What disturbs me the most is: are we really not taking MRIs of most autistic patients? How come we don't have enough data to draw clear correlations?
I'm not a physician either, but it seems a perfectly valid, testable hypothesis that a cerebellar cyst is the cause of the author's brother condition, and this kind of malformation bears an impact on those conditions at large.
MRIs were certainly performed on autistic patients in order to determine that certain physical variations in brain structure are associated with autism. But if your goal is to diagnose autism, there are much cheaper (and more accurate) ways to do so, and if your goal is to treat it, the MRI results don't really inform your treatment options, so the consensus is probably that an MRI would be nothing more than an extremely expensive way to get a vague confirmation of the diagnosis.
(Of course, if the author's hypothesis is correct, that may be about to change.)
I imagine a study would be warranted, if one does not already exist. If a statistically significant link could be established, why not run tests?
How much does it cost to have an MRI performed? How does it compare to the lifetime medical (and social) costs of an autism sufferer?
I'm just guessing here, but if even 1% of autism cases were caused by cysts or other treatable brain abnormalities, and hypothetical interventions had a 25% success rate, you'd end up spending $1.2M per case of autism cured (using the other poster's figure of $3K for an MRI scan). That seems well worth it to me. Certainly the cost delta between a functional member of society and someone that requires costly support their whole life is way more than $1.2M over a lifetime.
Of course this is like Drake's equation; taking an unknown and breaking it down into made-up numbers doesn't actually increase certainty, but fortunately, these numbers are a lot more knowable than the coefficients in Drake's equation. It's simply that I don't know them.
I don't see why laughter would be warranted for such a question. Yeah, MRIs are expensive, but wouldn't measurement of the brain's internals among those with autism be helpful in identifying the contributing factors and - maybe someday - a proper treatment?
Parent post is talking about scanning an individual. That's less useful. The second link I provide gives some reasoning: ASD is often suspected early. Many parents recognise somethings are different at about two years of age. You can't put an awake two year old in an MRI machine because you need the scanned person to stay still.
I'm not a physician either, but it seems a perfectly valid, testable hypothesis that a cerebellar cyst is the cause of the author's brother condition, and this kind of malformation bears an impact on those conditions at large.