A1: This association has been researched, and is mentioned in the page - specifically with some variant of the statement "there is no convincing evidence that vaccination causes autism and an association between the two is considered biologically implausible". Despite strong feelings by parents and advocates, to the point of leaving children unvaccinated against serious, sometimes deadly diseases, there is simply no scientific evidence to demonstrate a link between the two. Among the organizations that have reviewed the evidence between vaccination and autism are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (United States), Institute of Medicine (United States), National Institutes of Health (United States), American Medical Association, the Cochrane Collaboration (British/international), British Medical Association (Britain), National Health Service (United Kingdom), Health Canada (Canada) and the World Health Organization (international). The scientific community took this issue seriously, investigated the hypothesis, designed and published many studies involving millions of children, and they all converged on a lack of association between autism and vaccination. Given the large number of children involved, the statistical power of these studies was such that any association, even an extremely weak one, would have been revealed. Continuing to press the issue causes unnecessary anguish for parents and places their children, and other children at risk of deadly diseases (that disproportionately harm the unvaccinated).^[1][2][3]

A2: Thiomersal has also been investigated and no association is found between the two. Vaccines are heavily reviewed for safety beforehand, and since they are given to millions of people each year, even rare complications or problems should become readily apparent. The amount of these additives in each vaccine is minuscule, and not associated with significant side effects in the doses given. Though many parents have advocated for and claimed harm from these additives, without a plausible reason to expect harm, or demonstrated association between autism and vaccination, following these avenues wastes scarce research resources that could be better put to use investigating more promising avenues of research or determining treatments or quality-of-life improving interventions for the good of parents and children. Specifically regarding "toxins", these substances are often unnamed and only vaguely alluded to - a practice that results in moving the goalposts. Once it is demonstrated that an ingredient is not in fact harmful, advocates will insist that their real concern is with another ingredient. This cycle perpetuates indefinitely, since the assumption is generally a priori that vaccines are harmful, and no possible level of evidence is sufficient to convince the advocate otherwise.

A3: For one thing, X may be discussed in the autism therapies section. Though Wikipedia is not paper and each article can theoretically expand indefinitely, in practice articles have restrictions in length due to reader fatigue. Accordingly, the main interventions for autism are dealt with in summary style while minor or unproven interventions are left to the sub-article.

A4: Wikipedia is not a soapbox; despite how important or effective an intervention may seem to be, ultimately it must be verified in reliable, secondary sources that meet the guidelines for medical articles. Personal testimonials, in addition to generally being considered unreliable in scientific research, are primary sources and can only be synthesized through inappropriate original research. If the intervention is genuinely helpful for large numbers of people, it is worth discussing it with a researcher, so it can be studied, researched, published and replicated. When that happens, Wikipedia can report the results as scientific consensus indicates the intervention is ethical, effective, widely-used and widely accepted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and can not be used to predict or promote promising interventions that lack evidence of efficacy. Without extensive testing, Wikipedia runs the risk of promoting theories and interventions that are either invalid (the Refrigerator mother hypothesis), disproven (secretin and facilitated communication),^[4] or dangerous (chelation therapy, which resulted in the death of a child in 2005).^[5]

A5: No ultimate cause has been found for autism. All indications are that it is a primarily genetic condition with a complex etiology that has to date eluded discovery. With thousands of articles published every year on autism, it is very easy to find at least one article supporting nearly any theory. Accordingly, we must limit the page to only the most well-supported theories, as demonstrated in the most recent, reliable, high-impact factor sources as a proxy for what is most accepted within the community.

A6: This aspect of autism is controversial within the autistic community. Many consider autism to be a type of neurological difference rather than a deficit. Accordingly, there is no one preferred terminology. This article uses the terms found in the specific references.

A7: Savant syndrome is still pretty rare, and nonrepresentative of most of those on the autistic spectrum. Research has indicated that most autistic children actually have average math skills.^[6]

A8: There are no secondary independent third-party reviews compliant with Wikipedia's medical sourcing policies to indicate maternal antibodies are a proven or significant cause of autism, and commercial products in testing and development phase are unproven. See sample discussions here, and conditions under which maternal antibody-related posts to this talk page may be rolled back or otherwise reverted by any editor.