Down the Rabbit Hole: Reproductive Control, the X-Chromosome, and Autism


By TLB Contributor: Leslie Carol Botha

This post is going to be more of a compilation of material that has come across my desk this past week or so. First, a publicist made me aware of a controversy brewing in the gay world – when a fashion designer team known as Dolce & Gabbana, who recently “unveiled a celebration of motherhood at Milan Fashion Week, sending models down the catwalk who were visibly pregnant or carrying little chubby-cheeked bundles of joy” only to later state that: “We oppose gay adoptions. The only family is the traditional one. … No chemical offsprings and rented uterus: Life has a natural flow, there are things that should not be changed.” And then they elaborated by stating that IVF kids are ‘synthetic’.

Then Angelina Jolie announced that she had her ovaries and her fallopian tubes removed at the age of 39 – and thrown into menopause due to the BRCA gene and history of breast cancer in her family. Many women applauded her ‘act of courage’ even though, leading doctors say that removing organs for cancer prevention is no longer necessary because of detection technology. How many other women may opt to have her reproductive organs removed and live out their life on synthetic hormones. How many women may opt for IVF if they are still in their reproductive years – and no longer have their reproductive organs? Do ya see where I am going here? Are we moving toward technology to control women’s bodies and their reproduction?

I was tagged on the post regarding IVF and autism below on Facebook when a colleague found it – and the comments fascinating. I mentioned the post to my chandler marrsgood friend and colleague, Chandler Marrs, at Hormones Matter – and she referred me to an article that she wrote in 2013 about the synthetic hormone that is used on women who are choosing IVF, entitled: Is Prenatal Dexamethasone Safe: The Baby Makers’ Hubris.

She introduces the article with her wonderful wisdom and insight by stating:

For some reason, maybe hubris, medical science seems doomed to repeat the sins of their fathers. The lessons of thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol (DES) of generations past (present and future because of transgenerational effects) have not been learned. Reproductive endocrinologist, obstetricians and others tasked with protecting maternal and fetal health are at it again; happily and blindly dosing pregnant women with synthetic steroids with neither the evidence to support their efficacy nor the research to prove safety.

She begins her conclusion with the statement:

Administering synthetic steroids during critical periods of fetal development- when physiological systems are organizing and developing – will impact system and organ functioning.

In another article on Dexamethasone (DEX), entitled: Dexamethasone during Pregnancy Increases Ovarian Germ Cell Death, Chandler wrote:

Similarly without evidence, physicians who specialize in vitro fertilization (IVF) are using DEX to prevent miscarriage. There is only one small and recent study suggesting that DEX may augment ovarian response and increase follicle production for egg retrieval. There are no studies showing improvement in fertilization, implantation or pregnancy rates, or even data showing it prevents miscarriage, its supposed purpose. Indeed, IVF physicians have embraced the myth of this miracle hormone, on perhaps no more than medical hunch.

And once again her conclusion:

What becomes abundantly clear is that we ought to stop dosing pregnant women with drugs, especially those hormonal in nature, when we have no data supporting safety or efficacy. We ought to recognize that these substances cross the placental barrier and will affect fetal development. Given medical history over the last 70 years from DES, thalidomide and now, DEX, it is clear any changes in medical practice must be initiated by women themselves. There seems no impetus from medical science to investigate before medicating pregnant women.

Once again, we have to look at – what sets the stage for autism? Is it possible that synthetic hormones may have a role? I recently had a blog post about an abstract on birth control pills and autism.

Chandler Marrs went one step further and tracked down the author of the study asking her to write about it for her blog in an article entitled: Potential Link between Oral Contraceptives and Autism.

Now let’s switch tracks. it is obvious that the medical world has little regard for the myriad of hormone suppressant steroids that women are put on – even as young as the age of 10. It is obvious that the rates of infertility are increasing as well as the rates of cancer – especially ‘gyn cancers’ a relatively new word on the block that makes most women shudder and doctors to take to music to raise awareness about prevention.

We also know that boys have a higher risk of developing autism in their early years of childhood than girls. It is thought to be because estrogen protects girls from this neuro-degenerative disorder now affecting millions of children in the U.S. However, the Autism Support Network cites that the reason has to do with alterations to the X chromosome.

This takes me back to my radio interview earlier in March with Dr. Melvin Konner on his latest book entitled: Women After All – Sex, Evolution and the End Of Male Mel Konner featureSupremacy. Dr. Konner writes in his book,

“There is a human genetic fluke that is surprisingly common, due to a change in a key pair of chromosomes. In the normal condition the two looked the same, but in this disorder one is malformed and shrunken beyond recognition. The result is a shortened life span,  higher mortality at all ages, an inability to reproduce, premature hair loss and brain defects variously resulting in attention deficit, hyperactivity, conduct disorder, hypersexuality, and an enormous excess of both outward and self-directed aggression.”

Dr. Konner went on to say during the interview that male birth is an anomaly. And men have a harder time in surviving. He even questions whether men are are even necessary in the biological destiny of the human race.

In his epilogue Konner states: “For the first time in the history of life on our planet, evolution, may soon begin to be directed by something other than natural selection; reproduction is coming under human control.” And he continues with “The Y chromosome has shrunk in size over the eons, although not so much in the last 25 million years, and a 2014 study suggests it can’t shrink much further.” But human sperm counts have done down in a time span of decades and this is like ongoing.” Konner is referring to new technologies – that I have yet to explore that will change evolution. he says: “The procedure, which would be offered to couples at risk for a mitochondrial genetic disease, involves taking an egg from a donor, removing its nucleus, replacing that with a fertilized nucleus from the couple, and implanting the new egg in the woman from the couple at risk.”

I was not aware that the mitochondria which are our energy centers… and they are duly at risk – are only passed down through the egg – not the sperm.  Konner says: “if a woman has a mutation in her mitochondrial genes, she will pass it on to her children. But in the procedure described above “her and her husband’s other genes are transferred to another woman’s egg, the donor’s normal mitochondria will be passed on instead.” The result? That child will have technically have three genetic parents; two biological mommies and one daddy.

This is a much longer post than I bargained for – but there is one last piece of information to share. And this is from a 195 Cambridge study entitled: An immunoreactive theory of selective male affliction published in Behavioral and Brain Science. This was shared with me by a researcher in Canada.


Males are selectively afflicted with the neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders of childhood, a broad and virtually ubiquitous phenomenon that has not received proper attention in the biological study of sex differences. The previous literature has alluded to psychosocial differences, genetic factors and elements pertaining to male “complexity” and relative immaturity, but these are not deemed an adequate explanation for selective male affliction. The structure of sex differences in neurodevelopmental disorders is hypothesized to contain these elements: (1) Males are more frequently afflicted, females more severely; (2) disorders arising in females are largely mediated by the genotype; in males, by a genotype by environment interaction; (3) complications of pregnancy and delivery occur more frequently with male births; such complications are decisive and influence subsequent development. We hypothesize that there is something about the male fetus that evokes an inhospitable uterine environment. This “evocative principle” is hypothesized to relate to the relative antigenicity of the male fetus, which may induce a state of maternal immunoreactivity, leading either directly or indirectly to fetal damage. The immunoreactive theory (IMRT) thus constructed is borrowed from studies of sex ratios and is the only explanation consistent with negative parity effects in the occurrence of pregnancy complications and certain neurodevelopmental disorders. Although the theory is necessarily speculative, it is heuristic and hypotheses derived from it are proposed; some are confirmed in the existing literature and by the authors’ research.

The abstract above gives substantiated credence to the vaccine and autism link especially in boys.  Many of us are aware that the vaccines are the tipping point – the final kick in a vulnerable human genome that regresses a child into the far reaches of their damaged brain – and often physically impaired body where they become prisoners.  A link, I might add that has been observed by millions of parents.

Could it be that the push for reproductive organ removal, synthetic hormones during puberty (throughout women’s life span I might add), and the increase in IVF and other infertility treatments are an experimental push to ensure the survival of the male species? Is it possible that this medical experiment is doing more harm than good? Is it possible that autism in our children is a result of a complex medical experiment gone bad?

Children conceived via IVF have double the autism rates of others: study

Thursday, March 26, 2015, 12:14 PM

Autism rates are twice as high for children conceived using assisted reproductive technology like in vitro fertilization, scientists found in a new study of nearly 6 million California children.

The researchers didn’t find a direct link between treatments like IVF and autism, however. They say the higher rates can be explained by the large number of multiple births or complications during pregnancy that can follow fertility treatments.

For moms giving birth to just one baby, there’s no increased risk of the neurodevelopmental disorder, researchers said.

During IVF, doctors combine eggs and sperm in a laboratory and then implant the embryos that are formed into a woman’s uterus. To increase the chances of pregnancy, doctors will implant up to three embryos — which boosts the possibility of carrying twins or triplets.


About the Author:

Leslie is an aLeslieCaroluthor, publisher, TLB radio talk show host and internationally recognized expert on women’s hormone cycles. Social/political activist on Gardasil the HPV vaccine for adolescent girls. Co-author of “Understanding Your Mood, Mind and Hormone Cycle.” Honorary advisory board member for the Foundation for the Study of Cycles and member of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research.


TLB highly recommends you visit Leslie at her website Holy Hormones Journal for more great articles and pertinent information.

See featured article and read comments HERE

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.