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 But I had already explained in my 1993 paper (and unpublished section about IQ) that the opposite of autism is common-or-garden low IQ.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!