Autism was virtually unheard of before the 1940s, when Kanner first described the symptoms in a small group of children. For the next 30 years, it was still extremely rare, with an estimated occurrence of 1 in 40,000. Most doctors would go through their entire careers without coming across a case. The children suffering from this condition were almost invariably described as "having something wrong with them" from birth.
From the early 80s in the US and early 90s in the UK, the number of children diagnosed with this condition began to grow exponentially. Recent estimates put the occurrence at 1 in 250, a 16,000% increase in a generation. Another new feature is that most of these children were developing normally until 15-18 months, interacting happily with others and speaking their first words, before losing it all and retreating inside a shell. This "regressive autism" is a completely new condition, with no precedent in human development.
What could have caused this epidemic (for such it is) ? As for other diseases, there must be a genetic predisposition (otherwise everyone would catch it), but there must also be an environmental factor or combination of factors that explain this enormous increase. The most likely suspects are the MMR (Measles/Mumps/Rubella) vaccine and Thimerosal, a mercury compound used as a vaccine preservative. However, the implications of this for the drug companies and their government hirelings are so enormous (dwarfing the thalidomide and BSE scandals) that they are prepared to consign many thousands more children to a miserable existence to cover up the truth.
Their defence rests on denying that there is any real increase. However, even one of their more farcical attempts to rubbish the MMR/autism connection (Brent Taylor et al) admitted that the number of cases in autism in one Health District alone had increased from 2-3 a year in the mid 80s to over 50 a year in the mid-90s. Instead of concentrating on this truly phenomenal increase, they tried (and failed) to show that as the rate of autism among vaccinated and unvaccinated children was the same, there couldn't be a connection.
Their current position is, while admitting there has been this huge increase, to claim that it's down to better diagnosis ! But if that's the case, then where are the correspondingly large numbers of 20- and 30- year olds with this condition ? It's not as if they're hard to spot, many of them will need institutional care for the rest of their lives. Of course, in 10 years' time the large numbers of 20-year olds with autism will be there, although the services to support them won't be. Click here for some real statistics and truly scary graphs.
Even leaving aside the devastating impact of this condition on the individuals and their families, the financial cost is enormous. The cost of (very inadequate) care for each person with autism over their lifetime still runs to millions of pounds, to say nothing of the loss of their contribution to society as a whole. Aren't governments supposed to act in the interests of society as a whole ?
