Makes sense to me...but no proof one way or the other.

Update: Time got ahold of the story and published their own take on it. They are sceptical, and so am I. The data aren't even published yet, and it's set to be presented at a conference next week (not in a peer-reviewed journal). Second, the data collection seems like bad science; they correlate autism rates, weather, and cable TV subscriptions. Huh? It doesn't sound like good science, but it still seems like an attractive hypothesis.