The Myth of the Autism Epidemic

It's no secret that the rate of autism diagnoses has risen dramatically in recent decades. In the 1980s, it was reported that only one person out of every 2,000 were autistic. The current estimate is one in 68 people are autistic. Looking at those numbers, it's only natural to assume that there is a massive epidemic of a once rare condition.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes that the rate of autism diagnoses is the same as the rate of autism occurrence. To put it simply, it's like the classic question asking the world's highest peak before Mt. Everest was discovered. Anyone familiar with this question will tell you that Mt. Everest did, in fact, exist before it was discovered. I am submitting that in a similar way, autism did not actually become more prevalent. It's simply more recognized.

It's well known that in recent years, professionals have learned a lot about how to recognize autism. It really should come as no surprise that when you know how to find something, you are likely to find more of it. In addition, there are a lot more autism professionals. Many of them have moved into areas that have not previously had autism professionals. Again, when you have more people looking for something in more places, the prevalence will probably appear higher than it did before.

We might also look at what autism was seen to be in the 1980s compared to now. In the 80s and before, a person would have to be completely nonverbal to be considered autistic. The definition has changed considerably since then. There are now people receiving autism diagnoses that most people would see only as being weird or eccentric. Remember that Asperger's is also considered to be a form of autism, to the point that the American Psychiatric Association has recently redefined it as mild autism. This change in how we define autism has, just by itself, contributed hugely to the perceived increase.

I think I can further demonstrate my last point by saying that there are studies showing a similar autism rate among adults. I can remember reading one a few years ago that looked at a random sample of adults and tested them for autism under current (at the time) diagnostic standards. The result showed a rate just below, but not statistically significant from, the autism rate seen among children at the time. Further, many of you reading this probably personally know one or more undiagnosed aspies. These are people that would have received diagnoses as children, had the definition been the same as it is now.

Another thing of note is that as autism diagnoses increase, some other diagnoses have actually been known to decrease. This indicates that some conditions are being increasingly recognized as autism. I feel that there is likely to be a certain amount of misdiagnosis involved in this phenomenon. Either some conditions have been recognized as separate when they are actually a different form of it (such as Asperger's), or some are now being recognized as autism when I don't feel that they should be (such as childhood degenerative disorder).

One more point is the evidence of autism existing in its current form throughout history. It's almost cliché to refer to such historical figures as Albert Einstein and Thomas Jefferson as likely being autistic. It is true that that is pure speculation. I won't go very deep into the evidence of it here, but what I've seen is certainly compelling. They tended to exhibit speech patterns and thought processes that are common in autistic people. Anthropologists have even pointed out that cave paintings from prehistoric times appear very similar to drawings made by modern day autistic “savants.”

I know some may point out all of the research that has been put into finding a cause of autism. This research has yielded consistently inconclusive or even negative results. I think it's safe to conclude that autism is genetic, and has existed throughout human history.