Read the most advanced science of autism causes here. Bypass the commenterati and go direct to the science. Don't waste your time at the sites which pretend "no-one" knows what causes (or what sometimes cures) autism.
This is a website relating to the unchallenged theory of autism, IQ and genius, Personality and Individual Differences 14:459-482 (1993) by Robin P Clarke (the antiinnatia theory). An update review paper is being prepared for publication. Meanwhile you can download the original 1993 publication (presentationally revised) here, and the original 1993 publication (author's reprint) here . (the journal site version is here:, but without added charts of social class and you may have to pay Elsevier $31.)

The "Imprinted Brain" theory of Badcock and Crespi

Many years after I thought of this gene-expression theory of autism, another gene-expression theory of autism was published by Christopher Badcock and Bernard Crespi. It is rather more of a brain-strain than my own, in that it is based on the not-so-basic concept of genomic imprinting. And it leaves unexplained many things about autism which the antiinnatia theory easily embraces within its commanding logic.

I think it very likely that this imprinted brain theory may play some valid part in the understanding of autism, but I think it quite certain that it in no way can replace antiinnatia as the central explanatory concept. I won't review it any further here for the simple reason that I haven't found much need for it, and why complicate things unnecessarily? Isn't the antiinnatia theory quite enough already?

Meanwhile there are some faults I find in their notion of autism as imprinted brain. They consider that the opposite of autism is schizophrenia. Having myself fully worked out the definitive theory of schizophrenia (but unable to finish writing it up due to my severe mercury amalgam poisoning disabilities; my outline theory of manic-depressive I did publish though), I can understand why they have made that mistake. That's because one of the key things of schizophrenia is over-expression of certain innatons, whereas the very essence of autism is under-expression of innatons. But I had already explained in my 1993 paper (and unpublished section about IQ) that the opposite of autism is common-or-garden low IQ. Of course that would seem impossible as autism itself often involves low IQ, but well that's life, full of such tricks to catch the insufficiently deep thinkers of this world!

Reason for false association between vaccines and autism

I'm copying in this post below from another blog here as it usefully complements my other post about vaccinations.

Please note that I do not agree with everything it says.

Correlation Not Causation
Posted by David_Pollard on 28 May 2009 at 15:12 GMT

There really is a connection between vaccination and the onset of autism, but it's not a causal relationship.

Fever reduces autistic spectrum symptoms, and vaccination can cause mild fever. Generally the symptoms of autism develop quite slowly and may pass un-noticed in the early stages. It is quite likely that, in a proportion of cases, they will first be recognised following a fever when, having been reduced by the fever, they return quite quickly as it abates. This relatively sudden return could well appear to be the initial onset, leading to the (false) conclusion that whatever caused the fever also caused the autism.

Parents in such a situation will not easily be convinced by assurances and epidemiological studies. And the assertion that there is no connection whatsoever is tantamount to calling them liars, for this is to deny the evidence of their own eyes. Not surprisingly some will dig in their heels and reject the views of authority with considerable vehemence.

Whatever the other factors may be that fuel the myth that vaccination causes autism, and there do seem to be various vested interests, this is one of the major roots. The myth will not disappear until it becomes common knowledge that anything that causes fever is likely to bring autistic spectrum symptoms to notice by briefly reducing their severity. But bringing symptoms to notice is not the same as causing the ailment.


No competing interests declared.

Note: the above are not the words of Robin Clarke myself, and I do not agree with it all.

Why mercury supposedly could not get to DNA to cause antiinnatia!

Wegener's collossal epoch-making discovery of continental drift was dismissed with derision by the community of professional geologists for 50 years, apparently merely because he was unable to show any mechanism by which the continents might drift. That was even though his deriders were in no position to show anything that would prevent the continental drift. And was even though volcanos have long made it reasonable to believe there is a layer of molten rock under the Earth's crust.

A similar situation exists in respect of the incorporation of environmental mercury into the antiinnatia theory (in the forthcoming update review paper). 'Skeptical' nitpickers could say that there is no demonstrated means by which mercury ions could reach the DNA in order to attach to it as per the theory. They would point out that the DNA is in working normal life not loosely and openly floating around in body fluids but instead is confined to a very controlled environment of proteins such as histones and secluded away inside the protective membrane of the cell's nucleus which in turn is some way in from the cell's lipid bilayer outer membrane. They would further point out that the DNA is to a large extent tightly curled up in condensed inactive form, further inhibiting unconstrained access by rogue mercury atoms. They would claim that mercury would have already bound with sulphydryls of proteins before it could get to the DNA. They would claim that mercury is bound much more strongly to other things than to DNA (though not sure if there's any real evidence on that).

Those who dismissed Wegener's continental drift theory could not show any videos or even photos from under the Earth to substantiate their assertions. And likewise those who would dismiss the idea of mercury getting to the DNA can't actually show any proof that mercury never gets to it. And despite even some of those queries listed above being true, they do not genuinely undermine the case, as I will now explain.

The antiinnatia theory does not entail a notion that most or even a high proportion of gene-expression is suppressed by antiinnatia. If it were then it would surely result in non-life or at the very least a being that had little resemblance to a human. On the contrary, antiinnatia theory entails only a very small proportion of gene-expression being suppressed, perhaps 1/1000th or less to produce an autism diagnosis condition. Furthermore it is not being suggested that all children exposed to mercury become autistic, rather only a small minority. And even they only become affected by the mercury after 18 months or so, in accordance with the evidence shown in the update paper.

Furthermore there is the fallacious notion that mercury is absolutely a "bad" "toxic" thing such that the organism's mechanisms could only be designed to keep it out. On the contrary, the whole point of the antiinnatia theory is that antiinnatia is highly advantageous provided it does not reach the excessive levels which manifest as autism.

And so, at lower levels, mercury as an antiinnatia factor would not be opposed by the organism but actually positively selected for. There would be natural selection positive selection of processes (or 'faults') which passively or even actively admit mercury to access the DNA. I don't mean flooding the DNA with mercury, but merely allowing just a very few atoms of Hg to sprinkle themselves sparsely on the DNA. DNA strands are rather complex molecules. It is quite conceivable that there are occasional locations among all that complexity at which a mercury atom could find itself relatively welcome and unrepelled.

That is clearly a far from unreasonable concept. Everyone is free to choose their own reckoning of the burden of proof in this matter, but it looks to me like the common-sense burden of proof lies with any "skeptics" to show that the mercury could not even occasionally, even after 18 months constant exposure, even in very modest doses get to the DNA, rather than the burden being to show that it does.

Should I say that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? No, because there is not an absence of evidence. In the update review I will show the compelling abundance of other (including non-biochemical) evidence that mercury is an antiinnatia factor. That's what gives me faith in the unseen, faith that the binding to DNA that has been decisively shown in vitro also occurs in living human beings.