Sensory Processing Disorder article - washpost today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"As the NY Times article confirmed, parents simply don't have time (or don't make time) to implement strong routines during early childhood development.
That task is most offen delegated to uninformed babysitters or daycare workers. Parents prefer not to waste their "intelegence" on such menial labor."

WTF does this mean? You're not really saying that a kid is extra-sensitive to light and sound, or unable to understand where his body relates in space, due to parenting, are you?

That is so outside of what is known about child development that you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Speaking of meaning......

What does this (bolded) ridiculous OT speak mean?

I want to create a new disorder called Filangel Disassociation Disorder. It's primary symptom will be the inability to understand where one's toes relates in one's shoe. Sounds legit.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, 11:11, for my best laugh of the day, so far. It reminds me of the people who dream up the names of my favorite OPI nail polish colors.
"You red my mind."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what are the risks associated with "poor quality" early childcare? It could be a daycare center downtown or the family run neighborhood home. Nothing abusive or terribly horrible, just not that great.

Not to have to say the obvious, but if poor quality childcare outside of the home can have devastating consequences, why is it TABOO to ask if poor quality childcare IN the child's family home can impact early childhood development?
Especially with regard to behavior problems.

I can't count how many parents have told me, they've never held a baby before they had one, let alone know how to sufficiently meet the needs of a little child.

Weekly family support should be required
when there's a young child who requires these risky medications.
After all, the problems aren't only the child's.

Why do parents have no responsibility?
Why aren't they taking meds to control their issues?

[Anonymous]

More about how the DSM disorders are just collections of symptoms:

When the DSM-5 process was launched several years ago, the clear hope by all involved was that, finally, psychiatric diagnoses would include, in addition to signs and symptoms, various biomarkers of the major disorders including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, with reasonable measures of sensitivity and specificity. Because the risk for these disorders has a major genetic component, it seemed plausible to anticipate including specific genetic markers such as single nucleotide polymorphisms or structural genomic abnormalities, (for example, copy number variations), that increase disease vulnerability and perhaps denote biologically distinct alternative phenotypes. This unbridled enthusiasm followed on the heels of the sequencing of the human genome and the then-existing strong belief that many complex diseases in medicine would be simplified by the results of genome-wide association studies. However, that promise has not been realized in psychiatry, nor in many other branches of medicine, although historic insights about the genetic architecture of complex diseases have emerged. Moreover, our understanding of the underpinnings of the genetic basis of disease vulnerability and treatment response has become considerably more sophisticated because of, to name a few emerging disciplines, epigenetics, non-coding RNAs, microRNAs, transcriptomics, and proteomics.


https://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/202

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More about how the DSM disorders are just collections of symptoms:

When the DSM-5 process was launched several years ago, the clear hope by all involved was that, finally, psychiatric diagnoses would include, in addition to signs and symptoms, various biomarkers of the major disorders including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, with reasonable measures of sensitivity and specificity. Because the risk for these disorders has a major genetic component, it seemed plausible to anticipate including specific genetic markers such as single nucleotide polymorphisms or structural genomic abnormalities, (for example, copy number variations), that increase disease vulnerability and perhaps denote biologically distinct alternative phenotypes. This unbridled enthusiasm followed on the heels of the sequencing of the human genome and the then-existing strong belief that many complex diseases in medicine would be simplified by the results of genome-wide association studies. However, that promise has not been realized in psychiatry, nor in many other branches of medicine, although historic insights about the genetic architecture of complex diseases have emerged. Moreover, our understanding of the underpinnings of the genetic basis of disease vulnerability and treatment response has become considerably more sophisticated because of, to name a few emerging disciplines, epigenetics, non-coding RNAs, microRNAs, transcriptomics, and proteomics.


https://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/202

I don;t think you understood the paragraph you just posted. It doesn't say that "DSM disorders are just a collection of symptoms."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More about how the DSM disorders are just collections of symptoms:

When the DSM-5 process was launched several years ago, the clear hope by all involved was that, finally, psychiatric diagnoses would include, in addition to signs and symptoms, various biomarkers of the major disorders including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, with reasonable measures of sensitivity and specificity. Because the risk for these disorders has a major genetic component, it seemed plausible to anticipate including specific genetic markers such as single nucleotide polymorphisms or structural genomic abnormalities, (for example, copy number variations), that increase disease vulnerability and perhaps denote biologically distinct alternative phenotypes. This unbridled enthusiasm followed on the heels of the sequencing of the human genome and the then-existing strong belief that many complex diseases in medicine would be simplified by the results of genome-wide association studies. However, that promise has not been realized in psychiatry, nor in many other branches of medicine, although historic insights about the genetic architecture of complex diseases have emerged. Moreover, our understanding of the underpinnings of the genetic basis of disease vulnerability and treatment response has become considerably more sophisticated because of, to name a few emerging disciplines, epigenetics, non-coding RNAs, microRNAs, transcriptomics, and proteomics.


https://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/202

I don;t think you understood the paragraph you just posted. It doesn't say that "DSM disorders are just a collection of symptoms."

How would you summarize the paragraph?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"As the NY Times article confirmed, parents simply don't have time (or don't make time) to implement strong routines during early childhood development.
That task is most offen delegated to uninformed babysitters or daycare workers. Parents prefer not to waste their "intelegence" on such menial labor."

WTF does this mean? You're not really saying that a kid is extra-sensitive to light and sound, or unable to understand where his body relates in space, due to parenting, are you?

That is so outside of what is known about child development that you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Speaking of meaning......

What does this (bolded) ridiculous OT speak mean?

I want to create a new disorder called Filangel Disassociation Disorder. It's primary symptom will be the inability to understand where one's toes relates in one's shoe. Sounds legit.

Do you really want to know what it means or do you just want to make fun of it?

If a person doesn't know how their body relates is space, they tend to bump into things quite a bit. They have trouble with gross and small motor skills. They have quite a bit of trouble with scooters, big wheels, tricycles, bicycles- timing, assessing speed, coordination. Things that haven't been attributed to other things like poor muscle tone or eye problems that lead to trouble with depth perception.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"As the NY Times article confirmed, parents simply don't have time (or don't make time) to implement strong routines during early childhood development.
That task is most offen delegated to uninformed babysitters or daycare workers. Parents prefer not to waste their "intelegence" on such menial labor."

WTF does this mean? You're not really saying that a kid is extra-sensitive to light and sound, or unable to understand where his body relates in space, due to parenting, are you?

That is so outside of what is known about child development that you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Speaking of meaning......

What does this (bolded) ridiculous OT speak mean?

I want to create a new disorder called Filangel Disassociation Disorder. It's primary symptom will be the inability to understand where one's toes relates in one's shoe. Sounds legit.

Do you really want to know what it means or do you just want to make fun of it?

If a person doesn't know how their body relates is space, they tend to bump into things quite a bit. They have trouble with gross and small motor skills. They have quite a bit of trouble with scooters, big wheels, tricycles, bicycles- timing, assessing speed, coordination. Things that haven't been attributed to other things like poor muscle tone or eye problems that lead to trouble with depth perception.

Which contraptions did your child use early on, besides a carseat?

[Anonymous]

....Do you really want to know what it means or do you just want to make fun of it?

If a person doesn't know how their body relates is space, they tend to bump into things quite a bit. They have trouble with gross and small motor skills. They have quite a bit of trouble with scooters, big wheels, tricycles, bicycles- timing, assessing speed, coordination. Things that haven't been attributed to other things like poor muscle tone or eye problems that lead to trouble with depth perception.

Which contraptions did your child use early on, besides a carseat?

Careful. I think this is 18:30 who thinks she's an artist who can 'heal' children/familes.

Last time I made reference to healing as an art, I got flamed because healing is supposed to be a science. Except that so called "science" isn't working so well, is it? Even using meds, it's an ongoing task to constantly monitor the everchanging side-effects of various drugs. So my success lies in my ability to heal children/families as an art. I can't give you a one-size-fits-all solution, and certify a bunch of practitioners to duplicate my process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"As the NY Times article confirmed, parents simply don't have time (or don't make time) to implement strong routines during early childhood development.
That task is most offen delegated to uninformed babysitters or daycare workers. Parents prefer not to waste their "intelegence" on such menial labor."

WTF does this mean? You're not really saying that a kid is extra-sensitive to light and sound, or unable to understand where his body relates in space, due to parenting, are you?

That is so outside of what is known about child development that you really don't have a leg to stand on.

Speaking of meaning......

What does this (bolded) ridiculous OT speak mean?

I want to create a new disorder called Filangel Disassociation Disorder. It's primary symptom will be the inability to understand where one's toes relates in one's shoe. Sounds legit.

Do you really want to know what it means or do you just want to make fun of it?

If a person doesn't know how their body relates is space, they tend to bump into things quite a bit. They have trouble with gross and small motor skills. They have quite a bit of trouble with scooters, big wheels, tricycles, bicycles- timing, assessing speed, coordination. Things that haven't been attributed to other things like poor muscle tone or eye problems that lead to trouble with depth perception.

Which contraptions did your child use early on, besides a carseat?

What do you mean by "contraptions"?

[Anonymous]

I posted that...in the context of this SPD thread. 22:43, what do you take from it? I take it that they hoped to include biomedical markers for at least some of the diagnoses but that effort was a failure. So diagnosis is based on symptoms. Moreover that's what our neuropsych told us.

I didn't ask you how you'd summarize it but please do!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More about how the DSM disorders are just collections of symptoms:

When the DSM-5 process was launched several years ago, the clear hope by all involved was that, finally, psychiatric diagnoses would include, in addition to signs and symptoms, various biomarkers of the major disorders including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, with reasonable measures of sensitivity and specificity. Because the risk for these disorders has a major genetic component, it seemed plausible to anticipate including specific genetic markers such as single nucleotide polymorphisms or structural genomic abnormalities, (for example, copy number variations), that increase disease vulnerability and perhaps denote biologically distinct alternative phenotypes. This unbridled enthusiasm followed on the heels of the sequencing of the human genome and the then-existing strong belief that many complex diseases in medicine would be simplified by the results of genome-wide association studies. However, that promise has not been realized in psychiatry, nor in many other branches of medicine, although historic insights about the genetic architecture of complex diseases have emerged. Moreover, our understanding of the underpinnings of the genetic basis of disease vulnerability and treatment response has become considerably more sophisticated because of, to name a few emerging disciplines, epigenetics, non-coding RNAs, microRNAs, transcriptomics, and proteomics.


https://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/202

I don;t think you understood the paragraph you just posted. It doesn't say that "DSM disorders are just a collection of symptoms."

How would you summarize the paragraph?

Your statement "DSM disorders are just a collection of symptoms" is wrong. This paragraph says that the genetic basis of these disorders is complex and understanding this genetic basis is taking the form of sophisticated, cross-discipline, analysis. but there is a genetic basis, or as the paragraph states "the risk for these disorders has a major genetic component." The particular genetic basis has not been identified yet so you may be correct in saying that DSM disorders are currently diagnosed through a collection of symptoms. But thats not what you said. What you said is that they are just a collection of symptoms. If you are going to use the google to argue your over-simplified view of psychiatric disorders at least try to understand what you post.

[Anonymous]

I posted the the quote because someone (or more than one person) on this thread thinks that sensory processing issues do not belong in the DSM because they are just symptoms. Context is everything. Someone else asked how you would summarize the paragraph.

No one is arguing that there aren't genetic issues or biomedical markers for such diseases. But the effort to diagnose on that basis was a failure. Right now diagnosis is based on symptoms...read it again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More about how the DSM disorders are just collections of symptoms:

When the DSM-5 process was launched several years ago, the clear hope by all involved was that, finally, psychiatric diagnoses would include, in addition to signs and symptoms, various biomarkers of the major disorders including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression, with reasonable measures of sensitivity and specificity. Because the risk for these disorders has a major genetic component, it seemed plausible to anticipate including specific genetic markers such as single nucleotide polymorphisms or structural genomic abnormalities, (for example, copy number variations), that increase disease vulnerability and perhaps denote biologically distinct alternative phenotypes. This unbridled enthusiasm followed on the heels of the sequencing of the human genome and the then-existing strong belief that many complex diseases in medicine would be simplified by the results of genome-wide association studies. However, that promise has not been realized in psychiatry, nor in many other branches of medicine, although historic insights about the genetic architecture of complex diseases have emerged. Moreover, our understanding of the underpinnings of the genetic basis of disease vulnerability and treatment response has become considerably more sophisticated because of, to name a few emerging disciplines, epigenetics, non-coding RNAs, microRNAs, transcriptomics, and proteomics.


https://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/202

I don;t think you understood the paragraph you just posted. It doesn't say that "DSM disorders are just a collection of symptoms."

How would you summarize the paragraph?

Your statement "DSM disorders are just a collection of symptoms" is wrong. This paragraph says that the genetic basis of these disorders is complex and understanding this genetic basis is taking the form of sophisticated, cross-discipline, analysis. but there is a genetic basis, or as the paragraph states "the risk for these disorders has a major genetic component." The particular genetic basis has not been identified yet so you may be correct in saying that DSM disorders are currently diagnosed through a collection of symptoms. But thats not what you said. What you said is that they are just a collection of symptoms. If you are going to use the google to argue your over-simplified view of psychiatric disorders at least try to understand what you post.[/quote
I asked the question, but I did not quote that paragraph. Please stop assuming that there's only one person disagrees with you. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting. I never bought into the SPD thing. My child had sensory stuff going on but I went first to a developmental pediatrician. We do OT after a diagnosis and in combination with other things, but I wouldn't have imagined going to just an OT for therapy first since I guess I just assumed sensory stuff was part and parcel of a bigger picture. In our case, it was ADHD and the diagnosis was not in the least surprising.

I think I bought into it at first because the sensory defensiveness was the only obvious thing wrong with my child at that age... he was overwhelmed by crowds, noise, hated tags, teethbrushing, wanted to play with kids but was so bothered by them, and so on. Well, anxiety was the other thing we picked up on early on but I think, technically, generalized anxiety is not a pediatric diagnosis either, even though every physician we ever talk to accepts the diagnosis.

My son was eventually also diagnosed with ADHD at age 6, but in the early years he was neither unusually hyperactive nor impulsive, if anything less so than most peers. And because he has always hyperfocused, we thought his attention span was extraordinary. So because ADHD was not on our radar at all, I believed that SPD might be the underlying problem that caused the anxiety. Interestingly, now that he is older and his anxiety is under control, most of the SPD stuff is totally gone.

We did OT diligently for two years and--unlike other interventions--it was not helpful at all. I did learn a lot from the OTs and I think that their ideas were valuable but one hour per week, which is what they suggested, is meaningless. Several hours a day would have been awesome and could have helped my child be happier and more settled. I think if people did OT like they do ABA therapy it could actually help more people. I eventually bought a trampoline and various things that were particularly necessary for my child, had him swimming as much as possible, signed him up for martial arts and, more importantly, treated the anxiety. And all of that has made a huge difference.

This looks exactly like my case. How did you treat the anxiety - PP - please please share. We are traumatized.