While it is a possibility, they haven't proven anything. To quote from the article:
"might make a future diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder more likely in men who are genetically predisposed to the condition.
Here they are saying that early brain damage from infections might make your autism symptoms worse. Well, duh! It is also begging the question that one can be genetically predisposed for autism and not actually have it.
"boys diagnosed with autism were more commonly hospitalized with infections between the ages of 1.5 and 4 than boys who didn't have autism"
Autism doesn't suddenly hit later in life. You can tell a child is autistic in late infancy if you know what to look for. That's
before the 1.5 to 4 year window. Plus it doesn't show that autism didn't
contribute to the increase in infections.
It goes on to explain:
"some traits commonly associated with autism, such as difficulty communicating verbally or recognizing familiar faces"
OK,
"some traits commonly associated with autism" isn't autism. Not even close. Those are traits also associated with a number of other brain conditions. Plus there are many people on the spectrum who do not have those particular problems.
This appears only to apply to those specific traits and only applies to males. The large majority of people on the spectrum are left out. Especially females. All you ladies are out of luck.
Most importantly, the evidence of autism being
primarily genetic is overwhelming. Genetic factors are all that are necessary to explain 80% of all cases. The uterine environment may have an impact but that is less clear. While this points out the possibility that early childhood infection might have a role in later developmental difficulties, it overstates its significance by a lot.
The researchers are, of course, looking for more funding. This is done by overstating results, speculating wildly, and exaggerating potential
I don't think Business Insider is a good judge of neurological medicine but it does know what will grab readership.
AAAS