Kennedy on the Media: Quotes from Press Conference
Family Matters

Best of Age of Autism Weekly Wrap: An Absolutely Shocking Statistic From England

AofA Red Logo Ayumi YamadaNote: Dan wrote this piece last May about the wringing of hands of childrens' diminution of skills in the UK, and here in America.

By Dan Olmsted

I met a friend for lunch this week. He was fresh off the plane from London as part of a multi-country jaunt, and he had the baggy eyes to prove it. The first thing he did was pull out Monday’s Daily Telegraph and point to an article on page 12: “Primary pupils who can swipe but not speak.”

The article began: “Parents’ immersion in smartphones has left thousands of children starting primary school unable to hold conversations, teachers say.

“Around one in three children starting school is not ready for the classroom with many lacking social skills, suffering speech problems or not toilet trained, a survey of senior primary school staff showed.”

The litany included “more and more children entering our early years stage with delayed speech” and “levels of reading, writing and numeracy lower than they should be.”

The rest of the article basically blamed the parents and their failure to keep children from coming into contact with the world we live in, which is deemed self-evidently noxious and destructive – too many smartphones, too little parent-child interaction.

Before tackling that bogus argument, let’s just acknowledge the facts in evidence here. A third of pre-school kids in England today have some version of issues that echo autism – speech problems, lack of social skills and toileting problems. My friend, much more knowledgeable about autistic children than I am, said the latter probably reflected sensory issues and GI problems (as well as general delay, I’d suggest).

I don’t care what this is called – autism-like traits, or school-readiness deficit syndrome in a third of children, not otherwise seen before (SRDSIATOFC-NOSB), or whatever. It’s the kind of thing we’ve been talking about for years, a generation and now more damaged by something new and terrifying, and at least in England, it’s indisputable. I asked my friend what he thought was going on, and he said some combination of vaccines and other medical mayhem, pesticides, and god knows what else (the Environmental Working Group's study of all the evil crap found in mothers' umbilical cords is passing through the back of my brain). Unless you want to argue that the ability of one-third of children to make their way in life from the very start is just good old genes doing their work of making our species less able to thrive in a hostile world, it's definitely environmental. And it is NOT smartphones, dammit!

Of course, we also see this in America, with the same veneer of pop psychology pabulum stapled onto it because facing the truth is too threatening to the people doing the observing for a living. From the New York Times last October: “Boys are falling behind. They graduate from high school and attend college at lower rates than girls and are more likely to get in trouble, which can hurt them when they enter the job market. This gender gap exists across the United States, but it is far bigger for poor people and for black people. As society becomes more unequal, it seems, it hurts boys more.”

Ah, so inequality is at the heart of it. That’s the ticket! We can blame vague malignant capitalist forces, and get on the right side of the social justice movement. Well, I am on the right side of the social justice movement, but I don’t think inequality is what’s really going on here. As if there were no inequality – much worse inequality – before this male-centric problem was ever observed? And please tell me, then, why are four out of five autism cases boys? Were they disadvantaged? Did their parents or teachers disadvantage them? That's a discredited old argument but it is gaining new life.

In April 2014 another column in the Times was titled. "A Link Between Fidgety Boys And a Sputtering Economy." As I wrote then: The Times piece came very close to the core issue -- what's the matter with kids today?, and especially, what's the matter with boys? Things have gotten so dire, and the implications so large, that even a mainstream mouthpiece like The Times has no hesitation linking boys' problems to the overall economic fate of the country.

The Times went on: "If the United States is going to build a better-functioning economy than the one we've had over the last 15 years, we're going to have to solve our boy problems," adding that if only girls are considered, there's no problem at all.

As I pointed out, the solutions on offer in the piece, and in the research paper it was based on, and among the "experts" in general, amount to evidence-free bromides -- better schools, more understanding of the ways boys learn, more support for families because boys suffer more when fathers are absent. (What, no smartphone-blaming? Let's get the story straight here.) To quote the Beatles: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Missing was any sense that environmental factors, and specifically toxins, which have been repeatedly linked to problems like ADHD ("fidgetiness") and other neurodevelopmental disorders, which affect 1 in 6 children, and several times more boys than girls, could be playing a role.

So it’s just about unanimous, isn’t it? Even our most mainstream publications, openly hostile to concerns about vaccines or other environmental factors, acknowledge the rise of so many disabled and dysfunctional children that these kids’ futures – and ours, as the society they will inherit – are at stake.

Yet the experts fall back on video games and lack of good parenting and the devastation of being disadvantaged to explain it all. Fifty years ago it would have been the predations of rock and roll, and how refrigerator parents made their kids autistic. Faced once more with an inexplicable problem in children, parent blaming is, once again, the last refuge of those who cannot or will not see.

More on that next week.


Dan Olmsted is Editor of Age of Autism.



John Stone ; You are right as is Jeannette Bishop. Both of you have stated it very well. It is just so many of us have a hard time accepting that our hearts - our children's health is viewed by people in charge as no more than - even less than cattle. No, not even cattle cause our cattle's reproductive health along with all other health is very important. So, they are not more that viewed as dogs.

Jeannette Bishop

However intentional (it's getting really hard to not see intent lately), the health of our children indicts the whole system as broken and worse.

I see an elitist, we-believe-in-slavery (right to direct and exploit the masses) oligarchical culture in (or hovering over and around) our institutions, no question for me. But probably most of the wealthiest and corrupt drivers keep out of public positions and out of the spotlight as much as possible. It appears to be a game for many in the public eye though who want to see themselves as "in." If you play it right you "win," and if you're too stupid, too trusting to not be fleeced, poisoned, and all...the negative results are seem to be that much more confirmation to some of their intellectual prowess and "empowering" conscience seared "freedom" (if they had a conscience to begin with). You see some obviously getting kicks/power trips with how low they can go (in blatantly lying, in violating the rights of and lording over us peons, trying to provoke reactions, manipulations etc) attitudes oozing from some state and federal politicians, in the "established" parties leaderships at various levels, the corporate media personas. Monetarily induced corruption is obvious of course. Sometimes you see hints of fear, either because controllers have made the consequences of failure pretty clear, or maybe because things are coming to a pitch where "the game" is dangerous for them at least (the people might be waking up enough to get out a few pitchforks?). Some of the worst to me appear to be characters you would not want to be alone in a room with, and it's more and more coming out that you particularly would not want to ever leave your children alone with some of them.

I think making a presentation of half-truths and some blatant lies (whether for the "greater good" or just because you can) is probably addictive for some (like, I suspect, the injecting/prescribing poison to manipulate the body of another person probably gives more of a power rush than recommending a vitamin regimen). It's a culture that attracts (and possibly nourishes) psychopathy and nourishes the elitist attitudes, capturing and exploiting the well-meaning and idealistic who want to be a part of something larger than themselves. Some say it employs entrapment with centuries of honed and vile techniques to establish control files (and to that add spy and data gathering technology). So if tools of marginalization, bribery, blackmail and character assassination (if not actual assassination) are used to keep many who would do better in line (and there are I think believable rumors of more advanced tools) it appears daunting to reform or challenge.

In contrast, those who resist the system are all the more inspiring especially when you understand their situation, and there are many who do this without much if any recognition, and in the case of some we know, widespread condemnation. I pray things can be turned around (particularly on the healthcare front in short order) and the price paid by many will be recognized and valued and motivate true improvement in our society. While some that might have the means and I'm pretty certain the will to crash financial systems (and the media has not been honest about the actual state of the financial system in our country either), cause division, and/or provoke global war to draw attention away from themselves and what they are due, aiming still I assume to profit as much as possible, I pray will be confounded and rendered unable to continue perpetuating their twisted, controlling culture.

John Stone


Yes, you get that too, as Dan was saying - and we will get more of it. But we are also confronted with the problem that the services do not have capacity in the UK to diagnose all the children coming up (and particularly not in Scotland). There was another bullying , untruthful anti-Wakefield article by Lord (Ari) Darzi in the Daily Telegraph today - Darzi is a big NHS man - but the reality is that while these people are whining about the risk of measles they ignore the fact that they are manufacturing disabled children in industrial quantities. All checks and balances have gone from the system.

And mind you it is going to get very boring. Last time the British media cranked itself up over Andy in 2013 the battering did not stop for several months.

Grace Green

John Stone, And the thing about less severe autism but more cases is that. as in my case, it is easy to deny that it's autism, and make out that it's child abuse or living on a dual-carriageway or any other excuse. That's one reason why I believe my testimony is important.


I had given up on hero's until I became familiar with Andrew Wakefield. His intellect, character, and perseverance amaze each day. He is England's finest export to America. Austin, Texas is a nice place, I hope he likes it there as much as I did.

Angus Files

Sign of the times.Another real life observation this week my old friend is a driving instructor for the past 25 years and he is now having to buy an automatic car to teach people who are disabled.He explained that over the years there would be a known instructor who would teach the disabled population.Not anymore as more and more people are requesting for disabled automatic cars. Pharma for Prison Time.


John Stone

I should not have neglected among the potential motives is "cover up" which is both as reflex and strategy. If someone is partially responsible for unleashing catatrophic forces the tendency to come forward and say sorry is perhaps not unknown, but unusual. In this case, as we know, William Thomson did it, or has tried to. But most will keep on trying to cover up as the damage increases - and of course the government, media, industrial machine turned on Thompson. Owning up is now a very difficult proposition.


If it is true, that this is about population?
Many think this here on this sight, cause we cannot imagine the scientist and those in charge of medicine and vaccines not testing it on rats first and then not noticing ? Everyone here knows what I mean, then it must be that They (who ever they are) think they want less people.
Once the population is gone it would be a whole other story.
I have seen the after math of the mountains in the East, where whole communities are just gone. These are lonely spooky place, there seems to be an unusual silence. The earth takes back everything faster than humans have the imagination of it doing so; in just in a few short years.


I want Dan back, so very bad. Oh just weep.

John Stone


It is true, but whether or not they understand what they doing - and let's face it many are too stupid - it is leading to absolute catastrophe. They have turned AW into the Emmanuel Goldstein (ref 1984) of global public health and this of course is a disgusting and intellectually deplorable tactic, distracting from the real issue. The people who have led this mostly from behind the scenes know exactly what they are doing (of course Bill Gates and Paul Offit have done it openly), whether the motive is global hegemony, destroying the population or just making obscene amounts of money. Ridicule is one tactic but of course mostly it is old fashioned tribal hate given a 21st century dimension. "Four legs good, two legs bad!" (Orwell again).

Also, of course, VaXxed exposed the tactics. They hype the relatively trivial threat of measles using every once respectable media organ and ignore the ever growing heap of neurological injury, and chronic diseases barely known a couple of generations ago.

Bob Moffit

@ John

"The press make their enemies - this week we have seen the London Times's fake news about Wakefield. The real news is that anywhere he goes they will harass him, and that is a story about them not about him"

Sol Alinsky's .. Rules for Radicals ..

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Just three of Sol's 12 RULES .. but .. as Sol freely acknowledges .. his rules are meant to be .. "cruel, but very effective .. direct .. personalized criticism and ridicule works"

John Stone

And here we are. Today the problem is even more dramatic as our newspapers on both sides of the pond seek to ensure population collapse, and ignore the elephant in the room. The press make their enemies - this week we have seen the London Times's fake news about Wakefield. The real news is that anywhere he goes they will harass him, and that is a story about them not about him. Curzon cinemas were bullied into not excepting his film, Regent's University expelled the organisation that screened it there and invited him to speak. They have tried to bully Amazon and Itunes into not supplying Wakefield's film. Autism is just one measure for the neurological collapse of a generation. By January last year it was 1 in 71 in English schools and by September it was 1 in 51 in Scottish Schools (it would have been 1 in 71 in Scotland in spring 2013), but in both cases the rate among younger children will be much higher in a 15 year rolling cohort. Very likely by now we are looking at 1 in 10 boys. In three years it will be dramatically worse even if the cases entering the system only persist at the same level, but we have a whole new wave of vaccines for pregnant women and infants, and this will not have started to show yet.

I don't know what hate filled, delusory rhetoric the mainstream media will be spinning in 2020. Will they still be blaming Andrew Wakefield rather than themselves (because the were incompetent, corrupt, deceitful and vindictive)?

In Dan's last Wrap he compared Trump - about whom he was politically uncomfortable in most respects - to Bernie Rimland, because Trump was able to make the basic observation that vaccines cause autism. I think the autism in the new generation may be less bad because we have less mercury, but we have more cases because we have more vaccines. And we are going to hell faster than you can imagine.

We await the publication of Dan and Mark's last book, in which I have no doubt much will be told.

david m burd

Dan's legacy is cemented with this piece, on top of his innumerable other ground-breaking exposes, that are by comparison without such justified passion.

Just yesterday in a local park I had a long talk with a young father who said his academic studies included much on toxicology, yet he was unaware of the toxicities of vaccines; it was an amiable chat, and I urged him "get up to speed" - even start with Age of Autism, and other scientists I wrote down for him.

The vast complicity, from the UK to the U.S. of our Mainstream News being bought by the CDC and Pharma, was/is brilliantly addressed by Dan in this Post.

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.)