i feel this because he's coming from ' the real world' he is doctor this isn't his main important thing (online guy) so theres no agenda or doesn't seem to be vs most these gurus or whatever expert they are "online guys camera tv guys' they need to be seen on social media on tv for there job there business there narrative this guy is a journalist ,fame clout ,viral is basically how they are successful. which means a dishonest agenda driven narrative, probably.... unlike like dr mike he's a medical doctor he has his patients he has outside 'the of the Internet' financial and moral reasons to be more genuine than these guys. who may have more of an agenda
As someone with extremely rare medical conditions that most people don’t know about including doctors, hearing a doctor say “I don’t know” has always made me so much more comfortable than when doctors have said they do know when they in fact obviously didn’t know at all what they were talking about. Saying I don’t know is the first step to learning and then knowing, no one knows everything no matter how amazing they are, and there’s nothing wrong with that and the stigma around professionals (especially people in the medical field) knowing absoloutly everything needs to be broken. It’s literally human not to know everything, if you knew everything the world would be a pretty boring place. 🤷🏻♀️
Scott went to this interview like a housewife wanting to gossip about the neighbour's affair. I'm glad Dr. Mike acted like a real man and put this grifter in his place.
@@vermithor51ac except the only housewife that actually deserved criticism is Sinclair for falsifying scientific data the rest of his critiques of Peter and Andrew were just personal attacks nothing to do with health and wellness lol
Absolutely. I think this trend among intellectuals to accuse those they disagree with of having diagnoses is very dangerous. For one thing, diagnoses are meant to help people, not stigmatize them.
Wow, doctor Mike is doing a really good job of checking Carneys thinking without being rude and even then he's not satisfied with how he handled the interview. He deserves all the views and all the followers! :D
He's more combative to some other interviewees, so that turns me off. However, I do find this particular conversation was in good faith. I don't subscribe but do on occasion watch his videos when it pops up on my homepage.
"I feel like it is so hard to look for meaning in why other people are doing things. I feel like we're not even good at figuring this out for ourselves." - Dr. Mike making an amazing point. Really good conversation and Dr. Mike did a great job of challenging and defending without being a strawman.
Tbh I feel like Mike sounded offended. But I understand why, just before that the guest was saying fame was an illness and well make is famous. So Mike felt like he was being judged too generally. I think that's fair to point out Mike's part. Though I kind of also get the guests point speaking from a general perspective, tbh I do think the guest learned something from this in a good way.
Reminds me of a quote from Matt Haig. Under the heading of "Things that Won't Make You Happier: Waiting on people to understand you when they don't even understand themselves." I think this idea is equally liberating for both people being judged and those doing the judging. Reality check served.
Dr. Mike's fame seems to have inspired him toward the Spider-Man model: " with great power comes great responsibility." Because he's aware of the size of his following, he's even more careful to try to give accurate info. I really love this long form content with experts, even if they are not scientific experts.
@@lokipokey lol he's brought by the pharmaceutical industry, remember he was recommending everyone go out and get the COVID jab! And now look what's happened, so called conspiracy theorists where right all along, and now young people are dying.
I think you mean a push in his caution about always trying to be as accurate as possible, not so much of a push toward his fame. He got that from his looks 🤣 and the "sexiest doctor" tag. But where I heard of him was from a medical source, MedPage Today. They're a great source of the latest info (and occasional misinfo debunking) on medicine. They provide links to his videos from time to time. Anyone can subscribe, but they cut off comments from people who can't prove their medical professional credentials.
Oh this should be a good one! I personally don’t like the term influencer, I think of myself as an educator. But it’s a tough world on social media and while I don’t have a problem with health professionals working with industry (such as supplements for example), I do get frustrated by inflammatory or inflated health claims, especially when they don’t give warnings or recommend to see a local health professional first.
I am not a big fan of Huberman or Wim Hoff but Scott's language and overall approach to them in this episode just feels wrong and personal. I don't know what's happening behind the scenes there but he's the one that ends up sounding like a 'narcissist' talking about how he helped 'make them', a bit grandiose for a journalist. I'm glad Dr. Mike added the disclaimer at the beginning, it shows that at least in hindsight he had the self awareness to realize that something went off the rails here and that it doesn't fit the kind of integrity we've come to expect from the content in his interviews.
This ^^ exactly you put my thoughts into words. This guys stories were so biased, he seems to know how to tell a good story to get a rise out of people
Thank you Dr. Mike for the interview. Very brave of you and I love that you pushed back while also listening respectfully. One reason I can't watch a full episode of Hubberman is his constant interruptions, oversharing, and having to always showcase his knowledge. Personally, I like how you give people the space to speak.
Dr. Mike should do a podcast with Legal Eagle about the ways in which recent Supreme Court decisions would get rid of health regulating non-partial governmental agencies or allow for the placement on non-experts in these roles and the impact it would likely have on the healthcare system!
SO NEEDED!! He has a massive platform and people need to understand the threats to healthcare in this country coming down the pike if the American public (voters) don’t understand what’s truly at stake here.
heres an idea to consider- weve had these experts in charge and these regulations in place for decades, but our healthcare system is still broken? could those regulations and experts not actually be doing their job?
I’m only 11 mins in and heard a lot of the same things… he criticized Huberman as a grandiose narcissist yet within 11 mins this guy has already said things like…. “My grandfather was the first to perform X surgery”, “you can’t do this now because of my work” goodness……..
I attended his first public training session when there were only 2 other people there. I was the first American to write a feature about him. Wim credits me giving his first major exposure in his VICE and Yes Theory videos. I climbed Mt Kilimanjaro with him shirtless. I wrote a NYT bestselling book about Wim, and then did almost 300 interviews in mainstream media about him. SO yeah, I think I have a leg to stand on when saying I was pretty important to his rise.
I read parts of his article on Wim Hoff and he often frames Wim Hoff's words extremely dishonestly. Stopped reading after that, and now seeing this as well makes me know to avoid him in the future.
Thanks so much for having me on the show! This was a really interesting conversation to have and you made me think about a few things in different ways.
Yay- as an organ transplant survivor THIS IS EXACTLY what i didn't want to listen to bright and early, or anytime - dude your welcome 4:39 omg stop Too too much And as a survivor - who got hers legally - I don't appreciate this narrative at all Why don't you discourage this? How about a story on how rejection occurs and what that looks like? How ugly it is when they DON'T match?!
@@PinkThing-m5j get outta here russian bot, if your not than sorry you went through that but i dont see how this video was too much, if you dont go into detail or explain things fully people wont be able to understand whats happening and how serious it is
He does not... Exposing gurus doesn't make you a guru yourself, and he is raising very important questions, especially about the finance incentives behind a lot of these guys. And I don't see him hawking supplements and "self help" courses, you know, like for example the gurus he's exposing 🧐
@@Lock484I hate how you disrespect the term guru. A guru is simply a teacher you decide to emulate. Please stop using it as a perjorative or status symbol. Gurus can be good, and they can be bad. You science worshippers of cynicism annoy me. You don't know enough to be certain about our understanding of reality. That's prideful and that attitude is why so many people's lives suck.
"too much of anything is bad!" Starting at the age of 2, I drove this into my son's brain. He is now 19 and I'm constantly reminding him of it. He also is constantly telling me how I was right in many situations because of it. And even when he slips up and has too much or something LOL he knows where he went wrong and corrects it.
My favorite Dr. Mike interviews are the ones where he and the other person don't agree on everything. I don't think this is a bad episode. Scott's an investigative journalist, not a doctor, so it was interesting seeing how he weaves together numerous pieces of information about a person / case to reach his decision. I do think it leans toward conspiracy at some points; I'm much more inline with Dr. Mike's mindset, but it was interesting.
Scott seems to me at least to have quite sweeping opinions about the medical field and online health industry without having a good enough grasp on how it actually works. To not know how double blind trials work but to cite a bunch of super specific studies seems baffling to me. Seems to indicate a questionable understanding of research in general. However this episode was very respectful and balanced from Mike. Thanks Mike
I've been saying this for a long time and ill continue to keep saying it. An individual can can have insights in things and fields they are not trained in, but one should really only be taking advice from a professional in said field. Seriously, a mechanic can have a telescope but that doesn't make him an astronomer.
This is not exactly an apt analogy. When you are involved in the Sciences, whether that be through family medicine, neurobiology, ophthalmology or any other science, you develop and refine a set of interdisciplinary skills. These include, but are not limited to: - Proficiency in designing experiments, conducting research, and gathering relevant data from various sources, including scientific literature. - Skills in interpreting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data, identifying patterns, and drawing meaningful conclusions. - Understanding of statistical methods, which are crucial for assessing the validity of studies, interpreting results, and evaluating the significance of data. - The capability to approach complex problems methodically, breaking them down into manageable parts, and developing evidence-based solutions. - A strong foundation in scientific concepts and terminology, enabling one to understand and engage with scientific literature across different fields. - Understanding how to design experiments and studies that minimize biases and errors, ensuring that results are reliable and reproducible. - Experience with evaluating the quality and reliability of research through peer review, assessing the methodology, data, and conclusions of scientific papers. These all become part of your "toolbox," and you are able to apply them to other disciplines in which you may not have formal training. With this in mind, your analogy would be more accurate if it went something like this: A mechanic has a set of skills (like the ability to break down the telescope into various parts, the ability to understand why different lenses produce different results) and knowledge of the fundamental scientific principles behind those skills. And while that doesn't make him an astronomer, it allows him to apply those scientific principles to different fields in order to more accurately understand research presented to him. In reality, this still isn't a good analogy, because the gap between a mechanic and an astronomer is vastly greater than the difference between someone trained in neurobiology and someone trained in a different medical science. Huberman doesn't claim to be an expert in ANY of the fields in which his guests are trained. He simply filters the data presented to him by these "experts," through the scientific training he has received. This isn't a stretch. There is also a rich history of scientists making discoveries in fields in which they received little to no formal training: Gregor Mendel was a monk who was trained in physics and mathematics but not biology. He went on to discovery of the basic principles of heredity, which became the foundation of modern genetics. Henrietta Swan Leavitt did not receive formal astronomical training like her peers and yet she discovered the relationship between the luminosity and period of Cepheid variable stars, which became a key method for measuring cosmic distances. Michael Ventris was an architect by training, not a linguist. He successfully deciphered Linear B, an ancient script used by the Mycenaean civilization, which was one of the earliest forms of Greek. John Harrison was a self-taught carpenter and clockmaker. He solved the problem of calculating longitude at sea by inventing the marine chronometer, a breakthrough that had a profound impact on navigation. There are SOO many more examples: significant contributions to science can come from those who are not formally trained in the specific field of their discoveries, showcasing the importance of transferable skills, curiosity, and interdisciplinary thinking.
And what if that mechanic has poured hours and hours, dedicating weeks and months, maybe even years of his time learning about astronomy, and directly references experts. Things are not so clear cut anymore. Your view is very old school and not in line with modern access to information. The emphasis on someone being an expert is not nearly as important as it used to be because so much information is out there for anyone to learn. You no longer have to attend a university to be just as educated, if not more educated, than someone with a degree. Being able to discern who is unbiased and truthful, or who is being selective with their statements, or who has a personal agenda is way more important these days. Because you will never be able to stop the information train now. Obviously, certain careers are an exception, mainly ones where most learning is done practically. But, for example, I've been learning about medicine for 20+ years now through my own issues and also my personal interest, and I keep up with and challenge my doctors' knowledge all the time.
@@TheSwauzz I would say that the mechanic knows more about astronomy than I do. That doesn't mean I'm going to give anything he says about astronomy more credence than someone who has a degree in the subject. You are right in that we do live in an age with unprecedented access to information, however that doesn't mean that a person actually understands the material fully which is why we have schools. Now you may have been learning about medicine for a long time and you may have a very good understanding about your own medical issues, but I'm still not going to you for medical advice.
@@TheSwauzz I think that's what is colloquially called "knowing enough to be dangerous". You know enough to be able to have intelligent conversations on topics, ask thoughtful and challenging questions of experts, to find good resources. The dangerous part of that philosophy, however, can be sounding more knowledgable than you are, convincing others, or even yourself, you are qualified to provide advice. It's fantastic that you have learned as much as you have, can advocate for yourself with your doctors and health. But that amount of knowledge does make it imperative to recognize your own limits when it comes to sharing that knowledge with others. As they touched on in the video, some of the influencers spreading misinformation, genuinely may believe what they say and believe in their own knowledge. Credentials aren't everything, but they are important, especially today BECAUSE of the availability of information. How does that mechanic know the experts they're referencing are experts? How did the mechanic verify the information they've spent years studying? What materials were they studying? How old was the information? Have they kept up with the newest information coming out like experts actively working in the field do?
@@vinvin4884 I think Huberman is a really good example of how this is not the case. He regularly misunderstands studies, either he misunderstands them or doesn't read them? And when his misunderstandings are correct by experts he ignores them
Dr. Mike, don’t apologize, this was an enjoyable interview, both of you have different backgrounds and experiences and both are very passionate and with good points of view. We the audience, must watch and listen, and should do our own research and analysis before jumping into any conclusions in regard of the videos we watch, books we read and so on. I think your guest had a wonderful time, we all heard new things, to me, it was the conversation between two intelligent men.
As a Journalist, putting yourself in your piece complete with name calling like "narcissist" and "psychopath" screams personal drama. I can't stop thinking about something Scott said in the beginning of this video when talking about Wim Hof. He repeated takes credit for Wim's fame, "I made him famous". Dude went there more than once. This drips with jealousy and ego. This is something I picked up on many times when Scott speaks about Huberman and Wim. If you want to be a respected journalist you'll report the facts, free from opinion or it becomes your personal thing. And podcasters are not Journalist.
Dear Dr. Mike and the Checkup Podcast Team, Thank you for this incredible podcast episode with Scott. I have watched some of his videos, specifically those about Dr. Andrew Huberman. As a scientist myself, I always strive to stick to the data and avoid giving medical advice when communicating science to the public. For me, scientific integrity is key, and saying "I don't know" or "there is no data on this, so we need more research" is the most honest approach. Of course, people may get frustrated, but in the end, we cannot solve medical issues with just one experiment or in one go. There are so many nuances and perspectives to consider. Untangling these complex questions can take years, decades, or even a lifetime. I am learning from the expert himself! Thank you, Dr. Mike, for being critical and encouraging us to think more deeply about what we believe. In my opinion, you've done a great job, and I commend you for the disclaimer at the beginning of the episode and your thoughts at the end. I don’t think it was a problem that you couldn't fully address the scientific "inaccuracies" of science or medical communicators, as that would have been more appropriate for a scientist to cover. I’m looking forward to your next episode, especially the deep dive! Thanks again, and I wish you all the best.
Finally finished this video! It took me a while to get through the whole thing. I appreciated Dr. Mike’s little disclaimer at the end there, but I don’t think it’s his fault the conversation went off the rails. He tried asking the right questions but Scott kept spinning off in unexpected directions. I’m a scientist so I follow Dr. Mike’s mode of communication much more easily than I did Scott’s. Having read quite a few of those investigative pieces, my sense is that the writers are weaving a story for us (supported by facts, but a story nonetheless) and they use literary devices like suspense to keep us reading all the way to the end. Scott is clearly a story teller. Many times throughout the podcast, he admitted he didn’t know the specific details to support what he was saying. You don’t hear scientists talking like that. I point that out because it illustrates that the narrative story telling is the most important aspect of the communication for Scott. I found it a little disconcerting to watch the conversational volley between these two because their communication styles are so different. This podcast would make an excellent homework assignment for students studying communication or linguistics! Anyway, heads up to regular Dr. Mike viewers that this video is different from the ones we’re used to from his channel. It’s not a good or bad thing, but I had to break it up and only watch 10 or 15 minutes at a time because I kept losing the thread of what was going on and what the overarching points were. As always, keep doing what you do, Dr. Mike! Scientific literacy isn’t great in America, so it’s so awesome that you put the time in to educate people!
I agree with your epilogue. I was very unimpressed with a man who purports to be a fact checker and turns to you and says you should check the statements he is espousing. He begins by stating he has no medical training and then proceeds to diagnose people. I have never heard of this man before and I am very unimpressed with his lack of professionalism. Ironically, he displayed the very behavior he denigrates. His comments were opinions that he did not support with facts or the education to preach. His closing comment even included a pitch for his heath guru sales.
There's nothing wrong with saying "This needs double checking" during a casual talk like this one. I would be more worried if someone were too sure of themselves. I think people are asking for too much from what is clearly an unedited discussion. Most of Dr Mike's usual videos can be edited.
The fact that you are so biased that you skipped the part where he said he is obviously not diagnosing anyone but just stating his experience and comparing it with the definition of a diagnosis as any normal human does tells a lot about you 😂
This is the first I have seen Scott Carney. First impression is he almost seems like an anti influencer but not in a good way. Like he knows a little about a lot but is not an expert in anything. In this interview he is cherry picking some innocuous and some harmful but irrelevant information to push his agenda. I am going to go down a bit of a rabbit hole but first impression is that he is not any better than the influencers he is speaking out against.
I found this guest to be.. frustrating. I love that Dr. Mike defined a gossip journalist with parameters this guy clearly displayed the whole interview, and he responded by saying there is functionality no difference between that and investigative. I'm not sure what happened more, him speaking to something with complete authority, or him reminding us that he is not an authority on these subjects.
@@Burgman22 when the whole AH controversy started I found his page because I wanted to understand what was happening. I made a comment he didn't like which was basically that maybe Andrew is not a good boyfriend but it doesn't mean he is a bad scientist. He accused me of not being a woman, of making comments from a fake profile and then my comments disapeared.... He is just bitter AH didn't care about him, part of his argument agaist AH is that once they would go on a hiking trip that should last the entire weekend but Andrew had to work so it just lasted a couple hours....
This is honestly one of the only medical "influencers" I listen to. Dr. Mike and Dr. K have been two very impactful content creators for me and I thank them for their honesty and integrity
When he referred to an industry of skulduggery as people digging up graves, he lost me. He's a journalist his one job is to use words well to tell stories, he should probably know how to use words in their correct contexts
Thanks for being actively retrospective and including this into your podcast. It's a great example to let people see that process. It's one of the biggest reasons I listen to this podcast, because of these introspective moments, being reflective, being reminded of the process of critical thinking (and how hard it can be).
What do you mean by that? I actually found him reasonably and willing to learn mistakes. I like this better than two people agreeing on everything or both people walking away learning nothing.
@@pleasedontwatchthese9593 quite a few examples... He makes a big claim about being a truth seeker and then casually admits that his sources are at best heresy. He mentions how wimhoff method removed his "raging illness" then still calls all of his work a grift. And to the comment's point, he criticises people making money while selling his books that make him money. His journalism is equal to going after his friends. He says that these grifters all say that they are doing it for the greater good and how hypocritical that is, then goes on to say exactly that with his seeking of the truth and all that.
@@momekh exactly, I've watched couple of huberman's videos, although you can't garentee the content 100% but you can appreciate the effort he puts in, unlike those who react to tiktoks
This might not have been the conversation Dr.Mike wanted, but I found it so relatable as a Philosophical discussion between the Sceptic and the Jaded. 🖤
Yes I believe the reactions to this conversation were slightly hyperbolic considering this man is a journalist. He speaks eloquently and is passionate about what he reads but I wouldn’t expect him to have the methodology of an MD!
I have to commend Dr. Mike for being able to sit through this conversation and not straight-up tell this dude off. He called the most rational people I know on social media all Psychopaths. Plus... he has a lot of medical opinions for someone who has no medical background. It's because of these kinds of conversations that I am just now starting to watch Dr. Mike's videos on health things, while I've been watching Huberman and Friedman and those other "psychopaths" since 2022.
You two make me smile- looking for the bad-influencers on the internet and warning us against them. Don't worry about the general public so much, we are not your responsibility, we are by a large able to filter information extremely well. Leave us alone and stop telling us who is good and who is bad. We have been listening to advice that's possibly not that great for hundreds of year- we've coped and will continue to cope. But thank you.
Just heard the last 15 minutes or so .....Dr Mike, I think you handled yourself and the interview very well as it got quite dicey, at times, particularly at the end. Whew! All the best to Scott Carney. I think this interview will 'break him open' in a way he hasn't been before. Albeit possibly quite painful for him, many blessings will ensue. 🙏💕
“Truth wrapped in a lie.” Wow - a nuanced understanding and explanation of reality. That’s why I like watching Dr. Mike! He explains things simply but doesn’t dumb it down for us.
Not sure why so many negative comments…it is just a conversation, with questions and answers and he Always prefaces his answers with information. It looks like an intelligent conversation. Again, not sure what people are freaking out about.
It’s a conversation filled with humble brags, prefaced with information that he himself admits could be completely false and he’s just throwing out there as the basis of his statements, and he comes across as either incredibly un self-aware or a narcissist
1:01:00 I really like the parts where Dr. Mike and Scott Carney give perspective and make it clear where they are coming from when they are elaborating on a subject! That can’t be forgotten if you want to get as close to the facts as possible, and to pause when trying to rationalize to decide whether something is promising.
I'm glad this conversation is happening. Everyone you mentioned, I followed them for a little while. Not hook, line, and sinker, and not to the point of buying their merch, but trying to take some notes to make some application. But after a while, I began to see a pattern: They begin to talk faster and faster. They use bigger words. I'm not sure if maybe they are subtly competing with each other (if both are doctors) or maybe to just one-up in their own heads their interview from last week. I can't tell if their good results are parenthetical or have been proven 80% of the time. Their field of expertise begins to be all-encompassing, as if to prove that their point is a universal truth. At some point, they are verbally strutting their stuff instead of trying to HELP anybody. They are no longer talking to us. I no longer click if it's Huberman or Attia on the thumbnail. I also no longer follow those who put all their money on one cure, and then a year later explain why they did it wrong, Saladino for example.
In Indian tradition, meditation is not a "commodity" that is handed out like candy to just about anyone; the scriptures talk at great lengths about the pitfalls of the spiritual path including possibility of psychosis. Traditionally, meditation techniques were taught and practiced under the tutelage of an experienced master who has gone through all the experiences themselves and reached the ultimate state. "Guru Parampara" (literally translating to "Tradition or Lineage of Gurus") is an integral component of spiritual practice. In addition, there are supplementary practices governing to strengthen the body, mind and emotions to handle the rigors of advanced practices; the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali list them succinctly.
I have no doubt that the practices exist, but I have seen too little emphasis on the body-mind connection. In rare cases, the body is handwaved away as transient.
I’ve never listened to Andrew Huberman for his personality, I watched it for the scientific data he presents, questions & input that he always explains is personal.
Your podcast is invigorating and eye-opening. As a Buddhist, what happened to the woman after she thought she's enlightened happens sometimes. Dr. Mike's point on pre-existing mental conditions is one thing. Also, misconceptions about enlightenment without proper guidance and unhealthy coping mechanisms to the pursuit of enlightenment as a way to escape are 2 important factors.
One of the absolute best episodes Had not heard of Scott before but this conversation was insanely insightful and reflected a lot of what I already suspected about the health influencer space
34:57 I’m conflicted on whether the potential risks involved in controlled breathing, as one example, should discount the entire practice or just contextualize it. Nearly every sport, hobby, and pastime people participate in carries some degree of risk in certain circumstances. There can be a lot of variability in whether an exercise is universally harmful, require acclimation or training, is not optimal, etc. Take boxing as an example, or scuba diving, or mountain climbing; the benefits some people strive towards may come with consequences. As long as the potential risks are understood and the potential benefits aren’t wildly overstated.
All things have risks, and we can quantify these risks. That said, humans often are personally bad at judging a lot of different types of risks. Social effects, enhanced perceived benefits, etc.
O think the difference is rock climbers and scuba divers are very aware of the risks and are taught what to do if Smth goes wrong. But with the breathing it isn’t typically disclosed and the everyday person would never even consider that a breathing exercise could be dangerous and then have go clue how to handle things if they go wrong
I do Wim Hof breathing method using his 'App' for over 2 years and I never skipped a day! I do 8 rounds in the morning and 8 rounds at night. I have asthma and this is a game changer for me! This method cleared the mucus in my lungs.
I think that Scott wants to be an expert on some of these subjects and is outside of his scope in this conversation. I think Dr. Mike was respectful and was pushing back which was absolutely necessary. I appreciate the disclaimer at the beginning, which gave me a better assessment on the dialog displayed. Scott also comes off as gossipy which is against what Dr. Mike is about. Kudos to Dr. Mike..
As someone who fell into the human potential movement, I flipping love this podcast. I’ll start to tune it all out… and focus on the little things ♥️ I wondered why my MD spouse didn’t care for the health influencers like I did. This video helped me see my spouse’s position better. Thank you.
I love that they left that ending 2:20:15 - it really comes back to what they were talking about dehumanizing people as public figures. Even though he is still in front of the camera - it made me reflect and see him truly as a person who possibly took a few takes to do that. I put extra thought into my gratitude to him and the team that make this important channel and platform possible.
I love how smart Dr Mike is and how he would let people have verbal diarrhea thinking they are smart or saying factual stuff by the way he pays attention but I know he actually sits there and zones out looking at how stupid they are and now the world would see too😂😂😂😊☺️☺️
Here in Brazil a case that happened 20 years ago opened the Pandora's box of organ's mafia. A young boy suffered a major injury to his brain and the mafia doctors harvested his organs while he was still alive in coma. They also charged the parents for all the costs of removing the organs and other horrible things. Police later discovered the hospital was built nearby a freeway due to the proximity to car accidentes and the higher chances of brain death in those cases. That case created lots of protocols for organ donations that didn't exist before.
I got a lot out of this conversation. Yes, Mr. Carney showed his humanness and also had some interesting things to say. I don't imagine it's easy going on a podcast and getting it 'all right.' Not dissimilar to being in the world. 🙏
The fact that nobody talks about censored book called The 23 Former Doctor Truths by Lauren Clark really gets to me. Always loved people like Lauren, they open our eyes
Dr. Mike, my observation is that you're in your role as a doctor, with the goal of treating every patient without judgment, and with the goal of raising the level of mental health awareness and accuracy. You don't make value judgment on medical or mental health patients, and that's what is right and ethical for your profession. You want to make sure that there has been a proper exam process with a mental health professional with regard to any diagnoses. Scott is in a different realm, and is under no ethical obligation to protect those he investigates, nor a medical- level of obligation to properly diagnose mental illness, as is also the case with the general public. While he or I may conclude someone is a psychopath, our label should not be meant as a pejorative or insult, but as a warning that this person exhibits certain traits which should caution others against dealing intimately with them. We're not the professional tasked with treatment of this person, so any clinical diagnosis is not only beyond our purview, but none of our business, but our purpose isn't clinical anyway. On the other hand, while you may treat every patient, you would be remiss if you didn't make evaluations of patients, whether they may be neglected or abused, abusing others, trying to obtain narcotics or other drugs, or a danger to you or your coworkers. You would take the necessary steps within your role to deal with those conditions. I think you did make progress with Scott in redirecting his thoughts towards fame being a risk factor rather than a mental illness, and towards him making more clinically accurate statements in the future. Your profession is interested in a patient's medical history, occupational and living conditions with regards to informing treatment; Scott's is interested in history of pattern of behavior, damage AND benefit that may have resulted, and evaluating whether this person is a danger to others in the future. Analogous, within limits.
wonderful comment. i think you are one of the only people whose comment i have read so far who actually has a nuanced understanding of this podcast episode. thank you for using critical thinking skills, unlike some others lol
This is one of the best comments that do Mr Scott Carney justice I really liked this whole episode; not all discussions end with all sides agreeing on everything, and I don't even consider that they had "too much" conflict, it's just that the aspects that the journalist investigates and works on intersect with the physician's, but are not identical to them A journalist giving his opinion and analysis of the facts to make predictions, and to approach future events with a different attitude, is not much different from a medical doctor changing his approach and plan of management, even going against some typical protocols, if he noticed an unusual pattern that doesn't add up, e.g. diagnosing malingering, factitious, or drug seeking behavior And even though everyone claims (and usually aspires) to always "follow the science" and "give others the benefit of the doubt", they (and we) always have some prejudgments and biases that are difficult (albeit not impossible) to change
Two amazing men in one podcast. This was so eye opening as someone who follows both Huberman and Peter Attia. Much respect to Dr.Mike who sees patients from all income brackets. And thank you Scott for your journalism.
Mike talks about how he didn't managed to keep the conversation focused on the medical side of things but it's not his fault Scott is a journalist and at the end of the day he wants to make headlines I think what we can take from this is that he is more interested into finding dirt in someone's past to open our eyes and make us question their credibility which could make us think twice before buying snake oil
Interestingly, having just come from Hubermans episode about ice baths and cold therapy, I feel that Scott's sumarising of his position was hugely off. Huberman doesn't emphasise shivering or cold therapy specifically for weight loss, but mentions that the termogenesis can increase metabolism which in turn will use more energy. However he's also pretty clear that this thermo genesis is pretty small and certainly no substitute for normal weoght loss protocols. Hearing that part and then hearing him criticise Huberman without any specific evidence in his critique of his work made it seem like his thoughts on this werelargely coming from a personal place. He seems to have fallen out with him and now paints him as negatively as possible, even diagnosing him with narcissistic personality disorder, which is hugely unprofessional. Glad Mike put in some caveats about this in there.
Yes, I was confused about that. I watch Huberman and doesn't say ice bath is for weight loss. We should take all these opinions with a grain of salt, jealousy and envy going around.
*Facts* please Mr Carney, not ‘I think etc’, ‘If I remember correctly’, ‘I think his name was’, ‘I think, look at Wikipedia’, I’m not totally up to that case,’ ‘after they exhumed him I guess,’ ‘I think it’s hard to know when someone is really dead,’ ‘Antitox ? I forgot the word, Oh yes Antigen,’ and on and on… Mind blown. 🤯 As a responsible Journalist Mr. Carney, you should not diagnose mental illness, and always have *facts* to back up your claims, not Story’s or more questions. God Bless you Dr. Mike for keeping your cool.
I stopped keeping up with Huberman lately, but Scott's vendetta against him seems extremely personal. Anyone who listens to Andrew consistently knows he constantly reminds listeners to check with their physicians before trying any of the things he recommends, and hardly pushes anything like products or courses or any of that other BS like a lot of the other people out there.
Huberman is viewed pretty poorly by the medical and scientific community as a peddler of pseudoscience. Others liken him to a modern day Dr.Oz The problem with Huberman compared to other influencers is he is perceived to be more authoritative, and a great deal of his content is considered by the average viewer as reliable and accurate without question.
@@missknight9 Modern day Dr. Oz is an insane comment. Huberman has had people on who peddle BS, but he's always been open to having other guests on who criticise them. I'd also love to know where you got that sentiment from, I wasn't aware the department of medicine and science made a public statement about him.
I can’t help but feel this Scott guy is hired by the alcohol industry to do a character assassination of Huberman, given how effective his message was in deterring people from drinking…
I have to be honest, I started watching Dr Mike after a short finding him adorably attractive. Became a subscriber due to his thinking and communication to the viewers. Always interesting to see what is produced next. I also would like to add that my mother is one of those patients now, where if her Dr tells her to watch for the side effects, she "develops" them.
I have to say I watch a lot of podcast interviews & it's really refreshing to watch the way Dr Mike conducts his interviews. He is not only a great listener (which I'm sure is a valuable attribute in his life as a doctor) but he rarely interrupts his guest unless it's pertinent to clarification or to further the discussion, he is always courteous & respectful whether he is personally supportive of the topic or not & he is always true to his ethical foundations. I wish more interviewers followed this approach rather than used their interviews as an opportunity to argue, grandstand or promote themselves.
It would have been interesting to have Dr. Huberman on this show at the same time to defend himself. Thank you. For Mike for being such a fair interviewer.
It’s almost like Scott is putting down these health influencers to elevate himself. It bothers me when he says things like “I basically made him famous”, there’s this energy about him that seems jealous in a way? It was a really fascinating interview to watch especially seeing Dr. Mike’s body language, I appreciate that he pushed back and questioned where he saw appropriate.
This is probably the best discussion on health influencers I've ever listened to. Dr. Mike and Scott have such a balanced and thoughtful approach to the topic.
I really liked this interview! It really boils down to holding peoples actions and behaviors as the basis for judging character. At the end of the day "actions speak louder than words"
I'm a physician who follows Peter Attia because a lot of what he says and a lot of the guests he brings are genuinely interesting and helpful. But oh my God, does he have a bit of a God complex. You don't just make up the term "medicine 3.0 " unless you're a bit full of yourself and think that you're the first person in the world to think of prevention, exercise, nutrition, and screening. I have to roll my eyes every time he says that. And I agree for these and other reasons (huge supplement shilling) Attia Is the best of the salesman in that most of what he says is mostly accurate, but much of what he says is off The Fringe
He may not have invented this concept, but he did explain it in a way that I could understand. To such an extent that I've made several very positive lifestyle changes that I would not have otherwise.
@@randeepwalia1507 oh for sure me too. Again, I said I followed the guy so I definitely find many aspects of what he says to be useful, particularly related to exercise. But a lot of his practice and a lot of his recommendations are probably questionable at best. These include supplements shilling and recommendations for Early screening.
I like Peter Attia, but he lost a lot of my respect when he went on the Megyn Kelly podcast and used a lot of sensationalist rhetoric to kind of fear monger GLP-1 medications, which he himself has said are complicated and nuanced. Very disappointing.
@@mugflubEnlighten me, what did he say about GLP-1 that sounded “fear mongering”? It is true that people without resistance training would lose muscle rapidly leading to sarcopenia and that’s lethal. I’m pretty sure Dr. Mike said the same.
I really appreciate your transparency, honesty, and evidence based informational approach!! As a fellow physician trying to pass on helpful and accurate information to my patients, our medical system needs what you do!
I have so much respect for Dr. Mike, taking on these questionable topics, and when pushing back, does so in a respectful, and compassionate way. I agree with what you said about the body can heal itself, and how the mind and body are so connected. I’d love if you could do an episode on that, specifically inflammation, or autoimmunity.
I’d love to see a conversation between Doctor Mike and Peter Attia. I was unaware of his view on him until the opening of this video. I’m curious given the fact that Peter is an M.D. Not saying all things he says can be agreed with because he’s a doctor, but both being in the medical field, I think it would be a fascinating conversation.
I really respect Dr. Mike's approach to situations with a focus on nuance, but there is a point where a person has 100% broken trust. There must be a line that we draw where if someone crosses it, you must write them off completely. It's an acceptable truth that no one is all bad, but that's also a non-statement. A cartel leader will love his family and dog, but he still facilitates the murder of countless people. So to me, who cares if he loves his family and dog? It just doesn't matter. Giving the benefit of doubt is a noble way to look at things, but in certain situations, it's also naive. In this modern climate where influence is so incredibly effective, you can essentially control an entire population (which we've seen firsthand) if the right people at the right time say the right things. We are witnessing how much more effective grifters, liars, compulsive moneymakers, false hope bringers and even more innocuous snake oil salesman are in this modern age where anyone, and I mean ANYONE (looking at you, inmates), can have a platform. Preying upon vulnerable people has been happening forever, but not at the rate it is happening now. It is absolutely imperative that we not only expect, but demand, better from influencers, leaders and other people in positions of authority or power. We should be demanding honesty, humility and consistency.
I agree. I am not sure why people are getting so mad at this guy. If someone is trying to scam or con me, and it's known that this person has a pattern of behavior that raises red flags, then I want to know about that. In the realm of health, scams, grifts, and cons can literally kill and maim people. Why shouldn't we be looking at them and their claims with a critical eye? Why is making a moral judgment about a person bad if they've literally done bad things over and over? Maybe I'm just a big meanie, but if a person betrays my trust, earning it back is going to take time and energy on their part. I'm not going to let them victimize me over and over in order to fulfill some bizarre goal of truth-seeing nobility. Not only does it harm me, it harms the other person by not putting boundaries on their harmful behavior.
Respectfully, that seems to be all about your feelings about what is being said, or just the people themselves. The guest gives no real evidence that Huberman or Attia are wrong about anything, he just seems to not like them. Also, feelings. Feel how you like about people, but I think Humberman and Attia are well cited when it comes to their medical theories. Them telling the truth in a *tone* you don’t like is NOT a good reason to discount it, or to pile on the idea that it’s, even further, scamming. Attia might have a god complex, but you don’t want to hear the [possible, admittedly] truth from him? This seems more like anti-fame activism than any sort of debunking. Also, this guy isn’t a Phd or a medical doctor, unlike the people he’s trashing. Also, if they have a history of “triggering” people, thats an indicator that they are a good teacher, not a grifter. Making you think about new things shouldn’t be a negative. The “modern” response to new information has suddenly been to be “triggered” instead of informed.
I’m glad these conversations are happening, even if Attia or Huberman are right about something on occasion they have completely abandoned the core principles of the scientific method of questioning and critiquing until we find the most likely answer, instead they take weak data and repeat it with unearned authority. Also really glad Dr. Mike pushed back so much when needed.
There is a real difficulty for listeners. Fact-checking is not easy. Primary papers are turgid and can be expensive to access. We tend to consume online content without enough scepticism. Thank you Scott Carney. BTW- some commentators to this interview don't seem to like the Carney delivery style. Interesting.
I follow Scott Carney and greatly appreciate his work. Individual's behavior is more insightful to me than debating whether they are really "bad" people - their behavior is.
The point about Peter Attias disclosures doesn’t make sense. That’s the whole point of disclosing his endorsements Many times he prefaces things by offering other alternatives or that it’s not necessary. Doctor Mikes point about not demonizing financial model was spot on. It’s not enough to discredit what Attia does
Dr. Attia has no evidence that 2.2 g/kg/day of protein is benefitial for long-term health and longevity. He's very open about eating 7-10 venison jerky sticks per day, which he sells. If someone has good evidence for what they are selling, you're right, but Dr. Attia does not.
What an interesting interview. I didn't know many of the people or studies or even methods mentioned. Thank you for bringing new concepts for me to explore. @sgcarney what I understood and gleaned from what you are saying is to apply moderation and a bit of skepticism when looking for care of oneself, whether its medical, spiritual, physical, etc., not just in the actual mechanics but in who teaches it, and how.
Every health influencer is in it for the money. Plates for Dates guy read from medical journals to his audience, and is worth $100 million. Even the Bryan Johnson anti-aging guy is shilling vitamins. Props to this guy for calling them out.
My take....A huge problem is that people don't want to accept that many sordid things are happening in the world. People don't want to accept that humans are deplorable and have no limits regarding how far they're willing to go towards evil.
I think that's taking the perspective you're criticizing, and then just going for the exact opposite (people are evil instead of people are good), which also isn't true. People are complicated, capable of acting in their own self-interest but also selflessly. Most people have limits for how unethical they will act, but not all do. People often act emotionally and then rationalize their own behavior to the point that they can't see what they might have done wrong, rather than being actively malicious.
@@meaningfulmakings I know, but facts are facts. And facts don't care about feelings. It's not every single person, but there are some cruel motherfukcas out there.
I work in healthcare. Dr Attia doesn't see the same types of patients I do. Mine are more like Dr Mike's it sounds like. Having said that, Attia has a great channel, he evolves with the studies. His crowd seems like they come in more fitness focused to begin with which is great. There are plenty of medical providers who don't serve the same patient demo as Dr Mike, but that really shouldn't be a criticism.
. . . wow, Dr M, I can't help but be highly impressed by how you handled this whole interview...I believe he had many valid points, & when his words had "a hint" of harshness or overly biased, you, very tactfully toned it down . . . overall, I found this interview riveting even tho it may not be your usual type of interviews . . . God Bless You Both for the courage to speak your views, regardless of the normal potential for public backlash... 😌
Just incredible! How can someone say that my "understanding" is "all heresy" at 02:03:20 ... then go about claiming that to be the truth and pretend that it is the truth? A lot was revealed about Mr Carney in this interview. I think Dr Mike can expect a video on him and his "grift" in the coming months. Hahaha...
I am so confused. I'd probably be less confused if I knew of 90% of the people Scott Carney tries to namedrop. Sofa king confused. He broke up with his friend and put his ex-friend on blast, is that the general idea?
This guy is everything he claims the others to be. Grandiosely self important and also mis characterizing all the others through the worst light / interpretation possible to get ahead.
Indeed🙈seems so judgemental. Who goes on a podcast to personally attack people? I am a scientist myself and understand where he is coming from but this is just not the way to go about this
I Just want to say thank you to Dr Mike Thank you so much for everything you do I'm so grateful for all your work It is invaluable Especially for people who didn't have access to certain levels of education and never had a chance to be in certain spaces Hearing you speak has helped me and is helping me so much understand so many crucial things And it's not just about learning the "what", but also the "how" How we think How we approach things How we talk about things And that, makes all the difference So, once again, THANK YOU DR MIKE ❤
I love how honest Dr. Mike is and how he challenges people's perspective respectfully. Thank you Doctor Mike for your content and respectful demeanor.
Very demure, and mindful 🤣
@@MudderToad omg🤣😂very demure very mindful😂🤣
@@hollydancergirl4 yeah. So 'demure' 😅 okay
Just a heads up. Dr. Mike was also found to be spreading falsehoods. So it goes both ways.
@@grizzlies15Was he spreading it with malicious intent..?
Can't tell you how much I appreciate the ongoing push from Mike to normalize the phrase "I don't know" in the medical field.
i feel this because he's coming from ' the real world' he is doctor this isn't his main important thing (online guy) so theres no agenda or doesn't seem to be vs most these gurus or whatever expert they are "online guys camera tv guys' they need to be seen on social media on tv for there job there business there narrative
this guy is a journalist ,fame clout ,viral is basically how they are successful.
which means a dishonest agenda driven narrative, probably....
unlike like dr mike he's a medical doctor he has his patients he has outside 'the of the Internet' financial and moral reasons to be more genuine than these guys.
who may have more of an agenda
I’m not a doctor, but I am a new nurse and I will tell my patients that I don’t know or am unsure but that I can try and figure it out for them.
He literally did a Ted Talk on the subject, it's great if you haven't seen it
As someone with extremely rare medical conditions that most people don’t know about including doctors, hearing a doctor say “I don’t know” has always made me so much more comfortable than when doctors have said they do know when they in fact obviously didn’t know at all what they were talking about. Saying I don’t know is the first step to learning and then knowing, no one knows everything no matter how amazing they are, and there’s nothing wrong with that and the stigma around professionals (especially people in the medical field) knowing absoloutly everything needs to be broken. It’s literally human not to know everything, if you knew everything the world would be a pretty boring place. 🤷🏻♀️
I don't know, and if I did I'd strike it rich 💸
Doctor Mike’s desire to avoid ad hominem arguments is admirable - wish all humans could be so civil!
@@ruadrem this entire conversation was that lol
Scott went to this interview like a housewife wanting to gossip about the neighbour's affair. I'm glad Dr. Mike acted like a real man and put this grifter in his place.
@@vermithor51ac except the only housewife that actually deserved criticism is Sinclair for falsifying scientific data the rest of his critiques of Peter and Andrew were just personal attacks nothing to do with health and wellness lol
@@kennyprice5017 Huberman certainly has things to be criticized, but calling him a psychopath is just buffoonery
Absolutely. I think this trend among intellectuals to accuse those they disagree with of having diagnoses is very dangerous. For one thing, diagnoses are meant to help people, not stigmatize them.
Wow, doctor Mike is doing a really good job of checking Carneys thinking without being rude and even then he's not satisfied with how he handled the interview. He deserves all the views and all the followers! :D
He's more combative to some other interviewees, so that turns me off. However, I do find this particular conversation was in good faith. I don't subscribe but do on occasion watch his videos when it pops up on my homepage.
"I feel like it is so hard to look for meaning in why other people are doing things. I feel like we're not even good at figuring this out for ourselves." - Dr. Mike making an amazing point. Really good conversation and Dr. Mike did a great job of challenging and defending without being a strawman.
Tbh I feel like Mike sounded offended. But I understand why, just before that the guest was saying fame was an illness and well make is famous. So Mike felt like he was being judged too generally. I think that's fair to point out Mike's part. Though I kind of also get the guests point speaking from a general perspective, tbh I do think the guest learned something from this in a good way.
Reminds me of a quote from Matt Haig. Under the heading of "Things that Won't Make You Happier: Waiting on people to understand you when they don't even understand themselves." I think this idea is equally liberating for both people being judged and those doing the judging. Reality check served.
Dr. Mike's fame seems to have inspired him toward the Spider-Man model: " with great power comes great responsibility."
Because he's aware of the size of his following, he's even more careful to try to give accurate info.
I really love this long form content with experts, even if they are not scientific experts.
I love when I see that Spider-Man philosophy in people!
@@lokipokey lol he's brought by the pharmaceutical industry, remember he was recommending everyone go out and get the COVID jab! And now look what's happened, so called conspiracy theorists where right all along, and now young people are dying.
I think the COVID controversy might have been a great push
I think you mean a push in his caution about always trying to be as accurate as possible, not so much of a push toward his fame. He got that from his looks 🤣 and the "sexiest doctor" tag.
But where I heard of him was from a medical source, MedPage Today. They're a great source of the latest info (and occasional misinfo debunking) on medicine. They provide links to his videos from time to time. Anyone can subscribe, but they cut off comments from people who can't prove their medical professional credentials.
@@lokipokey he hasn't apologised for pushing the clot shot on young healthy people, how many thousands of lives has he ruined?!
Oh this should be a good one!
I personally don’t like the term influencer, I think of myself as an educator.
But it’s a tough world on social media and while I don’t have a problem with health professionals working with industry (such as supplements for example), I do get frustrated by inflammatory or inflated health claims, especially when they don’t give warnings or recommend to see a local health professional first.
I am not a big fan of Huberman or Wim Hoff but Scott's language and overall approach to them in this episode just feels wrong and personal. I don't know what's happening behind the scenes there but he's the one that ends up sounding like a 'narcissist' talking about how he helped 'make them', a bit grandiose for a journalist. I'm glad Dr. Mike added the disclaimer at the beginning, it shows that at least in hindsight he had the self awareness to realize that something went off the rails here and that it doesn't fit the kind of integrity we've come to expect from the content in his interviews.
This ^^ exactly you put my thoughts into words. This guys stories were so biased, he seems to know how to tell a good story to get a rise out of people
Agreed. If you attack Lex Fridman of all people… you’re invalidated in my eyes
@@jml8409 if you think Lex Friedman is exempt from criticism, you might want to reevaluate your own biases.
He comes across and having his own skeletons and deflecting like mad
so a journalist 😂😂😂@@Rosalie-yn1bt
Thank you Dr. Mike for the interview. Very brave of you and I love that you pushed back while also listening respectfully. One reason I can't watch a full episode of Hubberman is his constant interruptions, oversharing, and having to always showcase his knowledge. Personally, I like how you give people the space to speak.
Dr. Mike should do a podcast with Legal Eagle about the ways in which recent Supreme Court decisions would get rid of health regulating non-partial governmental agencies or allow for the placement on non-experts in these roles and the impact it would likely have on the healthcare system!
Excellent idea
SO NEEDED!! He has a massive platform and people need to understand the threats to healthcare in this country coming down the pike if the American public (voters) don’t understand what’s truly at stake here.
Great Idea, they already have done Collab's before,. hope he sees this
heres an idea to consider-
weve had these experts in charge and these regulations in place for decades, but our healthcare system is still broken?
could those regulations and experts not actually be doing their job?
Most definitely great idea.
Dr mikes facial expression throughout this cracked me up. His expression seem like he’s thinking “really?”
“I made him famous” “I was the first__” “I am a smart guy” etc… doesn’t give me the right vibes.
I’m only 11 mins in and heard a lot of the same things… he criticized Huberman as a grandiose narcissist yet within 11 mins this guy has already said things like…. “My grandfather was the first to perform X surgery”, “you can’t do this now because of my work” goodness……..
Red flag alert when he said that. 😮
I attended his first public training session when there were only 2 other people there. I was the first American to write a feature about him. Wim credits me giving his first major exposure in his VICE and Yes Theory videos. I climbed Mt Kilimanjaro with him shirtless. I wrote a NYT bestselling book about Wim, and then did almost 300 interviews in mainstream media about him. SO yeah, I think I have a leg to stand on when saying I was pretty important to his rise.
Exactly what I'm hearing. He sounds like a BS artist.
I read parts of his article on Wim Hoff and he often frames Wim Hoff's words extremely dishonestly. Stopped reading after that, and now seeing this as well makes me know to avoid him in the future.
I have so much respect for Dr. Mike, taking on these questionable topics, and when pushing back, does so in a respectful way.
Dr. Mike, thank you for being conscientious, consistent, careful, and corny.
The essential 4 C's 😊
Some truths were lost in trying to appear as possessing higher moral values than most.😢
Thanks so much for having me on the show! This was a really interesting conversation to have and you made me think about a few things in different ways.
Only 39 likes??
Wonder why
Yay- as an organ transplant survivor THIS IS EXACTLY what i didn't want to listen to bright and early, or anytime - dude your welcome 4:39 omg stop
Too too much
And as a survivor - who got hers legally - I don't appreciate this narrative at all
Why don't you discourage this? How about a story on how rejection occurs and what that looks like? How ugly it is when they DON'T match?!
@@dc-ir3owit's too much
@@PinkThing-m5j get outta here russian bot, if your not than sorry you went through that but i dont see how this video was too much, if you dont go into detail or explain things fully people wont be able to understand whats happening and how serious it is
This guy comes of as a guru decoding gurus
Meditation is a dangerous thing... ;D
@@andreasrydstrom9112it sure can be lol
He does not... Exposing gurus doesn't make you a guru yourself, and he is raising very important questions, especially about the finance incentives behind a lot of these guys. And I don't see him hawking supplements and "self help" courses, you know, like for example the gurus he's exposing 🧐
People act like everyone should just follow the ethical and objective science like i wonder what gives rise to these objective rules 😂
@@Lock484I hate how you disrespect the term guru. A guru is simply a teacher you decide to emulate.
Please stop using it as a perjorative or status symbol. Gurus can be good, and they can be bad.
You science worshippers of cynicism annoy me. You don't know enough to be certain about our understanding of reality. That's prideful and that attitude is why so many people's lives suck.
"too much of anything is bad!" Starting at the age of 2, I drove this into my son's brain. He is now 19 and I'm constantly reminding him of it. He also is constantly telling me how I was right in many situations because of it. And even when he slips up and has too much or something LOL he knows where he went wrong and corrects it.
My favorite Dr. Mike interviews are the ones where he and the other person don't agree on everything. I don't think this is a bad episode. Scott's an investigative journalist, not a doctor, so it was interesting seeing how he weaves together numerous pieces of information about a person / case to reach his decision. I do think it leans toward conspiracy at some points; I'm much more inline with Dr. Mike's mindset, but it was interesting.
Scott seems to me at least to have quite sweeping opinions about the medical field and online health industry without having a good enough grasp on how it actually works. To not know how double blind trials work but to cite a bunch of super specific studies seems baffling to me. Seems to indicate a questionable understanding of research in general.
However this episode was very respectful and balanced from Mike. Thanks Mike
SO happy you mentioned antibiotics are used way too often for conjunctivitis!! Thank you 🎉
I've been saying this for a long time and ill continue to keep saying it. An individual can can have insights in things and fields they are not trained in, but one should really only be taking advice from a professional in said field. Seriously, a mechanic can have a telescope but that doesn't make him an astronomer.
This is not exactly an apt analogy. When you are involved in the Sciences, whether that be through family medicine, neurobiology, ophthalmology or any other science, you develop and refine a set of interdisciplinary skills. These include, but are not limited to:
- Proficiency in designing experiments, conducting research, and gathering relevant data from various sources, including scientific literature.
- Skills in interpreting and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data, identifying patterns, and drawing meaningful conclusions.
- Understanding of statistical methods, which are crucial for assessing the validity of studies, interpreting results, and evaluating the significance of data.
- The capability to approach complex problems methodically, breaking them down into manageable parts, and developing evidence-based solutions.
- A strong foundation in scientific concepts and terminology, enabling one to understand and engage with scientific literature across different fields.
- Understanding how to design experiments and studies that minimize biases and errors, ensuring that results are reliable and reproducible.
- Experience with evaluating the quality and reliability of research through peer review, assessing the methodology, data, and conclusions of scientific papers.
These all become part of your "toolbox," and you are able to apply them to other disciplines in which you may not have formal training.
With this in mind, your analogy would be more accurate if it went something like this: A mechanic has a set of skills (like the ability to break down the telescope into various parts, the ability to understand why different lenses produce different results) and knowledge of the fundamental scientific principles behind those skills. And while that doesn't make him an astronomer, it allows him to apply those scientific principles to different fields in order to more accurately understand research presented to him.
In reality, this still isn't a good analogy, because the gap between a mechanic and an astronomer is vastly greater than the difference between someone trained in neurobiology and someone trained in a different medical science.
Huberman doesn't claim to be an expert in ANY of the fields in which his guests are trained. He simply filters the data presented to him by these "experts," through the scientific training he has received. This isn't a stretch.
There is also a rich history of scientists making discoveries in fields in which they received little to no formal training:
Gregor Mendel was a monk who was trained in physics and mathematics but not biology. He went on to discovery of the basic principles of heredity, which became the foundation of modern genetics.
Henrietta Swan Leavitt did not receive formal astronomical training like her peers and yet she discovered the relationship between the luminosity and period of Cepheid variable stars, which became a key method for measuring cosmic distances.
Michael Ventris was an architect by training, not a linguist. He successfully deciphered Linear B, an ancient script used by the Mycenaean civilization, which was one of the earliest forms of Greek.
John Harrison was a self-taught carpenter and clockmaker. He solved the problem of calculating longitude at sea by inventing the marine chronometer, a breakthrough that had a profound impact on navigation.
There are SOO many more examples: significant contributions to science can come from those who are not formally trained in the specific field of their discoveries, showcasing the importance of transferable skills, curiosity, and interdisciplinary thinking.
And what if that mechanic has poured hours and hours, dedicating weeks and months, maybe even years of his time learning about astronomy, and directly references experts. Things are not so clear cut anymore. Your view is very old school and not in line with modern access to information. The emphasis on someone being an expert is not nearly as important as it used to be because so much information is out there for anyone to learn. You no longer have to attend a university to be just as educated, if not more educated, than someone with a degree. Being able to discern who is unbiased and truthful, or who is being selective with their statements, or who has a personal agenda is way more important these days. Because you will never be able to stop the information train now. Obviously, certain careers are an exception, mainly ones where most learning is done practically. But, for example, I've been learning about medicine for 20+ years now through my own issues and also my personal interest, and I keep up with and challenge my doctors' knowledge all the time.
@@TheSwauzz I would say that the mechanic knows more about astronomy than I do. That doesn't mean I'm going to give anything he says about astronomy more credence than someone who has a degree in the subject. You are right in that we do live in an age with unprecedented access to information, however that doesn't mean that a person actually understands the material fully which is why we have schools. Now you may have been learning about medicine for a long time and you may have a very good understanding about your own medical issues, but I'm still not going to you for medical advice.
@@TheSwauzz I think that's what is colloquially called "knowing enough to be dangerous". You know enough to be able to have intelligent conversations on topics, ask thoughtful and challenging questions of experts, to find good resources. The dangerous part of that philosophy, however, can be sounding more knowledgable than you are, convincing others, or even yourself, you are qualified to provide advice.
It's fantastic that you have learned as much as you have, can advocate for yourself with your doctors and health. But that amount of knowledge does make it imperative to recognize your own limits when it comes to sharing that knowledge with others. As they touched on in the video, some of the influencers spreading misinformation, genuinely may believe what they say and believe in their own knowledge. Credentials aren't everything, but they are important, especially today BECAUSE of the availability of information.
How does that mechanic know the experts they're referencing are experts? How did the mechanic verify the information they've spent years studying? What materials were they studying? How old was the information? Have they kept up with the newest information coming out like experts actively working in the field do?
@@vinvin4884 I think Huberman is a really good example of how this is not the case. He regularly misunderstands studies, either he misunderstands them or doesn't read them? And when his misunderstandings are correct by experts he ignores them
It would be really interesting having Huberman on the podcast. I think it would be fair and we will see a very good conversation.
Dr. Mike, don’t apologize, this was an enjoyable interview, both of you have different backgrounds and experiences and both are very passionate and with good points of view. We the audience, must watch and listen, and should do our own research and analysis before jumping into any conclusions in regard of the videos we watch, books we read and so on. I think your guest had a wonderful time, we all heard new things, to me, it was the conversation between two intelligent men.
As a Journalist, putting yourself in your piece complete with name calling like "narcissist" and "psychopath" screams personal drama. I can't stop thinking about something Scott said in the beginning of this video when talking about Wim Hof. He repeated takes credit for Wim's fame, "I made him famous". Dude went there more than once. This drips with jealousy and ego. This is something I picked up on many times when Scott speaks about Huberman and Wim. If you want to be a respected journalist you'll report the facts, free from opinion or it becomes your personal thing. And podcasters are not Journalist.
Yeah, just state what happened without interpretation.
Also the fact that he didn't have his facts straight when talking about these topics.
"I'm not a psychologist so I can't diagnose narcissism, but he's totally a huge narcissist. But I'm a journalist that follows ethics."
He appears to be self aware, willing to accept accountability, hear another's point of view and open to evolving. Better than most.
Dear Dr. Mike and the Checkup Podcast Team,
Thank you for this incredible podcast episode with Scott. I have watched some of his videos, specifically those about Dr. Andrew Huberman. As a scientist myself, I always strive to stick to the data and avoid giving medical advice when communicating science to the public. For me, scientific integrity is key, and saying "I don't know" or "there is no data on this, so we need more research" is the most honest approach. Of course, people may get frustrated, but in the end, we cannot solve medical issues with just one experiment or in one go. There are so many nuances and perspectives to consider. Untangling these complex questions can take years, decades, or even a lifetime.
I am learning from the expert himself! Thank you, Dr. Mike, for being critical and encouraging us to think more deeply about what we believe. In my opinion, you've done a great job, and I commend you for the disclaimer at the beginning of the episode and your thoughts at the end. I don’t think it was a problem that you couldn't fully address the scientific "inaccuracies" of science or medical communicators, as that would have been more appropriate for a scientist to cover.
I’m looking forward to your next episode, especially the deep dive! Thanks again, and I wish you all the best.
Finally finished this video! It took me a while to get through the whole thing. I appreciated Dr. Mike’s little disclaimer at the end there, but I don’t think it’s his fault the conversation went off the rails. He tried asking the right questions but Scott kept spinning off in unexpected directions. I’m a scientist so I follow Dr. Mike’s mode of communication much more easily than I did Scott’s. Having read quite a few of those investigative pieces, my sense is that the writers are weaving a story for us (supported by facts, but a story nonetheless) and they use literary devices like suspense to keep us reading all the way to the end. Scott is clearly a story teller. Many times throughout the podcast, he admitted he didn’t know the specific details to support what he was saying. You don’t hear scientists talking like that. I point that out because it illustrates that the narrative story telling is the most important aspect of the communication for Scott. I found it a little disconcerting to watch the conversational volley between these two because their communication styles are so different. This podcast would make an excellent homework assignment for students studying communication or linguistics! Anyway, heads up to regular Dr. Mike viewers that this video is different from the ones we’re used to from his channel. It’s not a good or bad thing, but I had to break it up and only watch 10 or 15 minutes at a time because I kept losing the thread of what was going on and what the overarching points were. As always, keep doing what you do, Dr. Mike! Scientific literacy isn’t great in America, so it’s so awesome that you put the time in to educate people!
Very well said. This guy talks and talks - when it comes to facts he admits he is not sure ….
@@teachersusan3730only some of the medical ones since he himself didn’t finish the grad school
@@teachersusan3730which is something Dr. Mike stressed in his “I don’t know” talk.
I want to take your homework assignment on as a challenge. But I don't have that much energy xD
I agree with your epilogue. I was very unimpressed with a man who purports to be a fact checker and turns to you and says you should check the statements he is espousing. He begins by stating he has no medical training and then proceeds to diagnose people. I have never heard of this man before and I am very unimpressed with his lack of professionalism. Ironically, he displayed the very behavior he denigrates. His comments were opinions that he did not support with facts or the education to preach. His closing comment even included a pitch for his heath guru sales.
I saw an interesting interview 😂
Exactly this
There's nothing wrong with saying "This needs double checking" during a casual talk like this one. I would be more worried if someone were too sure of themselves. I think people are asking for too much from what is clearly an unedited discussion. Most of Dr Mike's usual videos can be edited.
The fact that you are so biased that you skipped the part where he said he is obviously not diagnosing anyone but just stating his experience and comparing it with the definition of a diagnosis as any normal human does tells a lot about you 😂
@@Oyabu...yup, OP just had to write a paragraph. I’m sure they feel more correct now.
This is the first I have seen Scott Carney. First impression is he almost seems like an anti influencer but not in a good way. Like he knows a little about a lot but is not an expert in anything. In this interview he is cherry picking some innocuous and some harmful but irrelevant information to push his agenda. I am going to go down a bit of a rabbit hole but first impression is that he is not any better than the influencers he is speaking out against.
Yep
Precisely.
Exactly dr Mike asks him a scientific questions nd he responds with Rafiki quotes
I found this guest to be.. frustrating. I love that Dr. Mike defined a gossip journalist with parameters this guy clearly displayed the whole interview, and he responded by saying there is functionality no difference between that and investigative.
I'm not sure what happened more, him speaking to something with complete authority, or him reminding us that he is not an authority on these subjects.
@@Burgman22 when the whole AH controversy started I found his page because I wanted to understand what was happening. I made a comment he didn't like which was basically that maybe Andrew is not a good boyfriend but it doesn't mean he is a bad scientist. He accused me of not being a woman, of making comments from a fake profile and then my comments disapeared.... He is just bitter AH didn't care about him, part of his argument agaist AH is that once they would go on a hiking trip that should last the entire weekend but Andrew had to work so it just lasted a couple hours....
This is honestly one of the only medical "influencers" I listen to. Dr. Mike and Dr. K have been two very impactful content creators for me and I thank them for their honesty and integrity
Don’t know who Scott is, but I’m sure not going to pursue any other content from him.
For real though wtf..its like if TMZ was a person
Why?
When he referred to an industry of skulduggery as people digging up graves, he lost me. He's a journalist his one job is to use words well to tell stories, he should probably know how to use words in their correct contexts
I’m subscribed to his channel, his content is actually really good. Judge him by his content, not vibes
@@kabob21Right?
I love how Dr. Mike takes the time and effort to make these podcasts and how honest and respectful he is when challenging people's ideas. thx :)
Thanks for being actively retrospective and including this into your podcast. It's a great example to let people see that process.
It's one of the biggest reasons I listen to this podcast, because of these introspective moments, being reflective, being reminded of the process of critical thinking (and how hard it can be).
This dude is oblivious… he’s doing everything he’s criticizing while he’s criticizing it. That’s crazy
What do you mean by that? I actually found him reasonably and willing to learn mistakes. I like this better than two people agreeing on everything or both people walking away learning nothing.
@@SikDubzz yes I noticed that too
@@pleasedontwatchthese9593 quite a few examples... He makes a big claim about being a truth seeker and then casually admits that his sources are at best heresy. He mentions how wimhoff method removed his "raging illness" then still calls all of his work a grift. And to the comment's point, he criticises people making money while selling his books that make him money. His journalism is equal to going after his friends. He says that these grifters all say that they are doing it for the greater good and how hypocritical that is, then goes on to say exactly that with his seeking of the truth and all that.
@@momekh exactly, I've watched couple of huberman's videos, although you can't garentee the content 100% but you can appreciate the effort he puts in, unlike those who react to tiktoks
@@momekhHuberman is a quack. He’s been debunked by science many times.
This might not have been the conversation Dr.Mike wanted, but I found it so relatable as a Philosophical discussion between the Sceptic and the Jaded. 🖤
Yes I believe the reactions to this conversation were slightly hyperbolic considering this man is a journalist. He speaks eloquently and is passionate about what he reads but I wouldn’t expect him to have the methodology of an MD!
I have to commend Dr. Mike for being able to sit through this conversation and not straight-up tell this dude off. He called the most rational people I know on social media all Psychopaths. Plus... he has a lot of medical opinions for someone who has no medical background.
It's because of these kinds of conversations that I am just now starting to watch Dr. Mike's videos on health things, while I've been watching Huberman and Friedman and those other "psychopaths" since 2022.
Unfortunately, I think Dr. Mike liked hearing their names smeared and retrospectively realized that was wrong.
You two make me smile- looking for the bad-influencers on the internet and warning us against them. Don't worry about the general public so much, we are not your responsibility, we are by a large able to filter information extremely well. Leave us alone and stop telling us who is good and who is bad. We have been listening to advice that's possibly not that great for hundreds of year- we've coped and will continue to cope. But thank you.
Just heard the last 15 minutes or so .....Dr Mike, I think you handled yourself and the interview very well as it got quite dicey, at times, particularly at the end. Whew! All the best to Scott Carney. I think this interview will 'break him open' in a way he hasn't been before. Albeit possibly quite painful for him, many blessings will ensue. 🙏💕
This guy is like “I’m a highly talented journalist” his source, “I knew a guy who knew a guy, anyway…”
And don't forget his request to reference-check Wikipedia😂😂
@@kelleydrn3965for specific medical data that he wasn’t 100% sure of
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ~ Upton Sinclair 🙌
also difficult if a man's identity depends on it.
Thanks Dr. Mike this probably was a very challenging interview. You are such a good educator.
“Truth wrapped in a lie.” Wow - a nuanced understanding and explanation of reality. That’s why I like watching Dr. Mike! He explains things simply but doesn’t dumb it down for us.
This is great. If you want to learn some eye-opening truths about health industry "Health and Beauty Mastery" is a must-read.
I heard about that
Truly a good book
I just LOVE how _'demure'_ he is!! 🥰😍🤩☺
Bot
Genuinely learn so much from Doctor Mike's videos ✔️✅
Mutual interest can lead to mutual delusions.
Not sure why so many negative comments…it is just a conversation, with questions and answers and he Always prefaces his answers with information. It looks like an intelligent conversation. Again, not sure what people are freaking out about.
It’s a conversation filled with humble brags, prefaced with information that he himself admits could be completely false and he’s just throwing out there as the basis of his statements, and he comes across as either incredibly un self-aware or a narcissist
This guy is fluffy AF. Very confident but totally winging it
1:01:00
I really like the parts where Dr. Mike and Scott Carney give perspective and make it clear where they are coming from when they are elaborating on a subject! That can’t be forgotten if you want to get as close to the facts as possible, and to pause when trying to rationalize to decide whether something is promising.
I'm glad this conversation is happening. Everyone you mentioned, I followed them for a little while. Not hook, line, and sinker, and not to the point of buying their merch, but trying to take some notes to make some application. But after a while, I began to see a pattern: They begin to talk faster and faster. They use bigger words. I'm not sure if maybe they are subtly competing with each other (if both are doctors) or maybe to just one-up in their own heads their interview from last week. I can't tell if their good results are parenthetical or have been proven 80% of the time. Their field of expertise begins to be all-encompassing, as if to prove that their point is a universal truth. At some point, they are verbally strutting their stuff instead of trying to HELP anybody. They are no longer talking to us. I no longer click if it's Huberman or Attia on the thumbnail. I also no longer follow those who put all their money on one cure, and then a year later explain why they did it wrong, Saladino for example.
In Indian tradition, meditation is not a "commodity" that is handed out like candy to just about anyone; the scriptures talk at great lengths about the pitfalls of the spiritual path including possibility of psychosis. Traditionally, meditation techniques were taught and practiced under the tutelage of an experienced master who has gone through all the experiences themselves and reached the ultimate state. "Guru Parampara" (literally translating to "Tradition or Lineage of Gurus") is an integral component of spiritual practice. In addition, there are supplementary practices governing to strengthen the body, mind and emotions to handle the rigors of advanced practices; the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali list them succinctly.
I have no doubt that the practices exist, but I have seen too little emphasis on the body-mind connection. In rare cases, the body is handwaved away as transient.
When a billionaire wants to teach you to be a billionaire for money, he's not a billionaire.
They don't do it for money, they do it for clout and misdirection and more misdirection there is the more controlling it is
More like his method is dubious or unethical. He could very well be a billionaire
Dr. Mikes interviews are the only ones i enthusiastically always watch from start to finish without skipping through
I’ve never listened to Andrew Huberman for his personality, I watched it for the scientific data he presents, questions & input that he always explains is personal.
Your podcast is invigorating and eye-opening. As a Buddhist, what happened to the woman after she thought she's enlightened happens sometimes. Dr. Mike's point on pre-existing mental conditions is one thing. Also, misconceptions about enlightenment without proper guidance and unhealthy coping mechanisms to the pursuit of enlightenment as a way to escape are 2 important factors.
One of the absolute best episodes
Had not heard of Scott before but this conversation was insanely insightful and reflected a lot of what I already suspected about the health influencer space
34:57 I’m conflicted on whether the potential risks involved in controlled breathing, as one example, should discount the entire practice or just contextualize it.
Nearly every sport, hobby, and pastime people participate in carries some degree of risk in certain circumstances. There can be a lot of variability in whether an exercise is universally harmful, require acclimation or training, is not optimal, etc. Take boxing as an example, or scuba diving, or mountain climbing; the benefits some people strive towards may come with consequences. As long as the potential risks are understood and the potential benefits aren’t wildly overstated.
All things have risks, and we can quantify these risks.
That said, humans often are personally bad at judging a lot of different types of risks. Social effects, enhanced perceived benefits, etc.
O think the difference is rock climbers and scuba divers are very aware of the risks and are taught what to do if Smth goes wrong. But with the breathing it isn’t typically disclosed and the everyday person would never even consider that a breathing exercise could be dangerous and then have go clue how to handle things if they go wrong
I do Wim Hof breathing method using his 'App' for over 2 years and I never skipped a day! I do 8 rounds in the morning and 8 rounds at night. I have asthma and this is a game changer for me! This method cleared the mucus in my lungs.
of course, just don't do it in water.
I think that Scott wants to be an expert on some of these subjects and is outside of his scope in this conversation. I think Dr. Mike was respectful and was pushing back which was absolutely necessary. I appreciate the disclaimer at the beginning, which gave me a better assessment on the dialog displayed. Scott also comes off as gossipy which is against what Dr. Mike is about. Kudos to Dr. Mike..
As someone who fell into the human potential movement, I flipping love this podcast. I’ll start to tune it all out… and focus on the little things ♥️
I wondered why my MD spouse didn’t care for the health influencers like I did. This video helped me see my spouse’s position better. Thank you.
I love that they left that ending 2:20:15 - it really comes back to what they were talking about dehumanizing people as public figures. Even though he is still in front of the camera - it made me reflect and see him truly as a person who possibly took a few takes to do that. I put extra thought into my gratitude to him and the team that make this important channel and platform possible.
I love how smart Dr Mike is and how he would let people have verbal diarrhea thinking they are smart or saying factual stuff by the way he pays attention but I know he actually sits there and zones out looking at how stupid they are and now the world would see too😂😂😂😊☺️☺️
Here in Brazil a case that happened 20 years ago opened the Pandora's box of organ's mafia. A young boy suffered a major injury to his brain and the mafia doctors harvested his organs while he was still alive in coma. They also charged the parents for all the costs of removing the organs and other horrible things. Police later discovered the hospital was built nearby a freeway due to the proximity to car accidentes and the higher chances of brain death in those cases. That case created lots of protocols for organ donations that didn't exist before.
How horrible 😮
I got a lot out of this conversation. Yes, Mr. Carney showed his humanness and also had some interesting things to say. I don't imagine it's easy going on a podcast and getting it 'all right.' Not dissimilar to being in the world. 🙏
The fact that nobody talks about censored book called The 23 Former Doctor Truths by Lauren Clark really gets to me. Always loved people like Lauren, they open our eyes
thanks for sharing that
This comment reads like a straight up ad. You getting paid for this? Edit: it's straight up a bot. RUclips, get your act together!
@@athmaidweird bot tho it's promoted similar book titles with different authors
Censored??? I think not
Dr. Mike, my observation is that you're in your role as a doctor, with the goal of treating every patient without judgment, and with the goal of raising the level of mental health awareness and accuracy. You don't make value judgment on medical or mental health patients, and that's what is right and ethical for your profession. You want to make sure that there has been a proper exam process with a mental health professional with regard to any diagnoses.
Scott is in a different realm, and is under no ethical obligation to protect those he investigates, nor a medical- level of obligation to properly diagnose mental illness, as is also the case with the general public. While he or I may conclude someone is a psychopath, our label should not be meant as a pejorative or insult, but as a warning that this person exhibits certain traits which should caution others against dealing intimately with them. We're not the professional tasked with treatment of this person, so any clinical diagnosis is not only beyond our purview, but none of our business, but our purpose isn't clinical anyway.
On the other hand, while you may treat every patient, you would be remiss if you didn't make evaluations of patients, whether they may be neglected or abused, abusing others, trying to obtain narcotics or other drugs, or a danger to you or your coworkers. You would take the necessary steps within your role to deal with those conditions.
I think you did make progress with Scott in redirecting his thoughts towards fame being a risk factor rather than a mental illness, and towards him making more clinically accurate statements in the future.
Your profession is interested in a patient's medical history, occupational and living conditions with regards to informing treatment; Scott's is interested in history of pattern of behavior, damage AND benefit that may have resulted, and evaluating whether this person is a danger to others in the future. Analogous, within limits.
well-said.
wonderful comment. i think you are one of the only people whose comment i have read so far who actually has a nuanced understanding of this podcast episode. thank you for using critical thinking skills, unlike some others lol
@@naveera3461 thank you; that's very kind!
@@sgcarney thank you! I really enjoyed listening to you.
This is one of the best comments that do Mr Scott Carney justice
I really liked this whole episode; not all discussions end with all sides agreeing on everything, and I don't even consider that they had "too much" conflict, it's just that the aspects that the journalist investigates and works on intersect with the physician's, but are not identical to them
A journalist giving his opinion and analysis of the facts to make predictions, and to approach future events with a different attitude, is not much different from a medical doctor changing his approach and plan of management, even going against some typical protocols, if he noticed an unusual pattern that doesn't add up, e.g. diagnosing malingering, factitious, or drug seeking behavior
And even though everyone claims (and usually aspires) to always "follow the science" and "give others the benefit of the doubt", they (and we) always have some prejudgments and biases that are difficult (albeit not impossible) to change
Two amazing men in one podcast. This was so eye opening as someone who follows both Huberman and Peter Attia.
Much respect to Dr.Mike who sees patients from all income brackets. And thank you Scott for your journalism.
Mike talks about how he didn't managed to keep the conversation focused on the medical side of things but it's not his fault
Scott is a journalist and at the end of the day he wants to make headlines
I think what we can take from this is that he is more interested into finding dirt in someone's past to open our eyes and make us question their credibility which could make us think twice before buying snake oil
Interestingly, having just come from Hubermans episode about ice baths and cold therapy, I feel that Scott's sumarising of his position was hugely off. Huberman doesn't emphasise shivering or cold therapy specifically for weight loss, but mentions that the termogenesis can increase metabolism which in turn will use more energy. However he's also pretty clear that this thermo genesis is pretty small and certainly no substitute for normal weoght loss protocols.
Hearing that part and then hearing him criticise Huberman without any specific evidence in his critique of his work made it seem like his thoughts on this werelargely coming from a personal place. He seems to have fallen out with him and now paints him as negatively as possible, even diagnosing him with narcissistic personality disorder, which is hugely unprofessional. Glad Mike put in some caveats about this in there.
Yes, I was confused about that. I watch Huberman and doesn't say ice bath is for weight loss. We should take all these opinions with a grain of salt, jealousy and envy going around.
*Facts* please Mr Carney, not ‘I think etc’, ‘If I remember correctly’, ‘I think his name was’, ‘I think, look at Wikipedia’, I’m not totally up to that case,’ ‘after they exhumed him I guess,’ ‘I think it’s hard to know when someone is really dead,’ ‘Antitox ? I forgot the word, Oh yes Antigen,’ and on and on… Mind blown. 🤯 As a responsible Journalist Mr. Carney, you should not diagnose mental illness, and always have *facts* to back up your claims, not Story’s or more questions. God Bless you Dr. Mike for keeping your cool.
A journalist should not overstate their certainty on anything. That's what grifters do.
@@sgcarneyif your that uncertain are you a journalist or just some random bloke who wants to say something....seems to be the later actualy
So, you're impressed by people pretending to be certain and put off by people admitting that they aren't
I dont understand why people are hating. I really liked this podcast. It was respectful and a good conversation with different perspectives etc...
I stopped keeping up with Huberman lately, but Scott's vendetta against him seems extremely personal. Anyone who listens to Andrew consistently knows he constantly reminds listeners to check with their physicians before trying any of the things he recommends, and hardly pushes anything like products or courses or any of that other BS like a lot of the other people out there.
Huberman is viewed pretty poorly by the medical and scientific community as a peddler of pseudoscience. Others liken him to a modern day Dr.Oz
The problem with Huberman compared to other influencers is he is perceived to be more authoritative, and a great deal of his content is considered by the average viewer as reliable and accurate without question.
@@missknight9 Modern day Dr. Oz is an insane comment. Huberman has had people on who peddle BS, but he's always been open to having other guests on who criticise them. I'd also love to know where you got that sentiment from, I wasn't aware the department of medicine and science made a public statement about him.
I can’t help but feel this Scott guy is hired by the alcohol industry to do a character assassination of Huberman, given how effective his message was in deterring people from drinking…
He sells all the supplements he recommends. That’s a huge red flag. He peddles pseudomedicine.
he's probably legally obligated to say "check with your practitioner" or does this out of legal caution
THIS (Wim Hof) story is EXACTLY the reason I SOP FOLLOWING people eventually. EVERYONE starts off "pure" and then it's all about $$$$$
I have to be honest, I started watching Dr Mike after a short finding him adorably attractive. Became a subscriber due to his thinking and communication to the viewers.
Always interesting to see what is produced next. I also would like to add that my mother is one of those patients now, where if her Dr tells her to watch for the side effects, she "develops" them.
I have to say I watch a lot of podcast interviews & it's really refreshing to watch the way Dr Mike conducts his interviews. He is not only a great listener (which I'm sure is a valuable attribute in his life as a doctor) but he rarely interrupts his guest unless it's pertinent to clarification or to further the discussion, he is always courteous & respectful whether he is personally supportive of the topic or not & he is always true to his ethical foundations. I wish more interviewers followed this approach rather than used their interviews as an opportunity to argue, grandstand or promote themselves.
It would have been interesting to have Dr. Huberman on this show at the same time to defend himself. Thank you. For Mike for being such a fair interviewer.
It’s almost like Scott is putting down these health influencers to elevate himself. It bothers me when he says things like “I basically made him famous”, there’s this energy about him that seems jealous in a way?
It was a really fascinating interview to watch especially seeing Dr. Mike’s body language, I appreciate that he pushed back and questioned where he saw appropriate.
This is probably the best discussion on health influencers I've ever listened to. Dr. Mike and Scott have such a balanced and thoughtful approach to the topic.
I really liked this interview! It really boils down to holding peoples actions and behaviors as the basis for judging character. At the end of the day "actions speak louder than words"
I'm a physician who follows Peter Attia because a lot of what he says and a lot of the guests he brings are genuinely interesting and helpful.
But oh my God, does he have a bit of a God complex. You don't just make up the term "medicine 3.0 " unless you're a bit full of yourself and think that you're the first person in the world to think of prevention, exercise, nutrition, and screening. I have to roll my eyes every time he says that. And I agree for these and other reasons (huge supplement shilling) Attia Is the best of the salesman in that most of what he says is mostly accurate, but much of what he says is off The Fringe
He may not have invented this concept, but he did explain it in a way that I could understand. To such an extent that I've made several very positive lifestyle changes that I would not have otherwise.
@@randeepwalia1507 oh for sure me too. Again, I said I followed the guy so I definitely find many aspects of what he says to be useful, particularly related to exercise. But a lot of his practice and a lot of his recommendations are probably questionable at best. These include supplements shilling and recommendations for Early screening.
I like Peter Attia, but he lost a lot of my respect when he went on the Megyn Kelly podcast and used a lot of sensationalist rhetoric to kind of fear monger GLP-1 medications, which he himself has said are complicated and nuanced. Very disappointing.
@@mugflubEnlighten me, what did he say about GLP-1 that sounded “fear mongering”? It is true that people without resistance training would lose muscle rapidly leading to sarcopenia and that’s lethal. I’m pretty sure Dr. Mike said the same.
@@misteratozPlease provide examples of “probably questionable at best” practices. Really looking to be educated here.
Dr. Mike is friggin' brilliant. So much integrity. A rare thing.
It’s a very interesting conversation 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 And it’s a very brave act to talk about it!!
I really appreciate your transparency, honesty, and evidence based informational approach!! As a fellow physician trying to pass on helpful and accurate information to my patients, our medical system needs what you do!
I have so much respect for Dr. Mike, taking on these questionable topics, and when pushing back, does so in a respectful, and compassionate way. I agree with what you said about the body can heal itself, and how the mind and body are so connected. I’d love if you could do an episode on that, specifically inflammation, or autoimmunity.
I’d love to see a conversation between Doctor Mike and Peter Attia. I was unaware of his view on him until the opening of this video.
I’m curious given the fact that Peter is an M.D. Not saying all things he says can be agreed with because he’s a doctor, but both being in the medical field, I think it would be a fascinating conversation.
I really respect Dr. Mike's approach to situations with a focus on nuance, but there is a point where a person has 100% broken trust. There must be a line that we draw where if someone crosses it, you must write them off completely. It's an acceptable truth that no one is all bad, but that's also a non-statement. A cartel leader will love his family and dog, but he still facilitates the murder of countless people. So to me, who cares if he loves his family and dog? It just doesn't matter. Giving the benefit of doubt is a noble way to look at things, but in certain situations, it's also naive. In this modern climate where influence is so incredibly effective, you can essentially control an entire population (which we've seen firsthand) if the right people at the right time say the right things. We are witnessing how much more effective grifters, liars, compulsive moneymakers, false hope bringers and even more innocuous snake oil salesman are in this modern age where anyone, and I mean ANYONE (looking at you, inmates), can have a platform. Preying upon vulnerable people has been happening forever, but not at the rate it is happening now. It is absolutely imperative that we not only expect, but demand, better from influencers, leaders and other people in positions of authority or power. We should be demanding honesty, humility and consistency.
I agree. I am not sure why people are getting so mad at this guy. If someone is trying to scam or con me, and it's known that this person has a pattern of behavior that raises red flags, then I want to know about that. In the realm of health, scams, grifts, and cons can literally kill and maim people. Why shouldn't we be looking at them and their claims with a critical eye? Why is making a moral judgment about a person bad if they've literally done bad things over and over? Maybe I'm just a big meanie, but if a person betrays my trust, earning it back is going to take time and energy on their part. I'm not going to let them victimize me over and over in order to fulfill some bizarre goal of truth-seeing nobility. Not only does it harm me, it harms the other person by not putting boundaries on their harmful behavior.
Respectfully, that seems to be all about your feelings about what is being said, or just the people themselves. The guest gives no real evidence that Huberman or Attia are wrong about anything, he just seems to not like them. Also, feelings. Feel how you like about people, but I think Humberman and Attia are well cited when it comes to their medical theories. Them telling the truth in a *tone* you don’t like is NOT a good reason to discount it, or to pile on the idea that it’s, even further, scamming. Attia might have a god complex, but you don’t want to hear the [possible, admittedly] truth from him? This seems more like anti-fame activism than any sort of debunking. Also, this guy isn’t a Phd or a medical doctor, unlike the people he’s trashing.
Also, if they have a history of “triggering” people, thats an indicator that they are a good teacher, not a grifter. Making you think about new things shouldn’t be a negative. The “modern” response to new information has suddenly been to be “triggered” instead of informed.
I’m glad these conversations are happening, even if Attia or Huberman are right about something on occasion they have completely abandoned the core principles of the scientific method of questioning and critiquing until we find the most likely answer, instead they take weak data and repeat it with unearned authority. Also really glad Dr. Mike pushed back so much when needed.
At our house, we call Andrew “Dr. Hubris-man.”
There is a real difficulty for listeners. Fact-checking is not easy. Primary papers are turgid and can be expensive to access.
We tend to consume online content without enough scepticism.
Thank you Scott Carney.
BTW- some commentators to this interview don't seem to like the Carney delivery style. Interesting.
I follow Scott Carney and greatly appreciate his work. Individual's behavior is more insightful to me than debating whether they are really "bad" people - their behavior is.
The point about Peter Attias disclosures doesn’t make sense. That’s the whole point of disclosing his endorsements Many times he prefaces things by offering other alternatives or that it’s not necessary. Doctor Mikes point about not demonizing financial model was spot on. It’s not enough to discredit what Attia does
Dr. Attia has no evidence that 2.2 g/kg/day of protein is benefitial for long-term health and longevity. He's very open about eating 7-10 venison jerky sticks per day, which he sells. If someone has good evidence for what they are selling, you're right, but Dr. Attia does not.
What an interesting interview. I didn't know many of the people or studies or even methods mentioned. Thank you for bringing new concepts for me to explore. @sgcarney what I understood and gleaned from what you are saying is to apply moderation and a bit of skepticism when looking for care of oneself, whether its medical, spiritual, physical, etc., not just in the actual mechanics but in who teaches it, and how.
Every health influencer is in it for the money. Plates for Dates guy read from medical journals to his audience, and is worth $100 million. Even the Bryan Johnson anti-aging guy is shilling vitamins. Props to this guy for calling them out.
My take....A huge problem is that people don't want to accept that many sordid things are happening in the world. People don't want to accept that humans are deplorable and have no limits regarding how far they're willing to go towards evil.
Or willing to objectively view their own or the actions of others
Agree, people really want to believe in the best of people and its why people doubt victims so often
Oh that’s a bit pessimistic. 😢
I think that's taking the perspective you're criticizing, and then just going for the exact opposite (people are evil instead of people are good), which also isn't true.
People are complicated, capable of acting in their own self-interest but also selflessly. Most people have limits for how unethical they will act, but not all do. People often act emotionally and then rationalize their own behavior to the point that they can't see what they might have done wrong, rather than being actively malicious.
@@meaningfulmakings I know, but facts are facts. And facts don't care about feelings. It's not every single person, but there are some cruel motherfukcas out there.
mhm
just editing, to say mhm mhm mhm right hmm mhm mhm
good god man
there's active listening and then there's this guy, cranking it to 500%
This guy really loves himself and want to let us all know how important he is
I wonder if Scott has the balls to confront Andrew face to face. I think we all know the answer to that.
sure. happy to.
@@sgcarney great. Don't forget to film and post that.
I work in healthcare. Dr Attia doesn't see the same types of patients I do. Mine are more like Dr Mike's it sounds like. Having said that, Attia has a great channel, he evolves with the studies. His crowd seems like they come in more fitness focused to begin with which is great. There are plenty of medical providers who don't serve the same patient demo as Dr Mike, but that really shouldn't be a criticism.
Love Dr Mike getting to the absolute Truth! I will always listen to Dr Mike!🙏🙏🙏Blessings
This is a bold conversation.
. . . wow, Dr M, I can't help but be highly impressed by how you handled this whole interview...I believe he had many valid points, & when his words had "a hint" of harshness or overly biased, you, very tactfully toned it down . . . overall, I found this interview riveting even tho it may not be your usual type of interviews . . . God Bless You Both for the courage to speak your views, regardless of the normal potential for public backlash... 😌
Just incredible! How can someone say that my "understanding" is "all heresy" at 02:03:20 ... then go about claiming that to be the truth and pretend that it is the truth? A lot was revealed about Mr Carney in this interview. I think Dr Mike can expect a video on him and his "grift" in the coming months. Hahaha...
I am so confused. I'd probably be less confused if I knew of 90% of the people Scott Carney tries to namedrop. Sofa king confused. He broke up with his friend and put his ex-friend on blast, is that the general idea?
Pretty much lol he wants to use huberman to become well known so bad
@@ryangolden3243he’s already well known
This guy is everything he claims the others to be. Grandiosely self important and also mis characterizing all the others through the worst light / interpretation possible to get ahead.
Yeah I got weird vibes from him from the beginning of the interview
I lost track of the amount of times he brought up how smart / talented he is
Indeed🙈seems so judgemental. Who goes on a podcast to personally attack people? I am a scientist myself and understand where he is coming from but this is just not the way to go about this
Totally agree!! Within first 10 mins, he’s already made 2 grandiose statements, which was funny because he called Huberman a grandiose narcissist
@@lachsforelle7565He’s a journalist, not a scientist.
I Just want to say thank you to Dr Mike
Thank you so much for everything you do
I'm so grateful for all your work
It is invaluable
Especially for people who didn't have access to certain levels of education and never had a chance to be in certain spaces
Hearing you speak has helped me and is helping me so much understand so many crucial things
And it's not just about learning the "what", but also the "how"
How we think
How we approach things
How we talk about things
And that, makes all the difference
So, once again, THANK YOU DR MIKE ❤