THE AUTISM TSUNAMI

A lot of you now are watching the high wire based on what you just went through with COVID. And your friends said, hey, you gotta check out the high wire. I'm not seeing anyone else talk about these things. Like showing us what the FDA actually wrote in emergency use authorization and revelations and you know, Pfizer data, where you're aware of this or the V-save data. Like

this show I'm watching is even, you know, suing and winning lawsuits. And I wanna thank all of you that helped spread the word, but there's many of you out there that have heard, is it there's something about vaccines and autism and issues like that? Well, we have covered them. But that's really where I started. I left CBS on my work on the doctor's television show to

sort of dive into an investigation which ended up being this documentary Vax 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. Children are being diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in the United States. The 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 2021 in 36 children overall. How has that changed in just two years from 2018? It was one in 44. The CDC is reporting us well that an estimated 5.5 million of American adults having diagnosed with autism. Nearly 3% of eight year olds were diagnosed in 2020 compared to 2.3% in 2021. More than 1% of girls overall have autism predominantly it's

been found in boys. And certain minority groups are putting more cases of the disorder than ever before. So diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder dramatically increased in black, Hispanic and Asian communities. Those 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 is prevalent, 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 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 is really something that we're about to have is really forget about causing it. We know it's happening. It's being reported everywhere. What is the cost of our society? 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 Blacksill and Cindy Nevesinn 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 Vax 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 your just a lot of your voice and perspective and we've got this whistleblower. Are there other professionals and people out there that have similar thoughts on this?

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 Vax so I've stood on stage 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 their 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

us. 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 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 written papers together. What was unique about what you

were approaching in this particular study versus other studies that we've been looking at in the last few months? What was the prevalence? What was it here that you were really trying to isolate? Well I mean the difference between our study on the cost of autism in previous studies is that we took actual data of autism time trends. We projected it into the future and convolved 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 that. So we're going 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

autism tsunami, the impact of rising prevalence on the societal cost of autism in the United States. We just pulled this excerpt. It 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 US. We're going to

do a 5.54 trillion dollars per year by 2060 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 alive 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 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 you do the rate the data on the rates today. You project that forward. We made it conservative assumptions about projecting it. 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. Well, tell me about that for a second. And then you multiply. Right. And that's where you get 5.5 trillion by 26. Well, we think of costs. I mean this is something. I've interviewed hundreds of families dealing with autism and other neurological disorders and

things. But for a parent and as many as if we look at just that news montage. We're talking in a 1 in 44 1 in 36. It keeps going higher and higher. When we look at just boys. We are starting to crest under 1 in 20 boys being diagnosed. Which means there are people watching this show that just heard about. 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. And then, over

time, the person with autism ages. And when they are an adult in the working age period of life. It's tough to take care of the child with autism. Often the mother is removed from the workforce. It takes the toll on the father's career. So lost parental productivity is a huge number and medical cost. Cost is divorced too. We look at that too. It's so many times.

It's just so difficult. The families. It's tough on the fabric. Yeah. And then, over time, 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 is what they would have made. Employment rates among even mild adults with autism are very low. Most of these people are dependent

on the child. 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 is going to, you know, they're going to be elderly at some point and have been told how do we deal with elderly people with autism? All of that. Those are the costs. Which 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 be cities of them at this point. The prevalence we're talking about. If everyone in, you know, 36 human beings on this planet has had autism the whole time, they're, you know, it's just a ridiculous statement.

But, you know, I want to ask you because on, you know, when I made Vax, there's obviously differing opinions on how you, you know, stratify or figure out these numbers. Remember, Stephanie Senniff was this MIT scientist we brought on and on, on, you know, when we're looking in Vax. And I said, you know, 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, it's really big on these other environmental issues. I mean, there's only so much that we're increasing those things at some point. Platoes and she made this dramatic statement. No, I think it's going to get worse and predicted, you know, one in two children by, you know, I think it's 20, 32 or somewhere in there. But is

that, is that sort of, do you come to those numbers by sort of using this that is just if we just map it out? It goes, you know, we've had a strong, We're much more conservative than Stephanie. Okay. 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. So when we're looking at on this straight up, straight up. And that supports Stephanie's argument. But our model, basically, we flattened it out. We did an S curve. At some point, those increases have to stop. And that's how we built our scenarios. And so, so go ahead. What have been looking? You have a red line there. Was that red line represent? Yeah. I just wanted

to point out that the symbol of the graph, our actual data from the California dots that we see going up, that is what we know the projection. That is what is the reality. That's the reality. That's what we do know about. This is what's happened with it. 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. With a sort of a logistic function. And we had different scenarios. The red line is the base case. Where we did it. 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. Yeah. It's our low case. And that was a conservative estimate that allowed for the fact that when we changed over from the DSM 4 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? Diagnostic and statistical manual. Okay. Where the diagnostic criteria for autism reside. Okay. So this is where they sort of lay out all the different types of addition. Like one, two, three, four, five. Right. We're on number five. But I wanted to mention that we already, I have, Mark and I have recent data from San Diego, California, DDS.

This study is done on data out of California. That's the basic. We already know that that low, that low case is not realistic. And that we're making assumptions that the California data represent only half or less of the total autism cases. And that there, there is a whole other additional set of milder cases. And we were with the low curve. We were allowing for the fact

that we were able to have a little more of that effect. Well, that maybe the California data includes everything now. And that's why their numbers are increasing so sharply. But we have evidence now that this is what's amazing about this is you're not just being 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. So we had a 3% which is right in 36 ago roughly. Yeah, yeah. So because we take, 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 milder

cases. And we multiply by two basically. You got a couple of other graphs. Let's take a look at from this paper. Is that really right here? We look at how this is how you broke it down basically and the data that it's 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? The blue is the children. The blue is the children zero 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. 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. Yeah. Where are they? Where are

they housed? Where are you know what services are being provided? There is no resource being directed to elderly people or adults with autism. In 2060, more than half of the population will be adults. And most of their parents will be going to be gone. So that's the crisis. That's the impact of the tsunami. And if we don't do so, if we actually put our fingers in

our ears and say it's not happening, we won't even begin to address that. Let's talk about it for a second. Let me just bring out because if 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. It beats the hell out of it very easily. And I use the reference there, which is essentially when we look at all the great diagnostic institutions of the world, you know, throughout time, Tourette and all this. And you write about this. They went into the Santa Silence. They have a lot they could do. But let's go to the Santa Silence 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 just started it. This leoconner, 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 going to write about him. Yeah. And he has what was 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. Dr. Spock, book of his generation called Child Psychiatry, the first textbook on child

psychiatry in 1913, nothing about autism. Wow. Other diseases are disorders of childhood, but nothing about autism. And then in 1938, he saw his first kid. The parents took their child with, who is clearly autistic all the way up from forest Mississippi to meet the great leoconner in Johns Hopkins University. And there we had the origin of autism. So that brings me to really sort of the,

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. This is, 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? You know, why did they tell you they're retracting this paper? No good reason to be honest. Use of unrepresented 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. And they put

us. How did it go through peer review the first time? I mean, you know, you peer review, you've got people, they read it, they look at your data. This is what we're talking about. What they do, they approved it, right? Yeah. Normal peer review process. The journal, Cindy and I both dealt with Chad 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 understanding your contribution to the field. So 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. 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, 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 costs? So

it would have seemed, and that's why unlike other studies that 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. If 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. That was the criticism that they, two of the five reasons there are just, using to justify the retraction are that prevalence hasn't actually changed. And we haven't considered that the diagnostic criteria have changed. That was... It means literally the same, just 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 10,000. Then around 1990, something new and

terrible happened to a generation of children. Autism 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 agencies responsible for the health of our children

have failed in their duty. CDC's negligence has led the way. Many of us believe CDC is 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, they're 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 methodology. 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 and control, honestly, what keeps you going in this? I mean, 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 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 that was about to be a big problem. Some blog post written by 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. Funded by Simonson, Jim Simons. And then also, I know that autism speaks, which is the biggest hot, you know, the most funded autism nonprofit. And they have stipulated they will never look at vaccines. They're

in this genetic space. And so all the spending 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

How they handled it was fraudulent. And that's what the movie is all about. And so when I hear doctors say, well, we've looked that you have it. In fact, it's the only thing that's been taken off the table and everything else you've put in there has never fit. Has it 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. To get into that, let's just say what

he said. The scientific method is do whatever it takes 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 say. Do whatever it takes. Does it mean get a chart recorder? Right. Get a friend to verify. Unauthored 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 where something is not true. That is. I mean, yeah. Go ahead. So the censorship in impetus came from part of the argument was undeclared non-financial conflicts of interest. It was ad hominetic. And then ad hominem mostly to me for my ideological commitments. That was the thing that 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. Right. We need to be out

and we need to beat up the people that say, oh, we just don't know. Of course we need to know. Right. 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. Yeah. And, you know, and that's what, and that's what I'm saying. And shout out to Toby, Rochester's, who looked online in JAD because they have some line in there, but 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. Right. To take down an inconvenient hour. And I want to just talk about, because in this and then 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 could project out even lower lines and where we're actually at right now. You cover the game. It would seem 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, you know, all fully funded to be looking for the genetic, you know, reason behind autism. Have 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 a little bit of 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 to scientific method in the process of peer review. And this interaction and 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. Here's why they got it wrong and the dissenting voice was right or they, you know, or it was wrong. Right, 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. Wow. We don't know who they are. Right.

You know, the cowards. Cowards. Yeah. And we should, 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. But it all played out in public. Yeah. We're everybody who can review the data. And so that I understand and just, and I don't

want to get in the weeds there, but basically this is 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. It was at the basic argument. And that was the argument there. And 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. My point was just that was sort of, that was the right process. The right process? The do process way to handle it, 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 too, you know, our founding father is one of the brilliant things that happened is John Adams and Thomas Jefferson basically make this agreement 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're 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 was be done. And, you know, 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, you know, 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 is way worse. They're basically locking down. And the autism problem is too big to handle. I don't think anybody can get it. You know, what you're arguing here, it's, it's, it's, it's really no argument. And it's something

we have to look at. Well, if there is, show us. Show us what we did wrong. Right. Yeah. Well, we asked for the same thing when Vax got kicked out of Tribeca. Yeah. If there's, they said, well, there's some doctors in science disagree. What did they disagree about? Yeah. And we should have the right to defend this film and where our information came from. And 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 up. Hill, battle, dragging every boat anchor you can imagine behind you, the odd stacked against you. But literally what you are showing us in this study is you may think this is

in 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. Give the I can. All right. And by the way, everyone, this is a super easy, great book. And this is a fascinating book. I'm just sort of based

on. A ride to 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. It was a standard of care for centuries. It's and they've played 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. Thank you.