Review of 'Autism Revisited: (expanded 2022 version) <br/>Serendipitous Observations and Theory Relevant To Autism'

In response to previous peer reviews, I discussed the reasoning 
behind the length of my work, approach to content, and non-standard 
organizational format. In responding to my third peer review, I chose
to discuss the fundamental reasoning that lead to this research, and 
how this reflects on the lack of statistical tables, confirmatory 
experiments, pictures, et al. 

The word "serendipitous" begins this paper, and refers to fortuitous or 
lucky discoveries (or observations in this case) not sought for. Such
was the case as I began my research.

I began by researching for autism treatment options that would lead to 
positive outcomes. Descriptions of the biophysical effects of these various 
preperations and supplements would often be listed. After eliminating the 
psychotropic mwdications, the remaining treatments displayed a curious and 
unexpected pattern. Autism treatments appeared to either enhance or suppress 
enzyme production, or enhance or suppress immune function. This fortuitous 
observation, lead to further investigations into the biophysical nature 
of autism. Other researchers had previously noted  many immunological 
and enzymatic irregularites in autistic children not found in atypical 
children. It seemed reasonable therefore, that if these biophysical 
abnormalities could be corrected, the autistic condition might be improved. 
Administration of such supplements however, would frequently produce 
first a positive outcome, and then with increasing dosage, a negative 
outcome. This was regardles of whether they were immune or enzymatic 
response enhancing or reducing. My initial conclusions were that either 
autism was caused by two problems fundamental to both enzyme and immune 
production/regulation, or one problem that existed somewhere between 
these two broad and complex processes.

After  prolonged study of all the candidate supplements, two appropriate 
and contrasting preperations were chosen. Both were commonly available 
and generally considered benign in nature. Saccharomyces cerevisiae (ordinary 
beer yeast), supported phase II enzyme pruduction. In opposition, plain soy 
milk which enhanced the TH2 portion of the immune system was also chosen. 
Homeopathic dosages which resulted in no changes whatsoever were gradually 
increased untill observable changes were produced. It quickly became evident 
that I could modify teenager X autism at will by alternating these two 
supplements. These observations led to only one reasonable conclusion. Some 
balencing mechanism intermediate to both metabolism and immunity was 
compromised. After several years of extensive research in the published 
literature, I was then able to expanded my hypothesis into a comprehensive 
theory for the prevention and treatment of autism, as well as a theoretical  
intrinsic mechanism.

As a result, several of the  common aspects of research papers such as 
statistical references, additional experiments, variable manipulation, or 
pictures, did not appear appropriate to this work. 

Lastly, the double title in Discussion 5, reflected on the most critical 
arguement against my research conclusions. It became clear that without a
comprehensive and detailed explanation of how non-vaccinated children become 
autistic, and why the majority of vaccinated children do not become autistic, 
my entire theory would be questionable. After an additional year of research, 
a second and more comprehensive version of my work emerged. It is hoped that 
all possible questions regarding this theory and the paper that contains it, 
have now been reasonably answered. It awaits testing.