I could only watch the first fourteen minutes. Her defense of free speech is fake, phony and false. She believes, and apparently Jay also believes, that only "qualified views" are entitled to free speech. Who determines what is a qualification? She finds the suppression of free speech acceptable in a declared, dubious emergency so that authorities can do what they want without voices challenging them.
Barf. Gag. I want to vomit at such a pathetic lack of understanding about the bedrock principles of free speech found in our constitution. As if the understandings of man and governance possessed by the founders who wrote it had no merit or right to be written or heard because they didn't have university degrees in political science and philosophy, or their juris doctorate's to write law. I've read many papers about how many new inventions and ideas, understandings about scientific discoveries come from non-credentialed contributors, or brand new scientists unburdened by the constraints of the system and industry of science and able to think outside a box of "consensus."
This from a person who proudly boasts that she's a polymath, capable of self study in many subjects that she lacks a degree in. What are her formally recognized qualifications to opine on anything she doesn't have a degree in?
Her qualified endorsement of free speech is offensive. And Jay's agreement with that is revelatory and strikingly common in those who consider themselves a part of a credentialed class who *deserve*, who have *earned* a right to speak on their areas of credential, in a government-declared crisis anyways - above all other voices. Other lessers who's censorship is "understandable."
"Don't violate my right to speak, I'm a Doctor/Lawyer/Scientist/Expert and have earned it. But shut up those damnable, insufferable ignoramuses who make our lives difficult and get in the way of our educated, considered, erudite conversations about how to govern."
What qualifications does she have to share her voice on subjects outside her degree field? What qualifications does Bill Gates have to share his voice on subjects outside of his degree field? Does he even have a degree? No, he dropped out of college, so he has NO voice to share that's qualified in ANYTHING under a free speech construct that Shanahan describes.
The only qualification Gates and Shanahan have that they share is the number of 0's that trail the number following a $ sign in their bank accounts. So her real criteria for free speech is elite status, wealth and power. She's just upset that too many people in her socioeconomic class lost their right to speak. I hear that a lot from other prolific supposed health freedom and free speech champions possessing their doctorates like Jay. Who still don't want the rest of us to have free speech, they just mad they lost theirs.
Jay, please address these concerns I raise. I don't raise them to attack you personally. Just to attack the bias and self-importance that oozes from the dialogue I heard in this and have heard in other of your interviews. And hear from others in your universe of credentialed "experts." Who are dismissive of the voices of those who have acquired knowledge and information, possess insights and analysis into various fields outside of formal credentials and "qualifications" that so many in the credentialed class have invested so much personal ego and sense of self worth into.
Those notions are noxious and reek. To true freedom and free speech proponents. I had to end it when I did to protect my screen from what was sure to come out of my mouth. I had seriously considered supporting RFK Jr. But not with her a heartbeat away from the presidency.
I heard what she said. Not what I believed she said. Which is what you are guilty of.
Just like those who believed Elon Musk said he was making Twitter a "free speech" platform. When in fact he said he was making Twitter a free-er speech platform. Declaring that free speech didn't mean freedom of reach for free speech. Free speech only allowed into an empty room isn't free speech. Words matter. As someone highly trained in linguistics knows. Lazy listeners miss meaningful linguistic differences. As you obviously did.
One is foolish to equate either Musk's definition of free speech or Shanahan's qualified definition of free speech with actual free speech. I question Jay's definition by virtue of his silent agreement with her's in this interview and other quotes I've seen from him in other interviews. Dismissive of the uncredentailed class.
Which, I'd guess you're a member of the credentialed class to take offense at my comment and choose to attack this speaker. Proving Houdini's maxim that the highly educated (and credentialed) are the most easily fooled. Fool.
Rather than discuss the argument, you added Elon Musk, Twitter, Jay's thoughts and silent agreement, Credentialed class, Houdini... LOL you are embarrassing yourself.
I suggest readers not click kim link. I viewed profile, brand new account, prolific spamming same link across multiple writers today. Probably malicious, open at your own risk
I suggest readers not click kate h link. I viewed profile, brand new account, prolific spamming same link across multiple writers today. Probably malicious, open at your own risk.
Talk about not discussing an argument! A fool like you resorts to dismissing information they can't answer or think about on their feet because they only know what they've been programmed to say on a single subject, unable to connect dots between interrelated subjects. Lacking higher reasoning analytical skills. So rather than address an argument head-on they resort to insults and go back to their safe space. Enjoy your safe, foolish space. Fool.
Have you ever heard the term, "midwit?" It's somebody who's reasonably intelligent, a little more than average. But not any where near genius level. A problem that many midwits suffer from is believing they are, in fact genius's, and interacting with the world as if they are. Even insulting the intelligence of actual genius's who disagree with them. Because they believe they are genius's themselves and only stupid, foolish people believe differently than them.
A true genius knows they don't know everything. And welcome challenges to what they say, invite debate, willing to learn from others they disagree with. Even those less intelligent than them. Well, maybe by true genius I mean a *wise* genius. Wisdom and intelligence are not always found together. In fact, that can be rare. You see, what happens to intelligent people who also become highly educated is they become especially susceptible to their own self-importance and perception of status that accompanies a higher degree.
I brought in Houdini because as a polymath autodidact I've read and learned about a great many things, especially history. And I read history like this old newspaper writing about Henry Houdini. And his characterization of highly educated people:
But what is sinister, as I said at the beginning of this essay, is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most. The big public do not care about the matter one way or the other. They are not in favour of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert themselves to defend him. They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves."
"When one sees highly educated men looking on indifferently at oppression and persecution, one wonders which to despise more, their cynicism or their shortsightedness. Many scientists, for example, are the uncritical admirers of the U.S.S.R. They appear to think that the destruction of liberty is of no importance so long as their own line of work is for the moment unaffected."
I don't think mr. Myhre reads things like this. So he dismisses and mocks that which he doesn not know, or care to know. A midwit behavior.
Even this fascinating book out of China, published in 2013 has this to say about the highly educated, an entire chapter section dedicated to the topic:
Rural Health Care Delivery
Modern China from the Perspective of Disease Politics
Chapter 13.2 “The Higher the Education Level One Has, the Sillier He Is”
This book is a book I *highly* recommend all take the time to read. At least the most poignant chapters and sections I highlighted in my Stack I wrote on it last year. With Chapter titles like:
20 The Logic of Disease Politics
9.4 “To Combine Health Campaigns with Mass Movements”
5.3 Discipline Imposed by Hygiene
13.3 “Comments on Wearing a Medical Mask”
17.3 From “the Benevolent Medicine” to the “Formula for Money-Making”
This book is a blueprint of using fear of infectious disease to fundamentally transform a nation from individual liberty nationalists into a collectivist authoritarian global center. This book was cited in Foreign Affairs magazine in March, 2020. FA is the public platform of the Council on Foreign Relations to communicate with global leaders and give direction. Which, coincidentally, was when the pandemic response become political and totalitarian. Or not so coincidentally:
I don't think mr. Myhre reads things like these. So he dismisses and mocks that which he doesn not know, or care to know. A midwit behavior.
Free speech is under attack. And the intelligencia cannot be relied upon as the only credentialed, qualified "experts" with a voice in public policy decisions. Even in a declared emergency. Especially in a declared emergency. I was reading publications like the Foreign Affairs piece in March, 2020. Was mike Myhre? Jay Bhattacharya? The polymath Nicole Shanahan? Whatever intelligence many people in positions of power and influence have, most lack wisdom. That's a provable fact through history, philosophers like Socrates and Strauss admit it as such. Only midwits like mike Myhre get confused about things like that. Midwits who this entire post will soar over their heads as they resort to derisive mocking insults like they're used to hurling at those who they believe are less intelligent than them. When their intellectual betters look at them and shake their heads at how foolish and uninformed the midwit really is.
Having listened to Jay in multiple forums, he seems to be a free speech absolutist. He often tries to highlight the argument that expert’s speech should be able to override lay person’s speech in order to point out that the experts were actually wrong in this case.
I did get the sense that Shanahan had the standard Silicon Valley belief that speech needed to be controlled, though.
I acknowledge your understanding as valid. I've not made a declarative about Jay's commitment to true free speech. But I question it. And hope he would answer the question more definitively.
I was sensitized to his parsing when he was previously discussing vaccines and the nature of infectious disease. There are competing theories, Germ v. Terrain. He's been dismissive of Terrain and belittled those who hold it as true to them.
And he's dismissive of "anti-vaxxers." Who have good reason to be opposed to them. Since even RFK Jr has often stated he's not seen a proven safe and effective one, though he'd support them if they were. It is quite logical to be anti something if its real world application experience doesn't comport with the theory.
To dismiss "anti-vaxxers," intended as a mocking pejorative, and terrain theory proponents as holding some inferior knowledge that serious public policy discussions needn't indulge isn't a dedicated free speech indicator.
Since many readers of Jay and Jay himself are members of a credentialed class willing to defer to "experts" with credentials in a given field place much value on the opinions on other experts I submit to readers this "expert" paper to support my contentions that limiting speech to "qualified" experts, particularly speech to impact public policy, isn't free speech and isn't desirable.
In recent genethics literature, George Annas examines the division between scientists and non-scientists and how this division creates obstacles for serious moral deliberation and critical developments in policy-making involving the social and economic implications of genetic research and technology. Annas explains how nonscientists believe that scientists “underestimate the danger in their work, and vastly overestimate its importance”. Scientists, on the other hand, believe the fields of social policy and ethics “lag behind” science, failing to keep up with advancements and progress in science and technology.
The field of genomics is as complex and mysterious as the human genome itself, and attempting to unlock the secrets of our biology does not follow without ethical and social implications. In determining what these implications will look like, nonscientists must work with and not against the scientific community by keeping up-to-date with what researchers are thinking and doing, the technologies they are using, and their immediate and future goals. Likewise, scientists have a moral obligation to consider potential harmful, social and psychological consequences of their research and technology; they must work with non-scientists to achieve a better understanding of the plurality of values held by the global community.
I believe Annas is correct in saying that social policy and ethics “lag behind” science. Non-scientists and scientists need to work together to achieve a collective understanding of the social and ethical implications of genomics. However, there are several reasons why ethics lags behind science besides the lack of effort and responsibility by scientists and non-scientists in trying to understand and predict the potential benefits and harms genomics research and technology may bring to the community.
Social policy and ethics lag behind because, first, there is a lack of public discourse and deliberation. While many scientific and non-scientific groups may discuss the social and ethical issues surrounding genomics, much of their discourse lacks critical evaluation and reflection. Even with a diverse representation, committees, though able to address significant social and ethical considerations for genomics, find it difficult to deeply analyse and evaluate these considerations given the plurality of values within their national and global communities. For example, when deliberating whether genomics will give more reproductive freedom to women, we need to consider the variety of social, cultural, and moral values and attitudes women may have regarding prenatal screening, birth control, health and disease, and so forth. Women may feel that they will have less reproductive freedom if groups, in following a particular set of values and beliefs that seem universally applicable to all women, expect them to conform to their standard system of values and beliefs."
FF - "Non-scientists." Have a voice. That MUST be allowed to be spoken AND heard. Having only the "qualified" voices, voices of a "consensus" in public policy setting discussions poses grave threats to a free society, public health, consequences beyond what "qualified", credentialed, "experts" are able to grasp with the myopic lenses they see the world through. A prominent health "expert" with credentials and qualified to speak agrees. If a reader needs that type of confirmation before they hear the words of an "unqualified" uncredentialed non-expert they'd otherwise dismiss. If non-scientists had a voice in the pandemania public policies at the start they might have considered all of the consequences that pursuing "zero-covic" would result in and chosen a different path.
Personally, I consider myself a free speech absolutist and am also dismissive of both “antivaxxers” and terrain theory. Believing in free speech doesn’t mean you have to continuously listen to people’s arguments about things for which you don’t believe.
When setting public policy that includes others with different beliefs you *must* listen to people's arguments about things for which you don't believe. Because "belief" is no substitute for "knowing." A mistake made by many.
If the voices of those who you don't share beliefs with aren't considered and given accommodation in setting public policy then that is definitionally a totalitarian, dictatorial system.
Without hearing different voices, being dismissive of those you don't share a belief system with - and most science, including medical science, is a belief system, whether you care to admit it or not - you become closed-minded, arrogant and impose your will on others against theirs. When you do that you do not support freedom, individual liberty and the rights our nation was founded upon. Freedom is a conversation between all citizens. Not a lecture or work product of a symposium of only "qualified" credentialed "experts." Beholden to a subset of powerful interests, exclusive of all citizens.
I suggest you read my other comment from the work of an "expert" Jane Aultman, who recognizes the value of nonscientists in setting public policy.
Just know that I'm dismissive of germ theory, and downright hostile to "vaxxers." Who I believe are injurers and murderers. Yet I have to listen to them. And dodge their mandates and poisons the products they demand others take shed on me and my person. I vigorously protect my terrain. And have successfully dodged any and all illnesses for over five years, 2018's infection dealt with in under 24 hours with herbal and fungal remedies and sleep. And before that it had been a decade or so without illness. Pretty much par for the course of my life. And psst - I don't get vaccines!! Ever! But go ahead, take your Big Pharma poison. You have the freedom to do so. While I get to help others not poison their terrains and murder themselves by sharing my free speech voice! :)
You have lost the plot. I don’t need scientists or non scientists working together to set public policy. I need a working bill of rights that keeps these scientists and non scientists from forcing their public policies and restrictions upon me. Your ideas are just a more democratic form of totalitarianism. No wonder you think Jay and everyone else should be forced to listen to your beliefs.
We agree on needing a working Bill of Rights. Which would preclude all of the injustices and overreaches, encroachments on our God-given rights.
We do not have a working Bill of Rights. They are ALL gone. We live in a post-constitutional republic in 2024. The law is whatever the powers say it is. Our judiciary is appointed based on their linguistic gymnastics ability to make Freedom, Slavery; Ignorance, Strength; War, Peace. Linguistic Olympians reaching the highest courts.
I make the negotiations of practicality in this system. Which requires free speech to influence minds away from the programming of the powerful. That coerces and manipulates the public mind using applied behavioral "science", aka BS, psychological propaganda campaigns that make people believe taking poisons will protect them. People who I truly love and care about.
It's not democratic or any other form of totalitarianism I support. We live in a *republic* not a democracy; the Founders abhorred democracy. And knew they end in tyranny. In the system that we have left available to us I try to influence free speech - true free speech - and ALL voices being given equal access regardless of credential.
Until the plotline changes we make our negotiations. Or belong to a completely irrelevant Libertarian Party puffing our chests out and doing absolutely nothing to make changes. Though anarchy has its appeal where any laws and mandates are ignored and we treat one another as we wish to be treated and mind our own business, resisting those who wish to make our business theirs with all necessary force.
Being "dismissive of antivaxxers" already raises major doubts that you are truly a "free speech absolutist"- and you even admit you don't want to listen to arguments that you don't believe in. It's ironic that you find fault with Shanahan when you seem far more closed-minded than she is. Do you even accept that not all vaccines save lives and some vaccines can do more harm than good- have you even looked at deaths in the RCTs for COVID vaccines? Have you even looked at trends in excess deaths after the COVID vaccine rollout?
None of your questions have anything to do with free speech. The problem with arguments like yours is that it assumes that free speech means that people agree with you. You are the same as the”trust the science” people, but just on the other side of the issues.
It's ironic indeed that the need for honest science is declared by those who insist on censoring honest climate science.
If there is one thing about real science we need to get right, it's that the science of CO2 catastrophe is 100% pseudoscience. Let's start there, and the rest will follow.
I thoroughly agree. However, RFK Jr has given zero indications that he's up for any such debate as ... it's all supposedly beyond debate.
The globalists need a global emergency. Climate provides such an emergency that justifies a global response, and even a global governance (formal or informal) to save the very planet. But in exactly the same manner that valid information about Covid has been and is being censored and as a result a global Covid police state arose, so too is accurate climate information being censored because this is all supposedly "beyond debate," and even if RFK Jr is elected there's still a possibility of a global police state to save the very planet. I know RFK Jr asserts he's against a police state but I need to hear him and his running mate go further, and disavow what's plainly 100% pseudoscience.
Just as during Covid, the voices of reason in climate science are being censored. Only this has been going on for much longer.
RFK believes global warming is real, however he has made it clear he knows climate change is being used to control and dominate the masses. This is why he does not want to discuss CO2 and "looking up" in the air to deal with this. Instead he wants to focus on regenerative agriculture and the soil.
If RFK believes CO2 warming is real then he also believes in dangerous tipping points that will need emergency measures to deal with the changes.
What will RFK do when all the science journals come out and tell us that we need to act immediately to save the planet? 15-minute cities? Travel restrictions? Gas rationing? Culling cows? We can head off absurd emergency measures that are happening even now by acknowledging that CO2 catastrophe is nothing but cherry-picked and authoritarian pseudoscience.
Rest assured that nothing that's happening today is unusual. The climate has changed naturally since the earth began.
False causation is huge these days: reefs are dying because of overfishing, primarily, and not because of CO2, but the fanatics are keen to unscientifically assign the cause to CO2. False causation happens everywhere and makes people believe CO2 is doing something.
Pseudoscience can't be kept up without false causation.
The allopathic medical establishment are in real trouble. It is time to collaborate with all modalities of health. Big Pharma trained allopathic medicine has proven they lack a holistic view of health. Sanitation improvement, hygiene and better living conditions still remains the biggest advance in health in the past 100 years. It is long past time to revolutionize our approach to health and time to open the doors to all professionals to have a persecution free voice.
It was good to hear her speak. She is not just an empty head like many of the VP candidates. This didn't sound scripted and softball questions, but true thought.
This would be a refreshing change from VP we have now.
More exposure like this helps make a slim chance better.
So this woman got rich by getting huge handouts and suing billionaire tech giants, and she cares more about criminals than victims. I can’t trust a thing she says. I changed political affiliation to vote for Kennedy but not now.
I want to give her a bit of a pass, but she definitely said "qualified" experts should not be silenced and that there should be a "forum" for such experts to speak, be heard, and in no way be prosecuted. That's, of course, bullshit. The "forum" is anywhere, and the people with the right to say whatever the hell they want, right or wrong, offensive or not, are every U.S. citizen, without regard to anything or any expertise other than that they have the right. I believe that Jay believe's that; he's just too polite to take her to task. I'm still willing to give her a pass for now, as she may be on this "experts" thing on this pod because she's talking to one. I'm also willing to give her somewhat of a pass because she's going to be VP, not the President, and as a candidate for VP she's a thousand times better than monsters like LBJ and Cheney, and dangerous idiots like Harris and Gore. RFK Jr. is a thousand times better than Biden, and at least ten times better than Trump on everything other than energy and "climate." Everything is downstream from energy. I hope RFK takes a belt-sander to her elitist bullshit, but it's more important that he gets his energy policy right, and sticks to his guns on tearing down the neocons, institutional corporate capture, and everything else he gets right. I'll give her another month or two. If Trump makes a strong VP choice (Tulsi), Shanahan still sounds like a Klaus Schwabian, Battlestar Galactica outfit wearing, elitist bug eater, and Kennedy still sounds like Gavin Newsome on energy, all bets are off for me. Jay would've been a better VP pick by light years.
Nicole Shanahan's sincere scientific curiosity is abundantly clear here. The more and more I hear her the more convinced I become that she is going to be an amazing vice president!
I am late to this so probably not going to be read, but I read all the comments, and clearly, we are very close to being a community of knowledgeable people with similar interests. To Fox, I say that it is not fair to make conclusions after watching only 14 minutes. I think the commenters are fighting somewhat needlessly, again, we have more in common than not, and each has his or her priority or trigger point. These people, RFK, Dr Jay, Nicole, aren't going to share every single point of view that we do, there will be some divergence, but to me, they are discussing the things that matter to me, and probably you. Who else in the political sphere is talking about these things? These people are our allies, we have to get them in office, and we can split hairs later. To me, at the heart of chronic disease, particularly the epidemic of auto-immune and inflammation issues, which are likely caused by toxic insult, partly environmental, and mostly vaccine caused. I am certain that honest looks at the available data will either confirm my suspicions, or prove me mistaken, but we gotta get on this, and we gotta get people in positions of power to be discussing this.
I appreciated this interview Jay, I thought it was well done and very informative. I think Nicole Shanahan is a very smart woman and obviously believes the government narrative on Covid was and is dangerously wrong, which is a big plus. She came across as extremely naive though during the discussion on the intentions of the people behind this disaster and how she believe’s most of the decision makers thought what they were doing was for the common good. She and I’m sorry to say, you too Jay are completely misunderstanding and underestimating the far left and its indestructible appetite for power. They quickly and aggressively took advantage of Covid mania to implement a vast expansion of government powers and not for the good of normal people mind you. This was a successful attempt at permanently changing the relationship between citizens and government which will only be built upward from this point. RFK seems to get this, his Veep pick not so much and doesn’t leave me too excited about his choice.
A suggestion for an upcoming interview. Dr. Nancy Olivieri. You can watch a presentation of hers on YouTube. The 4th annual conference of the academic parity. The illusion of protection: whistleblowing and whistleblowers in medical research.
Thank you for this excellent interview! However, your comment at 43:00 about HIV patient groups having success in influencing NIH is misguided. That patient group, ACT UP, was actually an instrument of the pharmaceutical company that produced and pushed toxic AZT to treat HIV, which has never been proven to cause AIDS or any immune dysfunction. Please recall Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Kennedy's book "The Real Anthony Fauci" for information and resources on the great HIV/AIDS scam that was in many was a pilot project for the Covid scam. Mathematical biologist Rebecca Culshaw Smith also has written a lot about this and is following the current push to market "Pre-exposure Prophylaxis", which is wholly unnecessary and causes terrible side effects. Check out her substack https://rebeccaculshawsmith.substack.com
PS. I really appreciate your shout out to Semmelweis, who was vilified in his days by leading doctors who "knew better"! Thankfully he has since been recognized and honored--my two daughters were both born in the Ignaz Semmelweis maternity hospital in Vienna, Austria.
what was point of this interview? Certainly wasn't to increase likely voters for Kennedy. Tone deaf boring and as difficult to listen to as a Kamala Harris interview. Two privileged Silicon Valley insiders talking about things that matter little to average voters. Disappointing at best.
I could only watch the first fourteen minutes. Her defense of free speech is fake, phony and false. She believes, and apparently Jay also believes, that only "qualified views" are entitled to free speech. Who determines what is a qualification? She finds the suppression of free speech acceptable in a declared, dubious emergency so that authorities can do what they want without voices challenging them.
Barf. Gag. I want to vomit at such a pathetic lack of understanding about the bedrock principles of free speech found in our constitution. As if the understandings of man and governance possessed by the founders who wrote it had no merit or right to be written or heard because they didn't have university degrees in political science and philosophy, or their juris doctorate's to write law. I've read many papers about how many new inventions and ideas, understandings about scientific discoveries come from non-credentialed contributors, or brand new scientists unburdened by the constraints of the system and industry of science and able to think outside a box of "consensus."
This from a person who proudly boasts that she's a polymath, capable of self study in many subjects that she lacks a degree in. What are her formally recognized qualifications to opine on anything she doesn't have a degree in?
Her qualified endorsement of free speech is offensive. And Jay's agreement with that is revelatory and strikingly common in those who consider themselves a part of a credentialed class who *deserve*, who have *earned* a right to speak on their areas of credential, in a government-declared crisis anyways - above all other voices. Other lessers who's censorship is "understandable."
"Don't violate my right to speak, I'm a Doctor/Lawyer/Scientist/Expert and have earned it. But shut up those damnable, insufferable ignoramuses who make our lives difficult and get in the way of our educated, considered, erudite conversations about how to govern."
What qualifications does she have to share her voice on subjects outside her degree field? What qualifications does Bill Gates have to share his voice on subjects outside of his degree field? Does he even have a degree? No, he dropped out of college, so he has NO voice to share that's qualified in ANYTHING under a free speech construct that Shanahan describes.
The only qualification Gates and Shanahan have that they share is the number of 0's that trail the number following a $ sign in their bank accounts. So her real criteria for free speech is elite status, wealth and power. She's just upset that too many people in her socioeconomic class lost their right to speak. I hear that a lot from other prolific supposed health freedom and free speech champions possessing their doctorates like Jay. Who still don't want the rest of us to have free speech, they just mad they lost theirs.
Jay, please address these concerns I raise. I don't raise them to attack you personally. Just to attack the bias and self-importance that oozes from the dialogue I heard in this and have heard in other of your interviews. And hear from others in your universe of credentialed "experts." Who are dismissive of the voices of those who have acquired knowledge and information, possess insights and analysis into various fields outside of formal credentials and "qualifications" that so many in the credentialed class have invested so much personal ego and sense of self worth into.
Those notions are noxious and reek. To true freedom and free speech proponents. I had to end it when I did to protect my screen from what was sure to come out of my mouth. I had seriously considered supporting RFK Jr. But not with her a heartbeat away from the presidency.
That wasn't my take on it at all.
I think you are trolling and trying to attack true speech.
It is ironic that you think Jay is against free speech since he has been one of its biggest champion.
You have exposed yourself as foolish. That is one of the features of free speech.
I heard what she said. Not what I believed she said. Which is what you are guilty of.
Just like those who believed Elon Musk said he was making Twitter a "free speech" platform. When in fact he said he was making Twitter a free-er speech platform. Declaring that free speech didn't mean freedom of reach for free speech. Free speech only allowed into an empty room isn't free speech. Words matter. As someone highly trained in linguistics knows. Lazy listeners miss meaningful linguistic differences. As you obviously did.
One is foolish to equate either Musk's definition of free speech or Shanahan's qualified definition of free speech with actual free speech. I question Jay's definition by virtue of his silent agreement with her's in this interview and other quotes I've seen from him in other interviews. Dismissive of the uncredentailed class.
Which, I'd guess you're a member of the credentialed class to take offense at my comment and choose to attack this speaker. Proving Houdini's maxim that the highly educated (and credentialed) are the most easily fooled. Fool.
Deflecting much?
Rather than discuss the argument, you added Elon Musk, Twitter, Jay's thoughts and silent agreement, Credentialed class, Houdini... LOL you are embarrassing yourself.
Good night Troll. ;-)
Pssst - Mask up! Up! Above your nose! There ya go. Good boyyy!
Now Sit! Stay! Roll-over! Fetch! Drop! Good boyyy!
I suggest readers not click kim link. I viewed profile, brand new account, prolific spamming same link across multiple writers today. Probably malicious, open at your own risk
I suggest readers not click kate h link. I viewed profile, brand new account, prolific spamming same link across multiple writers today. Probably malicious, open at your own risk.
Talk about not discussing an argument! A fool like you resorts to dismissing information they can't answer or think about on their feet because they only know what they've been programmed to say on a single subject, unable to connect dots between interrelated subjects. Lacking higher reasoning analytical skills. So rather than address an argument head-on they resort to insults and go back to their safe space. Enjoy your safe, foolish space. Fool.
Have you ever heard the term, "midwit?" It's somebody who's reasonably intelligent, a little more than average. But not any where near genius level. A problem that many midwits suffer from is believing they are, in fact genius's, and interacting with the world as if they are. Even insulting the intelligence of actual genius's who disagree with them. Because they believe they are genius's themselves and only stupid, foolish people believe differently than them.
A true genius knows they don't know everything. And welcome challenges to what they say, invite debate, willing to learn from others they disagree with. Even those less intelligent than them. Well, maybe by true genius I mean a *wise* genius. Wisdom and intelligence are not always found together. In fact, that can be rare. You see, what happens to intelligent people who also become highly educated is they become especially susceptible to their own self-importance and perception of status that accompanies a higher degree.
I brought in Houdini because as a polymath autodidact I've read and learned about a great many things, especially history. And I read history like this old newspaper writing about Henry Houdini. And his characterization of highly educated people:
Houdini Exposes the Tricks
https://www.newspapers.com/article/4691118/houdini-margery-fake-brooklyn-daily/
“the more highly educated a man is along certain lines, the easier he is to dupe,” and “It takes a flim-flammer to catch a flim-flammer.”
I don't think mr. Myhre reads things like this. So he dismisses and mocks that which he doesn not know, or care to know. A midwit behavior.
It doesn't stop there, George Orwell had this to say:
The Prevention of Literature
Polemic, January 1946
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/the-prevention-of-literature/
But what is sinister, as I said at the beginning of this essay, is that the conscious enemies of liberty are those to whom liberty ought to mean most. The big public do not care about the matter one way or the other. They are not in favour of persecuting the heretic, and they will not exert themselves to defend him. They are at once too sane and too stupid to acquire the totalitarian outlook. The direct, conscious attack on intellectual decency comes from the intellectuals themselves."
"When one sees highly educated men looking on indifferently at oppression and persecution, one wonders which to despise more, their cynicism or their shortsightedness. Many scientists, for example, are the uncritical admirers of the U.S.S.R. They appear to think that the destruction of liberty is of no importance so long as their own line of work is for the moment unaffected."
I don't think mr. Myhre reads things like this. So he dismisses and mocks that which he doesn not know, or care to know. A midwit behavior.
Even this fascinating book out of China, published in 2013 has this to say about the highly educated, an entire chapter section dedicated to the topic:
Rural Health Care Delivery
Modern China from the Perspective of Disease Politics
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2013
('GET' .pdf download)
http://library.lol/main/DB87C08A174B849E1EB0476138787AED
Chapter 13.2 “The Higher the Education Level One Has, the Sillier He Is”
This book is a book I *highly* recommend all take the time to read. At least the most poignant chapters and sections I highlighted in my Stack I wrote on it last year. With Chapter titles like:
20 The Logic of Disease Politics
9.4 “To Combine Health Campaigns with Mass Movements”
5.3 Discipline Imposed by Hygiene
13.3 “Comments on Wearing a Medical Mask”
17.3 From “the Benevolent Medicine” to the “Formula for Money-Making”
https://freedomfox.substack.com/p/the-devious-use-of-infectious-disease
This book is a blueprint of using fear of infectious disease to fundamentally transform a nation from individual liberty nationalists into a collectivist authoritarian global center. This book was cited in Foreign Affairs magazine in March, 2020. FA is the public platform of the Council on Foreign Relations to communicate with global leaders and give direction. Which, coincidentally, was when the pandemic response become political and totalitarian. Or not so coincidentally:
Past Pandemics Exposed China’s Weaknesses
The Current One Highlights Its Strengths
Foreign Affairs, March 27, 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20200328050913/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-03-27/past-pandemics-exposed-chinas-weaknesses
I don't think mr. Myhre reads things like these. So he dismisses and mocks that which he doesn not know, or care to know. A midwit behavior.
Free speech is under attack. And the intelligencia cannot be relied upon as the only credentialed, qualified "experts" with a voice in public policy decisions. Even in a declared emergency. Especially in a declared emergency. I was reading publications like the Foreign Affairs piece in March, 2020. Was mike Myhre? Jay Bhattacharya? The polymath Nicole Shanahan? Whatever intelligence many people in positions of power and influence have, most lack wisdom. That's a provable fact through history, philosophers like Socrates and Strauss admit it as such. Only midwits like mike Myhre get confused about things like that. Midwits who this entire post will soar over their heads as they resort to derisive mocking insults like they're used to hurling at those who they believe are less intelligent than them. When their intellectual betters look at them and shake their heads at how foolish and uninformed the midwit really is.
Supported RFK until this VP choice. Thank you for interview Jay.
Having listened to Jay in multiple forums, he seems to be a free speech absolutist. He often tries to highlight the argument that expert’s speech should be able to override lay person’s speech in order to point out that the experts were actually wrong in this case.
I did get the sense that Shanahan had the standard Silicon Valley belief that speech needed to be controlled, though.
I acknowledge your understanding as valid. I've not made a declarative about Jay's commitment to true free speech. But I question it. And hope he would answer the question more definitively.
I was sensitized to his parsing when he was previously discussing vaccines and the nature of infectious disease. There are competing theories, Germ v. Terrain. He's been dismissive of Terrain and belittled those who hold it as true to them.
And he's dismissive of "anti-vaxxers." Who have good reason to be opposed to them. Since even RFK Jr has often stated he's not seen a proven safe and effective one, though he'd support them if they were. It is quite logical to be anti something if its real world application experience doesn't comport with the theory.
To dismiss "anti-vaxxers," intended as a mocking pejorative, and terrain theory proponents as holding some inferior knowledge that serious public policy discussions needn't indulge isn't a dedicated free speech indicator.
Since many readers of Jay and Jay himself are members of a credentialed class willing to defer to "experts" with credentials in a given field place much value on the opinions on other experts I submit to readers this "expert" paper to support my contentions that limiting speech to "qualified" experts, particularly speech to impact public policy, isn't free speech and isn't desirable.
Genomics, Society and Policy, 2006
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/1746-5354-2-2-28.pdf
- by Julie Aultman
(Currently an Editorial Board Member of the American Medical Association Journal of Ethics
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/editorial-board-and-staff)
p.40
"Ethics Lags Behind
In recent genethics literature, George Annas examines the division between scientists and non-scientists and how this division creates obstacles for serious moral deliberation and critical developments in policy-making involving the social and economic implications of genetic research and technology. Annas explains how nonscientists believe that scientists “underestimate the danger in their work, and vastly overestimate its importance”. Scientists, on the other hand, believe the fields of social policy and ethics “lag behind” science, failing to keep up with advancements and progress in science and technology.
The field of genomics is as complex and mysterious as the human genome itself, and attempting to unlock the secrets of our biology does not follow without ethical and social implications. In determining what these implications will look like, nonscientists must work with and not against the scientific community by keeping up-to-date with what researchers are thinking and doing, the technologies they are using, and their immediate and future goals. Likewise, scientists have a moral obligation to consider potential harmful, social and psychological consequences of their research and technology; they must work with non-scientists to achieve a better understanding of the plurality of values held by the global community.
I believe Annas is correct in saying that social policy and ethics “lag behind” science. Non-scientists and scientists need to work together to achieve a collective understanding of the social and ethical implications of genomics. However, there are several reasons why ethics lags behind science besides the lack of effort and responsibility by scientists and non-scientists in trying to understand and predict the potential benefits and harms genomics research and technology may bring to the community.
Social policy and ethics lag behind because, first, there is a lack of public discourse and deliberation. While many scientific and non-scientific groups may discuss the social and ethical issues surrounding genomics, much of their discourse lacks critical evaluation and reflection. Even with a diverse representation, committees, though able to address significant social and ethical considerations for genomics, find it difficult to deeply analyse and evaluate these considerations given the plurality of values within their national and global communities. For example, when deliberating whether genomics will give more reproductive freedom to women, we need to consider the variety of social, cultural, and moral values and attitudes women may have regarding prenatal screening, birth control, health and disease, and so forth. Women may feel that they will have less reproductive freedom if groups, in following a particular set of values and beliefs that seem universally applicable to all women, expect them to conform to their standard system of values and beliefs."
FF - "Non-scientists." Have a voice. That MUST be allowed to be spoken AND heard. Having only the "qualified" voices, voices of a "consensus" in public policy setting discussions poses grave threats to a free society, public health, consequences beyond what "qualified", credentialed, "experts" are able to grasp with the myopic lenses they see the world through. A prominent health "expert" with credentials and qualified to speak agrees. If a reader needs that type of confirmation before they hear the words of an "unqualified" uncredentialed non-expert they'd otherwise dismiss. If non-scientists had a voice in the pandemania public policies at the start they might have considered all of the consequences that pursuing "zero-covic" would result in and chosen a different path.
Personally, I consider myself a free speech absolutist and am also dismissive of both “antivaxxers” and terrain theory. Believing in free speech doesn’t mean you have to continuously listen to people’s arguments about things for which you don’t believe.
When setting public policy that includes others with different beliefs you *must* listen to people's arguments about things for which you don't believe. Because "belief" is no substitute for "knowing." A mistake made by many.
If the voices of those who you don't share beliefs with aren't considered and given accommodation in setting public policy then that is definitionally a totalitarian, dictatorial system.
Without hearing different voices, being dismissive of those you don't share a belief system with - and most science, including medical science, is a belief system, whether you care to admit it or not - you become closed-minded, arrogant and impose your will on others against theirs. When you do that you do not support freedom, individual liberty and the rights our nation was founded upon. Freedom is a conversation between all citizens. Not a lecture or work product of a symposium of only "qualified" credentialed "experts." Beholden to a subset of powerful interests, exclusive of all citizens.
I suggest you read my other comment from the work of an "expert" Jane Aultman, who recognizes the value of nonscientists in setting public policy.
Just know that I'm dismissive of germ theory, and downright hostile to "vaxxers." Who I believe are injurers and murderers. Yet I have to listen to them. And dodge their mandates and poisons the products they demand others take shed on me and my person. I vigorously protect my terrain. And have successfully dodged any and all illnesses for over five years, 2018's infection dealt with in under 24 hours with herbal and fungal remedies and sleep. And before that it had been a decade or so without illness. Pretty much par for the course of my life. And psst - I don't get vaccines!! Ever! But go ahead, take your Big Pharma poison. You have the freedom to do so. While I get to help others not poison their terrains and murder themselves by sharing my free speech voice! :)
You have lost the plot. I don’t need scientists or non scientists working together to set public policy. I need a working bill of rights that keeps these scientists and non scientists from forcing their public policies and restrictions upon me. Your ideas are just a more democratic form of totalitarianism. No wonder you think Jay and everyone else should be forced to listen to your beliefs.
We agree on needing a working Bill of Rights. Which would preclude all of the injustices and overreaches, encroachments on our God-given rights.
We do not have a working Bill of Rights. They are ALL gone. We live in a post-constitutional republic in 2024. The law is whatever the powers say it is. Our judiciary is appointed based on their linguistic gymnastics ability to make Freedom, Slavery; Ignorance, Strength; War, Peace. Linguistic Olympians reaching the highest courts.
I make the negotiations of practicality in this system. Which requires free speech to influence minds away from the programming of the powerful. That coerces and manipulates the public mind using applied behavioral "science", aka BS, psychological propaganda campaigns that make people believe taking poisons will protect them. People who I truly love and care about.
It's not democratic or any other form of totalitarianism I support. We live in a *republic* not a democracy; the Founders abhorred democracy. And knew they end in tyranny. In the system that we have left available to us I try to influence free speech - true free speech - and ALL voices being given equal access regardless of credential.
Until the plotline changes we make our negotiations. Or belong to a completely irrelevant Libertarian Party puffing our chests out and doing absolutely nothing to make changes. Though anarchy has its appeal where any laws and mandates are ignored and we treat one another as we wish to be treated and mind our own business, resisting those who wish to make our business theirs with all necessary force.
Being "dismissive of antivaxxers" already raises major doubts that you are truly a "free speech absolutist"- and you even admit you don't want to listen to arguments that you don't believe in. It's ironic that you find fault with Shanahan when you seem far more closed-minded than she is. Do you even accept that not all vaccines save lives and some vaccines can do more harm than good- have you even looked at deaths in the RCTs for COVID vaccines? Have you even looked at trends in excess deaths after the COVID vaccine rollout?
None of your questions have anything to do with free speech. The problem with arguments like yours is that it assumes that free speech means that people agree with you. You are the same as the”trust the science” people, but just on the other side of the issues.
It's ironic indeed that the need for honest science is declared by those who insist on censoring honest climate science.
If there is one thing about real science we need to get right, it's that the science of CO2 catastrophe is 100% pseudoscience. Let's start there, and the rest will follow.
IDK if Jay agrees with your thesis or not, but I am sure he agrees that a vigorous, robust debate is required around climate change.
I thoroughly agree. However, RFK Jr has given zero indications that he's up for any such debate as ... it's all supposedly beyond debate.
The globalists need a global emergency. Climate provides such an emergency that justifies a global response, and even a global governance (formal or informal) to save the very planet. But in exactly the same manner that valid information about Covid has been and is being censored and as a result a global Covid police state arose, so too is accurate climate information being censored because this is all supposedly "beyond debate," and even if RFK Jr is elected there's still a possibility of a global police state to save the very planet. I know RFK Jr asserts he's against a police state but I need to hear him and his running mate go further, and disavow what's plainly 100% pseudoscience.
Just as during Covid, the voices of reason in climate science are being censored. Only this has been going on for much longer.
RFK believes global warming is real, however he has made it clear he knows climate change is being used to control and dominate the masses. This is why he does not want to discuss CO2 and "looking up" in the air to deal with this. Instead he wants to focus on regenerative agriculture and the soil.
If RFK believes CO2 warming is real then he also believes in dangerous tipping points that will need emergency measures to deal with the changes.
What will RFK do when all the science journals come out and tell us that we need to act immediately to save the planet? 15-minute cities? Travel restrictions? Gas rationing? Culling cows? We can head off absurd emergency measures that are happening even now by acknowledging that CO2 catastrophe is nothing but cherry-picked and authoritarian pseudoscience.
I am far from a "climate change" fanatic, but are you saying you haven't witnessed obvious evidence of global warming?
What obvious evidence? Where?
Rest assured that nothing that's happening today is unusual. The climate has changed naturally since the earth began.
False causation is huge these days: reefs are dying because of overfishing, primarily, and not because of CO2, but the fanatics are keen to unscientifically assign the cause to CO2. False causation happens everywhere and makes people believe CO2 is doing something.
Pseudoscience can't be kept up without false causation.
The allopathic medical establishment are in real trouble. It is time to collaborate with all modalities of health. Big Pharma trained allopathic medicine has proven they lack a holistic view of health. Sanitation improvement, hygiene and better living conditions still remains the biggest advance in health in the past 100 years. It is long past time to revolutionize our approach to health and time to open the doors to all professionals to have a persecution free voice.
Thank you for this.
It was good to hear her speak. She is not just an empty head like many of the VP candidates. This didn't sound scripted and softball questions, but true thought.
This would be a refreshing change from VP we have now.
More exposure like this helps make a slim chance better.
I enjoyed this. Thanks!
So this woman got rich by getting huge handouts and suing billionaire tech giants, and she cares more about criminals than victims. I can’t trust a thing she says. I changed political affiliation to vote for Kennedy but not now.
I want to give her a bit of a pass, but she definitely said "qualified" experts should not be silenced and that there should be a "forum" for such experts to speak, be heard, and in no way be prosecuted. That's, of course, bullshit. The "forum" is anywhere, and the people with the right to say whatever the hell they want, right or wrong, offensive or not, are every U.S. citizen, without regard to anything or any expertise other than that they have the right. I believe that Jay believe's that; he's just too polite to take her to task. I'm still willing to give her a pass for now, as she may be on this "experts" thing on this pod because she's talking to one. I'm also willing to give her somewhat of a pass because she's going to be VP, not the President, and as a candidate for VP she's a thousand times better than monsters like LBJ and Cheney, and dangerous idiots like Harris and Gore. RFK Jr. is a thousand times better than Biden, and at least ten times better than Trump on everything other than energy and "climate." Everything is downstream from energy. I hope RFK takes a belt-sander to her elitist bullshit, but it's more important that he gets his energy policy right, and sticks to his guns on tearing down the neocons, institutional corporate capture, and everything else he gets right. I'll give her another month or two. If Trump makes a strong VP choice (Tulsi), Shanahan still sounds like a Klaus Schwabian, Battlestar Galactica outfit wearing, elitist bug eater, and Kennedy still sounds like Gavin Newsome on energy, all bets are off for me. Jay would've been a better VP pick by light years.
Outstanding interview!
Nicole Shanahan's sincere scientific curiosity is abundantly clear here. The more and more I hear her the more convinced I become that she is going to be an amazing vice president!
I am late to this so probably not going to be read, but I read all the comments, and clearly, we are very close to being a community of knowledgeable people with similar interests. To Fox, I say that it is not fair to make conclusions after watching only 14 minutes. I think the commenters are fighting somewhat needlessly, again, we have more in common than not, and each has his or her priority or trigger point. These people, RFK, Dr Jay, Nicole, aren't going to share every single point of view that we do, there will be some divergence, but to me, they are discussing the things that matter to me, and probably you. Who else in the political sphere is talking about these things? These people are our allies, we have to get them in office, and we can split hairs later. To me, at the heart of chronic disease, particularly the epidemic of auto-immune and inflammation issues, which are likely caused by toxic insult, partly environmental, and mostly vaccine caused. I am certain that honest looks at the available data will either confirm my suspicions, or prove me mistaken, but we gotta get on this, and we gotta get people in positions of power to be discussing this.
I appreciated this interview Jay, I thought it was well done and very informative. I think Nicole Shanahan is a very smart woman and obviously believes the government narrative on Covid was and is dangerously wrong, which is a big plus. She came across as extremely naive though during the discussion on the intentions of the people behind this disaster and how she believe’s most of the decision makers thought what they were doing was for the common good. She and I’m sorry to say, you too Jay are completely misunderstanding and underestimating the far left and its indestructible appetite for power. They quickly and aggressively took advantage of Covid mania to implement a vast expansion of government powers and not for the good of normal people mind you. This was a successful attempt at permanently changing the relationship between citizens and government which will only be built upward from this point. RFK seems to get this, his Veep pick not so much and doesn’t leave me too excited about his choice.
A suggestion for an upcoming interview. Dr. Nancy Olivieri. You can watch a presentation of hers on YouTube. The 4th annual conference of the academic parity. The illusion of protection: whistleblowing and whistleblowers in medical research.
Thank you for this excellent interview! However, your comment at 43:00 about HIV patient groups having success in influencing NIH is misguided. That patient group, ACT UP, was actually an instrument of the pharmaceutical company that produced and pushed toxic AZT to treat HIV, which has never been proven to cause AIDS or any immune dysfunction. Please recall Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Kennedy's book "The Real Anthony Fauci" for information and resources on the great HIV/AIDS scam that was in many was a pilot project for the Covid scam. Mathematical biologist Rebecca Culshaw Smith also has written a lot about this and is following the current push to market "Pre-exposure Prophylaxis", which is wholly unnecessary and causes terrible side effects. Check out her substack https://rebeccaculshawsmith.substack.com
PS. I really appreciate your shout out to Semmelweis, who was vilified in his days by leading doctors who "knew better"! Thankfully he has since been recognized and honored--my two daughters were both born in the Ignaz Semmelweis maternity hospital in Vienna, Austria.
what was point of this interview? Certainly wasn't to increase likely voters for Kennedy. Tone deaf boring and as difficult to listen to as a Kamala Harris interview. Two privileged Silicon Valley insiders talking about things that matter little to average voters. Disappointing at best.
Hey Jay, any way to remove to forced subtitles? There's a subtitle option on the video interface, there's no reason to impose subtitles?