21–30 of 79 posts
Since when was autism classified as a disease?
The DSM-III, published in 1980, established autism as its own separate diagnosis and described it as a “pervasive developmental disorder” distinct from schizophrenia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was an HN thread the other day about how some (many?) autistic people don't think there is anything wrong with them and that they wouldn't "cure" themselves even if there were a "cure" because from their point of view there is nothing to cure and they are happy the way they are.
Some highly functioning adults which some medical professionals advocate shouldn’t even be on the spectrum might feel like that. Most people on the spectrum will require help to go to the bathroom or complete other basic tasks so them making medical decisions is unlikely. There is now a pretty big concern about the over-diagnosing of ASD especially amongst functioning adults. In many countries you can be diagnosed in…
It's difderent to the ADHD "epidemic", because it generally doesn't involve medication. Rather it enables an awareness of the sorts of things that one might find difficult, and aids them in avoiding, dealing with, and working around those things. I fail to see how this can bea bad thing.
I agree that those with more debilitating forms might want treatment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any abnormality that adversely affects the form or function of the human body that does not stem form physical injury is a disease. The problem here is that most people think that those who suffer from autism are the quirky guy at work who’s good at math while in reality most of them would be in diapers trough adulthood. In reality it is a terrible debilitating disease that enacts a huge toll on both those who suffer…
The issue is that it's really both. It's kind of pointless to debate the effects of autism when one side is thinking "Light Aspergers" and the other "Adults in diapers".
The lower you go on the spectrum the higher the chances for comorbidity for a lot of other conditions, mitochondrial and metabolic syndrome, fragile x chromosome, gastrointestinal diseases and many many more horrific things.
For example the reason why many people who suffer from autism would require diapers after being potty trained isn't because of MR or any other intellectual disability but because they are more likely to suffer from encopresis which leads to fecal leakage.
It also doesn't help that the image of autism was changed from kids that would require tremendous support for the rest of their life to SV engineers making 500K a year that can't seem to be able to not be a jerk or are too introverted.
As an anecdotal evidence I managed to get myself diagnosed on the spectrum in the UK I went to an official diagnosis center and had sessions with an "occupational therapist", at no point have I ever seen a doctor not to mention a neurologist. As morbid as it sound I have that framed just by my ordained minister license which I got despite being Jewish.
If ASD has a single or a subset of related underlying genetic causes then it's a single disease, and if these causes are present both in high functioning and low functioning autistic individual then it is truly a single condition, however it is still a disease just like relapsing MS is a disease even if it never fully flares out.
That said however I have a strong feeling that the more we understand the epidemiology of ASD the more likely we'll find out that it's much more likely a group of distinct diseases with different causes. And some might not even be classified as a condition anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some highly functioning adults which some medical professionals advocate shouldn’t even be on the spectrum might feel like that. Most people on the spectrum will require help to go to the bathroom or complete other basic tasks so them making medical decisions is unlikely. There is now a pretty big concern about the over-diagnosing of ASD especially amongst functioning adults. In many countries you can be diagnosed in…
So I'd consider myself one of these people. And I think it's really important that people like myself are grouped with those with more severe forms of autism. Bascially because I'm pretty sure the root cause is the same, I react to all the same triggers as classically autistic people, I'm just better able to control my reaction. It's difderent to the ADHD "epidemic", because it generally doesn't involve medication. R…
Those are the majority.
>So I'd consider myself one of these people.
I got myself positively diagnosed also, not autistic in any way, the behaviour therapists that can diagnose anyone in the UK should be thrown out, any diagnosis especially in adulthood that does not involve multiple doctors including neurologists and psychiatrists is not something I take too seriously.
>And I think it's really important that people like myself are grouped with those with more severe forms of autism.
Why? there is no clinical significance to this. I'm being honest here, from your perspective what is the clinical significance of your diagnosis in general not to mention of being grouped with people who will suffer from fecal leakage all their life?
If your diagnosis is not used to treat or manage your condition it is not clinically significant.
>Bascially because I'm pretty sure the root cause is the same, I react to all the same triggers as classically autistic people, I'm just better able to control my reaction.
Considering that you are highly unlikely to suffer from any of syndromes that are comorbid to low functioning autistic individuals I would strongly disagree, and I have a strong feeling that once we understand the genetics of this disease better especially in relation to FXS and mitochondrial syndromes I will be right.
>It's difderent to the ADHD "epidemic", because it generally doesn't involve medication.
The epidemic is about just how many diagnosis centers are popping up targeting adults as a business with little to no oversight. This is really terrifying that we've watered down the diagnosis of autism to a behaviour therapist who had a 6 week course that can diagnose you in a single session.
>Rather it enables an awareness of the sorts of things that one might find difficult, and aids them in avoiding, dealing with, and working around those things. I fail to see how this can bea bad thing.
No it doesn't in fact it detracts severely from those who actually need help the most, those without a six figure salary. Just look at where the funding and attention goes these days vs 10 or 20 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that it's really both. It's kind of pointless to debate the effects of autism when one side is thinking "Light Aspergers" and the other "Adults in diapers".
Unlikely, at least not in a clinically useful manner. A disease is a disease, one of the strongest arguments against the "high functioning" part of the autism spectrum these days is that these people don't seem to exhibit much if any of the comorbidity syndromes prevalent to autism especially the physiological one. The lower you go on the spectrum the higher the chances for comorbidity for a lot of other conditions,…
Interesting discussion on twitter regarding the relatively small sample size (n=15) given the heterogeneity of the underlying condition - https://twitter.com/WiringTheBrain/status/112928482114080358...
By the same logic, if I manage to cure an extremely rare type of cancer under certain circumstances when it's detected early on, I get fired for having too little success? I mean, what? Seriously?
By all means, prove them wrong, but stop the yelling. That's even more worthless than any form of pioneering research.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So I'd consider myself one of these people. And I think it's really important that people like myself are grouped with those with more severe forms of autism. Bascially because I'm pretty sure the root cause is the same, I react to all the same triggers as classically autistic people, I'm just better able to control my reaction. It's difderent to the ADHD "epidemic", because it generally doesn't involve medication. R…
>I agree that those with more debilitating forms might want treatment. Those are the majority. >So I'd consider myself one of these people. I got myself positively diagnosed also, not autistic in any way, the behaviour therapists that can diagnose anyone in the UK should be thrown out, any diagnosis especially in adulthood that does not involve multiple doctors including neurologists and psychiatrists is not somethin…
Some people just like systemizing for its own sake :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I agree that those with more debilitating forms might want treatment. Those are the majority. >So I'd consider myself one of these people. I got myself positively diagnosed also, not autistic in any way, the behaviour therapists that can diagnose anyone in the UK should be thrown out, any diagnosis especially in adulthood that does not involve multiple doctors including neurologists and psychiatrists is not somethin…
> Why? there is no clinical significance to this. Some people just like systemizing for its own sake :)
Asperger's is still on the DSM but might also be moved to its own category since it's the only "distinct" classification in the ASD where there isn't clear ~4:1 ratio (or higher) of males to females. The extreme dimorphism of autism and it's comorbidity with other x chromosome related syndromes including FXS is quite distinctive and Asperger's does not usually exhibits this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's always puzzled me. It's certainly an individual's right to decline treatment for any medical condition, and to some extent I can understand why someone with autism might choose to do so, but that doesn't make it any less of a medical condition.
I think it's different because, at least in some forms, it comes with advantages as well as disadvantages. For some people it's debilitating, but for others it's not.