Conspirituality - Brief: Dr Mike vs MAHA

Dec. 20, 2025 - Conspirituality

34:04

Brief: Dr Mike vs MAHA

Dr Mike has become one of the most effective debunkers of science misinformation. His second appearance on the uber-popular show, Jubilee's Surrounded, pitted him against 20 fans of RFK Jr. Derek and Julian discuss the debate, as well as the value of Jubilee in an oversaturated media environment. Show Notes 1 Doctor vs 20 RFK Jr. Supporters (ft Doctor Mike) Surrounded Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
[Read More]

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It's December and I'm almost done with my holiday shopping.
	I decided long ago to try to get ahead of things, but I used to be a last-minute shopper.
	Last year, ahead of time, I bought two Aura frames, one for my sister and one for our neighbors, and they both really love them.
	You can upload unlimited photos and videos to the frame, and you can also preload photos before it ships if you want that to be part of the present.
	For a limited time, save on the perfect gift by visiting auraframes.com to get $35 off Aura's best-selling Carver matte frames, named number one by Wirecutter with promo code conspirituality at checkout.
	That's auraframes.com, promo code conspirituality.
	This deal is exclusive to listeners and frames sell out fast.
	So order yours now to get in time for the holidays.
	Support the show by mentioning us at checkout.
	This is Chris Christensen from the Amateur Traveler podcast.
	Your vacation time is important.
	You don't have enough of it.
	There are so many places to see.
	We help you choose where to go.
	Each week we cover a different destination, typically in an interview format, and we learn why you should go there and what you should do for a one-week itinerary.
	Get the most out of your vacation time by listening to Amateur Traveler.
	Go and subscribe to Amateur Traveler today and travel better.
	Well, Derek, the controversial YouTube channel Jubilee has sucked us in again with their debate show format called Surrounded.
	This time it's Dr. Mike versus 20 RFK Jr. supporters.
	Now, I know some of the listeners out there may be groaning that we're talking about a Jubilee debate.
	So later on, we'll ask the question, was it a bad idea for Dr. Mike to go on?
	Is it a bad idea for us to even cover Jubilee?
	Short answer, no.
	You're listening to a Conspirituality Brief, Dr. Mike versus Maha.
	I'm Julian Walker.
	And I'm Derek Barris.
	You can find us as always on Instagram and threads at ConspiritualityPod.
	We are all also over on Blue Sky individually, so you can look for us there.
	And you can access all of our episodes ad-free, plus our Monday bonus episodes on Patreon at patreon.com/slash conspirituality.
	You can also grab our Monday bonus episodes via Apple subscriptions.
	As independent media creators, we really appreciate your support.
	You are what allow us to do this work.
	You're here.
	All right, before we get to the clips, you may be wondering, who's Dr. Mike?
	Well, he's a family medicine physician.
	He was named by People Magazine as the sexiest doctor alive in 2015.
	I thought that was you.
	He must know what he's talking about.
	He's also had some professional boxing matches, which I didn't realize until I started researching for this, notably on the undercards of those terrible big YouTube influencer fights.
	Then he started a YouTube channel.
	It's now called The Checkup with Dr. Mike.
	He started it in 2022.
	And despite those frivolous seeming details that I've mentioned, he's since made a real name for himself as a legit online debunker of pseudoscience wellness and conspiracy claims.
	And he has an absolutely huge following and his videos get tons of views.
	Over 15 million on YouTube now.
	And I noticed after the Jubilee debate we're going to discuss today, he had a man named Dr. Amon on, who I've been super critical of.
	And I was like, oh shit, what are you doing?
	And then it turns out he holds his feet to the fire like someone should.
	So I really appreciate Dr. Mike's work.
	We should also note that he's become so popular on his social media channels that he makes enough money that he says he doesn't even charge or draw a salary from his clinical practice at Chatham Family Medicine in my home nation of New Jersey.
	He also runs numerous philanthropic endeavors.
	So I will just say off the top, I'm really a fan of what he's doing.
	He's had a few friends of the podcast on as well, like Dr. Angia Love and Kevin Klatt.
	So I appreciate seeing some people that I interact with get that sort of spotlight on their work.
	Yeah, so cue the immigrant families.
	He's from Russia in New Jersey saying, no, no, no, no, don't break my heart.
	Don't become a doctor.
	Become a YouTube influencer.
	That's where the real money is.
	Well, actually, it is because he's making, as I said, seven figures on social media.
	The average physician pay for his position would probably be more in the $2,000 to $250,000 range.
	So yeah, it turns out for some people, that's the right choice.
	Unbelievable.
	Yeah.
	So he actually brings that up in one of the interactions during this debate.
	He says he sees his patients pro bono and he isn't being paid or having his expenses covered for his appearance on Jubilee.
	He just wants to bring the best quality information he can.
	Today, we're going to see how he does in this live debate with 20 true believers.
	So the first clip shows what Mike was really up against in terms of one of these rabid idealizations of RFK Jr.
	The claim that he makes to set up the conversation here is the Maha movement is sabotaging the doctor-patient relationship.
	And in this clip, he's just asked his opponent, who's a classic Maha Mama type, what she thinks about Kennedy saying that doctors are incentivized to keep their patients sick.
	I can't speak for him.
	Sure.
	But my experience of Bobby is that he is a genuine, compassionate, kind, caring human.
	And he takes his work very seriously.
	And his commitment to ending chronic health disease and making sure children are healthy and adults are healthy is very, very important to him.
	So, but if I heard that, I probably would have been like, hmm, I want to understand more about where he's coming from because it doesn't line up for me that he would just generalize that all doctors are doing that.
	But in context, he might have been referring to something.
	He says we're interested in keeping people sick for profit.
	And you said Secretary Kennedy is well researched.
	Yes.
	He goes on the podiums and he says inaccuracies all the time.
	Back in the day, kids who had diabetes almost never existed.
	And now one in three kids have diabetes.
	It's a lie.
	One in 300 kids have diabetes.
	So like, how much do I, I, as a YouTuber, have to fact check Secretary Kennedy, the director of health and human services, before he comes out and says, I messed up.
	I need to tell you the truth.
	And I'm getting the numbers wrong so often.
	When does that happen?
	That's a really good point.
	I don't know.
	I guess we'd have to go back also to during COVID when they made these really outrageous statements that weren't true either.
	Go back because there have been mistakes.
	The classic pivot.
	Anytime someone's challenged, but Anthony Fauci, but COVID.
	You know, the beginning of that clip also really highlights something that I saw throughout this video.
	And you see often when it comes to Maha, which is the parasocial relationships that people develop because they don't, a lot of people don't know where Kennedy comes from.
	They only see headlines.
	They haven't spent a lot of time researching like the deep podcasts that he's done, the shit that he's said.
	And then they just hear the top line stuff and they're like, wow, he's really here for us.
	Where, you know, if you just dig an inch deeper into it, you're going to understand that he is here for himself and his friends.
	But yet people take that and they think that he's really their champion.
	Yeah, this is so deep in the wheelhouse of everything we've covered for the last almost six years.
	It's like the wellness community has these ideas about what is wrong with the world, what is wrong with people's health, what the real culprit is.
	And it's all these kind of pseudoscience claims, which are understandable because they're about like industry and corporations and toxins and the environment.
	And when someone comes along like RFK Jr., who can wear that superhero outfit of like, I'm finally speaking up about the stuff that you've always known intuitively all along, they do form such an incredible psychological bond with him.
	And then it almost doesn't matter what he says, they'll defend it or they'll rationalize it or they'll pivot into, well, what about COVID, right?
	What I'll get into with Dr. Mike is how good he is with nuance.
	And some later clips will show that.
	But what's amazing is almost everyone on this panel that of people he debated, except for one man who I think actually he kind of, Dr. Mike swayed.
	And he was a little bit more nuanced himself coming in, which was nice to see.
	But it was just the reflex.
	It was always what about instead of actually staying on point.
	Now, to be fair, Dr. Mike also did a little bit of that himself when it comes to like wellness, you know, with supplements versus big wellness and things like that.
	So it's kind of part of the medium itself, but it was really stunning to watch people not be able to stay on point and constantly pivot because they didn't have a rebuttal to what Dr. Mike was saying.
	Yeah, I feel like Dr. Mike is responding in the moment.
	And he obviously he has some moves that he's sort of like thought through.
	But with this woman, that pivot is very much like, that's a really good point about Kennedy getting these things terribly wrong and lying to us about diabetes rate.
	But what about COVID?
	Like it's very much like, oh, anytime you come up against something you can't answer, just pivot to COVID.
	So based on that, or moving on from that classic pivot, this next clip to me is probably the best moment of the debate.
	Obviously, you can't directly receive money from Big Pharma.
	How well you can.
	You can't.
	It's in kickbacks and it's also in funding.
	Well, you can get paid to speak at conferences, promote certain medications.
	That's absolutely.
	And then it's shown that the majority in family practice and cardiology, every specialty, the majority of physicians have received conflict of interest payments.
	They've been paid off by Big Pharma.
	And that's to be significant.
	How do you know that?
	It's, well, 75.
	I saw the statistic.
	I don't know.
	No, I'll help you.
	I mean, I agree.
	We could talk about disclosure.
	Yes.
	Disclose.
	Right.
	These things have to be disclosed.
	But the thing is, you know what that lawsuit?
	Something as much as little as $20 actually can change the prescription given by a doctor.
	And I think this is a major problem.
	And you guys have broken trust with American citizens.
	So look, it needs to be disclosed.
	Money can create conflict.
	Agree with you totally.
	I don't disagree with the sentence you said.
	So should we remove it?
	Remove what?
	Should we not allow conflict?
	Let me just catch up on your point.
	I agree that conflict of interest can create bias.
	I agree that pharmaceutical companies pay doctors and it could bias them.
	They're on the same team.
	Yes.
	Good.
	Does Secretary Kennedy make money?
	Absolutely.
	Has he been paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by law firms to pursue vaccine claims?
	Why does that not bias?
	These are lawsuits that he himself has done before.
	Why doesn't it bias him?
	Why when he gets paid by children's health defense, why does that not bias him?
	Why are you looking at bias only in one direction?
	Do you know how much money he's gotten paid by pharmaceutical companies?
	You gave me the figure.
	No, you won't know because he's not a doctor.
	He doesn't have to disclose it.
	What does this have to do with him receiving pharmaceuticals?
	The reason you know doctors do it is because we disclose it to try and reduce bias.
	He doesn't have to.
	He doesn't take payments anymore.
	He can't.
	And you know who's taking payments on his behalf?
	You're probably going to say his wife.
	His son.
	Yeah, that's a slightly longer clip.
	I wanted to include all of that because the setup and then the conclusion, just very, very strong.
	I found it brilliant.
	Let me help you.
	He actually doubles down on his opponent's argument.
	Yeah, no, actually, we can take money in all these different ways.
	And then he points out that the reason we know that so many doctors take money from pharma companies is that it has to be publicly disclosed.
	And he gets no response really on that.
	And because he then says, do you know what the law is called?
	So to fill that gap in, which went by very quickly, it's a 2010 law called the Physicians Payments Sunshine Act, which requires that financial relationships between pharmaceutical, drug, and medical device manufacturers with physicians and teaching hospitals have to be disclosed so as to uncover potential conflicts of interest.
	And if you're not aware, there is a website.
	You can just Google Sunshine Act.
	You will find the website and you can enter any doctor into it.
	So if you want to know if your doctor is receiving money, you can go check.
	You can do it all online.
	And it's baffling that people, especially in the wellness space, don't understand that that exists.
	And if they want to make some big claims about their doctors, just go look.
	A friend of the pod, Danielle Bellardo, we've talked about this before on the pod and off.
	Like you can search her name.
	She's not in there because she does not accept money from them.
	And I think that's a really important feature that zero wellness influencers are subject to.
	And now, let me tell you about athletic greens.
	If you want to get all of your nutrients in a way that'll boost your brain, make you a sexual animal, and increase your ability to never get sick whatsoever.
	Don't take athletic greens.
	So to your point, right?
	Once Dr. Mike has established this common ground, like, yeah, this goes on and it's a problem.
	And I'm opposed to it.
	And transparency is important.
	Then he just pivots because the guy goes, okay, good, we're on the same team.
	And you can feel the whole group is like, oh, wow, we're getting through to him.
	And then he and then he goes into his own pivot, which is, does RFK Jr. take money?
	Maha influencers and Kennedy himself are not held to the same professional standards of transparency by people who are so up in arms about big pharma.
	But sadly, the RFK Jr. supporter has a hard time recognizing the hypocrisy.
	I think a lot of people watching would have had an aha moment there.
	I will get a little more into that because the reality is I think most people don't know who Dr. Mike really is when they were debating him.
	And as you said, he was prepared for a lot of the rebuttals, but they weren't prepared for his.
	But I'll give an example in a moment because I want to turn now to a man named Brian.
	He jumped into the hot seat twice.
	He's a very firm speaker.
	Dr. Mike charitably called him passionate.
	He kept bringing up this notion that all disease can be defined by VO2 Max.
	It's one of those theory of everything medical diagnoses you'll often find in influencers books like Callie and Casey Means' Good Energy.
	You know, they try to distill every ailment down to metabolic function.
	This clip is from Brian's second time up.
	In fact, both clips are going to be from his second time up.
	And here's how it goes when he tries to return to this idea of VO2 Max.
	If your VO2 Max is in the upper two percentile for your age group, your risk for all-cause mortality is next to nothing.
	It literally doesn't matter.
	I'm not saying that they don't die, but they don't die from chronic disease is ultimately what it comes down to.
	But do you believe in genetic diseases?
	So genes have to be activated.
	Genes, the bad genes are activated by oxidative stress.
	Literally all diseases related to mitochondrial dysfunction.
	Okay.
	Secretary Dayne says he can diagnose my physical disease.
	Which is why VO2 max is so powerful.
	You are judging the respiratory exchange ratio, which is telling you if your body is using fat for substrate or if it's using sugar for substrate, you are then judging the lactate threshold.
	And if you use more fat for energy and your lactate threshold is further off, there is less oxidative stress in your body, which does not damage genes, which means that your likelihood for cancer and all-cause mortality is next to nothing.
	But that's not true.
	It is true.
	It's not true.
	So I can see that.
	So then you're telling me that Dr. Atia is full of shit?
	Dr. I don't think Dr. Atia would agree with you.
	I think he would say VO2 Max, focusing on that will decrease someone's likelihood of dying from heart disease.
	It will prove violence.
	He literally said it.
	Your risk is next to nothing.
	I love it.
	Are you saying Dr. Atia is wrong?
	He doesn't even say Peter.
	He just assumes that, of course, I mean, a lot of people know who Peter Atia is.
	We just recently did a full episode on him.
	Yeah.
	But that concept, it just gives, he gives away the game because he's like, I'm in love with this guy.
	I've noticed that about Atia fans.
	Like they are super stands of his.
	And you heard him saying octave threshold, all these things.
	And Dr. Mike is like, what are you talking about?
	Like, he wouldn't agree with you.
	Yeah, totally.
	You can tell that this is a guy who prides himself and is passionately engaged in memorizing the talking points from Peter Atia's book, from Casey Means's book.
	Like he's got the skeleton key that big pharma and big medicine doesn't want you to know about.
	And he's lecturing Dr. Mike because he thinks he knows better than he does.
	Like he's got a PhD in wellness diagnostics, right?
	Well, he's also in very good shape.
	I'll get back to that point in a moment.
	First, I want to point out that one thing I love about Jubilee is they add fact checks to certain moments in the video when they want to be like, is this actually true?
	In the short clip that I just played, they added two, and then I'm going to add a third actually.
	So the first about this idea of being next to zero, next to nothing, if your VOV2 max is good.
	VO2 Max cardiorespiratory fitness is one of the strongest predictors of longevity, but saying your risk is next to nothing once you're in the top 2% isn't supported by the data.
	Your risk can be much lower, but it's nowhere near zero.
	Then they add a second fact check quote.
	High VO2 max is associated with lower cancer risk and better cancer outcomes, but it is not protected in an absolute or guaranteed way.
	And this just goes back to something I say all the time.
	A good medical and scientific practitioner will qualify things all the time with things, statements like, this is the best we know now.
	Or as you heard Mike say, it will reduce your risk, but saying next to nothing is not a qualifier.
	You are basically saying it's absolute.
	And the wellness world very often deals in absolutes.
	Now, I said I was going to add one.
	They could have easily added this one too, the notion that all disease is related to mitochondrial dysfunction.
	It is an important contributing factor to many diseases, but Brian is doing something disingenuous here.
	And it's not surprising because the people he listens to do the same shit.
	Whether this dysfunction is causative or a result of a disease is context dependent.
	So addressing that dysfunction when it's causative is really important.
	But if it's the result, if you're sick and then you have mitochondrial dysfunction, then you're actually not talking about the root cause, as the Maha stands like to say.
	The problem is humans love to distill complex ideas down to simple solutions.
	And when it comes to biology, little more is ripe for exploitation to this cognitive bias.
	Yeah.
	So there may be a disease-based reason why you have mitochondrial dysfunction and there may be a reality-based reason why if you are sick, you're not able to continue your fitness regime and have really high levels of VO2 max.
	And so you end up dying with low VO2, with like bad VO2 max levels.
	It's just like these things are so multifactorial.
	Well, you saw it all the time coming out of COVID.
	I feel like this is a brainworm when people have said, oh, no, they died with COVID, not of COVID.
	They died of pneumonia.
	It's like, yeah, how did they get the pneumonia?
	Because they were sick with COVID.
	And then that was like an accelerant to cause the worst aspects of pnevoia.
	So they wouldn't have died if it wasn't for the COVID in the first place.
	And yet you see wellness influencer all the time because they have to, because that frames their worldview.
	Yeah, it's like nobody ever died of AIDS, right?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Same thing.
	Same exact thing.
	I want to stick with Brian for a moment because he really is the perfect example of someone that can be taken in by influencers like Peter Atia.
	So a little background on him, which I think is relevant.
	By his own admission, he spent seven years in prison for selling drugs, which I believe are opioids because he mentions them.
	And I don't know if he was doing them and then selling them, but that's, that's kind of, he gives a vague context.
	But he does mention he lived in a halfway house in Newark, New Jersey, a very rough area to be in if you are trying to be in recovery.
	And he really focused in on his health.
	Now, this is truly, to his credit, someone who did the work and seems to have gotten out the other side.
	And that's great.
	But here's the thing.
	Because he did the work in a particular way, he then believes everyone should be able to do the same work and get healthy.
	And this is not me saying it.
	He specifically said this.
	He said, I did it.
	Why can't everyone else?
	So that's one wellness trait that I see often, this reliance on anecdote and then thinking that everyone else could therefore be able to follow your anecdote.
	Unfortunately, he then partakes in another one.
	Then my question is, are you also investing equal energy on your own time to saying we need to hold big pharma accountable?
	Absolutely.
	In what way?
	In every way.
	Anytime they say something that's inaccurate, I call balls and strikes.
	With supplement with doctors too?
	With pharmaceutical companies?
	With doctors, with pharmaceutical companies.
	You just called out the opioid thing that they, you said, what was their punishment?
	You said it was a good idea.
	I don't think that's enough.
	I think that there should be harsher punishments for those executives that were making those.
	Did you make YouTube videos?
	Of course.
	We talked about it all the time.
	I don't know enough about your YouTube channel if you did.
	It's not even about me.
	It's a bigger issue, but it's about trying to figure out what the truth is by calling balls and strikes fairly.
	So if we something do something wrong in the healthcare industry wrong, I will call it out.
	And medicine wants to call it out.
	There's definitely special interest groups that need to be held accountable.
	But if you're going to do it sloppily, like how I believe Secretary Kennedy is doing it, you're actually going to have more bad acts.
	So I know we're going to close talking about the value of Jubilee, but I want to flag here.
	You know, I debated Dave Asprey recently and then a biological dentist, you know, at this summit, we've talked about it a bunch.
	I listened to hours of Asprey talking about seed oils before I went to that because I wanted to know what all of his responses were going to be so that I could prepare.
	There's a very good book by Med Hassan about preparing for debates.
	Dr. Mike prepared.
	The people he debated prepared in their own way, but they did not prepare by learning about who Dr. Mike is.
	And that's a real weakness if you're going to debate someone because Dr. Mike says throughout this whole debate, I call balls and strikes on everyone.
	And if you watch him, he does.
	It's something we've had to deal with on the podcast for years with people calling us pharma chills.
	No, we have so many problems with pharmaceutical companies and with a for-profit healthcare system, but that does not mean that we then don't hold wellness influencers and Maha accountable as well.
	And he did such a good job of doing the yes and not the no, but throughout this entire debate because he agreed with a lot of what they were saying, as do I.
	It's about the solutions that are the problem.
	And Dr. Mike speaks very elegantly to them.
	And anytime he held someone's feet to the fire on that, they weren't able to reciprocate.
	Yeah.
	I mean, I think I've watched quite a few of these debates for better or for worse.
	And this is the one in which I saw the group who were supposed to be attacking the guy in the middle the most disarmed the most often, where they were pleasantly surprised.
	And something about his, you know, the way he comes across, the way he talks most of the time, sometimes he gets a little bit forceful, but the way that he talks, his demeanor, his friendliness, his empathy, and the fact that he kept making a point of meeting them in the places where they had shared critiques, just very, very strong.
	This is another moment like that.
	And Dr. Mike essentially brings up a line of conspiracy reasoning.
	Like he opens up the topic.
	He's like, oh, you know, I think about this sometimes.
	And I think he's sort of imagining in that moment that his opponent will find this line of conspiracy reasoning compelling.
	And he gently draws her into arguing for it herself.
	And then he's like, you know, and when I think more about this, here's what I think is weak about that line of reasoning.
	So let's watch him do that.
	And look, I'll tell you what some conspiracy-minded people think.
	And I've thought it to myself because I think it's important to think about the other side.
	Is big pharma withholding cures because they want us to be subjugated to their medication and paying them their whole life?
	Reasonable question, right?
	Yeah, I think about that myself.
	So pharmaceuticals for-profit, they'd make a lot of money if they make a cure.
	Why would they not want to make a lot of money if they make a cure?
	Because once the cure comes, then we're not a slave to the right.
	We're no longer a slave to their pharmaceuticals.
	I think the same.
	Do you know what my next level of thought is?
	Do you think when we say big pharma, there's one pharmaceutical company or two pharmaceutical companies?
	There's a lot.
	There's a lot.
	They're in a lot of competition, right?
	Of course.
	Wouldn't they be deathly afraid if one of their competitors created the cure, made billions and trillions of dollars on the cure and they were left hanging?
	I think this is what's going on.
	These people are in it for the profit.
	Yeah, she goes on there.
	She pivots to now talk about her issues with pharmaceutical patents, right?
	They want to protect what they've discovered so they can make money from it.
	And Mike just agrees with her.
	Like, yeah, I think that's fucked up too.
	He did it again and again.
	And, you know, he made them feel like he was on their side.
	And then he's able to be like, okay, yeah, so this makes sense.
	Big Pharma would maybe, maybe you could make a case that they would want to keep people sick so they can keep making money.
	But who is Big Pharma?
	Oh, Big Pharma is a lot of different companies.
	Are they in competition with each other?
	Like, it's really brilliant.
	To be clear, he is on their side.
	Like, this is the thing about the whole Maha debacle is everyone wants to be healthy.
	Like, it's not about the idea of getting healthier.
	And in America, at least, most people would advocate for, if not socialized medicine, which I've long advocated for, at least better safety nets so people don't go into medical bankruptcy.
	I would believe everyone in the room would be on board with some level of that, Dr. Mike included.
	Even though by his own admission, he's pro-capitalist.
	That doesn't mean he doesn't want better safety nets because he does.
	That said, we got, you know, you clipped these.
	We had some very good moments on Instagram when you shared these.
	And a number of people commented that they don't like the Jubilee format.
	Now, we've talked about this.
	And I'll reiterate something that I think is going on here because when I looked at the people who are saying that this format of 20 people versus one, and yes, the company itself, you know, they're definitely going for virality.
	They are a for-profit company.
	So they want to get people's eyeballs and attention pointed to them.
	But I did notice that people who didn't like it tended to skew older.
	And, you know, I'm 50.
	I'm like maybe a little younger than me and then on.
	That's okay because our general audience is Gen X aged plus boomers plus millennials.
	So that is the people who are predominantly listening.
	But the thing I keep coming back to is there's the field that you want to play on and the field that you're actually playing on.
	I really appreciate old school debates where, you know, it's very set up, it's very structured, and people are giving guidelines.
	And it's not about virality.
	It's about having that conversation and that dialogue and then sometimes that hardcore debate.
	And if you just did that and put it online, some people would pay attention.
	But the reality is you're dealing in an ecosystem and an environment where a lot of people like this sort of format.
	And I think overall, whatever problems I have with Jubilee and the format itself, I think the positive benefits outweigh that.
	A few of my friends texted me privately after I had posted about this particular one on my feed with the same reservations.
	And their argument was that you're giving sunlight to ideas that should not be out there.
	And my response to them was like, those ideas are running the administration right now.
	Pretending that, for example, white supremacy, you know, racism, xenophobia, misogyny, pretending these are like hidden somewhere in the bowels of the internet is to miss what actually happened.
	And it made me start thinking about, were we pushing those ideas away so long and pretending they didn't exist that we allowed them to bubble up and now actually run the administration?
	Was that a lack of foresight on people who are more liberal minded because they didn't want that to be the case?
	I don't have an answer for that, but that is the question that came to mind when I started weighing out my friends' concerns about formats like Jubilee.
	So my vote for this is, I don't watch all of them.
	I only watch some of them.
	I don't like all of them.
	I don't like some of the people and what they say on all of them.
	But overall, this is where a conversation is happening.
	And I'd rather talk about that than pretend that people aren't interested in this format.
	Yeah, I actually really agree with you.
	I think it's interesting that, you know, the phrase that they chose or the phrase that you chose to describe what they were saying is giving sunlight to bad ideas because there's an old kind of free speech, you know, the power of debate principle that says sunlight is the best disinfectant.
	Like you want to bring these ideas out into the public square and expose them for how hateful they are.
	Now, we've done tons of work on this podcast talking about, okay, there's this fire hose of misinformation and disinformation.
	There's all of this manipulative media going on.
	We know that, you know, foreign actors have bad intentions and are flooding the zone with all kinds of stuff that's designed to create conflict.
	I think that's a really important conversation and level of analysis to be having.
	But I think with something like Jubilee, as you said, this is where the discourse has gone.
	This is what's getting tons of views on YouTube.
	This is also what's getting a lot of this kind of criticism.
	And I'm impressed with how they've handled the criticism.
	I see the fact checks actually as being one of the ways that they've responded to the criticism, like, okay, let's, when we can, let's fact check some of this stuff and say, here's what's actually true, as kind of a moment of arbitration very quietly in the midst of this disagreement.
	Like, okay, here's the fact.
	I think that's really good.
	I think they had a really catastrophic moment a few months ago where there were like open, super racist white supremacists, like there was an openly fascist guy, and that all kind of blew up in their faces.
	And it even blew up in the faces of these really ugly participants who were saying these hateful things because, you know, they thought it was a one-way ticket into right-wing notoriety and becoming, you know, taking a next step in their career.
	And it actually ended up being quite bad for them.
	So I think that was an interesting moment.
	What I've observed is with this debate, this is the second time Dr. Mike has been on.
	And by all accounts, including his own, he did much better this time.
	There's a young guy named Parker, whose Instagram handle is ParkerGetAjob, who's been on several times.
	I feel like he has figured out how to show up and how to be very, very eloquent and very effective and stay very calm under pressure.
	He was just on with Piers Morgan and absolutely handed Piers Morgan his ass, in my opinion.
	Tim Miller from the Bulwark has been on, a former conservative political operative who now is another Trumper and has built his profile significantly since joining the bulwark.
	He was fantastic on there too.
	So I feel like on the left of center side, people are figuring out how to show up in that format and really do a good job, which makes sense to me as an old school kind of rational atheist debate is good.
	If you have better ideas, you can expose people when you get in public with them.
	And I know it doesn't always work out that way because you can argue in bad faith and appear to look like you're winning.
	But yeah, I don't think we have the kind of influence on the large digital media ecosystem where if we say, well, I'm just not going to watch Jubilee or I'm just not going to have people that I support go on Jubilee,

▲