
Kennedy's autism crusade ignores history, including his own family's
These claims skip over a mountain of data and touch on the country's dark history around treating people with neurological and developmental differences, including within Kennedy's own illustrious family.
'We are indeed diagnosing autism more than ever before in history. I mean, that's just a fact,' Andy Shih, chief science officer at the nonprofit Autism Speaks, told The Hill.
While Kennedy insists external factors like vaccines must be to blame, experts instead believe the trend is a reflection of an improved understanding of neurodivergence within the medical community.
'We think that the increases are due to the fact that there's greater awareness that there are tools now that allow us to screen systematically with children at certain ages, certain stages of development,' Shih said.
Autism, like many diagnoses, does not exist in a vacuum. Its perception and detection have changed drastically within the last century, with much of that change occurring throughout Kennedy's lifetime.
The exact cause of autism is unknown, but the current scientific consensus is that it's a complex amalgamation of genetic predispositions and environmental factors.
'We used to compare autism to what we call complex disorders or complex diseases like heart disease and lung disease, where there's certainly a genetic predisposition, but environment influences certainly affect outcome,' Shih said.
'Now we look at autism not as a medical condition, but part of the richness of human variation.'
Kennedy vowed to find the cause of autism by September of this year, suggesting that 'environmental toxins' in food and medicine are the likely culprits.
Since autism was first diagnosed, numerous causes have been suggested, several of which have been discredited.
In the mid-20th century, Austrian American psychologist Bruno Bettelheim proposed that emotionally distant parenting by so-called refrigerator mothers was the cause of autism, and he called for removing diagnosed children from their parents.
Kennedy has long put his support behind the theory that vaccines could cause autism, but analyses, including those conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), have found no link between immunizations and autism spectrum disorder.
Kennedy's stated goal for finding the cause of autism is to prevent it from occurring. During an April press conference, he said children with autism will go on to be burdens on their families and society.
'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,' Kennedy said.
'Autism destroys families,' he added.
As to whether autism can be prevented, it's unclear. And some experts question the necessity, and ethics, of such an endeavor.
'Is it environmental exposure? Is it maternal or paternal age? We don't know the answers to that,' said Nicole Clark, CEO and co-founder of the Adult and Pediatric Institute.
'We absolutely should be funding scientific research to try to get to the bottom of that. But the comments that he makes of 'we should prevent autism.' Those comments get very close to eugenics.'
Clark is also the mother of children with autism.
'Those comments start to weed into anyone that is different should be prevented,' she added.
According to the CDC, 1 in 31 children and 1 in 45 adults in the U.S. have autism. This is a stark difference from just a few decades ago, when roughly 1 in 150 children were diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
But autism as a diagnosis is a historically recent development. The first person considered to be diagnosed with autism, an American banker named Donald Triplett, died in 2023 at the age of 89. He was diagnosed in 1943, 11 years before Kennedy was born.
Autism was first added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) as a psychiatric disorder connected to schizophrenia in 1968. It wasn't until 1980 that the DSM was updated to reflect autism as a developmental diagnosis separate from schizophrenia.
The standards and criteria for diagnosing autism have also broadened over the years. But increased diagnoses don't necessarily mean increased occurrence.
'We can see a couple things that indicate that what's going on is that our ability to recognize and diagnose autism is improving, rather than that the actual rate of autism occurring in the population is going up,' said Zoe Gross, director of advocacy at Autistic Self Advocacy Network.
Diagnosis substitution is a phenomenon in which the labeling of one condition is replaced by another over time as knowledge and understanding change. Applying our current day understanding of autism spectrum disorder reveals broad areas for potential diagnosis substitution.
'We see that as we learn more about autism, people who clearly show the traits of autism but would in the past have been given just a diagnosis of intellectual disability, now have an autism diagnosis,' Gross explains.
Another factor contributing to increased diagnoses is that many people with autism spectrum disorder may appear to have no intellectual disability.
'Rates of autism without intellectual disability, that is increasing faster than diagnoses of autism with intellectual disability, which shows that if that group that would have been missed in the past that is making up the larger portion of the increase in diagnoses,' said Gross.
A report from 2023 that reviewed information from 2000 to 2016 found that 26.7 percent of children with autism spectrum disorder had profound autism. But there is nuance within that group, too.
'When they did that study, they defined profound autism as having a measured IQ below 50, or being nonspeaking, or being mostly nonspeaking. So, any of those three things, or any combination of those three things, you would get put in that category,' said Gross.
Despite being lumped together, many people with autism spectrum disorder who are nonverbal or mostly nonverbal are capable of productive activities, which Gross notes can include writing poetry.
Gross noted that when Kennedy was growing up, 'the diagnosis of autism wasn't even in the DSM.'
According to Gross, to be diagnosed with autism in the '40s and '50s, when Kennedy was growing up, was 'very rare,' as only a few clinicians would have been able to identify it.
Kennedy has claimed that he's never seen someone of his generation with 'full-blown autism,' which could be partly explained by how many of these individuals were hidden away from wider society.
Up until the mid-20th century, a large proportion of children perceived to be mentally or neurologically disabled were put in institutions where they were often subjected to extreme neglect. Institutionalization reached its peak in the '50s and '60s.
'If you look at statistics about the disabilities and needs of people who are in institutions around the time when they started to close in the '60s and '70s, you'll see that many of those people had exactly those kinds of disabilities and needs that Secretary Kennedy describes,' said Gross.
'Families would be told … 'You should forget all about them, try to have another child and move on with your life,'' Gross added. 'So, a very kind of coldhearted approach to society's responsibility to care for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.'
Beginning in the '60s, parents began moving away from institutionalization, choosing instead to keep their children at home. The Kennedys were early adopters of this choice, at least in the beginning.
Rosemary Kennedy, born in 1918, was the eldest daughter of Joseph and Rose Kennedy and aunt to the current Health secretary.
Developmental delays were observed early on in Rosemary's life; she was slower to walk and speak than her brothers and had difficulty concentrating. She is also remembered as having had a bright personality in her youth.
It's unclear if Rosemary had autism or another developmental disorder. But with these traits, the Kennedys would have been advised to institutionalize Rosemary.
'But Rose Kennedy, their mother and that would be Bobby Kennedy Jr.'s grandmother, didn't believe in that, and she thought the best place for Rosemary was at home,' historian Kate Clifford Larson, author of the book 'Rosemary: The Hidden Kennedy Daughter,' told The Hill.
'So, they diverged from what was going on in general in the public at the time.'
Joe Kennedy, who Larson describes as 'nervous and afraid,' consented to having Rosemary lobotomized in her early 20s, rendering her incapacitated and institutionalized for the rest of her life. She died in 2005.
According to Larson, this choice to raise Rosemary along with her other siblings, and her subsequent disappearance from their lives, had a profound impact on the entire family, including RFK Jr.'s father, the senior Robert F. Kennedy.
'He was 14, 13 when she was lobotomized, so he was cognizant, whereas Ted was a little bit younger. So, they were all affected, and they missed her, because it was a very, very tight family,' said Larson. 'Bobby missed her, too, and like his brother, Jack, once they got power in the government, they started making changes.'
Rosemary's sister Eunice Kennedy Shriver went on to found the Special Olympics, the largest sports organization for children and adults with intellectual disabilities. Eunice's son, Anthony Shriver, founded the group Best Buddies International, which connects people with intellectual and developmental disabilities with friends and mentors.
'Bobby Jr., he was part of that. He saw his family do all these things all those years,' said Larson. 'He visited those horrific institutions as a teenager and young man. He saw how horrible they were. And so, for him today to say that those things didn't exist, that autism and these other illnesses did not exist before vaccines, is crazy.'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
5 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Continuous glucose monitors are in vogue. But do you really need to track your blood sugar?
A quarter-size device that tracks the rise and fall of sugar in your blood is the latest source of hope — and hype — in the growing buzz around wearable health technology. Continuous glucose monitors, small patches that provide 24-hour insight into concentrations of sugar in the blood, could be a tool for Americans to 'take control over their own health,' Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently told federal lawmakers. 'They can take responsibility,' Kennedy said. 'They can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way they live their lives.' The devices have lifesaving benefits for people with diabetes, the disease caused when blood sugar remains high because their bodies don't make enough insulin or become resistant to it. The condition, which affects more than 38 million people in the U.S., raises the risk of serious health problems such as heart and kidney disease and vision loss. But the devices have surged in popularity among people without diabetes. Sales have been driven by high-profile marketers such as Casey Means , the nominee for U.S. surgeon general . There's scant evidence the monitors are useful for people with normal blood sugar levels, said Dr. Jody Dushay, an endocrine specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. Healthy bodies can effectively regulate glucose after meals and provide the energy they need to function. Glucose monitors may lead people to misinterpret normal swings in blood sugar that happen after eating or activity. In addition, the devices can be 'notoriously inaccurate,' providing misleading readings, she said. 'The problem with wearing these is that you can just be zooming in on and creating pathology when it's not there,' Dushay said. Here's what you need to know about the devices: Here's what a continuous glucose monitor does The device is a small patch, about the size of two stacked quarters, usually placed on the upper arm or stomach. It uses a needle to painlessly pierce the skin for a tiny sensor. The sensor measures the glucose in fluid under the skin, delivering a signal every few minutes to a phone app or a handheld display. The apps typically record blood sugar levels and help people track the foods they eat and how they impact those levels. When healthy people eat a meal that contains carbohydrates, their blood sugar rises, peaks and falls in response to the food. A healthy fasting blood glucose level for a person without diabetes is roughly 70 milligrams per deciliter to 99 milligrams per deciliter. A range from 100 to 126 milligrams per deciliter indicates prediabetes and above 126 milligrams per deciliter indicates diabetes, according to the American Diabetes Association. In adults without diabetes, blood sugar levels can climb to 140 milligrams per deciliter or more within an hour of a meal, before falling back to baseline levels within two or three hours, according to the association. It's a sign the body is processing sugar normally. Continuous glucose monitors have been available since the late 1990s For decades, these devices were available only for people with diabetes. The monitors revolutionized care by allowing more precise adjustment of insulin used to treat diabetes and giving people the ability to modify meals and activity more accurately. Last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first over-the-counter monitors. Since then, many companies have emerged to market them, claiming to provide intensive, individualized health monitoring. Cost is generally about $100 a month. They've really caught on with consumers curious about how food and activity affect their blood sugar levels. For instance, Noom, the weight-loss and fitness app, launched a blood glucose feature last year that has proven extremely popular, said Alexander Fabry, a company executive. 'Of the people who are using a CGM, the vast majority of them don't have a diabetes diagnosis,' he said. Who can use the monitors? The devices have been lifesaving for people with diabetes. And they can be helpful for people with risk factors for the disease, including obesity, prediabetes, a history of gestational diabetes or a family history of the condition. The devices can allow users to see how specific food and activity choices affect their blood sugar in near real-time, said Dr. Alaina Vidmar, a pediatric obesity specialist at Children's Hospital Los Angeles. 'After a large meal, you may watch your blood sugar go up and sort of learn something about yourself,' Vidmar said. 'For example, I drink a sugar-sweetened soda and my blood sugar goes up really high, really fast. And maybe I don't feel as good, right?' What are the cautions? People without risk factors for diabetes may turn to the monitors just because they're curious, said Dr. David Kessler. A former FDA commissioner, Kessler doesn't have diabetes, but he wore a monitor for a couple months during research for his recent book, 'Diet, Drugs and Dopamine.' 'I think it's a very interesting tool to experiment with if you're so inclined,' Kessler said. But, he noted, the devices can't be used to diagnose or treat disease. Even experts don't agree on how to interpret or provide health advice for people without diabetes based on blood sugar data. 'No one knows what's optimal in the nondiabetic state,' he said. Before using a monitor, Dushay asks patients to consider their motives. 'What do you think you're going to get from the data?' she said. 'What is to be gained from wearing that monitor?' ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


USA Today
6 hours ago
- USA Today
RFK Jr. is waging a war against ultra-processed foods. Will almond milk be canceled?
Ultra-processed foods are undergoing increased scrutiny as Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his supporters blame these often tasty snacks for contributing to chronic diseases in the U.S. But what is ultra-processed food? There still isn't a universal definition. While many ice creams, chips and sodas are considered ultra-processed, there's also a wide array of other foods that can be included in a healthy diet that fall into the same category, such as tofu, some canned fruits and vegetables, protein bars, cereals and nut milks. 'These are all quite processed and some of them can be classified as ultra-processed foods but because of their nutrient profiles, they might be better for us and not associated with the worst health outcomes,' said Michele Polacsek, professor of public health at the University of New England and an expert on promoting healthy food choices. Does that mean these foods will be targeted, too? Probably not, said Marion Nestle, a nutrition expert and emeritus professor at New York University. 'That would be impossible because of the way that Americans eat,' she said, as research shows over 70% of American calories come from ultra-processed foods. Ultra-processed foods, or UPFs, are foods that have been made by food companies using manufactured ingredients, rather than actual foods. If you've ever taken a look at some food labels, you may not recognize many of the ingredients listed. These are likely ultra-processed ingredients that are used to make food "taste better, look better and last longer on the shelf," Nestle said. Research has shown UPFs replace healthier foods and encourage people to eat more calories, Nestle said. Ultra-processed foods have been linked to about 30 health conditions, including obesity, diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers and mental health disorders, according to a 2024 study published in the British Medical Journal. In May, Kennedy and his 'Make America Healthy Again' commission targeted ultra-processed foods in a 69-page report. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced the administration is seeking information and data to help develop an official definition for ultra-processed foods, according to a July 23 statement. While it's a good first step, Polacsek said not all UPFs are the same and there isn't enough data to determine which ingredients or processes in packaged foods lead to negative health outcomes. 'We don't have all the evidence we need,' she said. 'We need a lot more research on this.' It would be a mistake to create policy based on the data available on ultra-processed foods, Polacsek said. But if the administration makes policy decisions based on a universal definition, she hopes agencies will also allocate funding to research how it's impacting public health and the food industry. Is Chick-fil-A healthy? Fast-food chain named one of the least nutritious in America In the meantime, Nestle recommends minimizing the amount of ultra-processed foods you eat but also reminds consumers that some contain nutrients that can be incorporated into a healthy diet. In a 2023 study, researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture led a study that showed how it was possible to build a healthy diet with 91% of the calories coming from ultra-processed foods. However, study authors noted the diet was particularly high in sodium and didn't contain enough whole grains. 'The basic principle of healthy eating is variety,' Nestle said. 'If you eat a lot of different kinds of food, and most of them are minimally processed, you're doing fine.' 'Food is one of life's greatest pleasures, it's really important to enjoy what you eat.' Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kennedy to oust care task force, WSJ reports; HHS says no decision yet
By Ahmed Aboulenein and Deena Beasley WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is planning to remove all the members of an advisory panel that determines what cancer screenings and other preventive health measures insurers must cover, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, citing people familiar with the matter. A Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson said on Friday that Kennedy had not yet made a decision regarding the 16-member U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. "No final decision has been made on how the USPSTF can better support HHS' mandate to Make America Healthy Again," the HHS spokesperson said. The Journal said Kennedy planned to dismiss all 16 panel members in what would be the latest in a series of far-reaching actions by Kennedy, a long-time vaccine skeptic, to reshape U.S. regulation of vaccines, food and medicine. In June he fired all 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of vaccine experts, replacing them with seven handpicked members, including known vaccine skeptics. The USPSTF includes medical experts serving staggered four-year terms on a volunteer basis. Its role in choosing what services will be covered by insurers was established under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The 40-year-old group, whose recommendations provide guidance to doctors, looks at everything from routine breast cancer screening to drugs to prevent HIV infection. The U.S. Supreme Court in June upheld the constitution of the task force and ruled in favor of its recommendation to cover preventive care. Though made up of an independent group of volunteer experts, members are selected by the health secretary without Senate confirmation and it relies on support from the department's Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. A group of 104 health organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, in early July sent a letter to Congressional health committees, urging them "to protect the integrity" of the task force. The task force has been criticized by some conservatives as too left-leaning.