AI’s story feels like it's gotten a lot scarier. Some people in the tech world building AI now say it poses a meaningful risk of catastrophic harm, or even human extinction. Others insist this kind of “doomerism” is wildly exaggerated—that the warnings amount to crying wolf, and that the real danger is slowing down and ceding our advantage to China.

What we do know is that the claims are enormous, sometimes even hard to fully believe or trust, the stakes range from disruptive to potentially existential, and nobody knows what comes next.

So rather than hearing from the people building the technology or the politicians reacting to the warnings, we gathered voices from the human sciences and professions. We’re joined by Stephen Witt, a journalist who has spent years covering AI; Jennifer Reich, a sociologist who studies how people navigate risk and uncertainty; and Rachael Bedard, a physician and New York Times contributor currently focused on deciphering this AI moment.

In an era of collapsed trust, how do we process what we’re hearing from tech giants, naysayers, and politicians? How do we make decisions when the experts themselves disagree about the risks? How much uncertainty—and risk—are we willing to accept? And ultimately, will America’s mistrust of institutions and big business be our armor, or our undoing?

Hosts:

Brinda Adhikari

Tom Johnson

Maggie Bartlett

Dr. Mark Abdelmalek

Guests:

Stephen Witt, tech journalist, author of The Thinking Machine, recent opinion piece in the NYT titled "This is Really Bad": https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/11/opinion/ai-safety-threat-technology.htmlhttps://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/757558/the-thinking-machine-by-stephen-witt/

Jennifer Reich, sociologist, author, University of Colorado -- Denver. Author, Calling The Shots: Why Parents Reject Vaccines.: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1803zjf

Rachael Bedard, physician, contributing opinion writer to The New York Times, and The New Yorker, The Atlantic and New York. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/12/14/facing-omicron-relapse/

Thanks for listening! If you like us, please leave a review, rate us, and please subscribe! 

Got questions? Comments? We'd love to hear from you! Email us at [email protected]

Charles Eisenstein was a senior adviser and speechwriter to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during his 2024 presidential campaign and an early architect of the ideas that would help shape MAHA.

In a wide-ranging interview, Eisenstein talks about his heartbreak over how that campaign evolved and, in the wake of Kennedy’s speech at last week’s Republican midterm convention, how he views the possibility of a Kennedy presidential run in 2028. In that speech, the HHS Secretary said the foundational values of the Democratic Party he grew up in had “found a new home” in the Republican Party.

Eisenstein discusses his original vision for Kennedy’s candidacy: leading a movement that would rise above party fights and political divisions. We talk about whether the growing concern over AI could become an issue that finally brings people together across the political divide. What types of candidates does he see succeeding in this moment?

And ultimately, does Eisenstein still recognize the movement he helped imagine?

Hosts:

Brinda Adhikari

Tom Johnson

Maggie Bartlett

Dr. Mark Abdelmalek (seeing patients)

Guest:

Charles Eisenstein, former speechwriter and senior adviser to Robert F. Kennedy Jr's 2024 Presidential campaign; author, philosopher, strategist. www.charleseisenstein.org

Thanks for listening! If you like us, please leave a review, rate us, and please subscribe! 

Got questions? Comments? We'd love to hear from you! Email us at [email protected]

A debate has broken out in medicine and tech over what the role of AI should be. Is it a useful tool for doctors to consult when making a diagnosis, or, given studies now showing how powerful AI can be in diagnostics and other areas, should the field actually begin preparing for a not-too-distant future when what’s best for a patient is AI taking the lead in care?

To explore that question, we're joined by two leading voices in the debate: Dr. Robert Wachter, a leading voice on technology and medicine, who has called AI “the biggest experiment in the history of medicine,” and Dr. Dhruv Khullar, a physician and writer who has written extensively about AI and medicine for The New Yorker.

So, what does it mean to be a doctor if AI is doing the heavy lifting? Is that the best scenario, or is a hybrid model, with a doctor consulting an AI, the better path? And how do doctors and patients learn to trust AI with life-and-death decisions in a world where AI agents have already shown they can go rogue?

But beyond the provocative question of what AI will eventually mean for doctors, what about all the ways AI could make medicine better? Could it provide millions of Americans without access to affordable care with an alternative?

Hosts:

Brinda Adhikari

Tom Johnson

Maggie Bartlett

Dr. Mark Abdelmalek

Guests:

Dr. Dhruv Khullar, a physician and health policy professor at Weill Cornell, and a writer at The New Yorker covering medicine and health care. He directs The Physicians Foundation Center for the Study of Physician Practice and Leadership

Dr. Robert Wachter, physician, professor and chair of the UCSF Department of Medicine. Bob coined the term 'hospitalist' which redefined what it meant to be a doctor.  He's the author of 300 articles and six books, including his latest, A Giant Leap: How AI is Transforming Healthcare and What That Means for Our Future. 

Disclosure: Dr. Wachter has consulted with or spoken to a number of AI companies, including Google, Curai, Commure, and Qualified Health. He's received a commitment of support for an upcoming documentary on AI & healthcare from OpenEvidence.

Sources:

On Strawmen and Doormen: Robert Wachter

https://substack.com/@robertwachter/note/p-212925424?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=5vii9h 

If AI Can Diagnose Patients, What Are Doctors For?: Dhruv Khullar

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/09/29/if-ai-can-diagnose-patients-what-are-doctors-for

Will Autonomous AI Exceed AI-Aided Physicians As the Best Medical Care? (if you have trouble accessing this article, please email us at the address below and we can send you a pdf)

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2852952

Thanks for listening! If you like us, please leave a review, rate us, and please subscribe! 

Got questions? Comments? We'd love to hear from you! Email us at [email protected]

It’s been two years since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed Donald Trump and forged an unlikely alliance between the Make America Healthy Again movement and MAGA. Now, as we head toward the midterms, with Kennedy campaigning for Republican candidates, we’re asking: What is MAHA now? Is it working? Is it a political force, a social force, or has it lost its way? 

To hear from supporters about where they see the movement heading, we’re joined by Zen Honeycutt, Aaron Everitt, Elizabeth Frost, Jeff Hutt and Mark Harris. Each has been deeply involved in or closely aligned with MAHA, including several who worked on Kennedy’s presidential campaign. They represent very different priorities and hold different views of where the movement has gone. Some remain committed; others have grown disillusioned or walked away. 

We’re also joined by former Congressman Tim Ryan, a longtime Democrat, who held MAHA-congruent positions on food and agriculture years before MAHA was a slogan on a hat. Where does he see the movement going from here?   

And then there’s the bigger question: If roughly four in ten Americans support many of the aspirations behind MAHA, what does that foreshadow for the future of our politics?

Hosts:

Brinda Adhikari

Tom Johnson

Maggie Bartlett

Dr. Mark Abdelmalek (off)

Guests:

Zen Honeycutt, Moms Across America

Jeff Hutt, former National Field Director, Kennedy Campaign

Aaron Everitt, former Kennedy Campaign volunteer

Elizabeth Frost, MAHA Ohio

Mark Harris, former Kennedy campaign supporter

former Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH)

Thanks for listening! If you like us, please leave a review, rate us, and please subscribe! 

Got questions? Comments? We'd love to hear from you! Email us at [email protected]

Has the Lindsay Clancy trial quickly become a proxy for something larger? — arguments about psychiatry and medication, motherhood and mental illness, personal responsibility, and whether our medical system is fundamentally failing the people who depend on it? 

And in choosing sides, are we at risk of turning one horrific case into evidence for conclusions that go far beyond what this particular tragedy can actually tell us?

We’re joined by two psychiatrists and an ER physician today to talk about all this. 

Hosts:

Brinda Adhikari

Tom Johnson

Maggie Bartlett

Dr. Mark Abdelmalek

Guests:

Dr. Julia Riddle, a reproductive psychiatrist and researcher focused on reproductive mental health. She is an Assistant Professor at the UNC Center for Women's Mood Disorders, where she runs a clinic for patients. 

Dr. Anne Zink, emergency medicine physician and public health leader who served as Chief Medical Officer for the State of Alaska before and during the pandemic. Senior Fellow at the Yale School of Public Health

Dr. Bryan Shapiro, a psychiatrist at UC Irvine Medical Center, treating outpatients and training primary care physicians & nurse practitioners on prescribing psychiatric medications.  He is the Medical Director at Outro, a company in which he has a financial stake, and which works to safely taper patients off antidepressants.

Resources:

National Maternal Mental Health Hotline: 1-833-TLC-MAMA

National Suicide Prevention Hotline: 1-800-273-8255

988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline .  Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org

For training MDs/DO/NPs/PAs: https://ncrptraining.org/ 

NCMatter Access Line Toolkits: https://www.med.unc.edu/ncmatters/provider-tools/toolkits/

OB Tool kits: https://www.mcpapformoms.org/Toolkits/Toolkit.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

PSI international: https://postpartum.net

Postpartum Support International 1-833-943-5746

Thanks for listening! If you like us, please leave a review, rate us, and please subscribe! 

Got questions? Comments? We'd love to hear from you! Email us at [email protected]

That’s the challenge facing Dr. Sandro Galea, dean of the brand-new Bursky School of Public Health at Washington University in St. Louis. It is the first major school of public health to open in the United States after the pandemic.

In the wake of COVID, with trust in public health fractured and many Americans viewing the field as partisan, Galea is advocating that his field engage rather than draw lines. He believes public health will be stronger if it listens to all sides and embraces disagreement while still advocating for its values. He argues that the strategy is to widen the tent rather than shrink it, without compromising science or principles, or engaging with bad-faith actors.

The approach raises a critical question: as public health endures crippling funding cuts, vaccine policy is in turmoil, Medicaid faces major spending reductions, and trust in scientific expertise is low, is this the time for public health to reach across the divide, or resist and fight? 

Hosts:

Brinda Adhikari

Tom Johnson

Maggie Bartlett

Dr. Mark Abdelmalek (off this wk)

Guest:

Dr. Sandro Galea, Dean of the Bursky School of Public Health at Washington University in St. Louis. 

Substack:

https://sandrogalea.substack.com/

Author of Why Health? What We Need to Think About When We Think About Health

Purple Public Health:

https://healthierfutureslab.org/research/purple-public-health

Thanks for listening! If you like us, please leave a review, rate us, and please subscribe! 

Got questions? Comments? We'd love to hear from you! Email us at [email protected]

Dr. Debra Houry, the former CDC chief medical officer; emergency physician Dr. Craig Spencer; pediatrician and author Dr. Joel “Gator” Warsh; and MAHA supporter Nancy Fuller join us as we dig into President Trump’s brand-new executive order revamping the recommended schedule for vaccinating America’s children.

The order reduces the number of vaccines recommended universally for children from 17 to 11, calls for the MMR vaccine to be broken up into three separate shots, and directs the administration to explore spacing childhood vaccines out across separate visits. It also directs the Department of Justice to examine whether parents’ rights are being protected in states that do not offer religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements.

So…what exactly happened yesterday? Does it actually change anything? How are frontline doctors and MAHA supporters processing the President’s controversial comments at the signing ceremony? Is this latest effort to overhaul the schedule heading straight back to the courts? And how might this high-profile move affect the nation’s growing health polarization and eroding trust in public health?

Hosts:

Brinda Adhikari

Tom Johnson

Maggie Bartlett

Dr. Mark Abdelmalek (on call)

Guests:

Dr. Debra Houry, former Chief Medical Officer, CDC; emergency physician

Dr. Joel "Gator" Warsh, pediatrician, Integrative Pediatrics; substack author Between a Shot and a Hard Place

Dr. Craig Spencer, ER physician, professor Brown School of Public Health

Nancy Fuller, MAHA supporter, mother to a son with autism and epilepsy

Sources:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/07/public-health-maha-rfk/688014/?gift=jf1JNTlPW3HiCUoNqhv9pL4QDDQrO5E0bwhsoINyCrk

https://drgator.substack.com/p/breaking-trump-just-tried-to-rewrite

Thanks for listening! If you like us, please leave a review, rate us, and please subscribe! 

Got questions? Comments? We'd love to hear from you! Email us at [email protected]

What if one of the biggest public health debates of the next decade isn't about vaccines, Ozempic, or chronic disease? What if it's about air conditioning? The world’s temperatures are getting dangerously warmer. Europe is the world's fastest-warming continent with estimates that this summer the heat contributed to 10,000–14,000 deaths over just a few weeks. The United States suffers deadly heat waves too. But Europe experiences much higher heat-wave related death tolls. One major difference people are pointing to? Air conditioning. Americans have a LOT more of it than Europeans do.

Defenders of Europe's lower use of air conditioning argue that simply installing more AC isn't the answer. Critics say: this has gone too far. Too many people are dying. Just get air conditioning already.

But beneath this debate are some very big questions: What do we owe one another in a warming world? What does adaptation look like? And who bears the costs when our solutions create new problems?

Hosts:

Brinda Adhikari

Tom Johnson (off)

Maggie Bartlett

Dr. Mark Abdelmalek (off)

Guests:

Noah Smith, economist, publisher of Noahopinion substack.

Thomas Chatterton Williams, staff writer The Atlantic,, author of Summer of Our Discontent and Self Portrait in Black and White.

David Wallace Wells, writer/columnist, The New York Times.  Author The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. 

Related articles by our guests:

Europe's Resistance to Air Conditioning is Driving It Insane: Noah Smith

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/europes-resistance-to-ac-is-driving

The Overlooked Reason Why Europe Doesn't Have AC: Thomas Chatterton Williams

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/06/europe-heat-wave-air-conditioning/687729/

We Need to Retrofit the Planet. The Heat Wave Proves It: David Wallace Wells

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/01/opinion/heat-wave-europe-america.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Thanks for listening! If you like us, please leave a review, rate us, and please subscribe! 

Got questions? Comments? We'd love to hear from you! Email us at [email protected]

Few figures in America are as polarizing as Dr. Anthony Fauci. To some, he is the veteran scientist who helped steer the nation through the COVID-19 pandemic. To others, he is the face of government overreach who suppressed the lab leak theory to avoid accountability for research funding decisions they believe contributed to the pandemic.

This week, those worlds collided in a Senate hearing room as the retired former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases was subpoenaed to testify before an inquiry led by his longtime critic, Republican Senator Rand Paul. Fauci accused the senator of having an "unhinged obsession" with him and seeing him sent to jail before invoking his Fifth Amendment right and declining to answer questions. Senator Paul, in turn, accused Fauci of deception and of refusing to accept responsibility.

In today's episode, we ask: Why, six years after the pandemic began, are we still talking about Anthony Fauci? Was this hearing a legitimate effort to uncover new facts about COVID-19's origins, assign accountability and learn from the past, or was it driven by political point scoring and vengeance? 

Joining us are Dr. Katelyn Jetelina of Your Local Epidemiologist and David Wallace-Wells of The New York Times to unpack what remains one of the most consequential and bitter public health debates of our time.

Hosts:

Brinda Adhikari

Tom Johnson

Maggie Bartlett

Dr. Mark Abdelmalek

Guests:

Katelyn Jetelina, founder and CEO of Your Local Epidemiologist

David Wallace-Wells, columnist and opinion writer, The New York Times

Jetelina on Fauci:

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack.com/p/its-time-to-leave-the-man-alone

Wallace-Wells on Fauci:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/04/24/magazine/dr-fauci-pandemic.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Thanks for listening! If you like us, please leave a review, rate us, and please subscribe! 

Got questions? Comments? We'd love to hear from you! Email us at [email protected]

If a new pandemic struck tomorrow and scientists developed a vaccine in record time, would you take it? In this episode, we hear from a group of friends of the show and newcomers who describe themselves as vaccine-hesitant. Once broadly supportive of vaccines, they explain how their experiences during the pandemic changed their views. From concerns about mRNA technology and the speed of development to public health messaging and mandates, we explore how and why their perspectives changed, and trust was lost. While a large body of scientific research holds that the COVID vaccines were safe and significantly reduced severe illness and death, we examine why that evidence remains unpersuasive to them today, just as it was during the pandemic. Finally, we tackle what that means for their trust in the broader medical and public health community today.

Hosts:

Brinda Adhikari

Tom Johnson

Maggie Bartlett

Dr. Mark Abdelmalek

Guests:

Aaron Everitt, Ft. Collins, Colorado

Jeff Hutt, Corpus Christi, Texas

Lori O'Connell, Darlington, Pennsylvania

Daniel DeLuca, Athens, Ohio

Theresa Dixon, Frederick, Maryland

Thanks for listening! If you like us, please leave a review, rate us, and please subscribe! 

Got questions? Comments? We'd love to hear from you! Email us at [email protected]