Autism Spectrum Disorders

While there are some kids diagnosed as 'on the spectrum' for poor behavior (the same kids that would have been ADHD in the 90s) that really just need structure and boundaries, by no means does that apply to a majority of people on the spectrum!

I had to fight for years with that stereotype of my daughter even though she has severe classic autism (hand flapping, echolalia, no eye contact, etc). My other daughter is completely normal so probably not just incompetent parenting.

I think there is a genetic component for sure, a lot of people in my family have different 'quirks' that hint at ASD but not severe enough to disrupt their lives. I believe that an unstructured environment can really exacerbate the problem, it really wreaks havoc on all kids though.

Just my two cents.

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.

Scientifically? WE DON'T KNOW SQUAT! That's what I believe.

graduate studies in behavioral neuroscience and PhD studies in Neuroimmunology...I can tell you with certainty that nobody knows and as someone on the spectrum I can tell you I've reviewed a lot of research. The last time I reviewed papers a few years ago, the most promising research seemed to show an increase in paternal age as being a very good correlate.

Increasing paternal age has shown to increase the incidence of different types of disorders including autism, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, and childhood leukemia. I can also tell you that de novo sperm taken from men 45 years old had over twice the amount of DNA damage as sperm from men 30 years old. Optimum genetic material comes from men in their late teens to early twenties. Unlike women who are born with X number of eggs which don't divide, sperm continuously divides and is prone to a lot of damage/germ line mutation with advancing age.

Interestingly, this is how germline retroviruses create lateral gene transfers in populations (in addition to selective pressures) as evidenced in human endogenous retroviral repeats (HERVs) something that I was especially interested in. 8%-9% of our DNA consists of "fingerprints" showing how retroviruses have shaped our genes over the course of evolutionary history. Sorry for the tangent, couldn't resist.

The problem with paternal aging studies is the masking effect created by the general trend in the population for men to have their first child much later in life. Especially within various strata within that general population where the trend is much more pronounced.

For anyone doubting whether this phenomenon is "real" I can tell you that we can see ASD in brain imaging in very reliable and predictable patterns. Furthermore, the increase in ASD diagnosis well mirrors the decline in what we used to generally term "intellectual disability". This creates yet another confounding variable complicating studies.

My oldest son appears to have ASD. We started having him diagnosed, back when Asperger's was still a separate diagnosis from Autism, but we discontinued it. He is homeschooled and did not need accommodations for school. His case is mild and he has no behavioural problems. He was just the type of baby who never wanted to cuddle. As a toddler he would line up his Thomas trains in certain ways rather than "play" with them. He is a smart kid, who learns very quickly, especially in his areas of interest, which changes every few years or so.

Anyways, my son seemed to be born this way. People were calling him an old soul by time he was 8 months old. Some things became easier for him with dietary changes (gluten, some red dyes, and milk). Other things needed to be taught because he didn't intuitively "get" some social situations. He still gets overwhelmed by a lot of noise and people. He needs to leave or he just can't think well. That's his biggest struggle.

My next two boys came out with no autism, and they never developed it. I'm not sure what was different with my oldest. TBH, I don't think I would take it away from him. It's part of who he is. It makes him unique and has added positively to his life in many ways. We have to make a few accommodations for him, but I doubt he'd want to give up his high IQ just so he could tolerate a noisy classroom better. KWIM?

NorthCascades wrote: »

show previous quotes

nvmomketo wrote: »

He still gets overwhelmed by a lot of noise and people. He needs to leave or he just can't think well. That's his biggest struggle.

Interesting. I've heard of plenty of stereotypical autism-related behaviors, like strong adherence to routine, unusual interest in how textures feel, and social difficulty especially with understanding social interactions and relationships. I haven't heard of what you described in relation to ASD. But I have a colleague who described having the same struggle, the similarity is uncanny. He said it's very difficult for him to spend more than 20 minutes in a big store, the noise from peoples' conversations coming at him from every angle makes it difficult for him to think, he gets overwhelmed, and has to leave. Your son's experience sounds eerily similar to my coworker's. Is this common?

I have a 16 year old daughter with Autism and she's very sensitive to cacophonous sounds. She's fine with sirens or fireworks but put her in a crowded classroom, gym, or lunchroom and it's just too much. This has been one of the biggest issues with many of the autistic children we've encountered.

As for the other symptoms, she started adapting better to change and improved her eating habits once she was around hitting puberty at 10. Before she wouldn't eat certain textured foods (creamy, mushy, buttery). Now she'll eat most anything! She still has communication and social issues unfortunately and will probably never be independent but she has never had behavioral issues and has always been very affectionate. In fact, it was hard to get her diagnosed at the time (2001-2002) because she wasn't shying away from touch or acting out.

I personally think it's genetic. From reading 16 years worth of studies and my own n=1 experience, I just don't see anything out of the ordinary in our life that would have caused/triggered it. I certainly hope something conclusive is found sooner than later and that more focus is put on taking care of this large population of aging autistic people. I'm scared to death of what will happen when my husband and I are gone. Thankfully our state/county has fabulous support programs.

kami3006 wrote: »

show previous quotes

robininfl wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Our daughter's story is parallel to your son's. We never went through with formal diagnosis since I homeschooled her, even through dyslexia. Interestingly with her sensory issues, she also has synesthesia like I do, and her texture issues with food translate to that. Foods taste odd to her. She, for example, think carrots taste "square" and that lettuce tastes "purple".
.

I don't know about lettuce, but raw carrots DO taste square! That is funny, I never thought about it, but they do.

If you haven't and if you're intersted, read up on Daniel Tammet an autistic savant who has beautifully described his synesthesia as well as other interesting aspects of autism.

I usually don't cite wiki for anything but I took this quote from there:

In his mind, Tammet says, each positive integer up to 10,000 has its own unique shape, colour, texture and feel. He has described his visual image of 289 as particularly ugly, 333 as particularly attractive, and pi, though not an integer, as beautiful. The number 6 apparently has no distinct image yet what he describes as an almost small nothingness, opposite to the number 9 which he calls large, towering, and quite intimidating. He also describes the number 117 as "a handsome number. It's tall, it's a lanky number, a little bit wobbly".[8][28] In his memoir, he describes experiencing a synaesthetic and emotional response for numbers and words.

I was once hospitalized for my migraines and had the interesting experience of having the whole staff of my migraine clinic come into my room along with quite a few of the nurses to just chat with me. Very few of them had run across a synesthete before.

Before it was too hard for me to do as a sustained activity thanks to arthritis, I used to love to draw, and colored pencils were my favorite medium. A lot of my experience of synethesia revolves around color. I can remember taking an art class back when I worked at an arts college and sort of confusing the instructor when I'd try to discuss things. When my instructor told me I had an eye for color, I told her that it was more like an ear and "feeling" for it.