The Highwire with Del Bigtree - THE AUTISM TSUNAMI

Episode Date: May 14, 2023

Economist, Mark Blaxill, and researcher, Cindy Nevison, PhD, join Del to discuss their recent peer-reviewed study that breaks down the incredible economic tsunami facing the U.S. & global economy from the monumental rise in autism, and the establishments attack on this historically important paper.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

A lot of you now are watching the high wire based on what you just went through with COVID. And your friend said, hey, you got to check out the high wire. I'm not seeing anyone else talk about these things, like showing us what the FDA actually wrote in the emergency use authorization and revelations. And, you know, Pfizer data. Were you aware of this or the VSAFE data? Like this show I'm watching is even, you know, suing and winning lawsuits. And I want to thank all of you that help spread the word. But there's many of you out there that have heard.

Is it there something about vaccines and autism and issues like that? Well, we have covered them, but that's really where I started. I left CBS and my work on the doctor's television show to sort of dive into an investigation, which ended up being this documentary vaxed about a whistleblower inside the CDC that gave us 10,000 documents, proving they were committing scientific fraud. When it come to discussions of causes and the prevalence of autism, Well, they keep telling us, well, it's not really growing. We're just reporting it better.

That is becoming a really old story. And it is starting to sound really horrifying because it keeps accelerating. It keeps going like this. And you've been watching it just recently in the news. Concerning findings about autism uptick in the prevalence of autism spectrum disorder in the U.S. New data from the CDC that shows more children than ever are being diagnosed. with autism. Growing number of children are being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in the United

States. A new study from the American Academy of Pediatrics has found that the rates of diagnosed autism and children has tripled over the past 16 years. What the CDC now finding in terms of how common an autism diagnosis is in 20-201 in 36 children overall, how has that changed in just two years from 2018? It was one in 44. CDC is reporting as well that an estimated 5.5 million of American adults have been diagnosed with autism. Nearly 3% of 8-year-olds were diagnosed in 2020 compared to 2.3% in 2021.

More than 1% of girls overall have autism. Predominarily, it's been found in boys and certain minority groups reporting more cases of the disorder than ever before. Diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder dramatically increased in black, Hispanic, and Asian communities. rates are up by 30%. Where are we on the question of what's causing autism? The reality is we just don't know yet. We don't know what causes autism. That's so scary that after all this time and as prevalent as it seems to be that we still don't know.

That's an amazing line. It's so scary that with as long as we've been discussing this and as fast as this is skyrocketing, we just don't know, kind of makes you think that maybe they just don't want to know. But look, this conversation today, we've had a lot of conversations about the cause of autism but the conversation that we're about to have is really forget what's causing it we know it's happening it's being reported everywhere what is the cost to our society what is what is going to be the damage done what will happen to our health care system this is the study that we're going to be discussing here autism tsunami the impact of rising prevalence on the societal cost of autism in the united states it's my honor and pleasure to be joined by two of the authors right now

Mark Blacksell and Cindy Neveson, and of course Toby Rogers, who is also the third author on this, who we've had on this show. Couldn't make it today, but I want to thank you for joining me. It's great to be here, though. So Mark, you know, you and I go way back. In fact, I'll be honest, when I had first watched Vaxed in the form that was in before I got involved, I remember saying to Andy Wakefield, you know, Andy, this sounds like a lot like you're, just a lot of your voice in perspective, and we've got this whistleblower, are there other professionals and people out there that have similar thoughts on this? This is, oh, yeah. And one of the first interviews I ever did was you. I was turned on to you and you, you know, had some brilliant statements that ended up being in VAC.

So, and I've stood on stages with you. You've been deep in this for a very long time. But what about this study? What made you decide you want to sort of tackle this study in particular? Well, I'm a dad, first and foremost, and I have a 27-year-old daughter with autism, and I worry what her future will be. And I'm afraid for our country and for all the families that have children with autism, we've seen an epidemic. Before 1930, the rate of autism in the world was effectively zero. Then for a long time, it was really rare, one in 10,000. Around 1990, it started ticking up, and ever since then, it's gone vertical. The rates are still going up and we don't know when they will plateau.

And what that means is there's a generation of kids that are now entering adulthood and they're going to live a long life. And at some point their parents will die and what will happen to them? Who's going to take care of them? How will they be housed? What will they do? What services will be? And we keep flooding the world with new children with autism.

so that what used to be a really rare phenomenon now becomes 5, 10, 15, 20 million Americans. We're not prepared for that, and I'm afraid about that. And so what we wanted to do in this paper was shine a spotlight on the societal impact of the costs of this epidemic. Cindy, this is a space. You know, you are environmental. I'll let you do a lot of, you know, studies and reports on the environment, how it's affecting human beings. So this is similar to that. But you've also done a lot of work in the autism, the two of you have written papers together.

What was unique about what you were approaching in this particular study versus other studies that you've been looking at prevalence, but what was it here that you were really trying to isolate? Well, I mean, the difference between our study on the cost of autism and previous studies is that we took actual data of autism time trends, we projected it into the risk. the future and convolve that with population projections. So we, rather than assuming that autism has always been 1% going back to older people today, we looked at the actual rates and so we're able to do a more realistic age stratified

projection of how things would evolve into the future. Let's take a look at just, if we look at this study again, here's the headline on it, autism tsunami, the impact of rising prevalence on the societal cost of autism in the United States. We just pulled this excerpt that just sort of gives you a sense of what this paper is about. Of course, you'll all get to read this if you're signed up to our newsletter. But our model projects a total population-wide autism spectrum disorder cost in the U.S. of $5.54 trillion per year by 2016, accounting for inflation with potential savings of $1.9 trillion per year with pursuit of ASD prevention, so it could be lowered.

We believe these projections work against the temptation to normalize recent trends in autism spectrum disorder prevalence. Rather, they reinforce the need to address rising autism prevalence as more than just an urgent public health concern, but also as a policy question with respect to where resources will come from and how to mitigate and prevent the worst case scenarios. 5.5 trillion dollars per year. Now, I know there's a lot of people that just can't think out as far as 2016, but it's... Literally around the corner, many people live right now watching this will be living at that time. And I just think about we're having so many discussions right now about our finance. We're about to, you know, go into a debt ceiling crisis once again.

And $5 trillion is a massive number, the interest alone on that. And to think that that is just for one group of people suffering with one specific health issue, I want to say, I mean, is that, how did you come to that number? Like, how do we get there? It's simple arithmetic. You take Cindy, you know, we develop these population projections. You do the rate, the data on the rates today. You project that forward.

We made conservative assumptions about projecting it forward. You take those rates, you multiply them by population projections for the United States and say how many people are going to have autism. And then you do, we did, and there's a literature on the cost of autism by individual at different stages in the lifespan. So we have it for children, for working age people. Well, tell me about that for a second. And then you multiply. Right.

And that's where you get $5.5 trillion by 2016. When we think of cost, I mean, this is something that, you know, as I've interviewed, you know, hundreds of families dealing with, you know, autism and other, you know, neurological disorders and things. But for a parent, and there's many, if we look at just that sort of news montage, we're talking, you know, one in 44, one in 36, it keeps going higher and higher. When we look at just boys, we are starting to crest, you know, under one in 20 boys being diagnosed, which means there are people watching the show that just heard about, that just heard that their child got this diagnosis. What are the types of costs to a family? I mean, you've done fairly well in life, but it's expensive. there are parents that get just devastated by this? Well, the cost vary through the lifespan.

When the children are young, the biggest costs are special education, which cripples something like 25, 30% of school budgets are on special education. It's education, it's lost parental productivity. The parents, it's tough to take care of a child with autism. Often the mother is removed from the workforce. It takes a toll on the father's career. So lost parental productivity is a huge number and medical costs. It causes divorce, too, when we look at that too.

So many times it's just so difficult that the family is tough on the fabric of the family. And then over time, you know, the person with autism ages. And when they are an adult in the working age period of life, it's lost productivity of the individual. So what they would have made just what they would have made. Employment rates. among even mild adults with autism are very low. Most of these people are dependent on support. So they have to have something to do during the day. You have programming, you have residential issues, particularly when their parents are gone, and medical costs as well. So those costs,

and autistic, the lifespan of people with autism, there are higher death rates, usually from accidental death, drowning or things like that. But basically, these are people that live a long and full life. And so someone's going to, you know, they're going to be elderly at some point and how do we deal with elderly people with autism? All of that, those are the costs. Which I mean when I mean, we'll get into it in a minute, but when I think about this when people and this argument that the prevalence has always been the same, it's always 1%, as you said. Every studies just say, well, it's always been here. I've always said, where are the, you know, giant temples and housing for the elderly that are suffering from autism?

There'd be cities of them at this point at the prevalence we're talking about. If everyone in, you know, 36 humans on this planet has had autism the whole time, you know, it's just a ridiculous statement. But, you know, I want to ask you because, you know, when I made Vax, there's obviously differing opinions on how you, you know, stratified. or figure out these numbers. Remember Stephanie Seneff was this MIT scientist. We brought on on, on, you know, when we're looking in Vax, and I said to her, I'll never forget asking the question. It's like, well, certainly it's going to plateau at certain points. And whether it's

vaccines or glyphosate, she's really big on these other environmental issues, I mean, there's only so much that we're increasing those things at some point it plateaus. And she made this dramatic statement, no, I think it's going to get worse and predicted, you know, one and two children by, you know, I think it's 20, 32 or, you know, somewhere in there. But is that, is that sort of, do you come to those numbers by sort of using this, that it's just, if we just map it out, it goes catastrophic. We're much more conservative than Stephanie. Okay. We, uh, you can see the curve. You showed the curve. It's an S curve. We flatten it out. We have not seen a plateau yet. We still see those dark dots. We're looking at that right now. Okay. So what are we looking at on this?

Straight up, straight up. And that supports Stephanie's argument. But our mom. basically we flattened it out. We did an S curve. At some point those increases have to stop. Right. And that's how we built our scenario. And so go ahead. What about looking? You have a red line there. What is that red line represent? Yeah, I just wanted to point out that the symbols on the graph are actual data from the California. So the little black dots that we see going up. That is what we know for. That is what is the reality. That is the reality.

Well, adding the points that we do know about this is what's happened with this. Again, that is why our model was different because we took the actual age stratified structure of the rate of autism and we're projecting it. We're still kind of in the exponential growth phase, but our choice was to model it as a growth that does level off at a certain level. Right. Sort of a logistic function. And we had different scenarios. The red line is the base case, where we did, you know, it's a logistic, curve. Yeah. It's not exponential, it's logistic. It's definitely argues for exponential increase

and that's what it looks like today. But we said no, it's a logistic curve. There's a lower line, the blue line, which is our low case. And that was a conservative estimate that allowed for the fact that when we changed over from the DSM4 to DSM 5 that maybe California became more lenient on who they allowed into their program. So the DSM, what is the DSM when we talk about that? that? Diagnostic and statistical manual. It's where the diagnostic criteria for autism reside. Okay, so this is where they sort of lay out all the different types of additions. One, two, three, four, and five. All right. We're on number five. But I wanted to, I wanted to mention that we already, I have, we, Mark and I have recent data from San Diego, California, DDS.

This study is done on data out of California. Is that, is the basis? Well, that was the basis. We already know that low, that low case is not realistic. And that, that, But we're making assumptions that the California data represent only half or less of the total autism cases and that there's a whole other additional set of milder cases. And we were, with the low curve, we were allowing for the fact, well, that maybe the California data includes everything now. And that's why the numbers are increasing so sharply. But we have evidence now that that is not true. So, I mean, this is what's amazing about this is you're not just being, you know, incredibly dramatic. you are literally, you put in a line that says it could be here,

even though the actual numbers are skyrocketing above this, but let's just show the whole spectrum of what could possibly happen. And even the blue line is horrifying. It's really high. The financial, you know. It flattens out at 3%, which is 1 in 36, you know, roughly. Yeah. So because we take each of these numbers, this is for severe autism.

Yeah. These cases, that's the California data. There's a scalar effect to include the mile. cases and we multiply by two basically. You got a couple of the graphs. Let's take a look at the from this paper. Right here, we look at how, this is how you broke it down basically in the data that is coming in. When that goes into graph form, this is really shocking to look at this next bar graph.

So this is how this trend has changed. We look at 2016 even, which isn't really that long ago. But what is the blue? Blue is the children. The blue is the children. The children, 0 to 21. And so then obviously as those children grow up, then they enter this red group, which ends up being the adults, and then the green ends up being elderly.

And as you're pointing out here, we really don't even have any elderly yet. Some, very few. But very few. Like they don't really make... And we don't even have many adults. Right. And this is one thing in the little montage in the beginning. Part of the talking point is, oh, we have five and a half million adults with autism.

No, we don't. Show them to us. Where are they? Where are they housed? Where are they, what services are being provided? There is no resource being directed to elderly people or adults with autism. In 2016, more than half the population will be adults, and most of their parents will be gone. So that's the crisis.

That's the impact of the tsunami. And if we actually put our fingers in our ears and say it's not happening, we won't even begin to address that issue. Let's talk about it for a second. Let me just bring out, because you've written some great books, folks. If you haven't, you know, this one especially is such an easy read. It makes perfect sense. If you have someone that's telling you, look, it's just because they're diagnosing it better. This book, Denial, gets into that argument and beats the hell out of it very easily.

And I use the reference there, which is essentially when we look at all the great diagnosticians of the world, you know, throughout time, Tourette's and all this, and you write about this. They went into Insanis Islands. They didn't have a lot they could do, but let's go to the Insanis Island and write up everything we can see. We've been looking at people with negative mental health outcomes

for centuries. It's not as though we don't. Just started at this. Just started at this. Leo Connor, when he wrote about autism, said, I have seen for the first time a group of children whose condition is so different from anyone we've ever seen before

that I'm gonna write about him. Yeah, and he has, what was it, 11 kids? 11 kids, they were all born in the 1930s. And again, you know, and then what's amazing is these people that are fascinated by it, scientists and psychologists fly from around the world in to see these very interesting, this new thing that's popped up in these 11 kids. Leo Conner wrote a textbook in 1935. It was the Dr. Spock book of his generation called Child Psychiatry, the first textbook on child psychiatry in 1930. Nothing about autism in there. Other diseases or disorders of childhood, but nothing.

about autism and then in 1938 he saw his first kid that the parents took their child with with who is clearly autistic all the way up from Forest Mississippi to meet the great Lee O'Connor and Johns Hopkins University and there we had the origin of autism so that's that brings me to really sort of the fate of this paper you got it peer-reviewed you got it published and now recently we have an email that says let's just take a look this email is what you received that it's being retracted. I forget who the person is that wrote this.

Jennifer Hadley. Jennifer Hadley sent you this later. Basically, we are retracting your paper, and you've, of course, written back, rebutted this. You and Toby, the three of you got together and really laid out your perspective on this. But what's their argument? What is it? Why did they tell you they're retracting this paper?

No good reason, to be honest. representative data. Yes. Whatever that means. It's very vague. We've been fighting this for close to two years now. Okay. Because some concerns got raised and we addressed every single concern, but it's been a very opaque and untransparent process. We don't know. Somebody complained. The club, I think, kind of coalesced. They sort of said, how did you let this paper get out? We don't know. We're speculating. But we've gotten very scant evidence. The journal first said we're going to retract it.

We want to peer review it again. How did it go through peer review the first time? First time. You know, peer review, you've got people, they read it, they look at your data, this is what they do, they approved it, right? Yeah. Normal peer review process. The journal, Cindy and I both dealt with Jad previously, published numerous things.

there and they've been very good to work with. And the first time we went through peer review, it sailed through peer review. It's actually built on some of our prior work. But one reviewer said simply excellent. Two words. And the other said, you guys are understating your contribution to the field.

And it sailed through. What's amazing about this is because I know, look, I've watched this. I've watched scientists and people like yourself. people like yourself. You have learned to just, let me just avoid the touchy part of this conversation. Let's at least speak to the part that's affecting all of our lives. And it just, this seems like such an innocuous study, just to get it out. Like this is just, let's just talk numbers. Because you're all admitting at least that this thing, the numbers are higher and higher and going up.

Can we talk cost? So it would have seemed, and that's why, unlike other studies, it might have looked at cause, this isn't a cause. Studies just saying numbers. That's right. But ultimately, it's this prevalence idea. It's what we're talking about, that they want to still live in this dream world of it's all just been happening all this time, all the way back to Egypt. We've got, you know, entire temples filled with autistic adults. We just didn't know about it. I mean, it makes absolutely no sense. But it'll say. That was the criticism that they, two of the five reasons they're using to justify their attraction are that prevalence hasn't actually changed and we haven't considered that the diagnostic criteria have changed.

It means literally the same argument keeps coming around. Mark, I mean, just to give it a sense of this, you've been at this for quite some time all the way back, you know, the congressional hearing in 2012. 2012, folks, this is Mark Blackswell speaking in a congressional committee. We grabbed an excerpt from this because it really comes down to the big problem. And we've talked about it even earlier in this show. what happens when your government is forcing a product on everybody and maybe it has a problem, you think that there may be some intervening or, you know, controlling censorship of the overall discussion. Look how well this ages.

I'm sure Mark is proud of this moment. I know we are. This was 2012, congressional hearing. For a long time, we had low rates in America, about one in ten thousand. Then around 1990s, something new and terrible happened to a generation of children. rates didn't just rise, they multiplied. This escalation covered both full syndrome autism and the broader autism spectrum, including Asperger's. Some people claim this isn't real, that we're just doing better diagnosing. That's just wrong. If you read the old literature,

the old surveys, they looked for everybody and they couldn't find people. They didn't miss 99% of the children with autism. It's not hard to find a child with autism. It's obvious when they're autistic. The notion that we're just doing better diagnosing, even in the CDC, studies, they're using the same methodology. So when you see those numbers rising, that's not because the methods are changing, it's because there are more cases. In the midst of this crisis, the federal agency is responsible for the health of our children have failed in their duty. CDC's negligence has led the way. Many of us believe CDC has actively covered up evidence surrounding autism's environmental causes. NIH, meanwhile, has received the lion's share

of funding, money they've wasted on status quo research and gene studies. It's absurd to focus on genetic research in this crisis. There's no such thing as a genetic epidemic. I'll just say that in the financial world, the result of pressure to manipulate numbers to provide the answers that bosses want has a name. It's called securities fraud. In medicine, there are similar pressures.

They're called special interest politics and even peer review. And what CDC has given us is the medical equivalent of securities fraud, all to avoid the inconvenient reality of the autism epidemic. I mean, it's... Looked a lot younger back then. It's aged you a little bit, hasn't. Me too, honestly.

And I haven't been at it as long as you, and you obviously are directly involved. You have a daughter that is in this space. But to come all this way and still be up against this same censorship in control, honestly, what keeps you going in this? I mean, you're... First of all, it's just right. It's the right thing to do. It's a big problem.

Who's going to do it? Who's going to take it on? And secondly, probably more importantly, I worry about my daughter, you know, who's going to take care of her. One thing that struck me in that is the people that went after us on the censorship front, the retraction impetus, came from a blog post written by the, it's called the Spectrum News. It's sponsored by the Simons Foundation, which is one of the biggest funders of genetic research in the country, in the world.

So the ones that are getting funded to all the studies on proving that autism is genetic, which they have been trying to do forever. Fruitlessly. Funded by, you know, Simonson. Jim Simonsons. Jim Simons. And then also, I know that autism speaks,

which is the biggest, you know, most funded autism nonprofit. And they have stipulated they will never look at vaccines. They're in this genetic space. And so all this funding is going there. And can we replay? I want to replay just the last little line in this news part that I think really says it all. Can we replay that really quickly?

Where are we on the question of what's causing autism? The reality is we just don't know yet. We don't know what causes autism. That's so scary that after all this time and as prevalent as it seems to be that we still don't know. I mean, this is where we're at. They literally, and based on Vax with the movie I made, the last study ever funded looking at any connection between the vaccines and autism. The last study ever funded by the United States of America was finished in 2004.

It's a fraudulent, you know, study, how they handled it was fraudulent. That's what the movie is all about. And so when I hear doctors say, well, we've looked at it. In fact, it's the only thing that's been taken off the table and everything else you put in there has never. fit, hasn't gotten us anywhere. And so we're literally like driving, racing down a highway with blindfolds on purpose. And now you try to do a study saying, well, while we're racing, it's going to cost us a fortune. And now they'll even censor that. I want to bring up, I interviewed

Neil deGrasse Tyson just a few weeks ago. And he made a statement about the scientific method. I said the scientific method is dying right before our eyes. But to get into that, let's just say what he said. The scientific method is do what ever it takes to to not be fooled that something is true that is not or that something is not true that is. Did I say that right? I get what you're saying. Do whatever it takes. Does it mean get a chart recorder, get a friend to verify? Unearth it in any way possible. Any way possible. Yes. Okay. I don't care what it is. Yep. You don't want to be fooled into thinking something. is true that isn't or something is not true that is.

I mean, yeah, go ahead. So the censorship impetus came from, part of the argument was undeclared non-financial conflicts of interest. It was ad hominine, ad hominem, mostly to me. Okay. For my ideological commitments, that was the thing. I don't have an ideological commitment to a cause. All we care about is if those numbers are doing what they are reported to do, is what can we do to stop it?

That was the thing they beat us up about, is our prevention scenario, so that was some hidden agenda. I don't have a dog in the fight about what the environmental cause is. But we need to find it out, and we need to beat up the people that say, oh, we just don't know. Of course we need to know.

No. Why don't we want to find out? Why do we want 3%, 6%, 10% of American children to be disabled by autism, to leave the workforce, to be uncared for in their old age? Of course we need to know. Of course we need to stop it. That's not an ideological commitment. That's just a search for the truth. And you know, and that's what and and shout out to Toby Rogers who looked online in Jad, because, you know, and that's what. And and shout out to Toby Rogers who looked online in Jad. they have some line in there about undeclared non-financial conflict of interest. Toby went through every one of the open access articles. There was not a single one of them that declared, you know, that used, where anyone in there, an author, declared a non-financial conflict of interest. You know, they just made that up to take down an inconvenient article. And I want to just talk about, because this is something we talk a lot about, and I need

people to really understand this. The entire process of a medical journal or a science journal and the scientific method and how it's supposed to be handled there is you have put forward a hypothesis, if you will, using the data as we know it, arguably projecting into different ways that can project out, even lower lines than where we're actually at right now. You cover the gamut, which seems to be as safe as you could possibly be. You don't just get dramatic on the highest number we could possibly find, so there should be no issue there. But the scientific method, the way this is supposed to work, is my understanding is it used to be that any dissenting voice,

Doesn't matter if they're all fully funded to be looking for the genetic reason behind autism. I've never been able to achieve it, but that's who wants to dissent. They write their dissent, and that is supposed to be attached to your paper, stuck there, like, tattooed on you for life, saying, this has been our argument against this theory, right? And then you get to rebut it and say, well, here's our science, and here's where it's at, and that gets tagged on. And this begins this foundational principle of the science around this conversation. And this is what is so terrifying is that they are not sticking the scientific method in the process of peer review and this interaction in science.

They're erasing it, which means 10 years from now, 20 years from now, when we try to look back at what we knew and what we didn't know and find our bearings and where we're at, certainly someone will say, well, you know, Cindy and Mark were accurate or they missed it by this much or here's why they got it wrong and the descending voice was right or the, you know, or it was wrong. Write a letter to the editor. Right, right. Publish it. Put your name on it. Right. Not a single person who influenced Springer and Jad's decision is named. We don't know who they are.

Right. Cowards. Cowards. Yeah, and I should tell a story of Mark. Mark was involved in a very similar situation in 2002 with this very same journal where somebody had published a paper that falsely said that autism was increasing because of diagnostic substitution for intellectual disability. Mark wrote a letter to the journal,

laid out his facts for everyone to review that was published along with the original article and then the original authors were forced to concede that he was right. To their credit. To their credit. They did. They went and looked at the data again

and discovered that it was a group of us. Right. We were right. It all played out in public space where everyone could review the data. So for people to understand this, so that I understand it just, and I don't want to get in the weeds there,

but basically there's this argument that, well, they used to be called retarded, now they're just being called out to, they're doing a better job of saying what it was. Is that the basic argument? Diagnostic substitution is one of the excuses. Better diagnosing breaks down to diagnostic oversight, diagnostic substitution, diagnostic broadening.

There are only three things. Oversight is, oh gosh, they were always here and we missed them. Substitution is we put them in a different category, and that was the argument there. And, you know, intellectual disability has been pretty, steady through time. Autism rates have gone up. There are issues about co-occurrence, but the argument and Cindy and I have written on this together is that the arguments for diagnostic substitution don't work. But my point was just that was sort of, that was the right process, the due process

way to handle it, to give, to let everyone view the data and judge for themselves and let the scientific discussion play out. In our case, we're just shut down by anonymous critics. I think to, you know, our founding fathers, one of the brilliant things that happened is John Adams and Thomas Jefferson basically make disagreement with each other, that we have had massive disagreements on decisions that have been made in this country where it's going to lead, but we should start writing letters back and forth to each other as, you know, the historical reference so that people will know what we were arguing about and be able to define, you know, the foundation of how we move forward, where we went right, where we went wrong. That is exactly how these studies are supposed to be done. And I can't tell you almost everyone that sits in these seats that I bring in here that have done brilliant work, we are watching censorship of science and this interaction at a level that is unprecedented. I mean, it was bad years ago when you were before the Congress. I think we're at now.

It's way worse. It's way worse. They're basically locking down. And the autism problem is too big to handle. I don't think anybody can get their minds around $5 trillion. dollars a year and they just want to ignore it and I hope that they'll be gone and not in charge of dealing with it when the problems really get critical and they will become critical. Well whether or not you know I know they haven't quite

retracted this yet you're sort of getting out ahead of it looks like that's the course we will make sure that everyone our audience has this because to me it's valuable it is clear you know what you are arguing here it's it's there's really no argument and it's something we have to look Well, if there is an art, show us. Show us what we did wrong. Right. We asked for the same thing when Vax got kicked out of Tribeca.

If there's, they said, well, there's some doctors and science disagree. What do they disagree about? We should have the right to defend this film and where our information came from. Then if we don't stand up, fine. But we're not going to tell you, and that's where we live. I just hope that we don't lose the commitment from people like you that are fighting this constantly uphill battle, battle, dragging every boat anchor you can imagine behind you, the odds stacked against you, but literally what you are showing us in this study is you may think this isn't a part of

your life, but you're going to be paying for it, and where do you think that money is going to come from? So it's... Yeah, well, you guys are doing great work too, so... Keep up the good work. Give the ICANN. All right. And by the way, everyone, this is a super easy, great book, and this is a fascinating book, just sort

based on a ride through Mercury and all the places that it was in society and sort of looking at stories that maybe you would see differently if you realize how close in contact some of those historical figures were to Mercury and did that affect, you know. Mercury was the standard of care for centuries. It's outrageous. And they voiced a lot of people and it's crazy to think about what happened. Well, I want to thank you for taking the time to come in and join us today. Really great work and we'll keep celebrating it.

Keep up the great work. Appreciate that, though.