Shining Light on Autism Research Funding Priorities

A man loses his keys on a street.  Another man comes along and asks him where he lost them. The man says, “Over there,” pointing to a bush several feet away. “Then why are you looking over here?” the fellow asks. “Because that’s where the light is,” he retorts.

The streetlight metaphor is a perfect fit for what’s wrong with autism research priorities.  Once is a while an independently funded study finds contributed risk due to proximity to point source pollution, such as farm fields in California, or areas being sprayed withe anti-mosquito pesticides in upstate New York, or correlations of serum levels of organic pollutants in Pennsylvania.


Until the hypothesis that Autism is an Acquired Cellular Detoxification Deficiency Syndrome with Heterogeneous Genetic Predisposition  and until exposures to environmental factors, including vaccines, are including in genetic studies, with a focus on the significance of the gene x environmental term, an ever-increasing number of genes will be found and the true shared contribution of genes and environmental factors will remain untested.

By design.

Federal and foundation funding should require both environmental and genetic factors and they should require the use of the model

ASD Risk = Genes + Environment + (Genes x Environment)

The ER Hyperstress hypothesis predicts that many ASD genes will be found to be hard to fold, causing ER Stress (Source 1) and that aluminum and mercury from vaccines will be found to cause ER Stress (Source 2).  The combined ER Stress is called ER Hyperstress, and predicts that acquired cellular detoxification deficiency will cause a retention of environmental toxins by people on their way to an ASD diagnosis or already with an ASD diagnosis.

Studies that find early differences in brain architecture in people with ASD cannot rule out vaccines, either; mothers are now vaccinated during pregnancy, and the differences maybe risk biomarkers for vaccine-induced encephalopathy-mediated autism.

We need Science, not “science”.


Allison Park, PA




  1. How right you are about all of this. As a parent, I cannot emphasize enough that the failure of government, industry and medicine to honestly address the origin of autism makes it all the more likely that future parents will reject artificial immunity via vaccines completely. Had the medical and research community been as discerning and honest as you are we might not be in this predicament. Thank you for addressing this!

    1. Thanks, and you’re welcome. People need to contact their legislators and ask them for a bill for $1US Billion for EXTRAmural research funding for neurodevelopment research reform!

  2. Genetic component? Probably. For me personally, I’m believing my PD was caused by Aluminium x Mercury! Any time someone is exposed to Hg during the 7 year 1/2 life period of Al they are at tremendous risk. I believe my PD was brought on after
    Lymrix x3 in 1998 x unsafe removal of Amalgam (Hg) fillings in 2002. PD 2003!

    1. Rwesol, I suspect highest risk from dual exposure as well – no one every studied that possibility. Instead, the studied thimerosal-containing vaccines (TCVs) vs. non-TCVs – an found better healthoutcome w/TCV, so the they invoked the ad-hoc hypothesis that maybe thimerosal confers some mysterious protection, rather than reporting non-TCVs (i.e., aluminum containing vaccines) may be more dangerous. Many in the ACV group rec’d TCVs like influenza, so they may have rec’d doses of both. And yes, mercury amalgams are still poisoning people. Thank goodness for biological dentistry.

Leave a Reply