

Gradual regression notably in line with the theory's gradual causation

It has this month been reported that the regressive form of autism does not tend to have an abrupt start (as commonly perceived, especially by those blaming vaccines for causing a sudden start of the condition). Instead the condition develops gradually from age 6 months up to 3 years (and possibly onwards as the study stopped there).

This is of course very compatible with the causation proposed in the update review of the antiinnatia theory, because that causation itself does not strike suddenly (like a vaccination shot) but instead builds up gradually with the infant's cumulating constant inhalation [breathing in] of the mother's dental mercury vapor.

The accompanying observation that parents tend to under-perceive their child's abnormality can be simply understood in terms of the universal natural reluctance to believe bad news. Which for a parent who already has an autistic child, is even badder news.


  1. With respect, surely if autism flows from an embryo exposed to dental mercury, a correlation could be found (or not, as the case may be)? Is this the case, and if so, is that what yr articles say?

  2. Yes indeed a causality could be like that (and in many cases likely is), but that's not quite what my articles propose. The published (1993) part of my theory didn't mention mercury except by unknowing implication (i.e. molecules that bind to DNA and thereby interfere with gene-expression). The update of the theory, not yet published, is primarily concerned with my hypothesised cause of the increase of autism. The main idea there is not mercury exposure to the embryo (before birth), but only breathing in mercury vapor (from the mother's breath) after birth. A sort of passive smoking of teeth. Which provides an explanation of why the increased autism is an increase in later-onset autism rather than starting at birth.


This is a 100% free speech zone.