After an ADHD and autism diagnosis, I now find the world more confusing. How do I make sense of this?
It has been difficult to navigate the world since the diagnosis. At first I was ecstatic, finding many of my life's complexities could be easily answered by a natural neurodivergence, but have since found the world to be even more confusing, especially where relationship dynamics are concerned. Some people I have told about my diagnosis have started to baby me slightly. Whereas before the diagnosis I might have struggled along in certain social situations, feeling myself a little bit slow off the mark, or bored, now I am starting to notice a pronounced sense of my 'otherness', which is quite scary.
Do you have any advice on how to keep things in proportion after receiving news that can force you to look at life through a completely different lens?
Eleanor says: What do we learn when we get a diagnosis? You say to a doctor I have experiences A through F. They say, ah, it sounds like you have condition X. And you say interesting, what's condition X? And they say well one important hallmark of condition X is where you have experiences A through F. A diagnosis can be so helpful and so emancipatory, but it doesn't necessarily leave us knowing what causes or explains our experiences. In lots of mental health diagnoses, we still don't know those things. Nor do we learn that we experience the world a particular way – we already knew that. Much of the force of the discovery is learning that the experience isn't universal, that medicine has needed to categorise them so they can be helped, explained, accommodated, and so on.
Many of us feel the duality you describe after a diagnosis: understood, since we can finally name the patterns, but isolated, since we learn those names at the cost of learning they're unusual. It feels like good news and bad news at the same time.
You mentioned the pronounced sense of otherness. Like being on the outside of a fishbowl looking in.
One response is to resist that: othered from whom? Lots of people learn as adults that they're autistic, or have ADHD, or both; lots of people find new ways of understanding their mental experiences. As a result, there's a lot more understanding of these things than maybe ever before. That's not to say you have to take up residence in communities of the literally like-minded. It's just to say that when you meet new people, it may be that their experiences are not so different to yours. We never know what's happening in other people's minds; if it's otherness we're worried about we may be in the company of more others than we realise.
Another response, though, is to allow that feeling of otherness. Similarity is helpful for connection, it's true. To that extent, it's frightening to learn that we're not so similar to others. That will make some things harder. But similarity isn't the only way to connect. You can feel reverence, awe, cherishment, for things that aren't much like you at all. Indeed, being in front of things unlike you can make you more aware of and reverent towards the contrasts in yourself. We feel this all the time with the natural world: lots of people feel deep love for, feel most themselves around, the ocean, the night sky, an animal. It's not because they seem the same as us.
All that is to say: it can be precisely by standing in contrast, and not similarity, that you can simultaneously appreciate what is true of others and what is true of you. There's a kind of connection available here based on a true vision of each other, not just on being similar.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medical News Today
31 minutes ago
- Medical News Today
Dementia may take 3.5 years to diagnose after symptoms begin, but why?
Dementia is a hard disease to diagnose for a number of reasons.A new study has found that people who have dementia are, on average, diagnosed 3.5 years after symptoms first appear. This is even longer — an average of 4.1 years after symptoms first show — for people with early onset dementia. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 57 million people around the world in 2021 were living with dementia — an umbrella term for a group of conditions that impact a person's memory and ability to think and communicate, such as Alzheimer's disease. Dementia is a hard disease to diagnose. There is currently no single test to diagnose the condition, and symptoms of dementia are very similar to those of other diseases. Additionally, for some people, their dementia symptoms are very subtle in the early stage of the disease, making it hard for a doctor to make a complete diagnosis. Over the last few years, researchers have been focusing on finding new ways to help doctors detect and diagnose dementia as early as possible. 'Timely diagnosis of dementia is crucial for several reasons,' Vasiliki Orgeta, PhD, associate professor in the Division of Psychiatry, Faculty of Brain Sciences at University College London, explained to Medical News Today. 'First and foremost, early detection empowers individuals and their families to plan ahead, and make informed decisions about their care.' 'From a healthcare perspective, timely diagnosis reduces the strain on healthcare systems by enabling proactive rather than reactive care,' she continued. 'As our global population ages, the prevalence of dementia is rising sharply. Timely diagnosis, therefore, is key to addressing this growing public health challenge.' Orgeta is the lead author of a new study recently published in the International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry that reports people who have dementia are, on average, diagnosed 3.5 years after symptoms first appear. This is even longer — an average of 4.1 years after symptoms first show — for people with early onset dementia. The time between symptoms and dementia diagnosisFor this study, researchers analyzed the results of 13 previously published studies, encompassing more than 30,000 participants. Scientists focused on the average time span between when symptoms were first noticed by patients or their family members, to their dementia diagnosis. 'We decided to examine the average interval between symptom onset and final diagnosis of dementia because this timeframe has significant implications for patient outcomes, families, and the overall healthcare system,' Orgeta said. 'Despite increasing awareness, many individuals still face delays of months or even years before receiving a formal diagnosis,' she said. 3.5 years for a dementia diagnosis once symptoms beginAt the study's conclusion, researchers found that dementia diagnosis occurs, on average, about 3.5 years after symptoms begin to show. This timespan average jumped to 4.1 years for participants with early onset dementia. 'The finding that it typically takes 3.5 years to receive a dementia diagnosis — and even longer, 4.1 years, for those with early-onset dementia — highlights a critical delay in the diagnostic journey, during which individuals and their families may be living with uncertainty, and without access to the support and planning resources they need.'— Vasiliki Orgeta, PhD'These findings underscore the urgent need to improve public awareness, enhance training for healthcare providers, and streamline referral pathways,' Orgeta said. Younger age, frontotemporal dementia linked to longer diagnosis timeOrgeta and her team also discovered that participants with a younger age at symptom onset and those diagnosed with frontotemporal dementia correlated with a longer diagnosis time. 'These delays mean that many younger individuals are left without the clarity, support, or medical care they need for years,' Orgeta said. 'Our findings emphasize the need for greater awareness and education among healthcare professionals to recognize the early signs of less common dementias, particularly in younger populations. Improving early detection in these groups is essential to ensure timely support, reduce misdiagnoses, and improve long-term outcomes.' 'We plan to work closely with people affected by dementia and their families, clinicians and policymakers to develop strategies that support earlier identification and more efficient diagnostic pathways — particularly for younger individuals and those with less common forms of dementia like frontotemporal dementia,' she added. What causes a delay in dementia diagnosis? MNT also spoke with Adel Aziz, MD, FAAN, cognitive and behavioral neurologist, assistant professor of neurology at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, and memory specialist at JFK University Medical Center, about this study. 'I would like to stress that experienced clinicians rarely find the concept of delayed dementia diagnosis surprising,' Aziz commented. 'What this meta-analysis adds is a shared language — 'Time To Diagnose (TTD)' — and empirical weights for each contributing factor. By translating anecdotes into measurable variables, it empowers specialists to benchmark performance, tailor interventions, and advocate for policy change.' Aziz explained that delays in diagnosing dementia arise at multiple points: when patients and families postpone seeking help, when primary providers hesitate to refer, and when early cognitive symptoms are misattributed to aging or anxiety.'This multifaceted issue intertwines with social determinants like education, socioeconomic status, minority identity, sex, age of symptom onset, dementia subtype, and the strength of a patient's support system,' he help lower the time between first dementia symptoms and formal diagnosis, Aziz said it will require community awareness campaigns to demystify dementia signs across diverse populations, provider education programs to train frontline clinicians on early, atypical dementia presentations, policy and advocacy to advocate for insurance coverage of cognitive assessments, and new technologies such as a telehealth cognitive screening for remote areas. 'With these layers of action — spanning public education, clinical training, policy reform, and technological innovation — we can move toward a future where dementia is recognized and managed as early as possible,' he added.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US medical groups fill gap with own vaccine guides amid ‘information crisis'
The US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is adopting a recommendation from independent advisers to drop thimerosal, a preservative found in about 4% of flu vaccines, despite evidence that it poses no risks and helps prevent bacterial and fungal infections. But Robert F Kennedy Jr, the HHS secretary, has not adopted two other votes from the advisory meeting: recommending annual flu vaccines for everyone over the age of six months and RSV shots for infants. As science becomes increasingly politicized and federal officials change policies on vaccination, sometimes reportedly over the advice of their own scientists, independent scientific groups are now stepping into the gap for evidence-based recommendations. Medical groups now plan to issue vaccine recommendations in the wake of changes to routine vaccine guidance from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Recommendations like these may help the public – and health insurance companies – understand which shots should be part of the routine schedule, and why. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) announced this month that it will release new guidance for Covid, flu and RSV vaccination during pregnancy. The guidance will appear at the end of the summer, before the winter respiratory season. Five other scientific groups – the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Physicians – also plan to release vaccine guidance. The news comes amid growing changes to how vaccines are recommended by US officials. Kennedy and other officials have also announced new restrictions on Covid vaccines, and Kennedy framed vaccination with the measles, mumps, and rubella shot as a 'personal' choice during the worst US measles outbreak in three decades. A new endeavor, the Vaccine Integrity Project, is now conducting a wide-ranging review of scientific studies on vaccines, due to wrap up in the next two to three weeks. The volunteer-driven vaccine project is analyzing 16,400 publications on flu, Covid and RSV vaccines. The scientific groups will then draw upon that review to issue guidance for the populations they serve, including children, high-risk people, pregnant people and healthy adults. 'We're not making recommendations ourselves. We're just providing them with the information,' said Michael Osterholm, the epidemiologist heading the project at the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy (Cidrap). It is an effort to take up the work done by the CDC's independent advisory group, the advisory committee on immunization practices (ACIP), since 1964. 'For the past five-plus decades, we have looked at the CDC as the authoritative source for guidance and information related to vaccines,' said Scott Rivkees, associate dean for education in the Brown University School of Public Health and former surgeon general of Florida. Now, 'the medical community very much disagrees with' the current approach from health agencies, he said, and it is quickly pivoting from relying on CDC recommendations to collaborating on their own. Americans are facing an 'information crisis' as official guidance falters, Osterholm said. 'The CDC science has been corrupted'. Changing official health guidance 'results in total confusion', Rivkees said. 'Who do you listen to? It really puts parents and families in an incredibly difficult situation.' Parents 'have more questions now than before. We see more vaccine hesitancy than before. We see more vaccine refusal than before,' Rivkees continued. 'These changes that are happening now are the result of politics, not related to science.' Organizations like the Vaccine Integrity Project and its collaboration with medical groups will be vital to 'preserve what we know works' when it comes to protecting people from infectious diseases and other health issues, said Rivkees. The scientific groups already have expertise – and trust – in these areas, he said. Working together will help them make evidence-based, trustworthy recommendations. Kennedy announced in May that the CDC would no longer recommend Covid vaccines during pregnancy, despite strong and consistent evidence that the vaccines are safe in pregnancy and that pregnancy is a major risk factor for severe illness and death from Covid. 'Immunization is especially important during pregnancy, when the risks of severe outcomes are heightened – and when vaccines can provide critical protection to the infant after birth,' Sandra E Brooks, CEO of ACOG, said in a statement. The CDC also changed the pediatric Covid recommendation from 'should' to 'may' and FDA officials put greater restrictions on who may receive Covid boosters. Yet Covid remains a major threat. 'This year, the number of hospitalizations, serious illnesses and deaths in kids from Covid exceeded that of influenza, and this was one of the worst influenza years in a decade,' Osterholm said. Flu and RSV also pose major risks, and without recommendations from the CDC for annual boosters, those vaccines and preventives could face an uncertain future. The respiratory vaccine guidance is only the beginning, Osterholm said. 'This was just the first effort, because it was the most immediate need right now.' After this, the organization will focus on data for other routine vaccinations. 'The thought that we now have to care for more children with measles, more children with whooping cough than before, is really very unfortunate,' Rivkees said. 'I'm very afraid that this country is moving to a situation where some elements within our nation are going to accept children dying of measles, children dying of whooping cough, teenagers dying of meningitis, not getting vaccinated as the new normal. And the thought that we are going to now be able to think that this is acceptable is frankly terrifying.' Outside guidance will help parents and providers navigate the evidence on vaccines, Rivkees said – and it may help insurers decide which vaccines to cover. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to cover vaccines recommended by ACIP. 'As ACIP makes changes to recommendations, then the question comes, are these vaccines going to continue to be covered or not? Whereas before insurance may pay for certain vaccines, maybe they won't in the future, which means families will have to pay out of pocket,' Rivkees said. Decreases in vaccination could mean manufacturers make fewer vaccines or pull out of the market entirely. 'The other thing that we're also very worried about is what's going to happen to the vaccine supply,' Rivkees said. Vaccines help insurers save money by preventing illness, Osterholm said. 'But they've got to have a basis for making the decision that 'we will support this,' and that's what we're trying to provide.' The outside recommendations are meant as a stopgap measure, Osterholm says. 'We need our old ACIP back. We need to have the kind of scientific expertise, based on the expertise in the community, to ensure the vaccine enterprise is healthy and exists,' Osterholm said. 'We're not, as the Vaccine Integrity Project, hoping that we exist for very long. We'd love to see us go away because of the return of ACIP and CDC leadership,' he added. But, he said, 'we know that that's not going to happen, at least for the next few years'.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Patients still benefit from Eisai and Biogen Alzheimer's drug after four years, study finds
July 30 (Reuters) - Eisai (4523.T), opens new tab and Biogen's (BIIB.O), opens new tab Alzheimer's drug Leqembi continued to slow progress of the disease with no new safety issues four years into treatment, according to new data presented at a medical meeting on Wednesday. An injectable version of the drug, currently given by intravenous infusion, is under U.S. regulatory review. The best results were seen in people who started treatment while in the earliest stages of the brain-wasting disease. In a pivotal trial of patients with early-stage Alzheimer's, Leqembi was shown to slow cognitive decline by 27% compared to a placebo after 18 months - data that supported the drug's U.S. approval in 2023. The companies continued to follow about 95% of patients enrolled in that trial. The latest results show that after four years, Leqembi slowed cognitive decline by 34% compared to what would be expected in similar patients who did not receive treatment. Leqembi targets protofibrils - toxic building blocks that eventually form clumps in the brain known as amyloid plaques, a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. There were no new safety findings over the four-year period. Brain swelling and bleeding associated with drugs that work by removing amyloid plaque from the brain largely occurred within the first six months of treatment, according to data presented at the Alzheimer's Association International Conference in Toronto. More than 50% of patients who started treatment in the earlier stages of Alzheimer's continued to show improvement in clinical scores after four years on Leqembi. Eisai is conducting a separate study of Leqembi in pre-symptomatic Alzheimer's patients that is due to conclude in late 2027. Eli Lilly (LLY.N), opens new tab is also studying its Alzheimer's drug Kisunla in people who have detectable disease pathology, but show no noticeable cognitive decline. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, where recent job cuts have raised questions about review times, is slated to decide by August 31 whether to approve an injectable version of Leqembi that could be given to patients at home or at medical facilities. Lynn Kramer, Eisai's chief clinical officer, said interactions with the FDA "have been right on schedule. They have been communicating with us all the time in an expected manner." He said the new formulation "will be very helpful to starting new patients" on the drug, which is continuing to see "escalating usage." Eisai will report its latest quarterly results next week, while Biogen will report results on Thursday.
