Autism annual reviews have been published by a number of sources most of  which ignored or mis-characterized the most important autism event of 2012.  The most important event by far and the one with the most negative implications for those who actually suffer from autism symptoms was the APA approval, on  Saturday, December 1, just before the holiday season, of the DSM5 as it is now written including the new Autism Spectrum Disorder.  The new ASD will preclude future autism diagnoses for those most severely affected by autism symptoms: those with moderate to severe intellectual disability. 

I have written many times about the express targeting for exclusion of those with intellectual disabilities.   I have been virtually alone in my criticism of this exclusion but I stand by my objection to that exclusion.  It is reprehensible.  It helps  insurance providers and governments that seek to reduce provision of autism treatment and benefits.  It helps those academics and researchers who are building careers researching every trivial idea they find fascinating without helping or bringing anyone with an autism disorder any closer to treatment or cure of the symptoms which in fact restrict their ability to function in the real world.  They are now free to conduct autism research without the need to include difficult to work with intellectually disabled, severely autistic children and adults among their subjects. It helps those persons with High Functioning Autism and Aspergers, their parents and other loved ones, who feel stigmatized by association with low functioning, intellectually disabled autistic children and adults.

Intellectual opposition to the direction the DSM5 is taking autism did arise in 2012 in Rethinking Autism: Variation and Complexity by Professor Lynn Waterhouse. She has articulated in a very comprehensive analysis, backed by learned authorities on every point, the fundamental problems with the new streamlined, simplified version of autism.  The title summarizes her arguments succinctly: autism is in essence a group of symptoms characterized by variation, heterogeneity and complexity.  The unified, simplified DSM5 ASD ignores that heterogeneity.  Every parent, academic and clinician who has repeated Stephen Shore's caution,  now a cliche, "if you've met one person with autism, you've met one person with autism" knows that autism is heterogenous, varied and complex.  The DSM5 however, contrary to all research and real life experience, pretends otherwise.  The DSM5 ASD is a false step, a road block to the understanding of autism disorders, autism symptoms.  Debates over whether autism is increasing, and what factors are involved with causing autism will be muddied again for another generation by the redefinition of autism.

The moderately and severely intellectually disabled who otherwise display the social communication and restrictive, repetitive criteria of the DSM5's New Autism Spectrum Disorder, will not be included in the new autism diagnostic era. They will be relegated to the Intellectual Disability group which will receive very little research attention or dedication of resources.  After all it will be deemed wiser to concentrate resources, including treatment and cure research resources, on those for whom successful results are more likely .... just as the distinguished, open minded, intellectually conflict free and oh so compassionate members of the DSM5 autism committee have done in their pre-Christmas gift to the intellectually disabled, severely affected members of the pre-DSM5 autism spectrum.  

Concerns have been raised in Australia over the DSM-5 Autism Do-Over, the new Autism Spectrum Disorder.  The fears echo those held by many in North America where studies have suggested a loss of autism diagnoses under the new DSM-5 diagostic criteria for autism with a possible loss of funding for autism treatment and services.

ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) News reports the concerns expressed by Autism Awareness Australia:

"Vicki Gibbs from Autism Spectrum Australia's diagnostic service said Australian research has found a significant number of autistic children would fail to meet the new criteria. "What our study found was of the 120-odd children that we assessed, about 23 per cent of those children who would have got a diagnosis under the existing DSM 4, we would not have been able to give a diagnosis under DSM 5, just because they didn't have enough of the symptoms," the clinical psychologist said."

As the parent of a 16 year old son with severe autistic disorder I learned long ago that unanticipated changes can have immediate repercussions for my son.  Meltdowns have been prompted by unanticipated and, sometimes, unnecessary changes in my son's routines and expectations.

Change itself can be very disruptive. It does not appear to be a lesson learned by the autism experts on the DSM5 committees ... yeah?

The following reviews and book description are from  Amazon and provide a glimpse into Rethinking Autism: Variation and Complexity by Lynn Waterhouse a book scheduled for release by Amazon on October 15, 2012.

Rethinking Autism promises to be a paradigm shattering approach to understanding what is now commonly called Autism Spectrum Disorder.  With the APA's DSM-5 committee about to jam the existing recognized pervasive developmental disorders into one spectrum Lynn Waterhouse's book looks like it may present a very timely challenge to the  thinking of the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5 team:

Autism researcher bias exists and its effect, when the DSM-5 takes effect in 2013,  will further the redefinition of autism as social awkwardness and the exclusion from the autism spectrum of persons with severe intellectual disabilities.  

David Kupfer, M.D., chair of the DSM-5 Task Force,  has stated that "the proposed ASD criteria are backed by the scientific evidence". Dr. Kupfer was not addressing the exclusion of the persons with autism and severe intellectual disabilities when he made that statement.  He was responding to the criticisms that the new Autism Spectrum Disorder would target high functioning autistics for exclusion. Scientific evidence in respect of autism disorders is found  by autism researchers though and autism researchers are clearly biased  against inclusion of low functioning, intellectually disabled persons with autism in the their research studies.  The DSM-5 New Autism Spectrum Disorder, based on that same research, reflects the researchers' bias against inclusion of intellectually disabled persons and is intentionally designed as was confessed by Dr. Catherine Lord, to remove persons with classic autistic disorder and intellectual disability from future autism diagnoses.

I do not think the DSM-5  committee responsible for the New Autism Spectrum Disorder will yield to pressure to  revisit the new autism diagnostic criteria. I attended IMFAR 2012 in Toronto and specifically attended two presentations by Dr. Susan Swedo of the committee responsible for the new autism definition.  She was visibly upset over the criticisms received from those concerned with the possible exclusion of very high functioning persons from the autism spectrum but she dug in her heels. She did confirm, in response to my questions after the second presentation, that some intellectually disabled will not be diagnosed with autism under the DSM-5 definition who might have received an autism diagnosis under the DSM-IV.  If there is any change it will come on the high functioning end and will tend to include more high functioning autistic persons, the subjects of much interest by NYT reporter Amy Harmon and others in the Mainstream Media. At the same time there is no significant pressure on the DSM-5 committee members to reconsider the express exclusion of the intellectually disabled in mandatory criterion A of the DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Disorder.  

impaired, but experiences typical language development. Another difference between past and present autism diagnosis involves the presence of intellectual disabilities, adds Yeargin-Allsopp. During the 1960s and 1970s, the vast majority of those diagnosed with autism had an intellectual disability but today, only about 40% have one."


The DSM-IV effectively expanded the definition of what constituted autism and, in the process, reduced the presence of the intellectually disabled on the autism spectrum from vast majority status to minority status. Since then the Mainstream Media regularly does a feature on the accomplishments of Dr. Temple Grandin and other very talented high functioning persons with autism/Aspergers.  Michelle Dawson and Ari Ne'eman who function very well in complex and challenging legal, political and media proceedings command attention and help redefine autism from a disorder with significant daily living impairments to a different, superior way of thinking. Meanwhile those most severely affected by classic autism disorders, particularly the vast majority with intellectual disability, remain largely invisible,  marginalized by Neurodiversity identity ideology which disowns their presence on the autism spectrum and by media obsession with feel good stories including movies and television shows featuring brilliant characters with Aspergers.

The primary agent in the final push to remove those with intellectual disability from the autism spectrum is the bias of autism researchers.  Bias is certainly a factor in autism research as noted by High Functioning Autism expert and anti-ABA activist Dr. Laurent Mottron in his Nature commentary in which he paid lip service to the quaint notion of autism as a disability affecting some but then  displayed his own bias by redefining autism in terms of the autistic researchers who work with him:

"I am a researcher, clinician and lab director concentrating on the cognitive neuroscience of autism. Eight autistic people have been associated with my group: four research assistants, three students and one researcher. Their roles have not been limited to sharing their life experiences or performing mindless data entry. They are there because of their intellectual and personal qualities. I believe that they contribute to science because of their autism, not in spite of it. Everyone knows stories of autistics with extraordinary savant abilities, such as Stephen Wiltshire. None of my lab members is a savant. They are ‘ordinary’ autistics, many of whom, on average, outperform non-autistics in a range of tasks, including measures of intelligence." (Underlining and bold highlighting  added - HLD)


Mottron also noted autism researcher bias in his Nature commentary:

Dr. Mottron's own bias is on ironic display in the above quote when he references fMRI scan result interpretation as indicative of autism researcher bias.  He fails to mention that such scan studies routinely exclude low functioning, severely autistic subjects because of the difficulties in managing the behaviors of such subjects during the examination process.  This bias against the low functioning, severely autistic would include the vast majority of persons with classic autism and intellectual disability.  Mottron, who has written many published journal articles on persons with High Functioning Autism and Aspergers, has demonstrated his own bias against those with autism and intellectual disability by arguing with flimsy, if any, evidence that intellectual disability does not exist in autism. 


A recent autism study employed lower functioning autistic subjects.  In A stable pattern of EEG spectral coherence distinguishes children with autism from neuro-typical controls – a large case control study, Frank H. Duffy and   Heidelise Als used classic autism subjects because of the tendency of autism studies to exclude them as reported in the study press release:



Autism research has generally tended to exclude low functioning autistic participants as was acknowledged by  an article in the Financial Times about the DSM-5's new autism spectrum diagnostic criteria Dr Craig Erickson, chief, Christian Sarkine Autism Treatment Center, Indiana University School of Medicine noted the presence of  a high functioning autism bias in autism research:

"Erickson noted that there is often a bias in clinical trials, where high-functioning patients are typically enrolled as they are more readily able to tolerate routine procedures such as blood tests part of clinical trials. Further, it is easier to make improvements in less-impaired children, Elliott said, noting the Phase II Kuvan in autism trial included children with IQs in the 50-60 range as well as Asberger patients."

Why has the APA decided that the DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Disorder should eliminate or substantially reduce the numbers of persons with ASD who are intellectually disabled?   The removal from an ASD diagnosis of persons with ID will be accomplished by the express wording of Mandatory Criterion A of the DSM-5's New Autism Spectrum Disorder which requires "A. Persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction across contexts, not accounted for by general developmental delays.."  Where the numbers of persons with intellectual disability constitute the vast majority of persons with Autistic Disorder under the DSM-IV they will now be removed from the autism spectrum under the DSM-5 Autism Do-Over which will now define autism largely in terms of the current Asperger's definition of social communication and repetitive behavior deficits.  The DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Diosrder would be more accurately titled Aspergers Spectrum Disorder.  But why the substitution of Asperger's for Autism in the DSM-5 Autism Do-Over?

The answer may be found in the convenience of autism researchers, clinicians and pharmaceutical manufacturers.  It is easier to treat, and even research, high functioning autism and Aspergers than to deal with patients and subjects with classic, severe autism and intellectual disability.  Interviewed for an article in the Financial Times about the DSM-5's new autism spectrum diagnostic criteria Dr Craig Erickson, chief, Christian Sarkine Autism Treatment Center, Indiana University School of Medicine noted the presence of  a high functioning autism bias in autism research:

"The DSM-5 modifications will be great for drug development, as there will be greater standardization in clinical trials, said Dr Craig Erickson, chief, Christian Sarkine Autism Treatment Center, Indiana University School of Medicine. With hardened criteria, there will be better, clearer studies that are easier to interpret, he said. DSM-5 changes will be a positive for research as the improved diagnostic clarity would ensure proper enrollment criteria, Ring agreed.


Erickson noted that there is often a bias in clinical trials, where high-functioning patients are typically enrolled as they are more readily able to tolerate routine procedures such as blood tests part of clinical trials. Further, it is easier to make improvements in less-impaired children, Elliott said, noting the Phase II Kuvan in autism trial included children with IQs in the 50-60 range as well as Asberger patients.


To avoid a bias in developing treatments only for higher-functioning patients, it would be especially advantageous to target specific symptoms rather than a broad lump of ASD so that specific interventions can target symptoms for a particular severity, for example stereotypic motor movements, Elliott said."

I have commented several times about what I perceived as high functioning bias in autism research.  Dr. Erickson confirms my perception as Dr. Catherine Lord has done previously in  Social Policy Report, Autism Spectrum Disorders Diagnosis, Prevalence, and Services for Children and Families:

""However, research in ASD has tended to use overwhelmingly White, middle to upper middle class samples, and has often excluded children with multiple disabilities and/or severe to profound intellectual disabilities". [underlining added - HLD]

The APA has stated in its form letter reply to those who submitted concerns to them about the new Autism Spectrum Disorder criteria that the new definition is based on existing research:

"The [DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Disorder] proposal is based on years of accumulated clinical, epidemiological, and neuroscience research which was thoroughly examined by the members of the DSM-5 work group on Neurodevelopmental Disorders."


A problem with that explanation  is that the research on which the DSM-5 autism spectrum disorder is based is biased in favor of high functioning autistic and Asperger's subject participation.  The existing research as admitted by Dr. Lord and Dr. Erickson tends to exclude the severely challenged, intellectually disabled population.  The new DSM-5 reflects that research bias by expressly excluding the intellectually disabled from a DSM-5 era Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis.

The DSM-5 Autism Do-Over will exclude the intellectually disabled to make life easier for autism researchers, clinicians and pharmaceutical manufacturers.  There is no compelling reason to expressly exclude the intellectually disabled from the ASD except for the convenience of these groups.

There is no legitimate research basis for removing the intellectually disabled from an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.  There is only bias ... bias against the intellectually disabled. 

A major Swedish study offers uncomfortable news to the DSM-5 team trying to pretend there is no relationship between autism and the intellectual disability which affects the vast majority of those with classic Autistic Disorder. It will also be disconcerting  to those who devoutly believe that autism is 100% genetic. The study finds that children born of immigrants to Sweden had an increased risk of developing autism with intellectual disability. The study authors also conclude that autism is governed by environmental as well as genetic factors:

When I first pointed out that the DSM-5 New Autism Disorder would exclude intellectually disabled I was ignored by most, insulted and mocked by others.  Some were annoyed. When Catherine Lord confessed that the intellectually disabled were the real target for exclusion very few mentioned the exclusion of the intellectually disabled from the DSM-5 autism definition.  Certainly not the New York Times and other prominent Mainstream Media institutions that have wrung their hands over the possible exclusion of the very high functioning Autism ruling class.  

When Fred Volkmar, who kick started the current uproar over the possible exclusion of some with high functioning autism and Aspergers, mentioned in a Yale Daily News interview the possible DSM-5 exclusion of many of the intellectually disabled it did not merit any response from the MSM:

"In its next manual on mental disorders, the American Psychiatric Association plans to issue a single set of diagnostic criteria that will merge the four types of disorders on the autism spectrum, which include autism and Asperger syndrome. Although no current patient will be affected by the new rules, research by Yale Child Study Center Director Fred Volkmar suggests that the revision may disqualify a large number of intellectually disabled patients from receiving a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in the future."  [Underlining added for emphasis - HLD]

The autism spectrum is not just a spectrum. It is a caste system with the intellectually disabled occupying the lowest rung unworthy of concern or comment from the mainstream media or feel good, autism is beautiful, Neurodiversity variety autism advocates.

Catherine Lord, and her highly influential views about autism and intellectual disability seem to have changed a bit since the 2003 article published below and the DSM-5 Autism Do-Over which will be published in 2013.  For those who quibble over the reference to 2013 as being "now" they should know that Dr. Lord and the DSM-5 subcommittee have no intention of changing any of the wording of the DSM-5 Autism Do-Over which will take effect in 2013. For the intellectually disabled  the future is now, they are no longer part of the autism spectrum. 

As Dr. Lord has already confessed, the DSM-5 committee of which she is a member has already targeted the intellectually disabled for exclusion  from the DSM-5's New Autism Spectrum Disorder. That confession is also confirmed by the exclusion language in mandatory criterion A of the DSM-5 which excludes an autism diagnosis where the social communication deficits are accounted for by general developmental delay. The writing is on the DSM-5's purple wall.

If there is any change at all in the wording of the DSM-5 Autism Do-Over it will be at the higher functioning end and will favor inclusion of more persons who are least affected by an "autism" disorder.  Persons with high functioning autism and Aspergers have powerful allies in the major mainstream media institutions; allies like Amy Harmon of the New York Times.  For the MSM and Hollywood autism is Aspergers. 

The intellectually disabled who comprise the vast majority of those with DSM-IV Autistic Disorder are never mentioned in those highly influential circles and the recent firestorm over exclusion from the DSM-5. The uproar is over the possible exclusion of the highest functioning persons with an ASD, persons who can work in rock bands, run successful businesses, graduate from university, cavort with New York media and New Jersey and Washington political figures and committees.

Dr. Catherine Lord and her DSM-5 committee will continue with their plans to separate intellectual disability completely from the autism spectrum as though there were no connection between the two.  But Dr. Lord did not always see the intellectually disabled as a lower caste to be excluded from the autism spectrum rooming house as illustrated in this 2003 journal article abstract:

Autism is currently viewed as a spectrum condition that includes strikingly different severity levels; IQ is consistently described as one of the primary aspects of the heterogeneity in autism. To investigate the possibility of more than one distinct subtype of autism based on IQ, both latent class analysis and taxometrics methods were used to classify Mullen IQs in a sample of 456 children with autism spectrum disorder. We found evidence for multiple IQ-based subgroups using both methods. Groups differed in level of intellectual functioning and patterns of verbal versus nonverbal ability. Results support the notion of distinct subtypes of autism that differ in severity of intellectual ability, patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses, and severity of autism symptoms.


In 2003 Dr. Catherine Lord (and Dr. Geraldine Dawson of Autism Speaks) saw the intellectual ability patterns as a significant basis for distinguishing subtypes of autism that differ in severity.  Apparently her views have changed ... dramatically ... since then.  To the great detriment of the vast majority of those with Autistic Disorder and intellectual disabilities.

What exactly is Autism Awareness and what does it accomplish?

Can anyone, Autism Speaks, or any other autism organization, say with a straight face that they are promoting autism awareness when the official criteria for determining what autism is, or is not, changes every 15-20 years?  Can anyone say what autism is when the vast majority (CDC expert Dr. Marshalynn Yeargin-Allsopp) of those with autistic disorder, those with intellectual disabilities, are rendered a minority, albeit a large minority at 41-44% (CDC surveys) , with the publication of the DSM-IV and when that large minority are removed from the autism "spectrum" entirely with the publication of the DSM-5?

Can anyone pretend to be talking about the same autism when some are talking about severely impaired and challenged children and adults who lack any significant communication skills, suffer epileptic seizures and engage in dangerous Self Injurious Behavior while others, especially mainstream media like the NYT,  bemoan the challenges faced by very shy high functioning persons who function well in rock bands, businesses and quasi-governmental organizations but heaven forbid find, not unlike much of humanity, that personal intimacy with a person to whom one is attracted can be an awkward, learning experience during adolescence?

Can anyone stand up in good faith in this day and age and say that autism is an entirely genetic disorder when in fact not all identical twins both have autism when one does? Or when researchers find multitudes of genetic bases for autism but no single genetic characteristic of autism? Even after the overwhelming majority of autism research dollars have been funneled for years into a bottomless pit of genetic autism research?

And how about the French psychoanalysts who in 2011-2012 are promoting nonsensical, non evidence based, non reality based autism causation theories, including the "refrigerator mothers" theory of autism causation,  a dangerous harmful work of fiction that never did have an evidence basis? And they have the unmitigated audacity to sue Sophie Robert for exposing their incompetent, archaic nonsense to the world?


Unfortunately the gross autism incompetence of many in the French psychoanalytic profession is about the only thing that remains clear in the world of autism awareness. The very definition of autism has now become contentious. The impact of new diagnostic definitions on epidemiological based autism research can only be imagined but, if past is prologue, will not be helpful in increasing our knowledge of autism causes. 


I do not mean to discourage anyone from engaging in raising autism awareness.  But in this time of the great DSM-5 Autism Do-Over please be clear about what you mean when you say ... autism. 

The highlighted expression will exclude some from an autistm diagnosis where Criterion A can be accounted for by general development delay.  General developmental delay is not a separate category in the DSM-5 at least not under that title. It is found under the diagnosis  Intellectual Developmental Disorder (IDD):

On July 17 2011 I made a submission to the Neurodevelopmental Disorders DSM Work Group of the American Psychiatric Association.  My submission dealt at length with the exclusionary language added to Mandatory Criterion A of the DSM-5 Autism Spectrum Disorder, language which targets for exclusion from autism diagnosis of persons with intellectual disability.

Since that submission the NYT's Amy Harmon who, like most of the mainstream media when reporting on autism, focuses on high functioning autism and Aspergers, questioned the workgroup's Dr. Catherine Lord about the possibility that the DSM-5 ASD would exclude many higher functioning autistic persons. In the course of that interview Dr. Catherine Lord confessed that there was nothing to worry about that the real exclusionary target of the DSM-5's proposed Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnosis was the intellectually disabled:

Yesterday I received an email form response to my July 17 2011 submission from David Kupfer, M.D.,Chair, DSM-5 Task Force and Darrel Regier, M.D., M.P.H.,
Vice-Chair, DSM-5 Task Force. I do appreciate receiving a reply from the DSM-Task Force even though it is a form reply. The reply itself indicates that the DSM-5 is aware of public concerns about possible exclusion of  persons with high functioning autism and Aspergers from a DSM-5 autism disorder diagnosis. (The form reply refers the reader to an article by work group member Professor Francesca Happé "Why fold Asperger syndrome into autism spectrum disorder in the DSM-5?").   Unfortunately the form reply makes no mention of the express exclusion of persons whose "primary trait" is intellectual disability.

For the DSM-5, as for the mainstream media, autism means high functioning autism and no longer includes CDC autism expert Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp's vast majority of intellectually disabled. The intellectually disabled, the only group expressly mentioned for exclusion from  the DSM-5 autism disorder diagnostic criteria, is not mentioned in the work group's form reply: