Dachel Wake Up: What Happens When People With Autism Grow Old?
VAXXED Presents Alabama Whistleblower: Anthrax Vax

2015 NIH Autism Grants - Why We Are Making NO Progress

Money down drain dollar sign waterBy Katie Wright

For almost 10 yrs now the NIH has spent close to $200 million a year on autism research. Yet I have wondered why progress towards autism causation has been so insignificant. So I broke down all NIH autism research spending to see where exactly that money is going…

2015 NIH Autism Grants

Approx Breakdown:

$38 million - Genetics

$19 million - Brain/ Brain Imagining


$16 million - Behavioral

$4 million - Medical/ Pharma

$9 million - Epi./ Other (overhead)

$8 million - Environmental

Total: $94 million in ASD grants

NIH claims to have spent: $208 million

$114 million for overhead or grantee universities? Why so much?

Problems w NIH ASD Environmental Science Research

The vast majority of ASD families have made it clear to IACC, the NIH and their members of Congress, etc. that they expect to see much more environmental spending. Currently the NIH spends less than 10% of ASD research funds on enviro science – even after giving benefit of doubt to a number of questionably environmental studies (“enviro” studies designed by and conducted by geneticists). Additionally the environmental spending grants chosen by the NIH are largely redundant in nature and of a low priority.

Oddly, among the largest NIH/ ASD enviro grants are studies dedicated to studying ASD/ environmental factors in foreign countries. This would not be a concern if the enviro science budget were not so small, yet it is. Awarding 20% of all NIH enviro grant dollars into research on enviro triggers in foreign countries makes no sense and is not what Congress wants to see.

Prenatal Risk Factors in Finland - $540,000

Air Pollution in Denmark - $200,000

Gene/ Enviro Factors In Korea - $1.5 million

Jamaican Risk Factors - $400,000

Just because these nations allow access to easy to use medical databases does not mean this information is transferable to American autism. Finland and Denmark are terrible comparison nations to the United States. Finland and Denmark are highly homogeneous countries with the strongest environmental protection laws. Autism Speaks and the NIH have already been a  $5 million epi. study on autism in Korea and it has done nothing to elucidate causes of autism in the United States. However, a major problem with these foreign epi studies if that other countries classify autism far more loosely than here (autism is basically an on demand dx for HF people w social problems) and adhere to a different vaccination schedule.

The vast majority of American ASD families would prefer that money to be spent on environmental factors affecting their children: such as toxicology: flame retardants, mercury, toxins in homes (flooring, cleaning supplies), artificial ingredients in baby and toddler food, toxins in drinking water (Detroit), endocrine disrupters, and of course, how vaccine ingredients interact and affect a baby’s CNS.

In the past the NIH has funded those with a clear conflict of interest to perform vaccine safety research. Stakeholders have been excluded from the process yet their ideas for research design are critical. Most researchers do not have infants and are unaware of the aggressive nature of the infant/ toddler vaccine schedule. They study vaccines in isolation of the combination they are given, they do not study how dozens of adjuvants interact. There is almost no research on how Aluminum, Polysorbate 80, Formaldehyde, Ammonium and many other scary substances like Vero- monkey kidney cells, impact a baby’s central nervous system.  The researchers, rarely if ever, speak with parents of a child who suffered a vaccine injury and instead work closely with those who develop vaccines.

Other NIH funded environmental research, sadly, examines already financially saturated areas of environmental research: parental age and obese mothers as primary ASD environmental causation factors. There are 100s of such studies; NO ASD parents and NO taxpayers believe we need more. Additionally, probably the most well-known and respected autism epidemiologist Dr. Hertz-Pinchero, discovered (2012) that no more to 2- 3% of the ASD increase can be attributed to older parents. Strangely, the NIH prefers to cite the epidemiology  work of Dr. Peter Bearman, a man with no environmental science or autism science expertise. Bearman is a sociologist whose major published work is about doormen (I am not making this up). Bearman argues that older parents cause a 10% + increase in autism. Obviously his work is more politically palatable to the NIH but is of an undeniably inferior quality to that of Hertz-Pinchero.

Finally the NIH sponsors almost NO postnatal environmental science. Given the fact 40% of ASD children develop typically for 18 months and then lose skills and speech, this is such a rich and unexplored time frame for enviro research!

Problems with NIH ASD Intervention Research

NIH funds 5x as much behavioral intervention than biomedical intervention research. Stakeholders have, once again, made it abundantly clear to IACC and NIH leadership that ASD children and adults are struggling and suffering with serious GI and autoimmune problems. Out of 250 + studies, just 1 addresses GI problem and none autoimmune illness. The vast majority of medical research focused on anxiety alone. The other area of treatment research investment focuses promoting risperdal (a very dangerous anti-psychotic) and the financially saturated subject of oxytocin (a mild treatment for anxiety)– there are already 50 such studies on oxytocin.

Families wanted NIH research to address root causes of autistic regression, treatment for food allergies, PANDAS, encephalitis, immune disorders, and epilepsy. 25% of ASD people have intractable epilepsy. This is a life and death issue.  Many of our families are having incredible success with Charlotte’s Web. It is nontoxic hemp oil that has had remarkable success treating intractable epilepsy. Why has this life saving medicine been ignored by the NIH?

Rather than 50 + funded studies into “possible” genetic pathway for future drug development treatment via FX mice, the NIH could be funding clinical studies on biomedical interventions that exist now and are helping sick ASD people today. Research into PANDAS and IVIG treatment, anti-inflammatories for GI disease, TSO for intractable diarrhea, are just some of the novel and safe interventions that the NIH refuses to study.

Instead, as stated above, the NIH spends almost the entire biomedical treatment budget on the possible interventions for those with rare genetic diseases (less than 10% of ASD people have documented genetic diseases). Over the course of 15 yrs and tens of millions of dollars later, NONE of this NIH funded work (from Mark Bear, Jackie Crawley, Mustafa Sahin) has resulted in any actionable success. Families and taxpayers would prefer to see an emphasis on researching treatments we know work now and are working for those with typical (non syndromic) autism.

Problems with ASD Behavioral Research

By and large the majority of NIH funded behavioral research is, again, excessively redundant.  Huge million dollar + grants are repeatedly given towards research identifying early signs of autism. There are already over 2,700 published studies on the early signs of autism- plenty. We need doctors to read this work. We do not need more learn the signs research. Additionally some of the largest treatment grants are for non- novel research into preschool age early intervention. There already are over 1,000 published studies on autism and early intervention and hundreds more in the pipeline. By over-investing in this topic the NIH has starved urgently intervention research for teens and adults for research dollars.

The NIH conducts very little vocational research or research in independent living. Incredibly, there is just one grant on ASD safety issues, one of the highest ASD family priority issues. This one NIH ASD safety/ anti wandering research grant was awarded only $76,000! Conversely the NIH is funding a $500,000 study on autism and eye blink conditioning, an area of study that is no one’s priority.

Problems with NIH Genetic & Brain ASD Research

I have examined the last 5 years of NIH ASD research and was stuck by the fact the NIH is investing in the same genetic and brain research, done by the same people, year after year. The lack of diversity is striking. Given the fact gene and brain research eat up approx 65% of the entire research budget, this is alarming.  It is closed club consisting of few novel ideas. There has been little to no return for autism families or the taxpayer from this research. While NIH bureaucrats and geneticists continually talk of “genetic research breakthroughs,” this work has delivered nothing to the consumer. What may be, indeed, be interesting or exciting to bureaucrats, academics or genetics has not amounted to progress. There is little to no support for the research outside academia and it behooves Congress to insist on a more practical, delivery focused, consumer friendly distribution of autism research dollars.

Katie Wright is Contributing Editor to Age of Autism.


Irene Antony

Hi Katie,
I loved your article. May I please have permission to include your statistics of NIH grants in my class paper on autism funding? All information will be cited as yours.

Irene Antony


Thank you for your extraordinary and helpful work here.

Real quick: I think this is a small typo here: "probably the most well-known and respected autism epidemiologist Dr. Hertz-Pinchero, discovered (2012)" Are you referring to Irva Hertz-Picciotto? Also could you please link to the 2012 study?

Many thanks for all that you do.


Katie, I just got an email from disability scoop that states-Autism Speaks will no longer seek a cure for autism as a priority policy! Do you know what caused this sudden change in policy by the board of directors? The sad analogy goes something like-well cancer patients, we are no longer going to find a cure for you so just accept that you have cancer and be done with it! I am very disheartened by Autism Speaks taking this position. Since when is it ok to give up on a whole generation of people affected by autism?


There is a need to emphasise this a lot more. It's time the NIH get the priorities right. How much more time and money need to be wasted. Thank you for writing this.

Patience (Eileen Nicole) Simon

Katie, I listened to the second IACC conference call on Question 3: What caused this to happen? It was so discouraging to hear them avoid talking about brain damage. The language disorder, seizures, repetitive movements, and bowel dysfunction are all signs of neurological impairment.

Children who develop autism are most often born physically perfect. Something happens during birth or during infancy that injures the brain. The vaccine schedule of course, and medical interventions at birth should be the most important focus of research.

Jeannette Bishop

The U.S. health research system has essentially mandated public funding (or that's the idea we're given--I'm not sure that what most of us pay as "taxes" goes directly, if at all, into our government operations), but is mainly accountable to "special interests."

I'm aware of a couple of instances where the NIH has conducted research on cancer therapies where they seemed willing to risk the well-being (and even lives) of participants to submarine treatments that were not financially appealing to some in power (and perhaps appeared to work too well).

The U.S. government holds patents on cannabis for medical therapies and works to keeps access to them restricted.

I personally was a little relieved when the NIH decided not to go through with an autism-chelation study. I just do not see evidence of good intent operating at (or maybe behind) policy setting levels, no matter what most believe they are trying to accomplish in their work within these agencies.


Thanks for the great research... That is a lot of grant money flowing into the same areas, maybe even the same research teams, and possibly the same pockets. The NIH may be no better than the CDC and the FDA, that is, more focused on protecting pharmaceutical interests, not the public. I have the eerie feeling that probably no one else is watching the money at all.

I hope epigenetics is included with the genetic research, and wouldn't that include the effects of environmental toxins like aluminum on RNA transcription. Aluminum raises havoc on cellular walls, mitochondria, and essential nutrients like magnesium and calcium. Can we get some aluminum/RNA research studies done with the genetic research money, please. Sorry but I can't get those Congressional Hearings out of my mind where Dan Burton keeps asking Colleen Boyle for answers, and she responds in that high pitched whine that the CDC has found no conclusive evidence (on anything apparently ever). Now we know she was the chief fraudster and mastermind of the cover up from start to finish. The bureaucracy is broken. All these agencies at one time had a purpose. I don't know what their purpose is anymore.

Katie Wright

I just want to know who sits at the table voting yes on these atrocious grant choices? Certainly no one actually affected by autism? I tried to find out and other than being told that "experts in the field" selected grants I got an endless runaround from the NIH- typical. Maybe they are talking about experts in Other fields who accidentally wandered into the ASD research meeting?

Eric Durak

Thanks, Katie - with more information being written in books about the use of Reiki work, nutrition and detox formulas, and other lifestyle interventions, it is amazing that no one is looking into this as a chronic lifestyle intervention. Keep up the good work on funding reporting.

A Concerned Scientist


Enviro research is being increasingly funded.


I point out that prevalence data from other countries is useless as well, given that we KNOW there is both a genetic and environmental component to causation.


The only thing we really know for sure, is that completely unvaccinated children do not have autism.

Michele I.

This is so sad. I wish the NIH would stop wasting money on nonsense studies. I hope real research and change happens in my lifetime, something that can help Jackson live a better quality of life. My son doesn't need another eye gazing study. :(

Zoey O'Toole

Excellent points, Katie! I point out that prevalence data from other countries is useless as well, given that we KNOW there is both a genetic and environmental component to causation.

Studying autism prevalence in Denmark and applying it to the U.S. is akin to studying malaria prevalence in the U.S. and applying it to Africa. Nonsensical.

Michelle B

Interesting, but not surprising.



Thanks Katie for another very informative article. The big question is whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton will take office and make autism "practical, service delivery, immediate," research a top priority. We can't wait another ten years for more of the same going nowhere research while our children age out of school and enter an adult world that is not prepared to handle the huge onslaught of people with autism!


The run-around is very expensive.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)