25 years later, we’ve made zero progress. Sure, we have a broader floor of science and study created from 25 years of additional science. Its pretty simple, and

25 years later, we’ve made zero progress. Sure, we have a broader floor of science and study created from 25 years of additional science. Its pretty simple, and we knew it then - until there are biologic markers and testing, we will not be able to bifuricate the phenotypes. Certainly we can chase this statistically - as Troanskaya et al. have done, and there is certainly validity to the statistical work and it contributes overall. But it doesn’t get to the core of the problem we face in continuing to use such a wildly broad and subjective diagnosis tool. Its no wonder those society has labeled neurodiverse are so upset - we’re throwing treatment modalities which are clearly not appropriate. We’ve known how - the problem needs directed science, not academic science. But Academia is resisting. Government is resisting. Frankly - science and professions are resisting. When founding the Mind Institute at UC Davis - Parents tried to convince academics to go this route. They even raised unheard of amounts of money. And were routinely ignored by the system. And here we are 25 years later. Best guess remains there are 5 to 7 major phenotypes - without even getting into the issues of severity. We haven’t even adequately surveyed the symptomology so we can correlated it to demographics, much less actual biological markers. We’re chasing the wrong things b/c no one is interested in doing the hard work to carve this problem into digestible and replicable. We need directed research to carve this problem up. There is an indisputable issue in the DX count going from 1:10000 to 1:50 - in our life times. Its not better diagnosis.