Report of the DSM-V Neurodevelopmental Disorders Work Group

Page 10 of 11 [ 159 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Meistersinger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,176
Location: Beautiful(?) York Township PA

03 May 2013, 5:25 pm

I received this link in an email from the GRASP general email list. It looks like NIMH is having second thoughts about the DSM 5 in general.

http://mindhacks.com...m_source=feedly


_________________
I'm back, for the time being. Any one who even attempts to rip me a new rear end because of my opinions will find themselves reported to administration. Anyone on my Foes list that replies to my posts will automatically be reported for harassment. You have been warned.


AgentPalpatine
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,925
Location: Near the Delaware River

03 May 2013, 6:34 pm

Seems a little more than just "second thoughts".

http://www.science20.com/science_20/blo ... sm5-111138

I read the statements, it was pretty rough on the DSM in general. Coming two weeks prior to DSM-5, the timing could be questioned.


_________________
Our first challenge is to create an entire economic infrastructure, from top to bottom, out of whole cloth.
-CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (Firaxis Games)


Meistersinger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,176
Location: Beautiful(?) York Township PA

12 May 2013, 9:29 pm

Which is why I think the DSM is 98% bull feces! Another board I sometimes visit on getting off psychotropic drugs safely under medical supervision, has a real strong bias against the APA medicalizing problems of everyday life. The APA is so beholden to BIG PHARMA, with all the corruption running rampant between those organizations, let alone the FDA and NIMH. The APA has a idea of normal that nt's, let alone those of us on the spectrum, have no idea what the fsck they want.


_________________
I'm back, for the time being. Any one who even attempts to rip me a new rear end because of my opinions will find themselves reported to administration. Anyone on my Foes list that replies to my posts will automatically be reported for harassment. You have been warned.


lenticular
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 3

01 Oct 2013, 12:46 am

MathGirl wrote:
MathGirl cited an article called, A-Powerful-Identity-a-Vanishing-Diagnosis.


Informative quote from source cited above. Tells interested parties how they may influence the DSM categorizations.

"All interested parties will have an opportunity to weigh in on the proposed changes. The American Psychiatric Association is expected to post the working group’s final proposal on autism diagnostic criteria on the diagnostic manual’s Web site in January and invite comment from the public. Dr. Swedo and company are bracing for an earful."

The "bracing for an earful" comment makes me suspect input will not be valued highly.



gonewild
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 204

21 Oct 2013, 9:53 am

As a physical scientist (geology) I find current attempts at defining by diagnosis various disorders under the umbrella of Autism quite unscientific. Questions need to be asked: on what physical basis are diagnosis made? Anyone with a birth defect, abnormal brain development, damage from toxins or chemicals during pregnancy, premature birth or abuse ought to be treated for those conditions and not be lumped in with people who represent a personality type that occurs naturally in humans that is, individuals who process the environment differently that what is considered to be normal, when normal is defined by the prejudices of the social majority. Where is the scientific justification for claiming that one group of behaviors defines Homo sapiens and that any person who deviates from this narrow prescription is defective? This prejudice against those who are 'disobedient' is a religious notion; not science. In fact there is a long history of religions persecuting the very people who fit the modern diagnosis of so-called Aspergers disorder - people who in fact have created civilization through science, engineering, technology and the arts.



graywyvern
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Aug 2010
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 640
Location: texas

21 Oct 2013, 10:10 am

...has been said:

http://thenewinquiry.com/essays/book-of-lamentations/


_________________
"I have always found that Angels have the vanity
to speak of themselves as the only wise; this they
do with a confident insolence sprouting from systematic
reasoning." --William Blake


bryanmaloney
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 29 Apr 2013
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 99

26 Dec 2013, 5:19 pm

gonewild wrote:
As a physical scientist (geology) I find current attempts at defining by diagnosis various disorders under the umbrella of Autism quite unscientific. Questions need to be asked: on what physical basis are diagnosis made? Anyone with a birth defect, abnormal brain development, damage from toxins or chemicals during pregnancy, premature birth or abuse ought to be treated for those conditions and not be lumped in with people who represent a personality type that occurs naturally in humans that is, individuals who process the environment differently that what is considered to be normal, when normal is defined by the prejudices of the social majority. Where is the scientific justification for claiming that one group of behaviors defines Homo sapiens and that any person who deviates from this narrow prescription is defective? This prejudice against those who are 'disobedient' is a religious notion; not science. In fact there is a long history of religions persecuting the very people who fit the modern diagnosis of so-called Aspergers disorder - people who in fact have created civilization through science, engineering, technology and the arts.


Aw, heck! As a neuroscientist (molecular psychiatry), I find current attempts at classification as expressed in the DSM or similar books to be quite unscientific. The DSM began as a purely clinical effort to attempt to bring a little bit of order to a field with no consistency of diagnosis. Until the DSM came out, it was complete chaos in the USA. However, the DSM was issued for and by clinicians, with little reference to biology. It has been updated, but there is still little reference to biology.

The dirty secret is that this is not always due to politicking on the part of clinicians. Truth be told, except for a few disorders (mostly on the schizoid axis) we know next to dink about associated biology. Thus, we have "autism" still used to describe a whole host of conditions that may turn out to be biologically distinct. Likewise, there is the matter that this is a clinical matter, not a pathology manual. Thus, from the point of view of an emergency room physician, it's not immediately important whether or not a broken arm was caused by falling off a chair, running into a wall, an abusive spouse, or other cause, except as that influences symptoms associated with said broken arm. Those are pathology issues, not immediate diagnosis treatment issues.

It's a complicated thing, and the DSM model should eventually be replaced, but neuroscience as such didn't exist until very recently. Holding to the standard of physics is flat-out goofy.



OJani
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,524
Location: Hungary

27 Dec 2013, 9:25 am

graywyvern wrote:

Thanks, I like it!



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,899
Location: Long Island, New York

29 Jan 2014, 3:55 am

http://www.businessinsider.com/fewer-au ... ria-2014-1


_________________
How can Autism be trendy and a popular insult at the same time?

Recovering from tongue cancer and suspected Ramsey Hunt Syndrome (Ear Shingles), somewhat verbal.
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity


Acedia
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 513

31 Jan 2014, 11:18 am

gonewild wrote:
As a physical scientist (geology) I find current attempts at defining by diagnosis various disorders under the umbrella of Autism quite unscientific. Questions need to be asked: on what physical basis are diagnosis made? Anyone with a birth defect, abnormal brain development, damage from toxins or chemicals during pregnancy, premature birth or abuse ought to be treated for those conditions and not be lumped in with people who represent a personality type that occurs naturally in humans that is, individuals who process the environment differently that what is considered to be normal, when normal is defined by the prejudices of the social majority. Where is the scientific justification for claiming that one group of behaviors defines Homo sapiens and that any person who deviates from this narrow prescription is defective? This prejudice against those who are 'disobedient' is a religious notion; not science. In fact there is a long history of religions persecuting the very people who fit the modern diagnosis of so-called Aspergers disorder - people who in fact have created civilization through science, engineering, technology and the arts.


I think that your post is testament to how the media has misrepresented Autism/Aspergers. The idea that people with autism are the driving force for civilization.

Read Han's paper, none of those kids he wrote about would be thought of as simply being smart. They were referred to him due to the severity of their learning problems. It should be the other way round - people who are introverted, geeky, socially anxious, quiet, reserved, and shy shouldn't be lumped in with those labelled autistic.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,899
Location: Long Island, New York

07 Apr 2014, 9:39 pm

US Department of Health and Human Services Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee Statement Regarding Scientific, Practice and Policy Implications of Changes in the Diagnostic Criteria for Autism Spectrum Disorder

http://iacc.hhs.gov/publications/2014/s ... 0214.shtml


_________________
How can Autism be trendy and a popular insult at the same time?

Recovering from tongue cancer and suspected Ramsey Hunt Syndrome (Ear Shingles), somewhat verbal.
Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity


ChapterGrim
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jan 2013
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 7
Location: Scotland

23 Aug 2014, 10:02 pm

Welcome to the jungle. Or spectrum as it may be...


_________________
D.R. Gartland

Check out Ambrose Beirce' The Devil's Dictionary - notably "Mad"!
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/bierce/bierce.html


the-comander
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2014
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Posts: 237
Location: boston area

28 Sep 2014, 2:09 pm

im probably not going to exactly make a lot of friends by pointing this out, but i would like to mention the fact that Aspergers has very little evidence of existing,that it was discovered by the nazis,that people with Aspergers are considered to be superior and better then people with autism and/or high functioning autism by society,that it specifically is designed to search out those who have problems with empathy i.e. concern and sympathy for others and super high intelligence, and that most people who get the diagnosis are white. i mean if you think about it its the perfect way to justify cherry picking through a group to find the people who are best equipped to build your gas chambers and least likely to question what they are doing without coming off as hypocrites when that means not completely getting rid of all the mentally ill. i mean pre ww2 the art of schizophrenics and the severely mentally ill had a pretty big, somewhat counter cultural following and a belief in a link between creativity and mental illness was pretty common.i mean they killed paul gosch who was one of the founders of german expressionism and the asylum he lived in was run by his brother in law. the nazis moved him to a different institution where he wasn't allowed to paint and was forced to do manual labor before he was eventually killed. what better way to squash that then by creating a superior elite and killing all the artists off? i mean think about it, a lot of schizophrenics arent retarded and can offer things to society as well but hans Asperger never tried to save any of them. why would he? if your running a fascist dictatorship you don't want to save a small portion of the extremely paranoid people who think that the government is monitoring them constantly and that the man is putting computer chips in there brain friends if you can get rid of all the ones that don't talk normal and hinder society in anyway even better.

now do i think that all forums of autism are genetically related and that a person with a i.q. of 10 is the same as the kind of people who get diagnosed with Aspergers? no. i think there are many many kinds of autism and that scientists don't actually understand what they all are yet. but the evidence is heavily against Aspergers existing and honestly i think it being removed as a category is probably for the better. truth be told a lot of the people ive met who have Aspergers are nothing like me or i have very little in common with and at the end of the day i think that a lot of what it revolves around is a very specific stereotype. i mean its what i call myself in my real life because i want to not be hiding who i am and i feel like i have to or ill be seen as inferior but i dont honestly think that it has any real meaning besides signifying that im not crippled and that i have a few talents which are relatively impressive. i think that in 20 years they will discover that there are a bunch of type of autism some of which are very diffrent from others and i think we will have a better more scientificly acurete understanding of what this all means.



VioletYoshi
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2014
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 162

07 Oct 2014, 10:05 am

Acedia wrote:
gonewild wrote:
As a physical scientist (geology) I find current attempts at defining by diagnosis various disorders under the umbrella of Autism quite unscientific. Questions need to be asked: on what physical basis are diagnosis made? Anyone with a birth defect, abnormal brain development, damage from toxins or chemicals during pregnancy, premature birth or abuse ought to be treated for those conditions and not be lumped in with people who represent a personality type that occurs naturally in humans that is, individuals who process the environment differently that what is considered to be normal, when normal is defined by the prejudices of the social majority. Where is the scientific justification for claiming that one group of behaviors defines Homo sapiens and that any person who deviates from this narrow prescription is defective? This prejudice against those who are 'disobedient' is a religious notion; not science. In fact there is a long history of religions persecuting the very people who fit the modern diagnosis of so-called Aspergers disorder - people who in fact have created civilization through science, engineering, technology and the arts.


I think that your post is testament to how the media has misrepresented Autism/Aspergers. The idea that people with autism are the driving force for civilization.

Read Han's paper, none of those kids he wrote about would be thought of as simply being smart. They were referred to him due to the severity of their learning problems. It should be the other way round - people who are introverted, geeky, socially anxious, quiet, reserved, and shy shouldn't be lumped in with those labelled autistic.


http://imgur.com/rWJyL9Y



SignOfLazarus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2014
Age: 951
Gender: Female
Posts: 540

07 Oct 2014, 2:00 pm

gonewild wrote:
As a physical scientist (geology) I find current attempts at defining by diagnosis various disorders under the umbrella of Autism quite unscientific. Questions need to be asked: on what physical basis are diagnosis made? Anyone with a birth defect, abnormal brain development, damage from toxins or chemicals during pregnancy, premature birth or abuse ought to be treated for those conditions and not be lumped in with people who represent a personality type that occurs naturally in humans that is, individuals who process the environment differently that what is considered to be normal, when normal is defined by the prejudices of the social majority. Where is the scientific justification for claiming that one group of behaviors defines Homo sapiens and that any person who deviates from this narrow prescription is defective? This prejudice against those who are 'disobedient' is a religious notion; not science. In fact there is a long history of religions persecuting the very people who fit the modern diagnosis of so-called Aspergers disorder - people who in fact have created civilization through science, engineering, technology and the arts.


Hi gonewild!

Since you write of the "umbrella of Autism" I suspect you are referring to the recent changes that came out in the new DSM [the fifth edition]. Lucky for you, the CDC provides a handy online reference to those criteria here: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html.

It would probably be helpful to the discussion if you could review them and provide with clarity specific criticisms you have, then it would be more productive and maybe people would actually have helpful feedback.
Ok great.
:D

[I have to admit here that I love the RDoC and have in fact written about it before, but I find it frustrating when someone says that they are critical of something in such a vague manner. Actually I find it really bizarre]


_________________
I don't know about other people, but when I wake up in the morning and put my shoes on, I think, "Jesus Christ, now what?"
-C. Bukowski