Archive for the ‘Autism’ Category

Yet Another Highly Unethical & Socially Irresponsible “Genes-Only” Study Fails to Show That Autism is 80% “Genetic”

Yet Another Highly Unethical and Socially Irresponsible “Genes-Only” Study Fails to Show that Autism is 80% “Genetic”

by jameslyonsweiler

In a WebMD article, the results from a large genetic-factor-only study gleefully reports that the newest, highest-ever estimate of the for percent liability of autism risk that can be attributed to “genetics” is 80%, leaving the remaining 20% to environmental factors.

The article also claims that this new, highest estimate is reported by the study authors to be “…roughly in line with those from prior, smaller studies on the issue, further bolstering their validity“.

Consistent Results From Invalid Methodology Does not Make Those Results “Valid”.  It Makes Them “Consistent”.

The “roughly in line with” is an appeal to consistency.  But the Liability Threshold Models differ from other approaches methodologically. Previous studies, one of which was conducted by the same group of researchers, had estimates that ranged from 0 to 99% heritability.  The average, until this group started using liability-threshold models, was around 40% attribution to genetics. Their studies increased the average, but it still hovered around 50% liability.  Only the liability threshold models, used by this group, show results around 80% liability.  So their method is consistent with itself.  No surprise there. But that’s nowhere near “roughly in line” with all prior studies.


One of those studies is discussed in the article “Non-genetic factors play surprisingly large role in determining autism, says study by group“.

Why Autism is Not “Genetic”

The article skips over the fact that the newest, latest study, like the prior studies, fails to actually measure the contribution of a single environmental factor.  While the article rails against “anti-vaxxers”, the study ignores the vaccination status of those involved in the study.  The mantra of so many studies never showing association has be tempered with a mature, responsible and realstic interpretation in the context of how those studies were conducted: restricted to one vaccine (MMR), and then there is this:


Assumptions Without Measurement Lead to Assumptions as Conclusions

Their entire methodology is based on familial correlations. In the current study under consideration, no exposure levels to pesticides, medical exposures in utero, smoking history, nothing environmental was measured.  And yet somehow the study authors pretend they can estimate the % liability from environmental factors.  How do they pretend to achieve such a feat?

The first problem is that they have not measured any interaction between genetics and environmental factors.  There is, in fact, established knowledge of special risk of autism that involves combined risk of specific genes and specific environmental factors.  (Check out, for example, Bowers and Erickson (2014):2

Their Liability Threshold Model Approach is Both Under- and Mis-Specified

You really have to understand population genetics a bit to get this next part, so I apologize to the lay public, but please take what understanding you can from this:

Their model (generically represented) is

ASD risk  =  “Genetics” + e

where = measurement error, leaving whatever variation appears to be unexplained to Environment.  That’s unusal because the usual interpretation of such unexplained variation is “Error” and “Unknown Variation”.   In technical terms, their model is underspecified.  Environmental variation is not “Error” in a genetic model, it’s “Environmental Variation”.

If they HAD measured environmental factors, say, vaccination exposure, their model form would be

ASD risk = “Genetics” + “Environment” + e

but this model would still be underspecified.

The more fully specified model would be

ASD risk = “Genetics” + “Environment“+ “(Genetics x Environment)” + e

And if the interaction term “(Genetics + Environment)” is more highly significant than “Genetics” or “Environment“, a reasonable interpretation would be that we cannot interpret genetics in a vacuum, that the significance of many ADK risk alleles must be modified by environmental factors.  If during model selection, G or E is significant, but then in the full model G x E is significant, we attribute liability to both G and E working together.

Instead of this standard approach to studying genetic and environmental contribution to phenotypic variation (ASD phenotype), they do something very odd.

In the Supplementary Material, they report that they made assumptions about environmental factors.  Non-specified “Shared Environmental” effects are ASSUMED to be 1.0 for siblings and 0 for cousins.  Families quite often stop vaccinating after an older sibling experiences seizures.  The study authors also EQUATE “Non-Shared Environmental Factors” with “residual errors”, which is patently absurd.  That’s “e“, which is unspecified variation (error), not designated environmental factors.

If I had conducted an analysis of environmental factors and their contribution to ASD, and used their methodology, I would be able to attribute any unexplained variation to “Genetics” after allowing “Environmental Factors” to consume most of the variation.  I might arbitrarily add in some assumptions, such as assuming that risk from dominant alleles were 1.0 (which they are not, if the impact of those alleles are modified by environmental factors) and all recessive risk alleles contributed zero risk, which would be, as described, arbitary.  Their conclusions draw directly from their assumptions.

Evidence? What Evidence?

The WebMD article cites the entire team of researchers as saying “the current study results provide the strongest evidence to our knowledge to date that the majority of risk for autism spectrum disorders is from genetic factors,” [‘said a team led by Sven Sandin, an epidemiological researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden’] – as quoted by WebMD.

Evidence?  What evidence? If you assume no contribution of environment, measure no environment, and conclude no contribution, there is no evidence.

There are over 850 genes that have been determined to contribute to ASD risk – and not one of them explain >1% of ASD risk individually.  Most of these are Common Variants – meaning they are ancient – as in, they pre-date both the ASD epidemic (and yes, there is an epidemic) and vaccination.  Here’s a figure from my book, which reviews all of the genetic and environmental studies published to mid-2016:



This explains why ASD pedigrees look like humanity dipping its toes into a toxic soup:


The study also does not explain why >20% of children with ASD have higher copy number variation – de novo genetic variation – compared to the rest of the population, nor why people with ASD – and their mothers – have anti-brain protein antibodies – nor why people with ASD have strange mis-folded proteins, lifelong microglial activation, why studies of replacing the microbiome show a reduction in the severity of autism traits by 50%… a feat for a diagnosis that is allegedly 80% “genetic”… and so on, and so on.

Then There is Phenomimicry

The study ignores the fact that environmental factors can impact genes, proteins and biological pathways in a manner that is identical to the effects of genetic variation. This is called Phenomimicry – a term so cool I wish I had invented it.  Examples of Phenomimicry are known in science relevant to ASD.


“Guess What? Being Human is Heritable”

It’s worth pointing out that thousands of human “traits” are heritable, and that includes traits that contribute to sociality, language ability, intellect, and even perhap tendancy toward repetitive motion.  That means that genetic studies must subtract the heritability of these traits in the non-ASD population from the estimate of heritability in their contribution to ASD.


The WebMD article, and the article itself, lauds the study for involving over 2 million people from five countries.  This is not impressive because the study falls into the category of “Science-Like Activities“.


It is highly unethical – and socially irresponsible  – for “Genes-only” studies to be conducted that claim to rule out environmental factors.  All “Yet Another Highly Unethical Genes-only Study”s – YAHUGS – should be replaced with fully and correctly specified models – that means measuring and studying both vaccination patterns and genetics.

WebMD article on

James Lyons-Weiler

Allison Park, PA

Note: A layman’s example will help.  Let’s say you want to understand thumb injuries among carpenters,and you specify a model

Risk of Injury = Hammer Size

You SHOULD also include Length of Nail, i.e.,

Risk of Injury = Hammer Size + Length of Nail

but it is socially unacceptable to conduct science on the Length of Nail.  So you leave it out.  You then model

Risk of Injury = Hammer Size + e

and incorrectly attribute variation in the “Length of Nails” to “e“.

You SHOULD specify

Risk of Injury = Hammer Size + Length of Nail + (Hammer Size x Length of Nail) + e

But that pesky social pressure to ignore Length of Nail goes a long way.

So you don’t know “(Hammer Size x Length of Nail)“because you do not know Length of Nail.

So you attribute everything to “Hammer Size”, totally ignorant of any direct or interactive effect of the “Length of Nail“and “Hammer Size“.

So you conclude “Hammer Size explains more than Length of Nails” when you should publish

“We Do Not Know the Effect of Length of Nails in Isolation nor with Interaction with Hammer Size”.

You can support me in my initiatives – going live in the fall with the WWDNYK Studios – join on Patreon where these and other pressing issues will be discussed with live guests.

For more:

Autism Talk Tonight (July 17, 2019)

A Talk About Autism

TONIGHT – Wednesday, July 17th at MD Custom Rx in Brookfield, WI
MD Custom Rx – 19035 W Capitol Dr. STE 105 Brookfield, WI (In the Sendiks Towne Center)

07/17/19 6:30pm – 8:00pm
Serenity Health Care Center’s Dr. Erica Linn, DNP, will be speaking at MD Custom Rx in Brookfield, WI, tonight, July 17th! Dr. Linn, DNP will be speaking on Autism, her doctoral work and AutismOne! 🌱
The cost is $10 per person, received as a customer credit the day of the event.
Call (262) 373-1050 to register!

Autism Affecting Up to 1 in 36 Children in America

Autism Affecting Up to 1 in 36 Children in America

Autism Affecting Up to 1 in 36 Children in America

In April 2018, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report estimating the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in the United States at 1 in 59 children. The figure was based on a 2014 survey of eight-year-old children across 11 residential communities in the country, so clearly it was out of date. It was not a valid estimate of the prevalence of ASD in the U.S. in 2017 or 2018,1 and we don’t know what the figure is for 2019.

As pediatrician Bob Sears, MD notes, the “main drawback” of this methodology by the CDC is that it takes “many years to research and report data this way, and the information is very old by the time we get it.” Dr. Sears adds:

For example, for kids born in 2004, the CDC had to wait until they were are 8 years old (2012), then take two years to gather the data on diagnosis rates, then publish it. So, we didn’t learn the rate of autism in these kids until 10 years after they are born.2

So long as the methodology (notably the four-year lag time and the focus on eight-year-olds) used by the CDC is known and understood, it is not a problem. The public just needs to be aware that the CDC’s autism prevalence figure is always going to be out of date by the time it is released.

A better source for more current information on the prevalence of autism in the U.S. is the National Health Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is the U.S. government’s principal health statistics agency.3

The NCHS conducts nationwide surveys to tabulate health data on different topics, including estimates for how prevalent autism is among children. In 2017, the NCHS published health data for 2014-2016 which pegged the prevalence of autism for children aged 3-17 years at 1 in 36 in 2016, compared to 1 in 43 in 2015 and 1 in 45 in 2014.2

As of 2017, the 1 in 36 figure appeared to be the most current estimate from the U.S. government for the prevalence of autism, not the 1 in 59 figure that has been so commonly cited by the media and other sources for the past year.4 5 6 7

To make things slightly more confusing, there is a new autism prevalence figure in a study published in the journal Pediatrics in December 2018 based on the 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). That study estimates that 1 in 40 children have autism. The NSCH is funded and directed by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).8 9 10


1 Parpia R, Fisher BL. CDC: Autism Rate Going Up. The Vaccine Reaction May 28, 2018.
2 Sears R. Autism Rate Jumps to 1 in 36 Children, 1 in 28 Boys. AskDrSears.
3 National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). U.S. National Library of Medicine.
4 University of Central Florida. Processed foods and effect on developing fetus’ brain: Autism link? Science Daily June 20, 2019.
5 How Common is Autism? Autism Science Foundation.
6 Staff News Writer. Wearable tech supports home therapy for kids with autism. American Medical Association June 21, 2019.
7 Max. I Have Autism and I’m Offended by the Anti-Vax Movement. Newsweek June 19, 2019.
8 Mozes A. Report: Autism Rate Rises to 1 in 40 Children. HealthDay Nov. 26, 2018.
9 Kogan MD, Vladutiu CJ, Schieve LA, Ghandour RM, Blumberg SJ, Zablotsky B, Perrin JM, Shattuck P, Kuhlthau KA, Harwood RL, Lu MC. The Prevalence of Parent-Reported Autism Spectrum Disorder Among US Children. Pediatrics December 2018; 142(6).
10 The National Survey of Children’s Health. Data Resource Center for Child & Adolescent Health.


For more:  CDC scientist William Thompson admitted scientists purposely destroyed data.

“The omitted data suggested that African-American males who
received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased
risk for autism.”  Dr. William Thompson

FYI: A prominent Wisconsin LLMD states 80% of his Autistic and PANS patients ALSO have Lyme/MSIDS involvement.


Blast From the Past – CDC Vaccine Authors Destroy Evidence of Vaccine Harm

Published on Oct 29, 2015

In this blast from the past, Ben Swann of Reality Check, way back in 2015, tells the
story of CDC scientist William Thompson admitted scientists purposely destroyed data.
“The omitted data suggested that African-American males who
received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased
risk for autism.”  Dr. William Thompson
“Decisions were made regarding the findings of the report that the
data was collected and I believe that the final study protocol was not
followed.”  Dr. William Thompson
Thompson ONLY came forth with this AFTER he was secretly recorded by Dr.
Brian Hooker, a father of a vaccine injured child.
Thompson handed over documents about this case to Congressman Bill Posey.
Within the video Posey speaks before Congress about how not only did the authors
of the study withhold vital information, they destroyed evidence.
This shows the depth of depravity the CDC stoops to.
The question begs to be asked,
Should we trust them with ANYTHING?

For more:  This article lists case by case of CDC fraud and corruption.  “When the CDC was notified by Thorsen’s Denmark colleagues about inaccuracies regarding CDC grants and funding, further investigation resulted “in 22 federal criminal counts – 13 counts of wire fraud and 9 counts of money laundering,” which never have been acted upon by the USA or CDC.  Thorsen is hiding in plain sight, working and publishing articles in Denmark, with no extradition apparently requested by the CDC!  How strange?  “The United States has had an Extradition Treaty with Denmark since the Nixon Administration (1974).” (Pg. 4)….

the Danish medical researcher who produced the ‘premiere safety study’ that vaccines do not cause Autism; however, the study was produced fraudulently, but the CDC still promotes it and has not retracted it from vaccinology research, as science protocol requires.”

The CDC is not to be trusted.  Period.




Not Autism


Michael Goldberg, MD

As we are entering another April, you hardly hear much about Autism Awareness (guess everyone that counts IS aware of this terrifying pandemic), and you certainly do not hear about any better answers (medical or otherwise) for parents now, than when Autism Speaks (Feb. 2005) and so many parent groups sprang up to “help “

Why has there been no real help, no real changes in 24++ years?

Sadly, it’s getting easier and easier to explain why. Over all theses year, neither those in charge of our present medical system (impossible to be innocently misdirected at this time) or these groups have wanted to admit the truth; A terrible mistake was made (and still being perpetuated), these children must have a medical disease, because most have organic (medical – motor) issues, and for the reason below do not fit or qualify for what IS being called “autism.” 

IF multiple times over in the 40s, 50s, 60s, Dr. Kanner and other worldwide prominent psychiatrists argued, stood up, and fought for the idea this new idea of “autism” was unique from other childhood schizophrenias; AND unless a child met the strict criteria set up, a child did not have “autism”!!!

As discussed, many times, those strict criteria included:

  1. a child was never affectionate(never in our world to be affectionate)
  2. a child was never normal (part of never being in our world, connected, etc.) and critically
  3. if there was an organic finding (i.e. motor issues) one could not be given a psychiatric, DSM label.

IF the system won’t change, the organized groups won’t change, how many of you as parents are ready to finally change, ready to come together in the one fight NEVER done over ALL these years. Your children are ill, they do not have a DSM, psychiatric, developmental label called autism and you want immediate medical help for your children, a medical crisis that has been completely ignored for well over 24++ years. 

If enough of you can come together, create a new organization focused on the right solution (starts with this is NOT autism), this April could be the start of real hope for all of you and your families. IF not, sadly safe to say, nothing is going to change . . . hope that statement is finally unacceptable to many more of you. You and your children deserve a lot more, and a real change for a better future . . . not same old, same old.

Michael Goldberg, MD



Dr. Goldberg makes very important and valid points.  Without the correct definition, patients can not get appropriate treatment.

This is true in the Lyme/MSIDS world as well.  Mainstream medicine is calling this complex illness “Lyme Disease,” when it typically is so much more than that.

Research has proven this is typically a polymicrobial illness causing a wide range of symptoms – each necessitating different treatment:

Mainstream medicine also hasn’t admitted that borrelia alone is a formidable foe that is pleomorphic requiring different medications for each form

They also push the “classic EM rash” criteria, when far fewer get it than is being touted:  Nearly ALL research being done uses the EM criteria as a starting point, leaving out thousands of patients.

Mainstream research on Lyme/MSIDS has used abysmal blood serology testing for decades, suppressing direct detection methods:  Again, this leaves out thousands of patients in research.

And, importantly, there’s far more at play than the vilified black legged tick:


Mattman isolated living Borrelia spirochetes in mosquitoes, fleas, mites, semen, urine, blood, plasma and Cerebral Spinal Fluid. She discovered that this bacteria is dangerous because it can survive and spread without cell wall (L shape). Because L-forms do not possess cell wall, they are resistant to antibiotics that act upon the cell wall.

Others have found various ways Bb is transmitted as well: