Please forward to anyone and everyone you deem appropriate . . . 

Those of you who have been following this issue since it broke just over a month ago know that two studies; one by Yale's Fred Volkmar, and one by LSU's Johnny Matson and Julie Worley state that between 32-40% of people who current qualify for a diagnosis under the DSM-IV, will lose their diagnosis—and with it all services or educational funding—under the proposed changes to the DSM-5 criteria for the reclassified Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Committee's personal and professional attacks on Volkmar's study (but not Matson/Worley's) have usually been backed up with boastful statements akin to "Wait until our field trials come out," indicating their belief that these trials will show evidence that not so many will lose their diagnosis.

Through their admissions that the financial cost of so many diagnosed is a problem that has to be rectified (for just one example, see Committee member Kupfer's remarks in the NYTimes) it seems plain that no matter what these field trials show, the Committee knows full well those who qualify will be dramatically reduced.

But now there appears to be significant problems with the field trials, whose results are due to be announced soon. Relatively no one wanted to participate. 

The attached flyer was issued to the 5000 clinicians that the Committee had long ago selected as potential participants. But judging by the bottom section of the flyer, by just two months ago the trials only had 70 clinicians fully engaged. Granted, the DSM-5 Committee could not have expected all 5000 to sign up and participate, but only 70 participants is eons off of what they could have hoped for, and it will call into question whatever results the field trials summon.

Though the majority of the clinical world that GRASP is aware of detest the proposed changes, and do not believe the Committee has acted in good faith, or practice, the lack of participation does not seem to be out of protest. Rather, the Committee has made the act of participating such a burden to clinicians, that most have said "no thanks" to this unpaid, volunteer activity. As one of the 70 participants told GRASP:

"The reason the field trials were 50 times more successful at recruiting participants than at training them and getting them to complete the study is most likely that the training and the trial were too time-consuming for the average clinician to fit into his or her professional life. The training took many hours, including a webinar held late into the evening, and once it was completed, clinicians had to make their own computers available to patients and devote at least one office hour to administering the tests and conducting the interviews. They might also have been put off by the request that one of the two subjects be a new patient. Administering an extensive diagnostic test to a someone with whom you haven't established a therapeutic alliance may be standard procedure in university medical centers, but it is not the way most therapists go about getting started."

Needless to say, 150 or so field subjects, should the findings contest the Volkmar and Matson/Worley studies . . . will be thought of as woefully insufficient to justify the revisions.

What can you do?

If you haven't yet signed, and if reducing the DSM-5 criteria threatens your child's special education funding, your services as an adult, or your self-esteem as an adult, then please sign, and (even if you have signed) maintain the following outline without letup:

1. Sign the petition found at http://www.change.org/petitions/dsm-5-committee-dont-reduce-the-cri..., and forward the link with your appeal for people to sign everywhere and anywhere. Again: forwarding (especially through any and all appropriate social media sites) is arguably more important than signing. So when you ask people to sign, ask them to forward as well.

2. Call the American Psychiatric Association (APA)—during normal business hours; once every day, if possible, at 703.907.7300. Yes, they are telling you to email instead. But we ask that you please instead be the articulate, impassioned, and peaceful nuisance that is needed in this debate, and not adhere to their instructions.

3. Email the your letters to apa@psych.org and to dsm5@psych.org

4. Check our Facebook page for updates, as well as to view the history and prior articles surrounding this issue since it broke on January 19th. This is especially helpful for those of you who feel you need talking points for your emails to the APA.

Thank you!!!

Yours, y'all,

Michael John Carley

Executive Director