Autism is genetic

[jonesonscam]

The National Autistic Society has just said something pretty significant: Autism is genetic. Not “possibly genetic”. Not “we’re not really sure what causes it”.

After reviewing 83 research papers, the NAS is now stating definitively that autism is genetic. You’re born autistic and you’re autistic for life. Most autistic people are autistic because of genes they inherited from their parents.

I think this matters enormously because for decades, autism has been surrounded by nonsense about vaccines, parenting, mothers doing something wrong, pregnancy, diet and a million other things.

It has left parents blaming themselves, and autistic people being told that something caused them to be autistic that could somehow have been prevented.

There isn't an “autism gene”. Thousands of genes are involved, and genetics is complicated. But the basic message is now remarkably clear: autism isn't something that happened to someone. It's something they were born with.

That matters because when we stop looking for something to blame, we can start looking at what actually matters: understanding autistic people, supporting them properly, and making a society that works for them.

This all feels like a pretty important shift.

This is interesting because there is something similar with schizophrenia I think.

In my area there used to be seven specialist schools plus several integrated units in mainstream schools. These were nearly all shut in the name of ‘inclusion’ in over/around 20 years ago. Most people no longer remember them and parents of current SEN children are mostly unaware they previously existed. Since then there has been an increasing crisis in the number of children unable to access school, in schools being unable to cope with the complex needs of children placed in mainstream.

I don’t think the demand for specialist schools is any higher, I think we just forget what used to exist, in part because these schools were often hidden and not spoken of.

95% of people diagnosed now would not meet the criteria in use in 1976!

That's not quite the whole truth.

They would probably all or almost all meet the criteria for Asperger's but the psychiatrists in their wisdom decided that "higher functioning" people with ASD should not be singled out.

In the view of many people, both professionals and those with "Asperger's" now believe that was a mistake.

This. We will move back again to different categories of ASD and different levels of severity.

It will help those who really need help when that happens.

And ignore those of us in the middle who are nothing like those who would meet the criteria for Asperger's

I think many people recognised it as a mistake at the time, too. They weren't listened to, however.

People seem to think ICD and DSM are based purely on science. In reality they are very political documents (small p) shaped by vested interests and power.

Aspergers wasn't a formal diagnosis until 1992. Nobody was diagnosed with Aspergers fifty years ago.

Asperger was unknown in the English speaking world until the 1980s and Asperger's work wasn't translated into English until the early 1990s.

Asperger syndrome wasn't in the ICD 9 or predecessors, only the ICD 10 (1992). It wasn't added to the DSM until 1994.

Absolutely. Possibly even mostly political/ideological/what insurance companies want to see.

Ooh i’m related to him too @BendyAndTired! I wonder if we’re distantly related?

Possibly! He’s from my mum’s side.

You'd be in my definition of "really needing help" then?

None of which means that they did not exist.

But usually people want to just spilt us from those who are non verbal, have learning disabilities, etc and lump us in with those who are fairly independent, have a relationship, etc

I didn't say it did. In fact I said the people were around but were not clinically autistic under the diagnosis criteria at the time . My point being that diagnoses have increased because people are diagnosed under different criteria which didn't exist 50 years ago.

Society wasn't wonderfully accommodating, meaning people didn't seek diagnosis - there was no diagnosis.

Although of course some people were misdiagnosed with boarderline personality disorder, schizophrenia etc. and a different group were dismissed as "just" having learning disabilities, (which ironically is happening again now for different reasons, as some Autistic people, some parents of more academic Autistic children and indeed random non Autistic people try to erase those with certain behaviours by saying "that's learning disabilities not Autism", about behaviours very rare indeed among populations who genuinely "just" have intellectual disabilities).

Diagnosis rates have increased because the diagnostic criteria are completely different.

You’re being very literal, are you possibly neurodivergent?

I was too tired to do this last night, but, I’ll try to do it now without losing my patience at what looks like deliberate misconstruing of information.

Social differences
Interests
Repetitions
Sensory sensitivities
Emotional regulation
Perception
Executive functioning

These are traits found in many many people, normally at levels that don’t impact their ability to function in general society. However, in a ND person several of these traits will be present at levels that impact their functionality. The level of impact will vary according to each person, in a NT person they will not be a problem, in an ND person they will be a genuine barrier to ‘normal life’. Depending on how severe and how many of these traits are more than averagely present, dictates ‘how autistic’ someone is.

The easiest one to give an example of is sensory issues. An NT person might put in a pair of socks, feel the seam across their toes and go ‘ugh, that’s a bit annoying’ move the sock around a bit and then ignore the sensation. An ND person with sensory processing issues won’t be able to ignore the sensation and will either take the socks off, leave them on but be agitated and stressed by the sensation, or have a complete meltdown, etc.

So no, we are not ‘all a bit autistic’, but those who have these traits at higher than ‘normal’ levels, are.

Is that clear enough?

Yes, this knowledge isn’t that new. It’s all the neurodiversities. So you can have a dyslexic dad but children have autism and adhd. It’s also 70% more likely that if you have one of the neurodiversities then you have another (or more) too.
it

Its very rare now to see someone who is ‘just’ dyslexic for example. I do feel this has changed over my career though. 25 years ago I did seem to see more ‘just dyslexic’ children. They do seem to be becoming more complex

Agree. I used to run the specialist inc in my secondary school - 5 with ‘mld’ in the school year.

I don’t think that’s true. The severity of the autism presentation has increased hugely. There weren’t 10’s of thousands of children not in school 20 years ago or in asylums. The profile of lots of these children only existed in much smaller numbers.

I think most of us who know autistic people (whether in our own families or the wider community) had already figured this out. Every person I know who is diagnosed autistic, or who isn't, but they display clear autistic traits, has at least one other family member with autism/autistic traits.

The 'many years ago we didn't have all these autistic people' argument is due to only the most severe cases being diagnosed in the past. As we know, autism is a spectrum, and many of those on the milder end would not have been diagnosed in the past.

Yes. For my son a diagnosis is administrative armour to explain why he is struggling in a school environment that is loud, forever in flux, flourescent lighting, high turnover of teachers, jazzy class plans, dreaded group work.

Decades gone by and he'd have been the quiet, bookish one. He'd thrive in an environment that was stable and calm with clear and consistent rules and higher levels of discipline among his peers. Days off because of overwhelm would be managed by the occassional absence letter to the school, who wouldn't being quivering under Ofsted and frantic to have kids over the threshold, regardless of distress.

Some of the diagnoses used to be mutually exclusive under previous criteria. These days a huge percentage of autistic people have an ADHD diagnosis, but under previous diagnosis criteria they were mutually exclusive conditions because ASD (as it was then) was hierarchically superior -

Autistic spectrum disorders, as the diagnosis then was, were held to also explain the ADHD symptoms.

So a duel diagnosis was not permitted.

AuADHD isn't a new more complex condition, rather it's a change in diagnostic criteria - previously the diagnosis would be one of the three under ASD and the ADHD symptoms would be regarded as explained by that.

Changing population level diagnoses doesn't necessarily mean anything other than changing criteria.

20 years ago no, but going further back there were.

Until 1970 children could just be, and were, ruled ineducable.