The economic collapse that is dragging Trump

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Economic Collapse That Is Dragging Trump

The David Pakman Show
Host: David Pakman
Date: December 16, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, David Pakman delivers an incisive and analytical breakdown of the current economic downturn under President Donald Trump’s administration, exploring how manipulated job numbers and rising unemployment are colliding with growing Republican dissent and institutional dysfunction. Pakman covers the mishandling of jobs data, increasing unemployment, a shake-up in the FBI, Trump’s inflammatory comments after a high-profile murder, cracks in GOP loyalty, and the fallout from Trump’s own legal maneuvers. The episode also features a viral moment of science versus pseudoscience with Dr. Mike and Dr. Daniel Amen.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Manipulation of Economic Data and Job Numbers

• Headline Job Gains vs. Reality
  • November’s “creation” of 64,000 jobs masked the reality that October saw a loss of 105,000 jobs—so the net for two months is actually negative.
    • “So over the last two months, we are minus 41,000 jobs. That’s the reality of October and November in the jobs market in the American economy.” [06:10]
  • Several recent months have seen job losses; unemployment has risen to 4.6%, the highest since September 2021 ([07:10]).
  • The Trump administration delayed release of October’s negative data, tacking it on as a footnote to November for political gain.
    • “The goal... is for you not to know that October was disastrous and in fact so disastrous that we barely got back in November.” [06:48]
• Wages, Costs, and Financial Instability
  • 40% of Americans would need to borrow or use credit cards to cover a $400 emergency expense ([08:48]).
  • Inflation and rising health insurance premiums continue to squeeze working people.

2. Propaganda, Perception, and Policy Failures

• The administration focuses on isolated positive numbers and delays or buries bad economic news.
• Pakman urges listeners to “fact-check” him and all sources, highlighting the need for transparency ([11:10]).
• Quote: “Caps critically analyze primary sources.... Double check it. Fact check me. I welcome that. That's a very big difference from some of these purveyors on the right.” [11:10]

3. Dysfunction in the FBI and the Price of Loyalty

• Reports of imminent firing of FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino due to incompetence, not lack of loyalty ([13:05]).
  • Patel’s botched public handling of a high-profile college shooting and Bongino’s absenteeism are cited.
  • Internal sources call Bongino “a clown”; morale at a “low ebb.”
• Shift from Term 1 to Term 2
  • Unlike Trump's first term—when officials were fired for insufficient loyalty—now ultra-loyalists are in place, but their incompetence has become too glaring even for Trump ([16:40]).
  • Worry: They may be replaced by more “effective” but equally loyal (and thus more dangerous) figures.
• Quote: “The problem is the dysfunction and the incompetence. And you get leaders who don't know the difference between performative bravado and actually doing their jobs.” [17:20]

4. Trump’s Most Disgusting Moment? The Rob Reiner Truth Social Post

• Trump posted a message blaming filmmaker Rob Reiner’s murder (and his wife’s) on “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
  • Full quote read aloud: “A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner... passed away together with his wife Michelle, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome...” [21:29]
  • Pakman contrasts this cruelty with Reiner’s empathy over conservative Charlie Kirk’s murder ([23:13]).
• Trump’s post was not a slip or moment of rage, but clearly planned and written ([24:10]).
  • Pakman: “It’s a guy deciding a double homicide is a nice vehicle for a Truth Social bit.” [24:15]
• Moral Vacuum
  • Trump assigns blame to critics, not the murderer: “If you criticize Trump, you bring destruction upon yourself. That’s not trolling. That’s not a joke. That is authoritarian thinking at its core.” [25:29]
• Doubling Down & GOP Reaction
  • When asked about Republican critiques, Trump doubled down, saying Rob Reiner “was a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned… He became like a deranged person. Trump derangement syndrome.” [28:34]
  • Pakman: “Speaking of deranged, deranged narcissistic behavior.” [29:05]

5. Emerging GOP Rebellion

• More Republicans than ever are breaking ranks, condemning Trump’s remarks:
  • Rep. Stephanie Bice (R-OK): “This is a moment for prayer, not politics.” [34:32]
  • Even staunch Trump defenders like Scott Jennings voice disapproval.
• Pakman emphasizes this as a potential turning point:
  • “For years, Trump ruled the Republican Party by fear… the grip on that seems to be slipping.” [35:00]
  • On right-wing forums and subreddits, even former defenders are calling Trump’s conduct “unpresidential” and “stupid.”
• The “after-Trump era” is now openly discussed among Republicans.

6. Legal Backfires: Discovery in Trump’s Pulitzer Lawsuit

• Because Trump sued the Pulitzer Board for defamation, he may now have to reveal his own medical, psychological, and financial records in discovery ([42:35]).
• Trump’s own legal aggression could expose him to transparency he’s long avoided.

7. Economic Incompetence and the Myth of Explosive Growth

• Trump and advisors like Kevin Hassett tout “20–25% GDP growth,” which is economic nonsense for a mature economy like the US ([48:17]).
  • Hassett won’t flatly contradict Trump, instead lowballs with “north of 4,” still ducking basic economic reality.
  • Pakman explains why 2–3% is normal; 20–25% is only possible in poor/developing countries or after collapse and sharp rebound, not in a rich, stable nation.
  • “25% GDP growth in a year would be like adding Germany and France… It has never happened, ever, in a modern stable economy.” [50:50]

8. Dr. Mike vs. Pseudoscience: Viral Interview Recap

• Dr. Mike confronts “Dr.” Daniel Amen on his use of SPECT scans (brain imaging) and unsupported supplements ([55:45]).
  • Amen: “I have 90 studies that I have published, and I have the world’s largest database.”
  • Dr. Mike points out: Studies are often not randomized controlled trials; Amen relies on his own clinics not blinded, peer-reviewed evidence.
• Pakman draws parallels to other medical practices, warns about Amen’s supplement “business,” and praises skepticism and scientific rigor.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the Jobs Numbers Shell Game
  • “This is the pattern. Every time with this administration, they pick one number that sounds good, they bury the rest, or forget that they’ve hidden it from you.” [09:25]
• On Economic Spin
  • “If you only looked at the headlines… you might have looked and said, oh, good… and just like that, Trump and his White House cronies would have snowed you.” [05:34]
• On GOP's Shifting Loyalty
  • “One of the things that may be changing here… is that for years, Trump ruled by fear… the grip on that seems to be slipping.” [35:00]
• On Trump’s Callousness
  • “Trump doesn’t govern, but at least presidents… set emotional norms… and this is one of the great tragedies of Trumpism… that Trump has disinhibited so many by showing that this kind of behavior is acceptable.” [27:55]
• Forum Voices
  • “There are times to just shut up. This was one of them.” [36:35]
  • “A president should never act like this.” [36:49]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Manipulated Jobs Data: 06:00–10:00
• Unemployment Up, Wages Stagnant: 07:10–09:00
• Fact-Checking and Data Skepticism: 11:00–12:30
• FBI Shakeup: Patel & Bongino: 13:00–18:00
• Trump’s Rob Reiner Truth Social Post & Reaction: 21:30–30:45
• Republican Rebellion: 34:25–37:00
• Pulitzer Lawsuit/Discovery Backfire: 42:35–46:30
• Trump's GDP Growth Myths: 48:17–52:15
• Dr. Mike vs. Dr. Amen Pseudoscience: 55:45–61:49

---

Conclusion

Pakman’s analysis exposes not only the realities behind the headlines but also explores how economic decline, institutional chaos, and a collapsing inner circle are fracturing Trump’s grip—even as his administration’s spin grows more desperate. The episode closes by reaffirming the critical necessity of fact-checking, skepticism, and moral leadership in politics and public discourse, punctuated by a take-down of viral pseudoscience.

Transcript

[A]

Guys, thanks for helping me carry my Christmas tree.

[B]

Zoe, this thing weighs a ton.

[A]

Drew Ski, live with your legs, man. Santa. Santa, did you get my letter? He's talking to you britches. I'm not. Of course he did. Right, Santa, you know my elf Drew Ski here. He handles the nice list. And elf, I'm six' three. What everyone wants is iPhone 17 and at T Mobile, you can get it on them. That center stage front camera is amazing for group selfies, right, Mrs. Claus? I'm Mrs. Claus. Claus much younger sister. And AT T Mobile, there's no trade in needed when you switch. So you can keep your old phone or give it as a gift. And the best part, you can make the switch to T mobile from your phone in just 15 minutes. Nice. My side of the tree is slipping. Kimber, the holidays are better. AT T Mobile switch in just 15 minutes and get iPhone 17 on us with no trade in needed. And now T mobile is available in US cellular stores with 3, 4 monthly bill credits for well qualified customers plus tax and $35 vice connection charge credit sentinel balance due if you pay off earlier. Cancel financing agreement. 256 gigs $830 eligible Ford in a new line, $100 plus a month plan with auto pay 15 minutes or less for live visit t mobile.com Donald Trump hits a new low today, turning a brutal double homicide into a truth social punchline mocking a dead critic and blaming Trump derangement syndrome for a man and his wife being murdered. And for the first time in a long time, Republicans are not looking away. They're going after him. And we will explore whether this points to some kind of change. Trump then doubles down from the Oval Office and says the victim, Rob Reiner was deranged, refuses accountability and is maybe his most disgusting moment ever. And that really says a lot. We are going to do a deep dive into the jobs situation. Jobs numbers that look OK at a glance but fall apart when you read past the first headline, rising unemployment delayed data. It is the same old trick and it is starting to fail. Plus, Donald Trump may be forced to hand over his medical records after suing the Pulitzer board. There is a looming FBI shakeup as Cash Patel and Dan Bongino may be fired. And a viral moment where Dr. Mike dismantles pseudoscience right to the purveyor's face. It is chaotic, it is ugly and we are going to look at what governing looks like when incompetence and narcissism collide. Also, David Pakman show gear is available again for now, you've got to find it on our merch shelf on YouTube. You just go to any of our YouTube videos. You should see some of the items that are available on. We will have a dedicated page. A lot of this stuff still can be delivered before Christmas, if you can believe it, and certainly before New Year's. Gear is back by popular demand. I'll have more information about that very soon. Well, I have to hand it to him. He almost got away with it. Donald Trump in the administration. If you only looked at the headlines this morning about jobs, might have actually gotten away with it. You might have looked and said, oh, good, you look at November, the American economy created jobs, everything's fine. Great, 64,000 new jobs in November. We are going in the right direction. And just like that, Trump and his White House cronies would have snowed you. They would have gotten away with tricking you and you would be none the wiser. But some of you might have thought to yourselves, hold on a second. November jobs numbers. Did we ever get the October jobs numbers? No, we didn't, because the Trump administration canceled it. But now, as a little bullet point, along with the November numbers, we did finally get the October numbers. And in October, the American economy lost, wait for it, 105,000 jobs. So to put it a different way, in October, we were minus 105. In November, we were plus 64. So over the last two months, we are minus 41,000 jobs. That's the reality of October and November in the jobs market in the American economy. But by delaying the October jobs numbers and now releasing them as a little aside, just a little footnote to the November numbers, the goal, what this administration wants, what Donald Trump wants, is for you not to know that October was disastrous and in fact so disastrous that we barely got back in November. Half the jobs we lost in October minus 105. October plus 64. November, we are minus 41,000 jobs. That's the reality over the last two months. We've also lost jobs in three of the last six months. That's the truth. Trump wants November plus 64,000 and that's it. And go back to whatever it else else it was that you were doing. Also notable from the new jobs report, Trump and his friends talking only about we got 64,000 jobs in November, ignoring the October numbers. But the unemployment rate also went up to 4.6%. Now, 4.6% is not a disaster. 4.6% isn't a terrible number. But the important thing is that the trend line for Unemployment is up, up, up, inching closer and closer to 5%, which would start to look not quite so good. But 4.6% unemployment, which is where the American economy landed in November, gets us to the highest level of unemployment in the United States since September of 2021. We have more unemployment today in the United States of America than we have in more than four years. So this is about the economy, it's about working people, and it's also about propaganda and how the government communicates with us. Trump and his administration want you to believe that, that the country's economy is better than ever, except if we take emotion out of it and we look at the data. Over the last four months, the economy has shed 41,000 jobs. We've had job losses in three of the last six months. The unemployment rate is the highest it has been in more than four years. And right now, 40% of Americans would have to borrow or put it on a credit card if they were hit with an unexpected $400 expense. And that is a real problem for the argument that this is the best economy ever. Trademark. This is the pattern. Every time with this administration, they pick one number that sounds good, they bury the rest or forget that they've hidden it from you. They delay the release of numbers that would be inconvenient, they reframe the story, and they hope that nobody notices and you move on to men and women's sports or some other culture war distraction. If you're only paying attention 50%, it works. And most people I sympathize with them are busy working, raising kids, trying to pay their bills, and they're not paying attention 100%. And this is how you end up forgetting about the unemployment rate, forgetting about losing 105,000 jobs in October and going, oh, we got 64,000 jobs in November. Everything's fine, even though the trend says otherwise. Now, let's dig into the 64,000 a little bit. Gaining 64,000 jobs sounds fine in isolation. Even if you were to forget for a moment that we lost 105,000 jobs in October. But economies, they don't really move in isolation. What I mean by that is they move over time. And the picture over time here is one of deterioration and not strength, minus 105 in October is not a rounding error or a fluke. That is a serious loss of real jobs. And when November only claws back part of it, the the trend line is for losses and not growth. Rising unemployment kind of works the same way. 4.6 in and of itself isn't a problem. Unemployment rises by creeping. First, employers slow hiring, which we've seen. Then they cut hours, they forgo raises. Then there's a hiring freeze. Then come the layoffs. And by the time that unemployment starts to really get higher, the damage has been building for many months, if not longer. And that's why these early increases matter. Another downtick in jobs, another uptick in unemployment, even when Republicans are just sort of waving the entire thing away. And so this is why 4.6% unemployment matters. It's not because 4.6 today is a crisis. It's because it tells you things are heading in the wrong direction. And the policy prescription from the administration is not going to fix it. In fact, the tariff policy specifically, as well as allowing health insurance premiums to skyrocket, all are going to have a negative job on a negative effect on small business, on people's individual jobs. And so when the direction is wrong, the trend is harder to spin. The way you try to spin it is by canceling the October numbers, focusing on the November ones, and then acknowledging as an asterisk at the bottom of the page that we did lose 105,000 jobs in October. So I want you to be more informed than that and not fall for those headlines. Always read beyond the headlines. And by the way, remember, caps critically analyzed primary sources. Listening to Caroline Levitt editorialize the jobs report. No, now this, by the way, this is a difference between them and us even just listening to me editorialize the jobs report. Fact check it. I don't care if it's Caroline Levitt or me. Go to the source data, which, by the way, I'm transparent. We put a bunch of that reporting up on the screen straight from, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Go and find the data yourself. Now, you could take issue and say, are we even getting real data from this administration? That's a different question. I can't fix that. I can't editorialize my way out of that. But fact check everything that I am saying. They tell you they are the ultimate source of truth. I tell you, I'm doing my best to synthesize the information we're getting. Double check it. Fact check me. I welcome that. That's a very big difference from some of these purveyors on the right. Okay. We now have multiple FBI sources that Trump is about to start firing people. Cash Patel, FBI Director and Dan Bongino, Deputy FBI Director. There is a major shakeup reportedly coming and this tells us something bigger about how Donald Trump governs. And it really draws a Very interesting distinction between the first term of Trump and who and how he hired then and the second term of Trump. And I'm going to get to that in a moment. The reporting is FBI Director Cash Patel reportedly on his way out. Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino already on his way out. The reason is not ideology or internal resistance. It is incompetence that has now become politically inconvenient for Trump. Trump is willing to tolerate gobs, just massive dumps of incompetence as long as it doesn't start affecting the perception of Trump. And once that starts to happen, the heads typically start to roll. The trigger was reportedly what's putting this over the edge, so to speak, is reportedly the botched FBI response to the Brown University shooting. You may remember that. Again, FBI Director Cash Patel rushed onto social media to brag, oh, we've already got a person of interest. Within hours, Rhode Island's Attorney General said, yeah, we released that person because there was no legal basis to hold them. They didn't have anything to do with the shooting. It was not an isolated incident. He has jumped the gun many times. He makes these dramatic public claims. They end up walking them back and it just makes them look really bad. And inside the FBI, morale is reportedly at an all time low because of the incompetence of leadership. And there are serious, if, if nothing else, there are really serious people who work for the FBI and they are saying the agency is in shambles under the leadership of these people. And it is because of Patel and Bongino. Bongino situation is reportedly even more revealing. Staff say his office has been empty for weeks. Internally, he is seen by the FBI brass as unserious, unqualified, and more interested in maintaining his media brand than running the agency. One source reportedly referring to Bongino as a clown. This is not Democrats, you know, this is not Bernie or aoc. This is Trump's own people and the staff inside of the FBI. What I believe makes this moment important and different is how it differs from Donald Trump's first term. During Trump's first presidency, Trump would often hire people who were at least marginally competent by traditional standards. So I'll give you an example. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. I don't want an oil man as my Secretary of State, but at least in by the traditional sense of understanding how you relate to people, understanding diplomacy, understanding the responsibilities of a position. Rex Tillerson checked that box. And it could apply also in Trump's first term to some of the generals, some of the prosecutors, some of the, you know, establishment people, career professionals who were put in positions of power. And during the first term, the reason it backfired wasn't because they were incompetent. It was because they weren't. And slowly but surely, as Trump realized, they seemed to be prioritizing something other than loyalty to me, Trump started pushing them out. They weren't necessarily bad at their jobs. They pushed policies I didn't agree with, but the winning president gets to do that. They left or they were pushed out because they weren't loyal enough. And that started to become a conflict with Donald Trump. James Mattis is another example. John Kelly, to a degree, Bill Barr, Jeff Sessions, they were not progressive heroes. They were not on the left. I didn't agree with them on policy. But at key moments, they might refuse to lie for Trump, for example, or refuse to break the law for Donald Trump, or refuse to put Trump above an institution and its checks and balances. And. And for Trump, that was unforgivable. So that was the first term Trump learned from that. And then the wrong lesson. I should. I should be clear. Trump learned if the people are competent and not loyal, it's a problem for me. And so this time around, exactly as we were all predicting, loyalty was the primary prism through which Trump made hiring decisions. Trump put ultra loyalists in the administration, media personalities, ideologues, people who have spent years attacking the very institutions they are suddenly in charge of. And now we see the results. This time, loyalty is not the problem. The problem is the dysfunction and the incompetence. And you get leaders who don't know the difference between performative bravado and actually doing their jobs. And again, Trump doesn't care about the incompetence if. Until it becomes an embarrassment for him. And that's where we are right now. And that is why Donald Trump is starting to turn on his own. Different scenario than in term one, for different reasons. Trump is having to start to push people out. But just as disturbing, the part that should really worry people is that whenever Trump fires people, he usually puts in replacements that are more dangerous, sometimes by virtue of being a little bit less cartoonish. I'll explain, because we've seen this pattern. Think back to Donald Trump's initial second term nominee for Attorney general, former Congressman Matt Gaetz. A walking scandal, cartoonishly extreme, deeply unserious. And that nomination failed because it was clear they weren't going to have Republican support. So Trump pivoted to Pam Bondi. Bondi is not less ideological than Matt Gates. Bondi is not less loyal than Matt Gaetz. She is more polished, though she's more experienced, she has slightly fewer scandals in her backstory and therefore she's in the more dangerous position of being able to get things done. In other words, Gates was worse in an obvious headline grabbing way, but because of that he probably would have been less effective because incompetence can act as a sort of break that's like, not like a brake. I'm talking about like a brake pedal. And professionalism removes the brake pedal and people with equally bad ideas can get more of it done. We're probably going to see the same dynamic play out here. If Patel and Bongino are pushed out, Trump is likely to replace them with people who are just as loyal but probably more functional in some way. Less cartoonish, fewer unforced errors, better at quietly bending institutions to Trump's will. So while the immediate story looks like chaos and collapse and all of it, the longer term risk is consolidation. And in Trump's first term people were fired for not being loyal enough. In the second, they're being fired for being so damn loyal but so incompetent that they become a humiliation to Donald Trump. The outcome is a system where loyalty to Trump matters most. What they're able to get done depends on exactly who he's replacing them with. So the report Patel and Bongino out. My expectation is that whoever replaces them, if the reports are true, are going to be more effective at doing Trump's dirty deeds. Let me know what you think. Leave a comment make sure you are subscribed to the YouTube channel as we approach 3.5 million subscribers. Who could have imagined a decade ago when we were just getting started on YouTube, that we would be talking about 3.55 million subscribers? Certainly not me, that I can tell you. I love it when a box of bottles of wine from Naked Wines shows up at my house. We unpack it. I'm partial to the white wine. My girlfriend is more partial to the red wine. Our sponsor, Naked Wines, is a wine club that will connect you directly with independent winemakers all over the world. This means you are getting world class wine delivered to your door at up to 60% less than what you would pay in stores. And the reason is very easy. No middlemen, no huge markups. Just the winemakers and you. Every box has introduced us to bottles we never would have picked up on our own. Makes any regular weeknight dinner feel a little more special. And it's an easy way to enjoy great wine without overthinking it too much. Whether you're a wine expert or you're like me and you know virtually nothing at all about wine, head to naked wines.com/pacman use the code Pacman as the code and password to get 6 bottles for only 3999 shipping. Included the link is in the description. The David Pakman show does continue to be primarily an audience supported program. We do this show at the pleasure of the audience. If that pleasure goes away, the show also goes away. I would love for you to get a membership@join pacman.com also many free ways to support the work we do, including simply subscribing on YouTube. Getting on my substack newsletter at substack.david pakman.com Just liking and sharing the content. Let me say thank you to a couple of new members, Steven Sweeney and Will Mayer, our newest David Pakman show members. You can join them@join pacman.com I want to propose to you today that Donald Trump's most vile, most disgusting, most horrifying moment ever came, quite frankly, just hours ago. Now this is tough because Donald Trump has done so many horrible, terrible, disgusting things. It is hard to compare apples and oranges, and therefore it is hard to compare Trump pulling food stamps from people versus bombing a ship allegedly filled with narco traffickers. But it's not really clear. Making fun of John McCain for getting captured during the Vietnam War and then getting a doctor's note that says your heels hurt your bones, you have bone spurs in your ankles or heels and you can't get drafted, right? It's tough to compare those things because they are very different. But from the standpoint of showing how as an individual person, Trump is morally depraved and totally vacant and vapid, this might be it. Donald Trump posted the Truth Social after the death of Rob Reiner and his wife, who were murdered brutally now, it appears, by their own son, Nick Reiner. Donald Trump posted the following to Truth Social Quote A very sad this. This is disgusting to even read. A very sad thing happened last night in Hollywood. Rob Reiner, a tortured and struggling but once very talented movie director and comedy star, has passed away together with his wife Michelle, reportedly due to the anger he caused others through his massive, unyielding and incurable affliction with a mind crippling disease known as Trump Derangement Syndrome, sometimes referred to as tds. He was known to have driven people crazy by his raging obsession of President Donald J. Trump, with his obvious paranoia reaching new heights as the Trump administration surpassed all goals and expectations of greatness and with the golden age of America upon us, perhaps like never before. May Robin Michelle rest in peace. That's really from the President of the United States. Just as an exercise in contrasts, remember when Charlie Kirk was killed, some people said, you know, Kirk believed horrible things, but he didn't deserve to be killed. And the MAGA people went absolutely crazy. There is a basic moral rule that most people share. When someone dies, especially violently, you either shut your mouth or you show a little bit of respect and compassion. And we expect this even from people that we dislike. We expect it even in war. We expect it on social media where standards are already in the toilet. And Trump didn't do it. He didn't stay silent. He didn't offer condolences. He didn't even only insult Rob Reiner. He took a brutal death and turned it into a punchline and a branding opportunity. Now, note that Rob Reiner's reaction to Charlie Kirk's murder was very different, even though Rob Reiner disagreed with Kirk politically. Here is Rob Reiner weighing in on that. On a prior episode of the Piers Morgan program, you first heard about the murder of Charlie Kirk. What was your immediate gut reaction to it?

[B]

Well, horror, absolute horror. And I unfortunately saw the video of it and it's, it's in this, it's beyond belief what happened to him. And that should never happen to anybody. I don't care what your political beliefs are. That's not acceptable. That's not a solution to, to solving problems. And I felt like what his wife said at the service, that the memorial they had was exactly right. And totally, I believe, you know, I'm Jewish, but I, I believe in the teachings of Jesus and I believe in doing to others and I believe in forgiveness. And what she said to me was beautiful and absolutely, you know, she, she forgave his, his assassin.

[A]

And look at that. Look at the contrast there. No question who is the bigger man. Now, I think it's also worth pointing out that Donald Trump, I mean, listen, he seems unable to resist impulse and we're going to talk about that tomorrow. But Donald Trump's truth social post wasn't impulsive in the sense of he wasn't on stage at a rally with a crowd cheering him on, and he sort of got carried away and started insulting Rob Reiner. It wasn't like a hot mic moment or an off the cuff slip. He wrote it up, it was typed up, it was presumably reread. Someone thought about it, Trump thought about it, and then he goes, yes, let's post this. It Wasn't like an adrenaline post or something like that. It's a guy deciding a double homicide is a nice vehicle for a truth social bit. And that really matters here. Now, what makes this arguably even darker is the inversion of reality. A man and his wife are killed, and Trump doesn't assign blame to the person who did it. He doesn't point to the tragedy and instability of violence or what. He blames criticism of himself for the reason that this murder took place. The logic is chilling. If you criticize Trump, you bring destruction upon yourself. That's not trolling. That's not a joke. That is authoritarian thinking at its core. Now, compare this to how MAGA reacted when Charlie Kirk was killed. Many on the left said, I didn't like his views, but no one deserves to die for their politics. And they lost their mind. Anyway, they. They insist that the left was cheering the murder of Charlie Kirk. So the obvious question is, what would they be saying if. If Biden had posted something like this? We already know the answer. They would be saying dementia. They would be saying 25th amendment. They would be saying, remove him now. If not worse, they would be calling for his head. And Trump is exempt from that. And this also isn't just cruelty, because cruelty implies hatred and hatred implies belief. And what is on display here feels closer to emptiness. There is no concern from Trump for the death or for grief or for family or for the violence. And he just doesn't care. It doesn't register. The only thing that matters is, can I bend this moment towards myself to take advantage of it? And it is a moral vacancy that is quite unusual in the general population. And so that's why, as grotesque as Trump's policies can be, taking food stamps from people, bombing this bombing, that there is something different about this moment. You can repeal a law, you can reverse a policy, you can cancel an executive order. This message shows you who Trump is at his core when nobody stops him. And power in Trump's hands is this disgusting response to human suffering. If it doesn't benefit him to care, he doesn't. And presidents, in a sense, do more than just govern. Trump doesn't govern, but at least presidents. Some presidents govern. Presidents also set emotional norms, and they kind of dictate the behavior that's acceptable. And this is one of the great tragedies of Trumpism over the last decade, that Trump has disinhibited so many by showing that this kind of behavior is acceptable. Final little test here. If a CEO posted a message like this, what would happen to them? They would be fired instantly. Any professor would be gone. Military officer would face discipline. Corporate spokesperson would be escorted out within minutes. But the president ends up being held to a lower standard. Lower standard than a random intern? Why is that? You have to look at the American right wing. That's the only way to explain it. Donald Trump subsequently doubled down on what I believe is his most disgusting moment ever. He really seems to be on his last leg. I think Trump wants to disappear and not do any more politics. But he's got no choice because he's in office and his narcissism and mental instability are really exploding. Donald Trump was asked, what do you think of the fact that many Republicans are denouncing the statement you made about Rob Reiner's death? Many Republicans say it's a bad statement. Trump doubles down and says he was deranged and then also refers to himself in the third term, in the third person. A number of Republicans have denounced your statement on Truth Social after the murder of Rob Reiner. Do you stand by that post?

[C]

Well, I wasn't a fan of his at all. He was a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned. He said he liked. He knew it was false. In fact, it's the exact opposite that I was a friend of Russia, controlled by Russia. You know, it was the Russia hoax. He was one of the people behind it. I think he hurt himself in career wise. He became like a deranged person. Trump derangement syndrome. So I was not a fan of Rob Reiner at all in any way, shape or form. I thought he was very bad for our country. Yeah.

[A]

Trump with really speaking of deranged, deranged narcissistic behavior. Now, it's true. Rob Reiner didn't like Trump. That's called speech. People deserve to die for speech. Now, I thought that the whole thing with Charlie Kirk was he didn't deserve to die for speech. But Rob Reiner does deserve to die for speech. Maybe it's because these people don't give a damn about their principles. The principles are something to point to until they become inconvenient and then you just reverse and then nobody cares about the double standard. Nobody on the right cares about the hypocrisy anymore. Now, there were a couple of other things from Donald Trump's Oval Office ranting that I want to mention. One is that Donald Trump was asked about the fact that the FBI again said, we've got the person in the Brown University shooting. And then it turns out that they don't have them and cash Patel reportedly is on his way out. Zero accountability is always Donald Trump going. That's just a Brown University problem. That's it. The whole thing is their problem.

[C]

Hopefully they're going to capture.

[A]

Has Cash Patel told you why it's been so difficult for the FBI to identify who the shooter is?

[C]

Well, it's always difficult. So far we've done a very good job of doing it with Charlie, with, you know, the various times this has happened. They've done it in pretty much record time. But you really have to ask the school a little bit more about that because, you know, this was a school problem.

[A]

They had the party of personal responsibility.

[C]

Their own guards, had their own police and their own everything. But you'd have to ask that question really to the school, not to the FBI. We came in after the fact and the FBI will do a good job, but they came in after the fact.

[A]

You know, it's not exactly accountability when it's always somebody else's fault. Interestingly, and by the way, there are images of the alleged shooter. It's like a five, eight rotund guy, very portly, with a waddle. I actually I have a friend who is roughly this build who said who, who lives not altogether far from where this shooting took place, who said, damn, that looks a lot like, like not, not with the waddle but five, eight portly guy. He's like, I'm going to stay home for a while. The last thing I want is someone saying might, might this guy be the shooter? Regardless, Cash Patel, once again, we've got someone in custody, some person of interest and then that individual is released because they had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting. A so called journalist, and I use that term very loosely, asked Donald Trump about another pardon, another crypto bro pardon. And Trump's kind of like, I don't know a thing about it but like, yeah, maybe look into it.

[D]

Pam Bond, this week a man named Keone Rodriguez is going to federal prison for creating crypto privacy software. The case was started under the Biden administration, but your doj DOJ kept it going and secured the conviction. A lot of people in crypto are saying that this man should be pardoned. Are you familiar with the case at all or would you be interested?

[C]

I've heard about it. I'll look at at it. Why you think he should be pardoned? Sounds like it sounds like based on.

[D]

Your question, many people.

[C]

Rodriguez. We'll look at that, Pam. Okay, let's take a look at it. You know, you'll have to tell me. I don't know anything about it, but we'll take a look on Friday.

[A]

Oh man. It's like what's worse, the really dumb question or Trump's answer or the very obvious nature of Trump will kind of do whatever people tell him to do. Then Donald Trump lets he let a really stinky one go. Trump puts forward the idea that tariffs really work well, but only in the United States. The implications of this are absolutely stunning.

[C]

You know, tariffs really work, in my opinion, almost only in the United States.

[A]

Oh, that's the best. So listen, other countries should not put tariffs on us. The tariffs will work well if we put them on other countries because we are the United States. But if other countries use tariffs on us, that really doesn't work. We, the United States is unique in that we are the only country that really benefits from using tariffs. And then finally, Trump coming across something that is true and something arguably we should be thankful for. Listen to this.

[C]

There is nothing like what's happened in the last 10 months.

[A]

Thank God for that. Fortunately, we, we. I know Thanksgiving was several weeks ago. We should really be thankful. Thankful that we have never seen 10 months in the United States like the last 10 months. Trump finally stumbling across a little tiny bit of truth. All right, so we all know Alexa listens to us, recommends products based on our conversations, Meta retargets us based on our browsing and engagement history. Have you wondered what Chat, GPT and Claude are up to with your conversations? We feed so much of our information to these AI chat bots. Thoughts, dreams, sensitive questions, business ideas. They take the information, tie it to your identity, and they can sell that to third parties and governments. ChatGPT has the former director of the NSA on their board right now. That doesn't feel awesome. It took us a long time to truly understand what social media companies were doing with our data. We don't have to make the same mistake with AI. And that's why I've started using Venice AI, our sponsor. Venice is a generative AI platform that is completely private and permissionless. They don't spy on you, Venice. I won't censor the AI. They have a safe mode which you can turn off for both text and image generation. Messages are encrypted. Your conversation history is only stored on your browser. I love the Pro plan because I get upgraded features like uploading files, unlimited text prompts. Check it out. If you want to use AI without censorship or fear of handing over your most intimate thoughts to a corporation or the government, go to Venice AI/pacman and use code PACMAN to get 20% off their pro plan. The link is in the description. Something real indifferent appears to be happening within the Republican Party right now. It is not subtle. Let me explain what's going on. As you know, if you already listened to the first part of today's show, Donald Trump posted something so ugly and so gratuitous that Republicans didn't do their usual routine. You know, the routine. I didn't see the post. No comment. Let's move on. After Donald Trump posted this disgusting comment saying that Rob Reiner and his wife, who were recently brutally assassinated, died from Trump derangement syndrome, more and more Republicans are going after him publicly and nobody's forcing them to do it. And there are many who have been writing to me saying, David, this feels like something a little bit different here. Now, of course, in his deranged truth social message, Donald Trump, he mocked Rob Reiner. He smeared Rob Reiner. He implied that Rob Reiner's death was because of criticism of Donald Trump. It was cruel. It was pointless. It crossed the line even for Republicans who have been defending just about everything else that Donald Trump has done. Now, what matters here is not that some Republicans objected. It's who objected. It's not just swing district Republicans. It's not just the libertarians who already don't like Donald Trump. Even loyal Republicans stepped in. Oklahoma Republican Stephanie Bice flat out rebuked Trump, saying, this is a moment for prayer, not politics. That would have been unthinkable from a sitting Republican in times past. And it's happening to Trump. And the key part is that a lot of these Republicans are not waiting to be asked. They're not hiding. They seem very eager to make it clear that they find what Donald Trump said to be a major problem. Even on CNN Newsnight last night, Scott Jennings said, who is the ultimate defender of Trump, wrote an entire book just sucking up to Trump, said something about, you know, I wish he wouldn't have said it. Which for Scott Jennings, that's a massive, massive rebuke. One of the things that may be changing here in the sort of architecture of the relationship between Trump and other Republicans is the that for years, Trump ruled by fear. He ruled the Republican Party by fear. Threats to primary people, threats to retaliate. We're going to exile you politically. The grip on that seems to be slipping. And party operatives are saying out loud, we are less scared of Trump than even a few weeks ago. Why? Because Trump is losing fights that he used to automatically win. Trump was unable to strong arm Indiana Republicans into gerrymandering their own state. A majority of Republican state senators voted against it anyway, despite the threats, that's new. Trump is still president. He still has the power of the presidency. But he is starting to look like a guy whose best days are behind him, whose most effective days are behind him. And by the way, he was effective at doing terrible things. But effective is still something that when it starts to go away, you notice the approval ratings are in the toilet. We know that Democrats are overperforming in elections, in red states, in blue states, in down ballot races and gubernatorial races. And Republicans are starting to look ten and a half months down the line. Wait, ten? Yeah. Ten and a half months down the line at November. And they are saying, man, we could be in the after Trump era in less than a year. The Rob Reiner post serves as a good opening for some of them. There's no big Republican base demanding bloodlust over a murdered filmmaker, no grassroots pressure to defend this, which means Republicans can push back without paying the usual price that they would pay for saying, I don't agree with what Trump did. I don't like what Trump did. That is, I believe, why you are seeing something that is rare, Republicans deciding the behavior isn't worth excusing anymore. Politically, Trump doubled down. Of course, we played it in the Oval Office. He said, oh, Rob Reiner is deranged. And Trump doesn't like him talking about himself in the third person, making it all worse. Making it harder for Republicans to say, I didn't hear about it, I didn't see it, I didn't read it, I don't care. Trump's not gone, not even close. We talked last week about how authoritarians. Actually, it doesn't really matter if they're popular because they're increasingly authoritarian. So that's the whole point. I don't need to be popular. I just need to rule like an authoritarian. But the political juggernaut of Trump, the guy no Republican would ever dare to cross, that version of Donald Trump, is quickly fading. And when you start to see Republicans slapping down their own president. I saw a thread yesterday, in fact, let me see if I can pull it up on the conservative subreddit. Are conservative. It was like a what is going on with Trump kind of thing. There are a bunch of posts even right now where you look at, at the comments, and Trump has lost our conservative. There are times to just shut up. This was one of them. Another comment. I find myself defending Trump a lot on this website, but not this time. This was in Very poor taste. Another. His comments were completely unnecessary. Another. Oh, my God, what a stupid thing to say. Another. Yet shit like this literally does no good. A president should never act like this. Another. Such an unpresidential statement. Thousands of these are conservative. The conservative subreddit mostly defends everything Trump does. So there is a crack here and something seems different. We're going to see how far it goes. Donald Trump may soon be forced to hand over his medical and psychological records, along with years of tax and financial documents. And this time, it's not because of a leak. It's not because of a whistleblower. It is because Trump is the one suing somebody. Here's the story. In a defamation lawsuit that Trump filed against the Pulitzer Prize board, the defendants are now demanding discovery. They want Trump's medical records. They want Trump's prescription history, his tax returns. This goes back to 2022, when Trump sued the Pulitzer board over awards that they gave the New York Times and Washington Post for their reporting about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Now, Trump lost his mind over this, and he says it was all based on false reporting. They should revoke it. Awards. Give me a break. The Pulitzer board reviewed the reporting. They said the reporting is accurate, can't be discredited. And now, as part of defending themselves, they are saying we need documents from Trump which could undermine his claims. So they are asking, as part of discovery for all of Trump's tax returns dating back to 2015. Records showing income sources and financial holdings, Trump's liabilities, Trump's medical records, Trump's psychological health records, if they exist, a prescription medication history. Trump reportedly has 30 days to respond. And this is where things start to get a little uncomfortable for Donald Trump. He has aggressively insisted for years he's in perfect health. He's acing brain injury tests all the time, and if anybody asks about his fitness, he melts down. Just last week, Trump flipped out on Truth Social, saying, if you question my health, it could be treason, it could be sedition. That's not a normal response from a sitting president who is being transparent about his health and has nothing to hide. And at the same time, every public appearance for Donald Trump fuels speculation. The bandages on the hands, the makeup on the hands, the swollen hands, the swollen ankles, the confusion, falling asleep six times in 10 days in public, drifting off mid sentence, all of this stuff. And it's been forcing the White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, to make increasingly unbelievable defenses of what's going on. That's the health side. Now then, we have all of the financial side. I know that we're a decade in. I would still love to see Trump's financial records, his tax returns, is he as wealthy as he claims to be, what are his sources of income, etc. I don't know if we will. The biggest point here is that Trump brought this on himself. He chose to sue. When you sue, you don't get to selectively hide the evidence that might hurt your case. It's called discovery. Trump's lawyers said the lawsuit is about correcting the record. This case could end up correcting the record about Trump. We might finally get a picture of the medical record, the financial record and the psychological record. Now, as usual, Trump is going to say, oh, it's fake news, this is to go away, they're going after me improperly, all of this stuff. But this is how discovery works. And some of you may remember there was this incident where I received a legal threat letter after we published an interview. I did an interview with someone who was critical of an elected official. The elected official got their high priced law firm to send me a letter saying, we're going to sue you into the ground. Millions. This, that, you've got to apologize, you've got to do this, that, the other thing. And in conversations with lawyers, I was advised, listen, if we fight this, they will probably buckle because especially if what was said on your show is true by your guest, they are not going to want discovery because discovery means now we can depose them and get them on record about the claims that were made. And every lawyer said they're going to run scared of that. You could probably prevail if you fight this, but, but you might accumulate six figure legal fees in doing it. And you would only get those legal fees back in very particular cases. And of course, especially at the time, the show was very small. We really couldn't, couldn't do that. We couldn't afford that. But this is a similar situation as to what's going on with Trump. Trump did sue and now he is potentially going to be hit with the unfortunate reality of discovery. Now, let me add some realism here. Even if Trump hands over the medical records, it raises an obvious question, which is what will that actually prove? Because this is a guy whose own doctors have publicly claimed he's the healthiest American president ever. I can only assume that if the doctors are willing to say that out loud, why would the underlying records say something different? It is unlikely that if Trump's doctors for a long time have said these outrageously unbelievable things about his health in public that they probably, I'm just guessing here, but they probably either have medical records that make no reference to whatever Trump is dealing with health wise, or are equally hyperbolic and propagandistic. So it's sort of like Trump's tax filings, which have long been about obfuscation, not transparency. I would assume at this point Trump has doctored the medical records such that they've been curated, they've been lawyered, they've been written with the, with, with the understanding that someday these may become public. In other words, disclosure doesn't automatically mean that we get the truth. And so it's very interesting this is potentially a major backfire for Trump. But I wouldn't be holding my breath is the point I'm trying to make. A pending Supreme Court case could strip our Fourth Amendment rights and allow immigration agents to come into our homes for any reason. No probable cause needed. All while Republicans try to twist things so that you think this is all great for America. This should be the biggest story in the US Right now. But it's almost impossible to keep up with the millions of moves that Trump is making every single day. That's why Ground News exists. Ground News is an app and website that exposes the blind spots and spin. But before it takes control of our opinions, Ground News is the smarter, more reliable way to stay informed. When MAGA is banking on us getting distracted, I'm partnering up with Ground News to give you 40% off the same vantage plan that I use, so you'll pay only five bucks a month for all of their premium features. Just go to Ground News, slash Pacman or use the code Pacman in the app. When you sign up, the link is in the description or scan the QR code. All right, let's talk about economic incompetence. There are real consequences to having incompetent propagandists in charge of important economic functions and areas of this massive, massive American economy. Where we are going to start here is the idea of 20% GDP growth or 25% GDP growth. Trump's tool Kevin Hassett has now mentioned this a couple of times. Carl Quintanilla on CNBC asked him about it this morning. We know Trump and others have been saying, why can't we have 25% GDP? Let's listen to what Kevin Hassett says and then we're going to really dive into economic growth as a concept.

[E]

The Commerce Secretary has been on with us lately suggesting maybe 6% GDP in 26. The President the other day in a meeting said why can't there be 20% or 25% GDP growth? What is the street supposed to do with that kind of number?

[D]

You know, as an abstract thought, I don't know what the highest growth ever is, but I doubt it made it to 20%. The bottom line is that if you, if you go bottom up and you say, what's productivity growth right now? I think because of AI, it's maybe two and a half to 3%. What's capital stock growth right now? It's probably around 1%. What are we getting out of labor? It's probably around half a percent to 1%. So you're looking at the sort of supply side of GDP going into next year, telling us that we need to have a number that's north of 4. And so that's about as far as I think that I'm willing to go.

[A]

All right, so listen, I want to dig into this whole, like, massive. Why can't we have massive GDP growth trends? Trump doesn't get it. And Kevin Hassett isn't saying it is impossible for an economy like that of the United States. That's what he should really be saying. But instead, because he's under the thumb of Trump, he plays coy. He goes, listen, I'm thinking about more than 4. I'm not sure what the most GDP growth ever has been. I can't believe that we have to talk about this, but hopefully we've. Before I've talked about, like, why is 2 to 3% inflation good? And a lot of people write in and they go, that's really useful. I never thought about that. I didn't understand that. Let's talk about this. This GDP growth is in the United States. 2 to 3% would be sort of like normal for a country like the United States, 5 to 6% GDP growth would be, like, very strong. And usually you only see that after a recession. And then you have these 20 to 25% GDP growth numbers that Trump has been waxing poetic about, which would only ever happen if something has gone very, very wrong or somebody doesn't know what they're talking about. The problem with the idea of GDP growth that big is that big rich countries like the United States, by definition, grow more slowly. A poor country can grow faster because they're catching up. And improvements to infrastructure, for example, can provide massive GDP boost because they were starting from a point that was so diminished. If a country has terrible roads, terrible infrastructure, and really low productivity, building basics that those in wealthy, rich countries take for granted can give you a huge Jump in gdp. If all of a sudden you bring a highway to a company, to a company, to a country that has crappy dirt roads, that is going to provide such an infrastructure boost that you could have large GDP growth. But in the United States, even though, you know, our trains are terrible, we still for the most part, have what's considered advanced infrastructure. We already have high productivity. We already have a massive consumer economy. So there isn't any easy growth left to be eked out. And this is why the US economy mostly grows 2 to 3%. Germany grows 1 to 2%. Japan grows, you know, even a little more slowly than that. It's considered normal. 25% GDP growth in a year would be like adding a major economy. Right? 25% of the American GDP would be like $7 trillion. That's like adding Germany and France in a year to the United States. And that would require tens of millions of new jobs instantly. Where are they going to come from? It would require massive factory construction overnight, the sort of factory construction that can take five to seven years. And it would require explosive productivity gains with no inflation whatsoever. Normally, if you have massive productivity gains, that actually that generates some inflation as well. It has never happened, ever. In a modern stable economy now, you will sometimes see 20% numbers. It's usually fake growth. What I mean by that Is country collapses 25% then rebounds. 20% didn't really grow 20% from where it started. It's just that there was a decline and a partial recovery. In fact, we have an example of that. If you go back to Covid. If you go back to 2020 in the United States, which was sort of like the extenuating circumstance of all extenuating circumstances. In Q3 of 2020, annualized GDP growth was 34%. But it wasn't really because Q1 of 2020 GDP was down 5%. Q2 of 2020 GDP was down 28%. And so that 34% GDP growth annualized from Q3 of 2020 was really just recovering what the COVID shutdowns led to. Sometimes hyperinflation will distort numbers. You could have nominal massive GDP growth, but it doesn't really represent more productivity. It's that there was such inflation that everything just costs more. And in nominal numbers, you're like, oh, we, we had way higher gdp, but you didn't really. So the point is, the US Isn't in any of those situations. If the United states ever posted 25% GDP growth, not after losing 25% GDP the previous quarter, it wouldn't be something to celebrate. It would be, what the hell broke here? What went so wrong? Is it the number? Is it that we had some insane situation the previous quarter? What was it? I would love it if Kevin Hassett just went, trump's wrong. Of course, it's a pipe dream. Nobody ever does that to Donald Trump if they work for Donald Trump. Unless they want to be fired tomorrow. But 20% GDP growth, 25% GDP growth, it would be the responsible thing to do to say to Donald Trump, you got to stop talking about that. It doesn't make any sense. It makes you sound silly. What would represent a significant amount of growth for the United States would be somewhere in the range of 4 to 5% annualized. That would be really extraordinary and something to potentially hang your hat on. Don't keep talking about 20% GDP. All right, I have something different for you today. If you like this, let me know. Ok, Leave a comment, hit the subscribe button. Let me set this up for you. Dr. Mike is a primary medicine doctor. He has a YouTube channel. He's a content creator. He is science based and evidence based. There's another guy, Dr. Daniel Amen, who is a psychiatrist. He sells supplements and he also does something called spect, scanning of people's brains, which looks at brain activity. Okay. He famously did such a scan of Kim Kardashian and found that she had lower activity. Sometimes he refers to it as lower flow in her frontal lobes. Now you might say, so what, what does that mean? What's the normal range of activity? What are the implications of that? What is the baseline of frontal lobe activity? If we just scan random people in the population who have no complaint or. Those are all good questions. Those are not questions that we necessarily got answered in this clip. But Dr. Mike brought on Dr. Amen to talk to him. I don't know if Dr. Amen was unprepared, but it did not go well for him. And this is a true clinic in beating back disinformation. I have a ton to say about this, but let's just start and then I think you'll quickly kind of get a sense for, for what is going on here.

[E]

Kim Kardashian recently got some imaging done and you found some results on her. Tell me about that.

[F]

She had sleepy frontal lobes.

[E]

What does that mean?

[F]

So SPECT is a study of relative blood flow, looks at activity. She had less activity in the front third of her brain, which means it's going to go with things like forethought.

[A]

And judgment and okay, so he Says she had lower activity and blood flow, which is it? In her frontal lobes. This goes to impulse and. And forethought and this sort of stuff. This is all basically nonsense. SPECT measures relative blood flow, not cognition. It. We do not have evidence that reduce blood flow maps cleanly onto traits like forethought and impulse control and judgment. So the first question we should be asking is, have we compared people with high and low blood flow in that area to tests that assess cognition, and have we determined that there is a correlation? Forget about a causation. Is there even a correlation? And the way you would start to explore that is you would say, okay, Kim Kardashian has what I describe as low flow in her frontal lobes, right? Let's get a thousand random people, test their frontal lobe flow and then give them some kind of real cognitive test. Let's assess them in a number of different ways. Maybe you do neuro, psych eval and an IQ test and whatever, and let's see if it's even correlated. Because I don't know how many of you know about sort of the history of back pain, but there are lots of scenarios. It used to. It used to be the case, more hopefully now getting better at this, where you would say, I've got back pain. You go to the doctor, they say, let's get an mri. You get an MRI of your back, they find some irregularity in your back, and they say, well, you've got this irregularity. This is the cause of the back pain. Let's operate. You operate. The back pain is no better. And what we determined was that if you go out and you take random people in the population who have no back pain complaint and you give them an mri, a lot of them have irregularities in their spine, some mild degeneration or whatever the case may be, but they don't have symptoms. And then you have to go and say, ah, that doesn't necessarily. Finding that on an MRI doesn't necessarily mean it's the cause of the symptom or of the pain anyway. So let's listen to Dr. Mike handle some of this control and focus.

[F]

She wanted to be better.

[E]

Why doesn't every family medicine doctor, why does the American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Neurology, Why are they against this imaging?

[F]

It doesn't fit the paradigm.

[E]

Well, I'm reading the largest agencies that represent neurologists, psychiatrists. These are. It's like that, me saying something fully against the American Academy, Academy family physicians without evidence to say why I'm disagreeing with them.

[A]

Well, so Dr. Amen says, though, the reason that this test, this scan, isn't being recommended by the APA and the A N is because it doesn't fit their paradigm. The truth is that this scan is not suggested because it is high. It has very low specificity, it has poor reproducibility. Meaning if you just even do the scan an hour later, Kim Kardashian's results might have been significantly different. And there is no proven impact on outcomes. The idea being if you identify low flow, it doesn't seem to be correlated with any particular outcome. Then they get into the topic of studies.

[F]

I have 90 studies that I have published, and I have the world's largest database. And I actually don't know what the point of us arguing about it is. I have more experience in this than anybody, probably in the history of the world.

[A]

Having 90 studies that he authored, quantity isn't quality. Number one. These papers that Daniel Amen has put together about this frontal lobe SPECT flow stuff, they're observational. They're not blinded. They're not randomized. They're conducted at his own clinics. But when you look at what independent reviews have criticized him for, they say it is not scientifically founded and clinically justified based on the data that we have. They then bring up the topic of randomized controlled trials, the gold standard. And here's what is said, and if.

[F]

You don't look, you don't know.

[E]

But do we have the randomized controlled data to be able to back these things up?

[F]

Give me an example, and I'll tell you what the research is.

[E]

Is there randomized control data on SPECT scans and their efficacy in a specific mental health condition?

[B]

Yes.

[E]

Which one?

[F]

Well, which one do you want to talk about?

[E]

Anyone?

[F]

I mean, if you go on PubMed.

[E]

Well, can you name one right now? Today, you're the leading expert. So I'm a family that is like.

[F]

Distinguishing post traumatic stress disorder from traumatic.

[E]

Brain injury, but that's not a randomized control.

[A]

Now, understand what he just did. Distinguishing two conditions based on imaging. That is very different than saying when we find low flow in the frontal lobes and it is correlated with certain cognitive traits. And therefore, we know that this is a specific enough test to give us actionable information. He's just like, oh, there's. There's PubMed on distinguishing traumatic brain injury from PTSD in the brain. Okay, but what does that have to do with what we're looking at here?

[E]

Study. I'm sorry, that's not a randomized controlled study.

[F]

We're Talking imaging.

[E]

Yeah.

[F]

This is not a pharmaceutical intervention where we're going to do well.

[E]

The goal of doing the imaging is to create more customizable treatments, as you said. And if you have customizable treatments, your outcomes should be better. That's the randomized controlled study.

[F]

And our outcomes are better. We published a study.

[E]

That's not the question I'm asking. Randomized control data is really important, wouldn't you say, to develop a causal relationship.

[F]

I'm sorry, say this again.

[E]

Randomized controlled trial.

[A]

All right, this, this is basically the whole thing. Now I'm going to kind of give you the cheat sheet. You go to Daniel Amen's website and you really very quickly figure out what this seems to really be about, okay. Which is that he has supplements for all of this stuff. Okay? You go to his website and he's got a brain and body power max and the neuro vite plus multivitamin, and he's got brain and body power. And you just go into any one of these and you start looking at the ingredients that they contain and you start checking each one of these sets of ingredients against what is known in their use for any particular condition. And you very quickly realize that this all seems to kind of be nonsense. Now I think it would be very interesting if we were able to design a study which could be done, which is you say, hey, you know what we're going to do? We are going to, like I said earlier, we're going to take a thousand people, we're going to scan their frontal lobe activity. We are then going to give them tests to see if what we observe in a scan correlates with any kind of brain function. Does it affect, are there mood related things, Cognition, memory, anything? And then if we find that there is a relationship, we could then do another randomized controlled trial where we give people, what is this stuff? Phosphatidylserine and acetyl L, carnitine and alpha lipoic acid and coenzyme Q10. And then it'll be totally randomized and blinded. And we will see whether then when we retest people after they have been given either a placebo or this stuff, whether it makes any difference. That's what Dr. Mike is talking about. But Dr. Amen would rather have celebrities show up, get a scan and say, you've got low blood, low flow in the frontal lobes. And then for 145 bucks a month or whatever, I've got supplements I can sell you which might help with some of this stuff. Really nice job by Dr. Mike, I think we need way more of this. We've got a phenomenal bonus show for you today. We will talk Fentanyl. We will talk the BBC being sued by Trump for $10 billion. And we will talk about a meeting between Erica Kirk and Candace Owens. Can you imagine? Sign up@join pacman.com and the gear store is back in time for the holidays. Go to David pakman.com/ge gear and you will see all of the new items that are available. T shirts and stickers and water bottles and hats and the whole thing. Many of these will get delivered before Christmas. Davidpakman.com gear check it out. Everyone deserves to be connected. That's why T Mobile and US Cellular are joining forces. Switch to T Mobile and save up to 20% versus variety by getting built in benefits they leave out. Check the math@t mobile.com switch and now T mobile is in US cellular stores. Savings versus Comparable Verizon plans plus the cost of optional benefits, plan features and taxes and fees vary. Savings with three plus lines include third line free via monthly bill credits. Credits stop if you cancel any lines. Qualifying credit required.

[G]

Marketing is hard, but I'll tell you a little secret. It doesn't have to be. Let me point something out. You're listening to a podcast right now and it's great. You love the host. You seek it out and download it. You listen to it while driving, working out, cooking, even going to the bathroom. Podcasts are a pretty close companion. And this is a podcast ad. Did I get your attention? You can reach great listeners like yourself with podcast advertising from Libsyn Ads. Choose from hundreds of top podcasts offering host endorsements or run a pre produced ad like this one across thousands of shows. To reach your target audience in their favorite podcasts with Libsyn Ads, go to libsynads. Com. That's L I B S Y N Ads. Com. Today.