{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035168195718654434, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009174311926605505, 'mean_word_length': 5.421568627450981, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Diagnostic politics: the curious case of Kanner’s syndrome

The consensus US (not European) narrative regarding diagnosis and aetiology of autism posits that misguided ‘parent-blaming’ psychogenic causes were supplanted due to solid research proving the presence of organic causes. Yet, upon scrutiny, it is questionable that the high-functioning, often high-IQ minority — about 15% of those labelled autistic — whose condition Kanner in 1943 first dubbed ‘infantile autism’ were absorbed into the ‘autistic spectrum’ on the basis of scientific evidence. Extra-scientific factors must be addressed in order to understand the status of the category today.