/sci/ - Science & Math

>Can be smart, sociable, hyperfixating, but also severely mentally retarded, nonverbal, epileptic, inattentive.
Makes sense for opposites to be subsumed under the same label?

>Symptoms must set in before the age of 3, but symptoms can only manifest later on, for example in adulthood (per DSM-V).
So, how do we know that the symptoms actually set in by the age of 3? Like, if they weren't there back then, how would we know they didn't happen because of something later on?

>If we have found some underlying issue that caused the autism, we still call it autism, just with an additional tag that specifies the diagnosis
Why not simply call it after the actual medical issue?

>You still have autism even if you don't have the symptoms (per DSM-V).
How can you have a disorder defined by behavior when you don't exhibit the behavior that defines the disorder?

>You can mask autism, a neurological disorder or so it's claimed. Can you mask epilepsy, or Alzheimer's? Aren't neurological disorders supposed to be measurable and detectable?
Oh... quite right. I forgot... we don't have the lab tests yet for autism but they're right around the corner, aren't they?

>Autism is inborn and genetic.
What about autism caused by the rubella vaccine, by valproates? Haven't anti-depressants been linked with autism as well? So, clearly... all of autism can't be inborn.

>Autism therapies are effective.
Why is autism considered incurable and life-long then? Why are the screaming tards not improving?

Am I crazy or is autism one of the most stupid concepts I've ever heard of? It clearly makes no sense. The formal definition contradicts itself and the shit has spawned identitarian autists that endlessly fetishize their "neurospiciness". What, exactly, are they hiding?