Challenge accepted. I will tell you what I think about the podcast. 1. It's well organized. 2. Chris shares podcast clips and is very prepared and sort of takes the lead. 3. As Chris is wont to do, he talks about the Weinsteins (Brett and Eric). https://twitter.com/ArthurCDent/status/1305340480561897474

4. Matt (Arthur) and Chris agree that Brett and Eric present ideas that lack evidence. 5. Sometimes the Weinsteins drift into conspiracy-like theories. 6. Chris is an expert in conspiracy theories.

7. There's a certain narrative the Weinsteins push that seems to imply there is a nefarious force suppressing us? (That's confusing). 8. BChris points out the lack of publishing done by Brett. 9. Chris points out that Brett and Eric portray themselves as ahead of the curve.

10. Chris believes Brett and Eric are sincere but that they end up with sort of weird conclusions about the theory of everything or their tremendous insights. 11. Chris downplays the Evergreen debacle (I think he is underestimating what Evergreen was like).

I'm going to insert my article on Evergreen and the crazy stuff they faced, even from colleague Naima Lowe. https://skepticreview.com/2018/10/21/naima-lowe-made-famous-by-viral-video-from-evergreen-college-breaks-silence/

12. Basically, what the two (Matt and Chris) agree that the Weinsteins venture into what I call "woo." 13. They kind of make fun of the claims the Weinsteins have that they have Nobel-worthy ideas. (lots of giggles here). 14. Sometimes they are not in touch with reality.

15. There is some kind of bogeyman suppressing ideas. 16. I have no idea about the Nobel prize thingy that the Weinsteins implied was stolen from Brett? 17. The Weinsteins seem to be grandiose and self-grandizing.

(Aside--I like Chris a lot better in a podcast than on Twitter.) 18. Again, Matt affirms the Weinsteins are acting in good faith and there is a sweet and endearing aspect to the way they promote each other. 19. Are the Weinsteins acting like gurus?

20. Chris explains what Brett claims was his big discovery that was discussed in one of their podcasts. (Something about aging and cancer and telemeres sp?) 21. Chris goes into detail on this idea/insight/theory and I almost can't take the extreme detail

22. Apparently this Brett Weinstein discovery happened about twenty years ago. 23. Brett did write a paper and it has only been cited about sixty-four times, but it had some impact but not the revolutionary insight Brett and Eric describe.

24. Brett wanted to be published in Nature, which is very prestigious and very difficult to be published in. 25. Brett acquires a recommendation letter to go with his submission. 26. Matt and Chris think this is weird/non-standard for an academic.

27. Matt and Chris took a break during this so it was in more than one session. 28. The Weinsteins imply there is a force that suppresses ideas in academia. (kind of like an old boys club). 29. Brett's paper was not accepted by Nature.

30. Brett seems to circumvent the normal process of submitting to a prestigious journal by reaching out to powerful academics to help him get in Nature. 31. Then, when rejected, Brett and Eric again refer to this repressive/supressive force.

32. Matt and Chris point out that everyone receives rejection form letters and it was predictable and not some kind of suppression from whatever it is that's keeping Brett's ideas from getting out into the world.

33. Brett sent the paper to an academic named Carol (??) who eventually won a Nobel Prize. She sent Brett a detailed letter about what was wrong with the paper. 34. Matt and Chris say Brett seems not to be able to take criticism.

35. Next, Brett receives a solicited submission from a journal that has heard about the paper. 36. Solicited submissions are not routine so this was a big deal, especially for a PhD student. 37. Then, an anonymous reviewer gives a very negative review.

38. Brett assumes the negative review was done by Carol the Nobel Prize winner. 39. Paper was finally published without much difficulty. In other words, far from suppression it was a fairly easy ride. to publication.

40. To non-academics the way the brothers present this episode might seem very nefarious, but academics wouldn't see it the same way. 41. Chris and Matt are confused by the Novel prize winner's paper publication.

42. This gets bogged down in details but basically there's no evidence that Brett's paper was supressed in any way. 43. From what I get from this, Brett and Eric exaggerate the importance of Brett's paper and sort of manufacture a controversy.

44. Three hours is too long Matt and Chris!! I'm taking a break but it's very good. You could have issued it in one hour segments as well.

I think it's quite interesting overall.