Well, the original study was published in the Clinical Epigenetics Journal.
Epigenetics is kinda sorta a little bit like our regular understanding of genetics.
But epigenetics has to do not so much with what genes you may or may not have, but which of those genes are or are not turned on.
And the turning on/turning off of the genes is highly affected by environmental factors.
“And the turning on/turning off of the genes is highly affected by environmental factors.”
Such as mercury, zinc or hfcs or something else.
For all we know, it could even be the result of kids watching Big Bird and other TV shows for hours instead of playing with toys or their friends. But that is for another thread...
Epigenetics is kinda sorta a little bit like our regular understanding of genetics.
But epigenetics has to do not so much with what genes you may or may not have, but which of those genes are or are not turned on.
And the turning on/turning off of the genes is highly affected by environmental factors.
Actually, since I'm a PhD level biochemist, I'm fairly aware of the emerging field of epigenetics. I'd be interested in working in that field if I were still a bench (research) scientist.
My previous comment was based on the attribution of autism on the consumption of eating one particular kind of naturally occurring sugar from one particular source. There is no difference in fructose from different sources.
A big problem with studies that I didn't mention in my previous comment is that, at the P < 0.05 level of significance that is the standard for accepting something as biologically relevant, 1 out of 20 studies makes the wrong conclusion.