This Thing is Like That Thing, Part II

Shades of Einstein redux. The London Times [via About.com] reports on a new study showing that autism genes "add up to genius":

The finding has emerged from a study of autism among 378 Cambridge University students, which found the condition was up to seven times more common among mathematicians than students in other disciplines. It was also five times more common in the siblings of mathematicians....

Separate studies have shown that the fathers and grandfathers of children with autism are twice as likely to work in engineering.

Correlation between autism and having a father in engineering is, in part, what drew me initially to the Einstein Syndrome when Brad was first flagged for autism, and I had a rather myopic view of what autism is. My husband went to MIT, my father in law is faculty there, and my grandfather was also an engineer - all signs that Brad had "einstein syndrome." This seemed like a suitable life-raft for me to cling to at the time.

I've since rejected the einstein syndrome hypothesis for several reasons which I have blogged about. The study excerpted above is further evidence that the genius/idiot paradigm upon which the Einstein Syndrome rests is false.

The London Times article quotes autism research luminary Simon Baron-Cohen:

Our understanding of autism is undergoing a transformation.

It certainly is. Certain present company excluded.

Mythbusters, Part I: The Infallible Gut

No, not the leaky gut, the infallible gut.

"If their child was PDD, they know it in their gut..."

So writes a parent of a so-called "late talking" child. I'm here to dispel that myth. While many parents recognize their child's PDD before diagnosis, in my experience, it's quite the opposite for a majority of parents. In fact, most parents haven't even heard of PDD. Of all the barometers for autism, a parent's gut is perhaps the least reliable. And if your child receives the diagnosis and you cling to your gut, the lightbulb won't go on.

Now I'm not arguing against skepticism, nor am I suggesting that there's no value to a mother's intuition. However, acceptance laced with skepticism is quite different from denial.

But reading the sentence excerpted above was a revelation for me. I had always been puzzled by the late talker yahoo group's mission statement:

This list does not serve those discussing vaccinations, special diets, sensory therapies or knowingly accepted false diagnosis.

How do you knowingly accept a false diagnosis? Does this idea presuppose that the doctor tells you it's a false diagnosis or a diagnosis for services? Does that even happen?

But now I get it. You know it's a false diagnosis, because: you know. In your gut. Your infallible gut, which isn't really infallible.

Update: Note - the late talker group changed its mission statement. The excerpt above was accurate as of the date the post was published.

Stability of PDD-NOS, Part II: Analysis

Peer-reviewed, published research indicates that children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at an early age can later go on to lose the diagnosis. For example, this study reported that 19% moved off the spectrum. The abstract lists three possible reasons for such movement:

1) True improvement based on maturation,
2) Intervention, or
3) Over-diagnosis at age 2.

The merits of these reasons is the source of much debate. In this regard, let's examine the public remarks of Professor Camarata, the controversial doctor whose research provides support to Einstein Syndrome author Thomas Sowell and shock jock Michael Savage. In a published article, he states:

The broader question is how one can tell if a child has mental retardation, autism or other pervasive developmental disorder, or language disorder-or will simply "grow out" of the problem. [Emphasis mine.]

Camarata doesn't appear to allow for the possibility that an individual can have a pervasive developmental disorder and grow out of the diagnosis. He phrases it as an either/or proposition.

But when we consider these studies in the aggregate, is it even plausible to source all of this movement off the spectrum to "over-diagnosis at age 2" or misdiagnosis. After all, each of these children were formally diagnosed (probably videotaped), and the results of the research were peer-reviewed. Is it even plausible that the researchers conducting the studies were guilty of sloppy diagnostics?

This blogger believes that the first reason - true improvement based on maturation - is the likely source of movement off the spectrum. I believe that the subjects legitimately met the DSM-IV criteria for PDD-NOS at age 2, and later grew out of the diagnosis. This belief is corroberated by the research, as well as my anecdotal experience.

Edited 09/24/2009