Jakki wrote:
So after trying to source reasoning in the why and wherefore ....personal opinion follows :
After knowing my own birth family. And how degrees of autism were dispersed unevenly in my siblings.
And meeting other autists in person , kinda leaning towards the idea ,of Mothers that have chikdren when they are older,and some women put off childbirth till later as the years have passed. and secondly . The amount of stressors mentally have been more serious for women ,last many years. Single moms having more than she should have to handle. Think these things can contribute to causes of newborn Autism...to some degree or another ..
I have read solid, documented support for the idea that I highlighted above, despite my own family of creation blowing this notion to bits.
My first is Level 2. My second is Level 3 (most traumatic birth for both of us). My third is Level 1 (high risk pregnancy; doctors believed this baby had Trisomy 18, but it turned out to be false). My fourth is Level 2 (first kiddo born in my 30s). All younger kids are Level 1/borderline Level 2.
We are a homeschooling family, and have chosen not to pursue official diagnoses until the kids are older. At around 16-18, we obtain diagnoses (unless the children -- my Aspies/Level 1s -- specifically say they don't want one), so that at age 26, private medical coverage continues.
There aren't many families like mine, so we aren't included in the "surges" being observed.
I pretty much agree with everything stated here:
ASPartOfMe wrote:
[....] Comparing any studies that are based on different criteria is not scientific. She talks about the low percentage of autistics in institutions. She notes that there are no studies proving there was hidden or misdiagnosed autistics. This does not prove there was not misdiagnosed autistics in these institutions. Without valid comparisons as flawed as it is all we can go on is common sense which says stricter criteria means less diagnoses. Another reason comparing studies from different eras is flawed is that the meaning of language evolves. The clinicians then may have used a different words or terms to describe the same symptom. Also the same word may have had a different or more likely similar but not the same meanings. The clinicians of the 1970s were operating with different assumptions and contexts.
“I did not see any autistics when I was growing up” and the like is the weakest type of circumstantial evidence which Ms. Escher as a
lawyer by trade surely knows. By definition we did not see peers whom were institutionalized. Not every person whose parents could not handle them were institutionalized some were locked in the attic, thrown in the street, or even killed. We did not see them either.
Peers we probably did see were not recognized because they were the undiagnosed and we were literally ignorant about autism. We saw them but described them as weird, painfully shy, various homophobic slurs, stubborn, attention seeker, and said they had a
stick up their ass, etc. I knew of one such unrecognized person, I saw him in the mirror every morning.
For awhile I viewed both the autism epidemic and over-diagnoses explanations as both offensive and wrong. The expanding criteria theory seemed to explain it all.
While I still believe expanding criteria is the primary explanation I have made room for others.
I believe that while under diagnosis is still a problem for my peers over diagnosis is one for the youngest set. There is a huge push to diagnose as early as possible. We know the formation of “brain wiring” is at its most intense in the earliest part of life. ABA is intended to block or deflect the “autism genes” from wiring the brain before it becomes autistic. It is also good for the bottom line. Also due to search engines and now AI people have been trained to expect instant answers.
When people say environmental factors what they usually mean is environmental poisoning. There other possible environmental factors. Our senses are bombarded to a much larger degree then they were. Sights and sounds are not the only things bombarding our senses. The Free Range Parents of 1974 expected their kids to be home for dinner and do their homework. Today’s parents often hover over their children and plan every minute of their lives.
The parents of 1974 expected their children to figure out and deal with a lot more problems then todays patents do. For Level 2 and especially Level 3 autistics Free Range was a disaster, they need the structure and high level of guidance. For Level 1’s having the time and space to figure out what works and what does not for them was helped them figure out to some degree who they are and toughened them up. It was not a panacea. Learning the hard way is one thing but often this was done to a degree that caused unnecessary pain and lingering effects.
Today’s social expectations are higher.
If one could transfer todays diagnostic criteria and availability of diagnosis back to 1974 without changing anything else I contend the rate of autism diagnoses would be lower due to the factors I mentioned above. That does not mean there was less autism prevalence back then. It could mean certain peoples symptoms were not impairing enough for a diagnosis back then but due to said environmental factors are now.
Even if it is figured out through brain imaging or genetics what exactly autism is you are still going to run into issues comparing data from different eras.
I need a clapping emoji for all of the above.
17 Nov 2024, 2:54 am
To sum up, I wish I was diagnosed, but with something less stigmatising than autism/Asperger's. It was a blow to my confidence even as an adult, but let's be honest, adults are more emotiononally resilient and have a more stable self-esteem.
