Re: Re: New Autism Stats just released....

[Guest guest]

helen_foisy wrote:

> Hi Bill, I'm wondering if these are just " official " numbers - the

> more severely impacted members of this " recurrent atavism " - the ones

> that require varying levels of ongoing support in the schools and

> community.

I don't think the report as a whole supports more than: " We had criteria

(not so good, but we had 'em), we counted noses, and this is what we

found. " I don't think " more severely impacted " entered into it.

> As you know, folks don't get a dx if they are just

> " mildly " affected. A dash of autism is great .. but if there are

Hmm. I suspect that today a large fraction of autism in adults is

" revealed " as their school age (and younger) children are evaluated as

autistic.

I believe those adults - parents - very often are considered " just

'mildly' affected " relative to their children. That would be a

" professional " consideration. As we see on this very List, their

spouses often have very different opinions.

> other co-morbid factors in the mix, they will need ongoing supports,

Of course.

> and the report may have been prepared with funding projections in

> mind?

Might have been an original reason to do the work. But the *report* is

too old, too out of date for that use now.

It " smells " of being written to justify work already done and

paid-for, but no longer useful to the body(ies) which sponsored it.

Published now " for the record " . Spices up the authors' CVs too.

> The rationale to re-vamp categories of autism spectrum

> disorders in the DSM V was an economic one, as you'll recall.

Hmm. Not quite. The *original* rationale was to put the entire DSM on

a " scientific " evidence-based footing. This was a laudable and long

overdue goal. But way too quickly that goal was uh, ...co-opted in

favor of uh, ...other things.

The current unsurprisingly controversial - but likely - " final "

result certainly does seem rooted in " economic " and turf-protecting

concerns.

>

http://www.npr.org/2010/12/29/132407384/whats-a-mental-disorder-even-experts-can\

t-agree

> As much as the highest functioning amongst us do stress its

> advantages, for those with severe co-morbid issues, autism does level

> a huge economic hit on families:

>

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57399907-10391704/mothers-of-autistic-chi\

ldren-earn-56-less-income-study-says/

>

- Helen, 57, self-dx'd AS, dx'd ADD

>

>

[ snip ]

>>> Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorders — Autism and

>>> Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 14 Sites, United

>>> States, 2008 Surveillance Summaries March 30, 2012 /

>>> 61(SS03);1-19

>>> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6103a1.htm?s_cid=ss6103a1_e

>>

>>Apart from being four years out-of-date, the report is much ado about not vary

much at all.

>>

>> By the report's own admission, there are *no* biological markers

>> for any " spectrum " conditions. They've very carefully measured

>> something which has no metric. ...The " Emperor's New Clothes " ,

>> really.

>>

>> That said, and FWIW, a prevalence in the 1-2% range is what I'd

>> expect for a genetic entity held in human populations by " balanced

>> selection " . In this view, " autism " would be a human " variety " at

>> least - possibly a recurrent atavism.

[ snip ]

Let me add: *autism*, defined as strictly as possible, would be the

" variety " , the atavism. Any co-morbidities would be separate issues -

as they are in the NS/NT world.

Bill ...AS, ... " older " clinical/research geneticist

--

WD " Bill " Loughman - Berkeley, California USA

http://home.earthlink.net/~wdloughman/wdl.htm