Actually, she can say what she want, but what she writes has to pass through the peer review process.
And there's the rub, the actual paper doesn't say anything. It's filled with maybes and possibilities, but no claims are made, and she sources
papers who's authors have been suspended or known to be fraudulent.
Since papers take time to be removed, that'snot so much a problem.
However, the way she's presenting herself in interview is far different from what's she's presenting in writing.
Of the one claim in the paper:
Ratajczak agrees that nobody has proven DNA causes autism; but argues nobody has shown the opposite, and scientifically, the case is still open.
Which means... squat.
This is her summary:
Integrating the data presented here, a hypothesis is that autism is the result of genetic defects, with the contributory effect of advancing age of
the parents, and/or inflammation of the brain. The inflammation could be caused by a defective placenta, an immature blood- brain barrier, the immune
response of the mother to a viral or bacterial infection, a premature birth, encephalitis in the child after birth, or a toxic environment. Also,
intracellular pathogens could induce an immune response, resulting in neuro-inflammation, autoimmune reactions, brain injury, and autism.
Which is pretty much what the medical community has been working with. There are genetic tags, recognisable in both parents usually, of austism, or
autistic traits.
As it stands, she's proposing a novel form of gene therapy in the interview to explain autism.
And if that's the case, she should be pursuing a Nobel prize, as it beat out all current work in the field.