them in every detail otherwise they won't understand. And because I don't have meltdowns, and I haven't worn a diaper since I was like 3, and I am no good at maths or science, and I don't need everything told to me in a certain specific way, if I say I am Autistic some people might think I'm lying because they are expecting me to be more low-functioning or something. But I also get embarrassed of saying I have Asperger's Syndrome too. Sometimes I feel I should start telling people that I have a non-specified learning disability, because I'm so mild that I can get away with believing I have whatever condition I want, but obviously I can't 100% pass off as NT so it is safer to say I have something.

Sorry if that sounds too dramatic but it's just the way I feel. I am a ''the grass is greener on the other side'' type of person, so if I had been born with something like ADHD but not Asperger's, I would probably be deeply ashamed of having ADHD and instead letting people think I have Asperger's.

I never said they wouldn't get services. I said they wouldn't get the same kinds of accomodations in college and university as people with learning disabilities or cognitive disorders.

I still think there are a lot of undiagnosed autistic middle age and older adults out there. I am not sure if most of those that have not found out they are autistic yet will die without knowing or that the wave will contnue.

Honestly, I'm confused by this.

I'm someone who is usually considered to have "very mild" autism/Asperger's/whateveryouwanttolabelit.
I can "pass" as NT fairly well, I have a much easier time identifying and overcoming my limitations, I'm very verbal, and all-in-all I'm the kind of autistic who doesn't "seem" autistic to people who don't know much about autism.

That being said, I still fit all the criteria for the new DSM 5 diagnosis of ASD.

I have tons of sensory issues, executive functioning issues, I'm alexithymic as heck, I'm so monotropic that it really interferes with my everyday life, etc., etc. Just because I can pass so well as to seem "SO high functioning" to others doesn't mean I'm not autistic, and don't have my share of limitations and disabilities (and unique skills and awesome talents, like we all do!). Without a doubt, I will not lose my diagnosis, and I could easily be reassessed and get the same diagnosis now.

...this makes me wonder about this 75% thing. Where does this come from? How do we estimate this? I've met people who've received an ASD diagnosis who would no longer meet the criteria, because they're not autistic. They don't have sensory issues, they're polytropic, not monotropic, and they're basically just socially strange and have enough of the outward symptoms, visible to neurotypicals, to be labeled as autistic. Are those the kinds of people we're talking about here? Because, if that's the case, I do think that those people aren't really in the same category as ASD. They're not necessarily "neurotypical," but they're not autistic.

EDIT: Also, the article linked says that "When applying proposed DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD, 60.6% (95% confidence interval: 57%?64%) of cases with a clinical diagnosis of an ASD met revised DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ASD." That means only ~40% of those with a diagnosis were excluded, not 75%.

The UK doesn't use the DSM.

quick question to everyone as a follow up to this. Use to have PDD-NOS under the DSM-4. I saw something like this on google where people under PDD would have an 85% chance to not be considered to be autistic under the DSM-V. I actually talked to my doctor about this (psychologist) and I told him about this and he said on this sheet that my PDD-NOS/austism was not listed under disabilities, just a depression disorder from high school.

Question is am I still considered to be under the spectrum since I was diagnosed before the DSM-V came out or does this affect people that were born before it.

Again, this study was published in 2012 and the research is older still.

Since then the DSM V has been released and put into use in the US.

Here is the conclusion of a more recent study, published in the same journal as the study that prompted this thread:

http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(14)00044-6/abstract