The War on Neurodivergence: How Misinformation Shapes Policy and Endangers Lives

How Pseudoscience Manufactures Fear, Fuels Legislation, and Threatens Neurodivergent Lives

This just in …

Headline: Groundbreaking Study Links Autism to Dihydrogen Monoxide Exposure and Phospholipase C Zeta in Maternal Eggs

Universidad Tierra de Nadie researchers identify the ultimate cause of autism, paving the way for prevention and early intervention.

Dewey, Cheetum, & Howe (2025). Diari de disbarats complets i absoluts, 45(3), 112-134.

Abstract

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) remains one of the most pressing public health concerns of the modern era, yet its precise etiology has remained elusive. In a first-of-its-kind epidemiological analysis, we examined the impact of maternal exposure to dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) and the presence of phospholipase C zeta (PLCζ) in oocytes as potential causal factors in ASD development. Our findings reveal a 100% correlation between DHMO consumption and the presence of PLCζ in mothers of autistic children, a groundbreaking discovery that challenges existing paradigms in neurodevelopmental research. We argue that targeted public health interventions addressing maternal health and reproductive enzyme activity may provide a viable pathway for autism prevention.

Introduction

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by differences in social communication, sensory processing, and repetitive behaviours. Whilst research has explored a range of potential contributing factors—including genetic predisposition, environmental exposures, and prenatal influences—no singular cause has been definitively identified (Smythe & Jones, 2021).

Recent work suggests that maternal factors may play a crucial role in ASD development (Nguyen et al., 2023). Prior studies have examined maternal diet (Peterson et al., 2022), stress levels (Anderson & Patel, 2024), and environmental pollutants (Zhang et al., 2023) as potential risk factors. However, one common denominator among all mothers of autistic children has gone overlooked: universal exposure to dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) during pregnancy. Furthermore, recent molecular studies indicate that phospholipase C zeta (PLCζ)—a key enzyme in human oocytes—plays a central role in fertilization and early embryonic development (Lee et al., 2023).

Given the known biochemical properties of DHMO (which is a major component of industrial solvents, nuclear power plants, and even pesticide production) and the presence of PLCζ in all maternal eggs, our study aims to explore the link between these two factors and ASD. This investigation represents the most comprehensive analysis of maternal exposure to DHMO and PLCζ activity to date.

Methods

Data Collection

We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 50,000 mother-child pairs enrolled in Spain’s universal healthcare system between 2010 and 2020. Data was extracted from the National Autism Registry, cross-referenced with maternal health records, birth certificates, and self-reported water consumption logs.

To assess PLCζ presence, we examined archived ovum samples from a subset of 1,200 mothers whose children were later diagnosed with ASD. A control group of non-autistic siblings was also analysed to compare enzyme expression levels.

Statistical Analysis

We employed binomial logistic regression models to assess the likelihood of autism diagnosis based on maternal DHMO exposure and PLCζ presence. Covariates including maternal age, socioeconomic status, and geographic region were controlled for. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

1. Dihydrogen Monoxide Exposure

• 100% of mothers of autistic children had consumed DHMO at some point during pregnancy.

• In contrast, 100% of non-autistic children’s mothers had also consumed DHMO, demonstrating the pervasiveness of this exposure.

• Further analysis revealed increased ASD risk among mothers who ingested DHMO in liquid form as opposed to vapor or solid states.

2. Presence of PLCζ in Maternal Eggs

• All examined mothers carried PLCζ in their oocytes, confirming a striking 100% association between PLCζ and autism.

• This correlation was consistent across all ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds.

• Autistic children were exclusively born from PLCζ-containing oocytes, while non-autistic children were also born from PLCζ-containing oocytes, albeit at a lower rate (100% vs. 100%).

3. Dose-Response Relationship

• A sub-analysis suggested a potential threshold effect—mothers who consumed higher volumes of DHMO during pregnancy exhibited an increased likelihood of birthing twice-exceptional (2e) autistic children, characterised by exceptional intellectual ability alongside ASD traits.

• No such correlation was found among neurotypical siblings.

Discussion

Our findings provide compelling evidence that maternal exposure to DHMO and the presence of PLCζ in oocytes represents a direct causal mechanism in autism development. These findings challenge the dominant genetic and neurobiological models, instead positioning biochemical and environmental factors as the primary determinants of ASD etiology.

The public health implications of these results are profound. Given that DHMO is present in nearly all public water supplies, immediate policy interventions are necessary to mitigate maternal exposure. Alternative hydration strategies, including controlled dehydration protocols and intravenous non-DHMO-based fluid replacement therapies, should be explored in future clinical trials.

In addition, the presence of PLCζ in maternal eggs suggests that preimplantation genetic screening and targeted enzymatic suppression may be viable methods to prevent ASD onset at conception. Further research into PLCζ-inhibiting compounds is warranted to determine their effectiveness in ASD prevention strategies.

Whilst our results align with prior research demonstrating environmental influences on ASD (Nguyen et al., 2023), this is the first study to establish a direct biochemical pathway leading to autism.

Conclusion

This study represents a paradigm shift in autism research. The identification of DHMO ingestion and PLCζ expression as necessary preconditions for ASD provides an unprecedented opportunity for prevention and early intervention.

Future research should explore DHMO-free birthing environments, as well as maternal interventions designed to reduce PLCζ activity prior to conception. Given the statistical power of our findings, we urge policymakers, healthcare providers, and expectant mothers to re-evaluate prenatal health guidelines in light of this groundbreaking discovery.

Conflict of Interest Statement:

None declared. However, the lead author, Dr. Howe, is currently developing a patented PLCζ inhibitor for pre-conceptional use and has filed preliminary regulatory approvals.

Acknowledgments:

We would like to thank Spain’s Ministry of Hydration and Oocyte Regulation (MHOR) for their support in conducting this research.

---

But seriously folks, whilst the above may seem laughable if you know a bit about Spanish, chemistry, and how the human reproductive system works, it’s worth considering: would this really read any differently than the recent study claiming a link between vaccines and autism? If a credentialed researcher were behind this, would media outlets report it uncritically? Would policymakers cite it in legislative hearings?

---

The Perils of Not Knowing What You’re Reading

The ability to critically assess scientific research has never been more crucial, yet scientific illiteracy is widespread, allowing even the most ludicrous claims to be taken seriously. Most people—including journalists, policymakers, and even some scientists outside their field—lack the training to evaluate study methodology, statistical validity, or potential conflicts of interest. This makes it alarmingly easy for bad actors to dress up nonsense as cutting-edge research, banking on the fact that few will read beyond the abstract. It’s how we end up with studies that claim vaccines cause autism, that maternal stress is solely responsible for neurodevelopmental conditions, or, in the case of our satirical study, that drinking dihydrogen monoxide (water) while carrying PLCζ-containing eggs (as every mother does) is a direct cause of autism. Absurd? Yes. But structured properly, with the right jargon and statistical gymnastics, such a claim can slip past the casual reader as entirely plausible.

Fringe journals and bogus peer review create the perfect environment for these claims to flourish. Predatory publishers prioritise volume over scrutiny, allowing studies to be published with little to no real oversight. Take, for example, Universidad Tierra de Nadie (literally, Nobody’s Land University) and its highly regarded journal, Diari de disbarats complets i absoluts (Journal of Complete and Utter Nonsense). If such an institution and publication actually existed, it would be the ideal home for pseudoscience masquerading as legitimate research. But in reality, we already have journals operating on this exact model. Science, Public Health Policy and the Law exists solely to provide “evidence” for pre-determined conclusions rather than to test hypotheses through rigorous scientific inquiry. They function much like the evidence mills in education—manufacturing just enough credibility to secure funding, influence policy, and give ideological movements something to cite when challenged.

The process is remarkably simple: set up a journal, claim it is peer-reviewed, publish studies that reinforce a particular agenda, and then use those studies as “proof” to give the illusion of scientific consensus. This is how the anti-vaccine movement has kept itself alive despite overwhelming evidence debunking its claims. It’s not about science—it’s about laundering propaganda into something that looks like science. Once published, these studies enter a predictable media pipeline. Outlets like The Telegraph and Daily Mail pick them up, often without scrutiny, running sensationalised headlines that strip away any remaining nuance. “Could Drinking Water During Pregnancy Be the Hidden Cause of Autism?” might sound too ridiculous to print, but in the right hands, it would be reworked just enough to sow doubt and generate clicks. Social media influencers then amplify these stories, distilling them into dangerously misleading soundbites. Suddenly, a junk study becomes an internet talking point, shared thousands of times, repeated in legislative hearings, cited in court cases, and used to justify harmful policies.

The anti-vax study we are debunking follows this exact pattern, employing statistical sleight of hand and cherry-picked data to generate a conclusion that aligns with a predetermined agenda. By publishing it in a pay-to-publish journal (aka, open access), the authors give it a veneer of credibility, allowing it to be cited alongside legitimate, independently verified research. It’s the same trick used in our fictional Universidad Tierra de Nadie study—drown the reader in technical jargon, present an unavoidable correlation between two things that naturally always co-exist, and conclude that one must cause the other. It’s a confidence trick in academic drag, exploiting scientific illiteracy to turn ideology into “fact.”

This is how misinformation operates. It’s not enough to tell people the study is bad—we have to show how it was designed to mislead, who benefits from its existence, and why these tactics are effective. Otherwise, we end up in an endless loop where nonsense studies are debunked, only for new ones to take their place, endlessly weaponised against the most vulnerable among us.

How US Law Allows This to Thrive

The proliferation of junk science isn’t just an accident of bad research—it’s actively enabled by the legal and economic structures that reward misinformation. Pay-to-publish journals thrive under a capitalist education model that treats knowledge as a commodity rather than a collective good. These journals don’t have to follow real peer review standards because rigorous oversight is bad for business. Their entire existence depends on volume, not validity. The more papers they publish, the more fees they collect, and the more studies exist for ideological movements to cite. This isn’t a bug in the system—it’s a feature, designed to serve those who benefit from the mass production of bad information.

Nowhere is this dynamic more obvious than in the legal arena, where fake studies are deployed as weapons. In vaccine court cases, anti-vax litigants rely on overloading the trier of fact with an avalanche of dubious research, creating the illusion of a genuine scientific controversy. This tactic, often called “firehosing,” isn’t about making a persuasive argument—it’s about burying judges and juries in so much conflicting information that they can’t process it effectively in a short amount of time. Add to this the CSI Effect, where juries are predisposed to side with the prosecution because of cultural biases toward “expert testimony,” and suddenly, junk science doesn’t just survive—it wins cases. This has real consequences, as fraudulent studies gain legal legitimacy, get cited in future litigation, and are used to push policies that harm public health.

Beyond the courtroom, these weak regulations are exploited by multiple industries. The pharmaceutical lawsuit industry benefits from the existence of anti-vax “research” that can be used in injury claims, regardless of its validity. The autism ‘treatment’ industry—which thrives on desperate parents seeking a cure—relies on a steady stream of pseudoscience to justify expensive and often harmful interventions. Meanwhile, political actors weaponise bad research to shape public policy, attacking vaccines, disability rights, and public health initiatives under the guise of “scientific debate.” The result? A self-reinforcing system where bad studies fuel bad laws, which then create incentives for even more bad studies.

Lurking behind all of this is the rise of pseudo-scientific think tanks, which function as propaganda mills for ideological causes. These groups present themselves as research institutions, but they exist solely to generate studies that support their funders’ personal and political agendas. Whether it’s autism, vaccines, climate change, or economic policy, the formula is the same: manufacture research, publish it in a low-credibility but official-looking journal, amplify it through media and political channels, and watch as it reshapes public perception. The goal isn’t truth—it’s influence, and it works because capitalism rewards misinformation when it serves power.

At the heart of this system is money. There is no profit in scientific consensus, but there is an endless market for controversy. Autism research and vaccine discourse are lucrative precisely because they are polarising. When there’s an industry profiting off the existence of a problem, that problem is never going to be solved—it will be sustained, manipulated, and exploited for financial and political gain. The fight against junk science isn’t just about debunking bad studies—it’s about recognising that this system is designed to keep them coming, indefinitely.

Reser’s Solitary Forager Hypothesis & The Evolutionary Case for Autism

Autism has never been a disorder—it is a neurotype, one shaped and preserved by natural selection because it conferred distinct evolutionary advantages. Reser’s Solitary Forager Hypothesis challenges the dominant pathology-based view of autism, instead positioning it as an adaptation finely tuned for survival in hunter-gatherer societies. Whilst mainstream narratives pathologise autistic traits as deficits, Reser argues that they are precisely the skills needed for solitary foraging—tasks that required deep focus, pattern recognition, and a keen ability to navigate complex environments without relying on constant social interaction.

In early human societies, survival depended on a diversity of cognitive styles. Autistic individuals would have excelled at tracking animal patterns, recognising seasonal changes, memorising vast amounts of environmental data, and foraging in isolation for extended periods. In a time before written language, these abilities were not just useful—they were essential. The capacity for non-verbal communication, often framed as an autistic “deficit” today, would have been an asset in environments where silence was crucial for hunting and avoiding predators. Intense interests and hyperfocus, now frequently medicalised, would have meant mastering survival-critical knowledge at a depth that neurotypical peers might not have had the patience for. These traits were not flaws. They were part of a neurodivergent skill set that ensured the survival of early human groups.

Despite this, autism continues to be framed as a modern epidemic, a pathology to be eradicated rather than an integral and enduring part of human cognition. My book, No Place for Autism?, explores how autistic people have always existed within human societies, adapting and contributing in ways that remain undervalued under the rigid structures of capitalism. Historical records, cultural traditions, and ancestral knowledge all point to the persistence of neurodivergence across time, yet today’s institutions treat autism as a recent aberration rather than a naturally occurring cognitive variation.

The idea of “curing” autism is not just scientifically flawed—it is ethically indefensible. To suggest that autism should be eliminated is to argue against the very principles of evolution that have preserved neurodiversity in the human population for millennia. The modern push to eradicate autism is, at its core, a form of eugenics, driven by the belief that only certain cognitive styles are valuable. It is not just an attack on autistic people—it is an attack on the fundamental diversity of human thought. The drive to eliminate neurodivergence is not progress; it is a betrayal of humanity itself.

The Long History of Manufactured Autism Panics and Scientific Fraud

Autism has never been just a “medical diagnosis”—it has been a battleground, manipulated to serve the ideological and economic interests of those in power. The history of autism research is riddled with pseudoscience, from crude early theories to the modern anti-vaccine movement, all following the same pattern: fabricate a crisis, assign blame, and sell a solution. This is not a new phenomenon. It is the latest chapter in a long tradition of scientific fraud used to justify discrimination, from eugenics to race science to phrenology. The current anti-vax movement is simply the latest iteration of this legacy, repackaged for the digital age.

The first major autism panic took root in the 1940s and 50s with Bruno Bettelheim’s Refrigerator Mother Theory, which blamed autism on emotionally cold mothers. Without a shred of real evidence, Bettelheim compared autistic children to Holocaust survivors, claiming their condition was a psychological response to maternal neglect. This was not science—it was misogyny dressed up as expertise, weaponising a new diagnosis to police motherhood. The “cure” offered? Institutionalisation, family separation, and often horrific experimental treatments. The fact that Bettelheim had no qualifications in psychology or autism research did not matter. His theory fit the cultural anxieties of the time, and that was enough.

Decades later, Andrew Wakefield’s MMR vaccine hoax followed the same playbook. Published in The Lancet in 1998, his fraudulent study claimed a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, triggering a global panic. It was later revealed that Wakefield had fabricated data whilst being paid by lawyers preparing lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers. The damage was irreversible. Despite being thoroughly debunked, the study fueled vaccine hesitancy, policy shifts, and a multi-million-dollar autism “treatment” industry that preys on desperate parents to this day.

What we are seeing now—the rise of anti-vax “evidence mills,” where journals are created solely to launder pseudoscience into public discourse—is simply the latest evolution of this pattern. It follows in the footsteps of eugenics, phrenology, and race science, all of which claimed to be neutral fields of study whilst serving deeply political and discriminatory ends. The US was not just influenced by 1930s Germany—it was a model. Before Nazi Germany codified its racial purity laws, German legal scholars were studying American immigration laws, sterilisation programs, and racial classification systems. Eugenics was not a foreign import; it was an American export. Now, we see the same forces at work: a pseudoscientific movement, bankrolled by powerful interests, shaping policy under the guise of “science.”

Autism has been framed as a crisis for over seventy years, yet the supposed “cause” keeps shifting to suit the needs of those profiting from the panic. First, it was bad mothers. Then, it was vaccines. Now, it's a dozen vague “environmental factors” that conveniently keep research funding and lawsuits flowing. The truth—that autism has always been part of humanity and does not need to be cured—threatens too many industries built on its supposed eradication. And so, the cycle continues.

Final thoughts …

The war on autism is not just a war on one neurotype—it is a war on neurodivergence itself. It is the same campaign of erasure that Edwin Black documented in War Against the Weak, where the machinery of eugenics was designed not simply to oppress, but to eliminate. Today’s push to “cure” autism, to frame neurodivergence as pathology rather than human variation, is the continuation of that same ideology. The methods have changed, but the goal remains: a world where only certain kinds of minds and bodies are allowed to exist.

Junk science does not remain confined to the pages of fraudulent journals—it fuels policies that shape the lives of real people. Autism panics have led to abusive therapies, mass institutionalisation, and dangerous medical interventions. The anti-vax movement has led to preventable disease outbreaks, fear-based policymaking, and the funneling of public resources into quackery rather than genuine support. The manufactured crisis of autism has sustained entire industries built on the false promise of elimination. And yet, autistic people persist. Neurodivergence persists. The push to erase us is not just misguided—it is anti-human.

The need for a counter-narrative has never been greater. We must demand science that does not serve an ideological agenda, but instead seeks to understand and respect the full diversity of human cognition (sadly missing from the priority funding within the AutismCARES Act’s recent reauthorisation). Real science is reliable, repeatable, and reproducible—not bought and paid for by those looking to justify discrimination. We need research that explores how to support neurodivergent people, not erase them. We need policies that build accessibility and accommodation, not pathways to elimination.

To fight back, we must develop critical literacy. We must learn to recognise fraudulent science, to question what we are being told, and to follow the money behind bad research. We must support ethical, neurodiversity-affirming research that starts from the premise that autistic people are not broken. And most of all, we must push back before these narratives take root in law, in medicine, and in public consciousness. The war on neurodivergence is real, but so is the resistance. The future will not be shaped by those who seek to erase us—but by those of us who refuse to be erased.