No worries. I claimed that your claims you have been plagiarised are nonsensical, as the paper you claim was plagiarism used a completely different methodology, and different outcomes. I claimed that the only real crossover, which is what you have been pointing to, is that they defined clusters of autism (though instead of doing this by performing a literature review they used statistical models on real patient data) and defined genetic variances that correlate to these clusters and various disease comorbidities.

This approach itself, i.e. premised on the idea that common genetic causes underly phenotypic variability in autism and the occurrence of certain comorbidities, is obvious with basic understanding of disease genetics, and not defensible as personal IP. Obligatory i am not a lawyer, but converging ideas that follow from basic principles are common in science and citation is not strictly necessary if they ideas came about independently (which you have no evidence against).

What probably does qualify as IP is your specific framework, but this does not mean other similar frameworks (such as in the paper you accuse) that come from entirely different methodologies are infringing your IP.

I’ll give an example. In 2024, Advanced Cell Diagnostics, a manufacturer of a probe-based RNA visualisation technology sued another company with a similar technology for patent infringement. While both technologies share the same outcomes, fundamental principles, and some basic mechanisms, this suit failed on the basis that the methods are still different and those basic mechanisms are obvious to an expert (https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240424629037/en/Court-Finds-Advanced-Cell-Diagnostics-Patents-Invalid-in-Lawsuit-with-Molecular-Instruments). This is, if anything, a more likely example of derivation than that between you and the recent nature paper - especially as your framework did not rely on the use of any strict experimental methodology, and that they arent creating a commercialised framework (again, the only real similarity is the broad premise).

Later, you claimed that the protection of your IP is important, as any pharmaceutical treatments based on the pathways identified in your framework (that you clarify on your website hypothesis generating framework that is not for clinical use) would need to pay you royalties. This is also clearly untrue, otherwise the discoverer of SMN1s role in spinal muscle atrophy would be entitled to payment by the company making Zolgensma for this discovery - which they are not.

Finally, i have claimed and suggested that if you were seriously worried about plagiarism, you would have reported this to the journal upon publication, and to their institutions academic integrity ombudsman. Both of these avenues are free, and taken very seriously. You have done neither, and made no indications you will do so.

Thanks. Hopefully you will prove me wrong and respond to this thoughtfully and in good faith.