Amish and autism, good read..

Chai wrote:

High Seas wrote:

Actuarially speaking there are no "new" diseases. Nobody in risk management believes in the existence of any of those "suddenly discovered" psychobabble "illnesses".

So you are saying now there ARE new diseases, but people don't DIE of these new diseases, they die of the same old stuff as before....like having a socerer cast a spell on you?

You speak with forked tongue.

Chai - please READ and THINK before TYPING.

Your posts have the lowest signal-to-noise ratio of anybody on this thread.

Setanta - somebody here burned the dictionaries.......

Would you be so kind as to explain to this frantic typist that "disease" is not identical to "diagnosis" and that neither is to be confused with "symptoms"?

Any help appreciated in advance - nice to see you as always.

AMish diets arent any better than those of the "English" They eat all the same prepared convenience dishes.

The Girl and i ate there, and we loved it.

It appears that some of the confusion arises because disease is here identified with a morbid condition. Alleged "mental health" conditions can as well be described in terms of trauma as to be described as a morbid condition, as a disease.

And that goes to the heart of the problem, really. To "identify" a developmental "problem," and to brand it a "disease" condition, and then to promote one's brand can be a means to assure one's professional standing and a continued good income. The pharmas can jump in to promote the allegation of such "diseases" as means of peddling their products.

However, i haven't the least hope that anything i can say will clear up the confusion of anyone here who hasn't grasped the problems of definition. If what Throughthelookingglass wrote didn't sink in, i doubt that i could provide any clarification.

Cancer is a morbid condition. The dramatic apparent rise in the incidence and prevalence of cancer was just that, apparent as opposed to real. We don't really have any evidence that the incidence and prevalence of cancer has increased in humans over the last few centuries--we are now better able to identify the morbid condition, which in the past could have fallen into the diagnosis of "consumption," which also included tuberculosis, pneumoconiosis--any of a host of morbid conditions which presented with symptoms of dramatic weight loss, chronic pain, etc.

But these "mental health" conditions, these "new diseases" are not morbid conditions, and can only notionally be considered to be products of trauma. The point which people are missing is that the behaviors which are now being identified as "disease" conditions, and for which pharmaceutical remedies are alleged to be indicated have always been present in the population. I suspect that were there a reliable epidemiological base line established over a long period of time, one could demonstrate that these "disease" conditions are more or less constant in incidence and prevalence. So, just as "consumption" was a morbid condition consistently diagnosed, but which was only a description of superficial observable consequences of any one of several actual morbid conditions--here the behavior of children is being superficially described in terms of mental health "disease," without any reliable diagnostic and prognostic bases, making the "diagnosis" unassailable because unproven and unprovable.

Bottom line from my point of view--there are no "new diseases" here, in exactly the sense that HS uses, but there is a powerful incentive for mental health professionals and the pharmas to promote the idea that there are.

It appears that some of the confusion arises because disease is here identified with a morbid condition. Alleged "mental health" conditions can as well be described in terms of trauma as to be described as a morbid condition, as a disease.

And that goes to the heart of the problem, really. To "identify" a developmental "problem," and to brand it a "disease" condition, and then to promote one's brand can be a means to assure one's professional standing and a continued good income. The pharmas can jump in to promote the allegation of such "diseases" as means of peddling their products.

However, i haven't the least hope that anything i can say will clear up the confusion of anyone here who hasn't grasped the problems of definition. If what Throughthelookingglass wrote didn't sink in, i doubt that i could provide any clarification.

Cancer is a morbid condition. The dramatic apparent rise in the incidence and prevalence of cancer was just that, apparent as opposed to real. We don't really have any evidence that the incidence and prevalence of cancer has increased in humans over the last few centuries--we are now better able to identify the morbid condition, which in the past could have fallen into the diagnosis of "consumption," which also included tuberculosis, pneumoconiosis--any of a host of morbid conditions which presented with symptoms of dramatic weight loss, chronic pain, etc.

But these "mental health" conditions, these "new diseases" are not morbid conditions, and can only notionally be considered to be products of trauma. The point which people are missing is that the behaviors which are now being identified as "disease" conditions, and for which pharmaceutical remedies are alleged to be indicated have always been present in the population. I suspect that were there a reliable epidemiological base line established over a long period of time, one could demonstrate that these "disease" conditions are more or less constant in incidence and prevalence. So, just as "consumption" was a morbid condition consistently diagnosed, but which was only a description of superficial observable consequences of any one of several actual morbid conditions--here the behavior of children is being superficially described in terms of mental health "disease," without any reliable diagnostic and prognostic bases, making the "diagnosis" unassailable because unproven and unprovable.

Bottom line from my point of view--there are no "new diseases" here, in exactly the sense that HS uses, but there is a powerful incentive for mental health professionals and the pharmas to promote the idea that there are.

Ritalin was long favored in the United States. There are other drugs which are also in use now, but i can't give you the chemical or trade names, but had sufficient experience of them indirectly when i worked in a family homeless shelter, which was almost 20 years ago now. The problem which i saw with the use of the drugs was that they could be prescribed by nurse-practitioners employed by school districts, and by persons possessing degrees in psychology (often merely bachelor's degrees) who are authorized by law in several states to prescribe drugs for "mental health" disorders. If you want to make the point that i can't narrowly identify the currently popular pharmacopeia, you'll succeed, because i haven't kept in touch with the trade names and chemical names of the popular remedies.

It will not alter that there is an industry of people with dubious qualifications who work in concert with school officials to identify behavioral disorder "diseases" and for which drugs are prescribed for children. Equally, there is an industry of providing drugs for depression in adults, and, once again, the qualifications of those allowed to prescribe are dubious. In Illinois and Ohio, for example, people who are licensed as "mental health practitioners" can prescribe, and all that is required for the licensing is a bachelor's degree in psychology. I do not consider that to be at all the equivalent of a licensed physician, and especially of a licensed psychiatrist, prescribing. It is in the interest of those who work as licensed mental health "professionals" and of the pharmas to promote the diagnosis of such "diseases," and it is far harder to get analgesics for chronic pain resulting from morbid conditions or trauma than it is to get children doped up because they (or are alleged to) cause problems in school.