By Anne Dachel

For years, and I mean actually a couple of decades now, I have written about THE REALLY BIG LIE ABOUT AUTISM.  It’s the LIE that can never die. This is the indisputable claim espoused by everyone in authority that THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REAL INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN WITH AUTISM IN AMERICA.

Each time there was an announcement of a new rate, some official, often in a public health service uniform, solemnly assured us that THIS INCREASE DID NOT MEAN MORE CHILDREN ACTUALLY HAVE AUTISM.

In the real world, however, we watched the numbers explode.

In 2002 the rate was one in every 250 children.

In 2004 it was one in 166 children, one in 102 boys.

In 2007 it was one in 150 children, one in 92 boys.

In 2009 it was one in 110 children, one in 68 boys.

In 2012 it was one in 88 children, one in 54 boys.

In 2014 it was one in 68 children, one in 42 boys.

In 2018 it was one in 59 children, one in 36 boys.

In 2020 it was one in 54 children, one in 33 boys.

In 2021 it was one in 44 children, one in 27 boys.

In 2023 it became one in 36 children, one in 22 boys.

In California, it is in 22 children, one in 14 boys

In Florida, it is almost one in 20 children, one in 12 boys.

Reports from other places are equally stunning. 

In British Columbia, it is one in 29 children, one in 18 boys.

In Australia, it is  one in 25 children, one in 17 boys.

In Scotland, it is one in 23, one in 15 boys.    

In Ireland, it is one in 21 children, one in 13 boys. 

In Northern Ireland, it is one in 20 children, one in 12 boys.

It only seems like more children have autism.

Typically experts are cited telling us that autism is genetic. IF any “environmental trigger” is noted, it is usually some updated version of blaming the “refrigerator mom” of the 1950s and 1960s.

Over the years, studies have linked autism to:

Fat moms, drinking moms, smoking moms, old moms, moms who marry old dads, moms who  have preemies, moms who have babies too close together, moms who live too close to freeways, moms who carry Neanderthal DNA, and the latest “blame the mom” is out of Japan, prenatal blood exposures.

Gaslighting us

So this is what we have to believe: Autism as a condition has always been around; it just wasn’t recognized until the 21^st century.

Each and every increase is a good thing because we’re getting smarter and smarter at noticing it.

Of course doctors, nurses, teachers, police, librarians and everyone dealing with the public have to be educated about autism, even though it’s always been a part of the human condition.

It is now a given that all the autism is nothing new; we’re finally doing something about it. So if your child starts out normally developing, then loses learned skills, such as talking and using a potty, like 30 percent of autistic children, that’s always been happening.

Schools are starting to address autism, even though IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) has been around for 50 years requiring special needs education for all disabled students.

The autism rate comes from studies of eight year olds, but we have to believe that the same rate affects 40, 60 and 80 year olds.

Parents are desperate because of the lack of services once their children age out of school, but they will no doubt go where autistic adults have always gone after graduation.

A third of autistic children are classified as non-verbal, and so there must be the same percentage of autistic adults who can’t verbally communicate.

Come April, 2025, when U.S. health officials can be expected to announce yet another gigantic increase in autism, we can relax knowing that it’ll all be attributed to even more better diagnosing/greater awareness.

All this is what we’ve been led to believe for the past 20 plus years, and most Americans firmly accept it all, especially parents of autistic children.

It is very hard to contradict this orthodoxy of autism when doctors tell it to us, and the media uses every opportunity to convince us that autism is a fact of life we just have to learn to live with.

That’s the whole purpose of APRIL, AUTISM ACCEPTANCE MONTH. It used to be Autism Awareness Month, but that was back when people saw this as something new in childhood. Now we don’t really remember a world without autism.

Today we celebrate neurodiversity each April with blue lights. The puzzle piece image will fade because autism is no longer a puzzle. We now accept autism as a fact of life. What we need is inclusion and services.

The main job of the media in all this gaslighting is to convince us that nothing is wrong with more and more autism. They show us the doctors and health officials who know all about autism and are not worried about ever-increasing numbers.

Businesses are becoming “sensory-friendly” and whole cities are now “Certified Autism Centers.”

In the U.K. they can’t keep up with the need for autism classrooms and autism schools, but local officials are always “excited” about each new ribbon cutting ceremony for all the new facilities. 

And for those who are worried about those continual increases, Forbes recently dismissed any concerns that the increases will continue.

Aug 1, 2024, No, 50% Of Children Will Not Be Autistic By 2050

The author, Nancy Dole, is a psychologist “specializing in neurodiversity.”

We’re all familiar with the idea that rates of neurodivergence are rising, and that the speed is taking clinical and educational services to the brink. The Center for Disease Control in the USA report that the rates have increased from 1 in 125 in the year 2004 to 1 in 36 in 2020. That is a vast increase and the reasons are generally ascribed to improved diagnosis protocols, improved training for educators and clinicians, as well as public awareness. Similarly, the number of children with an ADHD diagnosis in the USA increased by 1 million between 2016 and 2022

No need to worry

Some have suggested that the rates of ADHD / Autism itself is increasing, and search for medical reasons why this might be the case. One blogger recently stated “But if we look ahead to 2050, it’s estimated that about half of all kids will have an ASD diagnosis.” Now, the author themselves confesses that their article is unsubstantiated, but if the statistic is already starting to do the rounds, it has the potential to harm. Let's unpack where it came from, and learn a lesson about how easy it is to fall into alarmist, misleading claims.

. . . However, the subtext here is that Autism rises are something to be worried about, that they insinuate ill health and that such rises represent a potential crisis or major change to human functioning.

Neurodiversity is not a bad thing

Within the neurodiversity paradigm, we challenge that neurodivergence is a medical symptom of illness. We assert the right to be cognitively diverse and to have our unusual neurotypes respected as part of the varied tapestry of human thinking. We have argued that we are not broken and do not need fixing. These arguments land badly in our community even before we have considered the knock on effects of catastrophizing and inflaming the stigma that “everyone is Autistic now” or that “we all need to be afraid of rising neurodivergence”.

(All this sounds nice, but it’s hardly the view of parents still changing the diapers on their young adult non-verbal, self-injuring autistic children.)

Don’t worry about the cause.

The source article asserts that Autism is caused by inflammation from poor diet, hence the exponential rise and the potential of this rise to be limitless as food chains become ever industrialized. The litany of pseudo-medical claims as to the ‘cause’ of Autism / ADHD / Tourettes, based on correlation rather than causality, has a long tail of harm to our community. At best, it leads to parent blaming and pressure to enforce restrictive diets on people who are known to struggle with food and nutrition. At worst it starts a vaccination crisis which has led to outbreaks of diseases, significant harm and increased mortality.

It’s all in the genes

Neurodivergent people are a long term feature of the human gene pool. The extent to which we experiencing inflammation, mental distress, sleep disorders and marginalization is potentially a much more recent effect. As scientists, the more we learn, the more we are likely to say "it depends", and to appreciate complexity. There is unlikely to be one answer to neurodivergence, or one answer to inflammation. These are multi-factorial, complex adaptive neurotypes and systemic responses.

Doyle tells us not to worry about more increases because it’s not going to happen.

Our focus in employment should be on what we can do to help, rather than pontificating about genetics and being judgmental about lifestyles. Healthy work environments and promotion of work life balance to nurture good sleep and self-care is a good idea for all employees. All those who are most vulnerable will benefit more, including but not limited to neurodivergent people. That's the take home message.

There you have it. The disorder with no known cause, cure or prevention is nothing to worry about.

Experts like Doyle are never challenged by anyone in the media. Her words are accepted as fact, even though they make no sense in the face of reality

Doyle’s article deceptively ignores the fact that in 2002, the autism rate was one in 250. (There was a big expansion following changes in the DSM IV in 1994, and they’ve been unstoppable after that.)

I looked carefully at what Doyle wrote here, and I really couldn’t find convincing evidence to show that autism won’t keep increasing. Does she think that one in 36 is now the permanent statistic?

Just how good are doctors going to get at diagnosing autism? How much neurodiversity should we expect?

Doyle either hasn’t done the research on all the examples I’ve found showing much higher rates of autism across the world, or she doesn’t believe they’re worth mentioning.

Rather than take the word of someone specializing in neurodiversity, I’ll just refer to the top autism expert, Dr. Walter Zahorodny at Rutgers in New Jersey. He studies the autism rate in his state for the CDC, and it’s considered that most accurate.

Zahorodny’s findings challenge everything Doyle says here.

Earlier this year Zahorodny was interviewed by Jill Escher, the president of the National Council on Severe Autism and a board member of Autism Society San Francisco Bay Area.

Zahorodny’s interview starts at 54:45

This is what he had to say

about the autism increases.

Autism is a highly prevalent disorder. Within a generation, we’ve seen autism, which used to be considered by everyone quite correctly as a rare disorder, as affecting at least three percent of eight year old children.

In some selected counties and regions of New Jersey, as many as five to seven percent of the pediatric population.

 There’s no doubt that autism is much more prevalent than many other childhood disorders and many more, much more common than many frequently encountered childhood diseases.

There’s no doubt as well that while New Jersey’s rate is quite high, we’re not the only region with high rates, but that these high rates are now reflected from data in California. 

The increases are real, and they will continue to grow, according to Zahorodny.

My second and third premises or statements of what’s essential reflect the fact that autism has increased very dramatically in the sixteen year period from 2000 to 2016.

It’s increased across all subgroups, all forms of autism, across all demographic groups.

It’s increased in New Jersey from approximately one percent, 9.9 per thousands to now 31.4 per thousand, or three percent.

The trend identified in New Jersey is clearly mirrored or reflected by the trend the overall ADDM Network. . . .

Before the 1990s, autism prevalence was correctly identified to affect approximately 1/10th to 2/10th of a percent. . . .

The fourth object of my attention is that autism, in spite of better awareness, better recognition, is still widely UNDER DIAGNOSED.

We find that overall, in the period from 2000 to 2016, there was improvement in the rate of autism diagnosis. This was a significant improvement.

Nonetheless, even as late as 2016, twenty-two percent or one in five eight year olds who satisfied the case definition, who met the criteria for autism by our independent surveillance, did not have an autism diagnosis. . . .

 And now we also understand that even in spite of better awareness, the true prevalence of autism is not merely the diagnosed cases. We still lag in our identification of autism prevalence. . .

 Predictions/projections for the near future: MORE AUTISM

Autism prevalence for 2022—that is for the next surveillance cycle—will be higher than found previously. This is inevitable because autism prevalence has not peaked.  . . .

Zahorodny expects the next rate increase will, no doubt, be attributed to better diagnosing once again.

Finally I would predict that the next report from the ADDM Network will not reflect significant public health concern or propose understanding autism risk factors or promotion of early detection.

Most likely the next report will mention better awareness and recognition as possible factors bearing on higher estimates.

This is a standard, almost magical Cohen that comes up every time the prevalence estimates are provided.

It’s unstoppable because we don’t know what’s causing it.

We really don’t understand what’s driving autism prevalence.  We don’t know the risk factors, so the best one can say apparently is that the increase might be due to better awareness or recognition.

Nonetheless, we should be thinking of what to do better and what to do for the future.

Something in the environment is causing autism.

Without a doubt, the most important factors or improvements that we could recommend involve enhancing and promoting studies which attempt to identify autism risk factors and triggers.

These are not genetic factors. These are environmental factors and it’s necessary to understand which ones are driving and have driven autism prevalence twofold and threefold over the last fifteen years.

We have to do more early diagnosing because more children will have autism.

Since we don’t yet understand, and I see no prospect for understanding the autism risk factors or triggers in the near future, I think it’s very important that we try to promote universal autism screening of toddlers and preschool aged children. . . .

We need to prepare for autism eventually affecting all age groups.

Given the high an escalating rate of autism in our population . . .it’s essential that from the policy perspective, we plan and provide resources for care, services and interventions to individuals with autism, that we understand that autism is a lifelong condition. . . .

Zahorodny said the CDC isn’t interested in finding possible environmental factors for autism.

Unfortunately, no agency or program in the United States has the resources as the CDC to identify the potential risk factors for autism, and they’ve committed the most resources to identifying and to understanding this phenomenon, and yet we’ve gotten nowhere.

I’ve been part of the ADDM Network since 2000, and so I was there at the initiation and across the development and enhancement of the network. I think when we started there was true interest and excitement and surprise regarding the first of all high rates and the escalation of rates, but somewhere after third or fourth cycle, it become clear that there were no plausible ideas or hypothesis that the CDC felt compelled to investigate.  It would be therefore less complicated and less dangerous to prevail with a search for risk factors.

It would be much less controversial to acknowledge what is possibly responsible for a small increase in case determination, that is better awareness.

It’s uncomfortable to identify a phenomenon and not to be able to explain it. 

“Better diagnosing” can’t keep happening.

If some new phenomenon appears in our consciousness, we start understanding it and labeling it, and we get better at it.  But it doesn’t go on indefinitely over a decade or generation. 

The end of Escher’s interview with Zahorodny was quite chilling.

 Escher: 

I’ve been seeing some of these articles about the waitlist for diagnosis in the U.K. You saw what the prevalence numbers already are. They’re already three percent in the U.K., so it makes me wonder, what is going on there?

How higher can it go?

As we can see, there is no reason to believe that the autism rate is going to level off anytime soon. Nancy Doyle needs to talk to Dr. Zahorodny. He has the facts on his side. 50 percent of children with autism is not outside the realm of possibility, and it may come a lot sooner than 2050.

I have to believe that the public won’t continue to accept the claim that more and more autism is due to the enlightened doctors of the 21st century, especially when we’re all paying for the cost of lifetime care for all of these disabled people who were supposedly always here.

MORE ON DR. ZAHORODNY AND AUTISM

May 15, 2023, Futurity: CASES OF KIDS DIAGNOSED WITH PROFOUND AUTISM ON THE RISE

June, 2022, Autism Prevalence Since 2000: Wayne Rohde Interviews Dr. Walter Zahorodny

April, 2020, Rutgers' Walter Zahorodny on Autism Rise in New Jersey

###

Ten years after its publication, only the numbers have changed.

The Big Autism Cover-Up: How and Why the Media Is Lying to the American Public Hardcover – November 18, 2014

An unflinching look at the truth behind the media’s lies about autism.