"Two Fatal Technical Flaws In The DSM5 Definition of Au

Post Reply New Topic

Seems like he doesn't understand English and logical progression too much.

"manifested by the following"

Means "all" when there's no other qualifier. The following. All that follows.

""Note: Individuals with a well established DSM-IV diagnosis of autistic disorder, Asperger's disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified should be given the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder."

This one is more ambiguous, but to me it's clearly referring (its intent) to individuals diagnosed with the DSM-IV-TR prior to the DSM-V when the context of successive manuals is taken into account, and they need not be reevaluated with the DSM-V, as it'd be impractical, costly and unneeded (and it's clear based on all evidence that they have it).

I interpreted 'well established' to mean you already have a diagnosis according to DSM-IV.

Yeah, and maybe he is also angry because he might be diagnosed with social communication disorder and/or autism now? His objections that it could be applied to "normals" might point in that direction.
I like the changes to the DSM, but it seems many feel they have gone too far adding SCD.
I also think we essentially are normal as we are just a genetic variant, and he seems to think so too but maybe his concern is less with that and more with imaginary "over-labeling" normals - I think we should just as well label everyone, but lose the stigma associated with it. He says we shouldn't try to change people just because they are a bit different. He also says in at least one article that we should think about the "degree" of a diagnosis and individualize it instead of saying everyone with the label is the same which makes it surprising he dislikes the new ASD as it's supposed to be about individualization?
I can't decide if he want to "save normals" (as his book title says) from the stigma us diagnosed have, or if he may save us too from stigma. But his perspective is refreshing anyway.

Here's some other interviews:

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/05/le ... o-illness/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ontroversy

No problem I have been looking everyday for them since the 22nd:)

Me too and that yourtube video is the most comprehensive description of the new criteria I've found.