Why Doctors Are Mad At Me For My Debate

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 3:00: Jubilee, Ground News, MAGA movement
2. 3:00 – 6:00: Jubilee, MAGA movement
3. 9:00 – 12:00: Ground News, Jubilee, MAGA movement
4. 15:00 – 18:00: Jubilee
5. 18:00 – 19:53: Jubilee

Notable quotes from "Why Doctors Are Mad At Me For My Debate"

• I went for round two to do the Jubilee surrounded series despite a lot of people warning me that there was no benefit to be had, but I disagreed. So I went back and I'm about to tell you why. Huge thanks to Ground News for.

  about Jubilee · at 0:37

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

Companies & orgs

• Jubilee — Company · 6 mentions · first at 0:40
• Ground News — Company · 3 mentions · first at 0:50
  Benefit to be had, but I disagreed. So I went back and I'm about to tell you why. Huge thanks to Ground News for sponsoring this video. When I asked people whether or not I…

Concepts & topics

• MAGA movement — Concept · 3 mentions · first at 0:09
  What, I, would, to, see, is, freedom, for me as a patient. That's one of the things that RFK and the Maha movement represents.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 So, I went back. It's, not, about, winning., It's, about getting to the truth. What, I, would, like, to, see, is, freedom, for me as a patient. That's one of the things that RFK and the the Maha movement represents.

0:12 He's, clearly, being, demonized, by, the media. Do, you, know, why, he, did, it?

0:15 Yes. Why? I, can, quote, you, word, for, word, why, he, did it. I'm, not, arguing, with, you., I, agree. Conflict of research.

0:21 Flip, the, switch, so, fast, and, it's, like, but, I, agree, with, you., Aren't, you, mad, at that?

0:25 I, absolutely, am, because, I, care, about people. Hi, I'm Dr. Mike and today I'm surrounded by 15 RFK Jr. supporters. I went for round two uh to do the Jubilee surrounded series despite a lot of people warning me that there was no benefit to be had, but I disagreed. So I went back and I'm about to tell you why. Huge thanks to Ground News for sponsoring this video. When I asked people whether or not I should go back to do Jubilee again, most people said no. They said, "You already showed yourself to be an empathetic doctor. Uh the content might get too repetitive.

1:05 You already showed the best side of yourself. What are you gonna get by continuing to argue with people who disagree with you?" People in general pretty down on Jubilee. In fact, I've done multiple interviews with legitimate outlets, Vanity Fair, PBS NewsHour where it seemed like the people that were writing the pieces had a negative view of the series as a whole. as if having these types of debates were not valuable and actually problematic to society. This is where I disagree. I think that there is tremendous value in having conversations with people who disagree with you as long as they're done respectfully, of course, because there have been episodes where people just get into this name calling thing.

1:46 And I'm not a fan of those episodes, but that's going to happen when you have two parties that are in disagreement. I thought my first episode was great in that I was able to lend an empathetic ear. I was able to provide factual information to people who may have otherwise not been exposed to it. You think about uh individuals who have been tricked by misinformation, especially when it came to vaccines. I thought I needed to be there for them. So, I think the first episode was certainly a win but I do take some of the criticism to heart and agree with that perhaps I was a bit too passive in the first conversation that I was perhaps too patient and therefore missed some opportunities. is I think a tremendous disservice when somebody rattles off all of this and then Mike jumps straight to taking one thing they said and trying to validate them on it. I agreed with that and I thought I could be more direct

2:44 going back for round two and I thought round two could be valuable to focus on an issue that I believe is plaguing the United States and that issue is the appointment of RFK Jr. into the Secretary of Health and Human Services position. I asked them to gather individuals who supported him, those who are part of the Maha movement, those who just love him as an individual, who love his policies. And I said, I want to debate these, but I want to debate them a little bit more direct. I want to be a little bit more uh provocative. And there were actually times during the debate where I raised my voice, which was a little uncomfortable for me. You know, being a doctor who's trying to be as level-headed as possible all the time, that's not a position that I normally find myself in. I never raise my voice with patients, and I feel like these conversations are similar in that way in that they should be kept very

3:33 respectful. But at the same time, I thought it was valuable to show the level of passion that not only I feel but my colleagues have been feeling for a very long time. In watching it back myself, I thought I did a pretty good job balancing being an active empathetic, attentive listener with going to bat for my colleagues, science researchers, science in general, and allowing people just to see the flip side of the conversation, but being a good person. Meaning that the people who I was disagreeing with, I didn't want them to hate me because I felt like if we created a hateful relationship right at the outset, no one's mind would be changed. No one would get any meaningful value out of these interactions. And it actually worked quite well. Uh even walking in, I think I made a joke sitting down at the chair, which last time I didn't. I was so nervous. This time I was a little more comfortable.

4:25 Made a joke about the government shutdown. Everyone laughed. It kind of put everyone in in a better place. And then as feedback started coming in, I saw comments from some of my colleagues and it got me a little bit upset. It pulled at the heartstring because right now in the health care community especially those who are trying their best to put out evidence-based content we're all on the same page. We're all trying to do the best that we can. We all have different ways of doing this. I have the YouTube channel, the podcast.

4:52 We do silly videos with meme reviews more serious, hard-hitting interviews with people who've been impacted by Maha. other people make Tik Tok videos dancing with hula hoops, whatever it is. Everyone has their own little strategy. And I think that's great. I think that's the power of social media. But then when our own group starts attacking each other, that's where I feel like we're setting ourselves back. Especially because the criticism that was uh put forth here, I think, is similar to the criticism I heard starting my social media platforms. The doctors that first heard about my wishes to put out evidence-based content on social media were saying, "It's not valuable. It's not professional. It's not going to help anyone. You're not changing anyone's mind." When I see comments like this about the format being bad, I feel like it's in a similar vein. It's judgmental in a way that I don't believe is

5:45 beneficial to the cause of evidence-based medicine. These Jubilee debates often times devolve into shouting matches. disagreements where no one comes together. I see why people criticize that. But if you took a 5-minute watch, a 10-minute watch, a 30 minute watch, if you were gracious enough to watch the entire episode you'd see that this episode was far from that. Humans saw other humans across from them. They heard one another out. We agreed. We disagreed. We had some commonalities. Ultimately, I think that's a win. Bringing people together to discuss issues is a huge win. And uh what surprised me most is almost the ending of the debate. People came up to me that were debating me, thanking me for my time, for my honesty, saying that I'm different than most doctors. And while I take this compliment, I have to remind them that the doctors that they have painted in their minds or perhaps

6:41 have had negative experiences with do not represent the entirety of the health care profession. We want to do better as a majority. We want to be there for our patients. Sometimes the health care system gets in the way. So at the end of the day, it's less about holding our noses up in the air and saying, "You shouldn't be on social media. You shouldn't be in these debates. You shouldn't be on Fox and Friends, Dr. Mike, cuz they spread misinformation." Hold on a second. Bad actors are going on Fox and Friends and spreading misinformation. Don't you want me on there to replace those people, get better ratings for Fox and Friends so that they can then get accurate information, the audience get accurate information? So that's my thoughts on that. I'm curious about your take. I asked about this in my Instagram stories and I was actually pleasantly surprised to see the amount of uh support that I

7:28 got. These days it's hard to find support on social media given the fact that we don't do the whole parasocial thing on this channel, but cool to see nonetheless. The biggest value that I brought to this episode, I think, was highlighting blind spots that perhaps the panelists didn't even realize they had. Whether it was highlighting the fact that RFK Jr. is still getting legal fees. They're just being sent to his son. He's getting money. How is that impacting his

7:55 money, in, the, past?, He, doesn't, take payments anymore. He can't. And you know who's taking payments on his behalf?

8:00 You're, probably, going, to, say, his, wife. His, son. And, the, participants, didn't, even, know the Maha report existed. And they didn't know that some of the data in it was completely fabricated. The sources were fully made up. Like AI hallucination level.

8:12 Did, you, see, the, first, Maha, report, that he put out? I, did, not., No., seven, sources, fully, made up about research that was never done when it reached out to the authors that they listed their reasoning for why they were making certain

8:25 re, and, then, finally, the, point, about, they believe that our system sucks with transparency a point of which I agree with they then believe RFK Jr. is bringing back that level of transparency when in reality he just is ending a period of public comment. Like I pointed out to this gentleman, every time HHS enacts a new policy since 1946, they had a period of waiting for public comment for people who are stakeholders to talk about how this policy will impact them.

8:56 Guess, what?, Secretary, Kennedy, ended, this year for the first time since 1946.

9:01 Do, do, you, know, why, he, did, it? Yes. Why?, I, can, quote, you, word, for, word, why he did it.

9:06 Okay., So,, my, understanding, is No,, I'm, going, to, read, it, to, you., It's not needed and it's not very effective.

9:13 This, actually, gives, me, a, good opportunity to talk to you about Ground News, an app and website that gathers related articles from around the world in one place with context about the sourc's political leaning, reliability and ownership so you can compare coverage and quickly understand the bigger picture. I think a lot of people in this Jubilee debate would actually benefit from ground news. For example look at this story from last week about RFK's vaccine advisory committee meeting. There's been a shakeup in leadership, which is going to have a huge impact on what vaccines are or aren't recommended. And as you can see only 10% of the outlets covering this story have a right-leaning bias. Which means if you only get your news from right-wing news outlets, you might have missed this one. For every story, you get a ton of added info, all backed by three independent news monitoring sources. There's even a quick summary of

10:01 the story from the left, center, and right perspectives. But this is what I like best about Ground News. They aren't a news outlet. They don't write news articles. Instead, they aggregate and analyze existing news stories so you can get as an informed view of the news as possible. The Nobel Peace Center has even recognized them as a great tool to stay informed and avoid echo chambers. Subscribe now to get 40% off the Vantage plan by scanning this QR code or by going to ground.newsdmike that's linked right there in the description. I think the biggest and most shocking thing is I agreed with so much that the participants had to say.

10:37 That's, interesting, cuz, in, some, ways, I agree with your statement prescription given by a doctor and I think this is a major problem and you guys have broken trust and I think I agree with everyone here, on, that., You, know what's, wild?, I agree with you. I think we agree on so much making the reform

10:53 like, I, think, in, general, the, people, who support RFK perhaps even the Maha movement want the same things that doctors want and once we realized we're on the same team I present I was able to present a little bit of a different take from my perspective because they're giving it from their patient perspective and I'm giving it from the doctor perspective and I wanted them to reflect upon that to see that I'm not the enemy just rattling ing off a couple of things that we completely agreed upon during this debate. Chronic diseases are on the rise. Lifestyle changes are a big part of it. But as someone who's actually in the trenches and treating patients, it's not so easy to create sustainable behavior change. So when someone says just work out on an individual level that sounds great. But for a doctor who's trying to motivate a patient that's very hard because patients come with all sorts of situations alongside

11:44 them. The fact that the system sucks and has hurt some of them, I completely understand. I criticize the system probably more than anyone on YouTube because of how problematic it is in getting people affordable care, quality care, uh, transparency, uh, during their care, the administrative burden that comes with it, the fact that conflicts of interest exist, that's true, and we need to call it out when it happens especially when it's hidden. But we need to call out conflicts of interest when they happen on side A and side B. And the final one is is the point that's probably most tired is we messed up during CO. I get it. We could have done better. We as a health care system messed up. As a government, we messed up. This is a worldwide phenomenon where no one knew what the heck was going on.

12:30 And as a result, we didn't handle it perfectly. We have videos on this channel covering what we did wrong, what we could do better, how do we learn from it. multiple podcast guests and I think we'll continue to do that. I think the participants were shocked that I was uh someone who was willing to concede those points. But what doesn't make sense to me as a physician is that when we say make America healthy again is insinuating at some point we were healthier than we are now. And I don't know what time period we want to go back to, but I certainly don't want to go back to the times before pharma, before antibiotics, before we knew how to perform surgeries and have medical devices and stenting and all this stuff.

13:11 So when we say healthy again, I don't know what time frame we're looking at. And, when, we, look, at, data,, a, lot, of the participants would point out that chronic health diseases are on the rise. I agree. I think this is a societal problem, not necessarily a medical problem. The disconnect was in those scenarios was people didn't see that we've actually made tremendous strides in helping people manage certain conditions. Whereas in the past they may have acutely died of those issues. So that while chronic health diseases have gone up, we have to remember that when someone used to have a heart attack and we had no treatments for them, they would die. So now we're allowing people to survive their first heart attack they become chronic health patients.

13:53 that the fact that we've been able to better manage chronically these conditions, we're seeing better mortality numbers, but perhaps worse chronic health numbers. And that's a very unique problem in healthcare because for every condition you solve or cure, you create, you actually end up creating a new problem. If you look at our relatives that only lived to age 20 or 30, perhaps they didn't have issues with skin cancer because they didn't live long enough to experience skin cancer. If you think about those same individuals and their dental uh health they didn't live long enough to develop all the dental problems that living into your 70s, 80s, 90s can cause. I think we need to really understand when we make an argument why we're making the argument, what the flaws of our arguments are. And that's what science does. does. And I think that's what makes science beautiful. We're always trying to critique ourselves, critique

14:48 our thoughts in order to make them better. And the common misunderstanding that I felt within this group, within the previous debate, within just my time in talking on social media is that people have a misunderstanding of what science is. They think science is coming up with a theory and trying to prove that theory true. But the correct way to practice science is coming up with a theory and doing everything in your power and reaching out to others uh through peer review to try and disprove your theory. And the more times people fail, the stronger your theory becomes.

15:22 And then finally, what I realized is that these individuals, the individuals from the previous Jubilee debate they've just had poor encounters with the health care system, not enough quality encounters with good providers. I was telling them how when I see a patient, I ask them questions in order to help improve their lifestyle by encouraging exercise, dietary changes. I screen them for intimate partner violence, uh, mental health issues sleep apnea. They were like, "Oh my god Dr. Mike, that's only cuz you're a great doctor." No, no, no, no. That's what's supposed to happen. And it killed me inside that these individuals were mad because they weren't getting what they're supposed to be getting. So they think we need to destroy the system as a whole where instead what we need to do is re-up the enforcement and make sure that people are getting the quality of health care that we know is possible.

16:16 But simply yelling into the abyss that bias exists in healthcare, so throw it all away doesn't actually help anyone. Because at the end of the day, as I said in the episode, if someone collapses they'd expect me to help. And they think it's because I took an oath. I I frankly don't care about the oath. I just want to help people. That is my goal as a doctor. Not because I took the oath, but because I love my profession. Once they understood my point of view, suddenly shoulders lowered. They were less aggressive. They were smiling more. And that is the hallmark of a quality discussion. I honestly am not coming here just gung-ho. I want to learn from you. I think you are here in good faith.

17:00 I don't think that you're a bad man just trying to win the argument. And trust me, I've sat in this chair where that's exactly what the person in the other seat wants to do.

17:07 And, I've, had, students, over, the, last, few months ask me what strategies I employ in debating people and changing their minds. There are no strategies here. The only strategy that I use is a strategy that I use on myself to remind myself that people have different experiences. And it's my job as a doctor who spent all these years studying to understand where those people are coming from, to understand where their knowledge base comes from, to allow them to feel seen and be validated in their experiences. And then once I earn their trust because I'm genuinely curious. I'm not doing it as a strategy. Then they become a little bit more open to hear what I have to say. And I feel like that is the win.

17:52 The win is to see a little bit more eye to eye to agree that we both have good intentions. And from there we can build upon and find sources of agreement. And what I'll say is multiple participants shared positive feedback to me during the debate, after the debate, posting on their Instagram stories about the debate, highlighting how they've learned so much. They were people who were learning things about the MA so much so that they feel like it's being undermined uh currently. That's their own statements from people who work within the MA network.

18:27 It, feels, like, there's, sabotage, in, the administration. Okay. Straight, up., So, when, doctors,, non-d doctors message me saying, "This is a waste of time. Those people are stupid." I think you're wrong. I think that the evidence does not agree with you. I think the outcomes of debates and conversations like this largely outweigh the positives if you approach them with the mindset that you are not better than anybody, that you too can be flawed that we all are capable of experiencing bias, and that there is something to be learned even from me as a doctor from these individuals. Again, I'm not perfect. I think I'm still learning in this scenario, but I think at least we're putting ourselves out there. And better late than never because for the people that criticize me and say that I'm giving these antivaxers or these RFK supporters a platform, folks, you need to wake up because the platforms they

19:20 have are the White House, the CDC, HHS FDA. If we're not going to start breaking bread in a Jubilee debate, how do we ever feel it's going to be possible in the legislature or uh at the CDC headquarters? Speaking of conflicts of interest, did you know that I turned down a multi-million dollar TV deal not too long ago? Click here to check that out. And as always, stay happy and healthy.

Questions about this episode

What is discussed in "Why Doctors Are Mad At Me For My Debate"?

In order: 0:00 Jubilee, Ground News, MAGA movement; 3:00 Jubilee, MAGA movement; 9:00 Ground News, Jubilee, MAGA movement; 15:00 Jubilee; 18:00 Jubilee.

What is mentioned in this Doctor Mike episode?

3 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Jubilee, MAGA movement, Ground News. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Why Doctors Are Mad At Me For My Debate"?

The episode runs 20 min; the transcript is about 3,736 words in 37 timestamped sections.

More from Doctor Mike

• All analyzed episodes
• Books mentioned on Doctor Mike
• People mentioned on Doctor Mike
• Topics mentioned on Doctor Mike