Al, the phrase "autism global conference" brings up only six results on Google – they are clearly not a major name in the autism community, despite claiming to be "leaders in autism research." Further, their website mentions "autism recovery" as though autism were a disease to recover from, rather than a lifelong developmental difference, as it is understood in professional circles. Specifically, they claim it’s an autoimmune disorder despite this not being accepted in mainstream science or psychiatry. Their euphemism of "biomedical alternatives" is simply a way of saying non-scientific or unresearched actions. Their website also includes parent testimonials, which is almost always a red flag of someone peddling an untested, poorly-investigated, or quack "therapy." Properly vetted therapies do not need to be promoted through testimonials; they are promoted through professionals reading the research or implementing policies and procedures based on research.
The particular study cited along with this was published in 2006 in the journal Water Research, which clearly is not a neurological or gastrointestinal journal. Credible autism-related research should come more or less exclusively from neurological or biomedical journals, not journals dedicated to subjects only remotely related to autism. The abstract of the research article indicates that it is about a specific kind of chemical reaction that takes place in drinking water, and (so far as I can see) makes no mention of this having any effect on the human body.
It’s also important to note that the "leaky gut" notion is not new; it’s been around for at least a decade or so. At best, it’s controversial, but it must be said that mainstream medicine does not accept it. At worst, it’s a fraud or an error based on simplistic misdiagnosis and no credible evidence; for example, see:
Just because someone claims to be a researcher doesn’t mean they’re credible, and even some actual researchers are not respected within the wider biomedical science community.
In short, and I have to stand firm on this, there appears to be nothing valid or of genuine interest to our constituents here.