Fascinating article and the work it takes to actually construct theses pieces (images, photos, etc.) is noteworthy, but I have a problem. Your history of the epidemiology of autism only provides a folkloric background: it is a bit like giving a history on the procedures used to discover gold to explain gold, when what one actually wants scientifically is the periodic table. I simply leave a landmark here for a future, probably non-existent, public debate.

The problem of autism can not be understood in a vacuum, nor historically, nor epidemiologically. Autism should be situated within its periodic table, which clinically speaking is a psychotic structure with two sub-classes: that of paranoia ( schizophrenia being polar opposite category) and alzheimer’s. If these structural relations can be established, then the etiological relations become clearer: psychosis (autism => paranoia =>alzheimer’s). Once these correlations are brought out, it is simple to regard, not historically, but structurally that not only is autism on the rise, but paranoia and alzheimer’s. To use the periodic table analogy again, to say that there is an augmentation of a chemical element, air, for instance, it does not suffice to simply look at oxygen, but argon and nitrogen. Rarely is any one element found in its pure state.

The question of whether such a rise is because of vaccinations or something else, I defer a response on here. The problem cannot, however, be resolved at the level of history and epidemiology. But one may notice, if the structural relations just proposed can be confirmed (I am currently writing this into an everyday language version for a Medium publication), and if there is a rise today for autism just as there is for paranoia and alzheimer’s, no vaccines are being proposed as cause for the latter.

Cheers,

S