The Checkup with Doctor Mike - Confronting CNN's Doctor | Dr. Sanjay Gupta

Episode Date: October 26, 2025

Head to http://www.cozyearth.com and use my code DOCTORMIKE for up to 20% off! And if youget a Post-Purchase Survey, make sure to let them know you heard about Cozy Earth right here!Huge thanks to Dr. Sanjay Gupta for joining me for this interview. Check out his new book "It Doesn't Have To Hurt" here: https://www.amazon.com/Doesnt-Have-Hurt-Smart-Pain-Free/dp/1668014475/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.d4FJp7-oXS65HWqcuLNf-n8knscFwUI3rM03PX4JdgNSjgiqfq0n46gbBr4yk26RaOzsQpBgrfdkmWY7P8logQ8kFt7LlPu3GAeemgSZSudpFPFYM_lWxiimwC6A8AZWQ-oY3CrJ23LbgIb-A5Dj2Ev9IZohoi0Nz73S6VuDNG36elXzA7iBIufdqJsQkdfB5Kb4JGIIjlmFknAYb1QlXjrypWThnODQCI6jjOMp2tU.SvmaNfTFzP8gU2I2C5VQfpy8SIHPm2OS2FoxJwOun8Y&dib_tag=se&hvadid=776848535213&hvdev=c&hvexpln=0&hvlocphy=9197632&hvnetw=g&hvocijid=7004007654206517717--&hvqmt=e&hvrand=7004007654206517717&hvtargid=kwd-2442724372063&hydadcr=15553_13842892&keywords=dr+gupta+it+doesn%27t+have+to+hurt&mcid=eda1af13cb2b33f686adf15d2b9dca6b&qid=1761259529&sr=8-1I'll teach you how to become the media's go-to expert in your field. Enroll in The Professional's Media Academy now: https://www.professionalsmediaacademy.com/00:00 Intro01:53 Starting In Media08:17 Medical Specialty / Training Residents11:37 Working During COVID21:46 What Would You Do?25:04 Communicating On TV28:35 Joe Rogan37:38 Trump & Tylenol48:00 RFK’s Anti Vax Claims1:01:53 Dr. Oz1:07:18 Can We Trust Federal Agencies?1:12:18 Covering RFK On CNN1:16:59 Chronic Pain1:25:20 Opioids1:32:05 Pain Is Cultural1:38:15 Acupuncture1:44:22 Supplements1:57:00 Investing In WHO / The FutureHelp us continue the fight against medical misinformation and change the world through charity by becoming a Doctor Mike Resident on Patreon where every month I donate 100% of the proceeds to the charity, organization, or cause of your choice! Residents get access to bonus content, an exclusive discord community, and many other perks for just $10 a month. Become a Resident today:https://www.patreon.com/doctormikeLet’s connect:IG: https://go.doctormikemedia.com/instagram/DMinstagramTwitter: https://go.doctormikemedia.com/twitter/DMTwitterFB: https://go.doctormikemedia.com/facebook/DMFacebookTikTok: https://go.doctormikemedia.com/tiktok/DMTikTokReddit: https://go.doctormikemedia.com/reddit/DMRedditContact Email: [e-mail] Producer: Doctor MikeProduction Director and Editor: Dan OwensManaging Editor and Producer: Sam BowersEditor and Designer: Caroline WeigumEditor: Juan Carlos Zuniga* Select photos/videos provided by Getty Images *** The information in this video is not intended nor implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. All content, including text, graphics, images, and information, contained in this video is for general information purposes only and does not replace a consultation with your own doctor/health professional **

With Amex Platinum, access to exclusive Amex pre-sale tickets can score you a spot trackside. So being a fan for life turns into the trip of a lifetime. That's the powerful backing of Amex. Pre-sale tickets for future events subject to availability and varied by race. Turns and conditions apply. Learn more at Amex.ca. This episode is brought to you by Peloton. A new era of fitness is here.

Introducing the new Peloton Cross Training Tread Plus, powered by Peloton IQ, built for breakthroughs, with personalized workout plans, real-time insights, and endless ways to move. Lift with confidence, while Peloton IQ counts reps, corrects form, and tracks your progress. Let yourself run, lift, flow, and go. Explore the new Peloton Cross-training Treadplus at OnePeloton.ca.

It's the matcha or the three ensemble Cadocephora of the fact that I just need to denishé who energize all time? It's the ensemble. The form of standard and mini-regrouped. Hello, Ben. And the embellage, too beau. who is practically pre-a-donough.

And I know that I'd offer them. But I guard the Summer Fridays and Rare Beauty by Selena Gomez. I'm just a good ensemble, a gift is atop from Shephora. Summer Fridays, Rare Beauty,

Way, Cephora Collection, and other part of the vite. Procurre you see form and standard and mini, regrouped for a better quality of price, on line on Cifora.com or in magazine. Rinse takes your laundry and hand delivers it to your door,

expertly cleaned and folded. So you could take the time once spent folding and sorting and waiting to finally pursue a whole new version of you. Like tea time you. Or this tea time you. Or even this tea time you.

Said you hear about Dave? Or even tea time, tea time, tea time you. So update on Dave. It's up to you. We'll take the laundry. Rinse. It's time to be great. Check out the big stars, big series, and blockbuster movies.

Streaming on Paramount Plus. Cue the music. Like NCIS, Tony, and Ziva. We'd like to make up her own rules. Tulsa King. We want to take out the competition. The substance.

This balance is not working. And the naked gun. That was awesome. Now that's a mountain of entertainment. There's a prominent name, Dr. Mark Hybin, that comes up quite often in this space. I know you've blurbed his book in 2018. I oftentimes see people who go into this space, perhaps with good intentions. And then it turns into a business and it starts losing the sense of actually helping people.

You start seeing Mark Hyman introducing Secretary Kennedy on his podcast as someone who's not anti-vexy, introducing concepts like detox your body or leaky gut syndrome, which we know not to be a true medical diagnosis. It further makes the practice of medicine difficult because it leads patients down a path, which is not very scientific. And it further creates a disconnect between us. So I'm curious where all of that lands for you. It's complicated, Mike, I think.

First of all, Welcome back to the Checkup podcast. I'm so excited for you to watch this episode, given that it's truly a culmination of sorts for me. When I stumbled my way into the world of medical media about 10 years ago, there were very few doctors, even remotely interested in this space, and even fewer who were keeping their integrity by staying true to the science. Dr. Sanjay Gupta was one of those people.

He's a world-renowned board-certified neurosurgeon, CNN's chief medical correspondent, associate professor at the Emory University School of Medicine, and a best-selling author. Our conversation comes at the perfect time, where honest medical advice is being drowned out by the noise of grifters, conspiracy theorists, and podcast hosts who hawk ridiculous quick fixes. And to make the conversation even more exciting, Dr. Gupta recently wrote a book titled, It Doesn't Have to Hurt. covering his unique approach to aches and pain that I've subscribed to myself as an athlete and a physician. I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did. Please welcome Dr. Sanjay

Gupta to the Checkup podcast. Huge thanks to Cozy Earth for sponsoring this video. Tim's new Cravable Raps are made for the times your boss said the what now? Or your teacher mentions that thing I'm a bob. Need to pick me up. Snack back to reality with Tim's new craveable wraps available in Chipotle or ranch. Plus tax at participating restaurants in Canada for a limited time. I'm really excited to speak with you because when I was in medical school 10 plus years ago, I looked at the medical media landscape and you were the shining star. And I say that with all sincerity because when I wanted to pursue the field of medical media, I got a lot of side eye.

I got a lot of people who were questioning whether or not I was doing this for the right reasons, mostly because most folks who went into medical media were selling snake oil, we're making miracle promises, we're not truly discussing evidence-based medicine. At least if you look at the long run of their careers. Perhaps they've started correctly and then moved on. So I've always looked at your career and been so impressed that you've managed to stay true to evidence-based medicine. How did you find yourself speaking to millions of people and always staying true to the integrity of healthcare. Yeah. First of all, can I just say thank you for having me? I'm a big fan of yours. These are weird times. Oh, yeah. And I just think, you know,

no one should be sitting this out. No one should be sitting on the sideline. And not just medical communicators. I mean, everybody. It's a big time for us. And you do just such a great job of addressing things head on. You're clear. You're authoritative. I think people need more of that. I think sometimes for me to be just candid is that my mind, the way that it works is I dig deeply into things and spend a lot of time in the gray and in the nuance. And sometimes it can be tough to transition that to really effective clear messaging for the masses. I mean, I'm working at it, you know, 25 years now. But I just want to say that you're really good, really, really good at that. It's kind of like watching an athlete who's just got a naturally good arm or whatever.

That's you. I appreciate that, but I will say it's not natural. Well, I mean, you know, you're sitting here with no notes. I'm sure you did a lot of prep. But you're not needing to, I mean, it's here. And so I know that it's hard work. So you make it seem very flawless and easy. I remember the first time Dan here, we started the YouTube channel together.

He put the camera on me in 2017. And he said, Just say your name and what you do for a living. 45 minutes later, I don't think we got anything out of it. And all I needed to say is that I'm a family medicine doctor. I see patients of all ages. That's it. So this was a journey.

And I think doing it as many times as we've done it, obviously reps, reps, reps helps a lot. Yeah. And I think you've, you always had a voice, but I think you find your voice very clearly. And it's, it's great. So I just, I was, when I heard I could be on your podcast, I was. thrilled. Well, thank you. Honored. Yeah. You know, as far as my career, you know, it's interesting, Mike. Can I call you Mike, by the way? Please. Yeah, you got to call me Dr. Gupta. That's a must. I'm 20 years older than you. Not Dr. Gupta, Dr. Sanjay Gupta.

I'm just, sir. No, call me Sanjay. But I, I got into this, in part for some of the same things that we're talking about. I did not want to be on the sidelines as I saw significant things happening in health care. This is in the, in the mid-late 90s. For a period of time, I worked at the White House. I was writing speeches, primarily about health care, but doing domestic policy. There was a lot happening in health care at that time. So that got me very interested. I started doing more and more writing and eventually took a job at Emory in Atlanta and folks at CNN had seen my work at the White House and asked if I would come on to talk about health policy on television. So sort of doing, you know, Sunday morning talk shows talking about that. And Mike,

that was August of 2001. Wow. And three and a half weeks later, 9-11 happens. And they basically say, hey, look, we're probably not going to be talking about health policy for a while. But now you're a doctor working in an international news network in the midst of what is unfolding in the world. And so they asked if I'd want to cover those stories, and I did.

And that's sort of what launched me. But I think as far as maintaining the evidence-based sort of reporting, that continues to practice medicine. And, you know, I sort of bifurcate my life half and half. And I think there's something, as you well know, about being in the hospital, about constantly getting those reps there. How do we evaluate studies? What do they translate to tangibly for people? How are other doctors talking about it, you know, and all that? And I think I'm constantly bringing that to my reporting. But it's unique because you're a neurosurgeon. Most surgeons are not taking the time out to do a lot of education with patients.

And I don't want to say that about everyone, but just as a general sort of stereotype, surgeons operate. They don't do a lot of education. They have staff for that, which actually kind of makes sense, given the fact that they're busy in the operating theater. So why did you have this notion

to want to talk about health policy in these topics? Well, initially, I think it was because I saw that there were massive changes happening to our health care system. and when I read the papers and figured out who was talking about it, there were a lot of people, but very few, if any, were clinicians. And the idea that people who were actually practicing medicine, and yeah, I mean, it could have been me as a neurosurgeon. There were others who were doing it, Atul Gawande,

others who were getting out there and starting to really dig into this. It just was of high interest to me. So that part really had nothing to do with my neurosurgical career. In fact, you know, I'll tell you, when I started med school, I thought I wanted to be a pediatrician. Interesting. That's what I, in fact, that's what I wanted to be. There's nobody in my family who's a doctor.

Doctor that I knew was my pediatrician growing up. I love that guy. And when I did my, even when I did my rotation as a medical student, I kind of realize that pediatricians were sort of the best doctors in the hospital because kids galvanize people. No one wanted to check out if there was a sick kid coming in. I'm not suggesting other doctors do that, but it's pediatricians. But then I did a neuro rotation and fell in love with neurosurgery. But that was really separate from my interest in health policy and then subsequently journalism. And I know there's multiple directions you can go down to practice neurosurgery.

Some people focus on the brain, some focus on spinal surgery. What was your or what is your current sort of practice? I am very fortunate to be able to have a practice where I basically do half and half now. Okay. Which is unusual. I did a fellowship after my residency in image navigation. So basically taking these cameras, putting them in the operating room, and then impregnating everything, all your instruments and everything with these LED sort of sensors.

I don't know how familiar you are with this, but basically, you know, when a patient's there on the table before we make an incision or do anything, I can just hold my instrument above the head, I haven't done anything, and now I'm seeing on the MRI, which is right there in 3D. Where am I with this tumor? Oh, it's right there. And I can make a small incision, do a cookie cutter sort of opening in the bone. That was a sort of fellowship training that I got.

But it's really relevant to both brain and spine. So I do a lot of that. I do a lot of trauma. You know, I get to do kind of just a little bit of everything. I love the upper cervical spine to the extent that we have to have our favorite part of the body. That skull base, C1, C2 area, I find to be just a beautiful part of the body. Is that because the vagus nerve hangs out in the region? It's a lot of really valuable real estate there.

And the spinal anatomy is so cool. You're looking at the base of the brain stem, spinal cord. It's awesome when you get in there and you're actually, I've been doing this for so long now, but still, anytime I get to see that, get the sort of sense of awe, it's like looking at a beautiful, clear sky. It's probably how an obstetrician feels when they deliver their baby.

I think so. Each time, they still are excited about it. Yeah, I get to do. do this. And this guy trusted me to do this. Right. That's a big part of it. Do you take on residents and students to follow along? What's that like for you? I think it's one of the best parts of the job. I'm in my mid-50s now. I think being able to hang out with, I have a chief residence always sort of with me, a mid-level resident, an intern, and met students. And it keeps you young, which is a lot of, I have a lot of fun with them. When you're doing long cases,

you know, you're across the table from somebody for a long time. And, you know, especially once you've gotten a good cadence and you kind of know what each other is doing, you're allowed to have conversations about other things in life. Yeah, for sure. What's the go-to music in the operating here for you? That's a big topic. Yeah. And the funny thing is, like, you allow, it's almost like a thing where you allow the resident

to start choosing music when you feel like they have deserved it. But they don't deserve it. You're like, they know what kind of case it's going to be. if I pick the music as I walk in. I still have four playlists, some of which go back to residency. Wow. Yeah.

I have a, so I have my cranial playlist, two of them, which is an opening cranial playlist, a closing. Then I have an opening spine playlist and a closing. You have like a true symphony out. I do. And it's kind of fun, you know, and it's different. Sometimes we'll keep music going during the operation and stuff, but a lot of times during the actual operation,

we'll either tone it down or turn off the music altogether. But yeah, music's a big part. part of it. That's so interesting. This is perhaps a controversial question. Do you feel that the pandemic has impacted the quality of education for this current generation of residents and trainees? When you said it was a provocative question, I thought you were going to ask me how much sleep I got last night. No, I saved that for heads of state only. Somebody needs to look this up if they're just watching this. I think it did. I think there was a negative impact just, you know, for surgeons, the volume of cases went down.

You know, for a while, Grady hospitals are a big trauma hospital and a significant amount of training happens there. I was, I was still going in every week throughout the pandemic. There was two things. One is that, I think because there were just fewer people out and about, cars and just humans, that there was less trauma. And that was a lot of, you know, it gets taken care of it. So the volume went down for that reason.

And then there were weeks, Mike, I don't know what it was like at your hospital, but there were weeks when it essentially was just entirely a COVID hospital. The only patients they were taking in were patients who had COVID. So obviously from a neurosurgery standpoint, we had our residents sometimes rotating, doing ICU rotations, taking care of patients and, you know, who had nothing to do with neurosurgery just because it was all hands on deck. So they got a different kind of training during that,

but sort of the hardcore surgical training I think probably did. take a bit of a hit during that time. Yeah. Was it harder for you being a doctor during the pandemic COVID era or a public communicator as a doctor during the COVID era? It was, I think from a time standpoint, the communication part of it was taking more of the time at that point. And it was interesting because two things sort of happened simultaneously. In a way, the hospital got less busy because it was, you know, less trauma on.

Cases are moved. All that sort of selective cases got rescheduled, and there wasn't as much emergent cases because people were mostly home. And at the same time, that was happening. There was, you know, no break, right? Because for a while there, I mean, it was 18 hours a day. And I was waking up, you know, very early in the morning

because I was talking to people on the other side of the globe every morning to see what was happening in China and Taiwan primarily, people that I had close relationships with. And we would talk. And I needed to catch them. before they would go to bed and then, you know, do television first thing in the morning, sign off, yeah, do television. And, you know, when you work for 24-hour news network, it can be just sort of constant.

So news gathering throughout the day and, but it was, you know, obviously terrible, but in a way fascinating as well, you know, seeing an entirely new disease emerge, seeing a novel virus. I mean, people use the word novel coronavirus a lot and they know coronavirus, but the idea of the novelty of something I think sometimes is lost on people. Like we really hadn't seen anything like that. Yeah. You know, certainly not in my lifetime. I know not in your lifetime. And so to just sort of see how, how what the response is like, how different countries respond. So it was a lot of work, but I was fully in. I was fully, I was, my wife would tell you, I was dreaming about. it, you know? I mean, wake up in the middle of the night thinking, ah, you know, here's

something. That lady in France, how did all of her family members get sick? Because she was never sick herself when she actually interacted with them. You know, just like, you know, whatever it might be. So that was, that was a particularly busy time. Yeah, that insidious nature that you mentioned of spreading it, spreading the virus asymptomatically, to me was the most problematic of this virus. And initially, I don't feel like the public understood that. They rode off the virus because people were asymptomatic at times, where to me, that's what made it so dangerous

that we didn't know in who exactly, with 100% certainty, that would get really sick. And it's easy to feel fine and be walking around as a vector getting everyone else sick. So it spread like absolute wildfire, and that was the scariest part of it, because it wasn't as lethal as, you know, the initial SARS virus.

Yeah, I totally agree. And, you know, you see somebody who's sneezing, coughing, you stay away from them. Yeah. And hopefully that person knows to stay home. That the typhoid Mary sort of part of this. Right. And I know you've interviewed a lot of infectious disease doctors, but people who spend entire careers, you know, working on these types of viruses, I think we're also really thrown

by that. And it was interesting, Mike, because I think obviously you want experts who are, who are focused on this, researching it, communicating it. But I think one of the challenges for a lot of people was they immediately put this virus into the flu box. You know, hmm, virus, you know, spreading respiratory sounds like flu. Or they put it in the SARS box, right? Coronavirus, from China, this is going to behave like SARS one. And at some point, you know, it became sort of obvious that it wasn't behaving like either one of those. But, then it becomes a question of, what is the evidence threshold I need to be able to say,

hey, this is different. This is novel. Like, how much evidence do I need to be convinced to that? And the truth is, that's different for different people. For some people, they see the first hint of something different here, and they say, all right, wipe the board clean. Let's just throw up all the evidence as it's coming in new and we'll take it as it comes, and we won't assume anything. And other people will say, hey, maybe this French woman or the German guy over there. Maybe these were one-offs, you know, we don't have to pay as much attention to that. This is still going to behave like SARS-1 or it's going to behave like flu. And I found that interesting. That was a real-time conversation that was happening among researchers in China,

folks at the CDC and NIH everywhere. And I'd have these conversations every day and they're like, oh, no, no, no, no, smart people, experts. And this isn't to malign them. But this is to say that when you're dealing with something novel, it's mass confusion, at least initially. I think what shocked people the most is they got a front row seat, which they never had had before, in watching the arguments that usually unfolded at our yearly respective specialty conferences. That happens all the time. At what level should we transfuse? Six, seven, eight, no, depending on this page. That happens all the time. But they never saw it. And now all of a sudden, they're seeing it happen in front of them and impacting them directly.

it became a virus that was equally medical, societal, cultural, and where I feel like we perhaps didn't handle it well from a communication standpoint of how we talked about this level of uncertainty. And everyone had a different approach. Dr. Fauci felt it was better to be certain, even when we didn't have perfect certainty, better to recommend the booster for absolutely everyone

so we don't send a garbled message, and that backfired a bit. But it's easy to say that now, Monday morning quarterback, and say, oh, we should have done this. Is there anything you look back on that you say, oh, me personally, I would have done differently had I known?

Well, first of all, I was convinced that those are really hard jobs. Oh, yeah. I mean, you know, the thing about it is, Mike, I mean, you, every patient visit that I have always ends with some version of the same question, which is, what would you do? What would you do if it were your mom

or your daughter or whoever it might be? So I've presented all the data on something and now they want to know, what do I do with that information? And, you know, I think it usually matches exactly what I've just told them. But I think when you're suddenly confronted with this idea that you need to make decisions or recommendations, at least on behalf of a society, not just an individual, I think it automatically forces you to mitigate risk. You have to now think about the situation where someone is particularly vulnerable

and you have to consider them as part of the overall recommendation. I think that that was the real challenge. The trade-off between sort of trying to stratify people based on risk versus making more blanket recommendations, I think it's going to be one of the great lessons here. I think the one area, if I had to pick one thing for me specifically, where I think we started to dig in, but could have dug in more

was really understanding the value of natural immunity. I think you and I both, when we go to medical school, we know that once you get sick, you are going to be immune for a while, different for different viruses. But that does provide really robust immunity.

It's activating your antibodies, activating your T cells. All these things get activated with an illness. No question that it would be better to avoid that illness in the first place. It goes without saying. But I think at the point where it was clear that so many people had been infected, and we saw these waves in South Africa, for example,

and you knew, wow, that burned through the entire population, it seemed like almost, because it all of a sudden came way down. It's like, oh, that's the natural immunity, because they hadn't been vaccinated yet, then pop up again with the new variant. That should have been a signal that, hey, we need to be well aware that natural immunity is strong. It works, and I think some of the Israeli data. So I asked about that a few times in terms of how that would change recommendations based on vaccines and other things, never really got a clear answer on that. And I think the message seemed to be just get vaccinated, which was obviously a problem because not everyone was getting vaccinated.

People were losing their jobs, all this sort of stuff. So I think the natural immunity part of it, still to this day, is a bit of a question mark as to why that wasn't acknowledged more. Yeah, that's a really good point. You know, in thinking about that final question that you often get asked by patients of, what would you do? In scenarios like that, my official training from school days was never give that recommendation because you're not supposed to. It's their decision, not yours.

What I like to do is give sort of the answer that I think works best for them. And then at the same time, present the devil's advocate case at the same time. So in your case, I would recommend surgery because physical therapy has failed, conservative management has failed, et cetera, et cetera. And I think you would be a great candidate in recovery as long as you do the physical therapy. At the same time, I wouldn't consider surgery for X, Y, and Z, and you see which one feels better to them. Because a lot of times when we present data and facts, it's hard to understand it because

it wasn't presented in a storied narrative. But when you make it as if you're debating with yourself, they say, oh, well, I'm obviously on this team. And it makes it an easier comparison there. That's a good point. And in the same time, when you mention how there's risk involved in making a decision, you try to mitigate the risk of the general population as opposed to the individual, I also think about the risk that exists in presenting information and how you could risk losing trust. And I don't think that was ever considered. It was, we have to make a decision now and we have to say something. And the risk that was considered was the medical risk.

but not so much the trust risk. Or the overall impact on society risk. Exactly. Kids of school, yeah, all that sort of stuff. You know, it is a, it's a really challenging balance. There's no question about it. I think that, you know, when I was covering H1N1 and even Ebola, so H1N1 was 2009, Ebola 2014,

you had Richard Besser and you had Tom Frieden, who were the CDC directors at that time. And I remember reflecting on this during COVID, they would get up in front of the CDC, first of all, just from an optic standpoint. These weren't press briefings that were happening at the White House. I think the press briefings at the White House intentionally or not really, really entangled the science and the politics. It just became more of a political sort of thing because all those briefings were happening at the White House. Frieden and Besser would get up in front of the CDC and basically say something like, hey, so, you know, 4,000 of some of the smartest Hardest working scientists in the world are, you know, working behind me.

As of today, here is what we know and here is what we don't know. And it was always sort of paired that way. It was always some phrasing that was similar to that. And I think I remember being struck by the idea that as physicians saying you don't know, a lot of people will see that as a sign of weakness or, you know, maybe incompetence even. And yet, I think it really did engender a lot of trust. it said, hey, you know, I'm putting my cards on the table. I'm giving it to you straight.

There are things we still don't know. Here's what we know. Here's what we don't know. But here's what we think is the best thing to do because we've got to make some recommendations still. We can't just stay flat. You can't just let the patient languish. In this case, the patient being the country.

And so, you know, I think that that would have been helpful, maybe not to be so didactic about things, but to constantly say what we don't know. Do you think the fact that the media landscape has changed, leaning more towards social media podcasting away from the typical 60-minute sit-down interview. It's allowed those who are ultra-confident, even when they're wrong,

to be able to be the more effective communicators. Absolutely. I mean, that's the thing. I mean, you and I will sit down and have a two-hour-long conversation and get into some of the nuance, lean into that somewhat. I think that there, and again, something you do very well is you do give clear messages that are concise for social media and for more digestible sort of content, but I think you do it in a very fair way. I think there's a real risk for a lot of people to be forced into really consolidating, you know, being overly certain, confident about something that requires more nuance.

I mean, you've talked about this. It's easy to just sort of be very confident. And I do find, I mean, no disrespect to some of these folks out there. But frankly, the more confident I hear someone, the more confident I am, they probably really don't know what they're talking about. Well, what is the common line where the more someone is educated towards the PhD level, the more they just realize how much they don't know as opposed to what they know. Mike, I'm 55.

I probably spend more time now reflecting on what I don't know. I mean, coming out of residency, right, trained in neurosurgery, top of my game. And I was the guy that you'd say something, hey, what about this? I'd be like 100%. 100%. Now it kind of makes me cringe when I hear, but 100%. Nothing's 100%. Sure.

But now at 55, I wouldn't say that I've lost confidence. I'm not like emasculated in this way, but I reflect a lot more. I have a lot more reflection than ambition in my life right now. And I think that reflection allows me, if I'm given the time, like you've generally given the time to talk about something, I think you can lean into uncertainty and lean into nuance. Is that you creating a new love for the art that is of health care? I think so.

You know, in some ways, I think it's allowing me to do what I've always wanted to do. It's kind of like I say to our medical students, you're not going to medical school to be a medical student. You hope to move on to something. I think even when I started doing early reporting and doing more day of air reporting, in some ways it felt like a necessary thing to do as a journalist in order to do what I really wanted to do, which is to dive into deep topics, do documentaries, or cover huge stories around the world, like going into Iraq or going to Afghanistan or something. You're fully immersed, right? You haven't think about anything else. Right. That is it.

I'm, you know, if you didn't want to talk to me about that topic, I probably didn't have much to say at that point. Even during COVID, you know, I mean, I was probably not a lot of fun to be around socially because it was just so much on my mind. So this is, it is a love. I think it's always been there. And now I think after nearly 25 years, I'm allowed to pursue more of the things that I love, not just content-wise, but depth-wise.

Right. Do you, like, how has been your journey in adapting to the new media landscape of doing podcasts? I mean, you famously did the Joe Rogan interview through the middle of the pandemic. How did you find that? I like podcasts. That was a long podcast. It was three hours long.

Oh, yeah. It's an experience. It's an experience, the Joe Rogan experience, yeah. I like Joe. You know, Joe and I had been in touch for a while before that, and, you know, we're still in touch. in Austin. I have a daughter in Austin. You know, I think that I'd like doing podcasts. I think that there's sometimes a little bit of a danger in terms of how the podcasts are subsequently cut up and put out there. I mean, if you go into, it's like writing an entire book and then having

someone take a paragraph out and say, well, this is what the book is about. If that was what the book was about, I would have just written that one paragraph, right? I've written, I've spent three years writing this book. So I think that's a little bit of the danger in terms of, of co-mingling different media sources. So like the clipping of the podcast? The clipping, you know, it's, and this wasn't, by the way, Joe or his team, but it's just people will take certain clips out of context and then use it for their own purposes. And did I say that?

Yeah, absolutely. I said that. But you, you cut out the five minutes before and the five minutes after the whole thing to really frame that discussion. Yeah. And I think, and I know why it happens. It's, it gets clicks and generates a. revenue and I get all that.

And maybe that's just the world that we're in now. And, you know, sometimes I don't like to spend a lot of time in my life banging my head against a wall. So maybe that's just the world that we're in right now. But aside from that, I think podcasts are great. I'm not as facile with things like social media. I think it's kind of like going back to my medical world. There are certain things that residents are now doing in the OR using certain technologies

that they grew up with, essentially. They've been doing since they were interns. And I've learned now as a full attending. So it's still like, hey, is this really going to work? Let's just do it the way that I do it normally type thing. So I grapple with that a bit, Mike. But overall, I think a lot of the content that's getting out there, I think is actually pretty good and pretty helpful for people.

Yeah. A lot of medical organizations, scientists have been quite critical of Joe Rogan and perhaps information that he's put forward. during the pandemic now. I had Dr. Peter Hotez on the podcast, and he had a big spout with Joe. So I'm curious, how do you manage that from your hat that you wear as a medical communicator

and at the same time being friends with, Joe? One thing I'll give you this quote that I think I've sort of lived my life by in some ways. And the quote is, it's hard to hate close up. it's hard to hate close up. I think a lot of people develop very strong feelings about people that they've never met. And I would say that about Joe as well. I think there's a lot of people who love him, obviously, a lot of people who hate him.

I spend time with him, you know, he's, whenever he's talked about me, whenever he's put out things on social about this, he says, we're friends, you know, we have great conversations. I feel the same way. I think it's okay and maybe even necessary. to, even if you don't agree on things, not to hate each other, not to be so vitriolic about things.

Look, I'm not naive, I don't think, Mike. Maybe somewhat naive, my wife would say, but I think that most people are not bad people. There are some bad people out there. Sure, and it's not about throwing a label on someone. Not throwing a label. I mean, I think there are some truly malignant people that I just would not trust.

I think that they are not, they're terribly intentioned people. I don't think that he's that. I think that he hears from a lot of people, some of whom I also hear from, who are very confident, again, going back to this confidence thing, very confident in their point of view.

And they probe uncertainty for their own benefit. But it can be presented in a very seductive way, you know? And I think that he talks to me, he talks to Peter Hottes. He does talk to other folks, but I think there's a lot of other people in his year as well. Yeah. Because, you know, we take segments that are done by CNN and they get X number of views.

And you're trying to put out evidence-based accurate information on the platform. And then on the Joe Rogan experience, he'll host someone that is saying something completely inaccurate, a lot of conspiracy theory baked into it, and it gets 100x the views. Does that destroy the work that's been done by your network and the information you've presented? Like, how do you fight back against that? Well, we find guys like Dr. Mike. We recruit Dr. Mike. Look, I think it's hard. If you say super provocative things that are not founded in evidence

and fit a narrative that a lot of people want to hear, you're going to get a lot of views. I, you know, I'm a guy, I'm an optimist. I think the truth does prevail, ultimately. I worry about how much damage will be done before that truth prevails. I mean, I also think, you know, the idea, so let's say there's a lot of bad information or misinformation, even disinformation.

I think there's all these different strategies. You counter a lot of that in what you do, and it's hard. And I think sometimes it feels like you're playing whack-a-mole, because as soon as you say something over here, then it's this, or it's this. I think you ask yourself, even if it's much lower levels of viewing, is it good to just make sure that good information is out there. I don't want there to be a vacuum of that. And so people get really curious about something. Should I vaccinate my kids? Should I take Tylenol during pregnancy? At least there's good information for people to find. Presented in a way

that's not so sterile like you might get from a government agency. Sure. Because that's problematic. I think, you know, a little bit of a side issue, but, you know, going back to the early part of your career and you said people are looking at you side-eyed, as you might imagine, 25 years ago when I started this, it was probably even more so. Oh, really? Yeah. What were you hearing those days? Well, I think that this idea of doctors being communicators in any way other than the journals,

in any way other than the organized meetings, it's like, what are you doing? Why would you write articles for Time Magazine or why would you, you know, do television appearances? And not only do I think there was sort of a question mark around it, to some extent there may have been some disdain, not towards me, but I'm saying this idea. that doctors would to the industry yeah that they would spend time doing that sort of thing hey go take care of patients right why are you sitting there with a mic in front of your face right that that kind of stuff and i i do think that that that's changed but i think that there is still a sense of that like the i heard you talking about the quality of production that might come out of aMA or something like that it's not like they can't do it yeah but there is this idea like

hey we're not we're not fancy pants over here and we're doctors right we're serious this doesn't need to look like, you know, like some fancy movie set. And so there's this sort of not, I think, and I disagree with that as a person who's done this for 25 years. I think you have to present material on a really accessible, engaging, to some extent, if it's appropriate, entertaining way, while obviously being highly informed. Yeah. I don't think it's even about having incredibly high production value. It's just about the effort of, would you go to a job interview or a date with food all over your suit? Right. Your suit. jacket or no suit jacket, you know, because it's important you're trying to provide the best

version of yourself. You might be an amazing partner. You might be an amazing physician interviewing for the job. But if you don't look presentable, there's just something off from the human trust factor of it all that I feel like we're totally leaving behind as a medical industry. It's surprising to me a little bit. And just sort of, again, this idea that there's a cultural sort of, like, you know, we think of sports reporting and entertainment reporting and it's usually very it's great it's well written it's well produced well presented medical there's still this idea that hey we're you know the buttoned up sort of as i say this as i'm wearing a tie by the way on your podcast should i take the tie off i mean yeah if you want to get off

yeah yeah okay i did this for you i said you know dr mike i respect him so much oh no i hope you don't think i where's your time like you at the tie not at all not at all um but you know I think that there is still this sort of, if not disdain, maybe that's a strong word, then this sort of skepticism, cynicism. Yeah, just thinking it's not necessary. It's not necessary. The words are what counts. It doesn't have to be a certain presentation.

And I think that the medical establishment needs to be better about that. Yeah, we've definitely lost trust, and we talked about that during the pandemic. But now we're facing an administration that, you know, as you just mentioned, that perhaps a government will discuss with you a medical topic with a lot of sterility, that's not happening now. It's quite the opposite, and it seems the pendulum has shifted. What's your take on our current administration as it exists? Scientifically, health-wise. Look, I think there's a lot of parts of it that are worrisome at the granular level, but also I think at a broader level as well. At a broader level, you know, I think, you know, the United States has always been sort of

this leader in health and health sciences, really since the end of World War II. And I think we've taken great pride in that. And it hasn't just been a source of pride. It's been, you know, a huge, a huge producer of jobs and people staking their entire careers, people coming from other countries to the United States. That's why I'm here. That's why you're here. I mean, you saw what was happening in the United States, and you saw, well, that would be a

great place to practice medicine, to do what I want to do. My parents, same sort of thing. I think we're at risk of losing some of that. And I'm speaking haltingly because I don't want to overstate that. But, you know, that's like, do we value that? Do we value sort of holding up health and health sciences as something that we can pretty confidently say we're the best in the world at this? I think we run the risk of losing some of that.

I already see scientists who I've known for a long time leaving the United States. one of our scientists actually brain tumor science went to south korea another one went to israel so that worries me at a at a more granular level you know i think that the the irony of it is that under the guise of let's create more transparency and create more trust i think there's less trust than ever and there's mass confusion on things and you and i can have conversations about Tylenol and autism and vaccines but you know they're you know i live in the south there are a lot of people who come up to me, who, they're not watching either of us, not even you, and you got a lot of viewers,

but that's not how they're consuming content. All they hear is that I took Tylenol last, you know, last trimester. Is my kid going to have autism? So it's kind of heartbreaking, you know, to have these people think that they may have contributed to their child's autism. So it's, it's worrisome, I think, overall. I will say one thing, and maybe you've got sense of this as well. like if you look at the Tylenol autism thing

and you heard this super weird press conference we had the president of the United States we got Gaza happening we got Ukraine happening we got we got government shutdown moving all these things and he's up there saying don't take Tylenol tough it out you know he did say a couple times talk to your doctor or if it's a bad fever but clearly the weight of the evidence as they say

was on don't take Tylenol but the FDA comes out with the letter shortly thereafter, which is measured, and says basically the same thing that obstetricians have been saying for a decade. So there's this sense that there's these huge fireworks that go off. We're going to get rid of vaccines. We're going to do all this sort of stuff. And you do have, you know, the health leaders of the country all sort of part of that, but it's almost like they come in behind and sort of play a little cleanup on terms of what to do responsibly for the country. Hopefully that continues. We'll see. Yeah, I saw that letter and it actually left me more perplexed because A, didn't really match the tone of the press conference. But then

the commissioner of the FDA will go on Fox News evening show, a very opinion-focused show, say things like there is a definitive causal link. And then in the same letter that he's publishing the following day, say that there is no causal link. So if we're trying to create transparency and honesty, how do we do that when we're talking out of both sides, depending on which audience we're speaking to? I totally hear you and know exactly what you're talking about. Here's what he would say. Marty, Macquarie.

Who's been a guest on the podcast? He's been a guest. Good guy. Surgical oncologist. By the way, he calls me Dr. Gupta, too. I'm all older than me. I'm kidding. Well, he did the Choosing Wisely campaign, which was a big part of my education and family medicine.

and about over-ordering tests. So he's been in my education curriculum from when I started. Yeah, and I read his book Blind Spots and thought it was quite good. There was a... So this gentleman, Andreas Baccarelli, who was the dean of the public health school

at Harvard, I think, at the time this was written. Or maybe he was at Yale and then moved to Harvard. I can't remember. He testified in a lawsuit. And within that testimony, the judge summarized his comments, Maybe you know all this, but the way the judge summarized it was to say that there was a causal

association between Tylenol and autism. That was the judge's words. And I saw this, and I think that's what Dr. McRey and Marty is referring to when he says, he said it. He said there's a causal thing between Tylenol and autism. He's not wrong because I think that that was what the judge sort of summarized Dr. Baccarelli's comments to be. But I think at the same time, he knows that maybe the judge misinterpreted what he said

or if he said it, he misspoke at the time. The truth is that there is no causal link between Tylenol autism. You can look at the studies yourself. Anybody can look at these studies and find that that case. And I don't know if I'm mistaken, but I believe the physician who is part of that trial actually said briefing notes before this Tylenolitis press conference specifying that there is no causal link. He did.

You're right. So it's weird, but if you're trying to, again, find that sort of kernel of truth to support your point of view, and someone says, where are you getting this causal thing from? And let me show you, it's right here. But isn't that antithetical to science? Because you're supposed to disprove. Yes. It's the null hypothesis of always what you believe, not trying to find evidence to support

yourself. Yeah, to bolster your claim. This is where it gets, I think, particularly confusing because I think, And I've interviewed Marty as well, and I think that, first of all, they're, you know, they work for the health secretary. They work for the president. So they're never going to say, I disagree with them. So that's never going to be part of what comes out of their mouth when talking about this. And they will look for opportunities to sort of support what their principles are saying as well.

But I do think for the health of the country overall, the idea that what actually transpired from that FDA letter, admittedly it was confusing but what it still said was the recommendation was still the same recommendation that obstetricians have been giving for a long time so hopefully at least people aren't harmed maybe there still will be some it just if we're being realists percentages or numbers of people reading the letter versus hearing the press conference i i i hope that at least if the if the system works at all appropriately people as are always advocated to do we'll talk to their doctors. And the doctors hopefully have seen the letter, you know, because doctors, I'm sure, will be more likely to seek out, like, what was that all about? Let me get the summary on this

from the FDA, you know, the people who are regulating this. And I don't think anything novel was presented in the sense of my practice. We've always cautioned against unnecessary use of any medication over-the-counter otherwise. That's the thing. And, you know, the flip side is that, and this is where everything gets so political, you probably saw on social women who are pregnant popping Tylenol indiscriminately. Yeah, that's ridiculous, yeah. But, like, this is where we've arrived. Yeah.

Where, on one, you know, there's no, there's no middle ground here. I am to spite, you know, the president or the health secretary, I'm going to pop Tylenol as a pregnant woman. It's just, these are weird times. Yeah, I said something in a, I don't remember if it was a speech, but I said that I try not to be political and be more clinical, but I actually don't think that's accurate. Because in order to advocate for public health, you have to be political. Like, there's no way around that.

But you could be non-partisan. Yeah. So my information's not partisan. I'm giving you the information, whether you're on the team left or team right. It's still going to be the truth. Yeah. And I would hope to see our government move in that direction, at least from the public health space. I'm not venturing into finances and all these things as a podcast house.

I'm trying to stick to health. Yeah. And I feel like, again, whether you're a Republican or you're a Democrat, you'd want to know the truth, right, to make the best decision about, your health. I think so, and it's bizarre to me how entangled some of these things become with politics. I think, again, I don't think I'm naive to this, but the first few times I saw this, it was a little bit bewildering. Like, why are you, why do you believe this so strongly? Like, where is that coming from? And to even put more of a punctuation mark on it, we did this documentary sort of 2017-2018 time frame about vaccines. This is well before, obviously, the pandemic.

And the anti-vax or Vax resistance sort of movement at that point was primarily fueled by young liberal women. West Coast. Yeah, West Coast and here, in New York, in Brooklyn, and in other places. And you got the corresponding predictable outbreaks, young liberal women. And now, if you were to look at the person most resistant, reluctant, or anti-even to vaccines, it's older conservative men. So here's a weird sort of thing where you realize in some ways a very important health issue is being co-opted for political reasons. How could it transition so fast within a decade, within a few years even, from almost opposite demographic, both in terms of age and political persuasion, to a different thing, you know, that quickly. And I think people should just pay attention to that because it means you're probably being co-opted.

You are part of the movement without even necessarily recognizing you are. A bit of a direct question. Do you believe Secretary Kennedy is anti-vaccine? I think he is. He has said there's no such thing as a safe and effective vaccine. Again, if you talk to Marty and other people, he will say, well, he just recommended the measles vaccine in the middle of this West Texas outbreak. And I said, yeah, but I feel like he was sort of forced into that.

I don't think that he thinks vaccines are safe and effective. said that, what that ultimately leads to. And by the way, I think he really believes that. Because I think, you know, you've probably run into people who are saying things. They may not necessarily believe what they are even saying. Why do you think so? Why do I think he believes it? It's a good question. I think you hear a lot of stories sometimes. You talk to a lot of families and you start to conflate anecdotes with real statistics. I think he sometimes will hear data in a way that is persuasive to him, not recognizing that there's more to that story.

I'll give you an example. I remember him saying once that you were more likely to die of COVID if you were vaccinated versus being unvaccinated. I got a study. I'll point to a study, right? And so I pulled the study. maybe you did the same thing. And basically, I think it was September of 23, maybe.

And there was about 12,000 people who died that month of COVID, of which I think 8,000 were vaccinated and 4,000 were not. Vaccinated people are more likely to die, right? That's the answer. And yet anybody who's taken basic statistics will know of something known as base rate fallacy. So those 8,000 people who died, the denominator is 200 million

whereas the 4,000 people who died, the denominator was 10 million. So you are far, far, far exponentially less likely to die if you were vaccinated if you account for the denominator as well. So if you just present the 8,000, 4,000, and that's the message you want to get across, you can convince a lot of people

that vaccines are deadly. But if you're trying to be honest about it and fully transparent and lean into this nuance, which I don't even think is nuance. It's just a more complete story of statistics than you would realize that it's far different, 50-fold or so more likely to die

if you're unvaccinated versus vaccinated. So I think sometimes he either gets presented incomplete stories or he just chooses to focus on that part of the story. It's like a good metaphor for the general public is, I don't know if you watch murder mysteries on Netflix. Do you ever... Yeah, this is what we find fun these days.

Okay. That's a society. Do you have a favorite one? No, no, no. There's a million of them. There's so many. But they cover a true story of something that happened. Most recently I watched one of a woman who went missing that was on a cruise ship.

And it was three or four episodes. What Secretary Kennedy often does is like watching one episode of that murder mystery where the producers and editors do such a good job making you feel like you know what the story is about to be. And at the end of episode one, they actually go, here's a new piece of information that's going to make you watch episode two because it's actually a completely different narrative. And then you go, oh, I'm watching episode two now because everything I thought, I thought I had this figure out, it was done. But Secretary Kennedy never watches episode two. It's done on episode one. And obviously we're laughing about this. I do think,

I do think that, I mean, look, going back to the, it's hard to hate close up. I, I, you know, I've talked to him before. I'm not sure if we've ever actually met in person. We've had phone conversations. You know, this gets back to what you believe versus what you say. Like, I think he, I think he was really touched by some of the stories of kids who had developed autism and, and persuaded by the stories that, you know, they happened in conjunction with vaccines and all that. And I think he's done some, some of the hard work as well, but just not totally complete, like this base rate fallacy sort of thing. I think what he tried to do with riverkeepers or what he had, has done with riverkeepers and things like that.

I mean, there were huge, you know, I work for the Turner family, you know, they were huge fans of his work for what he did for the environment. So there's all these sort of things that are happening at the same time, you know, so I think for some people who noted his work as an environmentalist, this is a bit confusing in a way. Yeah, and also speaking to left or right, he was running for president as a Democrat. That's right. Confounding the picture even more. What perplexes me about his stances and why I perhaps can see your side of why he probably believes everything he's saying because he's been so moved by these anecdotes and hasn't had the complete picture of the scientific evidence.

But if I look at the trajectory of how he got to where he is today with vaccines, this all started in the mid-2000s, like 2007 or so, when he... The Rolling Stones article? Well, even before that, he came on to join the World Mercury. project. And then when mercury essentially became less of an issue because most of the childhood vaccines removed mercury, except the thimerosol, except from the multi-dose flu vials, he renamed the organization to be children's health defense. Right, right. So it's like always pivoting to see whatever is in the media. It's like, well, you were very passionate about

mercury. And in fact, some of his first interviews, he was saying, I'm not interested in attacking vaccines. I'm talking about mercury exposure. I think vaccines are amazing. They've saved millions of lives. And then comparing that to the interviews he's giving these days, it's like, well, what happened? What do you truly believe? Because recently he did a podcast where he said, doctors are just interested in keeping patients sick. And that's defaming all of us. That's crazy. I heard that. And that breaks your heart. You know, I mean, you think, it's been decades of my life. Yeah. By the way, you know, neurosurgery training, I gave up an entire decade. I'm not complaining, but like, you're being a realist. And then you're 100 hours a

week. You have no friends. They have no social life. Getting paid $28,000 a year, barely pay my rent. And then to come out of that and have the health secretary for the country say, you're all a bunch of hucksters, you know, just trying to profit off the system. I'll tell you, it's, it's really weird. It's an interesting point about these pivots that you're sort of alluding to here with the Children's Health Defense Fund. I think what is interesting now is that when he comes out and talks about Tylenol and autism and we all say, okay, hey, let us clarify this as medical communicators. What he's also hearing from folks at Children's Health Defense Fund, an organization that he helped

found is, hey, man, you're not going far enough. What is this Tylenol nonsense? You said you were going to get rid of vaccines. So where is that? That was the September announcement, right? That was what you were supposed to hear. So, in a way, he's sort of getting outflanked, you know, by both people who are trying to clear up the things he does say and other people who are saying, you're not going far enough. Back to the interview in just a second, but first, I want to tell you about cozy earth, a betting and loungeware brand made with viscos.

That's a natural cellulose found in bamboo, which makes super soft sheets and stretchy pajamas that wick away moisture and create air circulation to prevent heat trapping, letting you sleep cooler. And believe me, cold does matter. Every night, there's a whole checklist of things I make sure to do before getting into bed, one of which is making sure my room is cold. There's plenty of evidence that says a cold room contributes to a better night's sleep. Cozy earth sheets help me avoid waking up sweaty and uncomfortable in the middle of the night. They offer a risk-free purchase, too, sleep on the sheets or in the PJs for 100 nights. And if you don't like it, you could send them back.

They also come with a 10-year warranty. I love that piece of mind. Head on over to cozyearth.com and use my code, Dr. Mike, doctor spelled out, for up to 20% off. And if you get a post-purched survey, make sure you let them know that you heard about cozy earth right here on this podcast. Because home isn't just where you live. It's how you feel. Let's go home with cozy earth. All right, let's get back to the interview.

I remember, I forgot who was, but they said that when they called them to tell him that he was going to be picked by Donald Trump to be his health and Human Services Secretary, he needed to make the promise that he's not anti-vaccine to President Trump. Is that right? Yeah. And I believe it was Vance who said that at a podcast. Am I correct on that? Yeah.

That's interesting. I'm not 100% sure that it was Vance, but this was definitely said. I watched the interview. And it's interesting because it then speaks to why it's not a full push to get rid of vaccines because it seems like President Trump mitigated some of that by saying that at the outset. That's really interesting. You know, I do wonder, though, you know, just to keep that going, so President Trump is doing this Tylenol autism thing, and as you heard as part of that, he also talks about

the idea of creating monovalent vaccines, so MMR, separating them into three different vaccines. And it was weird because it had nothing to do with Tylenol and autism, and I think it didn't get a lot of attention because so much of the attention was on Tylenol. But all of a sudden, he threw that in there. And, like, having worked at the White House, I sort of have some sense of how these things go, which is it was a walk from the Oval Office to that room, which is two and a half, three minutes, or whatever amount of time, and basically just hearing the briefing at this point. And by the way, Mr. President, you know, we're concerned about vaccines, you know. And so he gets up there and freelances splitting him up. So if people are constantly in your year, sort of, you know, trashing the efficacy of vaccines, laying some certainty into their,

how safe they are, I think it starts to affect how you're talking about it. So we'll see. But I think President Trump is actually going back to Operation Warp speed even. In a way, he's mostly said the right thing about vaccines. He talked about the need for a childhood vaccine schedule. For a while, he talked about the need for COVID vaccines until, you know, obviously his base wasn't too happy about that. Although he did bring in some hepatitis B misinformation.

I know. It seems out of nowhere to bring that in. These aren't like some long briefing that I tell you, I guarantee it was like a few minutes on the way to the briefing from the Oval Office. So it's like these nuggets that are coming to him that he then has to, then he pontificates, I think. Yeah. That makes sense.

We, I believe it was pretty early on in this administration called for Secretary Kennedy to be removed or to step down. I think as recent as this week, six previous Surgeon Generals came together in the Washington Post and called for him to resign as well. Your thoughts? I think one thing that I've learned over the years

is that you have to ask the next question as well, which is okay, if he's gone, then who? Okay. And I think, you know, like even with the CDC director, we saw CDC director leaving and now someone else is coming in who immediately is, is pretty robust in terms of their comments about vaccines.

So what he's doing is concerning. It's worrisome, all the things that I said earlier. The CDC director left because RFK. I know. This is a, God, it's very hard to keep it all strong. Do we have a surgeon general, by the way? No. I mean, here we are.

Yeah. We do not have a surgeon general. It says vacant on the website. It says vacant on the website. And I don't even know what's happening. I mean, I know that Cali means Casey. But one of them is going to probably, you know, testify at some point. But regardless, I think you have to ask, what is it going to be replaced by, you know?

I think Marty and Jay and Oz, you know, I do think that they are people who, whatever you may say about them politically, have been doing sort of behind the scenes, like with this Tylenol autism thing, the right thing in terms of making sure. at least the FDA notice that went out was responsible. So I would hate to see a huge sort of complete dustup or even some of the gatekeepers of this were also gone. Because if he leaves, they may all leave as well. And who are they replaced with?

So I think you just, you got to think it completely through, I think. So if you had your way, how would you play it? I would find an HHS secretary who was very committed to preserving the integrity of the medical, establishment in the United States and following evidence-based science and putting that person in the job. They don't have to be a doctor. There have been plenty of HHS secretaries who are not doctors, but somebody who really, you

know, when they were testifying before these Senate committees really made it clear that that was their priority. That's what I, you'd have to have that person ready in place, ready to go. Yeah. Just leaving the whole organization totally rudderless is not good either. I don't think they were calling on everyone to resign. No, but I think that people will go. You know, what happens a lot of times is if you were appointed and asked by a certain person,

then if they're no longer in the job. Maybe you're asked to stay on, but these appointees, maybe they're not. That's annoying. What? You're a muffler. You don't hear it? Oh, I don't even notice it. I usually drown it out with the radio.

How's this? Oh, yeah. Way better. Save on insurance by switching to Bel Air Direct and use the money to fix your car. Bel Air Direct, Insurance, Simplified. conditions apply. You mentioned Dr. Oz. You and him were on air at the same time, at least during my education. What's your relationship like with him these days? You know, good. I don't want to overuse this quote, although I think I will. It's hard to hate close up. Okay. I like Dr. Oz.

I believe firmly that you don't hate anyone. This is not. Oh, no? Okay. I didn't say that. Okay. I don't think I'm going to name them. Okay. Can you name them and we bleep it? these aren't people you would know these are like former bosses these aren't like i thought you're going to say someone that bullied you and all that happened too okay i mean being a little indian kid in rural michigan sure you know sanjay gupta english was not the first language late turned six you know so showing up my first day with indian accent the head wobble sanjay gupta's a name broil cream in the hair uh yeah you got some bullying tears yeah it's ironically the same exact story for me i came when i was six not knowing English, same bullying.

Really? Same story, yeah, exactly. Did you fight back? No, tears. Tears. Yeah, exactly. Came home and cried to my parents, who said, solve it on your own.

Good, good advice from your parents. Good advice acutely. Had it gone on chronically and it was debilitating, I hope they would have stepped in. Yeah, it's a tough balance. You know, now as a dad, myself, of three teenagers, knowing when to step in, you know, is this a life lesson,

or is this something I need to get involved with? You know, it's hard to know sometimes. Sure. But no, I like Oz. I do. I think he, like you, is, you know, he's very good at what he did in terms of medical communication. I think that realizing that clinicians, people who practice medicine, should be part of the conversation in terms of informing people about medical issues, I mean, he was early on in recognizing that. So he's got a big job.

You know, at CMS, I do... Do you like him for that position? That's a good question. And if I say, no, it shouldn't be interpreted as maligning him. You know, I was asked to be the Surgeon General. And I remember thinking when I was asked to do that, that it's very flattering. But at the same time, I'm not sure, I love this country. I'm not sure I'm the right person for this.

Interesting that you say that. Why? Well, you know, I think... Fantastic communicator. decades of experience. I think, you know, so much of that job is public health, you know, and spending time in that world of public health. I think the communications part is important and being a clinician is important, but, you know, public health is a thing unto itself. And I think there is a difference in terms of how you think about individualism versus

collectivism. You know, you just program that way as a public health person. So I'm not saying I was certain that it was not the right job, but it did cross-me. my mind. CMS's, you know, as doctors, you know, we're not really necessarily trained in all the accounting of these gigantic federal entitlement programs. And I think cardiothoracic surgeons are probably least equipped. Yeah. I mean, look, they know how to bill, you know, for carnage and stuff like that. He's a smart guy. He's a quick study. I'm sure he's learning that. I'm sure he's got a great staff. I'm sure he's providing direction in terms of where he thinks we should be spending money in this country. They are, you know, I mean, they are making some interesting decisions

and how to spend money with regard to things like AI and healthcare and things like that. So, you know, sort of keep tabs on that. I... Wait, so going back, do you think it's a good fit? I think that there's probably people who are just really immersed in health care policy in understanding both the history and the trajectory of where we're going as a country that may be better for a job like that. Love you, Dr. Oz. You know, I, I do. I do love him, but I think that maybe if he were sitting here, he'd even say that. Like, it's hard to say no to the president if they ask you to do a job, so I get that pressure. But at the same time, you know, like I did, to say, hey, look, flattered, but maybe I'm not the perfect person for this.

Maybe a certain general would have been better for Dr. Oz because of the communications background. Interesting. Does it worry you? He recently came out and said, if we lower or raise the retirement age and we get people to work a little bit longer, we can save trillions of dollars. Is that mindset worry you on the public health scheme of things?

I think that a lot of the way, yeah, I mean, it does worry me, but I think what is happening there is basically these are sort of these trial balloons that are sort of put out there. And just knowing him, I've known him for a long time, I think it's a little bit of how he operates. It's how about this? What about this?

And just throw it out there. And then someone may say, hey, look, that's the stupidest idea that we've ever heard. It can't work and hear all the reasons why. And I think he would sort of recognize that. You know, we talked a lot about that during the pandemic. He was oftentimes putting asserting things about whatever it might be. Schools, et cetera.

Schools and even, you know, some of these therapeutics and things like that. And I think in a part, part of him was sort of saying, let's just throw this out there, see what people. are actually how they respond to it in any of the sticks. Yeah. It's scary because I used to, as a young doctor, just say to my patients, well, you know, look at what the CDC or FDA or HHS is saying. What's the advice to give to young doctors now when it comes to our federal agencies?

You know, I still think that a lot of the information coming out of there is good information. I think you have to, like I keep using the Tylenol autism example because it just happened. But, you know, I think what ultimately gets presented after all the sort of fanfare and fireworks around some of these things is reasonable so far. I think we'll see with regard to ASIP in particular on immunization practices, what happens with the potential splitting of the MMR vaccine. By the way, people are really going to want their kids to get poked three times now instead of one time. I mean, isn't this like, I can't believe they get 100 million shots, you know, that was always is the sort of thing.

And now they realize they're advocating for basically giving even more shots. Yeah. I mean, it started off this podcast by saying, Mike, things are weird. And I keep getting reminded of that. Well, even like, again, listening to President Trump,

talk about the amount of liquid injected into a baby. I don't even understand what is being said from a medical perspective. You know, when the bleach thing happened during COVID, going back to like sort of unpacking the behind-the-scenes scenario, I ended up having a conversation with Dr. Burks about this, who had been in the Oval Office.

I remember her standing by his side. She was standing there, but there was somebody else who had been in the Oval Office with them, somebody who talked about the use of bleach for pathogens. Disinfecting, constantly touched spaces or something, yeah. Yeah, I mean, something that made total sense, inanimate spaces, not the human body. But I think for President Trump, he sort of internalized that in a very quick sort of thing. and said, well, did that on the countertop. Why can't we just do that inside the lungs?

And I think it's the same sort of thing here with like these slight bits of information that are wildly over-interpreted, I think, by people. I also think to really flip this onto the other side of the equation, the way that partisan media on the left reacted to the bleach statement was a wild overreaction. It's almost like reaching for the top tier of outrage when something that should have been, oh, that's not an accurate statement. It was probably charitable thinking exactly what you said, something that was mentioned and then he extrapolated.

But people weaponized it for partisan politics so much so that it leaves us without an ability to fact check now because it's like, oh, they're always offended, even when he made this one-off statement. But now when we really need to stand up for vaccines for the discussion of talent, and autism links, we feel like we don't have much to say because we've already said it then. I think that's a very fair point. I mean, I think, I don't know how I would contextualize the level of outrage around the bleach thing, for example. You're right. It got a lot of attention for a while, and I remember we interviewed Stephen Hahn that

evening, who was the FDA commissioner, and he made some comment like, look, a lot of patients are asking their physicians about this. And I said to him, I said, they weren't before you guys brought this up. I don't think people are saying, hey, what if I drink a little bleach, you know? So, but I, like it, like the bleach thing, maybe, maybe there was an overreaction to it. But at the same time, it's worrisome to sort of think that people who are just tuning into this issue a little bit from the side, they're not really plugged into this issue and they hear, wait a second. So bleach could potentially help get rid of the coronavirus. I could do a little bit of that.

You think that sounds preposterous, right? You're dealing with 350 million people. Anything is possible when you're starting to talk about that scale. So how outrageous do you have to be to make it very clear that there's no way or how that that should be done, you know? It's a tough balance. And at the same time, you cannot disentangle anything from politics, nothing. I can't think of a single issue

that can be disentangled from politics. I hosted Jeopardy for a couple of weeks during the pandemic. And I remember even then, like some of the questions that were, I was, you know, I'd give it the answers. They have to ask the questions. Some of the answers that I had,

people are like, oh, they only gave those answers to Sanjay Gupta because, you know, he worked for CNN and it's a leftist sort of thing. Yeah. I think this is Jeopardy for trying out loud. So you cannot disentangle anything from politics, so everything ends up being a big sort of bludgeoning tool And health, I think somewhat surprisingly, compared to other issues, has become one of the biggest

bludgeoning tools of all. People are really using it to pound the other side. And I think a lot of it is to no avail. It's not helping the American people. In November 2024, when President Trump either was elected or was in the final stages of the election, was pointing out that he might have Secretary Kennedy as head of HHS at that time, just RFK Jr. You were putting out a lot of information with CNN, how dangerous that would be. You were voicing your concern. I remember in April, May, summer of this year, looking up your name and RFK Jr. into Google News Search to see how you guys have been covering it.

There was not a single piece of coverage. Why that choice? I mean, we've definitely covered him since then, so I'm not sure why that wouldn't pop up. I mean, he's generated a lot of news over the last several months. So, no, I think that we've still been covering. I mean, you know, every one of these hearings and certainly during his hearings, but then, I mean, I know during his hearings he got a lot of coverage at that point. I think around the ASIP meeting.

I do think there needs to be a conscious choice, though, sometimes when you're covering something, Are you just elevating something that is likely to not be a thing? Kind of like the bleach thing again. Should we have given that as much attention as we did? I think there are times when he says something, and we know that there's no way that that's going to be of significance. It's not going to amount to anything. But I know that we covered, certainly during West Texas,

certainly during Wisconsin and the lead crisis, we talked about him a fair amount. We talked about the cuts that were happening at the CDC, obviously the stance on on vaccines and measles specifically well just firing the whole ACIP panel was just not firing ridiculous yeah so yeah I maybe we need to talk to our search engine optimization yeah perhaps no but I think I think I don't know that I use the word aggressively covered but I think we've we've robustly and I think fairly covered what has been happening within the health department including including Secretary Kennedy yeah the reason

I was even searching this was not to question you because I'm a fan of your work is because I was feeling as a content creator myself and in charge of our production schedule feeling like, oh man, there are so many other passion projects I would rather cover on this channel. But I feel like I'm having to cover so much of the misinformation coming out from Secretary Kennedy or the office. And I wondered how you were handling it. That's why I searched it. So how do you decide when to cover, when to not cover, or is this a production thing that is decided by someone else? No, well, I would say it's a collaborative.

It's not just me deciding. I think, you know, we have editorial meetings and within health, but also within the company as a whole to try and make those determinations. And, you know, and again, we're 24-hour news network. So typically we cover things, if not on television, then digitally online. And these are newsworthy, you know, these are newsworthy events. I mean, I think there's sometimes been this inclination to say just to, ignore it and not cover it. And I think that's the wrong, wrong approach. I think you have to

cover it. I will say, again, you do such a great job combating the misinformation, but it is exhausting. Sure. It's exhausting. And there is a sense sometimes that it's just playing whack-a-mole. Like I do, I remember you doing a, I saw a session with you when you were talking to a bunch of people, and you asked the woman a question like, is there anything I could say to convince you? And she basically said, no, there's nothing. She'd like to hear your point of view, but she wasn't going to be convinced. And I feel like she was representative of a lot of people. So, you know, I don't like to bang my head against the wall. I'm very aware of time passing and how I want to spend my time. So if I don't think it's going to be a value

to people, then I may not spend as much time on it. I also do like to work on other projects like this like i'm not trying to transition to the pain but i do like to work on big big ideas like pain alzheimer's you know things like that and really dive deep into that when i start to write a book or work on a documentary i'm pretty head down for a few weeks certainly for the documentary a few years for for the book um so you know some of the other stuff and we have an entire team of health reporters who continue to cover all the stuff so it's not just me but i think it's important to cover. We will continue covering it. We'll do it robustly, aggressively, if need be, and always honestly and transparently. Got it. Well, tell me about the book then,

because that's a world I have to function in quite often for a couple of reasons. One, I'm a family medicine physician. I'm an osteopathic physician. I have a musculoskeletal focus in that I'm a professional athlete myself. And I was initially going to do a sports medicine fellowship until social media got in the way. So I was already doing a lot of research in that space, going to the annual meetings. And therefore, whenever anyone in my practice or in the nearby practice has a patient with some sort of musculoske skeletal condition, it ends up being referred over to me. Got it. That's number one. And then number two, because I'm fortunate enough to be able to dictate to some level of how much time I spend with a patient, because I work as a

volunteer, I'm able to say, I need 30 minutes with this patient who has elbow pain because I feel like it has a psychological cause, just as much as a physical cause. And that's interesting because that's a big part of your book. That is a big part of the book, and I think maybe in some ways the most provocative part of the book. You're too young to know who John Sarno was. I know exactly who John Sarno was. You're too young for that. I've read multiple books. The divided mind is a common bibliotherapy that I recommend to patients. Okay, so you, you know, on some...

We have a YouTube video on John Sarno. Do you? Okay, I want to find this. You know, the, we all stand on the shoulders of other people, right? And it's interesting, I don't know if you ever read John's, his obituary in the New York Times, but I'm not going to get it exactly right, but basically the gist of it was that half the country

thought he was a prophet, and half the country thought he was a pariah. And this idea of introducing the concept of, of psychosomatic and the idea that pain is generated in the brain that's in your head was something that a lot of people found minimizing and stigmatizing even when it came to pain. And yet, you know, I think he was right in the sense that if your brain doesn't decide you have pain, then you don't have pain. And when it gets to be chronic pain, it always comes with baggage attached.

Like I think you're referring to with that patient with elbow pain, always. And sometimes it's depression and anxiety. 40 to 50% of people who have chronic pain have depression and anxiety. It's bidirectional. Sometimes they already had the depression and anxiety. It exacerbated their chronic pain. Sometimes it goes the other way.

Sometimes it's a combination of both. But I think the thing that Sarno was advocating, as well as people like Bessel van der Koke, who wrote the body keeps a score, is that you have to treat both. It's not saying don't treat the pain. Right. It's saying that if you don't treat the baggage,

you're not effectively or completely treating the chronic pain. And I think that was a message that I really wanted to get across. To say all pain is in the brain is not to say it's all in your head. Those are two different things. But I think this idea that we can start to have this deeper conversation about what exactly is driving chronic pain, which affects 50 million people in the United States, fastest growing chronic condition in the country.

To be able to have that honest conversation was really important. I started off, you know, thinking about this, Mike, when I was in the operating room one day and we were doing a, it's called an ACDNF, an anterior cervical dyskeptomy infusion, so neck operation to do a fusion, had my microscope, had all my elegant instruments, we were using navigation for something, and I was looking through the chart, and the patient, you know, had put in their chart a pain score. And it was literally drawing and are circling one of the frowny faces on a thing, which we've all seen. And it was very discordant to me.

There was this cognitive dissonance where I thought, look at all this amazing stuff we have in this OR. And what landed him here is still this incredibly archaic thing of how they're trying to measure pain. And I think that's what sort of launched me into really looking at pain. Where were we with the Holy Grail, which is measuring pain? is it even something that can be measured or should it just remain mysterious your pain's always going to be different than my pain where are we with treating pain what were the repercussions of the opioid epidemic other than the things that we've heard about for so long deaths addictions and all the other things what was the suppression of other research why haven't we had a new pain

medication in a quarter century i mean we as a country will will approve 40 to 50 new medications a year. And yet for the fastest growing chronic condition in America, there was not a new medication approved for a quarter century, 27 years actually. Why? I just found myself asking these questions. And then, you know, as journalists, we have the benefit of being able to call whoever we want, start having the long conversations, trying to determine if there's a book there, going back and reading Sarno's books, even, all that stuff, and decided that I wanted to write about it. What is the answer to that question?

Why didn't we have? Because there's now currently a few new medications. There's one. There's Suzetrogen. And also we have those combinations where they have something with an anti-constabation medication attached them, so like a combo pill. A lot of these were existing pills that were reformulated in a way, but there was only one new medication.

in 27 years. The most honest answer as to why that happened, I don't know, is the most honest answer. I will say that I think the opioid story sucked up a lot of oxygen in the room. And I think that when that happens, it just became so much easier to say, hey, we'll just give opiates. Why do we need to be pursuing other things here? To be fair, pain is complicated, so it's not like developing these new medications is easy. But still, 27 years, 40 to 50 other new medications a year, including really sophisticated immunotherapies and things like that, tough drugs to develop, nothing new for pain.

So I think there's a lot of different reasons, but I think, you know, there's these ripple effects when we hear about things like the opioid epidemic or other problems in society. You take the second beat and ask, what's the rest of the story? what didn't we learn because of, you know, opioids? I think that's one of them. By the way, the Suzetrogen story, are you familiar with this? Nope.

Let me just tell you real quick because I think you'll find this fascinating. These researchers essentially found these were told of this circus performer in Karachi Pakistan. Wow. 14-year-old kid. And he could do these crazy things

like put sharp things through his appendages and walk on hot coals and all this sort of stuff. And there was two fascinating things about him beyond the obvious. One is that when he walked on hot coals, he felt that they were coals and he felt that they were hot.

He just didn't feel pain, which was very different than other hot coal walkers who were just essentially insensate or numb to it. They didn't feel anything. First fascinating thing. The second fascinating thing

was other members of his family also had the same thing. So they... Were you like a spinalhthalmic track? What's happening here? This is really interesting. So this is a, they found a...

gene, and the gene actually codes for a specific sodium channel blocker, SCN-9, double-check man, I think it's SCN-9. Basically, as you know, sodium channels are what allows communication to happen from any part in the body to another part in the body. That's how signals are transmitted. People have, and there's tons of them, people have been trying to find sodium channel blockers that are really highly specific for pain. Well, they basically found sort of retro-engineered what this gene was doing, it's a specific sodium channel blocker, and they created a medication

that essentially did what that does, blocked that sodium channel blocker for a period of time. So it was just a fascinating sort of, you know, streets of Karachi to the lab, to a medicine that people can now use. But, you know, it's 25 years to do that. Again, aside from Celebrex,

which was approved in 1998, they've been working on this sort of medication for about a quarter century. I was not practicing as a physician in the era where opioids were booming. By the time I went into practice, even as a resident, we already had judicial use recommended strategies in place from a pain contract, you know, these mitigation strategies because we realized we overdid it. Was there a time during your practice where you experienced drug reps coming to you and saying,

addictive, totally good, treat pain like it's the fifth vital sign, overdo it, because that's kind of what's out in the ether, but I'm curious if it ever hit home for you. Me personally, I did not experience it, although I knew it was happening, and I read a lot about it at the time. I happened to be trained by a guy Julian Hoff, who was really, really resistant to letting drug reps come into the clinic or instrument reps come into the operating room. He just was really, and I think in some ways he was ahead of his time in this regard. I ended up writing articles about this guy because I just was always curious, like, how he thought about things, you know, why he was concerned about that at the time that he was, which was the, you know, mid to late 90s. But, you know, we knew it was happening.

We also, I was trained at the University of Michigan, we had a pain clinic, which was a luxury. A lot of big institutions did not have a separate pain clinic. So with somebody who came to us for a neurosurgical evaluation but was found to not have an operative problem, we did have a place to have those patients follow up with their care as opposed to just saying, you know what, I can't just send the guy home. He's in pain. Let me give opioids. We had people who were very judicious about this and they were using things like nerve blocks and other sorts of things to try and combat pain beyond the obvious. But look, Mike, there's no question that the narrative that you described was happening in many places around the country. Yeah, it's quite scary. And interestingly, how it shifted. Back then, perhaps there was overuse of opioids.

Now, maybe less now, but especially during my training, there was an over-prescription of surgeries, especially spinal surgeries, with not great evidence behind them. Now I'm seeing pain clinics, interventional pain clinics pop up on every corner where the way that they describe it, because I have some friends that work in this industry, as they're printing money. Because so many patients are being referred to them for primary care physicians being afraid of prescribing opioids because of state monitoring programs, et cetera, that they're just getting so much influx of people who are in pain. They can do procedures all day long.

Nerve blocks and things? nerve blocks, epidurals, et cetera, and they can just procedure all day long, and I see it being overdone. And that's why I'm excited about your book, because you're giving people an alternative that so many people don't trust yet. Yeah, well, thank you for saying that. I think I really did want to get that across, also with the recognition that there are modalities, which, you know, even things, like ketamine, even things like virtual reality, where, you know, if you've grown up in a world where opioids were the thing, anything less than that seems like, hey, man, you're not giving me what I really need. Why are you judging me? You think it's in my head. That whole thing.

Virtual reality, really? Like, what's that going to do for me? Nerve block? Just give me the pill. I think some of what I talk about are not new modalities. There are existing modalities that are sort of getting a resurgence because of all this. But people, want the data. And there is now good data behind many of these things. Even things like meditation. I mean, you know, I'm a neurosurgeon. That's how I was trained. The idea of meditation, I don't know if I'd use the word antithetical, but certainly if I brought that up in clinic, it was laughed at. Yeah, people would be like, come on. But even, I'm sure, in academic institutions, 30 years ago, if you were to say, hey, meditation could be valuable. They say, oh, absolutely.

And I think there's some places where that's still the case, you know, although it's changing. but I think part of why that's changing is that there were these incredible functional scans studies where actually looked at the changes in brain that happened to people who regularly meditated and you saw an objective measurable change in an area known as the posterior cingulate cortex just behind the anterior cingulate cortex which a lot of people believe is a great sort of a modulator of pain so the idea that you could change parts of your brain I mean it's really interesting like I can measure changes in my brain And I thought this was just something that I was doing to relax myself.

And yeah, you're doing that. But you're also measurably changing your brain. And those areas may make you more resilient to pain. And then they put that to the test by training thousands of practitioners who go out and use these what are called more protocols, meditation-oriented recovery enhancement protocols. And they get these incredible results. And then they're asked, hey, contextualize, what does it mean incredible? Like, how good is this?

well, a single meditation session under more protocol is equivalent to five milligrams of hydrocodone. Since you want it spelled out as clearly as that, we've taken a decade to basically get you that answer. It works, and here's how well it works. So people understandably want that sort of data, and yet, for all sorts of reasons, they hadn't heard that, and it wasn't presented that way. So I really wanted to make sure I got things like that across. in your world of sports medicine, to really look at inflammation, to really dive into what has become a four-letter word where people say, I don't want inflammation.

Inflammation bad, get rid of inflammation. And there was a study that came out a few years ago, I guess two years ago, that said those people who had the lowest levels of inflammation at the time of injury were the most likely to have chronic pain. lowest levels of inflammation, most likely have chronic pain. Everyone thought I think it was the opposite. If you were really inflamed, oh, this is going to hurt for a long time.

And in fact, what we do, and maybe you've done, I've certainly done, is to recommend to people to decrease the inflammation. Take anti-inflammatories, rest it, ice it, compress it, elevate it, all things to lower inflammation, which may help in the acute setting, but as we now know, may increase the likelihood of them developing chronic pain. I don't think that was widely known. So, you know, those are really specific things. I think people can incorporate into their own lives,

which I wanted to make sure to get across in the book. And then to get up the wonderful sort of big questions about pain. Can it be measured? Can it be interrupted? The cultural differences. You're too young to have had a colonoscopy so far. Right. If you get one, you will one day.

You'll likely get propofal. In Japan, they don't use propofal. In Finland, only 6% of the population. uses propofal. What do they get? They get nothing. Pain is cultural as well. Pain is defined by our expectations. How we expect to have pain very much informs how we experience pain. So if you don't expect it, as they don't in other places, then you don't need these other medications. I had a colonoscopy, I got propofal, just being totally, totally candid, transparent. But, you know, so pain is really complicated in that way. So, you know, it was just, it was an opportunity to do a deep dive and all.

Yeah, I'm curious how much of all of this is the placebo effect in the sense of this very specific protocol for meditation improved pain as much as the opioids did. I've seen research where they tested acetaminophen or ibupin. Wait, how do you say that word? Acedomenephine. Just in case President Trump does it again. where their pain improved to the same level as the randomized group that received opioids. So is it just about getting something? It might be, I think the placebo effect

with regard to pain, we can more completely define. As you know, we have an endogenous opioid system. We make opioids, and we can make them really, really fast. And for people just, He means internally. Internally, sorry, sorry, sorry. No, because it could come off. We make, this isn't a breaking bad me too.

You wonder what happens in the back room over here. No, no, you, you, you, we all make opioids. And we do this in response to certain things, one of them being pain. So, for example, every time that I've had a pain episode, I know that my body reacts robustly to pain by making a lot of opioids. because I go through a period of time where it's like, ah, that really hurt, and then all of a sudden,

I almost have this euphoric feeling for a couple of minutes or, you know, longer after that as my opioids sort of rush in. You can create opioids in response to the expectation that something's going to work. So the placebo effect, I think, takes on a little bit more, a deeper meaning when it comes to pain.

You can start to imagine the mechanisms here. It's not just, I'm willing myself, to not feel pain. Opioid production actually goes up. And again, these are really good opioids, meaning that they turn on and off really fast, unlike a pill. If you take it, that's going to stick around for a long time. The opioids that you take, they can actually, they can increase your memory of an event. So they actually can cause you to sort of replay that memory loop over and over again of your traumatic injury, whereas your endogenous opioids sort of suppress memory. So they're great at pain, they're great at suppressing memory, and they can turn on and off.

They're far better opioids than the opioid you take. And I think that's a suppressing memory thing that I find so interesting. I made a comment in the book that were it not for the endogenous opioid system, no woman would ever have a baby more than once. But it's amazing. You talk to people and they're like, yeah, I mean, that was painful. But I don't really remember the endogenous opioids purposely suppress memory, which it's fascinating.

The human body and brain is so fascinating. Well, it's similar to how during surgery we give medications that not only sedate patients, but also create amnesia. Yeah. No, it's so interesting. Like, I'm going to give you pain medications, but I also want you to not remember this. And I'm going to give you what's called an anti-grade amnestic.

You know, if you hit your head, people say, I got retrograde amnesia. I can't remember the past. I'm going to make you forget everything that's about to happen to you. which is wild, you know, so in addition to the pain medications and other drugs. How does this message of, it's not made up, but it's in your brain, land for your patients? You know, I think if you can explain this to people and have a little bit of time to explain it and not have it be presented in a way that's dismissive of their pain or minimizing of their pain,

I think it lands well. I've had a lot of patients ask me about the book. I've had a lot of other people just, you know, flying around. People stop you on planes and talk about the book. and it's a common problem. So if you don't have it yourself, you know somebody who does, and, you know, this idea that the brain

is the ultimate arbiter of pain and to be able to sit down and explain that, like, look, you did something to your body, and those pain signals are going to your brain. Your brain is looking at those pain signals, but they're also looking at, have you done this before? Is there bleeding associated with this?

What's the weather like outside? Are you in a good mood? do you have depression do you have anxiety it's taking all of these different things and basically trying to make sense of it and seeing how it should respond you know how much pain you'll actually have from that it's a complicated scenario and the brain can even make pain people have phantom limb pain right it's wild to me the limb doesn't even exist pain medications can cause pain and pain medications can cause pain because they suppress your body's own opioid system so all of a sudden you don't have your nice reserve of opioids to rush to the rescue when you have a pain

episode because those outside opioids have suppressed your body says hey i don't need to make opioids anymore i'm getting it happily from these pills so then all of a sudden you may start to have more pain and if you stop the opioids that pain may be exacerbated even more which leads to the addiction yeah it's very interesting hit pause on whatever you're listening to and hit play on your next adventure this fall get double points on every quality Stay. Life's the trip. Make the most of it at BestWestern. Visit bestwestern.com for complete terms and conditions. Within your book, you talk about work that is in the alternative space. People, oftentimes in evidence-based world, look down upon things like acupuncture, for example. And I find acupuncture

so interesting for a few reasons. One, I see why they say that, because the evidence hasn't been fantastic. At the same time, as someone who got acupuncture, I tore my, not rotator cuff, this was for my labrum. I got acupuncture performed at the recommendation of my father, who is also a primary care physician. And having the issue for three, four years of sometimes just locking terrible pain, recurrent over and over, can't solve it, PT failed, all of this stuff one session with an acupuncture solved it for like a decade wow good for you and i said how i'm a disbeliever in this thing and yet it worked and then interestingly enough uh when i was preparing for uh my showtime pay-per-view boxing match funny thing to say as a doctor

i um your friendly neighborhood neurosurgeon exactly that was a good idea yeah uh if only we'd met that. I was experiencing some medial lepacondylitis and I went to an acupuncturist and I said, oh, this could be a good opportunity because it wasn't getting improved with anything else. And off one session, it improved 80% where I said, this is amazing. Let me go for the second session and just knock it out. Of course, second session hits a nerve and I had the worst neuropathy shooting into my hand for months on it. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry. For months on So it's interesting to see how perhaps it was good that happened, because to me it says something like, if there are side effects, because some people say there's no side effects,

if there are side effects, that must mean there are effects. Because anything that has no side effects, probably has no effect anyway. Like what people often say about supplements and, oh, just take this. There's no, nothing can go wrong. But then if nothing can go wrong, that means it's not doing it. It's an inert substance. What's the active ingredient here. So I'm curious where you land all that to be said with acupuncture.

So if I can just widen the aperture for a second, because I think this is a really interesting point you're making about acupuncture, but also the point you make about supplements, there's not good data. And what I would say on top of that is there may never be good data. Okay? Like we may be waiting for data that may never come because there's no need for it, number one,

in terms of a regulatory standpoint. people are performing procedures, people are taking supplements, there's no need for phase three clinical trial sort of level data to be presented in order to do that. So, you know, people aren't going to do it if it's not required, number one. Number two, those are really hard studies to do. You know, if you have a single molecule drug or even a simple drug that's more than a couple molecules. That's easier to sort of test and to control against things. When you were getting your acupuncture, my guess is you probably had tried other things. Maybe it wasn't your first thing, and maybe after the acupuncture, you tried other things as well. It may have been hard to know

exactly how much of your benefit, at least initially, was from the acupuncture. But in no way does that take away your experience, where you say it was 80% beneficial. So I think, you know, that's just something to keep in mind. And I struggle with this because, you know, We do a lot of reporting on supplements, and, you know, you can always say, hey, look, there's not great data behind this. Fair. But there may never be great data behind this. So what is your obligation then as a physician if a patient asks you about this?

I think the obligation is twofold. One is you got to make sure they're not doing anything dumb in terms of harming themselves. And I think you and I talked about this the last time we spoke. You know, that safety part of it has to, that is an obligation, you know, in terms of recommending good sources for the supplements. But I think the second thing is that who am I as a physician to say that didn't help you?

Sure. You say it helped me? Well, no, it didn't. There's no data to suggest that it would have helped you. Can't say that. The patient is the North Star, you know, when it comes to this stuff. So, you know, when it comes to things like acupuncture,

I do place some credence, and some would say maybe I place more credence than it deserves on the fact that some of these modalities have withstood the test of time, more than a thousand years of people doing these types of things. You do think that just from an evolutionary behavioral standpoint

that if something truly was not working at some point it would just sort of fade away over time. And yet in fact, you're starting to see, you are starting to see some data, first of all, around acupuncture. People are trying to do these studies as hard as they may be. And it's, you know, you're seeing

it appear in places around the world where you really hadn't seen it before. You know, it was primarily in China. primarily part of traditional Chinese medicine. And now you, you know, you tried it here in the States, presumably, and, you know, a lot of other of my patients who've tried it as well. My wife does acupuncture. Right.

My father does acupuncture. So, you know, I think you have to, you have to weigh all that together. That person sadly hit your ulnar nerve, sounds like. That's terrible. That shouldn't happen. And you do need to go to, and it's the same sort of thing with supplements. You want safe supplements. You want well-trained practitioners.

You should not be hitting an ulnar nerve. you can feel the ulnar groove and you should feel that and you know exactly about that ulnar nervous and if you're not sure I can tap here my pinky fingers tingling right now

I can feel it that's where it is they shouldn't hit your ulnar nerve is my point so you want to make sure these things are done safely yeah the line that I always think about

with supplements is look if it's working for my patient they're happy with it and I see no negative outcome again who am I or who are we to say that it's wrong it's when it starts creeping into the business model

of health care and people make that their calling or they make that the predominance of their business where, oh, doctors are hiding supplements from you. The medical system is hurting you. And I actually, I know it feels like we're name dropping and you're probably going to say the same line that it's hard to hate from up close,

but there's a prominent name, Dr. Mark Hybin, that comes up quite often in this space, especially in the functional medicine space. I know you've blurbed his book in 2018. You've done your homework. How do you, like, you don't have any notes? How do you remember all this? Medical school.

Can you tell me what other books I have learned? It's a topic I'm very passionate about because I always, the curiosity of why I started the channel was always to get at the truth. And it never was because I favored one side over the other. I wanted to know the truth so I could best help people. And if someone has something that is valuable and can help people, I don't care if it's a supplement,

I don't care if it's in my expense. I want to help people. And I oftentimes see people who go into this space, perhaps with good intentions, and then it turns into a business, and it starts losing the sense of actually helping people. Yeah. And you start seeing Mark Hyman introducing Secretary Kennedy on his podcast as someone who's not anti-vaccine, as introducing concepts like detox your body or leaky gut syndrome, which we know not to be a true medical diagnosis. It further makes the practice of medicine difficult because it leads patients down a path which is not very scientific

and it further creates a disconnect between us. So I'm curious where all of that lands for you. Well, it's complicated, Mike, I think. First of all, as a top line, I don't necessarily begrudge people for making money. Sure, on its own, it doesn't mean anything. This YouTube channels of for-profit YouTube channels. But, you know, there's people, like, who immediately assume that if someone's making money on something, they're too inherently conflicted to be able to present things.

And, you know, people may say that, you're not doing that, but people may say that about you. Like, hey, he's going to, he's going to, like, try and get the clicks. So he's going to try and say things that are going to get more clicks and make more money. That's what they say. Mark, again, I don't know if you've heard me say this yet, but it's hard to hate close up. Interesting. I haven't heard that at least half an hour. I mean, I've known Mark for a long time.

I think the book that I blurbed, I think you were talking about, one of his diet books, he's written a few. And I, you know, I do think that there's this notion that as much as we think people know how to eat well, they don't always. And being able to present that information to them, I think is important. You know, we don't talk a lot about nutrition. So the fact that he was doing that, and he was doing that at Cleveland Clinic and, you know, setting up that clinic there, I thought was good, you know, because Cleveland Clinic is this place that you think of as a tertiary. care center, so to have a super primary care sort of functional health component, I thought was very interesting. If someone is saying, you know, these supplements are going to help you, and at the same

time, we keep in mind that there's not good data around that, and there may never be good data around that, what are we to do with that? And I'm sort of just riffing with you because I don't know the answer to this. I've thought about this a lot. like if you you're an experienced doctor or something that you've done and you think it can really help people again making sure it doesn't harm them and doesn't fleece them which is harm as well what do you do with that to me it ends up like every other recommendation I give to my patient it has to be done with full informed consent yes and in order to be honest about the informed consent

as you just were in discussing this if you're mark hyman and you're right recommending supplements, you have to honestly say that there's no data to support it or no quality data. And that's not being said. I think you're right about that. I think the claims are exaggerated for sure. And that's problematic. I agree with you on that. That's a good point. I think sometimes that just becomes the inertia of something. Sure. Or we've had patients who have had a complete turnaround in their XYZ problem, you know, however it might be presented. It's definitely presented in a way to be highly persuasive. And I think that's where it veers into

to being potentially problematic. But there are people out there who are clearly selling bad things out there. Not only do they not have good data behind it, they could harm you. They could actually cause you to get sick or cause. And I think for me still, that is, you know, if there's such a thing as a red line in medicine,

that's where I draw that red line where you're harming people, you're just fleecing them of their money, and you know it's problematic for them, but you're doing it just to make money. Yeah, there's obviously a spectrum here. I'm not saying that those are equivalent by any means. At the same time, as one of my friends says,

we can walk and chew gum at the same time and call out those for the truth. In the same way that I've recommended acupuncture for patients, even though I know that there's a paucity of evidence. But when I present it, I explain that there's a posity of evidence, and we don't yet know how this truly works in the human body of giving you a complete mechanism of action, but it's worked for me, and I know you've run out of options and you're looking to try

something. Perhaps we could find you someone who's legitimate to do it. I think that's a fairer way to do it. And some people would still argue that I'm wrong and that I shouldn't recommend anything unless it has a grade A, Cochran level of evidence behind it. And that's where it becomes tricky and everyone has their own line. I mean, just not to interrupt you, but we, we as a country in 2003 did 1.2 million spinal

operations. You alluded to this earlier. To give context, in the UK, they did about 50,000. Now,

they're a quarter of our population. So, but even after you account for population size differences, we still do, you know,

six times as much as a country, like, you know, an area like the U.K. Point being that there's probably not great data

on the necessity for all those spinal operations. patients come in terrible pain they have a spinal problem are we sure that fixing that spinal problem is going to actually help their pain no but we tell the patient look we're not we're not certain it's going to help but they really they're at their wits end they want to have something done i think you sort of see that same thing permeating in the supplement world so you're saying like the consumerization it is part of it yeah i think i think so i think you you know and when it comes

to supplements overall i mean it's a huge industry and people are making a ton of money on this make no mistake. I mean, some people say that it's more in terms of if you put everything in into the wellness industry is bigger than the pharmaceutical industry that people oftentimes badmouthed for being financially invested. Yeah, that is an irony that I think you and I have both probably just witnessed up close, which is the same people who are berating the pharma industry and saying, well, those guys are all conflicted and they're making tons of money selling their supplements. as you say, you can walk and chew gum at the same time. Both things could be true, you know.

There were times when we prescribed way too many pharmaceuticals. We still do. But I'm not sure filling the vacuum with supplements that don't have great evidence is the right answer. And yet, I find it a little bit hard to, if people are doing it in the best interest, making sure things are safe for them. Like someone who's working out a lot and they want to start taking creatine, for example. I get asked this all the time. Sure.

You probably do as well. Especially right now, it's a hot topic. Hot topic. So I'm curious, how do you, how do you, because I've looked at the data, I'm sure you have. How do you answer that question? Obviously patient dependent, depending on age, demographic, all that. But my general sense is unless you're a professional athlete, you don't need it. You just don't need it.

Simply because whatever advantage is going to give you is going to be so minimal in comparison to whether or not you actually stick with this program or continue working out. So to me, professional athlete I use loosely because I have some of my weekend warriors that I consider professional athletes. So you have to prove that you're going to be working out religiously for years on end before you need the last 5% coming from a supplement. So you could tell from my physique that I work out continuously. Absolutely.

So for you, crazy, it would be a no-brainer. But I work out every day. I try and do something every day, swim, bike, runner, or do some sort of resistance training every day. I mean, I'm seriously asking this because, you know, you and I, again, have looked at the same data. And also, what I would say about my diet, which I think is germane to this conversation, is that it's a pretty good diet, but I probably don't get as much protein as I should. If you listen to guys like Peter Attia and stuff like that, they're saying, I think it's a gram per kilogram or something. Well, he goes a little bit extreme, and then Eric Topal here

has criticized him in the opposite direction. I know. And there's been others who say, you know, they come to the United States. But I think a gram per kilogram is reasonable. So, but, you know, based on diet and all that, I sort of came to the conclusion that those precursor amino acids for me would be a good thing. I'm worried about the BCA's. Yeah, and also the creatines. Okay.

You know, the things that are harder for me to get in my own diet. Got it. Muscle mass is harder for me to put on as I've gotten older. I was always sort of, you know, kind of more muscular, and I've noticed myself sort of having to work harder to maintain that muscle. So that's sort of where I arrived at it. I think there are some of these companies, again,

which I've dug into in terms of the safety, again, really making sure that they're not selling some sort of product that could be harmful to people. And I guess we're saying sort of the same thing, but I think there can be a role. For sure. I mean, why I prefaced it by saying it depends on the individual, for someone who is losing muscle mass

and wants to maintain it and is actively working out, It makes sense. Yeah. And then there are patients who are just curious and want to do it casually and are asking safety profile. Right. And I'm like, look, you're healthy.

There's no reason why this is. I'm not going to discourage you. Yeah, I totally agree with you. I think it's funny, though, this harkens back to what you said earlier. For some reason, even something like creatine ends up getting politicized. Yeah, for sure. Don't you think? I mean, like, if you say, who are the most likely people to take creatine in the country?

Like, why should a Republican be more likely to take creatine than a Democrat? It makes no sense. Well, because they're consuming the media that is most frequently talking about it. And so as a result, let's say something was truly beneficial. Would people purposely opt out of it just so as not to align themselves with the political party? That's the fear I have. It's crazy. Yeah.

It's weird. Which is why I'm encouraging everyone in the political sphere, whatever party you're part of, to come into this world. And we kind of saw that play out on the presidential election based on just the number of podcasts done by each party to see the impact that that's had. Right, right. So, yeah. And the idea, I never, again, after 20, almost 25 years of doing this, I never imagined that these types of topics would end up being such a, you know, political sort of bludgeoning

tool. It's, it's strange. It's very strange. And I'm curious, ultimately, how we'll play out. Will the FDA ever have a role in regulating supplements? And I see why you say that from a regulatory, standpoint, it's really expensive to do randomized controlled trials, what company's going to do that for something that's generic and they're not going to make any money on. To me, that's

where the government funding comes in. You're supposed to be funding the research that is not profitable. I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Faganbaum, who you also had on your program. Wonderful, wonderful guy. And he's doing work that is financially not very valuable, but from a systemic health care standpoint and practical standpoint, incredibly valuable. And he's doing it through a nonprofit lens, but why isn't the NIH doing that? That's a great question.

Yeah, and it takes whatever a billion dollars in 10 years to bring a new drug to market. So if you could repurpose an existing drug, save a lot of money for society. The NIH, I think, does have a division that studies repurpose drugs. They do, they do. And they have a complementary medication. vision as well. I'm not sure how active it is. But we see the funding cuts that we've experienced

this far. Right. Obviously, zooming out and even going further, watching us pull out of Gavi and W-H-O and USAID. I'm currently the UNICEF ambassador for USA. Congratulations. My wife's on the board of UNICEF in the Southeast, and she flagged it for me, Dr. Mike. But it's terrible because our nation is not really a part of it anymore. Like we had Unga here, 80th anniversary. I'm speaking and I'm frankly embarrassed that I'm part of a country that's not supporting this movement. And what's interesting is I'm not trying to pull on heartstrings to get people involved in the UN and WHO. Be selfish and invest in WHO. It's in your own self-interest to know what tuberculosis is going on in small parts of the world and in small pockets where it still exists.

Yeah. So I don't understand. It's like in self-interest to help others and you're discontinuing the funding for it. Yep. And you could even make the case that it's financially responsible to do this in terms of like preventing potential problems, you know, with, I mean, I'm worried about, you know, highly pathogenic avian influenza. I don't, you know, we were talking about it a lot a year ago and all of a sudden

all the information about what is happening with that sort of dries up, you know, states may report it, but we don't have sort of a federal repository of that information anymore. Yeah, it's almost like literally turning a blind eye to some of these problems. And then I think I'm worried that we're going to get caught flat-footed. I do think the point that you're making about the United States' role

overall in this is really important. When this brain tumor researcher left, I went to South Korea. I remember having this conversation with somebody I was sort of lamenting the fact that we were trying to build this brain tumor consortium in the southeast and

we're losing people. And he said, said this thing to me that I won't forget, he said, if that person goes to Seoul and develops a new therapeutic for brain tumors, would citizens in the United States have access to it? And to be fair, I thought, well, yeah, I don't think they're going to just hold it themselves and be so proprietary about it, not to allow it to help other people. And then it became a question of, should we be the ones that are investing in that then, or should we let some of this stuff happen elsewhere and then be brought to the United States? And I think this is one of the big cultural inflection points with regard to the country as a whole. Like, who do we want to be 10 years from now?

You know, we don't manufacture the way that we used to. You know, my parents are both automotive engineers. How we think about manufacturing is different now than when they were working. Will medicine be thought of the same way? Like, we used to, you know, attract everyone and now we're allowing some of that to happen elsewhere because we're so focused on, you name it, quantum mechanics, AI, and going to Mars. I don't know, whatever those things may be. That may be where we're headed. I don't like it, obviously, as a physician, but I think there are some big decisions being made about the very direction of the country. Yeah. It's quite literally, especially in this scenario, a brain dump. It's tough to manage. It's tough to keep on top of all of it.

And I think about this hypothetical that you're presenting, and I'm wondering if they do develop a drug there, and it's good, what happens here in the U.S.? Well, to me, what plays out is they sell it here because they still want to make money. Sure. And they know we're a wealthy market. Yes. So they'll charge us heavily for it. Yep.

And one might say, well, it's the same. We're paying a lot now and we'll be paying a lot then, but we didn't have to do that research. Right. Well, to me, at least we're paying it into our own pockets versus you're paying it into another country's pockets. There you go. I mean, however you want to dissect this issue, medically, morally, financially,

it does make sense to do the things the way that we've done, the way that they evolved into the system that existed for a long time, 70 years since, you know, World War II. At least we would be not only paying our own selves, but also recruiting those scientists to be here and recognizing that knowledge in and of itself is a currency. It's a valuable currency, one that we should be investing in. You know, I mean, you don't have kids.

I have three kids, and, you know, I often get asked, the question, you know, would you encourage them to go into medicine? I'm curious. And I always do. Really? Okay. Yeah, I think medicine is still the queen of all professions. It's just, you know, I mean, you know, you and I get to bifurcate our lives.

And I don't know about you, Mike, but I imagine on the days you're waking up and you're going to see patients, your purpose that day is pretty clear. For sure. And you take it for granted, maybe. But it's not, that's not something a lot of people get to experience. You come to your media world, and it's probably more convoluted, you know, taking care of patients one-on-one, I think it's very, there's a few things that are as gratifying as that.

I agree. But, you know, kind of like you're saying, I want to present the whole picture. There's a lot of changes happening in health care. Yeah. They need to know that. AI is probably going to take some of those jobs. So certain jobs I'd probably gravitate away from, others that I'd lean into. But I still think it's a wonderful profession for sure.

So hopefully we're around in 10 years. Hopefully our nation's still around in 10 years. We're having our conversation, V2, perhaps we'll talk before then. But where do you think we are in 10 years? I think the truth prevails, ultimately. I think that these are tough times. I mean, here's what I would say.

I mean, it's sort of a gloom and doom question, and I'm an optimistic guy. But I think either truth prevails or everything is lost. I don't think there's a lot of... How's that? I love it. Is that the other podcast?

Yeah, that's how we're ending. It's just either implosion or succession. Yeah, I mean, kind of like, and I heavily tilt the odds in favor of the truth will prevail and will be okay and we'll look at this chapter as one that was strange, destructive to a huge extent, but sometimes things get broken in order to be fixed, you know, I mean, things can simmer a long, semi-bad for a long time and no one actually does. does anything about it. But I think there's some things right now that are being broken that hopefully will be rebuilt in a way that will be maybe even better. And I think the truth

will prevail. I think that people will learn a lot more about how to embrace uncertainty and to lean into the nuance of things, again, which you do so well. I'm not just saying that because you're here, but you do. I think we'll, and that way we may become a more informed society. I am bullish on AI. Like any new technology, I think that there's concerns about it, but I think it's here. I think it's going to actually fundamentally make our health care system stronger, ultimately. I'm glad CMS is putting money into this. So, you know, I'm optimistic. And I'm not going to sit on the sidelines, just praying that it happens. I got kids. You know, I care about this country. I care about our collective well-being a great deal.

So with you, me, and lots of others, I hope things turn out well. I'm pretty optimistic that they will. Same. I'd like to believe I'm an optimist as well. So I share your notion in this regard. And I think I was speaking to Senator Chuck Schumer the other day. And he said something like, good always wins. It just depends on the timeline.

And I think that applies here. So I hope to be as optimistic in 10 years as we are today. The Martin Luther King quote about the arc of, and in that case he's talking about justice. You know, imagining that arc. Maybe a slow bend, maybe a deep bend, but it always bends. And I think that's the case here as well, for sure.

Well, Dr. Gupta, sir. Call me, Sanjay, please. After this, you call me Sanjay. No, no, no. I took the tie off. I have to keep it. Okay, fair, Sanjay. Thank you for your integrity,

leading the way for inspiring me to continue doing this work and hopefully the channel and our team continue to make you proud. I have no doubt you will. Like I said, it's an honor for me to be here with you. I feel like I'm getting a little glimpse into the future. You're going to outlast all of us. And so I really appreciate you doing the work that you do. Thank you. Huge thanks to Dr. Gupta for having such an honest and friendly conversation. He's really someone I look up to and I'm grateful for his insight into navigating this wild world of medicine and media. If you like this conversation, you might also enjoy my talk with Dr. Eric Bender. He's a psychiatrist who specializes in helping medical

TV shows, movies, and even video games get medicine right on screen. Scroll on back to listen to that one, and if you enjoyed this episode, please give us five stars as it helps us find new listeners and viewers. As always, stay happy and healthy.