The Paradox of Autism Causation Studies

The paradox of autism causation studies is that we already know beyond a reasonable doubt what’s causing autism, but mainstream science will never “know” in the conventional way because of economic and political factors surrounding the autism epidemic. 

Let’s start with the first half of that sentence: 

1. We Already Know

Eyewitness testimony is foundational to our criminal justice system and is relied upon by judges and juries every day to administer justice. In Neil v. Biggers (1972), the US Supreme Court outlined five factors for evaluating reliability of eyewitness testimony: opportunity to view, degree of attention, accuracy of description, level of certainty, and time between crime and identification. That testimony can then be corroborated by documentary evidence and additional witnesses. 

Parental testimony about autistic regression is at the highest end of the range in every case. Parents are with the child 24/7, the degree of attention could not possibly be higher, the parents know more details about the child’s life than anyone, they are certain about what they saw, and they generally know right away when something is wrong. In a sane society, the following testimony would be sufficient: 

Your honor, my baby was perfectly healthy and meeting all of his developmental milestones. We went to a child “well baby” visit, my child got 4 shots. Over the next several days my child was with me 24 hours a day. He had a high fever, seizures, vomited, and screamed at a high pitch. We went to the emergency room, they ran a bunch of tests, but they couldn’t help us. Since then the child no longer speaks, makes eye contact, or has any social skills. The child now has a diagnosis of autism.