The official narrative is that autism rates haven't actually increased—we've just gotten "better at diagnosing it." This argument relies on the concept of diagnostic substitution.

The theory goes that children who used to be labeled "mentally retarded" or "language delayed" are now labeled "autistic." But the data doesn't support a 1:1 swap. The decline in other diagnoses is nowhere near large enough to account for the explosive 80,000% increase in autism since the 1980s.

By constantly widening the net of what counts as "autism," public health officials can claim the increase is purely administrative, conveniently avoiding the need to investigate environmental triggers—like the tripling of the vaccine schedule during the exact same period.