reSee.it - Related Video Feed

This balloon wrapped in duct tape represents a neurotypical person and this bit of cardboard with a nail attached to it represents a rejection. When the neurotypical person encounters a rejection, it hurts, but the neurotypical person doesn't explode. This balloon represents an ADHD person. It's bright and fun to be around, but because it was exposed to 10,000 more negative messages when it was a child and has always felt a bit different because of that, it's a lot more exposed and therefore more likely to react defensively. So when the ADHD person encounters the same rejection, it explodes. This often presents as rage, but it can present as an internalized overwhelming feeling of sadness. And the rejection doesn't have to be a big one. Sometimes the tiniest of rejections, like a friend saying they're too busy to see you, can have the same effect.

Speaker 0 argues that the food supply is treated with a chemical called folic acid, which is not a natural vitamin and did not exist until the 1980s. According to the speaker, folic acid is not found anywhere on the surface of the earth, whereas folate does exist in nature. The speaker notes that during pregnancy, women are told to take high doses of folic acid, and questions why a man-made chemical that didn’t exist until the eighties is deemed absolutely necessary for a healthy pregnancy. The comparison is made between folate and methylfolate, implying a distinction between natural forms and synthetic forms. The speaker also states that in the United States, the entire grain supply—flour, rice, bread, pasta, grains of any kind, and cereals—is required to be sprayed with folic acid, although this is not openly labeled as such. Instead, it is described as fortified or enriched foods. The speaker claims that these fortified or enriched nutrients are fed to children, and asserts that half of the population has a gene mutation that prevents them from processing folic acid effectively. The consequence, according to the speaker, is that when a person cannot process a high amount of something introduced into the body, it becomes dysfunctional. The speaker then connects this to a broader societal issue, describing a common scenario: a child goes to school, comes home with a phone call reporting inattention and poor ability to follow directions, and the ensuing medical response is the prescription of stimulants such as Adderall or Ritalin. The speaker characterizes this as a solution that uses amphetamines to accelerate the central nervous system to match the pace of a racing mind, rather than addressing underlying factors. Ultimately, the speaker presents a proposed solution: remove folic acid, fortified, and enriched nutrients from the diet, and observe changes in behavior. The underlying claim is that eliminating these synthetic nutrients would calm behavior and improve function, implying that the current approach relies on artificial chemistry rather than natural nutrition.

Fifteen percent of high schoolers are on Adderall, which was created by Merck in Nazi Germany to make German soldiers more aggressive. The drug was discontinued due to psychosis among soldiers, but Merck reformulated it into a stronger version, which is now Adderall. Parents are being pressured to put their kids on Adderall, just as they are with Ozempic, SSRIs, and SANs. Children in sedentary environments with limited sunlight, being fed ultra-processed food, are prescribed Adderall for being fidgety. This is mass child abuse, and it is being normalized.

What if I told you that every single day kids go to school, they become less intelligent? The speaker argues that there is so much more than just one type of intelligence. While school can increase academic intelligence by teaching subjects like physics, algebra, and calculus, it is diminishing the children's creative intelligence. The claim is that schooling teaches them to think in a particular way, to follow a defined path in life rather than exploring a broader range of possibilities. The argument continues that school promotes a conventional sequence: go to high school, get a diploma, go to a good college, and then find a stable, respectable job. It is suggested that this path is presented as the ticket to success. The speaker questions this premise by posing a rhetorical counterexample: if that predefined path were truly the key to success, how is it that the speaker stands there today? How did the speaker, described as a straight C student, start a technology company at the age of 16? The implication is that there are dimensions of intelligence and potential that academic performance alone does not capture, and that real innovation and achievement can arise from abilities beyond traditional academic measures. From this perspective, the central message is that conventional expectations about education and success may overlook or undervalue nonacademically measured talents and ingenuity. The speaker emphasizes that there must be facets of intelligence—creative, practical, entrepreneurial capabilities—that do not align neatly with standard academic metrics. The claim is that meaningful impact and world-changing outcomes often come from deviating from the standard script prescribed by societal norms about education and career paths. In closing, the speaker delivers a single, pointed takeaway: no one has ever changed the world by doing what the world has told them to do. This concluding assertion reinforces the idea that transformative progress typically arises when individuals pursue paths that challenge conventional wisdom and resist the pressure to conform to a uniform route. The message ends with a simple expression of gratitude: Thank you.

The speaker is against drugs and psychiatric abuses like electric shock, particularly drugging children without understanding the effects. The speaker claims Ritalin is now a street drug and that psychiatry masks problems without addressing the root cause. They assert there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance and that drugs are not the answer, especially dangerous, mind-altering antipsychotics. The speaker challenges the other person's knowledge of Ritalin and the history of psychiatry, urging them to research the origins of chemical imbalance theories and the lack of medical tests for Ritalin dosage. The speaker suggests that discussing the issue reasonably without sufficient knowledge is irresponsible, especially on a platform like the Today Show.

Is red dye 40 causing ADHD in kids? Maybe. There's been a few studies now that I've come across that are pretty strong that show a connection between this dye that is very controversial, red dye 40, it's in a variety of products and foods, and ADHD and different disorders in kids. It's already been known that allergies and headaches and things like that, that's pretty well established. But now they're even thinking that the ADHD, the attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, is connected with red dye 40. So I wouldn't let my kids have it if I were you.

Our education system promotes intellectual passivity. Teachers often discourage questions to stay on schedule, which limits deeper understanding. For example, introducing Shakespeare to 10th graders can be problematic; many students struggle to grasp the material, leading to frustration. This approach seems misguided, as it aims to create well-rounded individuals but may instead stifle genuine interest and passion. Instead of forcing a broad curriculum, we should allow students to pursue their strengths and interests, potentially nurturing future experts in various fields.

Henry Ford would not have approved of this assembly line process for kids. We can do better than treating them like widgets.

"If you look at kids if you look at patients with anxiety, okay, and you because ADHD, anxiety, similar, pattern in the microbiome anyways. So if you look at patients with anxiety, and now I'm taking my anxious patient, and I see a signature microbiome. Some microbes are overgrown, some microbes are low, and what I'm gonna do is I'm basically gonna give that patient a drug. That drug is blunting here the anxiety. Right?" "But it doesn't fix the microbiome." "You have a signature microbiome for anxiety." "Well, the drugs are great because they're working up here." "They're not working at the gut level. So this the anxiety problem is still there." "Do you think people who have ADHD don't have ADHD and they actually just have anxiety?" "I think people with ADHD are lacking microbes. That's what I think." "And the medication doesn't help at all?" "I I think it probably cuts down the symptoms, but I don't think it fix The root." "which is the the business model of most drugs, by the way."

With ADHD, yes, they are distractible. Yes, they are impulsive. Yes, they are easily annoyed by things happening in the room. They sometimes have a high level of emotionality as well. Not always, but often. However, people with ADHD can have a hyper focus, an incredible ability to focus on things that they really enjoy or are intrigued by.

A neurotypical person encountering rejection is like a balloon wrapped in duct tape being poked with a nail; it hurts, but the balloon doesn't explode. An ADHD person, however, is like a regular balloon. Because they received 10,000 more negative messages as a child and have always felt different, they are more exposed. Therefore, when an ADHD person encounters the same rejection, the balloon explodes. This can manifest as rage or overwhelming sadness. Even small rejections, such as a friend being too busy, can trigger this reaction.

The speaker is against drugs and psychiatric abuses like electric shock and drugging children without knowing the effects. They claim Ritalin is now a street drug and that psychiatry masks problems without addressing the root cause. They assert there is no such thing as a chemical imbalance and that drugs are not the answer, particularly mind-altering antipsychotic drugs. The speaker challenges the other person's knowledge of Ritalin and the research behind chemical imbalance theories, questioning the lack of medical tests to determine appropriate Ritalin dosage. They suggest the other person should be more responsible in understanding the issue, especially when discussing it on platforms like the Today Show, rather than being reasonable about something they don't fully know.

Masking autism has higher stakes than masking ADHD. One can be overzealous, over-enthusiastic, interrupt, or be forgetful/disorganized without major consequences. However, openly stimming is not something one can get away with.

I oppose the use of drugs and psychiatric practices like electric shock without consent, especially in children. Many are unaware of the dangers of drugs like Adderall and Ritalin, which can be abused. There’s a misconception about chemical imbalances; drugs often just mask underlying issues. While there may be some cases where these treatments seem effective, it's crucial to understand the research behind them. There’s no definitive medical test to determine Ritalin dosage. It’s important to be informed and responsible when discussing these topics, especially in a public forum like the Today Show.

Tucker Carlson interviews Dr. Daniel Amen about cannabis, brain health, and broader public health trends. Amen cites his 1000-person marijuana study showing lower brain blood flow and activity across all examined regions in users compared with healthy controls, with measurable deficits on SPECT imaging that assess blood flow and mitochondrial function. He explains mitochondria as cellular energy producers and notes that 49% of the tracer in their imaging is taken up by brain mitochondria; thus, low activity on the scan reflects reduced mitochondrial function and blood flow. He also references a separate study from an independent group of 1000 young marijuana users showing reduced blood flow and activity in brain areas involved in learning and memory, aligning with his assertion that marijuana is not innocuous for the brain. Amen lists consequences associated with reduced mitochondrial activity and blood flow: tiredness, low motivation, depression, increased anxiety (due to brain not settling), and, in vulnerable individuals, an increased risk of psychosis. He emphasizes that the connection between heavy marijuana use and psychosis is real and notes a genetic factor: a certain gene abnormality can lead to a sevenfold increase in the risk of psychosis in heavy users, with the general risk estimated at two to four times higher, particularly when use begins in youth. He argues that younger users face more brain development disruption and cites CDC data showing alarming mental-health trends among teens, including 57% of teenage girls reporting persistent sadness, 32% having thought of suicide, 24% having planned to kill themselves, and 13% having attempted it. He suggests marijuana contributes to this “mental mess,” though he acknowledges multiple factors. Carlson pushes back on the view of cannabis as a medicine, prompting Amen to discuss how, while cannabis can help certain conditions (glaucoma, appetite stimulation), it is not universally beneficial and can increase anxiety in some users. Amen describes a “doom loop” in which pain and distress trigger automatic negative thoughts (ANTs), amplifying suffering and potentially leading to relapse or worse mental health outcomes. He argues that cannabis can blunt certain pain pathways but, when used chronically, reinforces dependence and prevents brain rehabilitation. Amen contrasts marijuana with alcohol, describing rumors of “alcohol as health food” as a societal lie, noting recent statements by the American Cancer Society against any alcohol use due to cancer risk. He recounts experiences in psychiatry since the 1980s involving changes in attitudes toward gaming, alcohol, and drug policy, arguing that stimulants and sedatives (opiates, benzodiazepines) have historically created poor outcomes. He claims marijuana industry marketing aims to minimize perceived risk and accuses the industry of funding campaigns to mislead the public, similar to tactics used by historical industry players. In discussing brain imaging, Amen highlights the cerebellum (the “little brain”) as crucial for both movement and cognitive processing. Marijuana’s effect on the cerebellum can slow thinking and impair coordination, which underpins the admonition not to drive high. He explains that cannabis acts on CB1 receptors and modulates dopamine, producing a high but potentially disrupting dopamine in vulnerable individuals, sometimes triggering psychosis. Amen stresses the need to love and protect the brain, arguing that brain health should be prioritized in public policy. He advocates for preventing brain injury, reducing toxin exposure, maintaining sleep, exercise, and a healthy diet, and he introduces the Bright Minds framework: B = Blood flow; R = Retirement and aging (learn new things); I = Inflammation; G = Genetics; H = Head trauma; T = Toxins; M = Materials (personal products); I = Immunity; N = Neurohormones; D = Diabetes; S = Sleep. He explains how each factor affects brain health and how marijuana and obesity harm the brain by decreasing blood flow and increasing inflammation. He cites a study from the University of Pittsburgh showing overweight individuals have smaller brain volumes and older-appearing brains; obese individuals show even greater reductions. He notes that marijuana use lowers testosterone and can contribute to vascular problems, including a reported 600% increased heart attack risk for those over 50 who use marijuana. On ADHD and youth, Amen describes using brain scans to differentiate toxic brains from those with genuine ADHD, emphasizing that stimulants are not the universal answer and that underlying toxicities must be addressed. He recounts a case where a child’s left temporal lobe cyst caused behavioral changes, which surgery ultimately improved after imaging revealed the physical cause. He argues for looking at brain pathology before labeling and treating, and he describes his broader mission to foster a national brain health revolution, encouraging people to ask whether their actions are good for their brain. Amen also discusses psilocybin, kratom, and other substances, acknowledging potential therapeutic uses in specific contexts (psilocybin for PTSD/depression) while warning about risks such as unbalancing effects and the lack of standardized dosing in many studies. He notes a rising trend in mushroom use among youth and increasing emergency-room visits for psilocybin-induced psychosis. He cautions about the lack of regulation for kratom and its potential to worsen brain function, presenting it as another “weapon of mass destruction” in public health discussions. Towards the end, Amen describes his clinical experiences with trauma, epigenetics, and intergenerational influences on mental health, stressing that thoughts, even disturbing ones, do not define character and can be managed through cognitive strategies such as cognitive behavioral techniques and reframing. He closes with a personal call to care for brain health, emphasizing practical steps like sleep, exercise, nutrition, vitamin D optimization, dental health, reducing toxin exposure, and mindful use of technology, including cautions about AI’s potential impact on cognitive function.

The discussion centers on foster care incentives, education outcomes, and how system structure affects both children and foster parents. Speaker 1 explains that someone referred to “a D-rate kid” and described it as a way the foster care payment rate increases with a child’s academic failure and medication needs. The woman says she makes $28,000 a month off foster care and tells Speaker 1 that the foster parent “want[s] to make sure they fail in school.” She explains that if a child fails in school and can be placed on medication, “your rate goes up.” Speaker 1 recounts that “Every time they don’t pass a grade, your rate goes up because they’re a more difficult kid,” and “Every time they need a medication, your rate goes up.” Speaker 0 responds with “Holy shit,” and Speaker 1 says she was shocked and believes it contributes to “statistics” being “so bad,” describing how increasing the rate can incentivize “all the wrong people” instead of those motivated “for the love of a child.” Speaker 1 adds personal context: she says she “desperately need[s] medication” for one child so his “brain” slows down, because without it he is “very reactive” and making decisions she describes as “rash.” She says the child is “sweet” and “everybody’s favorite student” at school, but at home it becomes “a totally different situation,” and she says the rate would go up because the child “needs medication.” She contrasts this with another adopted child and emphasizes that it is “a lot harder than” her other kids. The conversation then expands on broader concerns: Speaker 0 says it is “making money off the government,” while Speaker 1 argues that the situation is worse than that and says it can “incentivize the other way,” including scenarios meant to lead to medication placement. Speaker 1 also frames the situation as connected to church involvement, saying it is “a demonic situation that exists because the church closed her doors,” while also stating there are “so many wonderful churches” and “so many wonderful Christian programs” doing good work, but “far too few.” Speaker 0 references a statistic: if every church in the country fostered one child, “there would be none left to foster.” Speaker 1 confirms it as “an accurate statistic,” and reiterates: “One child per church.” Speaker 1 further claims that the statistic is even better than that, stating there are about 344,000 children in foster care, referencing a Health and Human Services survey from May 2026, and contrasting it with an AFCARS-related figure of 330,000. Speaker 1 says there are “on average, 350,000 churches” and that 75% of foster care children have homes, so if one family in every four churches fostered, it would eradicate foster care placement in multiple institutional settings and provide enough licensed homes for future children. Finally, Speaker 1 explains why people may not foster, citing discomfort and lack of control over cases. She says children do not always get their opinions heard; a guardian ad litem interviews them sometimes, and it depends on the social worker. She also gives an example from 2016 where a social worker had 86 children on her caseload, illustrating how overworked social workers are and how conditions are said to have worsened since then.

America is ridiculously overmedicated, especially with antidepressants and anxiety drugs, and Britain is following suit. Millions of young people are taking unnecessary, mind-bending drugs for self-diagnosed anxiety and depression. This leads to a generation of isolated, mentally altered individuals, which correlates with issues like mass shootings. We are massively overmedicating young people. Therefore, I support efforts to curb America's reliance on these mind-altering substances.

Speaker: Jared Cooney Horvath I am a former teacher turned cognitive neuroscientist who focuses on human learning, and I do not receive funding from big tech. A sobering fact our generation faces is that our kids are less cognitively capable than we were at their age. Every generation has outperformed their parents, and that is what we want: sharper kids. The reason for this largely has been school. Each generation spends more time in school, and we use school to develop our cognition until Gen Z. Gen Z is the first generation of modern history to underperform us on basically every cognitive measure we have, from basic attention to memory to literacy to numeracy to executive functioning to even general IQ, even though they go to more school than we did. So why? What happened around 2010 that decoupled schooling from cognitive development? It can't be school. Schools basically look the same. It can't be biology. This hasn't enough time to change. The answer appears to be the tools we are using within schools to drive that learning. Across 80 countries, as Jean was just saying, if you look at the data, once countries adopt digital technology widely in schools, performance goes down significantly to the point where kids who use computers about five hours per day in school for learning purposes will score over two thirds of a standard deviation less than kids who rarely or never touch tech at school, and that's across 80 countries. Bring it home to The US. Let's go to The US. We have our NAEP. That's our big data. Take any state. Here's a fun experiment you can try. Take any state NAEP data. Compare that to when that state adopted one to one technology widely, and watch what happens. The NAEP data will plateau and then start to drop. And, of course, this is all correlative. What we really want is causation. To get causation, what you need is academic research, and you need mechanisms, explanations for why we're seeing what we're seeing. Luckily, we have academic research stretching back to 1962 that shows the exact same story for sixty years. When tech enters education, learning goes down. In fact, because what do kids do on computers? They skim. So rather than determining what do we want our children to do and gearing education towards that, we are redefining education to better suit the tool. That's not progress. As we go through our discussion today, there will be a lot of talk about smartphones and social media, rightly so. But I’m the voice here to remind you that even in schools, it doesn't matter what the size of the screen is. If it's a phone, if it's a laptop, if it's desktop, and it doesn't matter who bought it. Is it school sanctioned? Does it have the word education stamped on it? It doesn't matter. All of these things are also gonna hurt learning, which in turn are gonna hurt our kids' cognitive development right at the time when we need our kids to be sharper than we are.

- "ADHD brains are wired for intensity. We think fast, feel deeply, and react react quickly." - "When emotions get high, impulsivity takes over and boom, suddenly it's an all out debate." - "Low frustration tolerance, we get overwhelmed quickly." - "Rejection sensitivity, dysphoria, criticism can feel 10 times worse." - "Impulsivity. Sometimes we speak before we think and hyper focus on proving a point." - "We might get stuck on winning." - "Arguing with someone with ADHD often doesn't work because it ramps up emotional intensity." - "A joke can break the cycle and find the real issue." - "Yes. ADHD braids aren't built for long debates, but with the right approach, you can avoid the spiral and actually solve the problem." - "Pause and breathe." - "Give space before things escalate." - "Use humor or distraction." - "Save this for later and tag someone who needs to hear it."