← The Tara Palmeri Show
The Tara Palmeri Show
Shrimp, Grape Soda, Pizza: The Disturbing Code Words Jeffrey Epstein Used for Girls
01:00:40
Loading summary
Transcript106 lines
- [00:00]
Commercial Narrator
Take the exit, turn right into the drive thru.
- [00:03]
Michael Shellenberger
Nope, I'm making dinner tonight.
- [00:05]
Tara Palmeri
You don't have time.
- [00:06]
Commercial Narrator
Josh has practice.
- [00:07]
Medical Disclaimer Voice
Oh, that's right.
- [00:08]
Tara Palmeri
I'll just get a salad and fries.
- [00:10]
Michael Shellenberger
No, just the salad.
- [00:11]
Commercial Narrator
But salad cancels.
- [00:12]
Sponsor Voice / Tamsen Fadal
Fries.
- [00:13]
Michael Shellenberger
Salad only. Fries. Salad, fries.
- [00:15]
Tara Palmeri
Food noise isn't fair, but Mochi Health is the affordable GLP one source that
- [00:20]
Sponsor Voice / Tamsen Fadal
puts you on the road to successful weight loss.
- [00:22]
Tara Palmeri
Hey, can I get the fries?
- [00:23]
Michael Shellenberger
Salad? Sorry.
- [00:25]
Tara Palmeri
Learn more@joinmochi.com Mochi members have access to
- [00:28]
Sponsor Voice / Tamsen Fadal
licensed physicians and nutritionists.
- [00:29]
Tara Palmeri
Results may vary.
- [00:30]
Michael Shellenberger
Thanks.
- [00:30]
Tara Palmeri
Thanks everyone who joined the show. The Red Letter meets public so many things that we both care about intersecting. So I'm really glad that we made this work and thank you to everyone who stuck with us. Michael, I love that your most recent post is about the CIA and Jeffrey Epstein because it's something that I is my most recent post on Substack as well. I'm sure you saw the file where Epstein's lawyers asked for proof of affiliation between himself and the CIA and NSA between I think it was 2004 and 2011. So like even after he spent time as a sex offender and as part of my reporting, one of the lawyers for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, Brad Edwards, who wrote about this also in his book, said that Epstein's bodyguard sent him to Lang was sent to Langley while he was in jail in Palm Beach County Jail to get information for him to bring back to him. And so, you know, I'm not saying that he was a spy or agent, but I, you know, based on my reporting and what I seem to glean is that I think he was like a hyper fixer passing along information to multiple governments. And he provided a level of value in terms of like information. Like the same way that Whitey Bulger did, you know, to the FBI for a long time sort of living above the law because he had access to really powerful people, he had information on them and he could open doors that would be difficult. I'm curious if to hear what you think about that and also the fact that there are two and a half million files that we can't see because of national security. I mean.
- [02:12]
Michael Shellenberger
Right. Yeah, there you go. Well, first of all, congratulations on your substack and all the success you're having. It's really nice to finally connect with you. I mean the story I wrote yesterday was based on a really strong two page letter by Congressman Nancy Mace, who is one of the four Republicans along with Thomas Massie, Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene to demand the release of the Epstein files. So credit to her, and she's one of the co sponsors of that made it happen. And now she's asking for the files from the CIA. Yeah, I mean, my, the picture I have is very similar to yours. I see him. I don't think he's working directly for any government. There's a way in which he's just this really incredibly talented fixer, as you said, and sort of manipulator of people. I think that a lot of the, you know, all of his awfulness shouldn't get in the way of us sort of appreciating what's happening at very high levels there. He, you know, hires as his attorney Katherine Rumler, who was White House counsel to President Obama, which means that she was an incredibly, you know, powerful person at a very young age. Like, to be a White House attorney, you're basically needing to make everything legal to tell people how to make things legal. You know, she then emails Epstein and says that she got the highest award from within the CIA. It's a secret award, but she emailed, you know, she emails it to him. So a lot of, you know, he talks at one point about going into a skiff. SCIF is the acronym for a Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility. I've only heard SCIF referred to in settings around the intelligence community or congressional oversight of the intelligence community. One point he says, I'm going to do a scif. And he says, oh, it's my house. Was he just joking or was his house a skiff? We know the former CIA director.
- [04:04]
Tara Palmeri
I don't know how his house would be a skiff considering there were literally cameras everywhere. But that's a whole other thing. When you make a skiff, you're supposed to debug the area. And often the President will go into a skiff when he's getting classified information. But like, it's like a, you know, that's a whole other story. It's the fact that he had cameras that he put in Kleenex boxes. I mean, what.
- [04:24]
Michael Shellenberger
Yes. What was that for? I mean, I think that a lot of the really wild conspiracy theories and a lot of the MeToo style cancellations, which I think are inappropriate actually, and we could talk about which ones we think those are, but just guilt by association. Very similar to the reaction after. Me too. I think some of that is just. I think it's unfortunate, but I also think it's a consequence of people not feeling like justice has been done. And you see these members of Congress that really want to show people that they've gotten scalps here, but I don't, unfortunately, I don't think that we're really getting to the meat of it. Which is exactly what was Epstein's relationship to the intelligence community. We know that one of his clients was Adnan Khashoggi, the Saudi arms dealer who played a crucial role in the Iran Contra in terms of brokering weapons from Israel to Iran. We also know, you know, Epstein was very close with the clintons during the 1990s. Buzzfeed reported that, that the State Department rented a five story mansion overlooking Central park to Epstein from 1992 to 1997. Why did they do that? What is the nature of a lot
- [05:38]
Tara Palmeri
of money then, by the way? It wasn't, he didn't have multiple houses at the time. In, during that period of time, he had one house in Palm Beach. So he didn't have the kind of wealth that he had, you know, around his death.
- [05:50]
Michael Shellenberger
And what was he doing? He got $25 million paid to him by Ariana de Rothschild to settle a Department of justice lawsuit against her. And then he, he got 50, then 10 million separately for Katherine Rummler. Like what, exactly what influence did he have at the Department of Justice? You know, at one point he talks about Bill Barr, who was Trump's former Attorney general, as CIA, they talked, you know, with Ehud Barak about partnering with Leon Panetta. William Burns, you know, Biden's CIA director, had appointments to meet with him three times. Burns himself said he met with him only twice. Yeah, what's, what's going on here? Exactly. I don't think that the picture that people have of it as sort of a pedophilia ring is accurate. I think that's not accurate. I don't think that's what was going on. I think there was bad behavior and exploitation of women and a really degrading attitude towards women and often grooming women that he then passed off to others. Particularly we saw this email exchange between Epstein and Steve Tisch where Tish is inquiring about a Ukrainian girl. And it appears that there is sort of something going on there in terms of, I don't know if it's grooming and trafficking, but Epstein made his money off of, you know, big deals like that $25 million, a deal he got for the DOJ settlement. He's not making money sort of like a pimp, you know, so I think that picture of it's wrong about that.
- [07:17]
Tara Palmeri
So I don't have the same impression on that in terms of like it not being a pedophilia ring. Here's, here's what I think. I think that, you know, having young girls around him that he could then traffic to men and then have that kind of leverage over them is something that was a. Was useful. That was a tool, blackmail. And, you know, we do know that there were girls that were under 18 traveling around on his planes with him, being moved from state to state and having sex in those other states with men. And so, like, that is the definition of trafficking. And in fact, in the state of Florida, when they were going to prosecute him, Marie Biafania had 60 counts against him. So I don't think it's fair to say that it wasn't a pedophilia ring. Now, did somebody, you know, did. Did he mostly take the 14 and 15 year olds from the high school for himself? Yes, I do believe that he was the one who was mostly going after these 14 and 15 year olds. And Galen Maxwell was the one who did that. I mean, these were girls that showed up at his house with braces on their teeth, calling his penis a wee wee. You want to actually listen to the, the. The videos? I'm not. The video, sorry. That, the, the tapes that, you know, Detective Ricari took with these high school girls, these were kids. And if you looked even at the evidence, you know, in his house, which were Polaroids of these naked girls, they were children. Like, I don't think anyone can deny that there were kids involved in this. Now, were all of these girls trafficked to powerful men? No. In fact, I think a lot of them who were on the younger side probably came from either Russia. And you could see in some of the cards it's like Schengen visa, Russia, age, body weight. Like they were, you know, kind of cataclysm, making catalogs of these girls. And I think they felt more comfortable trafficking younger girls from countries where the. It wasn't, you know, it was sort of more passable or they were coming from a place where they were harder to trace. You know what I'm saying? But I don't think that you can cancel out the fact that a lot of these girls were underage. And I think he used that as leverage over some men.
- [09:30]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, that could be. I mean, the only. I mean, the evidence for it is sparse in the sense that, you know, we have this email that Epstein sent to himself that appears to have been written for this advisor to Bill Gates, Boris, who was upset that Gates didn't give him a nicer penthouse in New York. And it appears that Epstein was advising him how to get what he wanted. And then he sent this email to himself, apparently in Boris's voice, to be sent to Gates. We see that Steve Tisch email.
- [10:02]
Tara Palmeri
Just the fact that a lot of victims have said that this happened, that they were trafficked. Like, there are a number of them in their depositions under oath saying that they were trafficked underage.
- [10:12]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah. And we've seen at least two of them to Leon Black.
- [10:16]
Tara Palmeri
I mean, a lot. There are a lot of women who have come forward and said, I just don't think we can cancel it out and be like, this is some me too hysteria. Like, I just. You're basically just. You're basically saying that all of these three or twos and depositions are hearsay and rumor. Like, that's. That's. Now, people do call in crazy tips, the FBI, like the cannibalism and the this and that. And I don't think we should be taking that seriously. But if, like, someone is sitting under oath and they're testifying, like, I don't think you can just pass it off, this hearsay or rumor.
- [10:44]
Michael Shellenberger
Well, I mean, it is. I mean, I think we. I think we. I think we are seeing people being canceled for just having an association with Epstein. And that is like the me too situation. I don't think you or I want to be in a world where it's just people are guilty by association or.
- [11:01]
Tara Palmeri
I do think you have a responsibility, though, to, like, decide who you associate with. Because, like, Epstein continued to exist because he was allowed to continue to bank at certain banks, and he. They actually opened accounts for the girls to be paid, you know what I'm saying? Like, you know, he existed because he was allowed to be re ingratiated back into society at the highest levels. So I don't know. I mean, like, if we're all allowed to, like, let's just say this. I don't see a lot of electricians or plumbers on those lists. Right. Of people that were trafficked. If a pedophile was living in our neighborhood, there would be Megan's Law. You'd have to know about it. And a lot of people would be really grossed out by it. But I think because he was a billionaire and he gave out money to everybody and he used money to launder his reputation and stayed in these high circles and actually used a lot of prominent women to do that, like Peggy Siegel, you know, Catherine, Kathy Rummler, various other prominent women to, like, launder his reputation. He was able to. To get back into society even though it was sex center. So I don't know. I don't really like to. I don't think we can just say, oh, should these people lose their jobs? Some of them should. Yeah. But I, I still think that there is a raw in society. And what you've talked a lot about is like the rebellion against the elites. Like this is elite behavior. Only elite people.
- [12:22]
Michael Shellenberger
Yes.
- [12:22]
Tara Palmeri
Can get back into society after committing crimes like that and have no problem.
- [12:28]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, I mean, it's, I mean, it's a. It's an argument for more conservative moral values, I would say, where you would go into situations like that, you see three, you know, beautiful young women sort of hanging around Epstein, and you would suggest that that's maybe not in the interest of those young women. So I think that that's, you know, we saw really only one case of a person just openly saying in the emails that they thought what was going on was wrong. And that was Norm Norman Finkelstein, the famous critic of Israel. We saw a lot of people downplaying it. You know, Kathy Rumler acknowledging your kind of massage to Epstein, which is gross and inappropriate. I guess the question is, you know, for me, I don't think Peter Attia did anything that would prevent him from being an important. Continue to be an important voice on health that he's been for so many people, including me. And I don't think you should lose his job for that, you know, for it.
- [13:25]
Tara Palmeri
But I also don't know that I want to see him on the morning show all smiles and giggles when you know that, like, you know, he chose to spend time with Jeffrey Epstein instead of his son in icu. It's just like a sign of character. And a lot of times people are buying into your character. Yeah, but I mean, like, I'm sorry, but you are, you know.
- [13:43]
Michael Shellenberger
I know, but Tara, I mean, how much do you want to go? I mean, so now we're going to evaluate people on whether or not we think. I mean, you want to get into that. I mean, like, we don't know what. We don't know the other side of that. I mean, you've been in, you know, we've all been in many relationships where people might describe your behavior without knowing your side of it, and it would be unfair. And so what are we doing here? Are we going, like, now we're going to just go and evaluate people based on these emails. We're going to try to get in there and decide whether Peter Attia did the right thing when his son was in the hospital. I mean, we just don't know. And I just don't think that's the road we want to go down.
- [14:17]
Tara Palmeri
That's fine. Everybody has a right to defend themselves. And you're right, this isn't a witch trial. Actually, I think there should be a real trial. Like let's get some real people on the stand and have them actually talk about under oath their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein and what they know. I mean, that's, that's their next logical step. And it shouldn't be behind closed doors. Like it should be something that we can all view. There should actually be real prosecutions. I mean, I don't. Or at least hearings that we, that very powerful people who are in his circle can explain the extent of their relationship to him, what they know. But also include, as we have been talking about the CIA, heads of the various, you know, Justice Department, FBI, like even going back to think about this. Jeffrey Epstein started as a Ponzi schemer. Do you know remember that? Stephen Hoffenberg was the largest Ponzi scheme at the time. That was his partner at Financial Towers. Now, Stephen Hoffenberg died in prison and Jeffrey Epstein did not. And then he went on to help the FBI on Bear Stern's case. Like, I think he was constantly trading information to protect himself throughout his entire life.
- [15:22]
Sponsor Voice / Tamsen Fadal
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.
- [15:47]
Tara Palmeri
SA.
- [16:24]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, no, for sure. And we know that one of his clients was Adnan Khashoggi, who was the key Saudi middleman in the Iran Contra scandal, you know, moving arms from Israel to Iran to help it defeat or at least beat back Iraq. And then we saw that Epstein went to the White House. I believe it was over a dozen times when Clinton was president. Clinton was also involved because the Mena airport was involved in running drugs for CIA in the 1980s or. Sorry, yeah, the 1980s. We saw that Buzzfeed reported that the State Department rented a five story mansion to Epstein from 92 to 97. You know, we. There's just a lot. It's very. He's clearly somebody that was, you know, moving at the highest levels, you know, of government just to get Kathy Rum. Katherine Rumler as your attorney is such a big deal. But then what did he do to basically get.
- [17:22]
Tara Palmeri
Doj and also in the 2008 Sweetheart deal went all the way up to the Attorney General. Like, when it went all the way up to Gonzalez and GW In George W. Bush's office and Bill Barr, you know, it's like he. I mean, he could pay for the best. I remember when I was reporting on this, they got Alex Acosta to meet them in a Palm beach shitty hotel that I've stayed at. Okay. Obviously, they didn't want to be seen there because, like, I had to stay there when I was covering Trump. And, like, you don't get the. You don't get the U.S. attorney to drive an hour and a half to meet a defense attorney off campus to talk about a case like that doesn't happen ever.
- [18:00]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, there's so much stuff like that. And I think a lot of the. Just a lot of the really wild, you know, speculations that people are making, a lot of the conspiracy theorizing just shows how our trust has been lost in the intelligence community. We think it's there to serve elites. We're not wrong about that. You know, this is. You saw, you know, all sorts of people, really. Nobody other than Norman Finkelstein saying that this was really wrong, what was going on, that they were exploiting women. We saw women that were being groomed and then going out there and finding other women for. For Epstein. But, yeah, I mean, for me, the. The big story here and remains a mystery a lot.
- [18:37]
Tara Palmeri
He did it in a high school. Like, there were girls in a high school. Like, a lot of girls in a high school. They picked them up in the mall, and they picked them up at the. And they picked him up at the. The movie theaters, and it was Glenn who would do that. And then they told them if you brought your girlfriend, you made 200. And they chose these girls that lived in trailers on the wrong side of the tracks. And for them 200 to give this guy a massage was more than their dad made. You know what I'm saying? Like, they picked the right people to target. And that's disgusting. Sorry. But it is.
- [19:12]
Michael Shellenberger
Like, that's how grooming works. Yeah. No, grooming. We just saw, and we're in the midst of a major grooming gang scandal in Britain, where it works the exact same way, where these guys become their. They give them gifts and they buy them things. They often get them hooked on alcohol and drugs, and they're basically turned into, you know, slaves for them. So, yeah, I mean, it's. I think they, you know, for me, it's just sort of what was going on that allowed him to get so much protection for so long? And why wasn't there ever a proper investigation? And doesn't seem like we're getting answers. Although, you know, credit to all the people, including yourself, that have been pushing on this because we, you know, obviously it was such an important issue for the public that you saw these. There's a number of Republicans that broke from the president. They took a lot of grief for it. Marjorie Taylor Greene ended up leaving Congress because of it. I think there's rumors that the President hasn't endorsed Nancy Mace for the same reason. I know they chewed out Lauren Boebert and they're trying to get rid of Massie. So credit to them for being courageous. And we get a really interesting insight into how things work and just how depraved our elites are. I mean, they just don't. There's no, there's no real. I mean, what it's. I mean, there's so many things that are going on in these emails. We've all been reading them obsessively, but they're not talking about, you know, we're not. They're not talking about ways to help people or. These are not places where they're concerned at all with the common good. It's just a hedonistic, you know, search for pleasure on the part of Epstein and then using just extremely high level contacts in order to serve his clients.
- [20:48]
Tara Palmeri
I see. So you brought up a few things on your subject that like, kind of veer into conspiracy land, which is fine because this story does, but the pizza gate of it all, like coated pizza, grape soda. Can you kind of explain that to me? Because, like, also when he was speaking with Jess Staley, who I believe was the head of JP Morgan at the time, he would talk to him when he was at a Zorro ranch and he would say, and Jess Sally was in his hot tub asking for Beauty and the Beast or Snow White. So, like, they spoke in a lot of coded language about girls.
- [21:19]
Michael Shellenberger
Yes.
- [21:20]
Tara Palmeri
What do you think? Like, what do you think that's all about? Is there a connection to Pizzagate? Like, I didn't even go there because to be honest, when Pizzagate was a thing, it almost like was too weird for me. I'm not a conspiratorial person, you know what I'm saying? Like, I hold on to the things that I can, like fact check and verify, but it's hard not to be in this story. And I have become. Ever since the files have come out, I've actually Started to indulge in the Morgan spiritual thinking before that, like when I was doing reporting for Broken and everything up to that point, I'm like, I'm not gonna focus on that stuff. It just seems so crazy and off the wall. And then when you see these files, the more and more you're just like, what is going on? Right.
- [22:02]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, I mean, I mean, it's. There's a lot to unpack and just to get clear about kind of what we know, what we don't know. I mean, Epstein talks in these emails asking people if they're using code words. So the idea that people are using code words is something that Epstein basically says that there's, you know, implies heavily that there is the use of code words. What I wrote about in the article was that I think it's very clear that when they use the word shrimp in many contexts, they're referring to young women and not to the seafood. I think there are cases where they appear to be referring to the seafood as well. But there's cases where the shrimp is clearly a code word for young women. They just talk about. And they even put the word shrimp at several points in quotation marks. I did not in that article write about the pizza references because I am not as confident about whether or not those are code words. However, after the New York Times wrote about the fact that there's a lot of pizza references and that there's. Particularly from this, his supposedly his urologist, a guy named. Oh, I'm blanking on the name right
- [23:13]
Tara Palmeri
now,
- [23:15]
Michael Shellenberger
but his urologist, basically they talk repeatedly about pizza and grape soda in ways that, I mean, I'm sorry, I've just never seen grown men show so much enthusiasm for pizza and grape soda.
- [23:26]
Tara Palmeri
Not at their, like, wealth level. Right.
- [23:28]
Michael Shellenberger
It's not like it seems, it seems very strange. And I'm not saying that all the pizza references, I'm not saying it is. I just don't know. But I did then put on X because I felt like the Times had at least they had been out there at least reporting on their paper. I just put on X. I go, we should just recognize that this wasn't a one time thing. And I just listed all the different instances where they talk about pizza and grape soda. And in one of them, the urologist is prescribing Epstein a fast acting erectile dysfunction drug. And then he says to Epstein, he says, go take your pill. Basically, go take them. Go take your, your erectile dysfunction drugs. And then let's go out for pizza and grape soda. That's weird. Like, why would you be like, take your erectile dysfunction drug so we can go have pizza and grape soda? You know, I don't want to. It was one of those things where it's like, I'm like, I'll put it on X. I'm not going to put it as, like, an article, but I just want to kind of be like, yeah, that's there. Yeah, it's there. And make your own judgment, but it seems off.
- [24:34]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah, that was like, something also that the survivors have told me is that, like, you know, when you went to Jeffrey's house, it was, like, hard to know, not know what this guy was about. Like, there were just so many young girls, a lot of them, like, tanning naked in the Palm beach apartment house. Like, when the police went in there and they raided his house for the 2008, you know, arrest, it was back in 2005, and they just found all these pictures on the walls, Polaroids of naked girls that were, like, clearly, like, underage. And he liked girls looking prepubescent. Like, he almost, like, kind of starved them a little bit. Like, didn't want them to have curves, which is not. It wasn't his aesthetic, obviously. He wanted young girls. And, like, you could even see it in the writing. Like, he didn't want anything that looked like a woman. So, you know, I just think it's like, it was. Would have been really hard to be friends with Jeffrey Epstein and not know that that was his obsession. And I think you could see that in the 50th birthday. 50th birthday book. Every single reference almost was about his obsession with women. Like, this guy is a perv. Everybody knows it, and they're in on the joke. You know, it's like. It's a little. I feel like he groomed the elites a little bit, to be honest.
- [25:39]
Michael Shellenberger
I feel like, yeah, I had the same. I was about to say this. I actually had the same rag. I was like, he was kind of grooming everybody. I mean, what's so impressive about what he was doing is he was just two steps ahead of everybody. I mean, one of the things I was struck by was that he offered to raise money for Larry Summers, his wife's poetry program. I mean, that's next level. I mean, if you want to, you know. And there's a lot of reasons why I think Jeffrey Epstein would want to have a relationship with Larry Summers. I mean, we know that Epstein was given financial information in advance by former Lord Mandelson in Britain. He sent him information that there would be an EU rescue package of Greece in 2010. Any foreknowledge of that deal being announced, you would know that the response to that deal would be the stock market would increase significantly. And you could literally bet, you could bet on that. That'd be like a no risk investment. And if Epstein had that insider trading information. So if he was, I mean, it looks like a lot of his goals was to get inside information from people and to be constantly. That's why he was so focused on delivering this really base need for, or the space desire, I should say, for all these powerful men. He knew that it would be a way to get to win them over to him. And I think, like you said, I think there is a hint of. I mean, what's incredible is that they all allowed so many photos of themselves to be taken with women. I mean, it's a level of trust that they must have had that they were allowing. I mean, Bill Clinton in a hot tub. I mean, Andrew Prince Andrew hovering over a woman who's lying on the carpet. I mean, they had total trust in this guy. And, and then he had a lot of confidence that he was going to be able to get away with it.
- [27:22]
Tara Palmeri
And I always think to myself, and the things we don't know from the 90s pre email, right, like how much
- [27:29]
Michael Shellenberger
was done on the phone and yeah,
- [27:31]
Tara Palmeri
we don't know Trump's relationship with Epstein at all really, because of that. Like if they had been actually been emailing before their rivalry and I don't think Trump emails. No, that's the other thing he texts now too. But like, imagine if he was just like maybe 10 years younger or something. Like, do you know what I mean? Totally different world. Okay. I didn't think when I was going to have you on my show that we were only going to talk about Epstein. But like, I feel like everyone just wants to talk about Epstein. It's, it's on. It's just a fact. I'm sure whenever you go out places, people want to talk to you about it happens to me. But I did want to talk to you about the Stephen Colbert Talarico interview because you have written so extensively on censorship. What do you think about the FCC saying that he can't post this interview with James Talarico? He's the Texas Senate candidate, obviously. I mean, the fair, you know, fair rules on top on how much time you give to candidates. Like, does this apply or do you think this is just sort of trying to hurt a candidate in a race that is obviously of importance to Republicans right now.
- [28:33]
Michael Shellenberger
I mean, I don't know all the facts of it. My understanding was there was some concern about giving equal time to the other candidate.
- [28:40]
Tara Palmeri
Right.
- [28:41]
Michael Shellenberger
This equal time provision, of course, is a vestige from when, from before the Internet, when that was a problem. But, I mean, I was concerned when Saturday Night Live, I thought, was openly pushing for Kamala a few days before the elections, raised some of those concerns. And then NBC, to its credit, then actually did give equal time to President Trump to respond. I think that one of the best things about the Republicans is that they're just so clumsy and overt in their demands for censorship. They're really. They're really. You know, there's a distinction in Machiavelli between, like, lions and foxes. The Republicans tend to be the lions, the Democrats tend to be foxes. And the fox approach to censorship is so much more surreptitious. They're basically using. The Department of Homeland Security would basically authorize these NGOs. Same thing works around the world to then demand that the social media platforms, censorship, sort of on behest of the government. But it's all very behind closed doors. We didn't learn about it until the Twitter files. So censorship is. I mean, I'm obviously against censorship. I have a very high bar for what constitutes illegal speech. And I support the Supreme Court's view that if it's incitement to violence, has to be immediate incitement to violence. It can't just be people saying terrible things online. But, yeah, I mean, it's unfortunate because we really need the administration to be holding a strong, consistent line against censorship, because we're being, you know, we're being censored by the Europeans. I mean, that was one of the things that was just revealed a couple of weeks ago by the House Judiciary Committee. We know that they were demanding social media platforms engage in all sorts of censorship on migration, on trans issues, on climate change, on elections. And the administration has done a pretty good job of pushing back against that. But I think you see in those emotional moments, like after the Charlie Kirk assassination, when people were saying terrible things, the administration succumbs to its own passions in demanding or calling for censorship or making threats. And that sort of. I condemned it at the time and continue to condemn it. It's totally inappropriate. And it's the kind of thing where you would wish that the Trump administration would be more consistent, because I do think so much of the dismantling they've done to the censorship industrial complex is. Is laudatory.
- [31:05]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah. Okay, so now here's a new lawsuit filed on Wednesday from the foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. Fire. They accused Pam Bondi and Kristi None. Of coercing tech companies into removing a wide range of content to control what the public can see, hear, or say about ICE operations. Do you know anything about that? What do you think? Hey, guys, I want to tell you about this brand that I discovered even before they became sponsors of the Tara Palmeri show. It's called Quince. And if you're seeing me wearing a silk top on the show, it is most likely from Quince because they really make elevated quality, effortless clothing that is perfect for layering, mixing. It's helped me build a timeless wardrobe, and it cuts out the middlemen. So the prices are not that high. You are not paying for brand markup. They go to safe, ethical factories. And what you get in exchange is high quality clothing with beautiful silhouettes and thoughtful details. And it's the kind of stuff that you can wear every single day. It's made to last. It's not just silk. They've got beautiful cashmere, 100% organic cotton sweaters, premium denim. I recently bought some silk pajamas. And I've got to tell you, it's really hard to get out of bed when you're wearing them. They are just so beautiful. And I know they'll. I'll have them forever. My recommendation for you is to refresh your wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.comtara T A R A for free shipping on your order and 365 days of returns. It's now available in Canada. That's Q u I n c e.com/tara. To get free shipping and 365 days of returns. Quince, Q u I N C E. About how.
- [32:54]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, I saw that. I mean, it's very concerning. I. I don't know all the details of it. You know, I mean, I think the Alex Preddy shooting and the Renee Good shooting certainly went very viral. I didn't see any evidence of. Of it being throttled there, but. No, I think any. I mean, look, unfortunately, the Supreme Court essentially upheld, and I was on the losing side of that. Upheld, you know, 5, 4. The ability of the administration to do what's sort of called jawboning, you know, because before the Internet, you know, the president could call up the editor of the Washington Post, the New York Times, and, you know, see it in the movie the Post about the Pentagon Papers and say, don't publish that. That's state secrets. Don't Publish that. That's protected speech. The government can engage in that kind of job boning. I think in the Internet age, when you're actually having the government authorize NGOs to be demanding censorship of social media platforms and then having the President similarly saying that Facebook is killing people, and the White House demanding that Facebook censor more, they would say, misleading information on vaccines. I mean, we're at a point where we had the Stanford Internet Observatory sort of authorized by the Department of Homeland Security, demanding the censorship of a Harvard medical professor who said the obvious, which is that not everybody needs to get the vaccine, including children and including people who have had prior infection. So that's how far the censorship got in the COVID under the Biden administration. But the Supreme Court basically said a lot of that and they didn't get. There's a lot more details there that I'm having to skip past, but that a lot of that job owning is allowed. And so we'll see. I think that for me, the greatest threat continues to be having governments basically set up small committees of experts to decide what we can and can't say online and that for the whole thing to be secretive. And we know there's a Politico story yesterday that described how the European Commission was basically doing all this in secret, and they were demanding that it be kept secret. So that's what freaks me out. It's really a secret process to demand censorship by the social media platforms. So far, we're not in that totally totalitarian space. But you could see very quickly it's easier to censor three or four social media platforms and demand that they censor certain speech than it is to stop printing presses, because printing presses can be moved all around when everybody's just reading text. Censorship is a lot harder to do. But censorship in the new, in the post Internet era, I think is, remains, is, and remains a significant threat and will be forever, because there is just this natural monopoly with social media platforms.
- [35:38]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah, it is. I mean, in a lot of ways, it's democratized news, but it also. You're right, there is a censorship element of it because ultimately there's someone who owns it. Right. It's never. There'll always be a sense. There will always be some sort of filter.
- [35:51]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah.
- [35:52]
Tara Palmeri
Okay. I really want to talk to you about California because you did run twice as a gubernatorial candidate, once as a Democrat, then you became an independent. I know you're not running this time. Unless you want to say something groundbreaking.
- [36:07]
Michael Shellenberger
No, definitely not.
- [36:10]
Tara Palmeri
Okay, got it. But if you had to support a candidate for in this race. Who would it be and why?
- [36:17]
Michael Shellenberger
Look, you know, I'm actually neutral, so I've, I've, I didn't vote for president. And I've got a bit of an old fashioned view of, of this, which is that I shouldn't vote because I do think it's impossible. It's very hard not to allow that to bias you because I think people want to feel like they made the right decision. And I think that's happens at an unconscious level. So I'm not voting for Governor. That's not necessarily true on everything. I will endorse a ballot initiative and did in 2024, for example, to recriminalize or increase the penalties for dealing fentanyl. That's very consistent with sort of my own values and the stuff I've written about. But I haven't endorsed a candidate. I will say I think you need a big change in California. So I'm skeptical of the Democrats that are running. I thought that Rick Caruso would run for governor. I'm a little surprised he's not running for governor. And I don't know quite why that would be. I mean, he said his family, but he seemed like one of the strongest candidates because obviously he's. People don't know. Rick Caruso is a very wealthy billionaire developer in Los Angeles. He really knows the system. He's got the presence of a governor. California is more conservative than LA is, or California as a whole is more conservative than Los Angeles or San Francisco. So I thought he would have had a chance. You've got Chad Bianco and Steve Hilton and running as Republicans. I think they're raising some good issues. You know, I think that for me the biggest issue in California remains the homeless, you know, crime issue and addiction and mental health and the ways in which California's policies have enabled addiction rather than created consequences for it. I think it's. They're just implementing what was always a pretty radical left wing agenda to use some of the sickest people in the world, people addicted to fentanyl and methamphetamine, often who are suffering an underlying mental illness, they're using them to demand for lower rents or more subsidized housing. But that's not what the majority of those people need. Anybody that is homeless for just economic reasons, or the proverbial mother escaping her abusive husband, those are the easiest people to take care of. I mean, we know what those folks need. We're not dealing with the underlying addiction or mental health issue. So for me that remains the biggest issue. And I'm not super happy with the way the candidates are dealing with it. I think it's a lot of. There's still a lot of people that talk about the need for California to have more housing, which it definitely needs, but that's not the solution to the homeless crisis. The homeless issue is just simply a function of enabling people with underlying mental illness or addiction from camping publicly, using drugs publicly. That's fundamentally the public order issue because. And it's not something that's. It's not caused by poverty. It's caused by the fact that we spend so much money essentially incentivizing the kinds of behaviors that we associate with homelessness, including sleeping outside, using drugs publicly, public drug dealing, open air drug scenes. So I'm not super happy with the conversation that's occurring in California around the governor's race. I'm hoping that that develops and changes over the next few months as we head towards the June primary.
- [39:28]
Tara Palmeri
Okay, can you explain, though, the. The phrase shelter first, housing earned, that was something that you came up with. But, like, how are they earning it in your.
- [39:39]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah.
- [39:39]
Tara Palmeri
Earn this.
- [39:41]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah. I mean, so my research took me to the Netherlands, and I wanted to use the Netherlands both because I think they have a really, a lot of success in dealing with addiction and mental illness, but also because I felt like it was a liberal enough place that liberal Californians would take more inspiration from Amsterdam than they would from San Antonio, for example, or some other city in the United States. But I mean, basically the core studies that were done on how you deal with addiction driven homelessness were done in Birmingham, Alabama in the 1980s with crack addicts. And the idea is that nobody should ever have to sleep on the streets. We shouldn't let people sleep on the streets. It's not safe for them. It's not safe for the public. Everybody needs to come inside. We know you're three times more likely to die if you're unsheltered homeless, meaning you don't have a shelter to stay in than if you stay in one. And those people are dying from, you know, drug overdose homicides, car accidents, homeless people get run over. It's just completely uncivilized approach to allow all that public outdoor camping. So everybody has to come inside. Once you come inside, you should have access to safe, clean, basic shelter. It's usually going to be called Congregate shelter. So you might have a very small amount of privacy or a bunk bed, but you're in a room with a lot of other people and Then what they did in Birmingham is that if you then pass a drug test, then you can get what most people want, which is a private room. And so housing is a reward. It's an incentive for positive behavior. This is known as contingency management. It's one of the. It's really the only thing that's proven to work with. With hard drugs like cocaine. I mean, with stimulant drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine. We do have opioid replacement therapy, first from methadone and then from Suboxone for people that are addicted to fentanyl. But the bottom line is, you know, you have to have consequences for negative behavior. I had the former director of public safety for Denver, he just said to me, said, you know, Mike, at the end of the day, you get what you allow. So if you change the laws to allow people to camp outside, you'll get people camping outside. If you change the laws that allow people to deal fentanyl and meth publicly, people will deal fentanyl and meth publicly. If you allow open drug scenes to Congress, you're going to get open air drug scenes. So you have to have a constant. You just have to have carrots. It's very simple. Carrots and sticks. Carrots to reward the positive behavior. Hey, you pass a drug test, you can get your own private room sticks. There's consequences. If you overdose on the streets and the fire department has to come and revive you, that's the moment when you can say, look, you have a choice. We can get you into rehab now or you can go to jail. But the option is not to stay on the street and overdose again. That's not good for you. And that's not fair to the taxpayers who have to spend thousands of dollars for every time the fire truck has to come out to revive somebody from a fentanyl overdose.
- [42:36]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah, I could see that. The only thing is, like, if people are, like, truly addicted, I think they need, like, inpatient care. Are you factoring that in? That's quite expensive. And like, also, I know in some other states, they really, like, round a lot of the homeless up and put them in mental health facilities. Like, do you think that's humane or what's your take on that?
- [42:55]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, I mean, there's a long history where basically we shut down almost all of our, you know, large state, you know, asylums. Mental asylums. You know, it's important to remember that those asylums often in the country, often large, those were a progressive achievement in the late 19th century. You know, Brought over from Europe to the United States. They were, some of them were really successful. Over time, the funding got cut, we went through the Great Depression and they became just much more decrepit. People were mistreated, there's no question about it. But then we went to this really extreme overreaction and particularly led by progressives to basically deinstitutionalize everybody. Deinstitution can work, but you need something, you need a court order so that you can, you know, essentially for the schizophrenics in particular, people with serious mental illness, to keep them away from open air drug dealing or drug scenes. Because we know that schizophrenics who commit homicide, it's almost, it's very often because they got access to hard drugs. So you need to have some stick, you need to have some coercion to require people to come inside. But in terms of, yeah, inpatient care, I mean, look, fentanyl and the new meth are just so addictive that it's really six months. It used to be like 30 day rehab. That doesn't work anymore. I mean, you need like 6 months to 12 months to be in a facility. Is it expensive? It is expensive. It's. But it's been expensive. What we've been doing in California, I mean, we're spending over a hundred thousand dollars per homeless person in San Francisco for services that make their lives worse. 24 billion spent by the governor on homelessness that made homelessness increase and make it much worse. So you got to have, I mean, ultimately, I think we could have dealt with this epidemic. The way we dealt with it is we just let all these people die. And so you just had. Finally, the overdose deaths came down in 2024 and 2025. But they came down because so many people were allowed to die. And so people always. I, I was saying something similar around the. When Rob, Rob Reiner's son murdered his, murdered him and murdered his wife, I was saying there should have been some court order that would have required Reiner to, you know, to be in some sort of treatment or some sort of oversight. And there's a lot of people are like, oh, but what about his rights? And it's like, well, but, you know, what about. They're all, you know, he's going to prison for the rest of his life and his parents are dead. So you're. We had this in the 90s. There was an awareness that people with serious mental illness could be a threat to themselves or others. And they created something called Kendra's Law. In New York and Laura's Law in California, named after victims of people with serious mental illness who went on and committed homicide. And there was the sense in which, yeah, the courts need to provide some sort of, you know, basically a court ordered, you know, treatment where they have to take their meds. They can't be allowed to go and hang out in open air drug scenes. But the courts and Californians have not, basically, for a variety of reasons, they've not used those tools that they have in part because it's just a very radical. Just a sort of a, you know, what you would call a radical left libertarianism, so that people designated victims, which is all racial minorities, everybody with a drug problem, everybody with mental illness. The idea is basically that to victims, everything should be given enough and required. But that's a death sentence for addicts. Anybody that's ever had an addicted family member or friend knows that addicts will lie, steal and cheat in order to maintain their habit. And you have to have some way to make an intervention, otherwise they're either going to die or, you know, or commit some crime or some combination of the two.
- [46:42]
Tara Palmeri
I want to move on to something you said. You describe Gavin Newsom's leadership as a reign of terror on immigration. What did you mean by that? And what do you think about how the President has reacted to that reign of terror? You know, by. By sending in more ICE agents, National Guard? I mean, the cl, obviously in California is frankly terrifying.
- [47:09]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, I mean, so lot to unpack there. I mean, I think that the first thing is that the sanctuary cities that in the sanctuary states, of which California is one, and the sanctuary cities have been used to protect drug dealers. I mean, the vast majority of the drug dealers in San Francisco have been Hondurans who are here illegally, essentially working for the Sinaloa cartel, allowed to sell methamphetamine and fentanyl and very hard drugs that kill people. That's been going on for a really long time.
- [47:40]
Tara Palmeri
These sanctions actually intentionally made to protect these cartels, or it's just a byproduct. Like, I'm sure what they're really thinking is it's intended to protect business owners, particularly in agriculture and restaurants and all the other places. You know, I don't think it's like designed to protect cartel owners. I think it's just. No, yeah, I think it's.
- [48:02]
Michael Shellenberger
No. I mean, I think that the sanctuary. I think the sanctuary laws had a really beautiful, you know, beginning, which is that they were a response to these terrible wars in Central America in the 1980s and there was a sanctuary movement to basically protect refugees coming from disfavored countries like El Salvador that was an ally of the United States, but we were supporting a very violent regime there and a lot of people were fleeing. And so I think the sanctuary laws were designed to protect genuine refugees. They weren't designed to protect drug dealers. Now on the point about the employers, I 100% agree. Like, I think if you want to remove undocumented immigrants or illegal immigrants, whatever your politics that you do so through E Verify, you basically just require the employers to certain, you know, to get to basically verify through the E VERIFY system that somebody is here legally. President Trump hasn't wanted to do that because they don't want to affect, you know, businesses that really depend heavily on illegal labor. And that's, you know, there's the strategy that they've clearly pursued is to get people to self deport. And so that's why they're doing these big showy ICE raids. Look, I mean, I think that the ice, the whole ICE operations, they were done badly.
- [49:22]
Tara Palmeri
Owners. Listen, I know it has a huge impact on the economy, not just in California, but probably early California because it produces so much agriculture, but all over the country. But why aren't the business owners, the ones that pay the penalty for hiring people that are not here documented? They are the ones who are getting the tax benefits of not having to pay for, you know, a U.S. citizen. I don't understand why the, that the penalty is, you know, a situation in which there are raids in the daylights, destroying communities. Non targeted go raid the. If it, like it just doesn't make any sense. Like shouldn't the business owners be the ones to raise their hands and say, listen, like they should be the ones that they're getting rated at their, at their, you know, at their business places and saying, hey, who are these people? Are they documented? If they're not documented, why aren't, why aren't you getting a visa for them? You need to pay a fine and this is how they can, you know, raise money for the government. I don't, I don't understand why. It's, it's just like picking random people off the street. It's hard to identify people anyway as being here legally or not. You're basically racially profiling.
- [50:28]
Michael Shellenberger
They don't have.
- [50:29]
Tara Palmeri
Not documented. How would you know?
- [50:32]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, yeah, I mean, look, I think that it's obviously why there's, they obviously we know why they're not doing that and that's because they don't want to upset those businesses. I think another reason is that they don't want inflation. This is a real tension in the MAGA agenda, which is, you know, on the one hand you want to raise wages. That's why they want to, you know, that's one of the reasons why they want to reduce the population of people here that are here illegally. On the other hand, that could result in higher food prices, you know, higher restaurant prices. They don't want that. And so they've gone with the strategy of basically trying to get people to self deport. So one question is, has that worked? I interviewed experts on both the left and the right and the administration says that last year they got rid of. They had 600,000 people that were deported through the system, which appears to be like the maximum they can just process every year. And then the administration said that another 1 or 1.4 million people self deported. That comes from census data, like ongoing census phone calls. And people on the immigration groups on the left say there's no evidence that there was any self deportations because all of the people that stopped returning the phone calls could have just done so because they were scared of being caught by the government. People on the right say no. In fact, we've seen the reductions are significantly more than what you would predict from that. I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, but I do think that. So that's just the question of how to enforce then. I think the ICE operations, yeah, I think they were, I mean obviously they were badly done. Two Americans got killed in these, you know, in the protests. I do think that there is response. So I do think that ICE is, you know, the way that they were. The DHS was doing this was irresponsible. I think that that was not the right way to do the policing. I think that, yeah. Why would you be focused in this? You know, there clearly wanted a confrontation in the states that are most against ice, like Minnesota. There's no other way to say clearly antagonistic.
- [52:35]
Tara Palmeri
They were antagonizing. There's a reason why in Florida you have not seen ICE raids like. Like that. Yes, would be very easy to do ICE raids in Florida. It's another state like California, even Texas. We're not seeing any ICE raids in Texas, very border state. Why is that?
- [52:52]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, and I will say, you know, bad behavior on all sides. I also think that the way that those, I mean, I've done civil disobedience in my own past. I believe in civil disobedience. I think it's a really important Tradition. They were not engaging in nonviolent civil disobedience. I mean, they were interrupt. They were interfering in police activities. These progressive groups, I think that they bear some responsibility here. Alex Preddy was obviously interfering in police operations. I'm not defending just because I know people will jump to conclusion. I'm not defending what ICE did, but I do think it was unnecessarily antagonistic from both sides. But look, the Trump administration, they should have pulled out or they should have pulled back. As soon as Renee Good. As soon as somebody shot Renee Goode, I mean, that was terrible. But they kept going. And then you had Alex Preddy getting shot, and so then the administration had to take an L. And that looked bad for the administration. It looked like they were essentially giving in because it was such a bad operation.
- [53:54]
Tara Palmeri
So look, really quickly on the Alex Preddy thing, but he was helping a woman who was being pushed down by a cop. Like, he was.
- [54:04]
Michael Shellenberger
Well, wait a second. Yeah, well, but wait a second, though. I mean, that's a very. I've heard that defense. Oh, he's helping a woman who's being mistreated. But. Well, that woman was. I mean, look, I mean, like, again, I think ICE behaved badly. I don't need to say it again. I don't think you should have done that. But like, like, if you see a cop having an altercation with somebody, you don't go and get in between that. I mean, you can, but then the consequences are potential violence where they've literally
- [54:30]
Tara Palmeri
killed people on the street. Like, you know, like when this aggression happened and it's at another level and you're a bystander. I don't know. My first instinct in life is to try to help people that are. And I have.
- [54:43]
Michael Shellenberger
Don't, please don't.
- [54:45]
Tara Palmeri
No, I have in the past, which is not smart, but I have, like, I, that is, my instinct is to run towards the person who is in, in, in danger. And like, I don't know if I would be able to sit down. Back if I saw the police attacking a woman on the street. Like, I just. I don't know if I could. I would.
- [55:01]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, well, I think that's. I mean, that's the reason why you needed a better security barrier around them. I mean, I. Look, I've been in war zones, you know, a lot. I film a lot. I film in very dicey situations. Absolutely. Being there to film that, getting, you know, with appropriate amounts of distance. But he. That's not what he did. So again, it's not. I'm not defending ice. I'm just saying I think that the left was deliberately interfering in police operations, and that's irresponsible. And you, Alex Preddy didn't need to die. Renee Goode didn't need to die. Obviously.
- [55:37]
Tara Palmeri
I think there's like, the FOIA requests that show that all the way at the top of the administration. They knew that the way that the ICE agents were acting on the ground was aggressive and they did nothing about it. Like, they knew that there was a high level of, you know, that they were antagonistic. They were out there and these. They were kids with, like, what, 47 days of experience. They didn't know anything about de escalation.
- [55:59]
Michael Shellenberger
You mean the ICE officers.
- [56:00]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah. They don't know anything.
- [56:02]
Michael Shellenberger
Oh, yeah, no. And a lot of them are. Look, yeah, I mean, look, it's, it's. I had a similar debate around them.
- [56:09]
Tara Palmeri
They have, they are the ones not with, you know, they have that. It's crazy to me because, like, I've heard from people that actually local police in border states, they don't want to work with ICE because they think that they. First of all, they think they're joke. Second of all, they're worried about the liability of working with them because of how sloppy they are. And these police are incentivized. They're like, we'll give you. We'll actually give you bonuses for finding illegals and pointing them out to us and helping us detain them. And they don't want anything to do with it. They're just like, no, we don't. This is a mess. The fallout from this is going to continue for a very long time. Don't you think? Or do you think. Or Trump.
- [56:48]
Michael Shellenberger
No, I think. I think something. Something changed. I mean, the White House, something shifted. I mean, after the Preddy thing, I don't know if they saw internal polling showing that, you know, swing members of the House were now vulnerable, but they definitely. Something changed and they got the message. And look, Christine Noem's remarks after the shooting of Alex Preddy were disgusting. Stephen Miller's remarks after the shooting of Alex Brady were disgusting. It was totally inappropriate. I, I think, look, I mean, God bless the American people, because we don't like seeing the government murder citizens on the streets or. Okay, we don't like seeing them kill. I won't say murder. We don't like seeing them kill people on the streets.
- [57:26]
Tara Palmeri
I mean, I think that's murder, but that's, you know.
- [57:29]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, so. But, but we don't like that. I mean, I think one of the, I mean, one of the things we do best is freedom, but, you know, we've got a lot of problems, but that is we love our freedom. And so I think that the negative reaction was good. It was a real misreading of the situation by the Trump administration. I mean, I think Trump just sort of fell in love with Stephen Miller and loved that he was such a tough guy. And they loved, they loved the strategy of staring people away. And, yeah, it's like your strength is your weakness. You know, you live by the sword, die by the sword.
- [57:57]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah. All right, well, on that very poignant note, I think we should wrap this up, but thank you so much, Michael. I'm so glad that we made this work. Fascinating conversation as always, and congrats on all your success on Substack. Like, you're one of the trailblazers on this, on this platform, making the way for people like me and yeah, really appreciate it. And everybody subscribe, Michael, if you're not. And thank you all for your support. And, yeah, see you soon. Hope to do it again.
- [58:28]
Michael Shellenberger
Yeah, let's do it again. See you, Tara.
- [58:30]
Tara Palmeri
Bye.
- [58:31]
Commercial Narrator
Eczema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with EP gliss, a once monthly treatment for moderate to severe eczema after an initial four month or longer dosing phase. About four in ten people taking empglis achieved itch relief in clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks. And most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing.
- [58:50]
Medical Disclaimer Voice
Hempglis Lebricizumab LBKZ a 250mg per 2ml injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults and children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms with moderate to severe eczema, also called atopic dermatitis, that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies. EBGLISS can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to ebglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with ebglis before starting Epglis. Tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection.
- [59:24]
Commercial Narrator
Ask your doctor about ebglis and visit epglis.lily.com or call 1-800-lilyrx or 1-800-545.
- [59:32]
Tara Palmeri
That was another episode of the Tara Palmari Show. Thank you so much for tuning in, as always. Please Like Subscribe Follow Share this with all of your friends. Leave a Comment Please keep this Keep the show going. Go to Tara Palmeri.com Sign up for my newsletter, the Red Letter. You get my exclusive reporting straight to your inbox. And you can support independent journalism, which is what we need more of, especially in these days when you're hearing that Stephen Colbert can't even publish, you know, an interview with James Talarico because he's being pressured by the fcc. No pressure here over the Tara Palmeri show, but we need you to keep it going. So thank you. I want to thank my producer, Eric Abenate, I want to thank Abby Baker on the social media research booking, Adam Stewart, who does my graphics, and Dan Rosen, my manager. See you again soon.
- [60:19]
Sponsor Voice / Tamsen Fadal
Hi, I'm Tamsen Fadal, journalist and author of how to Menopause and host of the Tamsen Show, a weekly podcast with your roadmap to midlife and beyond. We cover it all, from dating to divorce, aging to adhd, sleep to sex, brain health to body fat, and even how perimenopause can affect your relationships. And trust me, it can. Each week I sit down with doctors, experts and leaders in longevity for unfiltered conversations packed with advice on everything from hormones to happiness and, of course, how to stay sane during what can be, well, let's face it, a pretty chaotic chapter of life. Think of us as your midlife survival guide. New episodes released every Wednesday. Listen now on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.