Sensory Processing Disorder article - washpost today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS has an ASD. It is a disorder. But his mental health is just fine.

If it's in the DSM, it's a "mental disorder," in which case, his mental health isn't so fine.

You're being really thick about this. I don;t know why. if you are nearsighted, your vision is disordered. But your eye isn't diseased, you can have a perfectly healthy, but nearsighted, eye. If you have Downs Syndrome, you have a developmental disorder but you are not mentally ill unless you ALSO have mental illness.

Please explain to me why you believe that my DS who has an ASD is mentally ill, why this is so important for you to stake out?

No personal interest in your son. Sorry, but good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing about SPD or sensory issues or whatever you want to call it is this. It's a set of symptoms, abnormal reactions to normal things (touch, sound, etc.). It's affecting some kids' lives negatively -- and they don't fit into the other diagnostic boxes (yet, maybe).

It seems to me this is pretty much like other DSM diagnoses. Check out this quote and article from when the DSM V came out:

"Psychotherapist Gary Greenberg, of New London, Conn., has written about the DSM for more than a decade and says the DSM disorders are "simply collections of symptoms that some experts agree constitute mental illnesses. There's not a single diagnosis in DSM that lives up to the standards of medical diseases.

"If I as a therapist tell you (that) you have a mental disorder, it's not the same thing as my telling you you have diabetes or cancer because diabetes and cancer are diseases that can be confirmed through biochemical findings. They meet the requirements for a disease in the way we generally think of a disease. There is not a single disorder in DSM-5 or any DSM that does that," says Greenberg, author of The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry, out earlier this month.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/12/dsm-psychiatry-mental-disorders/2150819/

So I think SPD is like any other diagnosis in the DSM in that sense - a collection of symptoms. As a PP said, lots of things weren't in the DSM -- until they were.

But what I am NOT sure about is: what's the appropriate treatment...is this stuff in the Out of Sync Child Has Fun worthwhile? What works?? That's important and I just don't know the answer to that.

This is interesting.

[Anonymous]

"There's not a single biological marker for any one of the 300+ disorders in the DSM."

The cat is out of the bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"There's not a single biological marker for any one of the 300+ disorders in the DSM."

The cat is out of the bag.

Brain research is in its infancy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"There's not a single biological marker for any one of the 300+ disorders in the DSM."

The cat is out of the bag.

This is not entirely true. They've found genes that seem to contribute to autism, and they can see reflections of these disorders on functional MRIs. What I suppose this means is that there isn't a blood test for these disorders but thats an awfully limited view of "biological markers" especially for brain disorders that aren't going to release anything into the bloodstream.

By the way, there aren't any blood tests for many cancers, but they are real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"There's not a single biological marker for any one of the 300+ disorders in the DSM."

The cat is out of the bag.

This is not entirely true. They've found genes that seem to contribute to autism, and they can see reflections of these disorders on functional MRIs. What I suppose this means is that there isn't a blood test for these disorders but thats an awfully limited view of "biological markers" especially for brain disorders that aren't going to release anything into the bloodstream.

By the way, there aren't any blood tests for many cancers, but they are real.

I don't think biological markers are limited to blood tests. Why are you saying that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"There's not a single biological marker for any one of the 300+ disorders in the DSM."

The cat is out of the bag.

This is not entirely true. They've found genes that seem to contribute to autism, and they can see reflections of these disorders on functional MRIs. What I suppose this means is that there isn't a blood test for these disorders but thats an awfully limited view of "biological markers" especially for brain disorders that aren't going to release anything into the bloodstream.

By the way, there aren't any blood tests for many cancers, but they are real.

I don't think biological markers are limited to blood tests. Why are you saying that?

I don't either except I assume this is whats behind that misguided quote because there are biological markers for many of these disorders. They just aren't blood tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"There's not a single biological marker for any one of the 300+ disorders in the DSM."

The cat is out of the bag.

This is not entirely true. They've found genes that seem to contribute to autism, and they can see reflections of these disorders on functional MRIs. What I suppose this means is that there isn't a blood test for these disorders but thats an awfully limited view of "biological markers" especially for brain disorders that aren't going to release anything into the bloodstream.

By the way, there aren't any blood tests for many cancers, but they are real.

I don't think biological markers are limited to blood tests. Why are you saying that?

I don't either except I assume this is whats behind that misguided quote because there are biological markers for many of these disorders. They just aren't blood tests.

Well, do tell. What are they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"There's not a single biological marker for any one of the 300+ disorders in the DSM."

The cat is out of the bag.

This is not entirely true. They've found genes that seem to contribute to autism, and they can see reflections of these disorders on functional MRIs. What I suppose this means is that there isn't a blood test for these disorders but thats an awfully limited view of "biological markers" especially for brain disorders that aren't going to release anything into the bloodstream.

By the way, there aren't any blood tests for many cancers, but they are real.

I don't think biological markers are limited to blood tests. Why are you saying that?

I don't either except I assume this is whats behind that misguided quote because there are biological markers for many of these disorders. They just aren't blood tests.

Well, do tell. What are they?

Already have. Genes are biological markers. Functional MRI results are biological markers.

[Anonymous]

I would add that the tests for various forms of dementia are also functional exams, such as for ADHD. Alzheimers can be confirmed after death but it can be diagnosed during a persons lifetime without any "biological marker". Other forms of dementia don't have biological markers at all. But dementia is certainly real. And not some kind of Big Pharma plot since there's very little in terms of medication to treat it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would add that the tests for various forms of dementia are also functional exams, such as for ADHD. Alzheimers can be confirmed after death but it can be diagnosed during a persons lifetime without any "biological marker". Other forms of dementia don't have biological markers at all. But dementia is certainly real. And not some kind of Big Pharma plot since there's very little in terms of medication to treat it.

Good point. For all we know, dementia could very well be the RESULT of the powerful big pharma, at least in part. I don't suppose we have any data on the incidence of dementia in people who have never been medicated? Does such an individual even exist in our society? Thanks, big pharma. We'll never know the truth. The inconvenient truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would add that the tests for various forms of dementia are also functional exams, such as for ADHD. Alzheimers can be confirmed after death but it can be diagnosed during a persons lifetime without any "biological marker". Other forms of dementia don't have biological markers at all. But dementia is certainly real. And not some kind of Big Pharma plot since there's very little in terms of medication to treat it.

Good point. For all we know, dementia could very well be the RESULT of the powerful big pharma, at least in part. I don't suppose we have any data on the incidence of dementia in people who have never been medicated? Does such an individual even exist in our society? Thanks, big pharma. We'll never know the truth. The inconvenient truth.

And now you show your true, conspiracy theory cards. It's ALL the result of Big Pharma. By the way dementia existed long before Ritalin. My grandmother who died in 1970 had dementia and she never took these meds. You have become a parody.

[Anonymous]

"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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.