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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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!
0
She fucked google, became rich……..she is
Give Trump all of the money, all of the power, all of the votes, then open the PORTAL!
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?