Can autism get lesser?

Post Reply New Topic

Some elements about the prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD)

On the "over DX" v "under DX" thing, Diva - I think both arguments are valid. After all, it is true that no one wanted an Autism DX in the deep dark past because it would have meant a near certain referral to an asylum or something similar. On the other hand as the Spectrum was expanded via the DSM things changed to the extent that there was an over DX.

The point is the combination of both is what has created the illusion of the so-called epidemic - like it has come from nowhere almost.

autism_diva, I liked in one of those (the .pdf one I think) that states the current change in thought for [classic] autism and mental retardation, and how one can be classically autistic and still have normal intelligence, but still don't have Asperger's/PDD-NOS.

By the way, another thing is that a lot of people are unaware of the actual history of the autism diagnosis from Kanner's day onward.

Kanner's autism was originally something that was supposed to be applied primarily to children who would today be called high-functioning: They had (or could be presumed to have) normal IQ scores, they could generally speak (and even could speak quite early at times, like some of Kanner's original patients), and other such things. Kanner's original patients would today, if adhering to the strict criteria for these things, all be considered high-functioning autistic or even AS.

There were also some inaccurate presumptions made in Kanner's criteria and descriptions of course. I have read his original paper, unlike apparently a lot of autism professionals today. He describes people who even from his descriptions were clearly interacting with people, as non-interactive because their interactions were not typical. He actually believed that autistic people rejected everything outside themselves, and that if they had reflux then even that was a rejection of things outside themselves. He conveniently ignored, of course, all the things and people they did not reject in any sense. He also described one girl as able to comprehend instructions without hearing them, which I think he meant without looking at the person who was saying them.

Anyway, later on, a number of people were added to the description of autism who were what now would be called "lower functioning". This was talked about in one paper as "autistic PDD" rather than "Kanner's" (and the paper regarded "Kanner's" as meaning "relatively high functioning"). Also, what is now called regressive autism was added into the description of autism. (Previously, "regressive autism" was considered by some people, such as Frances Tustin, to a later-onset form of "psychosis" and actually being "childhood schizophrenia" as opposed to "autism proper" which was obvious from birth and usually did not involve additional "regressions".)

So this meant that now there were a lot of people who Kanner would not have considered to be autistic, and they actually started forming more and more of the definition of autism. (I don't see anything as wrong with this, I'm just reporting the sequence of events here.) There are actual descriptions of the "broadening of the concept of autism to include people with mental retardation" (although many of the people that presumption was made about, did not actually fit that diagnosis) from that time period, a very different discussion than the current discussions about "broadening".

So by 1980, which was when autism was added into the DSM (many people assume it was a lot earlier than that -- prior to that it was actually considered either a form of childhood schizophrenia or not mentioned at all), the criteria were pretty extreme. And they also included one criterion that is inaccurate for just about all autistic people including those regarded as severely autistic today. (Which is total lack of contact with people in any form, basically. That just doesn't exist, or doesn't often exist, in autistic people.)

Ever since 1980, the criteria have been mostly broadening, so that they would, for instance, include people like Kanner's original patients. This is not over-diagnosis, but an attempt to encompass both all the new people who were added in after Kanner's original ideas about autism, and the people that both Kanner and Asperger originally discussed (who had been dropped out of the definition of autism altogether somewhere in the middle period). So instead of just an addition to the "original" idea of autism, it was more like an attempt to re-include the people originally studied, most of whom would have been dropped out of the definition somewhere in the middle period. While still also including the people added in in the middle period.

Asperger's is a neurological difference, a neurodiversity, and there is no solid, empirical evidence that it can be altered through diets or massages. When I say "empirical evidence," I am speaking here as an academic, i.e., articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

I don't doubt the sincerity of many of the people offering alleged "cures" for ASDs. I also do not doubt the sincerity of some of the most fanatical members of religious groups I have studied as a sociologist of religion (the ones who are absolutely, positively certain they are right). However, as the late Garner Ted Armstrong used to say (of course, excluding himself), "There are many sincere people who are sincerely wrong."

It is generally a good idea to ignore testimonials. Promoters of cures always want people to read these stories. They know that "the human touch" appeals to a lot of people and can easily, to the average nonscientist (and concerned parent), compensate for a lack of research data.

All that matters is published research in academic journals. IMO, everything else can be safely disregarded. Once that is done, none of the nonscientific "cures" amount to much of anything.

Livsparents, the early intervention team that worked with my son had limited success. The OP and DT was essentially useless. The speech therapist did have some success and coaxed out his first words. She used a combination of picture and sign language helped him visualize what the words she was trying to get him to say. We learned from that and continued using her methods at home. The OT and DT we could have done ourselves. He enjoyed their company and the fact that they brought a bag of toys with them, but I saw no progress from the things they did with him. Some of the things they did he actually disliked. Early intervention fas free so we were not out of any money for it. Knowing what we know now we could have done all of that stuff ourselves. You know a lot LP do you really need to pay for it. Even ABA, You could do that yourself right? I don't know what the DAN "doctors" are doing for you aside from the MB12 injections, but you do those yourself right? Do you really need to pay a DAN? How much progress have you seen from your interventions? Can you definitely attribut it to your interventions or is your 3 year old just growing and learning. Our son has made huge strides in 1 year. He has gone from not speaking, to saying all kinds of things. I call it Spongebob therapy. I still am going to get him some more speech therapy though. It seems to help a little.