You're misinterpreting the purpose of the article. It's not saying that the epidemic wasn't real, it's arguing that calling it an "epidemic" implies that there

You're misinterpreting the purpose of the article. It's not saying that the epidemic wasn't real, it's arguing that calling it an "epidemic" implies that there is more autism than there was previously. While they posit that it's simply due to better diagnosis. There are not more people with autism. There are more people that have been diagnosed. Those are different things and calling it an "epidemic" implies that it's the former.