[SoftAnnaLee]

Increased understanding of autism on a societal level. 20 years ago autism was just, 'weird savant kid who screams and everybody can't understand why they can't <XYZ>,' disease. 10 years ago, we saw depictions of autism that were less stereotypical in mainstream entertainment; which prompted some to see themselves reflected in these characters, and self-reflect if they're autistic too.

In the years since, autism communities on the internet and the psychological community have come together to help folks realize that there is a wider spectrum of how autism manifests. And the increased visibility of autism, and increased societal understanding of the nuances involved with autism, have led to folks who previously thought of themselves as neurotypical as realizing they are autistic too. Who then inform their family and friends, who may come to realize that they (or their friends, coworkers, or children) too might be autistic as well.

It's not an epidemic, it's merely language and labels being more accurately used within society.

[zug_zug]

> It's not an epidemic, it's merely language and labels being more accurately used within society.

You can't possibly know that. And shame on you for speaking so authoritatively on such an important and open scientific question.

[larve]

That's literally what the linked article is about. From its references: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medici...

> After accounting for methodological variations, there was no clear evidence of a change in prevalence for autistic disorder or other ASDs between 1990 and 2010. Worldwide, there was little regional variation in the prevalence of ASDs.

[zug_zug]

Okay, so I read the article. So a few thoughts

1) That's a "Meta study" which is a good thing usually, meaning it summarizes results from numerous other studies.

2) Just because one meta-study says something doesn't mean the topic is defacto decided and over. Many controversial topics have many meta-studies.

3) Notice I said since I graduated college in 2010 autism incidence went up 50%. The study you referenced ENDS in 2010. Have the diagnostic criteria changed AGAIN for 13 more years?

4) This article didn't say "We disproved there was an increase in prevalence of autism." They said they couldn't find evidence of that. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

4) We already know for a fact that various stressors including pesticides in utero (or pollutants such as PFOAs which are now in everybody's blood in utero) can contribute to autism. Any research that finds no increase/change in absolute rates of autism at all is highly suspect. Also this article seemed to suggest that all countries had the same prevalence of autism, which would be at odds with very different pollution profiles of different countries.

Maybe in 10 years the rate of autism will still be 1/44, but if it's 1/29 I'm gonna be even sicker of this "diagnostic criteria" stuff. It doesn't seem that hard to get around diagnostic criteria if we really want to -- just make a standardized test and give it to a large sample of children of age 10 (and never change the battery) for 5 consecutive years. The test could be facial expression recognition, theory-of-mind questions, etc.

[larve]

There have been significant changes in diagnosis of autism in (overlapping categories): adults, women, people of color where the signs of autism were usually assigned to another diagnosis (anxiety, OCD, PTSD, bipolar, etc...).

I'm not a researcher so I can't really comment on the rest, but from all my friends (me included) who have finally realized that we were autistic in our 40ies and 50ies, what it's at least plausible that what looks like an epidemic is just people having a better understanding of the many forms in which autism manifest, beyond non-speaking white boy that likes trains.

I spent all that time thinking I couldn't be autistic because look I have friends and a job and I can sometimes do small talk.