"That doesn't mean they "beat autism" it just means they were higher functioning to begin with and "corrected" some of the social behaviors associated with it to the extent that they no longer required therapy. "

Well, that's not true. It points out that there were other kids who started out at the same level of function and did not progress as far. They beat autism in the sense that they have no remaining symptoms at all. I suppose you could argue that's just off-the-charts high functioning, but that would be a word game. The point (which used to be controversial) would be that this is possible -- right?

Small quibble aside, interesting post -- thanks.

Yes they made more progress than kids at the same level of functioning but the point is this article gives inflated hopes because it's based on kids who are already very high functioning and have limited behavioral problems (the fact that the parents were 'baffled' by the tantrum leads me to believe this behavior is rare, and the tantrum was not violent towards the parents). This isn't an example of the median kid with autism, at least in my experience. If the article made the argument that kids with Aspergers or otherwise high functioning kids on the spectrum can become fully functioning integrated adults, that's fine. I'm not remotely suggesting the kids are "off the charts high functioning", I'm just saying these situations only really apply to autistic kids at the very high end of the autism spectrum, and to suggest from this that autism "can be beaten" is misleading.

Gotcha. Yeah makes sense.

I was interested by the argument put forward by the advocacy group that autism should not be viewed as a negative thing to be cured. Generally (including here) I'm very skeptical of these kinds of arguments, though they almost certainly contain a grain of truth (some of the behavior mentioned is plainly harmless, only unusual). Do you have thoughts on this?

It's a reaction to the stigmatization of autism. Unfortunately there are some groups (I'm thinking primarily of Autism Speaks) who engage in a lot of fearmongering about autism and dehumanize the people who have it to a large degree. The anti-vaccination movement does this as well, their whole deluded campaign is predicated upon an absurd and wholly unscientific fear of autism. However I think the effort to 'normalize' autism is again, the privilege of the high functioning and it could lead to ignoring or opposing therapy that could help people. Autism is only "harmless" for a small segment of the autistic community. To most it is completely debilitating and for many the behavioral problems involved pose a serious safety risk to families. I went to work for half a year wearing a lacrosse helmet and arm guards.

Autism spectrum has expanded considerably in the last ten years, but which I mean the diagnosis is much more likely to be applied to children who show minimal indications. I suppose there are mixed effects of this. It is maybe not so good that some resources are diverted to people may not need it as much. It has also skewed the public perception of what autism is, for better or worse.

Putin, I would be interested in your thoughts on the autism "expansion" resulting in increased rate of diagnosing. Do you find this is a good thing or not so much?

I'm generally skeptical of therapy claims. You have to remember with every brand of therapy someone is "selling" a product and using data in such a way to promote it.

That seems like a bit of an unfair generalization. I'm sure that many people promoting therapies are "selling" them because they want more people to benefit. That there might be a money component might be more the fault of a system that isn't based on public funding but instead monetizes the full functioning and good health of people.

" That there might be a money component might be more the fault of a system that isn't based on public funding but instead monetizes the full functioning and good health of people. "

That monetization has at least arguably spurred the development of an enormous number of beneficial treatments and drugs, so while it's probably a discussion for another thread, at least let's not treat it as unambiguously bad.

Oh, I don't. I was just pointing out why there might be an appearance of the kind of less neutral, more commercial "selling" of therapies. That might be less common if research and provision of health care were funded differently.

Got it.

When disliking tight pants and omelettes have been declared signs of mental illness (I'm guilty of both - as well as not speaking until I was three years old, proof positive of "autism" these days apparently), you know your society has reached the point when anyone, anywhere, at any time can be declared mentally ill - with all the legal and social disadvantages that entails (and will entail in the future).

If you want to own a gun, get a sensitive job, or be (relatively) safe from involuntary psychiatric commitments, you better be willing to wear a pair of jeans, folks.

Tolstoy,

Actually, the symptoms you cite were experienced by somebody who the article said did NOT have mental illness.

Thanks for reading though.

I'm not saying therapies are all money driven, but it would be unwise to ignore that it is a factor, as it is in any business.

I've got a therapy for your cynicism, dirge. It will cost $2000 but life will be rosier from now on (at least if it works -- it's experimental).

"Actually, the symptoms you cite were experienced by somebody who the article said did NOT have mental illness."

Did not *currently* have a mental illness. But all it will take is one mass shooting by a "former autistic" to blur that distinction in the public's eye to the point of irrelevance.

Just one, huh?

So you're saying that all we need is a member of an extremely tiny group to perform an exceptionally rare act, and your point's wrongness will be "blur[red] .... to the point of irrelevance" in the public eye?

Wow. Why did I even correct you, I wonder?

"So you're saying that all we need is a member of an extremely tiny group to perform an exceptionally rare act, and your point's wrongness will be "blur[red] .... to the point of irrelevance" in the public eye?"

Wrongness? Disliking tight pants and omelettes were specifically cited as a "mild echo" and "remnant" of autism, respectively. Ergo, they are apparently both considered signs of autism that may persist after the autism is "cured". And not speaking at 2 years old was cited repeatedly in the article as a serious red flag.

And to address your point, the exceptionally rare event of hijacking passenger airliners and flying them into buildings by an exceptionally small minority didn't exactly endear Muslims in the eyes of most Americans.

"Why did I even correct you, I wonder?"

An obsession with trivial details is a sign of autism, semck. You should get yourself checked.

Just because it's a remnant, that doesn't make it a sign. If I'm blind and I get surgery and can see, near-sightedness might be considered a "remnant" of the affliction/surgery (assuming that was causally the case). That doesn't make nearsightedness in general a sign of blindness.

"And to address your point, the exceptionally rare event of hijacking passenger airliners and flying them into buildings by an exceptionally small minority didn't exactly endear Muslims in the eyes of most Americans."

So? A fallacy being widely embraced doesn't make it reason.

"Just because it's a remnant, that doesn't make it a sign. If I'm blind and I get surgery and can see, near-sightedness might be considered a "remnant" of the affliction/surgery (assuming that was causally the case). That doesn't make nearsightedness in general a sign of blindness."

All well and good for a medical condition that is easily understood and not at all perceived as a danger to others. A large percentage of the human population is terrified of people with mental illness, however, and claiming that someone has been cured isn't going to mean much if someone else who was also alleged to be cured does something bad and gets massive media coverage. The suggestion - justified or not - that the "cured" are still dangerous will be made in the minds of many (or most).

"So? A fallacy being widely embraced doesn't make it reason."

When a fallacy is widely embraced, does it really matter if it is reasonable to those facing the consequences? The mosque nearest to my house has been torched twice in the last 12 years. The fact that the anti-Muslim prejudice of the probable arsonists is irrational did not rebuild their mosque.

"When a fallacy is widely embraced, does it really matter if it is reasonable to those facing the consequences?"

How is this a defense when you're the one perpetrating the fallacy?

As for the psych symptoms, I really think that's largely up to the patient to determine. If he experiences those as a weak continuation of what he experienced before, then it is a remnant of the same thing, and that doesn't mean squat about anybody else.

Nobody stated or implied that this was a symptom such as should be taken into account in a diagnosis. You're just being paranoid.

"Autism spectrum has expanded considerably in the last ten years, but which I mean the diagnosis is much more likely to be applied to children who show minimal indications. I suppose there are mixed effects of this. It is maybe not so good that some resources are diverted to people may not need it as much. It has also skewed the public perception of what autism is, for better or worse."

Neither you nor Tolstoy's comments reflect anything like my personal experience. Although it's anecdotal, my experience is that it is actually very difficult to get diagnosed with autism. These cases are severe and nothing to scoff at.

I'm not scoffing putin. I realize autism can be a very serious condition. But there is some literature and quite a few news articles referring to increase in diagnosing practices.

However, I respect that your personal experience does not reflect it. It may not be universal. I came across one study that showed the expansion was largest (to the point of "epidemic") is southern Cal, around LA.

I had a case of a child, around 5 years old, who had no verbal skills, would make repetitive grunting noises, would repetitively jump up and down, would climb and attempt to escape 24/7, had very limited attention span, and all she could be diagnosed with was a cognitive disorder. She was not diagnosed with autism so she had limited funding.

That's the thing, the government doesn't want to pay for these services, so there is every incentive to under-diagnose.

And only the absolutely most extreme cases can be diagnosed ADHD, that's a big problem, IMO. A lot more kids have ADHD than are being diagnosed.

Meanwhile, you have to constantly fend off the attacks of the people who shout, "ADD's made up!" and, "When I was a kid, they just whipped it out of ya!" All the while, kids who could be helped to fulfill much more of their potential just languish until they're in the 30s and 40s and finally get diagnosed. (And yeah, Vyvanse helped me a LOT.)

Not sure where you are Putin, but that does not fit with my personal experience at all. Where I live, getting an ADHD or adult ADD diagnosis is very easy. Regarding autism, I think you will find there is a lot of literature corroborating an extreme increase in diagnostic rates over the last 10+ years.

Again, I don't know whether that is healthy or not, but it is a fact.

And it appears to be driven by culture/money/available resources:

"Our findings implicate a causal relationship between neighborhood-level diagnostic resources and spatial patterns of autism incidence. . ."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23267775

Well I fail to see how ADHD diagnosis could be "very easy", because the diagnosis is based on hyperactivity relative to the general population and the symptoms must persist both in a wide variety of settings and have lasted for six months. But maybe diagnosis is different from adults. As a general rule, it is much more difficult to diagnose children with mental illnesses because doctors want to be careful to rule out alternatives due to the lifelong implications of such diagnoses.

An increase in diagnostic rates by itself is not an indication that the criteria for diagnosis has been greatly loosened. We didn't know much about autism until very recently.

"Doctor's want to . . ." as you put it does not apply equally to all individual diagnosticians. It is relative to the perspective of the individual in their context. Therapists and doctors are permitted to diagnose ADHD on a very simple set of guidelines. Subjectivity does come into it.

As for autism, I wasn't necessarily arguing about why the increase prevalence happened, I only asked your view on it. Your answer seems to be that there is no increase and prevalence, but you contradict yourself in your last post by stating that the increase may be the result of something we don't know.

Okay. I wasn't really looking for an argument.

Sorry I misinterpreted your earlier comment. I thought you were claiming that the criteria had expanded.

No, I agree it had not. This all occurred under DSM-IV (in the U.S.). My opinion is that it is that it is related to cultural and resource shifts, but in the end, it is only an opinion, and I have to agree with you that no one knows or has established a definite cause and effect. Even the write-up I referenced had to conclude with only an implication and state that they had not and could not rule out all environmental factors.