Gene Therapy and Autism: Exploring the Current Potential in Monogenic and Polygenic Autism - Introducing Nexus Gene Therapy

 

But, that genetic magic will come with a big price tag!

  

Gene therapy seems to be the way the pharmaceutical industry wants to go when it comes to severe autism. There is a combination of disinterest and dislike when it comes to repurposing cheap old drugs for new uses in the brain. Very high tech, but ultra expensive, gene therapies are attractive to the industry.

As I was writing this post the phase 3 trial for gene therapy for Angelman syndrome was announced to have failed. There were 129 participants, ages 4–17, all with a genetically confirmed full maternal UBE3A deletion (the most common Angelman genotype). The primary endpoint was a change from baseline in the Bayley-4 cognitive raw score at day 338. The secondary endpoint was net response on the Multidomain Responder Index (MDRI), spanning cognition, receptive communication, behavior, gross motor function, and sleep.

So, in this case the placebo was as good as the real gene therapy. This was a trial where all participants had the same single gene autism. Back to the drawing board!

Those 129 had the same affected gene, same broad class of mutation, but not the identical anomaly. Maybe that matters. Maybe the therapy never reached the right neurons. Maybe it just does not work.  

Anyway, back to the post.

 

Could gene therapy eventually be relevant not only to rare single-gene forms of autism, but also to biologically defined subgroups of polygenic or currently idiopathic autism?

For many years, autism research has faced a fundamental problem: we have become increasingly good at finding genes associated with neurodevelopmental disability, but finding a gene is not the same as knowing how to treat it. Gene therapy may eventually change that.

The most obvious strategy is to identify a defective gene and attempt to restore its function. For several genetically defined neurodevelopmental disorders, gene and RNA therapies have already moved beyond theoretical discussion into preclinical and human clinical development. But there may be a bigger—and less obvious—possibility.

What if gene therapy does not always have to target the gene that originally caused the disorder?

What if it could instead target a downstream biological nexus point: a strategically important gene or physiological control system through which the consequences of many different genetic influences converge? That idea could potentially make genetic technologies relevant not only to monogenic disorders, but eventually to some biologically defined forms of polygenic or idiopathic autism.

This does not mean there will be one gene therapy for autism. Probably the opposite. The future may involve a growing toolbox capable of intervening at different points between:

Genetic variation → Altered biology → Physiological dysfunction → Clinical problems

 

First, what do we mean by gene therapy?

Before going further, it helps to understand the basic chain of biology:

DNA → RNA → Protein

• DNA contains genetic instructions.
• RNA carries copied instructions inside cells.
• Proteins perform most functional cellular tasks.

Different therapies can intervene at different points in this chain. They might:

• Alter DNA directly
• Add a functioning gene
• Change how strongly a gene is expressed
• Block a harmful RNA
• Reactivate a silenced gene
• Temporarily provide instructions for making a protein

So gene therapy is not a single technology. It is a family of tools operating at different stages of genetic expression.

 

Autism is not one genetic disease

Autism is extraordinarily heterogeneous. Some people have a relatively well-defined monogenic disorder in which disruption of a single gene has a major effect on neurodevelopment:

• MECP2 — Rett syndrome
• UBE3A — Angelman syndrome
• SHANK3 — Phelan-McDermid syndrome
• TCF4 — Pitt-Hopkins syndrome
• SYNGAP1 and other genetically defined conditions

Autism can be part of the phenotype in these conditions. But these disorders are biologically distinct from autism resulting from the combined influence of many polygenic variants.

For a monogenic disorder, the logic is straightforward:

Identify disrupted gene → Understand biological consequence → Restore or regulate function

For polygenic autism, there is no single defective gene waiting to be repaired. But that does not mean gene therapy will remain irrelevant.

The Obvious Starting Point: Treating the Upstream Genetic Cause

Gene Replacement

If a person has insufficient function of a particular gene, one strategy is delivering a functioning copy using modified viruses, particularly adeno-associated viruses (AAVs).

Conceptually:

Too little functional protein → Provide genetic instructions to make more

However, neurological targets introduce tight constraints. The therapy must reach the correct brain regions, in the correct cells, at precise doses, for the correct duration. Sometimes, too much of the missing protein is dangerous.

 

Rett Syndrome Shows the Problem of Dosage

Rett syndrome is caused by insufficient function of MECP2. The simple solution would seem to be adding MECP2. However:

• Too little MECP2 causes Rett syndrome.
• Too much MECP2 causes severe MECP2 duplication syndrome.

This presents a classic Goldilocks problem: not too little, not too much, but just enough. The challenge is not merely delivering a gene—it is controlling biological expression within narrow safety margins.

 

Gene unsilencing: Using a gene that is already there

Sometimes the required gene is present but silenced. In Angelman syndrome, the paternal copy of UBE3A is silenced in relevant neurons.

Instead of adding an exogenous gene, several RNA-based strategies attempt to reactivate the silent paternal copy already in the cell. This represents a major conceptual pivot: changing the regulation of an existing gene rather than delivering a replacement.

 

The monogenic landscape: Where do we stand today?

While the downstream nexus hypothesis remains an emerging paradigm for polygenic autism, gene-targeted therapies for rare monogenic neurodevelopmental syndromes have transitioned from academic theory into pivotal human clinical trials.

Because these single-gene disorders share significant clinical overlap with autism, their clinical progress serves as the proving ground for delivery systems, dosage control, and regulatory frameworks.

 

Monogenic Target	Therapeutic Strategy	Current Clinical Phase
MECP2 (Rett Syndrome)	AAV9 Gene Replacement + Regulated Dosage Control	Phase 1/2 Registrational (NGN-401, TSHA-102)
UBE3A (Angelman Syndrome)	Antisense Oligonucleotides (ASOs) for Paternal Gene Unsilencing	Phase 3 mixed: GTX-102 Aspire trial missed its primary endpoint (Sept 2026); ION582 in Phase 1/2
TCF4 (Pitt-Hopkins Syndrome)	ICV Delivery AAV Gene Therapy (TCF4 Transgene Replacement)	Early Phase 1/2 (MZ-1866)
SHANK3 (Phelan-McDermid)	AAV Delivery Target Replacement & Small-Molecule Modulators	JAG201 in early Phase 1/2; NNZ-2591 (small molecule) advanced to Phase 3 (Koala study)

 

1. MECP2 — Rett Syndrome (The Dosage Control Benchmark)

• Mechanism: Delivering functional copies of the MECP2 gene via AAV9 vectors.
• Current Status: Advanced Phase 1/2 and registrational studies (e.g., Neurogene’s NGN-401 and TSHA-102).
• Key Translation Insight: Early attempts at unconstrained MECP2 gene replacement carried extreme risks of MECP2 duplication toxicity. Leading clinical programs now incorporate engineered dosage-control platforms (such as built-in microRNA binding sites or regulated promoter systems) designed to restrict protein expression to physiological windows.

 

2. UBE3A — Angelman Syndrome (The Unsilencing Benchmark)

• Mechanism: Intrathecally delivered Antisense Oligonucleotides (ASOs) designed to degrade the UBE3A-ATS transcript, thereby un-silencing the healthy paternal copy of UBE3A in neurons.
• Current Status: Mixed. Ionis’s ION582 remains in Phase 1/2. Ultragenyx’s GTX-102 (apazunersen) reached a fully enrolled, pivotal Phase 3 trial (Aspire), but in September 2026 Ultragenyx announced the trial missed its primary endpoint, showing no significant benefit over sham treatment.
• Key Translation Insight: Unlike one-time viral gene therapy, ASOs require periodic intrathecal administration, offering reversibility and dose titratability. But the Aspire result is a sobering data point in its own right: even a mechanistically well-validated, genetically homogeneous target (a confirmed maternal UBE3A deletion) can fail a rigorously controlled pivotal trial. Ultragenyx has pointed to encouraging long-term open-label extension data (KIK-AS) as reason to keep investigating; whether that reflects a real but harder-to-capture effect, a placebo-sensitive endpoint, or a genuinely ineffective mechanism is still unresolved. Either way, it is a live illustration of the same lesson bumetanide already taught: a plausible downstream target can look strong in early, uncontrolled data and still not clear a controlled, blinded trial.

 

3. TCF4 — Pitt-Hopkins Syndrome (Direct CNS Delivery)

• Mechanism: Direct central nervous system delivery (such as intracerebroventricular injection) of AAV vectors carrying functional TCF4 genetic instructions.
• Current Status: Phase 1/2 early-stage safety and dosing trials (e.g., MZ-1866).
• Key Translation Insight: Because TCF4 is a crucial transcription factor across brain development, achieving widespread CNS biodistribution while avoiding systemic viral exposure is the core technical focus.

 

4. SHANK3 — Phelan-McDermid Syndrome (Synaptic Scaffolding)

• Mechanism: AAV-mediated targeted gene replacement (e.g., JAG201) aimed at restoring synaptic density and post-synaptic scaffolding proteins, paired with small-molecule downstream pathway modulators (e.g., NNZ-2591).
• Current Status: JAG201 (AAV gene replacement) is in early Phase 1/2 cohort dosing. NNZ-2591, a small-molecule downstream modulator rather than a gene therapy, has advanced further — a Phase 2 trial reported symptom improvements, and it is now in a pivotal Phase 3 trial (Koala).
• Key Translation Insight: SHANK3 insufficiency directly impacts synaptic structural integrity. Trials here provide a crucial model for whether structural synaptic restoration in older individuals can yield measurable behavioral or functional gains.

 

What these clinical trials teach us about polygenic applications

1.     Delivery Architecture: The shift away from high-dose IV administration toward intrathecal or intracerebroventricular routes in these monogenic trials directly addresses vector safety concerns, establishing lower-dose CNS administration protocols.

2.     Reversibility vs. Durability: The parallel development of one-time AAVs (Rett) and repeatable ASOs (Angelman) illustrates the trade-off between permanent modification and adjustable maintenance dosing. It is not yet a precedent for which approach works better: GTX-102’s pivotal-trial miss is a reminder that reversibility is a safety and flexibility advantage, not a guarantee of efficacy.

3.     Biomarker Validation: Every monogenic success relies on rigorous molecular and electrophysiological endpoints (such as quantitative EEG patterns or specific protein assays)—reinforcing the argument that downstream polygenic targets will fail without equivalent biomarker stratification.

 

The harder question: What about polygenic autism?

In polygenic autism, correcting every contributing upstream genetic variant is unfeasible:

However, upstream genetic complexity does not necessarily produce equal complexity downstream. Multiple upstream variants may converge on shared biological systems, including:

• Synaptic function and plastic adjustments
• Neuronal excitability and E/I balance
• Gene regulation networks and chromatin remodeling
• Protein translation pathways
• Cellular metabolism and mitochondrial function

 

The central thesis: The gene targeted therapeutically does not necessarily have to be the gene that originally caused the disorder.

 

A Remarkable Experiment in Down Syndrome

The clearest preclinical proof-of-concept for downstream nexus targeting comes from Down syndrome.

Down syndrome involves an extra copy of chromosome 21, altering the dosage of hundreds of genes simultaneously. Correcting the primary chromosomal defect across the brain is currently out of reach.

In 2021, Parrini and colleagues targeted a downstream physiological system: neuronal chloride regulation. Using AAV-mediated, neuron-specific RNA interference, they reduced expression of the NKCC1 chloride transporter in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome.

 

The researchers did not correct chromosome 21. They targeted a downstream physiological consequence instead. This experiment provides a concrete model for how complex neurodevelopmental disorders might be approached.

 

NKCC1: An Example of a Therapeutic Nexus

NKCC1 (encoded by SLC12A2) imports chloride into cells:

NKCC1 expression → Intracellular chloride level → Neuronal response to GABA → Network inhibition

 

But didn't Bumetanide fail?

Bumetanide, a small-molecule drug that inhibits NKCC1, was studied as a potential autism treatment. Early pilot studies generated interest, but two large Phase III trials enrolled 211 participants each and found no significant benefit over placebo across the overall unselected ASD study population, leading to early trial termination.

This negative result is important, but comparing systemic bumetanide trials to neuron-specific gene therapy highlights three distinct scientific variables:

Parameter	Systemic Bumetanide Trials	Preclinical AAV-NKCC1 Study
Targeting	Systemic drug with limited brain penetration	Targeted CNS neuronal knockdown
Population	Broad, unselected clinical ASD population	Defined biological model of chloride elevation
Mechanism	Transient pharmacological inhibition	Stable genetic recalibration of expression

 

Broad clinical trials can mask efficacy if a drug is tested across a heterogeneous population where only a fraction of participants possess the targeted biological abnormality. Targeted interventions require verified biomarkers.

 

A new example: Gene editing a downstream metabolic nexus

A striking new example comes from cholesterol rather than autism. In August 2026, researchers reported one-year results from the first-in-human Phase 1a trial of CTX310, a one-time gene therapy treatment designed to switch off ANGPTL3 in liver cells. ANGPTL3 is a regulator of lipid metabolism, and naturally occurring loss-of-function variants in this gene are associated with lifelong reductions in LDL cholesterol and triglycerides. In 15 adults with difficult-to-control lipid disorders, the highest dose of CTX310 produced a mean 52.5% reduction in LDL cholesterol and 47.8% reduction in triglycerides after one year.

The treatment was not correcting the original genetic causes of the patients' lipid disorders; instead, it was deliberately changing a downstream physiological control point. This is conceptually interesting for the hypothesis developed here. It provides a real human example of the principle that a genetic therapy does not necessarily have to repair the original disease-causing mutation: if different upstream causes converge on a measurable biological abnormality, it may sometimes be possible to intervene at the downstream nexus instead.

Of course, CTX310 is a lipid therapy, not an autism treatment, and this small Phase 1 study does not demonstrate that the same strategy will work in autism. But it shows that the broader concept of genetically modifying a downstream physiological regulator rather than correcting the initiating genetic defect has now entered human clinical research

  

Gene therapy does not have to mean permanent DNA editing

"Gene therapy" encompasses tools with varying degrees of reversibility:

  

Controllability as a safety feature

Permanent DNA edits carry risks if the target selection, tissue specificity, or dosing proves suboptimal.

Conversely, reversible tools (such as transient RNA or mRNA therapies) allow dose adjustments, treatment pauses, or modifications over time. For downstream target exploration, controllability is a key safety feature.

 

The economics of gene therapy will shape what gets developed

Monogenic vs. Nexus Economics

• Ultra-rare monogenic targets: Clear molecular mechanisms, but high development costs distributed over small patient populations create commercial challenges.
• Shared downstream targets: If multiple distinct conditions share a downstream biological mechanism, a single intervention could theoretically address a biomarker-defined subgroup spanning several diagnostic categories.

 

 

Durable vs. Repeat-Dose Models

• One-time durable therapies: High upfront costs, long-term regulatory monitoring requirements, and payment structure hurdles for healthcare systems.
• Repeat-dose RNA/mRNA therapies: Distributed costs over time, potential for adjustments, but ongoing administration requirements for patients.

 

Reusable delivery platforms

Developing standardized delivery capsids or lipid nanoparticles capable of carrying different genetic payloads to specific brain cell types could shift the paradigm from one disease, one custom technology toward one platform, multiple biological payloads.

 

Safety: Gene therapy can be dangerous

Gene therapy carries significant physiological risks. In 2025, safety actions were taken following fatal acute liver failure cases in high-dose systemic AAVrh74 trials (Sarepta/Elevidys).

Risks depend heavily on delivery route, vector, and total dose:

• Systemic high-dose IV administration: Requires large viral loads to achieve brain exposure, driving systemic organ exposure and hepatic toxicity.
• Direct CNS-directed administration: Intrathecal or intracerebroventricular delivery targets the central nervous system directly, significantly reducing total vector load and systemic exposure.

 

Evaluating risk

Evaluating risk requires comparing potential treatment adverse events against the natural history of the untreated condition:

 

 

Because autism varies from stable clinical profiles to severe conditions with profound self-injury or treatment-resistant epilepsy, acceptable safety margins will differ depending on individual medical contexts.

 

The translation pathway: A stepwise sequence

Before durable genetic interventions are considered for downstream targets, evidence must be established sequentially:

  

Summary of Evidence Status

Polyvalent mRNA nexus therapy: the equivalent of a "genetic polypill"

If we accept that polygenic autism involves multiple converging biological pathways, targeting a single downstream gene—whether NKCC1, EIF4E, or another physiological node—may rarely capture the full biological picture for a given individual.

This raises a compelling long-term question: Could the clinical principle of a personalized multi-target "Polypill" eventually be realized through programmable RNA platforms?

 

The concept: modular, multi-payload delivery

In immunology, polyvalent vaccines combine distinct antigen sequences into a single formulation to address multiple viral strains simultaneously. A polyvalent mRNA platform for central nervous system (CNS) targets would operate on a similar architecture:

1.     A universal delivery platform: Utilizing advanced delivery vehicles—such as cell-type-specific lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) or engineered viral capsids—designed to cross the blood-brain barrier and target specific neural cells.

2.     Modular payload cocktails: Rather than delivering a single transcript, the platform carries a custom-blended payload ratio tailored to an individual’s specific biological profile:

o    Payload A: Recalibrating neuronal chloride regulation (e.g., modulating NKCC1/KCC2 ratios).

o    Payload B: Normalizing hyperactive translation initiation pathways (e.g., dampening EIF4E or mTOR signaling).

o    Payload C: Supporting mitochondrial cellular bioenergetics or resolving neuroinflammatory responses.

 

The intervention becomes genuinely personalized and pathway-driven, rather than label-based.

 

Key advantages: reversibility and developmental adaptability

Unlike permanent DNA editing, mRNA-based interventions are transient. In complex neurodevelopmental conditions, this transience provides two critical clinical safeguards:

• Age-adaptive formulations: Human brain biology is not static. A young child at age four may require a payload formulation optimized for synaptic maturation and circuit refinement, whereas the same individual at age sixteen might benefit from a revised ratio targeting network excitability or cellular metabolism.
• Titratability and safety: If an individual experiences an adverse response or if an objective biomarker fails to shift as predicted, the dosage of a specific payload component can be adjusted, swapped, or stopped entirely in subsequent administrations. Controllability serves as a primary safety mechanism.

 

A long-term horizon, not an imminent reality

To be clear polyvalent mRNA therapy represents a long-term conceptual horizon—a vision spanning decades—rather than an imminent treatment. Moving from theory to practice requires overcoming profound technical hurdles:

• Validating reliable, non-invasive biomarkers capable of measuring downstream pathway activity in living human brain tissue.
• Achieving cell-type specificity (e.g., excitatory neurons vs. inhibitory interneurons vs. astrocytes) without off-target toxicity.
• Determining precise therapeutic windows for multi-target RNA dosing in developing neural circuits.

Yet, while the engineering required to deliver multi-target brain therapies remains futuristic, the underlying principle is already relevant today, moving away from broad diagnostic categories toward precise, biomarker-guided combinations that address an individual’s actual biology.

The plural of anecdote is data – I vote for that

 

Most of my interactions in the world of treating autism are with people I have never met, but you cannot help keep learning new things.

I was recently contacted by a mother who is computer programmer and so used to dealing with “exact sciences.” She had read my book and noted from it that genetic testing in autism often misses important genes. Her child’s report stated that there were no mutated autism genes found. She asked if I know how to analyse the raw data from the testing. That is a bit too technical for me, though I discovered you can upload that file to ChatGPT for analysis. I said that all I do is take the 10-20 genes highlighted in the full report and look them all up, regardless of whether they are obvious autism genes or not. Back came the very short list and after a couple of minutes “Bingo” there was the gene. It was not on the lab’s “autism list,” but in the research one of the genes is described as having potential to cause autism.

In a perfect world the testing lab would have an updated list that includes all the genes known to cause autism, or indeed intellectual disability. It is not the exact science the mother is used to, it is sloppy science. You must dig deeper than you thought would be really necessary.

I did meet, in real life, the parents of a young child with severe autism a week or two ago. They had tried all sorts of expensive therapies, from stem cell therapy to GcMAF from Japan. There was a scandal in the US and Europe a decade ago when GcMAF was marketed to treat cancer, autism and other conditions. In Japan it is still used in alternative clinics, but it is not an approved therapy or a regulated drug anywhere.

I was told that in Japan GcMAF is now made from a patient’s own blood and saw that it is marketed as a "personalized" or "natural" therapy. The process typically involves isolating the Gc protein (a vitamin D-binding protein) from the patient’s blood, chemically modifying it to activate macrophages, and then injecting it back into the patient. I have no idea if it works.

I dared not ask how much it cost, but I did ask if it helped. I suggested that in autism the cheapest and safest therapies are often the most effective.

One reader of this blog remains a fan of the original GcMAF that was produced by David Noakes' company Immuno Biotech. He later went to jail in the UK and then in France for selling an unlicensed medical product. In June 2015 Dr Jeffrey Bradstreet, a well-known autism doctor who used GcMAF, was found dead the day after his office in Buford, Georgia was raided by the FDA, searching for evidence of illegal medical practices related to unapproved drugs.

Japan seems to be more “anything goes” when it comes to alternative medicine. This is probably not what you would have expected. GcMAF is still marketed there to treat cancer and autism.

Safety

Safety should be the prime concern when treating autism. I recall being told the key insight a mainstream doctor took away from attending the Brain Foundation’s autism conference in California a while back was that “you actually can safely treat autism.”

The GcMAF mother did ask me if it was safe.

Using common existing drugs that have been repurposed for autism is safe, as long as they are used responsibly and care is taken regarding interactions and the listed side effects.

Drugs taken orally are often considered inherently safer than those administered via injection or infusion for several reasons, perhaps the key one is the barrier of the digestive system.

When drugs are taken by mouth, they pass through the liver before entering systemic circulation. The liver metabolizes some of the drug, which can detoxify harmful substances or reduce their potency. This serves as a protective mechanism. The stomach and intestines have mechanisms to break down and filter harmful substances, adding another layer of safety.

Injectable drugs require sterile preparation and administration to avoid infections. Oral drugs are less prone to contamination since they do not bypass the body's natural barriers.

Gene therapy can be risky, as was shown recently in a trial for Rett syndrome: 

Patient Death in Rett Syndrome Trial Forces Neurogene to Drop High-Dose Arm

Despite the death, the FDA has allowed Neurogene to forge ahead with the Phase I/II Rett syndrome trial, but using only the lower 1E15 vg dose of its investigational gene therapy NGN-401.

Neurogene revealed in an SEC filing on Thursday that a patient has died in its Phase I/II Rett syndrome clinical trial after being dosed with its investigational gene therapy.

The patient had been treated with the higher, 3E15-vg dose of NGN-401 when they experienced what was initially described only as a treatment-related serious adverse event (SAE). In a follow-up announcement on Monday, Neurogene disclosed that the patient had developed systemic hyperinflammatory syndrome—a known but severe side effect of adeno-associated virus gene therapies—and was in critical condition.

 

The plural of anecdote is data vs The plural of anecdote is not data

"The plural of anecdote is not data" is a commonly used phrase in scientific and analytical discussions. It highlights the idea that individual anecdotes, no matter how numerous, do not constitute reliable evidence or robust data without proper scientific methods like controlled observation, experimentation, and statistical analysis.

The phrase the plural of anecdote is not data turns out to have been a misquote. The original observation, by the political scientist Ray Wolfinger, was just the opposite: The plural of anecdote is data.

Ray Wolfinger said this to emphasize that anecdotes, when systematically collected and analyzed, can form the foundation of meaningful data sets.

Wolfinger's point was not to dismiss the importance of rigorous scientific methods but rather to highlight that even seemingly small, subjective observations—when aggregated and scrutinized—can reveal broader patterns and insights.

This perspective challenges the overly dismissive view of anecdotes in research, acknowledging their potential as the seeds of inquiry and evidence in contexts where comprehensive data collection may not yet exist.

Human biology is not an exact science

The phrase "human biology is not an exact science" reflects the inherent complexity and variability of biological systems, particularly in humans. Unlike the physical sciences, which often operate under strict laws and predictable outcomes, human biology involves numerous interacting factors, such as genetics, environment, lifestyle, and individual variability. This makes it challenging to predict outcomes with precision.

Key reasons include:

• Genetic diversity: Each person has a unique genetic makeup, leading to different responses to stimuli, medications, and conditions.
• Environmental influences: Diet, climate, socioeconomic status, and exposure to toxins vary widely among individuals and populations.
• Biological variability: Even within the same individual, factors like age, hormonal changes, and microbiome composition can cause variations.
• Unpredictable interactions: Complex systems, such as the immune response or neural activity, often defy simple cause-and-effect explanations.

As a result, human biology relies on probabilities, trends, and patterns rather than absolutes, making it a science of approximations and context-dependent insights.

Again, bumetanide works for some

Our reader A.W. recently completed a trial of bumetanide and in parallel the pediatrician made a trial on her own 5-year-old granddaughter with severe autism. Bumetanide did not work for A.W. but it did for the 5-year-old granddaughter. Notably her speech increased from single words to multiple words. Continued use will now certainly bring profound benefits as she grows up.

We see that human biology is not an exact science, but the situation is made worse by diagnostic stupidity. We know that there are many hundreds of biological dysfunctions leading to the umbrella diagnosis of autism. All autism is still lumped in together in these supposedly gold-standard randomized clinical trials. In layman’s terms you have to compare apples with apples, not apples with kiwis.

As a result, all large randomized clinical trials for core autism symptoms have failed and will likely continue to do so.  Even the large bumetanide trial failed. 

Meanwhile some people, now including A.W.’s pediatrician, will continue effectively treating a small number of children and adults with autism.    

Conclusion

When I presented my take at the recent autism conference in Abu Dhabi I did have a confrontation with the moderator of my session.

I presented the scientific logic behind treating autism but what he saw was someone dealing with anecdotes. He said he only believes in randomized clinical trials. 15 years ago I would also have thought like him—then came my epiphany.

I then learnt the benefit of tinkering with things you supposedly cannot fix but cannot just throw away and replace.

I do fix many other things. I had Monty’s two electric scooters in pieces several times recently, the last job was fixing the battery pack that malfunctioned. I have no previous experience, you just start tinkering, apply common sense and solve the problem. Having a spare scooter is an advantage.  I can always buy a third one.

In years only recently gone by you did discard “malfunctioning” young children into institutions. The doctor would then suggest you try again for another child and wish you better luck next time. Like buying scooter number two and discarding the first one.

Nowadays you keep such children at home, leave them untreated, and only later on put them into mini-institutions (AKA group homes).

I think it pays to tinker (play around fixing things) and improve functioning as much as possible. There is no guarantee of success, but you do have a fighting chance.

Wonder cures promoted in catchy 60 second videos on TikTok, Facebook and Instagram may not be your best choice. 

Immunotherapy from the desert

 

Today’s post revisits the idea of using immunotherapies to treat autism.

Some readers of this blog are already doing this and a significant percentage of those are using IVIG.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is a pooled antibody, and a biological agent used to manage various immunodeficiency states and a plethora of other conditions, including autoimmune, infectious, and inflammatory states.

IVIG is not a precision therapy, it is more a case of when all else fails try IVIG.

In the United States it seems that many insurance companies will cover the cost of long-term IVIG therapy. In other countries the cost greatly limits the use of this therapy.

An interesting observation is that IVIG products can vary significantly in their potency, depending on where they are made. Several readers of this blog have noted this.

I attended the Autism Challenges and Solutions conference recently in Abu Dhabi. I did have a chat with Laila Alayadhi, a researcher and clinician from Saudi Arabia who has been publishing papers about autoimmunity in ASD for decades. She also published a series of studies that examined the potential of camel milk as a therapy. She examined both changes in biological markers of oxidative stress and inflammation as well as measures of autism severity.

Her most recent study is here:-

 

Comparative Study on the Ameliorating Effects of Camel Milkas a Dairy Product on Inflammatory Response in Autism Spectrum Disorders

The link between nutrition and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), as a neurodevelopmental disorder exhibiting impaired social interaction, repetitive behavior, and poor communication skills, has provided a hot point of research that might help use nutritional intervention strategies for managing ASD symptoms. This study examined the possible therapeutic potency of raw and boiled camel milk in reducing neuroinflammation in relation to behavioral characteristics. A blinded study was conducted on 64 children with autism (aged 2–12 years). Group I (n = 23) consisted of children who received raw camel milk; Group II (n = 27) comprised children who received boiled camel milk; and Group III (n = 14) comprised children who received cow milk as a placebo. Changes in plasma tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) as pro-inflammatory cytokine in relation to behavioral characteristics evaluated using the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS), and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms before and after 2 weeks of raw and boiled camel milk therapy. Significantly lower plasma levels of TNF-α were recorded after 2 weeks of camel milk consumption, accompanied by insignificant changes in CARS and significant improvements in SRS and GI symptoms. Alternatively, Group III demonstrated an insignificant TNF-α increase without changes in CARS, SRS, and GI symptoms. This study demonstrated the positive effects of both raw and boiled camel milk in reducing neuroinflammation in patients with ASD. The improvements in the SRS scores and GI symptoms are encouraging. Further trials exploring the potential benefits of camel milk consumption in patients with ASD are highly recommended.

 

 

Apparently camel milk tastes just fine, although Dr Alayadhi told us she had never tried it prior to her research. She has shown than both pasteurized and raw milk are equally effective. I did ask her about other types of milk like goat’s milk and she said they had tried other milks and that only camel milk has shown the immunomodulatory effect.  When asked how much you need to drink, the answer was three glasses a day.

The Dentist

I did chat to another Saudi professor, a pediatric dentist, who gave a presentation about treating children with ASD.  Having had some pretty bad experiences with getting dental treatment and then overcoming them, I did feel I had something in common with Ebtissam Murshid.  I did catch up with her later and shared details of the D-Termined program created by US dentist David Tesini. It is a video training program for dentists how to treat kids with autism. I have written about it previously in this blog. Tesini very much tries to make the visit to the dentist fun, with lots of distractions in his treatment room. Murshid purposefully has blank white walls, believing that autistic kids get upset by bright colors and patterns. Hopefully she watches Tesini’s videos.

Murshid has published a book to help parents prepare their children for their trip to the dentist and, like Tesini, had made a small trial to show that her method is effective.

Some dentists are naturally good at treating the most difficult kids, but most are not.  It is impossible to predict.

A really good dentist needs neither restraint, like a papoose board, or sedation. If general anesthetic is needed, then something is not being done right. Kids with severe autism can be treated with local anesthetic just like other kids, they just need to go through a familiarization training like Tesini/Murshid use.

 

Back to immunotherapy

I did have many conversations with Carmello Rizzo who is an Italian doctor interested in both diet and autoimmunity to treat autism. He is a feature at many autism conferences and is a great speaker. He was telling me about Enzyme Potentiated Desensitization (EPD), an overlooked way to treat allergy care.

EPD was invented in the 1960s by a British immunologist Dr Len McEwen, at St. Mary’s Hospital, Paddington. EPD is approved in the United Kingdom for the treatment of hay fever, food allergy and intolerance and environmental allergies.

It is an unlicensed product (i.e. not a drug), it is available only on a “named patient” basis.

EPD is not the same as allergy shots.

Allergy shots, also known as allergy immunotherapy, are injections used to treat allergies over a long period of time. They work by gradually desensitizing your body to the allergens that trigger your allergy symptoms.

Allergy shots typically involve two phases, buildup and maintenance.

It is an escalating dose immunotherapy, when you gradually increase the exposure level of the identified allergen.

The buildup phase lasts for 3 to 6 months. You receive shots 1 to 3 times a week. The doctor will gradually increase the amount of allergen in each shot to help your body build tolerance.

In the maintenance phase you need shots less frequently, usually about once a month. This phase can continue for 3 to 5 years or even longer depending on your progress.

I was never interested in allergy shots because there are so many injections needed.

I found EPD of interest because you take just two shots a year and the effect may potentially control the allergy after 2 or 3 years.

EPD is not expensive and I suppose that is why nobody wanted to invested the tens of millions of dollars to get approval by the FDA. It remains approved for use in the UK, which is ultra conservative when it comes to medicines.

Carmello Rizzo is offering EPD in Italy and elsewhere.

 

Gene therapy for autism?

I did go to a presentation with an interesting title:

Developing effective therapeutics for Autism Spectrum Disorder

It was not really what I was expecting. It was a young MIT researcher talking about the potential to develop gene therapies to replace mutated genes with a new ones. They are doing this in a model of autism caused by a mutated copy of the SHANK3 gene.

I called him Dr Viral Vector and did have a chat with him. The most interesting thing about his technology is that not only can he target a specific type of cell, but he can target a specific part of the brain, or indeed any part of the body.

At the moment they inject a virus carrying the new gene directly into the brain. That is not going to go down so well with human subjects. The next stage is to try injecting the virus into a vein.

I did talk about the two gene therapies for Rett syndrome now in human trials in my presentation. The ultimate problem is the likely $3 million cost. 

You can use gene therapy as an immunotherapy. 

 

Artemis

At the conference I was asked about a gene called DCLRE1C, it encodes the DCLRE1C protein, also known as Artemis.

 

Artémis (Diane), the huntress. Roman copy of a Greek statue, 2nd century. Galleria dei Candelabri

Source: By Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18604889

 

The Artemis protein is named after the Greek goddess Artemis, who was associated with the hunt, wilderness, wild animals, childbirth, and protection. This connection likely comes from the crucial role Artemis plays in DNA repair, which is essential for maintaining the integrity of the genetic material, like a protector safeguarding the building blocks of life.

Complete loss of function in DCLRE1C typically causes severe combined immunodeficiency. This is called Artemis-deficient severe combined immunodeficiency (ART-SCID).

Fortunately many possible mutations only partially impair the function of the DCLRE1C gene. They can lead to a spectrum of conditions, including atypical SCID, Omenn syndrome, Hyper IgM syndrome, and even just antibody deficiency. These conditions may have milder symptoms compared to classic SCID.

IVIG is a beneficial therapy for immunodeficiency; but is very expensive and not curative.

Humans all have 2 copies of the DCLRE1C and it is theoretically possible to increase expression of the good copy. But that is another story.

 

A gene therapy already exists for full-on ART-SCID.

Lentiviral Gene Therapy for Artemis-Deficient SCID

Why not use it in less severe cases?

The problem is going to be money, both for a lifetime on IVIG or a “hopefully” one-off gene therapy.

One lady in the audience of my talk had herself taken an expensive gene therapy and was not impressed.

  

Other interesting presentations

Pierre Drapeau from McGill University spoke about trying to repurpose a cheap old drug, called Pimozide, to treat motor neuron disease /ALS.  This was interesting because the process is similar to repurposing a drug for autism.

Pimozide is an old antipsychotic drug and it seems to work in ALS through its effect on a type of calcium channel called the T-type. Yes, just as in much autism, calcium channels are misbehaving.

The drawback of Pimozide is that it also blocks dopamine receptors in the brain, which is good if you have Tourette’s, but if you have ALS you then get symptoms of Parkinson’s as a side effect.

The solution is to tinker with the molecule and find a version (an analog) that will do the business with the T channels without causing tremors.  It looks like, via trial and error, this is nearly solved.

The whole process has already been going on for many years, it will take many more.

Life expectancy with ALS is only 2-5 years and they struggle to find test subjects in Canada. It looks like they may do trials in China.

 

An eye opener

A presentation with a very hard to digest title was also an eye opener. You can take a picture of the cornea in your eye and accurately diagnose all kinds of disorders. They started with peripheral neuropathy in diabetics and most recently moved on to people with autism. Using artificial intelligence (AI) they can now make a diagnosis just based on the nerve loss they observe in the cornea. They also can potentially measure the effect of therapies by the regeneration of those nerve fibers.  This is really clever. When Rayaz Malik started down this path, all the neurologists thought he was mad. Many years later and corneal confocal microscopy is widely used around the world, but not yet for autism diagnosis.

Antonio Persico is a well known autism clinician, he appeared virtually. He was mainly talking about antipsychotics. I had expected rather more. 

 

Conclusion

Immunotherapy addresses one of the four problem areas in autism. There cannot be a one size fits all approach, but you can certainly try camel milk. Addressing food allergy and intolerance is relatively straightforward and you do not need any fancy expensive genetic testing, as Carmello Rizzo pointed out.

There are people for whom genetic testing and/or a spinal tap opens the door to a precise diagnosis and hopefully treatment. That proved to be an unexpected controversial issue in my presentation.

My talk at the conference was all about using personalized medicine to treat autism. The organizer of the event reads this blog and knows that I am rather an outsider, since I am more in treating autism than just researching it.

I had a two and a half hour time slot and I made sure to use it all. 

Advances in Personalized Medicine to Treat Autism

I should mention that I also had some long conversations with Paul Shattock, who pretty much founded the gluten and casein free diet years ago, back at the University of Sunderland. If you are interested in the history of autism, he is a great person to talk to. He is nearly 80 years old, but still has a sharp sense of humour. He has stumbled into more than his fair share of controversies. In Abu Dhabi his opinions and observations were widely shared by other speakers. One younger American speaker thought his views were dangerous; had he taken the time to talk to Paul, he would have found them pretty well thought out. I did ask Paul what has happened to his old friend Andew Wakefield – apparently making another film.