The American Psychiatric Association's passage of the DSM5 and its New Autism Spectrum Disorder was passed Saturday December 1, 2012 without any of the mainstream media taking noting of the real targets, the real victims of the new Autism definition: the intellectually disabled. The media continues the narrative of Amy Harmon and the powerful New York Times that raised concerns about the exclusion of Asperger's at the High Functioning end of the spectrum but ignored, as media and health care professionals so often do, the targeted exclusion of those with severe intellectual disabilities from the autism spectrum even where those ID's are accompanied by EVERY SINGLE CRITERION listed in the new ASD. 

It is true that Asperger's is now formally forced into the same spectrum as  persons with lower functioning autism and that the name disappears but with the removal of those with Intellectual Disability what remains is essentially Asperger's under the autism label. There is no substantial difference between the DSM-IV Asperger's and the DSM5 Autism Spectrum Disorder.  Both criteria are notable  for  the exclusion of those with intellectual disability.  In the DSM-IV persons with intellectual disability and autism were excluded from an Asperger's diagnosis but included in autism.  In the DSM5 those with Asperger's are rolled into autism but the severely intellectually disabled are forced out.  The ID'd are included in a separate intellectually disabled category but that does nothing to bring attention to address their autism symptoms. They are now excluded by the only targeted exclusion of the DSM5 Autism Spectrum Disorder:

Dr. Catherine Lord leader of the APA team that redefines and streamlines autism to exclude those with severe intellectual disability confessed that very fact in the interview with the New York Times' Amy Harmon:

If you believe the DSM5 Neurodevelopmental committee responsible for expressly removing those with Intellectual Disability from the new, oversimplified Autism Spectrum Disorder when they claim that exclusion is based on current science you may want to reconsider. The DSM5 ASD excludes those with intellectual disability if the ID "accounts for" the mandatory social communication deficits of the DSM5 ASD. Even if a child has ALL the mandatory deficits in A,B, C and D it doesn't count, they are still excluded,  if the category A, social communication deficits can be "accounted for by general developmental delays".   This intentional culling of the autism spectrum disorder is purportedly based on current research a claim which I have always found to be extremely dubious with respect to the exclusion of intellectually disabled.  A new study further confirms the lack of scientific basis for the exclusion of those with severe ID from the new ASD.

The very high co-morbidity of autism and intellectual disability has been known for many years and the most recent CDC estimates had placed the figure at between 41 and 44% of all persons with pervasive developmental disorders (now commonly referred to as autism disorders). The figure for autistic disorder itself had been estimated as high as 70% of persons with Autistic Disorder and ID.  CDC autism expert Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp had referred to those with intellectual disability as representing the "vast majority" of those with  classic Autistic Disorder.

In Autism and intellectual disability: a study of prevalence on a sample of the Italian population, La Malfa G, Lassi S, Bertelli M, Salvini R, Placidi GF, the authors reported that their study confirmed the relationship between ID and autism and suggested a new approach in the study of ID in order to elaborate a new integrated model for people with ID and autism.  Despite the relationship between ID and autism the new DSM5 ASD will exclude those most severely affected by ID and autism.  The oversimplified DSM5 ASD has clearly rejected the call by La Malfa and colleagues for a new integrated approach preferring to artificially cleave ID off from ASD. 

Now a new study by the The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) published in CELL, November 9, 2012,  appears to completely rip the foundation out from under the DSM5 attempt to disassociate intellectual disability and autism. It does so by showing how a single gene already known to cause intellectual disability also increases the risk of developing autism.  Given the known high co-morbidity and this reported genetic connection it is difficult to see how the DSM5 team can continue to justify its express, targeted exclusion of intellectually disabled from the new ASD but I am sure they will try.

e! Science News provides an overview of the study and interviews lead TSRI researcher Gavin Rumbaugh, PhD:

 "In this study, we did something no one else had done before," said Gavin Rumbaugh, a TSRI associate professor who led the new research. "Using an animal model, we looked at a mutation known to cause intellectual disability and showed for the first time a causative link between abnormal synapse maturation during brain development and life-long cognitive disruptions commonly seen in adults with a neurodevelopmental disorder."

The DSM5 committee members who have crafted this non evidence based new ASD will not be influenced by this recent study.  I saw Dr. Susan Swedo speak twice at Toronto IMFAR 2012.  She appeared more personally offended by criticism than interested in seriously addressing the merits of such criticism.  The several studies pointing out exclusions at both the HF and LF ends of the autism spectrum under the DSM5 regime are simply dismissed on the basis that they are using old data, that is information used in diagnosing persons currently assessed with autism under the DSM-IV.  The DSM5 team responded with a "mine's bigger than your's" study which was led by DSM5 team member Catherine Lord who had previously confessed to the NYT Amy Harmon that the objective of the new ASD was to target intellectually disabled for exclusion. Real objective stuff?

The DSM5 team has dug in its heels on the New ASD. It has been recoiling from criticism of possible exclusion of persons at the very high end of the autism spectrum.  As always both the media and autism researchers (with the exception of John Matson) simply disregard both the DSM5 ASD language expressly targeting for exclusion the intellectually disabled and Dr. Lord's express confession that the exclusion is intentional. The DSM5 team paid no apparent attention to the La Malfa study or to the authors' conclusion recommending a new approach in the study of ID in order to elaborate a new integrated model for people with ID. The odds of the DSM5 team taking the TSRI study any more seriously are slim to none. 

- Dr. Catherine Lord, as reported by NYT High Functioning Autism/Asperger's reporter, Amy Harmon, A Specialists’ Debate on Autism Has Many Worried Observers, New York Times, January 20, 2012

The above reference to, and quote of, Dr. Catherine's Lord about the DSM-5 committee's intent to exclude intellectually disabled from further autism diagnosis was important journalism by Amy Harmon even if it was simply an inadvertent by product of her exploration of HFA and Asperger's in the DSM-5's New Autism Spectrum Disorder.  Ms Harmon has shown considerable interest in HFA and Asperger`s while largely ignoring those severely affected by autism disorders.  To here credit her article about worried observers relates primarily to those high functioning groups but did cough up the above confession by Dr. Lord.  Ms Harmon consistent with her slant towards covering High Functioning Autism  then moved on and glossed over the admission by Dr. Lord.  In Amy Harmon World as in Dr. Catherine Lord`s DSM-5 the intellectually disabled just don`t count and will be excluded from the Brave New Autism Spectrum Disorder.

To my knowledge I am one of the first, and few, persons to comment on the intentional exclusion of the intellectually disabled from the autism spectrum in the DSM-5; despite their historical presence on the "spectrum"` as a vast majority of those with classic Autistic Disorder. One person who pursued my concerns was Lisa Jo Rudy, then of the About.com autism site, who obtained the following information from Dr. Bryan King of the APA's DSM-5's Neurodevelopmental Work Group:

"My Question for Dr. King


There seems to be a desire to remove people with "Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across contexts, not accounted for by general developmental delays" from the ASD category. Does this mean that a child with Mental Retardation (also called Intellectual Delays) no longer qualify for an Autism Spectrum diagnosis? Would that person wind up dually diagnosed with Intellectual Development Disorder and social communication disorder rather than with an ASD diagnosis?


His Response


There is no explicit desire , however, by creating more specificity we believe that people may be given diagnoses that better capture their individual conditions. The qualifier above about general developmental delays ensures that the social communication deficits are more specific, and also potentially allows for earlier diagnosis if appropriate.


Just as typically developing infants and toddlers are able to engage in very rich social communication and interaction across contexts, appropriate to their developmental level, so too most individuals with intellectual delays or disabilities are also able to communicate. On the other hand, significant deficits in social communication in toddlers may suggest the presence of autism. What the criterion above is meant to ensure is that clinicians take into account what is typical in terms of social communication abilities at a given age or developmental level, and not assume, for example, that a lack of social perception in a teenager with intellectual disability not automatically suggest the presence of autism. As is currently the case, some individuals with Down Syndrome may also meet criteria for autism; but most will not."

When I read Dr. King`s reply to Lisa`s question I was skeptical. I had difficulty rationalizing his answer with the express wording of mandatory criterion A of the DSM-5`s new Autism Spectrum Disorder which requires the presence of "persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across contexts, not accounted for by general developmental delays"

Dr. King stated that it was not the DSM-5 committees`s intent that children with mental retardation (now to be known as Intellectual Developmental Disorder) would be disqualified from receiving an Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis.  Dr. Catherine Lord`s appears to say exactly the opposite.  Dr. Catherine Lord takes issue with the Volkmar data base and study that has prompted the current fears over exclusion of persons with HFA and Asperger`s from a DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis.

Dr. Lord is undoubtedly correct and Amy Harmon and the New York Times need not worry.  The DSM-5 targets for exclusion from the new ASD diagnoses are not those with HFA and Asperger`s.  Those who will be excluded are the invisible autistics who are not featured in the NYT or in Hollywood movies.

You wouldn't know it from reading NY Times columnist Amy Harmon, or from reading the NYT generally, but 70% of persons with Autistic Disorder suffer from intellectual disability. Approximately 30% of persons with Autistic disorder also suffer from epilepsy.  There are regular reports, in non NYT papers anyways, about autistic children and adults going missing, sometimes never to safely return. Self injury is a serious problem for many. For many others lives spent in institutional care is the reality they endure or face in the near future.  As an autism advocate in New Brunswick Canada I have seen these realities for myself.  But I am not a columnist for the New York Times which has never had a good record on dealing straight up and honestly with autism disorders.  

As with the current series run by Amy Harmon (1, 2) the New York Times prefers to report on and portray autism as high functioning autism and Aspergers. They prefer stories about autistic artists and John Elder Robison's son Jack and his difficulties with personal intimacy, difficulties faced by most adolescents, whether they are autistic, or whether they are neurotypical, to use the Neurodiversity terminology that dominates NYT autism articles.