Autism rates climb to 1 in 31 in kids; Experts debate causes and solutions
As more children and families are impacted and the cost of care is rising, he wants more resources devoted to autism studies.
While those who care for children on the autism spectrum welcome the additional focus, they want to make sure the lens is pointed in the right direction.
More Coverage: WGN's Medical Watch
Kennedy says the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) prevalence rate in eight-year-olds is now 1 in 31. The threat is even greater in boys.
'Overall, autism is increasing at an alarming rate,' Kennedy said. 'The risk for boys of getting an autism diagnosis in this country is now one in 20.'
There is more awareness about autism and diagnosis criteria has changed, but according to Kennedy, better recognition does not account for rising rates.
'It was not expected that autism prevalence would increase. Other childhood disabilities and neurologic disorders do not increase or change over time,' Walter Zahorodny, clinical psychologist and autism researcher, said.
Kennedy ordered more research but locally, Dr. John Walkup, the head of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health at Ann & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital, says based on years of research, the autism picture is more complicated.
'There's been a lot of study looking at this, and there are a lot of autism experts who have maybe opinions that disagree with the secretary,' Dr. Walkup said. 'It's not a simple genetic problem, but I think it's hard for people who are in the business to kind of say that genetics doesn't play a role.'
Whatever the root cause, as an expert who cares for children on the spectrum, Dr. Walkup believes the diagnosis is critical to get those in need early interventions that can make a difference in their lives.
'The other aspect is the availability of services. There are more now than ever before, but we are still nowhere near having a system that's in place that actually can provide services for these kids,' Dr. Walkup said.
Having autism in the spotlight may help.
Secretary Kennedy wants autism studied under the Administration for a Healthy America's new chronic disease division.
Are the cases due to toxins, rising maternal and paternal age? He hopes to have results on more definitive autism causes by September.
Experts we spoke with say that may be optimistic.
Sign up for our Medical Watch newsletter. This daily update includes important information from WGN's Dina Bair and the Med Watch team, including, the latest updates from health organizations, in-depth reporting on advancements in medical technology and treatments, as well as personal features related to people in the medical field. Sign up here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
20 hours ago
- Atlantic
Americans Are Tanning Like It's 1999
The early aughts were the worst possible kind of golden age. Tans were inescapable—on Britney Spears's midriff, on the flexing biceps outside of Abercrombie & Fitch stores. The Jersey Shore ethos of 'gym, tan, laundry' infamously encapsulated an era in which tanning salons were after-school hangouts, and tanning stencils in the shape of the Playboy bunny were considered stylish. Self-tanning lotions, spray tans, and bronzers proliferated, but people still sought the real thing. By the end of the decade, tanning's appeal had faded. Americans became more aware of the health risks, and the recession shrank their indoor-tanning budgets. But now America glows once again. The president and many of his acolytes verge on orange, and parties thrown by the MAGA youth are blurs of bronze. Celebrity tans are approaching early-aughts amber, and if dermatologists' observations and social media are any indication, teens are flocking to the beach in pursuit of scorching burns. Tanning is back. Only this time, it's not just about looking good—it's about embracing an entire ideology. Another apparent fan of tanning is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., America's perpetually bronzed health secretary, who was spotted visiting a tanning salon last month. What tanning methods he might employ are unknown, but the secretary's glow is undeniable. (The Department of Health and Human Services didn't respond to a request for comment about the administration's views on tanning or Kennedy's own habits.) On its face, the idea that any health secretary would embrace tanning is odd. The Obama administration levied an excise tax on tanning beds and squashed ads that marketed tanning as healthy. The Biden administration, by contrast, made sunscreen use and reducing sun exposure central to its Cancer Moonshot plan. The stated mission of Kennedy's Make America Healthy Again movement is to end chronic diseases, such as cancer, by addressing their root causes. Yet the Trump administration's MAHA report, released in May, doesn't once mention skin cancer, which is the most common type as well as the most easily preventable. It mentions the sun only to note its connection with circadian rhythm: 'Morning sun synchronizes the body's internal clock, boosting mood and metabolism.' In fact, there's good reason to suspect that Kennedy and others in his orbit will encourage Americans to get even more sun. Last October, in a post on X, Kennedy warned that the FDA's 'aggressive suppression' of sunlight, among other supposedly healthy interventions, was 'about to end.' Casey Means, a doctor and wellness influencer whom President Donald Trump has nominated for surgeon general, is also a sun apologist. In her best-selling book, Good Energy (which she published with her brother, Calley Means, an adviser to Kennedy), she argues that America's many ailments are symptoms of a 'larger spiritual crisis' caused by separation from basic biological needs, including sunlight. 'Shockingly, we rarely ever hear about how getting direct sunlight into our eyes at the right times is profoundly important for metabolic and overall health,' she writes. An earlier version of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill tried to repeal the excise tax on tanning beds. (The provision was cut in the final version.) The alternative-health circles that tend to attract the MAHA crowd are likewise skeptical of sun avoidance. 'They don't want you to know this. But your body was made for the sun,' says a 'somatic energy healer' with 600,000 followers who promotes staring directly into the sun to boost mood and regulate the body's circadian rhythm. (Please, don't do this.) On social media, some influencers tout the sun's supposedly uncelebrated power to increase serotonin and vitamin D, the latter of which some erroneously view as a cure-all. Some promote tanning-bed use as a way to relieve stress; others, such as the alternative-health influencer Carnivore Aurelius, promote genital tanning to boost testosterone. Another popular conspiracy theory is that sunscreen causes cancer and is promoted by Big Pharma to keep people sick; a 2024 survey found that 14 percent of young adults think using sunscreen every day is worse for the skin than going without it. These claims range from partly true to patently false. The sun can boost serotonin and vitamin D, plus regulate circadian rhythm—but these facts have long been a part of public-health messaging, and there's no evidence that these benefits require eschewing sunscreen or staring directly at our star. Tanning beds emit little of the UVB necessary to produce vitamin D. Some research suggests that the chemicals in sunscreen can enter the bloodstream, but only if it's applied to most of the body multiple times a day; plus, the effects of those chemicals in the body haven't been established to be harmful, whereas skin cancer has. And, if I really have to say it: No solid research supports testicle tanning. Nor does any of this negate the sun's less salutary effects: premature aging, eye damage, and greatly increased risk of skin cancer, including potentially fatal melanomas. The specific questions raised in alternative-health spaces matter less than the conspiracist spirit in which they are asked: What haven't the American people been told about the sun? What lies have we been fed? Their inherent skepticism aligns with Kennedy's reflexive mistrust of the health establishment. In the MAHA world, milk is better when it's raw, beef fat is healthier than processed oils, and the immune system is strongest when unvaccinated. This philosophy, however flawed, appeals to the many Americans who feel that they've been failed by the institutions meant to protect them. It offers the possibility that regaining one's health can be as simple as rejecting science and returning to nature. And what is more natural than the sun? Now is an apt moment for American politics to become more sun-friendly. Tanning is making a comeback across pop culture, even as 'anti-aging' skin care and cosmetic procedures boom. Young people are lying outside when the sun is at its peak—new apps such as Sunglow and Rayz AI Tanning tell them when UV rays are strongest—to achieve social-media-ready tan lines. Last year, Kim Kardashian showed off a tanning bed in her office (in response to backlash, she claimed that it treated her psoriasis). Deep tans are glorified in ads for luxury goods, and makeup is used in fashion shows to mimic painful-looking burns. Off the runway, ' sunburned makeup,' inspired by the perpetually red-cheeked pop star Sabrina Carpenter, is trending. Veena Vanchinathan, a board-certified dermatologist in the Bay Area, told me that she's noticed more patients seeking out self-tanning products and tanning, whether in beds or outdoors. Angela Lamb, a board-certified dermatologist who practices on New York's well-to-do Upper West Side, told me her patients are curious about tanning too. 'It's actually quite scary,' she said. A recent survey by the American Academy of Dermatology found that a quarter of Americans, and an even greater proportion of adults ages 18 to 26, are unaware of the risks of tanning, and many believe in tanning myths, such as the idea that a base tan protects against a burn, or that tanning with protection is safe. ('There is no such thing as a safe tan,' Deborah S. Sarnoff, the president of the Skin Cancer Foundation, told me.) Recently, some experts have called for a more moderate approach to sun safety, one that takes into account the benefits of some sun exposure and the harms of too much shade. 'I actually think we do ourselves a bit of a disservice and open ourselves up to criticism if the advice of someone for skin-cancer prevention is 'Don't go outside,'' Jerod Stapleton, a professor at the University of Kentucky who studies tanning behaviors, told me. But the popular rejection of sun safety goes much further. Advances in skin-cancer treatment, for example, may have lulled some Americans into thinking that melanoma just isn't that serious, Carolyn Heckman, a medical professor at Rutgers University's Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, told me. Skin-cancer treatment and mortality rates have indeed improved, but melanomas that metastasize widely are still fatal most of the time. From the June 2024 issue: Against sunscreen absolutism In previous decades, tans were popular because they conveyed youth, vitality, and wealth. They still do. (At least among the fairer-skinned; their connotations among people of color can be less positive.) But the difference now is that tanning persists in spite of the known consequences. Lamb likened tanning to smoking: At this point, most people who take it up are actively looking past the well-established risks. (Indeed, smoking is also making a pop-culture comeback.) A tan has become a symbol of defiance—of health guidance, of the scientific establishment, of aging itself.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
US rejects amendments to WHO international health regulations
Trump administration officials rejected a series of rules Friday to help the international community prevent and respond to public health risks. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a joint statement formally rejecting the 2024 International Health Regulations (IHR) Amendments by the World Health Organization (WHO). 'The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda, and censorship that we saw during the COVID pandemic,' Kennedy said in a video message posted on social platform X. 'The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardizing our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America's treasured sovereignty,' he added. The IHR is an international legal agreement that has been adopted by all 194 WHO member states and includes an outline to 'rights and responsibilities' of the organization and governments in handling global health emergencies like pandemics. Both the IHR amendments and the pandemic agreement leave health policy up to national governments. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, director-general of the WHO, said in a post on X that the organization has never had the power to mandate lockdowns, travel restrictions or any other similar measures. 'Member States have the power to do so if they see the need,' he wrote. Member states decided to review and potentially amend the IHR in 2022 in light of the challenges that arose among the international community in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, according to health nonprofit KFF. The WHO formally approved a of number revisions to the IHR last year but did not come to a consensus on a pandemic agreement until earlier this year. Kennedy said in the video message that WHO member states have until next week to reject the amendments. He added the U.S. is choosing to reject the amended regulations, in part, for reasons related to 'national sovereignty.' 'Nations who accept the new regulations are signing over their power in health emergencies to an unelected, international organization that could order lockdowns, travel restrictions or any other measures it sees fit,' the HHS chief said. 'If we are going to give the WHO that much power we should at least invite a thorough public debate.' He noted that the U.S.'s decision to reject the amendments was sparked by concerns over a regulation regarding 'risk communications' systems. The amended requirements, Kennedy continued, require countries to establish systems of risk communication that he believes opens the door to 'narrative management, propaganda and censorship' that the world saw during the COVID-19 pandemic. 'We don't want to see that kind of system institutionalized even further,' he said. There is also concern over a provision in the amendments related 'global systems of health IDs and vaccine passports' which Kennedy thinks will pave the way for global medical surveillance. The move is the latest in the Trump administration's efforts to try to distance the U.S. from the WHO. In January, President Trump issued an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the organization and stated the country would pause the future transfer of funding. The president tried to withdraw the country from the international organization during his first term. The withdrawal never happened — it takes a year for a member state to fully withdraw from the WHO — and former President Biden reversed the decision once he took office. Public health experts decried Trump's move, warning that it would severely weaken domestic and global public health. The U.S. was a founding member of the WHO in 1948 and is the largest financial donor of the organization. —Updated at 6:08 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
UPI
2 days ago
- UPI
U.S. officially withdraws from enhanced WHO pandemic response
Health workers in biohazard suits treat patients at a drive-thru coronavirus testing center at Seoul Metropolitan Eunpyeong Hospital in South Korea on March 4, 2020. The International Health Regulations Amendments approved on June 1, 2024, by the World Health Organization would allow the WHO to authorize lockdowns, travel restrictions or other measures regarding "public health risks." File Photo by Thomas Maresca/UPI | License Photo July 18 (UPI) -- The United States officially won't be involved in an enhanced pandemic global response enacted by the World Health Organization, the Trump administration said Friday. The International Health Regulations Amendments approved on June 1, 2024, would allow the WHO to authorize lockdowns, travel restrictions or other measures regarding "public health risks" but not require them. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a new release WHO would have the "ability to order global lockdowns" as part of the reforms. A total of 194 member states, including the United States, plus Liechtenstein and the Vatican negotiated the amendments. After taking office for his second term on Jan. 20, President Donald Trump officially announced the United States would pull out of WHO by January 2026. On March 20, WHO member nations by a 124-0 vote adopted the 33-page first "Pandemic Agreement" but the United States didn't participate. This separate agreement from the amendments would strengthen the global health architecture for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response." The amendments are binding Saturday if not rejected by nations, regardless of whether the United States withdraws from WHO. It was adopted by consensus without a vote of the 77th World Health Assembly. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued statements on the formal rejection. Earlier, the Trump administration said it wouldn't adhere to the amendments. "The proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations open the door to the kind of narrative management, propaganda, and censorship that we saw during the COVID pandemic," Kennedy said. "The United States can cooperate with other nations without jeopardizing our civil liberties, without undermining our Constitution, and without ceding away America's treasured sovereignty." Kennedy also spoke in a video explaining the action. As did Rubio: "Terminology throughout the amendments to the 2024 International Health Regulations is vague and broad, risking WHO-coordinated international responses that focus on political issues like solidarity, rather than rapid and effective actions," Rubio said. "Our Agencies have been and will continue to be clear: we will put Americans first in all our actions and we will not tolerate international policies that infringe on Americans' speech, privacy, or personal liberties." Republicans in Congress applaud the decision. "The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how the incompetency and corruption at the WHO demands comprehensive reforms," Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin said. "Instead of addressing its disastrous public health policies during COVID, the WHO wants International Health Regulation amendments and a pandemic treaty to declare public health emergencies in member states, which could include failed draconian responses like business and school closures and vaccine mandates." The amendments define what constitutes a pandemic emergency and how it can be triggered. There would also be information-sharing between countries across the world and WHO. And poorer nations would have access to medical products to "equitably address the needs and priorities of developing countries." The COVID-19 pandemic officially killed 7 million people but WHO estimates the toll to be 20 million since the virus was first detected in China in December 2019. Most nations, including the United States, are no longer tracking coronavirus cases, he said. "And on top of the human cost, the pandemic wiped more than US $10 trillion from the global economy," Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyes, the director-general of WHO, said.
