Speaker 1 (00:00):
The key numbers from the ADDM report. Overall, the autism is increasing in prevalence at an alarming rate. The study tests eight-year-olds who were born in 2014.
(00:21)
And by the way, these studies are two years later than they should be. And one of the things that we're going to do as we remove this function to the Administration for a Healthy America to the new Chronic Disease Division, is we are going to have updated real-time data so that people can look at this so Americans can understand what is happening with chronic disease in this country in real time, and I'd have to wait two years to react. We don't wait two years to react to a measles epidemic or any kind of infectious disease, we shouldn't have to do that for diabetes or autism.
(01:06)
The ASD prevalence rate in eight-year-olds is now one in 31. Shocking. There's an extreme risk for boys. Overall, the risk for boys of getting an autism diagnosis in this country is now one in 20, and as high in California, which has the best data collection, so it probably also reflects the national trend, one in 12.5 boys.
(01:41)
This is part of an unrelenting upward trend. The prevalence two years ago was one in 36. Since the first ADDM report which was 1992 births, autism has increased by a factor of 4.8. That's 480% I believe. The first ADDM survey was 22 years ago when prevalence was one in 150 children.
(02:12)
In all the core states, the trend is consistently upward and most cases now are severe. So about 25% of the kids who are diagnosed with autism are non-verbal, non-toilet-trained, and have other stereotypical features, head-banging, tactile and light sensitivities, stimming, toe-walking, et cetera.
(02:46)
One of the things that I think that we need to move away from today is this ideology that this, that the autism diagnosis, that the autism prevalence increase, that the relentless increases are simply artifacts of better diagnoses, better recognition or changing diagnostic criteria.
(03:13)
If you look at table three of the ADDM report, it's clear that the rates are real, that they are increasing in the last 10 years, which is beginning with the first one, year by year there is a steady relentless increase.
(03:33)
I want to, because this epidemic denial has become a feature in the mainstream media and it's based on an industry canard, and obviously there are people who don't want us to look at environmental exposures, and so I want to just read you some of the little excerpts from some of the older studies.
(04:02)
The baseline for autism in this country was established with the largest epidemiological study in history, a study of all 900,000 children in the state of Wisconsin, children under the age of 12. They found .7 children had autism in every 10,000. That's less than one in 10,000. Today we're one in 31. That study also confirmed the four to one male to female ratio.
(04:52)
There were at that time just over 60 children in Wisconsin with autism, and today it's around 20,000. In 1987, it was another exhaustive study, a peer-reviewed study in North Dakota set out to count every child in the state with a pervasive developmental disorder, including autism. That study meticulously combed through every record, every diagnosis, and even conducted in-person assessments of the entire population of 180,000 children under 18. The autism rate they found was 3.3 per 10,000. So that's in line with the one in 10,000 that was found in Wisconsin 17 years earlier.
(05:46)
For context, today the last number of one in 36 is 83 times higher. In 1987, out of every 1 million kids, 330 were diagnosed with autism. Today there are 27,777 for every million.
(06:13)
If you accept the epidemic denier's narrative, you have to believe that researchers in North Dakota missed 98.8% of the children with autism, that thousands of profoundly disabled children were somehow invisible to doctors, teachers, parents, and even their own study.
(06:37)
The same researchers who followed the original cohort for 12 years double-checked their number, they went back in 2000 and found that they had missed exactly one child. Doctors and therapists in the past were not stupid, they weren't missing all these cases. The epidemic is real.
(07:06)
Between 1959 and 1965, researchers from 14 hospitals associated with major universities undertook the National Collaborative Perinatal Project tracking 30,000 children from birth to age eight.
(07:24)
This was no half-baked survey-based analysis. The study conducted nine separate screenings covering neurology, psychology, speech, language, hearing, and visual function. Every developmental quirk, anomaly, and disorder was logged with painstaking detail. Autism, a condition characterized by profound impairments in social communication and behavior, would've stood out like a neon sign.
(07:55)
There were 14 cases, that's 4.7 per 10,000. So we know what the historic numbers are and we know what the numbers are today, and it's time for everybody to stop attributing this to this ideology of epidemic denial.
(08:17)
In 2009, the California State Legislature charged the MIND Institute at UC Davis with… Because this myth was already becoming pervasive, the myth of epidemic denial was already becoming pervasive in the mainstream media, the California Legislature directed the MIND Institute of UC Davis to answer the question.
(08:49)
And Irva Hertz-Picciotto, who's a highly-esteemed, revered scientist, neurology and epidemiologist, came back with a definitive answer, the epidemic is real. Only a very, very small portion of it can be charged to better recognition or better diagnostic criteria.
(09:11)
I want to say a couple of other things. There are many, many other studies that affirm this, and instead of listening to this canard of epidemic denial, all you have to do is start reading a little science, because the answer is very clear and this is catastrophic for our country.
(09:35)
There's a recent study by Blacksell et al and a team of other researchers that said that the cost of treating autism in this country by 2035, so within 10 years, will be $1 trillion a year. This is added to already astronomical healthcare costs.
(09:53)
And then there's an individual injury. These are kids that this is a preventable disease. We know it's in environmental exposure. It has to be. Genes do not cause epidemics. They can provide a vulnerability. You need an environmental toxin.
(10:10)
And Irva Hertz-Picciotto pointed out that because of this mythology, that the amount of money and resources put into studying genetic causes, which is a dead end, has been historically 10 to 20 times the amount spent by NIH and other agencies to study environmental factors, to study exposures, to study external factors, and that's where we're going to find the answer.
(10:49)
This is an individual tragedy as well. Autism destroys families. More importantly, it destroys our greatest resource which our children. These are children who should not be be suffering like this. These are kids who many of them were fully functional and regressed because of some environmental exposure into autism when they're two years old. And these are kids who will never pay taxes, they'll never hold a job, they'll never play baseball, they'll never write a poem, they'll never go out on a date. Many of them will never use a toilet unassisted.
(11:34)
And we have to recognize we are doing this to our children and we need to put an end to it. And I think I'm going to have Walter Zahorodny, who is the most senior researcher for this project for ADDM and who's been doing this for many years to come up and say a little.
Speaker 2 (11:59):
Good morning. Thank you for being here. I'm here as a long-term autism researcher and a clinical psychologist. I get to wear two hats, one with patients and families trying to help them get to a diagnosis and to interventions and treatments, but also for the last 20-plus years as the director of the New Jersey Autism Study, which is a CDC-sponsored autism surveillance system.
(12:36)
We've monitored autism in New Jersey in concert with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since 2000. When we began our endeavor with CDC, we expected to do maybe two or three baseline studies to establish how many children have autism, because it was not expected that autism prevalence would increase. Other childhood disabilities, neurologic disorders do not increase or change over time, but somehow for some reason with autism, everything was different.
(13:13)
Autism went from being a very unusual rare disability, which affected, as the secretary said, one child in maybe 10,000 to being known in every community, every school district, every center that cares for children with disabilities.
(13:33)
Autism is real. It's a true disability. It's not a personality, a quirky issue. Everything is changed for the individual with autism. And while there's a wide range of expression, it does change the family and it does inevitably change the community and the society in which we find it.
(14:00)
Autism prevalence has increased very dramatically. It's increased in New Jersey where we have excellent resources and access to services, and it's increased in all the states in the network. It's increased not only by the CDC ADDM Network active surveillance activities, but it's increased according to federal IDEA statistics and information from a multitude of surveys.
(14:32)
It is a true increase. There is better awareness of autism, but better awareness of autism cannot be driving disability like autism to increase by 300% in 20 years. That's what we saw in New Jersey, that's what the CDC report of yesterday indicates, and that's what, in my opinion, future reports from epidemiologists will show.
(15:00)
The data provided in yesterday's report strongly suggests that not only is this a high point of autism prevalence, but in the future, rates can only be higher.
(15:15)
Autism deserves to be treated as a real public health phenomenon and I would say is an urgent public health crisis. It's not just that we're more astute or perceptive. It's not like two or three children out of for everyone with autism has remained invisible. Autism is striking and the consequences are lifelong.
(15:49)
So I would urge everyone to consider the likelihood that autism, whether we call it an epidemic, a tsunami, or a surge of autism is a real thing that we don't understand and it must be triggered or caused by environmental or risk factors.
(16:12)
We need to address this question seriously because in my opinion, for the last 20 years, we've collected data but not made real progress in understanding what causes autism or how to effectively prevent it or treat it effectively.
(16:29)
So I urge you to read the report very carefully. I urge you to do something that nobody does and go into the many supplemental tables and see that autism is a true phenomenon and that we need a correct perception, not a perception that allows us to just provide services without understanding the root causes or the true factors at play. So thank you for your attention. I wish we could answer questions.
Speaker 1 (17:07):
I think we can.
Speaker 3 (17:07):
Secretary Kennedy-
Speaker 1 (17:07):
Let me just say one other thing. I referred to a number of studies. There are many, many, many others in the scientific literature that absolutely explode this mythology that the autism epidemic is not real. If you read the literature, it is absolutely indefensible to continue to promote this.
(17:40)
And but it doesn't take you to read the literature. It just takes a little common sense. If the epidemic is an artifact, a better diagnostic criteria or better recognition, then why are we not seeing it in older people? Why is this only happening in young people?
(18:01)
I asked Walter before we came out here, I said, "Have you ever seen anybody our age," I'm 71 years old, "with full-blown autism, head-banging, non-verbal, non-toilet-trained, stimming, toe-walking, these other stereotypical features? Where are these people walking around the mall? You can't find them. They're not in homes. There are no homes for them. There are no institutions for them. Why aren't we seeing them on the street?"
(18:33)
Anybody can look around and see that this is a canard. And then you have to ask yourself, why is it so pervasive? Why has it been thrown up against us for so many years? And clearly there are industries, this is coming from an environmental toxin, and somebody made a profit by putting that environmental toxin into our air, our water, our medicines, our food, and it's to their benefit to say, oh, to normalize it. To say, "Oh, this is all normal. It's always been here." But that's not good for our country, and it's not good for the press to not be more inquisitive, to not be more skeptical.
(19:18)
And within three weeks, and probably we're hoping in two weeks, we're going to announce a series of new studies to identify precisely what the environmental toxins are that are causing it. This has not been done before, and we're going to do it in a thorough and comprehensive way, and we're going to get back with an answer to the American people very, very quickly.
Speaker 3 (19:43):
Secretary Kennedy.
Speaker 4 (19:45):
Great. Thank you.
Speaker 1 (19:47):
Yeah, go ahead.
Speaker 3 (19:48):
Secretary Kennedy, I was not diagnosed with autism in that period [inaudible 00:19:51] and it took me five years to get diagnosed later. You also talked about the fact that the numbers increased with Black and Latino people, but your own study says, "These findings may indicate that improvements in ASD awareness, identification, of access to services in communities among Black and [inaudible 00:20:08] AAPI children have improved."
(20:13)
Are you denying that in the past, Black, Latino, and AAPI people had not been diagnosed, they had been diagnosed with behavioral disorders, they'd been disciplined, they'd been incarcerated, and now they're finally getting the services that they need?
Speaker 1 (20:27):
Oh, yeah. And there are small slivers of the autism epidemic, maybe 10% to 25% according to the studies, highest studies around 25%, that can be attributed to better recognition and better diagnosis. That means 85% are still, or 75% to 80% still are part of an epidemic, and that's too many. And that is what we need to address.
Speaker 5 (21:00):
Secretary-
Speaker 4 (21:00):
Walter, do you have something you'd like to add?
Speaker 2 (21:05):
There's better recognition of autism and better awareness because there are more children with autism, and the professionals have greater reason to learn from what [inaudible 00:21:15] experience and to diagnose. I wish the contrary was true, but it's not like better awareness pushes something that's not there, rather something that's there is being recognized.
Speaker 5 (21:27):
Secretary Kennedy, some of the CDC's-
Speaker 4 (21:32):
Can you please say your first and last name and outlet before asking a question?
Speaker 3 (21:38):
By the way, my name's Eric Garcia of The Independent.
Speaker 4 (21:39):
Thank you.
Speaker 5 (21:40):
Oh.
Speaker 3 (21:43):
Oh, she'll hold it.
Speaker 5 (21:44):
Oh. [Inaudible 00:21:45]. Secretary Kennedy, Amanda Seitz with the Associated Press. Some of the CDC's own research has concluded that there's a genetic link at play with autism. Are you saying today that you don't trust that research or that it was wrong? Could you expand a little more on that?
Speaker 1 (22:00):
No, there is. We have really good genetic markers now and they provide a vulnerability, but those genetic markers alone are not going to dictate your destiny. You need an environmental toxin.
(22:18)
Oh, I mean, there are many genetic markers that dictate the methylation capacity of the human body. Listen, many people smoke cigarettes, and only one in five died from lung cancer. There were four of them that didn't. And those were the ones that had some circumstances, probably genetic, that made them more susceptible to it.
(22:49)
And the same is true, we know that glutathione production, and glutathione is an enzyme that helps the human body excrete metals and toxins, people with low glutathione production are more vulnerable. People with the MTHFR gene, which dictates methylation, are more vulnerable. People with high testosterone are more vulnerable. So there are a lot of genetic vulnerabilities. You need an environmental toxin.
Speaker 6 (23:21):
[inaudible 00:23:22] with NBC News.
Speaker 4 (23:24):
Alex at Fox. Alex.
Speaker 7 (23:26):
Hi. Alex Hoff, Fox News. In seeking out an environmental toxin, do you feel that if one or several are detected or put on your radar, do you think it would be the same one causing issues at both ends of the spectrum? Children who struggle with, let's say, sensory issues all the way to those who are fully care-dependent, unable to speak? Would it be the same catalyst in all of those varying conditions you think?
Speaker 1 (23:51):
Well, those are this kind of studies that we're going to do. And you're right, there's a spectrum of injuries, and we don't know. There are studies that look at maternal activation so that something happens in the womb. There are studies that look at other genetic cause. The issue that we know is genes don't cause epidemics. You need an environmental toxin.
(24:20)
And we're going to look at all the potential culprits. We're going to look at mold, we're going to look at food additives, we're going to look at pesticides, we're going to look at air and water and medicines. So we're going to look at ultrasound, because there was a timeline that something happened.
(24:39)
In fact, Congress said to EPA, ordered EPA to tell us what year the autism epidemic began. The EPA scientists came back and said it happened in 1989. Oh, you have to find a toxin that became ubiquitous around that time period. And that affected every demographic from Cubans in Key Biscayne to Inuit in Alaska, and that affects boys at a four to one ratio as girls.
(25:10)
There's a limited universe of those, but actually it's quite large. And Irva Hertz-Picciotto was the one who suggested that one of the things we have to look at is ultrasound. I don't think that that's probably a factor, but it's one of the exposures that became ubiquitous during that period. And we're going to look at all of them agnostically. We're going to find the potential exposures that increased during that time period, and we're going to see if there is a link to this injury.
Speaker 6 (25:42):
Hi. [inaudible 00:25:43].
Speaker 4 (25:43):
Thank you. Nathan at Epoch Times.
Speaker 6 (25:45):
I'm sorry. Can I please go? I've been waiting.
Speaker 4 (25:48):
No. Nathan?
Speaker 8 (25:48):
Give him his chance [inaudible 00:25:51].
Speaker 4 (25:48):
Nathan?
Speaker 9 (25:54):
Yes. Nathan Worcester with Epoch Times. During that same time period of increasing autism prevalence or diagnoses, there's also been a significant increase in maternal and paternal age. Couldn't that be a significant contributor beyond-
Speaker 1 (26:05):
With what?
Speaker 9 (26:05):
Maternal and paternal age.
Speaker 1 (26:07):
Yeah, we're going to look at all of that. We're going to look at obesity in the parents. We're going to look at the age of the parents. We're going to look at diabetes in the parents and look at all these potential exposures. And because of AI and because of the digitalization of health records and the mass of health records that are now available to us, we can do this much more quickly than has ever been done in the past.
Speaker 4 (26:38):
Cheyenne. This is our last question. Thank you.
Speaker 10 (26:44):
Do you still pledge to have answers by September or is that going to be the beginning of this process? And are you open to following the science regardless of whether it confirms some of your expectations or not?
Speaker 1 (26:56):
Yeah, I mean, we're going to follow the science no matter what it says, and we will have some of the answers by September. But it's going to be an evolving process. We're going to issue grants the way that it's always done to university researchers and others. We're going to remove the taboo.
(27:16)
People will know they can research and they can follow the science no matter what it says without any kind of fear that they're going to be censored, that they're going to be gaslighted, that they're going to be silenced, they're going to be defunded, de-licensed, and we're going to give them permission to do this research.
(27:32)
And then we're going to open it up to the research community and we're going to task them with certain outcomes, and we're going to have them come and bid on how to do the research. This is all being run by Jay Bhattacharya, and I think Martin Kulldorff may be also working on this, on designing the grant proposals.
(28:01)
So it's going to be done by credible scientists, by the most credible scientists from all over the world, and we're going to do it very, very quickly.
Speaker 4 (28:08):
[inaudible 00:28:09].
Speaker 11 (28:08):
Secretary Kennedy?
Speaker 1 (28:14):
Yeah, one more question.
Speaker 11 (28:18):
Once you identify-
Speaker 1 (28:19):
Can you identify yourself?
Speaker 11 (28:20):
Oh, sorry. I'm Emma Bevans with [inaudible 00:28:22] Healthcare. Once you identify which environmental toxins are causing autism, what do you expect the impact to be on the industries that are causing those, as you cited industry as something that would cause it?
Speaker 1 (28:34):
I think we're going to figure out a way to make pressure on them to remove it. And I think also there will be market forces that also exert pressure on them to remove it.
(28:49)
And I want to say that I'm very grateful to President Trump because he tasked me on day one of this job with making this a priority of finding out what's causing the autism epidemic, and we are going to do it for him. Thank you all very much.
Speaker 4 (29:05):
Thank you.
