was a wonderful thing but so many of his base are dead set against the idea that that was ever a good idea and that it was they think it was his biggest downside for Trump. So I like the fact that he's not just trying to lie to us and say something like oh no trust me it was the best thing that ever happened to the country. He's saying out loud that he doesn't know which is very brave actually. And he's saying that he wants to know and that he's putting pressure on Pfizer and others. He says that he's seen documents by the pharma that would suggest it was a wonderful idea for the shot but that it's not public which automatically makes me think that whatever they showed him is not credible because if they released it maybe other people would look a little more deeply into the data and say wait a minute this doesn't look credible to me. So yeah I would like to know if the pharma entities are playing the president and the rest of the country. And I don't know how we'll ever know. I guess I'd be skeptical that we could ever get to the bottom of it because there's just so much money involved in maybe hiding anything that would be bad news. But I love Trump's approach to it. Even if it turned out that well I won't speculate.

So as you know the Kennedy MAHA movement was supposed to produce a report about what caused autism. They did produce a report but it was sort of general and not something you could act on very well. I mean it was just sort of obvious things like it's the food it's the environment maybe too much medicalization but they're not sure. So it didn't really come to a conclusion you could act on. But turns out that there's a $50 million budget for any number of people that they decide maybe 25 grant winners to study it and to really drill down and find out what's causing autism.

Now my question is this because also in this story it says that they're going to be looking at existing databases. Why would it cost $50 million and take an estimated according to the story this is Reuters two to three years $50 million 25 grants two to three years for existing data? How can both of those things be true? If Trump signed an executive order that said if Kennedy requests your data you have to give it to him or you'll go to jail because it's an emergency. You know autism rates are so high it's an emergency. So if we want your data you're not going to be able to say it's private or anything. We want your data. So how would that take two to three years to analyze existing data if you solve the problem of making them give it to you? What am I missing here? I feel as though if you've got 25 grants and $50 million that you've already added two variables that would make any project fail. Am I right? If it wasn't about this topic. Let's say it had nothing to do with autism. It was just a project and I told you there will be 25 grant winners trying to figure out from existing data what the problem is. Would you imagine that that would work? There's something wrong with it even from 30,000 feet in the air. I mean which is all we know about it. We don't know the details. But even from there this doesn't look like a process that will bear fruit. There's something wrong here.

Here's what I would find credible. We've asked Elon Musk to get his DOGE geniuses to spend one month looking at all the data and we got an EO signed where everybody has to give it to us and we'll go do it in one month and it's the smartest data people in the world will be looking at it so we won't miss anything. Now I would believe that. To me that sounds like a process that could work. But you tell me there's 25 grants in two to three years and $50 million. No way that works. That's designed for failure if you ask me. They'll just keep kicking the can down the road and say oh has it been three years yet? You know if you gave me another $5 million I'm so close to having an answer but just five million more. Give me that grant money. Anyway I hope we'll find out.

But just to make things complicated according to New Atlas Bronwyn Thompson is writing that nine in 10 autistic adults over the age of 40 are undiagnosed. To which I say how would we know that? All right but let's say we do. One of the things that people speculate about the zooming increase in autism is that the only thing that's improved is our ability to catch it early. Do you think that's any part of the answer? I feel like it's not the answer. But is it a big part? Because if we know that nine out of 10 older people were undiagnosed doesn't that mean that if they had been young when we were good at diagnosing