narrow, I try to present myself as you, which is I read the news and I go, "Ah, there's something missing here." So I'm basically confirming your suspicions that something's missing and then I take my own guesses and speculations and predictions, but I'm doing it from a consumer of news perspective. If it looks like or it feels like I'm coming from some kind of expert perspective about things like science or health or something, I'm not. I'm coming at it from the consumer view. Trying to match you, not the experts.

And when I look at these four things, ultra-processed foods, environmental toxins, chronic stress and inactivity, and over-medicalization of children, I say to myself, those are a little too general. And I also say to myself, at what age is autism normally detected? Do you know? So I think the answer is under two years old. You can get it from age two to four or something. Do you believe that the children who are two years old have been unusually exposed to ultra-processed foods, environmental toxins, chronic stress and inactivity and over-medicalization? I could imagine that over-medicalization would apply to somebody under two years old. Now you could be diagnosed up into adulthood, right? So but the earliest would be like two. So my question is why would some people be so exposed to ultra-processed foods that they would get autism and other people would not? Is there something like 10% of people have some sensitivity that others don't have? So there's something about the timing of this because it feels like if these were the triggers and you could get it if you were born without any propensity for autism, it feels like there would be a lot more adults getting it, right? Or there would be like obvious examples where maybe the Amish don't get it or something. I just feel like maybe what happened here was they wanted to make sure they came in under 100 days and all they did is put their suspicions into bullet points. I don't feel like we learned anything. Do you?

But they said nothing about genetics. And certainly there's some people who think genetics is behind it. I don't know exactly how. Why would it be suddenly spiking? That doesn't make sense. Anyway, and then I saw a video, I don't know if it's really recent, but probably not too long ago that RFK Jr. was talking to Bill Maher and RFK Jr. said if you look at the studies, he's talking about the COVID vaccinations, he said if you look at the studies that were done of the Pfizer vaccine the people who got the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes. And Bill said but could that be the disease itself? And then RFK Jr. said, "Well, the vaccine doesn't work, does it?" Meaning that people were getting the disease even if they had the vaccination. So there's 23% higher death rate from all causes. And do you think that there's a counterargument to that? If the only thing you knew was only what RFK Jr. said in that interview, would you feel that you were confident that you knew what was going on? Is that enough variables for you? That the people who got the vaccine had a 23% higher death rate from all causes.

Now you want to hear the counterargument to that. Here's a counterargument. There's no study like that. That doesn't exist. Just doesn't exist. So Mary from neuro-rad oncology on X did a long explanation about the actual study he was referring to and apparently there was no statistical difference. So the answer is not oh how do we explain the 23% and all that. The answer is that didn't happen. It's not in the study. Now is Mary right? I don't know. Mary seems very smart. So is RFK Jr. right? Did he leave out some variables? How would I know? I mean, I can't really check the work of either Mary or RFK Jr., but let me give you another reframe that will ju