Pesky,
The members on this site hear new links to autism on a regular basis. It's the formula, lack of Vitamin D, mercury, etc. Many of these links also link to the sale of a product that is supposed to improve the situation. So you can understand why some people are very pessimistic about considering new ideas. The only reason I give this thread a chance is because you aren't trying to sell a product.
I personally know autism in my family is genetic. I can tell you what side of the family it comes from. It also in recent generations seem to be more common in our first born children. I am positive that our cause is genetic in my family because I very much doubt they had the soy, DHA, and ARA the way you see it today back in the early 1900's.
However, you do show a legitimate case that some of these things may be harmful. I have no doubt in my mind that making these things or extracting them is a very dangerous method, but I'm not seeing too much on how the end result is a danger. That doesn't mean they are dangerous or they are not. It just means if I want to know, I better get to some researching like you did to try to find out. Understand too that there is a big difference between dangerous, unhealthy, and zero health benefits.
If you want to make your case to the general public in order to help get the word out and inform people in order to help protect them, then you really need to dummify your case. A lot of the info on your website is really complicated chemistry type things that nobody really understands without almost taking a chemistry class (which I'm sure you had to do at some point is learn a lot about chemistry). Nobody has time for that. You need to approach the information on a simpler level. Your links to utube news media simplifies a lot of difficult concepts, but they too have their flaws. First of all, they all show different topics. One is about DHA and ARA, and the other is about soy protein. Also, the guy from Natural News didn't plan out his little video blog well, so he's very redundant and often you can tell he is unsure what he is going to say next.
In addition, you might benefit with persuasion a bit better if you give a complete argument and a more centered one. Maybe categorize each situation better. Start with how the process is dangerous for DHA and ARA. Then explain the soy process. Then show research on what this means on the finished product for each product. Is it dangerous? Or just unhealthy? Then make your claim to link it to various neurological disorders such as autism. Make it into sections with headings. It takes longer to read something on a computer screen than in print, so keep things short and to the point, but also easy to skim and realize nobody is really going to read it word for word unless you have sparked an interest, but if your argument is weak or not making sense to them, they will go back to skimming or click out the site.
Also, take baby steps when "fighting city hall." Maybe you won't get the FDA to buy your theory about autism links, but maybe you can at least get them to tighten up their standards for companies to make these things. It sounds to me that there is a very safe method of getting soy protein and a very unsafe method. If you can't find much research about the dangers of the finished product to get the attention of the FDA, then focus on the dangers of these plants being around and the toxins they emit and hit up the EPA or something. I firmly believe corporate america has had their finger in Washington's cookie jar long enough to help make it easy for them to screw over the american public whether it be in marketing and selling the product or making the product. Cigarettes are far more harmful today not because they were always harmful, but because the companies making the cigarettes added toxins to make them more harmful. It makes no sense to me how the government is quick to enforce laws on the consumer without giving too much consideration to the makers of the product, and that's a result of the Bush Administration who was obviously (for whatever reason) very corporate friendly. One other thing, if you are trying to take these companies down because of their unsafe methods, another arena is the IRS and SEC. The IRS will audit based on "public corruption" and I think false advertising falls under "public corruption." They also make you fill out a form to make your claim, and the bulk of their audits are based on informants. More than likely, the best result is you can get the companies to stop claiming the health benefits that don't exist with their product. Given it doesn't sound like much, but it would benefit the consumer greatly in addition, it would hurt the companies where it hurts the most, and that's the profit margin. Also, if you can get enough research to back your claim about your son's autism, then some of these things are best handled in court. If you won a lawsuit case against a company regarding your son's autism, then attorneys will swarm around looking for a class action lawsuit to take place after the fact, and eventually, the companies will change their ways to avoid future lawsuits. It also would give you a lot of media attention toward your overall argument. But it would take years, and you would need to have your ducks in a row with your research. You'll need more than just logic, but you won't need hard evidence. I think civil cases are not like criminal cases. According to Judge Mathis (I believe), civil cases allow more room for reasonable doubt.
_________________
"In the room the women come and go talking of Michelangelo." J. Alfred Prufrock
08 Sep 2009, 9:13 pm
