RFK Jr.’s warning about skyrocketing autism rates has drawn sharp criticism from advocates who insist that “kids with autism are not broken” and can lead full lives. Yet their rebuttals often support his point.
They highlight students graduating only with extensive assistance from multiple social workers and lowered academic standards, and adults employed just a few hours a week in heavily accommodated roles, sometimes unpaid.
Rutgers University’s Center for Adult Autism Services reports that in New Jersey, 1 in 20 boys and 1 in 85 girls are diagnosed with autism.
Nationwide, data from the Department of Health and Human Services shows prevalence rising from 1 in 36 children to 1 in 31, nearly five times higher than when the CDC began tracking children born in 1992.
The National Center for Special Abilities cites a 6,000% increase, overwhelming schools, healthcare systems, and social services.
Current CDC figures place autism rates at 23 per 1,000, compared with just 0.5 per 1,000 in the 1960s and 1970s and about 1 per 1,000 in the 1980s.
The contrast with earlier decades is striking. In his landmark 1943 paper, child psychiatrist Leo Kanner described his 11 autism cases as “markedly and uniquely different from anything reported so far.”
If today’s rates had existed then, autism would hardly have been considered novel. A 2009 study found autism incidence rose 7- to 8-fold from the early 1990s to 2007.
Diagnostic changes, inclusion of milder cases, and earlier detection explain only part of that growth, about a 4.25-fold increase, leaving much of the surge unexplained.
California data further undermines the “better diagnosis” argument, showing no evidence of a hidden population of autistic adults born between 1931 and the early 1980s.
Early U.K. studies support this. Victor Lotter’s 1966 survey in Middlesex schools found autism in just 0.045% of children. Wing and Gould’s 1979 Camberwell study reported 0.049%, while 1980s research using broader DSM criteria raised prevalence only slightly, to about 0.077%.
Personal testimony reinforces these findings. RFK’s team recalls local schools struggling to absorb what staff called a “convulsive growth” in autism. A speech therapist friend noted that in the 1980s, autism was barely covered in training because so few cases were seen.
Even Dr. Thomas Insel, former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, observed that when his brother trained at Harvard’s Children’s Hospital in the 1970s, the admission of one autistic child was rare enough that residents were brought in to see.
Psychology Today claims that autistic people may possess exceptional memory, recall, or math skills, and praises their “organization and attention to detail.”
It contrasts this neurodiversity view with the “medical model,” which treats autism as a disorder.
The American Medical Association’s Journal of Ethics takes a similar position, describing autism as a “complex combination of strengths and challenges” and urging society to value neurobiological diversity as it does race, gender, or religion.
The National Autism Society even warns against sources that discuss “curing” or “treating” autism.
These claims about “superpowers,” however, are not supported by the data. Research shows only about 10% of autistic individuals have true savant skills, and some estimates put the figure as low as 1 in 200.
Even newer studies that cite one-third with “exceptional abilities” often include modest talents, not savant syndrome.
Meanwhile, executive functioning studies consistently find deficits in planning, problem solving, and organization, directly contradicting the idea of a natural strength in attention to detail.
Employment outcomes tell the same story. A widely cited 2017 survey claimed 61% of autistic adults were employed, but its online, volunteer-based methodology created severe selection bias, excluding those with greater support needs.
By contrast, rigorous longitudinal studies show 75–85% unemployment, with only around 40% of autistic adults holding jobs after eight years. Fewer than 2% achieve full self-supporting independence.
While corporate programs like J.P. Morgan’s report impressive productivity from carefully selected participants, these successes represent a small fraction of the population and require extensive accommodations, transportation, and training costs that often exceed the economic value produced.
Independent living statistics are equally stark. According to the NIH, only 5% of autistic adults live independently, 37% require overnight care, and 87% live with their parents.
By comparison, 34% of people with intellectual disabilities live independently, far higher than the autism population.
Roughly a quarter of autistic young adults receive no support services at all, compounding poor long-term outcomes.
Education numbers are often presented in misleading ways. Advocacy groups point out that 74% of autistic students in special education “graduate with a diploma.”
But this figure does not represent 74% of all autistic people, or even of all autistic students.
Many of these diplomas, though labeled “regular,” are awarded under modified standards in Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and are not equivalent to the state-standard diplomas earned by typical peers. These modifications permit graduation while substantially lowering academic requirements.
College data is similarly inflated. The claim that 39% of autistic students earn a degree within eight years ignores the reality of reduced course loads, extended timelines, modified assessments, and extensive accommodations.
Students may be classified as “full-time” while taking half the typical course load, granted double-time on exams, or given alternative evaluation methods.
While these students may technically “graduate,” their degrees are not directly comparable to those earned under standard requirements.
In fact, data from Rutgers University’s Center for Adult Autism Services shows that fewer than 20% of college students with autism have graduated, or were even on track to graduate, within five years of leaving high school.
A consistent problem across research is methodological bias. Studies reporting higher employment or education outcomes often rely on self-selected samples of higher-functioning individuals active in autism communities, excluding those incapable of responding to surveys.
The evidence shows that RFK Jr.’s blunt assessment of autism outcomes more closely reflects reality than advocacy narratives. Highlighting a few success stories while ignoring population-level statistics creates a false impression.
A more honest acknowledgment of these outcomes could help redirect resources toward discovering why autism rates are skyrocketing and how autism might be prevented.
The post RFK is Right! Autism Rates Skyrocketing, Autistic People Largely Unable to Live Independently appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.