A (15:23)

Real bad. When you lose the NRA and the reddest state in the country on this.

D (15:29)

Yeah, look, I'm a concealed carry permit kind of guy. I'm a huge defender of the second Amendment.

B (15:35)

We've been talking about the ability for

D (15:37)

Americans to protect themselves for decades on the right. So to say that if you show up somewhere with an armed that you somehow vulnerable to getting attacked or approached

B (15:49)

is absolutely antithetical to everything that conservatives

A (15:51)

have stood for for decades.

B (15:53)

So I think the NRA is right on this. Governor Stitt was right on this. But you're seeing this is a right winger saying, wait a second, you don't just lose your rights to a gun. I'm sorry, you don't just lose your rights because you're carrying a gun. And this is the problem for Donald Trump because a lot of the people in his administration, Cash Patel and Pam Bondi and others have shifted into this. Well, Alex Preddy was armed. At the end of the day, what do you expect? But that is the opposite of right wing ideology. And by the way, no matter what my opinion is about guns, it's also not what the law says. For years these right wingers have said carrying a gun is a constitutional right. Merely having it can't be used as evidence of anything. It's not justification for detention. It's not, it's not justification for anything. The government should not infringe on that right. Law abiding gun owners cannot be seen as a threat merely because they have a gun. And now they're saying, of course the government killed this legally armed citizen. He showed up to a protest with a gun. What do you expect? And so some right wingers are realizing that this logic cuts both ways. And it gets even worse. Here is Caroline Levitt asks, does the President believe that the killing of Pareti was a mistake? Notice that she doesn't say what they said after the killing of Renee Goode. It was perfect, it was unfortunate, but it's what had to happen. The agents are the victims. Levitt says, we're reviewing it. This is a very different thing than awesome killing. Good job.

A (17:27)

Does the president believe that the killing though was a mistake?

B (17:31)

Has he expressed that at all?

C (17:33)

Again, the president has said, you know, we have to review it and their invest this investigation needs to continue. And he's looking, letting the facts on the investigation lead itself.

B (17:43)

She doesn't say, of course the shooting was justified. She doesn't say of course the shooting was necessary. She doesn't say the agents acted perfectly. She says, well, we have to review it. Review it. I am interpreting that as bureaucratic speak for this is completely toxic politically and I have no idea how to defend this shit. That that's my interpretation of what Caroline Levitt is saying. And when your own press secretary won't enthusiastically defend your own enforcement operation, it's a signal. And this is the key political problem for Donald Trump. As we said earlier, immigration would be his signature issue. Order, toughness and decisive action. And what voters are seeing is chaos, lethal force in civilian spaces and a government that is completely out of control. And so some right wing commentators are saying are we okay with this? Right wing commentators are saying legally carrying a gun as a justification to be shot. That's not sounding so good and it is not a left wing critique. It's a, it's a right wing identity crisis. We've been the gun people for a long time. White guy with a legal gun deserves to be killed. I don't know about that. And Caroline Levitt's point is very short of this was totally cool and and very awesome. Let me know what you think they will eventually come up with on this shooting. Leave a comment wherever or send me an email info@david pakman.com a good hoodie matters more than people think. Especially this time of year when you're reaching for the same layer every single day. I've gone through a lot of hoodies that look fine at first, but they just don't feel like something I'm going to want to or even be able to keep wearing season after season. And this is why I love our sponsor, American Giant. I've been wearing their Classic Full Zip hoodie. It just feels different. The fleece is custom heavyweight, the fit is comfortable without being sloppy. The details stand out, the side panels give you mobility, the hood is double lined and the reinforced elbows make it feel like something that is really built to last, not something that'll last you one winter. American Giant is deeply committed to making timeless staples entirely in the usa. From the cotton to the zipper, the attention to quality really shows. Slate Magazine called American Giant's Classic Full Zip the greatest hoodie ever made. I've been wearing one and I understand why. This season save 20% on your first order when you go to american-giant.com and use code PACMAN. Again, that's 20% off your first order. At american-giant.com use with code PACMAN. The link is in the description. The David Pakman show is an audience supported program. We are not part of a large media conglomerate. We don't have layers of editors and executive producers that say talk about this, don't talk about that. That independence is maybe the most valuable and important thing of organizing this show the way we organize it. The downside is that we do depend on individuals to support the show and that is primarily done by getting memberships on my website. Join pacman.com I want to say a big thank you to Miguel Paloma and Thomas Merchant, our newest two members at join pacman.com you can sign up today. You'll get access to the bonus show which Alex Jones despises.

D (21:20)

Oh, the bonus show where you want to make money.

E (21:22)

Everybody else that makes money to fund themselves is bad.

B (21:25)

Yes, couldn't have said it better myself. And also you will be directly supporting independent media that hopefully you find valuable, interesting and important. We estimate that half of 1% of our audience supports us directly. If we were able to grow our support from half of 1% to 1%, we would be indefinitely financially sustainable regardless of what happens with algorithmic and ad based revenue sources. Something to think about. Something to think about. Also, make sure this is free. Now the right is pushing to take over the podcast charts. Make sure even if you watch on YouTube or watch clips, rate and subscribe to this podcast on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, it really makes a difference and we cannot let these clowns take over the podcast charts. All right, this is how you know the administration is in a panic. They are trying to be calm and presidential and rational and diplomatic, but it's not working. When we read between the lines, here's what happened. Pollsters went to Trump advisers went to Trump over the last 24 to 48 hours and they said, what is happening in Minnesota is blowing up. Your approval is taking a hit. Republicans are saying we need investigations. So Trump goes to Truth Social to try to clean up the optics. And he says, I had a very good call with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz. We're on the same wavelength. Everything's good. I'm going to read the post for you in a second. But the gist here is pretend everybody's in agreement, declare success and move on. But does anything actually change? That's the question. Here is Donald Trump's post. Quote, governor Tim Walz called me with the request to work together with respect to Minnesota. It was a very good call. And we actually seem to be on a similar wavelength. I told Governor Walls that I would have Tom Homan column and that we are looking for any and all criminals that they have in their possession. The governor very respectfully understood that and I will be speaking to him in the near future. He was happy that Tom Homan was going to Minnesota and so am I. We have had such tremendous success in Washington, D.C. memphis, Tennessee, New Orleans, Louisiana, and virtually every other place that we have touched. And even in Minnesota, crime is way down. But both Governor Walz and I want to make it better. President Donald J. Trump but here's an important but nothing changes. Nothing changes at all. A reporter asked Caroline Levitt during her press conference yesterday. She's the White House press secretary. Can you explain the difference between your attack on Governor Tim Walz and Trump posting that Tim Walls is working with him and everything is great. And what she does is she says Tim Walls is the reason we are where we are today, blaming Tim Walls for everything that has happened in Minneapolis. But the truth of this is Trump's favorability on immigration is now below 40%. That's why this is happening. And now Caroline's got to try to

A (24:35)

clean it up with Governor Walls. This morning, the president described it as respectful. He said, we seem to be on a similar wavelength. But you had strong criticism for the governor and the Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Frey, just now. So could you explain the difference in tone between what the president had said in the. In his True Social post and I think some of the criticisms that you just levied from the podium?

C (24:58)

Fran. I think the criticisms that I laid out, I'm painting the picture for all of you in this room, are what led to the moment that we are in today where Governor Walls and President Trump are having a conversation, a constructive and productive conversation to end the chaos and the lawlessness that has taken place in Governor Walsh's state.

B (25:15)

Understand that her thing is. Well, Walt, my criticism of Walls was legit because everything he did, the lawlessness, et cetera, got us to where Walls got on the phone with Trump, and now Trump is fixing everything. Or to put it a different way, we blamed Walls. Now he's cooperating. So this is fine. And notice that she's blaming the governor for the shootings while saying Trump is now the calm adult in the room. The reality is the opposite. Trump is the one with the outrageous, unhinged, extreme deportation scheme. And it is Tim Walls and Jacob Fry as mayor of Minneapolis and other state and local officials who are now tasked with cleaning up this entire mess. And then comes the reshuffling. As I told you earlier, the administration is benching Border Patrol Commander Greg Bevino. And Levitt sort of throws Bevino under the bus and says, well, he's a wonderful guy, but Tom Homan is in. Bevino is out going to Minnesota.

A (26:18)

Is Gregory Bovino also going to remain in Minnesota overseeing these ice operations?

C (26:24)

Mr. Bovino is a wonderful man and he is a great professional. He is going to very much continue to lead Customs and Border Patrol throughout and across the country. Mr. Homan will be the main point of contact on the ground in Minneapolis.

B (26:36)

Let me put it a different way. You will not hear from or see Bevino again once we get him out of Minneapolis. And he will be put riding a desk or blah, blah, blah. Basically trying to sound, trying to Sound like this is a mere staffing change of no real political consequence. But of course, that is exactly what it is. But Vivino has been an absolute fiasco. So, listen, this is a real problem for the administration. This is quickly becoming an important scandal that is now, as we are just months from the midterm elections, potentially going to be part of Republicans losing the House of Representatives. And conservative media is starting to say this is a debacle. And even if they generally agree with the policy, they're saying the way it's being carried out is a problem. The polling is sliding. Republican lawmakers are saying this is going to screw us in November. And you've got tech leaders and business groups that are saying this is not good for our businesses. Whatever they believe, personally and ethically and morally, they are acknowledging that this is bad for business as well. So this is not the story Trump wanted on immigration. He wanted strongman optics. He wanted to appear successful. Instead, he got protests, killings, lawsuits, and a complete and total public relations meltdown. And the Walls post shows the real Trump. There is no policy change. It is just a question of acting as though everybody's being deferential. Everybody respects Trump, everybody's willing to work with Trump. He'll throw someone under the bus, say Walls has come to the table and hope that the news cycle moves on the But I would be shocked if any of the policy changes, and now even further, the daily, or not daily, what were supposed to be daily press briefings with Caroline Levitt, they are occasional press briefings are turning disastrous for her, and we should do a little bit of a deep dive there. Reporters seem to realize that Caroline Levitt is defending the indefensible or attempting to defend the indefensible. And so the questions that she was peppered with at her latest press briefing don't exactly make her look particularly good. Here is Caroline Levitt making a statement that the deaths in Minnesota of Renee Good and Alex Preddy are because of Democrat leaders and sanctuary cities. And the last person she's trying to blame here are the people who actually did the killing.

C (29:06)

Yet Democrat leaders in Minnesota with sanctuary city policies actively defied federal immigration law and the will of the people. And as a result of that defiant defiance, two Minnesotans have now tragically lost their lives on the streets of Tim Waltz's state.

B (29:24)

Of course, we already know that the blame is not with Tim Walls. The blame is not with Jacob Fry. They're trying to clean up this mess. Police in Minnesota, in Minneapolis specifically, have said, well, we've had enough of ice, ice needs to go out. And we were told that now they were going to turn the temperature down and they are going to work with authorities in Minnesota. But there is Caroline Levitt again blaming Tim Walls and Jacob Fry and local officials for these deaths when they had nothing to do with them. Caroline Levitt was asked, will Stephen Miller be apologizing to the family of Alex Preddy for calling him an assassin, given that he did nothing like that. And she says, we're investigating officials, referring

E (30:13)

to him in that way, rushing to that judge.

A (30:14)

Go ahead.

C (30:15)

Thanks, Caroline. On Stephen Miller's comments, will Stephen Miller

B (30:19)

be apologizing to the family of Alex Pretty for calling him quotes an assassin

C (30:23)

who tried to murder federal agents despite the fact that, as you say, this is still under investigation? Look again, this incident remains under investigation, investigation and nobody here at the White House, including the president of the United States, wants to see Americans hurt or killed and losing their lives in American streets. And we mourn for the parents. As a mother myself, of course, I cannot imagine the loss of life, especially losing one's child. And that same empathy from the president goes for the parents of angel families and parents of victims of illegal alien crime across our country as well. And that's exactly why the president continues to be wholeheartedly committed to deporting the worst of the worst criminals from our country.

B (31:08)

So will Stephen Miller be apologizing? Well, it's under investigation. The president remains empathetic. We are investigating. We're still deporting. We're taking care of this, we're taking care of that. Notice what isn't being said, which is this was an awesome shooting we can all be proud of. They are not going with that this time because they know that that is not what the American people want to hear. Because the American people saw the video. Another reporter says why were conclusions jumped to before the investigation? And this is genius. It's evil genius. Caroline Levitt goes, well, the situation has been moving so quickly, but that's a double edged sword that cuts both ways. I'll tell you why in a moment.

E (31:49)

Thank you, Caroline.

D (31:50)

Regarding Minnesota, on Saturday, the Department of

B (31:53)

Homeland Security posted that Preddy looks like

D (31:56)

he wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.

B (31:59)

Stephen Miller on Saturday posted that called Freddie a would be assassin. Why did administration officials jump to conclusions before an investigation had even been conducted?

C (32:11)

Ms. Well, look, this has obviously been a very fluid and fast moving situation throughout the weekend. As for President Trump, whom I speak for, he has said that he was wants to let the investigation continue.

B (32:22)

And yeah, you know what's so funny about this? Or really sad if it was too early to have known the facts. When Stephen Miller made the assassin comment, then why did he make the assassin comment? Like in other words, now she's being asked what about the whole assassin thing? And she's like, well, the situation is very fast moving and fluid, so we're just not really sure right now. Well, but then, so why did he say that in the first place? Why were things said with no evidence before but now we can't comment because it's fast moving, no apology, no walking back, no nothing. Trump, of course, had this situation where he started being adversarial to the First Amendment, talking about roughing up protesters, etc. Which is of course a constant constitutionally protected action. The topic of the First Amendment and the Second Amendment came up and we have a lot of hedging from Caroline Levitt. She actually does the of course we have a First Amendment but. And what comes after the but is very important.

A (33:26)

Caroline, is it the White House's position that Americans have the right to show up to these ICE operations and film, document or protest the law enforcement actions?

C (33:36)

All Americans have a First Amendment constitutional rights, of course, but Americans but do not have a constitutional right to impede and obstruct lawful immigration enforcement operations. That is actually a crime. And it's something that we've seen taking place in the streets of Minneapolis, which again is leading to these dangerous circumstances that these federal law enforcement officers have been forced to work within.

B (34:02)

The problem is that this impeding an investigation thing has become the new resisting arrest. Catch all. We've talked before about how police claiming an individual was resisting has become an easy way to say we've got to take you downtown and book you. And similarly claiming that a sometimes it's not even protesters at these ICE raids. Sometimes it's merely an observer. They're not protesting, they're just observing. Maybe they're filming from the sidewalk. Saying that their presence is impeding the investigation has become a way to short circuit their First Amendment rights. And sometimes they're not even speaking. Sometimes it's not even about the First Amendment. So then, ok, the First Amendment, yes, of course. But then we get to the Second Amendment and Caroline Levitt says gun owners know if you carry a weapon and you're confronted by law enforcement, that raises the likelihood that force is used against you. Oops. Except that's not what the Second Amendment people say. That's not what the Amosexuals claim in a Sunday interview. Well, you cannot bring a firearm loaded

D (35:08)

with multiple magazines to any sort of protest. Does the President believe that Second Amendment rights remain in effect even when protesting?

C (35:16)

The President supports the Second Amendment rights of law abiding American citizens? Absolutely. There has been no greater supporter or defender of the right to bear arms than President Donald J. Trump. So while Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms, Americans do not have a constitutional right to impede lawful immigration enforcement operations. And any gun owner knows that when you are carrying a weapon, when you are bearing arms and you are confronted by law enforcement, you are raising the assumption of risk and the, the risk of force being used against you.

B (35:54)

But that's not what they've been telling us for decades. For decades they've been telling us if everyone were armed all the time, which of course includes when you encounter police, it would be all the time is all the time. And people encounter not regularly, then everybody is safer. Merely having a gun, they told us should not. We are the ones who have been saying, you introduce more guns into a situation, it's just worse. If the country had 50 million guns instead of 400 million guns, just generically, statistically, it would be safer. If you think of a movie theater shooting like the one that took place in Aurora, Colorado, where afterwards a lot of people said if more people in there had had guns, everybody would have been safer. We would. We said, wait a second. So you're saying it would have been better if instead of one firearm inside of the place, there were 50, and now all of a sudden you can't tell who's the shooter versus who's trying to stop the shooter. They said, no, no, no, no, no. It's always better to have more guns. What if the police show up and they can't tell who the shooter is? No, no, no. It's always better to have more guns. Except now they're saying actually having guns around law enforcement does increase the chances that you end up getting shot. It does increase the increase the chances of violence and force being used. Finally, Caroline Levitt asked about the claim that Alex Preddy is a domestic terrorist. And Caroline Levitt, notably, she does not say Trump stands behind that.

A (37:21)

To follow on Dave's question, Secretary Noem said Alex Preddy committed an act of domestic terrorism. Stephen Miller label pretty a domestic terrorist. Does the President agree with them?

C (37:30)

Look, as I've said, I have not heard the President characterize Mr. Freddie in that way. However, I have heard the President say he wants to let the facts in the investigation lead itself.

D (37:39)

Was he alarmed?

B (37:41)

Notice that she does not say. Of course the President agrees with those comments. When the fascist talking points are too fascist even for Trump, you know that they are off the deep end. Leave me a comment. How much longer does Caroline have in her job? If you care about accessing the full Internet like content not normally available where you live, private Internet access is the best tool for it. Our sponsor PIA is the only VPN fully optimized for fast downloads and streaming even in 4K. Choose from high speed servers in all 50 US states and 91 countries so you can access content that is blocked in your location like on the web, on Netflix, Hulu, YouTube or news sites around the world. I use PIA to watch Argentinian soccer and free BBC shows only available online to people who live in the uk. It's great. PIA also supports super fast peer to peer file sharing which many VPNs will throttle or block. And my favorite thing that sets PIA apart is their policy of never logging your online activity. And they can prove it in multiple ways. Set up a simple Open the app, pick a location you're connected. You can run it on unlimited devices with a single subscription. Get 83% off, just 203amonth plus four extra months free at PIA vpn.com/pacman the link is in the Description it's great to be joined today by Zeke Emanuel, oncologist, world leader in health policy and bioethics and his new book is Eat your ice cream six Simple Rules for a Long and healthy life. You know, it's so great to have you on for a couple of reasons. One, in this world of wellness and morning routines and supplements and seed oil optimization and all of this stuff, the your book really takes what I call like an 8020 approach, which is that there's a lot of big things that we know are really significant in determining health span and we should really kind of focus on those. And that that's where I want to start. But then also this kind of interfaces with what we're hearing from the current Secretary of Home rather Health and Human Services. Homeland Security is a different problem we're having right now. Health and human Services in terms of what matters and what doesn't. So maybe just give us the philosophy about where it is that we should focus our attention with regard to health and the things that maybe are more on the margins.

E (40:22)

Yeah, it's a great question. First of all, I think it's very important not to be obsessed by wellness. And I think a lot of what I call the Wellness Industrial Complex tries to make people obsessed like it's really important to focus on wellness and focus your whole being on wellness. And that is wrong. Wellness is a means to an end. It's not the end itself. And you have bigger things in life to do, I certainly hope, than focus on wellness. So that's the first point. The second point is there are just a handful of things that you need to do and you don't need to do them perfectly to get the benefits of wellness. As I say in the book, I'm a professor, 90% or more is an A. And don't try to be perfect. It's just going to make you obsess and waste a lot of mental and physical energy. And I think the real fact of the matter is if you're going to do wellness, to live a long time, to live a healthy life, to get a maximal health span, you're going to have to do it for decades. So you better enjoy it and you better not make it so onerous that either there's a lot of self denial or there's a lot of self monitoring that just takes up so much mental space. You're not doing the things you actually enjoy. Remember, you know, if you're going to do a good diet or you're going to exercise, you're going to have to do it, you know, every week for years and years and years. And that better be something that you really like. Otherwise you're not going to stick to it. There's just not enough willpower in your being.

B (42:01)

What are the top lines like? It would strike me that, for example, not smoking is a major, major thing. Are you walking 8 to 10,000 steps a day? Seems to be a proxy to don't be sedentary if you're getting the right amount of fiber. Seems to be a good proxy to aside from seed oils or ice cream or this. If you're getting the right amount of fiber, it's harder to eat unhealthy because the really unhealthy stuff has zero fiber. Like give us some of the top lines that you would suggest.

E (42:33)

Yes. So I suggest six things. The first one goes to your smoking example, which is don't be stupid, don't take unreasonable risks. Smoking, vaping, those are definitely unreasonable risks. So is banging your head against the wall, whether you do it in boxing or other sports. And there's plenty of other risks like not taking your vaccines or not taking cancer screening tests. And I have a whole discussion of which ones you should do and which ones you shouldn't. But probably the single most important one that is often ignored is social activity and engaging in rich social relationships, whether with family, friends, acquaintances. We tend not to include that in the wellness category, and the medical profession tends not to include that in its worries about health. But it turns out to be probably the single most important thing you can do for your wellness. Millions of people have actually been studied on this, and those people who have rich social relationships, enjoy dinners with other people, are much healthier, live longer, and in fact, are happier. And the data are pretty substantial. You look at studies from Sweden and China and Australia and in the United States, and you come to a similar conclusion. Those people with close family ties, close friendships, they're 22 to 30, 33% less likely to die over the next six to eight to 10 years. On the other hand, if you're lonely, socially isolated, you don't have or have zero to one close friends. It's like smoking 15 cigarettes a day. It is really deadly. Now people think, oh, these social relationships, they're psychologically good, but the fact is they're physiologically good. They're good for your body, they're good for your brain, they increase dopamine, they decrease the stress hormone cortisol. So there are a lot of physiological changes that happen because you interact with people. And the last thing I would say is it's not just close relationships. One of the things I think we undervalue is the casual interactions that boost our mood. The talking to your car driver, the talking to the person serving you in a grocery store or waiting on your table and finding out something about them. These casual interactions actually turn out to be very, very important, and they actually boost our mood as well.

B (45:20)

In the, in the aftermath of the pandemic when everything went to zoom, a lot of it has gone back, but to in person, but not everything. And I'm curious what kind of data we have as to the social component that you're talking about. How important is it that it be physically in person versus the degree to which the zoom stuff is a suitable replacement?

E (45:40)

Well, there are some studies about people who do remote work versus people who work in the office and look at their mental health. And not surprisingly, it's worse. So there is some pretty good data that actually face to face interactions are really important. And, you know, it's no surprise if you again, look at people's brains when they're interacting with a person face to face versus interacting with that same person over the screen, it turns out that more of their brain is actually activated when they're interacting in person.

B (46:18)

And that Seems logical and intuitive in a sense. I mean, even as you and I are talking here, I can only read your body language from chest up. I only see what's behind you a couple of feet. I don't have the context of the room that, that you're in. I'm in a completely different room, which I assume kind of predisposes me a little bit differently emotionally. Like it seems intuitive that that would be the case.

E (46:41)

It's 100%. And I think the other thing is, you know, over tens of thousands of years of evolution, humans have been trained on human to human interaction, right? Screen interaction is really new. I mean, we're talking about 20 years and we actually our brain is set for interacting with people in person. And that's a really important factor which I think we dismiss. Now. Once you and I establish a relationship or we have close friends, then Zoom can augment our relationship. But it's not a substitute. First of all, establishing a close personal relationship over the screen is not going to be possible. And it might be possible to augment that relationship when, you know, I have a very dear friend who lives in la, my brother lives in la. Hard to be there every week. So Zoom helps with that or the telephone helps with that. But you can't establish those relationships. They have to be pre existing and that takes simply a lot of time being together.

B (47:54)

If we talk a little bit about diet right now, under this Make America Healthy Again movement, there are a number of different areas that are receiving a lot of focus, just to name a couple. Raw milk promotion, seed oils being bad, and saturated fats like beef tallow actually being good. Removing food dyes. You know, I think there's like a couple of layers to all of these conversations. Like for example, the seed oil saturated fat thing. To the extent I've looked into it as a non doctor and spoken to doctors, it seems we have pretty good evidence that seed oils in humans are not, quote, inflammatory, whatever that means. But what I wonder is, is that even the right conversation? Because if we look at the calories a day that we should even be getting from oils, shouldn't it be a relatively small portion of our calories such that this is not like a make or break topic Anyway, I think you

E (48:54)

hit on all of or many of the right points. So the first thing is we really need to think through. And here I do agree with the RFK junior approach. Ultra processed foods, right? Packaged cakes, cookies, pretzels, frozen burritos, whatever you want to have. We have way too much of them in the American diet, 60% of the calories consumed by an adult per day is ultra processed. That's just way too much. No matter what you think. Too much sugar. So, you know, drinking Those sodas, that's 140 calories, 10 teaspoons of sugar, zero nutritional content. We got to get rid of them. Fortunately, they're dropping. And so the public is doing the right thing. And then, you know, their obsession with more beef, more saturated fat, more protein. Wrong direction. We know that saturated fats actually lead to increased heart disease, increased mortality. They are not a good thing. And we do know that there's important things we can have in our diet. You mentioned fiber. 93% of Americans don't get enough fiber. We don't eat enough fresh fruits and vegetables that have a variety of fibers. Those are basically prebiotics. And they're really good for the gut microbiome. And we need more of them. And more Americans need to eat fruits and vegetables on a regular basis, which means multiple times a day. So I regularly have berries for breakfast and a salad for dinner just to start the game without. That's not comprehensive.

B (50:40)

Right.

E (50:41)

The second thing I think that we really should focus on are fermented foods like yogurt, like kimchi, like kefir or cottage cheese. Those are really good for the microbiome, the diversity of the microbiome. And it's really important. And again, things we don't have enough of in the average American diet, those changes. Decrease ultra processed foods, decrease sodas, increase fruits and vegetables, increase fermented foods would make a huge difference. Are there more things we can do? Absolutely. But those would take us very far to a much better diet. And I agree with you. Seed oils, not the thing we should talk about. The best oil you can eat is olive oil. We've got a lot of good data on that. But it's expensive. And if you can't afford it, canola oil or sunflower oil. Very good. And you're right, they're relatively small elements of our diet and over obsessing about them is wrong. Stick to the general thing. Less ultra processed foods, more fruits and vegetables, and more fermented foods, more dairy, those would be good things.

B (52:02)

The food dye thing is interesting to me because if we put aside for a second that RFK achievement is not legally binding, it's sort of like, hey, companies have told us they're not going to do this. If we put aside for a second that some of these supposedly banned in Europe dyes exist under different names. Right? Like we're putting aside all of these kind of tangential issues, the food dyes really are in ultra processed food. And while of course getting rid of them sounds fine, I don't know that skittles are necessarily good for you if they're all white. Right? Like, they would taste the same, they wouldn't have the colors, but. But it seems to kind of be tangential really to the issue.

E (52:40)

Yes, I think that's 100% right. Is it a good thing to get rid of them? Yes. Is it where you want to put your energy and focus and worry? No. There are many bigger issues and ultra processed food is the number one issue. We're the number one country in terms of consumption of all ultra processed foods. And just to give people a comparison, you know, the Italians, the Greeks, they're down in the 20% range. We also know, by the way, that ultra processed foods just are bad, not only physically, but they're also bad for the brain. That the more ultra processed foods you eat, the higher or the more rapid you get cognitive decline as you age. So it's, they're not good for brain function. And I think people think, okay, they, they might affect my longevity, but no, they affect, probably the thing you care about the most, how your brain is working.

B (53:36)

On the topic of cancer screenings you mentioned, there are some that make a lot of sense and then maybe some that, that make less sense. You know, about a month ago, because the guidelines on colonoscopy changed, even though I'm far too young to normally be doing this, I went and got one because my dad had had a pre, precancerous polyp, which now means I should be screened early. I had an absolutely perfect score on it. You will be pleased to know Trump, even Trump, even Trump's doctors would have signed off on this one. And all the research I did is that, that actually is a great screening test, not only because it tells you what is going on, but you can actually deal with things in the moment and get rid of any, any polyps and agree on colonoscopy and what other sorts of screenings maybe are less worthwhile.

E (54:19)

So we have really five different cancer screening tests that are important mammograms for women, really important to begin 40, 45. The exact cutoff is, is under debate. Colonoscopies, as you point out. And that's becoming more important for younger people because of the rise, probably because of changes in the microbiome. But we're not sure why. There's lung cancer screening for former smokers, which is important. There's cervical cancer screening and getting the HPV vaccine, which is right. And the one that I have the most trouble with and why I say most of the vaccine recommendations is the prostate specific antigen for men PSA testing. And I go through in the book a detailed reason why I'm against it.

B (55:16)

And I point any age, no matter the age of the person, I point

E (55:19)

out why others like the United States Preventive Services Task Force and other groups are for it. The main data are that it is true that the PSA test will catch and decrease your chance of dying of prostate cancer. What is also true is that the PSA will not change your overall mortality. So yes, you will less likely to die of prostate cancer, but not less likely to die a minute later. And the reason is that most prostate cancer is in older men who have competing comorbidities, whether it's from heart disease, maybe potentially some other cancer or strokes or what have you. And so I'm not one of those people who cares what the sentence on my death certificate says that I died of if the test isn't going to improve my longevity. It's not actually that good a test, in my opinion. Plus PSA often gets you false positives, lots of false positives. So you get a lot of people who get a positive PSA have to go through testing, maybe even have their prostate removed. And let me just assure people there is no medical test ever created that doesn't have complications. And so the complications inevitably arise, whether it's impotence or incontinence or other problems. So I'm not a wild fan of that. Other people weigh it differently, but I. So I go through that in the book and I think it's important to be frank. There are various opinions that I am, I might be out of step with others. I am very much more pro dairy than some nutrition experts like Walt Willett, one of my professors at Harvard, who is more hesitant. But dairy decreases your chance of type 2 diabetes, decreases your chance of colorectal cancer, increases your height if you consume it early. It's of course important to have dairy that isn't sweetened with say chocolate milk or all those fruit additives for yogurt, Right? But dairy itself is pretty, pretty good, which is why you should have ice cream too.

B (57:45)

Last thing I want to ask you about, we hear often that we are getting better at treating cancer based on the fact that people are living longer from the point at which they are diagnosed. Now, what I want to. There's the. Also there's, on the other hand, the longer you live for other reasons, the more years you have during which you might be diagnosed with cancer. And then, in addition to this, if you are diagnosed earlier, you spend more years after diagnosis alive. But have we really improved treatment? So I don't know if I'm making all of the different kind of elements of this clear, but are we getting better at treating cancer?

E (58:28)

The answer to that is yes, we are. We have better drugs, certainly. You know, I trained 35 years ago now, and our drugs are way better. A lot of them are oral as opposed to injected. Our ability to manage side effects like nausea and vomiting are way better. We have immunotherapies, which we had almost none of when I trained. Many cancers now are chronic diseases. So just take. I give you one example, chronic myelogenous leukemias disease that tends to occur when people are older. When I was training, we would. So this is a case where the white cells go up in the blood. We would mostly treat it by giving people a drug called hydroxyurea that would drop the white cells. But we knew that at some point they would do what we call blast off. They would convert into an acute leukemia. And no matter what we threw at them and chemotherapy, no difference. And then in the late 1990s, Gleevec, a new drug, was developed. People take Gleevec and, you know, they live a normal life. The disease doesn't come back. It's amazing you took this deadly disease. Similarly, we've developed CAR T therapy at the University of Pennsylvania, where I'm a faculty member. And literally, people who've been through all the chemotherapies on death's door, they get this T cell infusion that attacks their cancer, and they're cured. It is totally amazing. And we have seen the rate of decline in cancers when people have cancer go down. Your skepticism. Well, does that mean we're diagnosing more cancers that wouldn't have killed people? That's partially true, but we also are people who get diagnosed. We've got better treatments for them in a number of cancers, breast cancer being one of them. We've come a long way in treating things like melanoma and lung cancer, which was uniformly terminal when I was training, no longer are uniformly terminal. Or we've extended the life expectancy of those patients substantially from a few months to years now. So I would say overall, better now. There are problems and there are challenges. As you point out, the older the population gets, the more cancers people are going to have. It's what happens. You know, you get DNA damage doesn't get repaired and after multiple damages, you get cancer or, or your immune system doesn't do the right surveillance and cancer that has cropped up, flourishes and metastasizes. We also know that cancer treatments have become inordinately expensive, that the opening, you know, routine cancer chemotherapy now are, you know, $10,000 a month. That's a serious problem. That is a huge problem for society and for people because they have co pays and deductibles that they can't afford. Yes, they're cured of their cancer, but they're also now impoverished or bankrupt. That is not a place our society should be. And it's a, it's a serious health policy problem. That one I work on.

B (62:04)

We have a lot to be optimistic about and a lot of problems to be solved, I think is the conclusion. The book is excellent. We've been speaking with Zeke Emanuel, oncologist, world leader on health policy and bioethics. The book is eat your ice cream Six simple rules for a long and healthy Life. I really appreciate your time today. Thank you.

E (62:22)

Thank you, David. It's been great. And there's so much more in the book that we haven't talked about.

B (62:26)

Sleep and of course, staying focused while you work can be difficult, especially for folks with ADHD. Maybe you've tried listening to music on YouTube or ambient videos, background noise, but the sounds and the music weren't designed for focus, focus and they end up distracting you. Our sponsor, Brain fm is a music app specifically designed to support focus with music. Designed by musicians working together with neuroscientists. And because of Brain FM's unique audio technology designed to change the patterns in your brain, Brain FM is the only music app funded by the National Science Foundation. The app includes task specific modes like deep work, creative and motivation. It has a dedicated ADHD mode designed for brains that benefit from additional stimulation. And what really sets Brain FM apart is the research behind it. They published a peer reviewed study showing their patented music technology increases activity in attentional networks and improves performance on attention based tasks, especially among people with ADHD symptoms. If you're looking for a science backed alternative to generic focus music, Brain FM is worth trying. You can get 30 days free at brain.fm/pacman. It is getting worse and worse and worse for FBI Director Cash Patel. And there are growing predictions that Trump will have to fire him and that his latest round of public appearances and statements have the real potential to cost him his job. What is the latest that Cash Patel said? Well, it continues to go to this Whole concept of are you allowed to have guns when you go places or aren't you? The first thing Patel said when interviewed by Sean Hannity just hours ago was that they're not going around and infringing on people's freedom of speech. And. And they're definitely not going around infringing on people's right to bear arms. Let's listen carefully to what he says and then compare it to what he said yesterday.

D (64:38)

And if anyone broke the law and incited violence, remember, that's the key here. We are not going after people and infringing on their freedom of speech to peacefully protest. We are definitely not going after people in their Second amendment right to bear arms. Only if you incite violence and. Or threaten to do harm to law enforcement officials and break the law in any other way does it become an investigatory matter. So this signal chat is something that we, the FBI, are looking at and spearheading.

B (65:02)

The problem is that Renee Goode was killed and Alex Preddy was killed for their exercising of the first and Second Amendments. Just the first for Renee Good and the first and second for Alex Preddy. And the problem with Cash Patel now saying this is that just hours prior, as I showed you yesterday, he said to Maria Bartiromo, we are concerned with people who show up with a gun to a protest. You can't just show up wherever you want with guns. Except that's kind of exactly what the law says.

A (65:38)

I mean, thousands of people are marching through Minneapolis. They are targeting the Border Patrol. I mean, it feels like the rhetoric and the. The protesting is only ramping up. What is your advice to the people right now who are outraged that this is a second killing at the hands of Border Patrol in two weeks?

D (66:00)

As Christie said, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's.

B (66:07)

You can't.

D (66:08)

That's simple. You don't have that right to break the law and incite violence. We will, of course, always protect your First Amendment speech. And if you peacefully protest, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But you have seen a trend here, not just in Minnesota, but across the country, in these protests turning into violent scenarios and people attacking law enforcement.

B (66:28)

The problem with what Cash Patel is saying, and this is not some random yokel, this is the director of the FBI. The problem is that he's describing legal activity under the Second Amendment and Minnesota law. If you legally have a gun, you can carry it in public. That includes protests. Having. It cannot be interpreted as you being a threat. We know many of the people who carry the guns around are trying to intimidate. But that is not the situation we saw on video regarding Alex Preddy. And so that is, they are trying to suppress people's first and Second amendment rights. Now back to the Hannity interview. Patel, more of this. We support the Second Amendment. But. But.

D (67:11)

And I've also told stories that, you

B (67:13)

know, in situations, if I was.

D (67:15)

Knew I was on camera and I

B (67:17)

could get away from a confrontation knowing

D (67:20)

that I had the ability to defend myself, I would turn and hightail it and run rather than ever have to pull out a weapon. If you have a weapon, do you belong in an environment that is as contentious as this weekend? Do you bear respect, responsibility knowing that you have a firearm with you, what

B (67:39)

that could do to a situation?

D (67:42)

Well, Sean, like you said, we truly, fully support the Second Amendment, people's right to bear arms. But when you enter into a situation, a volatile situation like Minnesota where there were riots on the streets and people attacking federal law enforcement officers and ramming them with vehicles and the continued criminality and burning down and literally destroying federal vehicles and stealing information, we have to. We have to ask people what's prudential, what's smart? And it's not smart to go out there with a fully loaded weapon. We're just saying be careful.

B (68:11)

And yeah, the weapon might have been fully loaded, fully loaded. These people are truly pathetic. And I am not a Second amendment guy who goes around, let's put more guns in more places. I think the guns are a problem, but these folks have staked their political careers on that. Okay, just one more clip of this equivocation.

D (68:29)

This one's completely incoherent, saying be careful and be reasonable, like you've outlined. If you have a right to a permit for a firearm, that's okay, but you cannot incite violence and you cannot. I use the attack law enforcement officers.

B (68:41)

Yeah. Anyway, so that part of it, you can or you can't, because Alex Preddy wasn't doing any of that stuff. He didn't break the law by being there. He didn't break the law by having the gun. He didn't attack law enforcement officers. He was attempting to. To defend this woman who was sprayed and then got into the scrum. He was disarmed. He was on the ground facing away from a guy who shot him multiple times. They really don't care about the First Amendment, even though they say they do. They really don't even care about the Second Amendment, depending on who it is that has the guns. And if you Think this is disgusting. I have two words for you. Megyn Kelly. Megyn Kelly's most disgusting take ever seems to be stay home or get shot. Megan, what about that First Amendment you claim to worship? Megan, what about that Second Amendment you claim to worship? This is one of the most revealing and frankly grotesque reactions to the killing of Alex Preddy in Minneapolis. Megyn Kelly says she doesn't feel sorry for Alex Preddy and the reason she didn't get shot was because she stayed home. That is the logic. Don't get killed by the government. Just stay inside. Not journalism. This is authoritarianism with a microphone. Listen to this.

A (69:55)

I know I'm supposed to feel sorry for Alex Preddy, but I don't. I don't. Do you know why I wasn't shot by Border Patrol this weekend? Because I kept my ass inside and out of their operations. It's very simple. If I felt strongly enough about something the government was doing that I would go out and protest, I would do it peacefully on the sidewalk without interfering via a whistle, via shouting, via my body, via any other way, I would make my objections known by standing there without interfering. Because interfering is where you go south. And laying hands on a police officer trying to. Or. Or Border Patrol officer or ICE officer trying to conduct a law enforcement operation is a felony. And now you are going to get arrested. And if you do anything, anything that resembles resisting, you're in serious trouble.

B (70:51)

What a courageous take from Megyn Kelly. She. You wouldn't know it, but she's a constitutional conservative. Now, first of all, Alex Preddy was not there to attack people. He wasn't rioting, he wasn't assaulting, he wasn't trying to kill officers. We've got multiple videos and witnesses that show that he was filming, number one, constitutionally protected, and number two, trying to help a woman who had been shoved to the ground. He was tackled, pinned, disarmed, and then shot. And even if he had been protesting, that is the First Amendment. You don't lose your right to life because you were near a government operation. Now, Meghan is right about one thing, because there is a total disrespect for the First Amendment from the ICE officers and Border Patrol agents carrying out these operations. You probably should stay home. And that is the self censorship that I talked about last week. That is a restriction on the First Amendment. Sure, the First. You can still, if you go and look up the Bill of Rights, you'll still see that there is a First Amendment. But if you come out and protest, anything could happen to you. And that is true. She is right. Unfortunately, there is huge risk to exercising your First Amendment rights right now. Number two, he was legally carrying a gun, he had a valid permit, he didn't have it on him, which they're saying, oh my God, it's a crime, it's a twenty five dollar ticket. He had a valid permit, he's a lawful gun owner, he wasn't brandishing the gun. And the hypocrisy is that Megyn Kelly has spent her career defending gun rights. She defends open carry, she defends Second Amendment sacredness, she rails against the government overreaching. But suddenly the government kills a legally armed citizen and they say he had a gun, he was dangerous, he didn't brandish it and he was legally carrying it. Her position now is shouldn't have been there, shouldn't have been there. So the Second Amendment applies unless the state decides that it doesn't. That's not conservatism, it's not libertarian, it's not even consistent. It's just the state can kill you and you should have stayed home. Third, her argument is basically, if you don't want to get shot by federal agents, you've got to avoid federal agents. Are they so poorly trained that that's the only way to avoid. Avoid getting shot by them? And of course, that's not how democracy works. That is how authoritarian states work. That's how people. We don't even want to be seen by the Stasi in East Germany because even if we're doing nothing wrong, they might be in a bad mood, they might kill us. Imagine the logic elsewhere. The only way to avoid being beaten by police is don't leave your house. Hold on. It's a way. What? The only way to avoid being arrested for speech is by staying quiet. It's the logic of submission, it's not the logic of freedom. And the most disturbing part is that this is coming from someone who has for decades said I'm. That she's pro civil liberties, that she is pro free speech, that she's pro second Amendment. Alex Preddy didn't deserve to die because he was present. He didn't decide. He didn't deserve to die because he was trying to help someone. He didn't deserve to die because he had a legal firearm. He didn't deserve to die because he was filming police. And if your political ideology ends the moment that the state kills the wrong person, then you never really believed those principles in the first place. And maybe Megyn Kelly never believed those principles. Now on the bonus show. We will talk about the NRA and pro gun group saying, oh, there needs to be an investigation into the killing of Alex Preddy because after all, he was legally carrying his gun. An investigation into Kristi Noem has started and also the calls to boycott the World cup are growing. We are going to talk about all of that on the bonus show. Get my full podcast on Spotify for Apple Podcasts. Remember to leave a rating, hopefully five stars, but whatever rating you believe is appropriate. And you can sign up for the bonus show at Join Pacman Dot.