Autism, Autistic, Asperger, what are all these?

[Grosstoad]

For starters, I got to this point from the Greg Veder: Conquering Hero NSFW (Worm) thread.

There was a mention, by one of the readers, about relating Greg's personality quirks with autism (or maybe autistic). It sparks some discussion, and then a bit of a debate, but it got me thinking about what I actually know of these terms.

Most of what I understand about these terms probably come from popular media, either TV or internet osmosis, so perhaps those QQ-ers who are more familiar about these terms can explain them to us (or maybe just to me).

Thus, I invite Aleh, ParanoidSchizo, lazarusdrake, doomlord9, slicedtoad, and others who might want to share their own personal or even professional insights to these terms.

 

[magic9mushroom]

Autism is a psychological condition characterised by very strong, focused interests, delayed acquisition of motor coordination (i.e. as a child I was clumsy, but I'm quite dextrous now), poor ability to read social cues, and possibly intellectual retardation. When that last is absent, it is referred to as "high functioning autism" or "Asperger's disorder". When referring to both at the same time people tend to use the term "autism spectrum".

An "autistic" person is a person who has autism (or, when speaking broadly, Asperger's disorder). You may also hear people with Asperger's referred to as "aspies".

 

[Vanathor]

It varies. It can refer to people who ye olde days would be consigned to a mental institution because they cannot function without a dedicated care provider (the severely mentally handicapped) to the very smart who have issues as described above by magic9mushroom

 

[Aleh]

Okay. I'm going to quote a few parts of my posts from that thread so that you have the relevant portions here. My initial chime-in was addressed at the general way the conversation had been going:

Notably: Autism has zero explanatory value (To paraphrase a common saying regarding such reification in a different context: "Why's he sad? He has depression. How do you know he has depression? He's sad."). "High functioning" has no real meaning in research or clinical practice (and no consistent meaning colloquially). Asperger's syndrome doesn't exist as a meaningfully distinct entity, and its existence as a clinical term was only due to historical accident (which is why it was removed from the DSM). Autism, of any variety, is not associated with particularly strong math skills... although having them is one of many things that tends to lead to people saying you have "Asperger's" rather than "autism" even if you never qualified for the former diagnosis (when it was still a thing).

Click to shrink...

Someone chimed up in response to that, challenging my statement about Asperger's by saying that they'd been diagnosed with it (and throwing in a few vaguely insulting comments as window-dressing). In response:

As for Asperger's -- yes, it's quite possible you were given that diagnostic label. Note what I said: that it's a defunct diagnostic term, one that only existed due to historical accident (they needed a term for people who didn't fit a number of then-prevalent autism stereotypes when writing the DSM-IV), and has since been removed from pretty much every diagnostic manual.

The reason for this removal is quite simple: while every clinician seemed to "know" the difference between the two, they "knew" it differently. Someone going to clinician A might get an "autism" label, then go to clinician B and get "Asperger's". The same would happen in reverse. As such, hearing that someone had one label or the other was useless for predicting... well, anything except which stereotypes people would apply to someone.

Add in studies like this one, among a bunch of others (that I don't have links to offhand), and it was promptly dropped the next time the DSM got revised.

Click to shrink...

lazarusdrake responded to the specific issue of Greg Vader (of Worm) with this:

Secondly, saying someone is autistic because he has problems with social interactions is like saying he has a brain tumor because his head hurts.
No, Greg isn't autistic, nor does he suffer from ASD. His school is a toxic environment, he spends most of his time online and, worst of all, he's a teenager. That makes him a socially awkward doofus three times over, without involving any sort of psychological diagnosis.

Click to shrink...

In-thread, I replied with this:

While I agree with the sentiment and the substance of this, there's a really long history of autism/cancer comparisons that... well, yeah. Just don't go there.

Seriously. Don't.

Even discounting the history of Autism Speaks and similar hate- and fear-mongering, there are books like this one out there.

And this tangent has gone on long enough. Let's take it to PM... or a dedicated thread, or whatever.

Click to shrink...

Now, that was just one of two points he made. The other one was this:

Ok, first of all, Autism and Autistic Spectrum Disorders aren't the same thing.
ASD involves a large category of disorders, some of them only tangentially related to Autism. There is generally a clear distinction between an autistic individual and an individual suffering from ASD for this exact reason.

Click to shrink...

This is, well, flat-out false. Leaving out the phrasing ("suffering from ASD" is considered offensive at best in the autistic community and is generally problematic aside), "Autistic spectrum disorder" or "autism spectrum disorder" are simply a more modern term for autism. The "spectrum" bit got added to reflect the sheer variety of people on the spectrum (see?), and as a rather half-assed attempt to keep people from lumping everyone on it together.

Well, that and as an attempt to explicitly denounce older conceptions, like the binary dichotomy ("autistic vs. not autistic") or the continuum concept ("more severe/less severe").

I'll try writing up a more extensive post later -- to properly answer the thread's central question -- when I get the chance. In the mean-time, however, I'm fairly occupied by the aftermath of the birth of my new niece and my need to prepare for a conference (I leave on Friday). I also promised to try and update Shoot the Moon, so... yeaaah. Here's hoping I get it done.

 

[magic9mushroom]

Notably: Autism has zero explanatory value (To paraphrase a common saying regarding such reification in a different context: "Why's he sad? He has depression. How do you know he has depression? He's sad.").

Click to shrink...

That's a terrible saying, because I wouldn't characterise depression by "feeling sad". It's more flat disinterest/listlessness and abysmal self-esteem/guilt issues than it is what I'd ordinarily characterise as "sad".

Also, the physical symptoms are a huge part of why it's so disabling.

And I mean likewise, autism is a syndrome, with many different effects; as such, it's not synonymous with any one of its symptoms.

 

[Aleh]

That's a terrible saying, because I wouldn't characterise depression by "feeling sad". It's more flat disinterest/listlessness and abysmal self-esteem/guilt issues than it is what I'd ordinarily characterise as "sad".

Click to shrink...

Depression is complex, yes, but the saying's aimed at the issue of reification rather than what constitutes depression. It also dates back to the '50s or '60s. When lecturing, I typically use a much longer version involving a checklist of symptoms -- but I felt that listing things off would take too much space for a parenthetical comment.

And I mean likewise, autism is a syndrome, with many different effects; as such, it's not synonymous with any one of its symptoms.

Click to shrink...

No, autism is the "effects". I was getting at the difference between "indigestion," which is an etiological construct, and "stomachache," which is a symptomatological or descriptive construct. The former holds (some) explanatory value; the latter does not.

 

[Grosstoad]

A quick clarification, Autism and Asperger are were labels used to indicate a sets of symptoms, some of which overlaps from the other set.

But Asperger has been declared defunct in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?), and the particular set of symptoms that used to be called Asperger is now included into the Autism (or Autistic) Spectrum?

Now I am kind of worried that the definitive list of the symptoms (from the current DSM) be pages long, not counting how the Spectrum would be differentiated.

PS: I would like to note that the usage of the term 'suffer' is most probably because it is applied to an (often) debilitating condition... I am having trouble to put into words that those who said 'suffer' are probably not derogating the condition themselves (as in, that ASD is a suffering, that ASD is a disease, that people with ASD can be be better, etc., etc.), but I see that it is a rather touchy subject (optimism and such to those with the condition and their relatives) and just say that we'll try to be PC here.

PPS: Give our congrats to the new parents.

 

[magic9mushroom]

As I heard it (which may be wrong) the issues were a lack of clear defining lines along the spectrum but also some degree of question about whether the high end of the autism spectrum a.k.a. Asperger syndrome was a mental illness at all. So some of the people who would have gotten a diagnosis of Asperger's are being diagnosed as autistic instead, and some are not characterised as mentally ill. But IDK for sure, I've only done first-year psych and this is new since I did it.

 

[Grosstoad]

So, it goes back to the term 'illness' or perhaps 'disease' themselves?

Not a disease (degenerative), but possibly instead a... I am not too sure here, genetic expression variance?

Googling seems to suggest that most explainable source of autism (and that there are probably more inexplainable ones) is genetics. But those genes are simply a risk and won't express themselves in most circumstances, as well as that there would be a lot of confluence of said risky genes together to actually produce discernible symptoms.

Of course, circumstances might exacerbate those risks, one of those that has been found is prenatal brain development.

A slight further googling (time constraints) suggest that the DSM-5 (released May 2013) that Aleh mentioned has categorized Autism Spectrum Disorder as a general category of disorders that cause communication and social interaction abnormalities, if I simplify it alot.

Instead of naming each type of known or previously categorized disorders, the new system seems to try and use a framework to categorize the disorder by severity of abnormality in communication and social interaction, as well as distinct symptoms, like known genetic disorders.

I forget the point of this post, exactly.

 

[magic9mushroom]

The thing is that a lot of people on the spectrum are scared shitless of what's going to happen the moment someone figures out how to prevent autism (or how to diagnose it in utero and abort), because our existence as a group is in severe jeopardy once that happens. The generative instinct is a powerful one, and "There will never be more of us born. Ever. Until the end of time." is a hell of an offense against it. There's also an argument that "it takes all sorts" and that society would be lessened were there suddenly No More Aspies.

So there's a lot of people trying to pre-empt that, trying their damnedest to normalise autism (particularly the "Asperger's" end of the spectrum, since it's the most palatable) by all the usual political methods so that when the day inevitably comes we can do something. Presumably banning screening for it. I don't think that's particularly likely to work - the majority of would-be parents are deadlocked against - and I'm not at all sure I want to go down that road, but I can certainly see why people would want to try.

 

[Aleh]

A quick clarification, Autism and Asperger are were labels used to indicate a sets of symptoms, some of which overlaps from the other set.

Click to shrink...

Not quite. They were used for the same symptoms or attributes, often in the same people. At best, "Asperger's" simply meant an autistic person of normal or greater intelligence who could speak when they were five. At worst, different clinicians would apply each label to people based on their own stereotypes, leading Clinician A to call someone autistic, Clinician B to say they "had Asperger's", and Clinician C to call them autistic again.

This is beyond the political implications. There's a friend of mine, for instance, who was diagnosed with "classic" autism under the most "narrow" set of diagnostic criteria in history. When she speaks up about how autistic people are treated, she's often dismissed as "having Asperger's"... when she's not dismissed or ignored for other reasons entirely (e.g. having her opinions dismissed because she's able to talk; having her opinions dismissed because she's female; having a knife wound from a homicidal parent at one conference because she challenged their preferred "treatment methods"; being assaulted at another conference to the point she nearly died from the injuries several times over the next three months by a vendor... and yes, the autism world is often every bit as nasty as I'm implying).

But Asperger has been declared defunct in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders?), and the particular set of symptoms that used to be called Asperger is now included into the Autism (or Autistic) Spectrum?

Click to shrink...

The DSM is sometimes called the "Bible of Psychiatry". Despite the name, not everything in it is what most of us would call a mental disorder (e.g. drug addiction, altzheimer's).

Also, as I noted above, there wasn't a "particular set of symptoms that used to be called Asperger". That was why it was dropped.

Now I am kind of worried that the definitive list of the symptoms (from the current DSM) be pages long, not counting how the Spectrum would be differentiated.

Click to shrink...

Here's the current list. There are issues with it.

PS: I would like to note that the usage of the term 'suffer' is most probably because it is applied to an (often) debilitating condition... I am having trouble to put into words that those who said 'suffer' are probably not derogating the condition themselves (as in, that ASD is a suffering, that ASD is a disease, that people with ASD can be be better, etc., etc.), but I see that it is a rather touchy subject (optimism and such to those with the condition and their relatives) and just say that we'll try to be PC here.

Click to shrink...

There's a useful parallel with homosexuality (which has also been considered a mental disorder; the history is actually quite parallel at points). Suffice it to say that you don't suffer from being who you are -- you suffer from how you're treated.

As I heard it (which may be wrong) the issues were a lack of clear defining lines along the spectrum but also some degree of question about whether the high end of the autism spectrum a.k.a. Asperger syndrome was a mental illness at all. So some of the people who would have gotten a diagnosis of Asperger's are being diagnosed as autistic instead, and some are not characterised as mentally ill. But IDK for sure, I've only done first-year psych and this is new since I did it.

Click to shrink...

There's a question as to whether autism -- regardless of "sweverity" -- qualifies as an illness at all.

So, it goes back to the term 'illness' or perhaps 'disease' themselves?

Not a disease (degenerative), but possibly instead a... I am not too sure here, genetic expression variance?

Click to shrink...

This goes back to the controversies surrounding the concept of mental illness (and psychiatry in general).

I was going to write a bit of a response, but realized that what I wanted to say already had been: here and here.

Anyway, I have to get ready to start packing.

 

[magic9mushroom]

There's a question as to whether autism -- regardless of "sweverity" -- qualifies as an illness at all.

Click to shrink...

Well, I suppose "illness" isn't the correct term, but mental retardation is generally agreed to be an undesirable trait, whereas substantial contention is possible over the other components of the syndrome.

 

[Aleh]

Well, I suppose "illness" isn't the correct term, but mental retardation is generally agreed to be an undesirable trait, whereas substantial contention is possible over the other components of the syndrome.

Click to shrink...

Intellectual disability -- what you're referring to as "mental retardation" -- is not part of autism.

 

[Gindjurra]

I have autism, and my mother has a pet theory that makes considerable sense when you think about it.

Her theory put very simply: Autism is not a psychological disorder, it's a gastro-intestinal disorder.

A little more verbosely: Pretty much every autistic person has gastro-intestinal problems that cause malabsorption of nutrients. Those nutrients are essential for brain development as very young children, and the lack of them causes a form of brain damage. Minor variations on what nutrients don't get absorbed right results in the spectrum.

 

[magic9mushroom]

I have autism, and my mother has a pet theory that makes considerable sense when you think about it.

Her theory put very simply: Autism is not a psychological disorder, it's a gastro-intestinal disorder.

A little more verbosely: Pretty much every autistic person has gastro-intestinal problems that cause malabsorption of nutrients. Those nutrients are essential for brain development as very young children, and the lack of them causes a form of brain damage. Minor variations on what nutrients don't get absorbed right results in the spectrum.

Click to shrink...

Um, why would that cause eidetic memory, or the completely-different fMRI results?

 

[Aleh]

I have autism, and my mother has a pet theory that makes considerable sense when you think about it.

Her theory put very simply: Autism is not a psychological disorder, it's a gastro-intestinal disorder.

Click to shrink...

... oh dear Lord.

A little more verbosely: Pretty much every autistic person has gastro-intestinal problems that cause malabsorption of nutrients. Those nutrients are essential for brain development as very young children, and the lack of them causes a form of brain damage. Minor variations on what nutrients don't get absorbed right results in the spectrum.

Click to shrink...

Autism is not reducable to brain damage, especially due to malnutrition. We know what the effects of childhood malnutrition are, and autism is not among them.

More to the point, your mother's "theory" is anything but original. The idea of autism having gastrointestinal origins began with Andrew Wakefield's fraudulent "research" -- the same "research" which he used to blame the MMR vaccine (thereby causing the whole autism-vaccine thing). The theory at the time was that the vaccine was "too many, too soon" and caused gut irritation which lead to autism. This developed into the "leaky gut theory" -- that the vaccinations caused the intestines to become permeable to certain peptides containing gluten and casein, letting them into the bloodstream where they (somehow) penetrated the blood-brain barrier and latched onto opioid receptors, leading to autistic people getting, in essence, an opium high whenever they ate bread or drank milk.

(That's the origin of the whole GFCF diet thing, by the way.)

Now, beyond the utter absurdity of this theory on multiple levels, I will say that the thought of getting an opium high whenever you eat bread or drink milk sounds fucking awesome.

Humor aside, this wasn't the end of it. The idea that autism is caused by problems in the gut has become a staple trope of quack theories, most of which depend on some form of semi-mythological "gut-brain connection". It even gets taken to absurd extremes, as in the case of "helminthic therapy", which leads to parents deliberately infesting their children with (porcine) intestinal parasites.

Or I could just mention that it's also a major part of the justification for the bleach enema protocols. Based on the theory that autism is caused by intestinal parasites, they're... well, "bleach enema" basically sums it up. Feel free to Google it if you really want to know.

Now back to my conference.

 

[Gindjurra]

Two things. First, my mother came up with it independently. So trotting out your trite explanation for why it's wrong because other people came up with it is a bit of a fallacious argument. Especially since no one really knows what causes it, so ruling things out because one or more people are bad researchers is itself bad research.

And second, she wasn't talking about vaccines causing it. She was thinking in terms of a birth defect.

From my own experiences, autosm isn't in itself necessarily a flaw, it's a difference. It's only seen as a disability when people try to shoehorn an autistic person into a non-autistic society. But the same is true of quite a few physiological and mental differences.

 

[Aleh]

Two things. First, my mother came up with it independently. So trotting out your trite explanation for why it's wrong because other people came up with it is a bit of a fallacious argument. Especially since no one really knows what causes it, so ruling things out because one or more people are bad researchers is itself bad research.

Click to shrink...

Umm, no. I was talking about the history of the "autism/gut" connection. I sincerely doubt she came up with it truly independently -- she likely absorbed some information from parents' groups and the like at a bare minimum.

Secondly, I mentioned several other aspects -- like how we know what childhood malnutrition looks like and that autism isn't it:

Autism is not reducable to brain damage, especially due to malnutrition. We know what the effects of childhood malnutrition are, and autism is not among them.

Click to shrink...

That is how I opened. Then I got into the history.

And second, she wasn't talking about vaccines causing it. She was thinking in terms of a birth defect.

Click to shrink...

Strawman. See above.

From my own experiences, autosm isn't in itself necessarily a flaw, it's a difference. It's only seen as a disability when people try to shoehorn an autistic person into a non-autistic society. But the same is true of quite a few physiological and mental differences.

Click to shrink...

Interestingly, the word "disability" is defined differently in different places. I fully agree that it's not something that qualifies as such under the medical model, but it does fit the definitions used by the social model... which gets into just what people consider a "disability" rather than autism itself.

 

[Automatonation]

As an individual who was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, which I suppose is now defunct, I would like to state that I have had some experience with a variety of treatment plans. I have always been high functioning, so a long term program of occupational and behavioral therapies was able to help me internalize the social skills that I wasn't able to pick up instinctively.

The major thing that allowed me to function more or less 'normally' was a regimen of vitamins and supplements, designed to rebalance my copper/zinc ratio, as well as several protein imbalances, which, according to the clinic I went to, was typically found in other individuals with autism. It seemed to help me keep a much more even keel, as well as make it significantly easier to pick up social cues through training. It also made it easier to moderate the compulsive aspects of Asperger. Of course, my particular obsessions are reading and science fiction, so I'm not as bad off as some.

 

[Grosstoad]

A quick google search suggests high-copper low-zinc condition is associated with various symptoms and effects, some of which are also -supposedly- associated with Autism (or Asperger in Auto's past case).

Of course, we are talking about trace minerals, so don't go scrapping metal bars to drink now.


Clarifications, experiences, questions, or even criticism about such effects and associations would still be welcome.

Oh, and personal question, maybe: Would us normals -or non-professionally diagnosed normals- would also benefit in attempting to balance this copper/zinc ratio?

 

[Aleh]

The major thing that allowed me to function more or less 'normally' was a regimen of vitamins and supplements, designed to rebalance my copper/zinc ratio, as well as several protein imbalances, which, according to the clinic I went to, was typically found in other individuals with autism.

Click to shrink...

I can't really comment on the clinic you went to specifically, but your post hit a number of red flags.

First, there is no such thing as a dietary or medical intervention for autism which passes even the most basic forms of scientific scrutiny. It's not like medical intervention can't be important for helping autistic people function, but any medical intervention marketed as being for autism is questionable at best.

Beyond that, "rebalancing minerals" (e.g. copper and zinc) is fairly typical quack (or "biomed") rhetoric in the field. It's true that there's some publications making noise in that general direction (e.g. this), but it's generally highly preliminary work based on questionable premises published in low-impact publications (which is, for the record, a fully accurate summary of the paper I linked as an example).

As if that wasn't enough, there isn't a "protein imbalance" of any sort typically found in autistic people, and the term itself is fairly characteristic of medical bullshit (and yes, "bullshit" is the technical term): the closest thing there is in real medicine is a protein deficiency, or alternately a deficiency in one of the essential amino acids. Legitimate medical clinics would diagnose these in terms of a deficiency of the amino acid in question (e.g. "cysteine deficiency"), and will usually go quite a bit further by diagnosing it on the basis of the specific cause of that deficiency (e.g. "homocystinuria").

Of course, none of this means that the clinic in question necessarily did anything wrong: your "take-home" points are not necessarily what they told you, or even what they directly thought. I'd need a whole lot more information before directly commenting on what they did (or didn't do).

Given that whatever they recommended seems to have worked to an extent, there are three... no, four possibilities.

The first of these is simply a placebo effect, although the term's somewhat more expansive than it sounds. Social and psychological difficulties are infamously vulnerable to effects from both direct and indirect psychological trickery. In fact, most of the effect of antidepressant medications is from the direct sort... but even beyond that...

Let me pull out an example I'm personally familiar with. About seven or eight years ago, I was asked to tour a hyperbaric oxygen facility that was "treating autism" on the basis of the facially absurd idea that autism was caused by oxidative stress and that putting kids in pressurized canisters of pure oxygen would help lower said stress. The parents were reporting that the kids were coming out of the tubes happier and more relaxed, showing marked improvements in their academic performance, and generally functioning better, among other things. One parent cited that her preschool kid -- who was hardly physically demonstrative -- was eager to visit and would come out of the pressurized tube cheerful and smiling, and even hugged her, smiling, after his first session.

When I looked in on the place, I found that they had a pretty interesting setup -- the tubes were transparent, and in easy viewing distance of TVs. When the kids came in, they'd put them in the tubes, play their favorite shows, and pump the audio into their oxygen chambers for the half-hour or hour of their "therapy".

Many of the kids there were being subjected to constant "therapies" of a variety of sorts, often for 40+ hours per week even beyond the time-demands of school, and had very little time to rest, relax, and generally be children. They were then taken there for a "medical" intervention which, despite being utter bullshit, gave them a chance to relax and unwind for an hour. Tne parents then found the kids happier, more able to function, and showing affection and gratitude for the break.

How utterly amazing. </sarcasm>

The second possibility is that the suppliments and/or minerals are treating -- whether deliberately or otherwise -- some sort of underlying medical condition. I mentioned homocystinuria earlier; if you (coincidentally) have it, there's a good chance that a B6 suppliment would help considerably in a variety of ways (the same could be said for a low-sulfur diet, a low-protein diet, a folic acid suppliment, a high-cysteine diet, or even eating a lot of sugar beets). Of course, homocystinuria is really, really unlikely to be a medical complication in your case for a large variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it's usually fatal if undetected and left untreated. A ketogenic diet is more likely to be helpful through sheer coincidence, as there are several forms of epilepsy which may be missed in routine screening. Similarly, a low-fat diet can (coincidentally) eliminate migraine triggers... etc., etc., etc.

The third is that the act of taking medical interventions can influence the behavior of the people around you in a variety of ways... thus leading you to stumble on supports that you may not have even known that you needed. Similarly, the act of taking the interventions can cause people to take things seriously when they wouldn't have otherwise, or simply alter their patterns of behavior in a variety of ways. A parent blaming your problems on a medical condition (whether or not the condition is utter bullshit) may not be blaming you, for instance, and may (correctly) mentally move their locus of control for your disabilities away from you as a result. The (sudden or otherwise) disappearance of the resulting stress can often help people function better... even if the "treatment" itself isn't doing a damned thing.

Similarly, the entire process of getting you help may satisfy their mental need to do something about your problems. If the magic pills they give you keep them from taking their frustrations out on you, the pills themselves don't really need to do a damned thing to help you function.

The fourth is much simpler, and has to do with something that we refer to as "maturation" in experimental methodology. Correlation does not imply causation, and life is a constant barrage of changes of a variety of sorts. People are easily fooled by coincidences, and bogus therapies often seem to work simply due to how we decide what "works" and what doesn't. If you learned some important skill, or changed something in your life, or simply grew up in a way that helped you function around the same time you started on a bullshit pill regimen (and again, I can't say that your pill regimen actually is bullshit based on what you've said), you could think that the pill regimen helped you instead of whatever actually did.

I saw that all the fucking time during my time working at a preschool for autistic children, by the way. It got incredibly fucking blatant... and I continue to see it in my advocacy work and daily life. Also, the coincidences I'm talking about can be incredibly striking, even over time. It's a large part of why medical treatments need the thorough and rigorous testing that they do.

 

[Automatonation]

Unfortunately, I don't recall the nuances of which proteins they were trying to regulate, but I think it was related to whatever governed the copper/zinc absorption ratio. Not a medical expert, and I was 12 to 16 while I was following the plans, which consisted of a crap-ton of supplements in the mornings and evenings. Most of those were over the counters, but a couple we purchased from them. It was.... pretty awful. I hated taking all those pills, and I didn't think it was working for a long time, until I started looking back.

We worked with the Pfeiffer Treatment Clinic in the Chicago area. They did couch it consistently as a treatment that may reduce symptoms, rather than a cure.

I don't think it was a 'cure' by any stretch of the imagination, and I can only speak for myself, but I do genuinely believe that they helped me, no matter the actual cause of the improvement.

To be blunt, while it may have been bullshit, it was bullshit that ultimately helped. And it wasn't a bleach enema, chemical castration, or an oxygen tube, for which I am thankful.

 

[Aleh]

Not a medical expert, and I was 12 to 16 while I was following the plans, which consisted of a crap-ton of supplements in the mornings and evenings. Most of those were over the counters, but a couple we purchased from them. It was.... pretty awful. I hated taking all those pills, and I didn't think it was working for a long time, until I started looking back.

Click to shrink...

This, ironically, makes a pretty strong case that it wasn't working. Four years is a long time, especially when you're twelve. Twelve to sixteen is... pretty much puberty for a lot of kids. Or, as I put it in my last post:

The fourth is much simpler, and has to do with something that we refer to as "maturation" in experimental methodology. Correlation does not imply causation, and life is a constant barrage of changes of a variety of sorts. People are easily fooled by coincidences, and bogus therapies often seem to work simply due to how we decide what "works" and what doesn't. If you learned some important skill, or changed something in your life, or simply grew up in a way that helped you function around the same time you started on a bullshit pill regimen (and again, I can't say that your pill regimen actually is bullshit based on what you've said), you could think that the pill regimen helped you instead of whatever actually did.

Click to shrink...

The most likely reason for the improvements in your ability to function is, simply, growing up and learning how to function. As the saying in the field goes, autism is characterized by developmental delay, not stasis.

Anyway, when did I mention the idea of a "cure"? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

That said, I did look through that clinic's site. It's... well, pretty classic bullshit. There is no such thing as legitimate "biochemical therapy" for autism, despite what their website claims.

Leaving that out, their "research" is published exclusively in obscure pay-to-publish journals, most of which are put out by the same (obscure) publisher. They're also very much not in line with the scientific consensus on... pretty much anything.

Oh, and a number of the papers are co-authored by Andrew Wakefield. That's a red flag if I've ever seen one.

Edit: To clarify -- it's a glaring red flag in the same sense that wearing a pointy white hat while waving around a Confederate flag is a hint that someone might be racist.

 

[Snake/Eater]

I have a question, I'm higher functioning on the Spectrum, but people who know about my disorder are surprised when I show empathy.

Am I still autistic? Or am I deluding myself into thinking I have empathy?

 

[Aleh]

I have a question, I'm higher functioning on the Spectrum, but people who know about my disorder are surprised when I show empathy.

Am I still autistic? Or am I deluding myself into thinking I have empathy?

Click to shrink...

They're responding based on stereotypes, not reality. I have a rather long rant about the entire "empathy" thing in the field.

 

[magic9mushroom]

I have a question, I'm higher functioning on the Spectrum, but people who know about my disorder are surprised when I show empathy.

Am I still autistic? Or am I deluding myself into thinking I have empathy?

Click to shrink...

People confuse empathy the trait (caring about others' feelings) with empathy the skill (reading others' feelings).

In broad generalities, aspies tend to be worse at empathy the skill, but have plenty of empathy the trait.

 

[Aleh]

People confuse empathy the trait (caring about others' feelings) with empathy the skill (reading others' feelings).

In broad generalities, aspies tend to be worse at empathy the skill, but have plenty of empathy the trait.

Click to shrink...

Yeaaaaah, it's a lot more complicated than that.

First off, the confusion is deliberate, the result of a ridiculously unethical "researcher" named Simon Baron-Cohen trying to salvage his ivory-tower theories by redefining the traits he was allegedly studying. Secondly, people are generally better at reading and understanding the feelings of others who are similar to them.

Autistic people are generally better at reading/understanding the feelings of other autistic people than NTs are; similarly, NTs are better at reading/understanding NT feelings than autistic ones. Note that I don't say that autistic people are worse at reading/understanding the feelings of NTs than other NTs are... because the data there is (or was, when last I looked at it) really complicated and generally fucked up.

 

[nick012000]

First off, the confusion is deliberate, the result of a ridiculously unethical "researcher" named Simon Baron-Cohen trying to salvage his ivory-tower theories by redefining the traits he was allegedly studying. Secondly, people are generally better at reading and understanding the feelings of others who are similar to them.

Click to shrink...

So, things were deliberately confused by a Jew? Color me surprised. -_-

The thing is that a lot of people on the spectrum are scared shitless of what's going to happen the moment someone figures out how to prevent autism (or how to diagnose it in utero and abort), because our existence as a group is in severe jeopardy once that happens. The generative instinct is a powerful one, and "There will never be more of us born. Ever. Until the end of time." is a hell of an offense against it. There's also an argument that "it takes all sorts" and that society would be lessened were there suddenly No More Aspies.

So there's a lot of people trying to pre-empt that, trying their damnedest to normalise autism (particularly the "Asperger's" end of the spectrum, since it's the most palatable) by all the usual political methods so that when the day inevitably comes we can do something. Presumably banning screening for it. I don't think that's particularly likely to work - the majority of would-be parents are deadlocked against - and I'm not at all sure I want to go down that road, but I can certainly see why people would want to try.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't be surprised if the Establishment politicians would be on the side of purging Autistics as well, if only to try to stop the /pol/ types from utilizing their "weaponized autism" (that being a combination of their ability to focus obsessively and their relative impunity to social pressures in order to begin digging out the dirty secrets of the establishment and their supporters).

 

[ultima333]

And we were doing so well in this thread, too.

Well, never mind that. It seems that there was mostly civil discussion in here, though it seems to have died down.
Carry on.

 

[dylanredefined]

The thing is that a lot of people on the spectrum are scared shitless of what's going to happen the moment someone figures out how to prevent autism (or how to diagnose it in utero and abort), because our existence as a group is in severe jeopardy once that happens. The generative instinct is a powerful one, and "There will never be more of us born. Ever. Until the end of time." is a hell of an offense against it. There's also an argument that "it takes all sorts" and that society would be lessened were there suddenly No More Aspies.

So there's a lot of people trying to pre-empt that, trying their damnedest to normalise autism (particularly the "Asperger's" end of the spectrum, since it's the most palatable) by all the usual political methods so that when the day inevitably comes we can do something. Presumably banning screening for it. I don't think that's particularly likely to work - the majority of would-be parents are deadlocked against - and I'm not at all sure I want to go down that road, but I can certainly see why people would want to try.

Click to shrink...

Oh dear, how sad. Condeming parents having to raise a child that will never be independent just because someone thinks being an aspie makes them special is just plain evil.
Society would benefit greatly not having to deal with people who are not able to live independently. If that is a cost of being slightly lessened by no more Aspies so be it.We don't have many lepers begging for Alms anymore either society got over it. It just as idiotic argument as cochlear implants are cultural genocide by some deaf activists.