RE: Re: Dr. Fred R. Volkmar: new DSM autism definition harmful

[Guest guest]

Volkmar seems to be on a crusade to discredit the new DSM definition. A

simple look at what he's done says it all. He's taken data from 1993,

(ya know, the year before DSM-IV even came out) used it to match it up

to DSM-V (ya know that has included a lot of traits we've learned about

in the past 2 decades?) criteria. Data points are not going to be taken

on the traits that are not recognized. Therefore, it's ridiculous to

think that you can use incomplete data to judge the effectiveness of the

upcoming standards.

The fact that he hasn't released any information on this doesn't help...

Just saying he's going to publish a larger study in the next few months.

Volkmar was the biggest proponent against taking away Asperger's and

left the committee because of this. To me, it's no more than a scare

tactic to get parents and Autistics to demand it be put back in.

BTW, if you're worried about your diagnosis, look at the criteria, and

make sure you adjust for masking (which we have to do with the current

criteria as well),

http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=94

Melody

>

>

> I thought we would be recategorised as ASD, not that we would be in

> danger of losing the autism dx altogether

>

>

> >

> >

> >

>

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/20/dr_fred_r_volkmar_new_dsm_autism_defin\

ition_harmful_.html?from=rss/ & wpisrc=newsletter_slatest

>

<http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/20/dr_fred_r_volkmar_new_dsm_autism_defi\

nition_harmful_.html?from=rss/ & wpisrc=newsletter_slatest>

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: Rainbows and Butterflies

> I thought we would be recategorised as ASD, not that we would be in danger

> of losing the autism dx altogether

**I know. This sucks!

D.

[Guest guest]

> BTW, if you're worried about your diagnosis, look at the criteria, and

> make sure you adjust for masking (which we have to do with the current

> criteria as well),

> http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?

> rid=94

Interesting. I do fulfill those criteria, though I have doubts about

how many official diagnosticians are willing and able to " adjust for

masking. "

Jane

[Guest guest]

Like I said before, that's a current problem. You could take me to a

dozen different diagnosticians and get several different results. It's

only when they actually realize that as adults, we will adapt at least

in certain areas, that we infact do meet the criteria.

It's no different than teaching an Autistic child to mask. Does that

mean they've lost their diagnosis? (I know, that's a question most

parents will argue.) The only difference is that I wasn't taught by a

behaviorist, OT, SLP or other professionals.

Melody

>

>

> how many official diagnosticians are willing and able to " adjust for

> masking. "

>

[Guest guest]

What do you mean by 'adjust for masking'?

The new criteria seem very straightforward. I easily fit in them.

From: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

[mailto:AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse ] On Behalf Of Jane

Meyerding

Sent: 20 January 2012 20:17

To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

Subject: Re: Re: Dr. Fred R. Volkmar: new DSM autism

definition harmful

> BTW, if you're worried about your diagnosis, look at the criteria, and

> make sure you adjust for masking (which we have to do with the current

> criteria as well),

> http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?

> rid=94

Interesting. I do fulfill those criteria, though I have doubts about

how many official diagnosticians are willing and able to " adjust for

masking. "

Jane

[Guest guest]

Pretty much. If any of you look at the New York Times piece on this, Lord

says pretty much the exact same thing, albeit without the commentary on

Volkmar's personal agenda.

Mind, I tend to comment less on personal agendas and crusades also... and

there's *plenty* wrong with the DSM anyway.

Also -- the Salon piece is just a brief summary of the NYT piece, which

loses a lot of important information (in the manner of popular journalism)

that I'd need to properly appraise Volkmar's work. Sorry I can't say more.

-- Cheezem

aspieperspective.blogspot.com

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Melody Latimer wrote:

> Volkmar seems to be on a crusade to discredit the new DSM definition. A

> simple look at what he's done says it all. He's taken data from 1993,

> (ya know, the year before DSM-IV even came out) used it to match it up

> to DSM-V (ya know that has included a lot of traits we've learned about

> in the past 2 decades?) criteria. Data points are not going to be taken

> on the traits that are not recognized. Therefore, it's ridiculous to

> think that you can use incomplete data to judge the effectiveness of the

> upcoming standards.

>

> The fact that he hasn't released any information on this doesn't help...

> Just saying he's going to publish a larger study in the next few months.

> Volkmar was the biggest proponent against taking away Asperger's and

> left the committee because of this. To me, it's no more than a scare

> tactic to get parents and Autistics to demand it be put back in.

>

> BTW, if you're worried about your diagnosis, look at the criteria, and

> make sure you adjust for masking (which we have to do with the current

> criteria as well),

> http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=94

>

> Melody

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > I thought we would be recategorised as ASD, not that we would be in

> > danger of losing the autism dx altogether

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/20/dr_fred_r_volkmar_new_dsm_autism_defin\

ition_harmful_.html?from=rss/ & wpisrc=newsletter_slatest

> > <

>

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/20/dr_fred_r_volkmar_new_dsm_autism_defin\

ition_harmful_.html?from=rss/ & wpisrc=newsletter_slatest

> >

> > >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

My biggest concern right now is getting my kids diagnosed. I'm not even

going there yet with my son, but my daughter's paediatrician is dragging her

heels with 'she's too young', 'she's too bright' and 'she's a girl'. The

DSM-V seems to fit for me - can someone tell me what's wrong with it? I'm

all for simpler if it helps more people get the right dx.

From: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

[mailto:AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse ] On Behalf Of

Cheezem

Sent: 20 January 2012 20:30

To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

Subject: Re: Re: Dr. Fred R. Volkmar: new DSM autism

definition harmful

Pretty much. If any of you look at the New York Times piece on this, Lord

says pretty much the exact same thing, albeit without the commentary on

Volkmar's personal agenda.

Mind, I tend to comment less on personal agendas and crusades also... and

there's *plenty* wrong with the DSM anyway.

Also -- the Salon piece is just a brief summary of the NYT piece, which

loses a lot of important information (in the manner of popular journalism)

that I'd need to properly appraise Volkmar's work. Sorry I can't say more.

-- Cheezem

aspieperspective.blogspot.com

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Melody Latimer <melody@...

<mailto:melody%40asparenting.com> >wrote:

> Volkmar seems to be on a crusade to discredit the new DSM definition. A

> simple look at what he's done says it all. He's taken data from 1993,

> (ya know, the year before DSM-IV even came out) used it to match it up

> to DSM-V (ya know that has included a lot of traits we've learned about

> in the past 2 decades?) criteria. Data points are not going to be taken

> on the traits that are not recognized. Therefore, it's ridiculous to

> think that you can use incomplete data to judge the effectiveness of the

> upcoming standards.

>

> The fact that he hasn't released any information on this doesn't help...

> Just saying he's going to publish a larger study in the next few months.

> Volkmar was the biggest proponent against taking away Asperger's and

> left the committee because of this. To me, it's no more than a scare

> tactic to get parents and Autistics to demand it be put back in.

>

> BTW, if you're worried about your diagnosis, look at the criteria, and

> make sure you adjust for masking (which we have to do with the current

> criteria as well),

> http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=94

>

> Melody

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > I thought we would be recategorised as ASD, not that we would be in

> > danger of losing the autism dx altogether

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

>

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/20/dr_fred_r_volkmar_new_dsm_autism_d

efinition_harmful_.html?from=rss/

<http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/20/dr_fred_r_volkmar_new_dsm_autism_

definition_harmful_.html?from=rss/ & wpisrc=newsletter_slatest>

& wpisrc=newsletter_slatest

> > <

>

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/20/dr_fred_r_volkmar_new_dsm_autism_d

efinition_harmful_.html?from=rss/

<http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/01/20/dr_fred_r_volkmar_new_dsm_autism_

definition_harmful_.html?from=rss/ & wpisrc=newsletter_slatest>

& wpisrc=newsletter_slatest

> >

> > >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From:

> What do you mean by 'adjust for masking'?

**For examply a person with Aspergers' can learn to force herself to make

eye contact with people, even if she'd rather not. So, the doctor might say,

since she (apparantly) has no problem with making eye contact, an important

aspect of Aspergers', she's not on the autism spectrum. She could also have

learned not to blurt out stuff, when she did so as a child.

D.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From:

>

> > What do you mean by 'adjust for masking'?

>

> **For examply a person with Aspergers' can learn to force herself to make

> eye contact with people, even if she'd rather not. So, the doctor

> might say,

> since she (apparantly) has no problem with making eye contact, an

> important

> aspect of Aspergers', she's not on the autism spectrum. She could also

> have

> learned not to blurt out stuff, when she did so as a child.

>

Quite right. I look at noses which means it looks like I'm looking

someone in the eye. I force myself to initiate social interactions even

if I'm very uncomfortable doing stuff. I do not stim in public and even

have a hard time in private. I don't blurt out things or go on and on

about my favorite subjects like I once did. And since my parents saw

nothing wrong with me, there is no data to prove any of the above was at

one point untrue.

Melody

[Guest guest]

>

> can someone tell me what's wrong with it? I'm

> all for simpler if it helps more people get the right dx.

>

Honestly, nothing. Like my first post, Volkmar is using old data to say

" HFA/Asperger's/PDD-NOS " types are not going to be diagnosed under the

new criteria. It's simply, to me, untrue. My friend, , even

pointed out that there are 2 studies that were *ACTUALLY* released that

show quite the opposite.

Melody

[Guest guest]

Ah, I see what you mean. I try to be a bit more open to stims nowadays, but

my hubby doesn't like it.

From: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

[mailto:AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse ] On Behalf Of Melody

Latimer

Sent: 20 January 2012 21:18

To: AutisticSpectrumTreeHouse

Subject: Re: Re: Dr. Fred R. Volkmar: new DSM autism

definition harmful

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From:

>

> > What do you mean by 'adjust for masking'?

>

> **For examply a person with Aspergers' can learn to force herself to make

> eye contact with people, even if she'd rather not. So, the doctor

> might say,

> since she (apparantly) has no problem with making eye contact, an

> important

> aspect of Aspergers', she's not on the autism spectrum. She could also

> have

> learned not to blurt out stuff, when she did so as a child.

>

Quite right. I look at noses which means it looks like I'm looking

someone in the eye. I force myself to initiate social interactions even

if I'm very uncomfortable doing stuff. I do not stim in public and even

have a hard time in private. I don't blurt out things or go on and on

about my favorite subjects like I once did. And since my parents saw

nothing wrong with me, there is no data to prove any of the above was at

one point untrue.

Melody