Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Autism Spectrum Disorders
Replies
-
mommarnurse wrote: »Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously
However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.
This is quite simple - the increase is largely due to awareness and medical access. Same with other specific diseases such as cancer. The rate of cancer has not increased, but due to increased screening and improved detection methods it appears that way. What was previously written off as "quirky" behavior is now reviewed, studied, and diagnosed.
As I previously stated I believe this to be 100% genetic. I suspect the largest cause of the increase to be due to lack of connection with parents due to all the distraction we have available to us - coupled with the increase of the two party income family. Many of these children who would previously be institutionalized are now getting the treatment and coping techniques to function.4 -
mommarnurse wrote: »Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously
However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.
.0 -
Most have probably seen this, but it's a glimpse into non-verbal autism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmDGvquzn2k
1 -
mommarnurse wrote: »Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously
However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.
As I previously stated I believe this to be 100% genetic. I suspect the largest cause of the increase to be due to lack of connection with parents due to all the distraction we have available to us - coupled with the increase of the two party income family. Many of these children who would previously be institutionalized are now getting the treatment and coping techniques to function.
This last paragraph seemed contradictory to me. It's 100% genetic, but the largest cause is lack of connection with parents? There's a lack of connection with parents due to modern lifestyles, but kids are receiving treatment now they wouldn't have received in the past? I'm not trying to be critical, your point was just genuinely lost on me.
That being said, I've often wondered if my son's symptoms would have been worse (and mind you, I've never had him diagnosed, since it doesn't interfere with his education for the most part) had I not been home with him every day, providing lots of one-on-one attention and working with him daily (I am a SAHM and we home school). I am not trying to be judgmental of anyone's lifestyle at all- just genuinely wondering if it could be a factor?
1 -
mommarnurse wrote: »Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously
However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.
As I previously stated I believe this to be 100% genetic. I suspect the largest cause of the increase to be due to lack of connection with parents due to all the distraction we have available to us - coupled with the increase of the two party income family. Many of these children who would previously be institutionalized are now getting the treatment and coping techniques to function.
This last paragraph seemed contradictory to me. It's 100% genetic, but the largest cause is lack of connection with parents? There's a lack of connection with parents due to modern lifestyles, but kids are receiving treatment now they wouldn't have received in the past? I'm not trying to be critical, your point was just genuinely lost on me.
That being said, I've often wondered if my son's symptoms would have been worse (and mind you, I've never had him diagnosed, since it doesn't interfere with his education for the most part) had I not been home with him every day, providing lots of one-on-one attention and working with him daily (I am a SAHM and we home school). I am not trying to be judgmental of anyone's lifestyle at all- just genuinely wondering if it could be a factor?
I should have spent more time constructing this and appreciate the critique.
The cause is 100% genetic. The coping mechanisms are 100% environmental. Genetics establishes the parameters and we can either choose to life with those or attempt to break past the boundaries through innovation and experimentation - this is behavioral.
The problem is so multifaceted it is impossible to address root cause in something as brief as a forum post.
I don't believe there is any sort of an increase due to genetics. Western lifestyle has led to a decay in social interaction and connections. Many children have lost the model of behavior to act on.3 -
Speechless.
1 -
mommarnurse wrote: »Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously
However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.
As I previously stated I believe this to be 100% genetic. I suspect the largest cause of the increase to be due to lack of connection with parents due to all the distraction we have available to us - coupled with the increase of the two party income family. Many of these children who would previously be institutionalized are now getting the treatment and coping techniques to function.
This last paragraph seemed contradictory to me. It's 100% genetic, but the largest cause is lack of connection with parents? There's a lack of connection with parents due to modern lifestyles, but kids are receiving treatment now they wouldn't have received in the past? I'm not trying to be critical, your point was just genuinely lost on me.
That being said, I've often wondered if my son's symptoms would have been worse (and mind you, I've never had him diagnosed, since it doesn't interfere with his education for the most part) had I not been home with him every day, providing lots of one-on-one attention and working with him daily (I am a SAHM and we home school). I am not trying to be judgmental of anyone's lifestyle at all- just genuinely wondering if it could be a factor?
I should have spent more time constructing this and appreciate the critique.
The cause is 100% genetic. The coping mechanisms are 100% environmental. Genetics establishes the parameters and we can either choose to life with those or attempt to break past the boundaries through innovation and experimentation - this is behavioral.
The problem is so multifaceted it is impossible to address root cause in something as brief as a forum post.
I don't believe there is any sort of an increase due to genetics. Western lifestyle has led to a decay in social interaction and connections. Many children have lost the model of behavior to act on.
whoa
I'm another SAHM, who has always stayed with my children, who has homeschooled them their entire life. They are with people who care for them, family, friends, work groups, whatever, all day. My oldest son, who is most likely an aspie, is ahead by a couple of grades in a couple of subjects, is learning two languages (largely self taught), does soccer, baseball and martial arts, participates in a demo team for martial arts, and volunteers teaches at the same martial arts studio with young students - the youngest students ever allowed to do this. He also has a job shoveling snow for seniors, dog walking for family in the neighbourhood, and is excited to try highschool so he can join their RAK club - Random Acts of Kindness club...
So the western lifestyle has led to a decay in social interaction and connections? That's what has caused my son to seek quiet and stim when he is overwhelmed? Even as a 2 year old? That's why as a toddler he was happy to sit quietly in a restaurant if he was able to play with/organize the sugar packets?
He just handles his challenges in a different way than a more outspoken, less quiet aspie would. How he loses his control (stim or quiet crying) just happens to be in a different manner than other aspies, or other regular children or adults for that matter.2 -
@SideSteelI'd actually be interested in references if you don't mind. I only ask because my 5 year old son has autism and so this topic is close to me.
Thanks for offering and for replying, I do appreciate it!
Here are some of the key papers in the field...technical, sorry...
1. Iossifov I, et al. (2012) De novo gene disruptions in children on the autistic spectrum. Neuron 74(2):285–299.
2. Neale BM, et al. (2012) Patterns and rates of exonic de novo mutations in autism spectrum disorders. Nature 485(7397):242–245.
3. O’Roak BJ, et al. (2012) Sporadic autism exomes reveal a highly interconnected protein network of de novo mutations. Nature 485(7397):246–250.
4. Sanders SJ, et al. (2012) De novo mutations revealed by whole-exome sequencing are strongly associated with autism. Nature 485(7397):237–241.
5. Ronemus M, Iossifov I, Levy D, Wigler M (2014) The role of de novo mutations in the genetics of autism spectrum disorders. Nat Rev Genet 15(2):133–141.
6. Iossifov I, et al. (2014) The contribution of de novo coding mutations to autism spectrum disorder. Nature 515(7526):216–221.
1 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »This is from Autism speaks...
Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.6 -
I don't suspect the environment of presenting anything that causes ASD. The thing I do suspect is the process of brain development during gestation. Parts get hooked up wrong in there. I don't think we can know why.0
-
@SideSteelI'd actually be interested in references if you don't mind. I only ask because my 5 year old son has autism and so this topic is close to me.
Thanks for offering and for replying, I do appreciate it!
Here are some of the key papers in the field...technical, sorry...
1. Iossifov I, et al. (2012) De novo gene disruptions in children on the autistic spectrum. Neuron 74(2):285–299.
2. Neale BM, et al. (2012) Patterns and rates of exonic de novo mutations in autism spectrum disorders. Nature 485(7397):242–245.
3. O’Roak BJ, et al. (2012) Sporadic autism exomes reveal a highly interconnected protein network of de novo mutations. Nature 485(7397):246–250.
4. Sanders SJ, et al. (2012) De novo mutations revealed by whole-exome sequencing are strongly associated with autism. Nature 485(7397):237–241.
5. Ronemus M, Iossifov I, Levy D, Wigler M (2014) The role of de novo mutations in the genetics of autism spectrum disorders. Nat Rev Genet 15(2):133–141.
6. Iossifov I, et al. (2014) The contribution of de novo coding mutations to autism spectrum disorder. Nature 515(7526):216–221.
Thank you!0 -
unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »This is from Autism speaks...
Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.
Is the information I posted incorrect?0 -
unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »This is from Autism speaks...
Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.
And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.
0 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »This is from Autism speaks...
Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.
And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.
Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.
I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.2 -
unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »This is from Autism speaks...
Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.
And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.
Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.
I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.
Do you have any evidence of the bold?
It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism0 -
unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »This is from Autism speaks...
Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.
And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.
Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.
I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.
Do you have any evidence of the bold?
It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism
https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/02/09/autism-speaks-vaccines/20040/0 -
unsuspectingfish wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »This is from Autism speaks...
Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.
And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.
Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.
I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.
Do you have any evidence of the bold?
It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism
https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/02/09/autism-speaks-vaccines/20040/
Thanks, then it seems they no longer believe vaccines cause autism?0 -
unsuspectingfish wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »This is from Autism speaks...
Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.
And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.
Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.
I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.
Do you have any evidence of the bold?
It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism
https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/02/09/autism-speaks-vaccines/20040/
Thanks, then it seems they no longer believe vaccines cause autism?
That's what their statement says, but at the end of the article, it says that their current Strategic Plan includes the following:
"Autism Speaks is funding studies on the underlying biology of autism, including studies to better understand medical and genetic conditions that are associated with autism that could potentially be linked to adverse responses to immunization"
Basically, yes, they may actually no longer believe that the two are linked, but it seems to me that they're just trying to do some PR damage control while quietly continuing to pursue the idea that vaccines cause autism.0 -
unsuspectingfish wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »This is from Autism speaks...
Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.
And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.
Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.
I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.
Do you have any evidence of the bold?
It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism
https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/02/09/autism-speaks-vaccines/20040/
Thanks, then it seems they no longer believe vaccines cause autism?
That's what their statement says, but at the end of the article, it says that their current Strategic Plan includes the following:
"Autism Speaks is funding studies on the underlying biology of autism, including studies to better understand medical and genetic conditions that are associated with autism that could potentially be linked to adverse responses to immunization"
Basically, yes, they may actually no longer believe that the two are linked, but it seems to me that they're just trying to do some PR damage control while quietly continuing to pursue the idea that vaccines cause autism.
It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but it seems to me you're reading an awful lot into that statement. I take it more as they are leaving no stone unturned, or possibly even a concession to those that have a strongly held belief about such that they are not ignoring their concerns.1 -
unsuspectingfish wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »This is from Autism speaks...
Please don't. Autism Speaks is a terrible organization. Almost none of their money actually goes to helping autistic people, and every autistic person I know and every awareness organization I know that's run by actual autistic people despises them.
And just for clarity I was disagreeing that there is an abundance of misdiagnosis based on a child's behavior. I posted the process of diagnosis and the fact that only 7% outgrow the diagnosis. Which even if they are not a noble organization the facts seem correct.
Oh, I agree with what you were trying to say. What I'm saying is that I wouldn't trust a single word coming from that organization. If nothing else, they support the idea that vaccines cause autism.
I would also like to point out that some autistic people (particularly women) don't so much grow out of those criteria as they learn to hide their "symptoms", so to speak, and to mimic neurotypical people. In fact, this is part of why so many women go undiagnosed. Different socialization leads to different symptoms, most of which are not as obvious as those that men have.
Do you have any evidence of the bold?
It seems to me they don't, at least based on what I've seen.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/policy-statements/information-about-vaccines-and-autism
https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2015/02/09/autism-speaks-vaccines/20040/
Thanks, then it seems they no longer believe vaccines cause autism?
That's what their statement says, but at the end of the article, it says that their current Strategic Plan includes the following:
"Autism Speaks is funding studies on the underlying biology of autism, including studies to better understand medical and genetic conditions that are associated with autism that could potentially be linked to adverse responses to immunization"
Basically, yes, they may actually no longer believe that the two are linked, but it seems to me that they're just trying to do some PR damage control while quietly continuing to pursue the idea that vaccines cause autism.
It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but it seems to me you're reading an awful lot into that statement. I take it more as they are leaving no stone unturned, or possibly even a concession to those that have a strongly held belief about such that they are not ignoring their concerns.
Study after study after study has proven that there is no link, and the only people this sort of thing is pandering to are those who think a child having autism is worse than a child contracting a deadly yet entirely preventable disease. Furthermore, it has real-world consequences, which is precisely what caused them to change their position, even if only superficially. Herd immunity has been compromised enough by anti-vaxxers that there are now outbreaks of diseases that were all but dead. People are dying because there might possibly be a link between autism and vaccines in a handful of otherwise perfectly healthy children.3 -
mommarnurse wrote: »Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously
However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.
As I previously stated I believe this to be 100% genetic. I suspect the largest cause of the increase to be due to lack of connection with parents due to all the distraction we have available to us - coupled with the increase of the two party income family. Many of these children who would previously be institutionalized are now getting the treatment and coping techniques to function.
This last paragraph seemed contradictory to me. It's 100% genetic, but the largest cause is lack of connection with parents? There's a lack of connection with parents due to modern lifestyles, but kids are receiving treatment now they wouldn't have received in the past? I'm not trying to be critical, your point was just genuinely lost on me.
That being said, I've often wondered if my son's symptoms would have been worse (and mind you, I've never had him diagnosed, since it doesn't interfere with his education for the most part) had I not been home with him every day, providing lots of one-on-one attention and working with him daily (I am a SAHM and we home school). I am not trying to be judgmental of anyone's lifestyle at all- just genuinely wondering if it could be a factor?
I should have spent more time constructing this and appreciate the critique.
The cause is 100% genetic. The coping mechanisms are 100% environmental. Genetics establishes the parameters and we can either choose to life with those or attempt to break past the boundaries through innovation and experimentation - this is behavioral.
The problem is so multifaceted it is impossible to address root cause in something as brief as a forum post.
I don't believe there is any sort of an increase due to genetics. Western lifestyle has led to a decay in social interaction and connections. Many children have lost the model of behavior to act on.
whoa
I'm another SAHM, who has always stayed with my children, who has homeschooled them their entire life. They are with people who care for them, family, friends, work groups, whatever, all day. My oldest son, who is most likely an aspie, is ahead by a couple of grades in a couple of subjects, is learning two languages (largely self taught), does soccer, baseball and martial arts, participates in a demo team for martial arts, and volunteers teaches at the same martial arts studio with young students - the youngest students ever allowed to do this. He also has a job shoveling snow for seniors, dog walking for family in the neighbourhood, and is excited to try highschool so he can join their RAK club - Random Acts of Kindness club...
So the western lifestyle has led to a decay in social interaction and connections? That's what has caused my son to seek quiet and stim when he is overwhelmed? Even as a 2 year old? That's why as a toddler he was happy to sit quietly in a restaurant if he was able to play with/organize the sugar packets?
He just handles his challenges in a different way than a more outspoken, less quiet aspie would. How he loses his control (stim or quiet crying) just happens to be in a different manner than other aspies, or other regular children or adults for that matter.
Your ability to take points out of context exceeds expectations. Have a wonderful life.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »I'm sure some people are going to jump all over me for this viewpoint, but I don't really care. If you think there is something that would actually change my view, I'm open to it. If you just want to tell me I'm a terrible person for having this viewpoint, or that I'm wrong because your cousin/sibling/kid/etc. doesn't fit either of the things I see; my viewpoint won't change based on that.
Since they changed the DSM criteria several years ago, the number of ASD cases has drastically increased. If you read through the criteria, you might understand why... anybody could be diagnosed under one or more of the criteria. While I believe that many patients truly have a developmental issue, there are a lot diagnosed with ASD now that just have old-fashioned behavioral issues. Many of the latter are actually "bad parenting."
That isn't to say all ASD patients fit that scenario, but it has become a trend where terrible parents have kids with awful behavior, so they take them to someone who diagnoses ASD based on vague DSM criteria. Terrible parents then just excuse their absent parenting with "I just can't help it... my kid has ASD."
I'm a bit flummoxed that so many people are jumping all over you for this, especially people with some personal experience with autism. What you have said here is correct.
I thought I was ASD, myself. I did a massive amount of research on it. I fit so many of the criteria, I could be a poster child. The people in the autism community were amazing, these are people with autism, not people with children with autism, mind you. Autistic people are fantastic, I love them. I still hang out in those communities despite now knowing it isn't what is happening with me. I can still relate to their experiences and they to mine. We get along really well and they welcome me.
One idea that they drove home to me over and over was the importance of making sure you get a differential diagnosis. That's just a fancy way of saying the DSM is vague and there is a lot of other stuff that may be causing these behaviors. That is true. Autism isn't the only syndrome like this, either. The DSM is like this and differential diagnosis is super important in all manner of cases. Anybody who has tried to diagnose a headache on WebMD only to learn they may have a brain tumor can attest to this.
All you seem to be saying is that differential diagnosis is important with ASD and maybe isn't being done as much as it should be. To me, that's like saying that the sky looks blue.
When you are doing a differential diagnosis of a developmental disorder, one likely other explanation is abuse. Abuse also causes developmental issues. Again, the sky looks blue.
Unscrupulous, lazy or weak mental health professionals will likely refrain from telling their client that they are the actual problem and give out an ASD diagnosis rather than face this nightmare of a situation.
Anyway, the ASD community I found warned that you must make sure to get a diagnosis from somebody willing to subject you to the full battery of tests, not just fling the diagnosis at you willy nilly, as many mental health professionals are wont to do. They recommended a neurologist over a psychiatrist as well. They gave me so much advice about being careful about going about getting a diagnosis. Really, again, what wonderful people.
Even they warned that it's easy to get the diagnosis when it may not be the problem. You won't get the help you need if that happens. And they were right.
I got a diagnosis without the full battery of tests and I discarded that diagnosis. I eventually figured out what my real problem is. It's from developmental trauma, it's called CPTSD. CPTSD isn't even in the DSM yet.
I currently moderate an online community for people with CPTSD. We regularly get people who either used to think they had ASD or think they have ASD comorbid with the CPTSD. This is also true of ADHD, especially the primarily inattentive subtype.
The effects of developmental trauma are very easily confused with ASD. Not just with kids who act out. A lot of kids with traumatic childhoods do what is called "act in". That's what I'm like. I do not have the tantrums or flip outs.1 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I'm sure some people are going to jump all over me for this viewpoint, but I don't really care. If you think there is something that would actually change my view, I'm open to it. If you just want to tell me I'm a terrible person for having this viewpoint, or that I'm wrong because your cousin/sibling/kid/etc. doesn't fit either of the things I see; my viewpoint won't change based on that.
Since they changed the DSM criteria several years ago, the number of ASD cases has drastically increased. If you read through the criteria, you might understand why... anybody could be diagnosed under one or more of the criteria. While I believe that many patients truly have a developmental issue, there are a lot diagnosed with ASD now that just have old-fashioned behavioral issues. Many of the latter are actually "bad parenting."
That isn't to say all ASD patients fit that scenario, but it has become a trend where terrible parents have kids with awful behavior, so they take them to someone who diagnoses ASD based on vague DSM criteria. Terrible parents then just excuse their absent parenting with "I just can't help it... my kid has ASD."
I should learn not to step into debates that I'm not well informed in but here I go:)...
Do children out grow Autism when they become teenagers or adults? Or do they continue to show the same behaviors in the general guidelines of the DSM?
The reason I ask is because children eventually out grow bad parenting, to a degree. This is from Autism speaks...
"There are two domains where people with ASD must show persistent deficits:
persistent social communication and social interaction
restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior
More specifically, people with ASD must demonstrate (either in the past or in the present) deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction and deficits in developing, maintaining and understanding relationships.
In addition, they must show at least two types of repetitive patterns of behavior, including stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, insistence on sameness or inflexible adherence to routines, highly restricted, fixated interests, hyper or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment. Symptoms can be currently present or reported in past history".
So it seems that yes a child with poor behavior COULD be diagnosed (If this is correct) cherry picking a few of the above behaviors BUT it seems after going to school interacting with other children other adults etc some of these behaviors would IN GENERAL subside greatly and to a much greater degree as they get older wouldn't you think?
I'm not debating this subject as I said I don't have a decent foundation of Autism other than the controversy around vaccines and the rapid rate of increase children being diagnosed.
ETA - I'm googling now:)
It looks like 7% outgrow it.
I've certainly not outgrown it, I'm 44 and have only just really been dxed (up to now I've had the social anxiety label). Of my 6 children 5 have varying degrees of ASD and within my family it is very prevalent throughout my maternal side. I struggle big time with all social interaction both in person and online/telephone, I don't understand nuances in tone or body language and find crowded/noisy/new places extremely stressful.3 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I'm sure some people are going to jump all over me for this viewpoint, but I don't really care. If you think there is something that would actually change my view, I'm open to it. If you just want to tell me I'm a terrible person for having this viewpoint, or that I'm wrong because your cousin/sibling/kid/etc. doesn't fit either of the things I see; my viewpoint won't change based on that.
Since they changed the DSM criteria several years ago, the number of ASD cases has drastically increased. If you read through the criteria, you might understand why... anybody could be diagnosed under one or more of the criteria. While I believe that many patients truly have a developmental issue, there are a lot diagnosed with ASD now that just have old-fashioned behavioral issues. Many of the latter are actually "bad parenting."
That isn't to say all ASD patients fit that scenario, but it has become a trend where terrible parents have kids with awful behavior, so they take them to someone who diagnoses ASD based on vague DSM criteria. Terrible parents then just excuse their absent parenting with "I just can't help it... my kid has ASD."
I'm a bit flummoxed that so many people are jumping all over you for this, especially people with some personal experience with autism. What you have said here is correct.
I thought I was ASD, myself. I did a massive amount of research on it. I fit so many of the criteria, I could be a poster child. The people in the autism community were amazing, these are people with autism, not people with children with autism, mind you. Autistic people are fantastic, I love them. I still hang out in those communities despite now knowing it isn't what is happening with me. I can still relate to their experiences and they to mine. We get along really well and they welcome me.
One idea that they drove home to me over and over was the importance of making sure you get a differential diagnosis. That's just a fancy way of saying the DSM is vague and there is a lot of other stuff that may be causing these behaviors. That is true. Autism isn't the only syndrome like this, either. The DSM is like this and differential diagnosis is super important in all manner of cases. Anybody who has tried to diagnose a headache on WebMD only to learn they may have a brain tumor can attest to this.
All you seem to be saying is that differential diagnosis is important with ASD and maybe isn't being done as much as it should be. To me, that's like saying that the sky looks blue.
When you are doing a differential diagnosis of a developmental disorder, one likely other explanation is abuse. Abuse also causes developmental issues. Again, the sky looks blue.
Unscrupulous, lazy or weak mental health professionals will likely refrain from telling their client that they are the actual problem and give out an ASD diagnosis rather than face this nightmare of a situation.
Anyway, the ASD community I found warned that you must make sure to get a diagnosis from somebody willing to subject you to the full battery of tests, not just fling the diagnosis at you willy nilly, as many mental health professionals are wont to do. They recommended a neurologist over a psychiatrist as well. They gave me so much advice about being careful about going about getting a diagnosis. Really, again, what wonderful people.
Even they warned that it's easy to get the diagnosis when it may not be the problem. You won't get the help you need if that happens. And they were right.
I got a diagnosis without the full battery of tests and I discarded that diagnosis. I eventually figured out what my real problem is. It's from developmental trauma, it's called CPTSD. CPTSD isn't even in the DSM yet.
I currently moderate an online community for people with CPTSD. We regularly get people who either used to think they had ASD or think they have ASD comorbid with the CPTSD. This is also true of ADHD, especially the primarily inattentive subtype.
The effects of developmental trauma are very easily confused with ASD. Not just with kids who act out. A lot of kids with traumatic childhoods do what is called "act in". That's what I'm like. I do not have the tantrums or flip outs.
I have heard the exact opposite of this, tbh, particularly in women, which is why I think self-diagnosis is still a really powerful tool. People who had diagnosis after diagnosis, none of which seemed to really fit or do them any good when treated, only to read up on ASD and autism and have a sudden "aha" moment, realizing that all these different things are actually one thing. They then often have to fight to get a diagnosis from doctors who are uninformed about the differences in ASD between men and women or who are simply unwilling to admit that they might have been wrong and/or that a different treatment might help more.
I also know some people whose undiagnosed ASD was the cause of childhood trauma due to *kitten* parenting.1 -
mommarnurse wrote: »Going along with the probably accurate theory that it's genetic, how can we account for the obvious increasing number of diagnoses over the past 20 years or so? Yes, the broad diagnosis of ASD now in part accounts for 1.) many disorders (I.e. Intellectual disability, learning disability, add/adhd) are now encompassed into the ASD diagnosis and 2.) many people could have been diagnosed but the symptom set recognition and name wasn't there previously
However, I still feel like aside from accounting for these circumstances, there's still probably an actual increase in cases. There's something there causing that, either directly or indirectly. It could be environmental causing gene damage, and I think it probably is. But, environmental doesn't just mean "chemicals" or "pesticides", etc. it's going to be very hard to narrow it down.
Autism wasn't really known about when I was a child and what was bandied about was mostly misconceptions. Had I been a child in school now I would probably have been diagnosed with both ASD and ADHD, but because I'm female and atypical it wouldn't have even been considered 40 years ago. Plus despite knowing I was different and quirky my parents didn't want me labelled and besides all we knew about autism was Rainman, and I'm nothing like that. Personally, while a dx wouldn't have made much difference to my schooling (under acheiver) it would have been good to know why I'm different and have such a hard time fitting in.3 -
unsuspectingfish wrote: »
I have heard the exact opposite of this, tbh, particularly in women, which is why I think self-diagnosis is still a really powerful tool. People who had diagnosis after diagnosis, none of which seemed to really fit or do them any good when treated, only to read up on ASD and autism and have a sudden "aha" moment, realizing that all these different things are actually one thing. They then often have to fight to get a diagnosis from doctors who are uninformed about the differences in ASD between men and women or who are simply unwilling to admit that they might have been wrong and/or that a different treatment might help more.
I also know some people whose undiagnosed ASD was the cause of childhood trauma due to *kitten* parenting.
What is kitten parenting?
It's not the exact opposite,though, is it? It's the other side of the same coin.
There is a great deal of overlap and careful differential diagnosis is necessary. Your friend needed a differential diagnosis and had a lot of trouble from not getting one.
I had the same experience as your friend, though. Almost to the word that describes what it was like for me in the beginning. But I was wrong, I think. It wasn't ASD. I'm not kidding about the poster child thing. I am pretty much exactly how a female autist is meant to be. The similarities are uncanny.
I'm not saying your friend is wrong. I'm saying the overlap can be seriously misleading.
I agree with much of what you said. I definitely think self-diagnosis can often be the best option available to a person. But the best option of all is a careful differential diagnosis done by a competent professional. The problem is that it's generally easier to find rocking horse poo than a competent professional who will do a careful differential diagnosis.0 -
kitten is the bad word filter.
2 thoughts beyond that.
1. aging or growing out of a disorder doesn't necessarily mean the symptoms go away, merely that the coping mechanisms sufficiently and successfully disguise the symptoms from non-therapeutic/diagnostic observation
2. increased diagnosis(imo) is largely due to increase in ability to correctly or successfully diagnose moderate functional "spectrum" individuals. Early diagnosis tends to hit high function/high intelligence cases and low/no function cases. Leaving the moderate function cases to suffer or operate under an alternative diagnosis.2 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »I'm sure some people are going to jump all over me for this viewpoint, but I don't really care. If you think there is something that would actually change my view, I'm open to it. If you just want to tell me I'm a terrible person for having this viewpoint, or that I'm wrong because your cousin/sibling/kid/etc. doesn't fit either of the things I see; my viewpoint won't change based on that.
Since they changed the DSM criteria several years ago, the number of ASD cases has drastically increased. If you read through the criteria, you might understand why... anybody could be diagnosed under one or more of the criteria. While I believe that many patients truly have a developmental issue, there are a lot diagnosed with ASD now that just have old-fashioned behavioral issues. Many of the latter are actually "bad parenting."
That isn't to say all ASD patients fit that scenario, but it has become a trend where terrible parents have kids with awful behavior, so they take them to someone who diagnoses ASD based on vague DSM criteria. Terrible parents then just excuse their absent parenting with "I just can't help it... my kid has ASD."
I should learn not to step into debates that I'm not well informed in but here I go:)...
Do children out grow Autism when they become teenagers or adults? Or do they continue to show the same behaviors in the general guidelines of the DSM?
The reason I ask is because children eventually out grow bad parenting, to a degree. This is from Autism speaks...
"There are two domains where people with ASD must show persistent deficits:
persistent social communication and social interaction
restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior
More specifically, people with ASD must demonstrate (either in the past or in the present) deficits in social-emotional reciprocity, deficits in nonverbal communicative behaviors used for social interaction and deficits in developing, maintaining and understanding relationships.
In addition, they must show at least two types of repetitive patterns of behavior, including stereotyped or repetitive motor movements, insistence on sameness or inflexible adherence to routines, highly restricted, fixated interests, hyper or hyporeactivity to sensory input or unusual interest in sensory aspects of the environment. Symptoms can be currently present or reported in past history".
So it seems that yes a child with poor behavior COULD be diagnosed (If this is correct) cherry picking a few of the above behaviors BUT it seems after going to school interacting with other children other adults etc some of these behaviors would IN GENERAL subside greatly and to a much greater degree as they get older wouldn't you think?
I'm not debating this subject as I said I don't have a decent foundation of Autism other than the controversy around vaccines and the rapid rate of increase children being diagnosed.
ETA - I'm googling now:)
It looks like 7% outgrow it.
I've certainly not outgrown it, I'm 44 and have only just really been dxed (up to now I've had the social anxiety label). Of my 6 children 5 have varying degrees of ASD and within my family it is very prevalent throughout my maternal side. I struggle big time with all social interaction both in person and online/telephone, I don't understand nuances in tone or body language and find crowded/noisy/new places extremely stressful.
I mentioned 7% outgrowing, referring to at least SOME misdiagnosis.
I don't believe you can outgrow Autism.0 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »unsuspectingfish wrote: »
I have heard the exact opposite of this, tbh, particularly in women, which is why I think self-diagnosis is still a really powerful tool. People who had diagnosis after diagnosis, none of which seemed to really fit or do them any good when treated, only to read up on ASD and autism and have a sudden "aha" moment, realizing that all these different things are actually one thing. They then often have to fight to get a diagnosis from doctors who are uninformed about the differences in ASD between men and women or who are simply unwilling to admit that they might have been wrong and/or that a different treatment might help more.
I also know some people whose undiagnosed ASD was the cause of childhood trauma due to *kitten* parenting.
What is kitten parenting?
It's not the exact opposite,though, is it? It's the other side of the same coin.
There is a great deal of overlap and careful differential diagnosis is necessary. Your friend needed a differential diagnosis and had a lot of trouble from not getting one.
I had the same experience as your friend, though. Almost to the word that describes what it was like for me in the beginning. But I was wrong, I think. It wasn't ASD. I'm not kidding about the poster child thing. I am pretty much exactly how a female autist is meant to be. The similarities are uncanny.
I'm not saying your friend is wrong. I'm saying the overlap can be seriously misleading.
I agree with much of what you said. I definitely think self-diagnosis can often be the best option available to a person. But the best option of all is a careful differential diagnosis done by a competent professional. The problem is that it's generally easier to find rocking horse poo than a competent professional who will do a careful differential diagnosis.
LOL, "kitten" is not what I wrote. I didn't even write a bad word! It was cr*ppy.
You're absolutely right, it is just the other side of the coin. For one particular friend, it was further complicated by the fact that she had an abusive parent while suffering from undiagnosed autism as a child, making a diagnosis later in life more difficult, particularly since she absolutely did suffer from other issues brought on by that abuse.
You're absolutely right in terms of compotent professionals.0 -
I believe in the genetic element.
How much is triggered by anything else, I don't know. I'm inclined to have some belief that stresses on the body or mind can set it off and so I'm not completely against the suggestion that vaccinations can trigger autism to develop in some individuals, but I don't believe that autism is anywhere near as bad as death and so I could never agree with an anti-vaccination stance.
I'm autistic myself. I believe that there are two undiagnosed people with autism in my extended family, which is where the genetic element seems to be confirmed on a personal level. It seems very obvious to me in both cases, but I've not told them so. One of these people is in her 50s and the other is a teenager - the teenager does have an array of other diagnoses that appear to be the modern-day approach of addressing the traits and symptoms but completely missing the overriding cause.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions