APAP was never demonstrated to be safe for neurodevelopment [30]. Over two hundred papers in the medical literature claim that APAP is safe for babies and/or children when used as directed, but all studies were based on the false assumption that adverse reactions in babies would involve easily measured liver injury, the same as in adults.

APAP temporarily blunts social trust and awareness, emotional responses to external stimuli, and the ability to identify errors in adults.

APAP inhibits neuronal cell growth in tissue culture experiments, altering “arborization”, the process by which neurons branch out to make connections with other neurons. APAP and a metabolite of APAP also cause death of brain cells in culture.

Observations of parents: The top three conditions identified as a cause of their child’s regression into autism listed by parents were vaccination (51% of parents), high fever (11% of parents), and illness (8% of parents). A standard treatment for all of these conditions is APAP. Surveys show that up to 50% of parents who have a child with ASD believe that their children’s ASD was induced by a vaccine.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is associated with unusually efficient (effective) metabolism of APAP, and the prevalence of ASD is apparently very low in patients with cystic fibrosis.

The “missing heritability” paradox of ASD suggests that epigenetic factors or very early exposure to environmental factors might influence the onset of ASD.

ASD and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) are similar in many regards. A spectrum disorder can also be triggered by the drug valproate.

Common alternative explanations are not consistent with known observations and/or require elaborate/complex scenarios to be true.

APAP exposure in utero is associated with increases in childhood brain cancer. This connection was first noted in 2010 in Sweden using a case-controlled method, although the association was not statistically significant (OR 1.7; CI 0.6–5.4). A more recent study from Taiwan [239] supported the association and was statistically significant (HR 2.4; CI 1.10–5.39).